Who were responsible for the crusades.?

[siti]

Nowhere does he tell soldiers to stop being soldiers. As the scriptures say we serve not by a written code but by the spirit. So the spirit of the law, and any manner of common sense tells me Jesus did not forbid Christians from being soldiers.

So you're in good company - Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Urban II (whose call to arms initiated the Crusades) would all agree with you. Essentially, the reasoning was that a just war avenges injury - iusta bella ulciscuntur iniuria - and restores divine moral order - in the case of the Crusades, the wrongs of Muslim expansion into Christian lands and the cruel oppression of Christians by the conquering Turks in the shrinking and fragmenting Byzantine Empire and the Muslim desecration of sacred sites in the Holy Land (although it is not clear that this latter issue was even mentioned in Urban's sermon at Clermont that marked the start of the First Crusade). The campaign was packaged by Urban as a Christian pilgrimage to right these wrongs that were, he convinced everyone, attacks on Christ himself and not just Christians.

Anyway, the point is that the enthusiastic engagement of Christians in the Crusades was definitely prompted by an interpretation of scripture that differed both from the "actual" teachings of Christ (as recorded in the four canonical Gospels) and the apparently common pacifist interpretation of a number of early Church Fathers, e.g:

"If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God" - Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century)

"Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians." - Aristides (2nd century)

"But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." - Tertullian (3rd century)

"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature." - Arnobius (4th century)
​

So who was responsible for the Crusades? Christians were - when they abandoned Christ-like pacifism in favour of armed "pilgrimage". Were they wrong to do so? Well, that's a different question altogether.

 

[Kemosloby]

So you're in good company - Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Urban II (whose call to arms initiated the Crusades) would all agree with you. Essentially, the reasoning was that a just war avenges injury - iusta bella ulciscuntur iniuria - and restores divine moral order - in the case of the Crusades, the wrongs of Muslim expansion into Christian lands and the cruel oppression of Christians by the conquering Turks in the shrinking and fragmenting Byzantine Empire and the Muslim desecration of sacred sites in the Holy Land (although it is not clear that this latter issue was even mentioned in Urban's sermon at Clermont that marked the start of the First Crusade). The campaign was packaged by Urban as a Christian pilgrimage to right these wrongs that were, he convinced everyone, attacks on Christ himself and not just Christians.

Anyway, the point is that the enthusiastic engagement of Christians in the Crusades was definitely prompted by an interpretation of scripture that differed both from the "actual" teachings of Christ (as recorded in the four canonical Gospels) and the apparently common pacifist interpretation of a number of early Church Fathers, e.g:

"If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God" - Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century)

"Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians." - Aristides (2nd century)

"But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." - Tertullian (3rd century)

"For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature." - Arnobius (4th century)
​

So who was responsible for the Crusades? Christians were - when they abandoned Christ-like pacifism in favour of armed "pilgrimage". Were they wrong to do so? Well, that's a different question altogether.

If the pope is the Ambassador of Satan, masquerading as a Christian. If he can't rile up the Christians to fight, using heaps of Christian bs reasoning to fight for their right to exist he might not have any use for them and begin to persecute them. So any gain for Christianity is a bonus. But what did the rich people get out of the crusades? I heard it established a banking system for travelers and also allowed them to loot the Jewish temple.

 

[siti]

If the pope is the Ambassador of Satan, masquerading as a Christian. If he can't rile up the Christians to fight, using heaps of Christian bs reasoning to fight for their right to exist he might not have any use for them and begin to persecute them. So any gain for Christianity is a bonus. But what did the rich people get out of the crusades? I heard it established a banking system for travelers and also allowed them to loot the Jewish temple.

Hmmm! I think I'm beginning to see why the OP specifically requested "thoughtful responses from non-Christians".

 

[LuisDantas]

There are a great many arguable causes for the crusades. They lasted for a long time, involved so many people, and were ideologically all over the place.

For the purpose of the question tailing the OP, my best answer at the moment is that people's behavior is limited to a very large extent by what they expect other people around them to encourage, allow or enable.

Military behavior specifically is often presented as necessary and unavoidable, usually with claims that there is no way to otherwise dissuade or convince the "others".

Nor is that necessarily a lie, or even an unconscious lie. It takes continuous effort and more than a bit of courage and loss to create the conditions for such deep changes.

 

[Kemosloby]

Hmmm! I think I'm beginning to see why the OP specifically requested "thoughtful responses from non-Christians".

Because you don't like the Christian answer? Jesus is not a pacifist, he simply did not come to destroy mankind at that time.

 

[Spiderman]

The crusades for the holy Land were in response to Muslim aggression and fought on territory that had been Christian before the Muslims conquered it

 

[siti]

The crusades for the holy Land were in response to Muslim aggression and fought on territory that had been Christian before the Muslims conquered it...

...oh yes of course, ever since the Roman emperor converted to Christianity about 300 years before the Muslim conquest and before that it was a pagan Roman land after the Romans won it from the Seleucids (about another 300 years earlier) who won it from the Ptolemies 200 years before that and who got that bit with the division of the land that Alexander won when he conquered Persia a century or so earlier. Persia, of course, had got it by defeating Babylon another couple of centuries previously and Babylon had conquered the Kingdom of Judah, about 600 years before Christ, which had won it in battle from the pagan Canaanites and the Philistines (etc.) after the decline of Egypt, about 1000 BCE, which prior to that had control over what would later become the "Holy Land" for another few hundred years - God knows who had it before the Egyptians, but it definitely wasn't the Christians because Christ would not be born for at least another 1500 years at that point.

 

[siti]

So who was responsible for the Crusades? Christians were - when they abandoned Christ-like pacifism

Hmmm! I think I'm beginning to see why the OP specifically requested "thoughtful responses from non-Christians".

Because you don't like the Christian answer? Jesus is not a pacifist, he simply did not come to destroy mankind at that time.

On the contrary - I love your answers - they illustrate my points perfectly and ever so succinctly!

 

[Kemosloby]

On the contrary - I love your answers - they illustrate my points perfectly and ever so succinctly!

Well show me any place where they told converted soldiers to put away their swords. Converting swords into plows doesn't happen until after the judgement day, for the new Heaven and new Earth. "No longer will they learn war"

 

[Augustus]

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

The road to the Crusades started well before the 1st Crusade and has much to do with internal conditions in the Holy Roman Empire.

Pope Gregory VII had been engaged with an ongoing feud against Emperor Henry IV regarding the respective powers of the Church and the State (which turned out to be a very early step along the path to secularism). This feature Gregory's increasing use of Christianity to rally soldiers to his cause to enforce the power of the Church re Henry.

Gregory was also interested in healing the Catholic/orthodox schism, and was concerned with Islamic advances against the Byzantine Empire.

Troops fighting under the banner of the Church was something that loomed large in public imagination.

There was also significant millenarian fervour in Europe that had been aroused by the ending of the 1st millennium since Christ's death, and many believed that retaking Jerusalem would usher in the age of Christ.

The 1st Crusade was actually the Peasants Crusade, where ordinary people marched off to Jerusalem (and got massacred on the way by the Turks). The 1st Crusade proper, with the large armies of the nobles, happened a few months later.

I think it's worth allowing for the fact that even amongst the soldiers there was a variety of reasons.
Soldiers commonly served their Lords in a feudal world, and those Lords served higher Lords. The reason for the wars appears very political to me, but it appears certain that some were doing it due to an honest belief that they were doing the Lord's work, and that this included the freeing of the Holy Lands.

It cost an absolute fortune to go on Crusades (armour, weapons, horses, squires, food, etc) and many sold all their worldly possessions to afford it.

The Church set up special schemes to help people liquidate their assets to be able to afford this, although with so many people selling things the markets plummeted.

While some of the high nobles might have been in it for themselves (particularly the Normans like Bohemond and Tancred), most participants had nothing much material to gain given the losses they had already incurred. Redemption of sins, glory and duty towards God were their only potential rewards.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I want to get some opinions on a matter which has bothered me a bit.

The bother is because there seems to be an illogical conclusion regarding the crusades which many people assume to be true.

I'd actually prefer to see thoughtful responses from non-Christians, but, of course, any discussion is welcomed.


So here I go.


"The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus."

That is from Wikipedia. These books describe the character of Jesus, as well as many things that he spoke and did. It is not necessary to believe in the gospels or even in Jesus to answer my question. Just know that Christians do believe in them. I think this is a fact that should not be disputed.

"Believe" is pretty wide ranging. Different Christians have different takes on them.

Also, it seems like you're trying to imply something else: that a Christian's only guide to behaviour should be the four Gospels. I don't know any Christian who would agree to that.

I think Christians would agree that the character traits of Jesus include but are not limited to the following:

Love, joy, peace, patience, friendship, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassionate, and more.

Christians would also agree that He would not be violent, hateful, unforgiving, unkind, etc. Also, He would be considered a pacifist, not a warrior. Ok, you got my point. Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus had the character traits I mentioned, you only need to believe that Christians believe it.

That contradicts your first point. The Gospels describe Jesus being violent, hateful, unforgiving, and unkind at times. He's depicted as running hot and cold... not exactly consistent.

Theses verses from Matthew 7 are some of my favorites.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

When people say they are something, I remember the above and weigh whether their actions affirm their words.


Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

Yes... though I have to question the assumption that you just slipped in there (i.e. that all "true" Christians aspire to be Christlike); where did that come from?

The Bible ("the big book of multiple choice", as I've heard it described) has enough varying guidance in it that someone can justify pretty much any action by pointing to some set of Bible verses. Yes, there will be other verses that suggest the opposite course of action, but that would be true in any case.

 

[Augustus]

If anyone is particularly interested there is a podcast series on all of the Crusades (currently at episode 218 ).

History of the Crusades by Sharyn Eastaugh on Apple Podcasts

Also some content in

The History of Byzantium by [email protected] on Apple Podcasts

Which also gives some background on Islamic expansionism.

 

[Milton Platt]

I want to get some opinions on a matter which has bothered me a bit.

The bother is because there seems to be an illogical conclusion regarding the crusades which many people assume to be true.

I'd actually prefer to see thoughtful responses from non-Christians, but, of course, any discussion is welcomed.


So here I go.


"The four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus."

That is from Wikipedia. These books describe the character of Jesus, as well as many things that he spoke and did. It is not necessary to believe in the gospels or even in Jesus to answer my question. Just know that Christians do believe in them. I think this is a fact that should not be disputed.


I think Christians would agree that the character traits of Jesus include but are not limited to the following:

Love, joy, peace, patience, friendship, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, compassionate, and more.

Christians would also agree that He would not be violent, hateful, unforgiving, unkind, etc. Also, He would be considered a pacifist, not a warrior. Ok, you got my point. Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus had the character traits I mentioned, you only need to believe that Christians believe it.


Theses verses from Matthew 7 are some of my favorites.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

When people say they are something, I remember the above and weigh whether their actions affirm their words.


Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

There are hundreds of different Christian sects and all of them will tell you they are the "true" Christians. When you can find a method to determine which, if any, are 'true" Christians, let the rest of us know.

As far as I am concerned, I have to assume if someone says they are Christian, then they are, since there is no concise, universally accepted definition of what a Christian actually is. The people who were involved with the Crusades were obviously traveling under the Christian banner, and were sanctioned by the church at the time.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

It seems like you are trying to use the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy by insinuating that these Crusaders weren't "real Christians". A "christian" is simply a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Others might try to demand more, but that would be nothing more than their own opinion on the matter.

The fact is that many Christians participated in the crusades. I agree that it went against the teachings of Jesus, but that is nothing new. Just look at the Vatican. Do you really think Jesus would want that much money spent on the Catholic Hierarchy? So the pope can live like a king? I doubt it.

Very well said.
Thanks.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Because you don't like the Christian answer? Jesus is not a pacifist, he simply did not come to destroy mankind at that time.

Wow.
Seriously?

 

[Kenny]

I found this an interesting understanding starting at 1:20 and beyond.

 

[metis]

Not to defend to crusades, let me just mention that life back then was quite brutal, and the typical response with most religions and denominations when they felt threatened was to fight. The wars in Europe between the Protestants, especially Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, were long-lasting and quite brutal. Our civil war here in the States had religious justifications and support on both sides.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Now for my question:
Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

True and genuine Christians according to Matthew 26:52 would Not participate in the Crusades.
The resurrected heavenly Jesus did Not change his mind according to gospel writer John at Revelation 13:10.
Jesus and his first-century followers were always neutral in the affairs of the world.
They did Not even get involved in the issues of the day between the Jews and the Romans.
They lived by the words found at 2 Corinthians 10:4 that their weapons were Not carnal
They used the spiritual armor as described at Ephesians 6:11-17.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well show me any place where they told converted soldiers to put away their swords. Converting swords into plows doesn't happen until after the judgement day, for the new Heaven and new Earth. "No longer will they learn war"

At the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as found at Matthew 25:31-33,37 I find those living humble figurative ' sheep'-like people alive on Earth have already converted their swords as per 2 Corinthians 10:4.

I find Jesus' words of Revelation 13:10 applies before ' judgement day ' meaning 'Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth' for a thousand years. ALL genuine Christians obey Jesus' words of Matthew 26:52.

 

[Sanzbir]

Now for my question:

Understanding what Christians believe and how true Christians aspire to be Christlike, is it logical to conclude that a true (in their heart) Christian would participate in the Crusades?

"Which Crusade??" is a big question. Some were pretty morally justified ("Hey, the Byzantines need help!! Even though they're not Catholic we should help them!!") and others not so much ("Hey, helping the Byzantines was kinda easy... why don't we conquer Jerusalem we're at it??")

Also the matter of participation should be considered. Some people were "crusaders" in that they came to conquer and pillage, but some crusader orders just dedicated themselves to protecting pilgrims and the like. The Knight's Templar seems like a good example of this, though the defamation campaign used to justify their persecution has created many myths about them being pillagers.

So, like in everything, it's got a lot of nuance to the truth of the matter, since "The Crusades" were a diverse series of wars with a diverse series of participants. There's a stark difference between a Templar protecting pilgrims from bandits, a Crusader aiding the defense of the Greeks against the Turks, and a Teuton conquering Baltic lands for the expansion of power for their military order.

But even for those who participated in non-defensive Crusades and did participate in pillaging and slaughtering, one other aspect of nuance must be questioned: In a time where the Catholic Church is essentially the sole media organization of Western Europe, in a world where literacy is near-nonexistent, and the Church and its clergy are the only means by which you can know the contents of the bible or world events happening elsewhere in the world, would it be understandable that a "good person" or "good Christian" (however you want to define them) could commit horrible acts of war crime simply due to his misunderstanding of the situation??

I'd think that, yes, the misconception and understanding of Muslims and Romuva Pagans that the Catholic Church brought about in the mind of the average Crusader does make them less culpable for their actions. Some indeed were undoubtedly good people, who simply were misled into thinking they were doing the right thing due to a forced monopolization on religion and information by a single organization.