Deus Vult!- A bit about the Crusades
To the victors go the spoils.
Among these spoils, generally speaking, is included the writing of history. Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Naturally, had the Nazis won WWII, history would not have been kind to him. As such, the outlook that is taken on historical events is often determined by whomever is writing the history at the time or who is later writing the history textbooks.
I think it's fairly safe to say that, since the Protestant Revolution, the Catholic Church has been history's big "loser," at least in terms of public relations. I think this is fairly self-evident, given something as basic as the term "Protestant Reformation," a term which conveniently ignores the facts that 1. the Protestants reformed nothing within the Church and 2. said "Reformation" resulted in the huge and bloody Wars of Religion that plagued the 16th century. "Reformation" simply doesn't carry the same conotations that a more accurate word- like "Revolution"- does.
One of the most maligned events in the Church's history is the series of wars grouped together and generally called the Crusades. Following September 11th, the media (ever-vigilant opponents of the Church) dredged up these events and reminded everyone of the "evil" things that Christianity had also done under the auspices of religion. This is a gross misportrayal of what really happened. However, to truly understand why this is such a distortion will require a bit of historical backtracking.
The First Crusade was called by Blessed Pope Urban II in the late 11th century, but the reasons for the Crusade go back much farther.
In the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and a great deal of the Empire followed in the centuries following. The western half of the Empire (largely Britain, France, Spain, Italy and North Africa) eventually collapsed, leaving the Church as the only real force in the West with any semblance of power or ability to govern. The eastern half of the Empire, centered at Constantinople (modern day Istanbul), survived for much longer.
In the mid 7th century, there arose, out of Arabia, a new religion- Islam. Properly speaking, it is perhaps more accurate to term Islam as a heresy of simplification. Mohammed was familiar with Christianity (Arabia was not so terribly far from Christian Eastern Roman [henceforth called Byzantine] administer territories), and Islam essentially does away with the difficulties that Christianity poses to the believer by abolishing both the priesthood and the Trinity. Thus, Islam offers the benefits of monotheism without Christianty's "difficult" doctrines.
Islam also swiftly adapted itself to the tribal systems of Arabia and their tradition of being fierce warriors. The Byzantine Empire and its middle-eastern rival, the Persian/Sassanid Empire had, before the advent of Islam, fought intermittent and prolonged wars which essentially exhausted the two. Thus, history witnessed one of the most phenomenally speedy ascensions to power it has yet seen- in the space of about a hundred years, Muslims had conquered all of Arabia, Persia, the Holy Land, Egypt, the rest of North Africa and Spain, were dominating the Mediterranean Sea and were pushing the Byzantine Empire farther and farther back into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).
Now, the Muslims were not the benevolent conquerors that anti-Catholics seem so inclined to paint them as. The Muslims imposed a special tax on everyone who wasn't a Muslim living under their rule and treated said people like second-class citizens. Islamic apologists will contend that this was "far better" than the so-called "forced conversion" practices that their Christian contemporaries engaged in, but that's a load of hogwash. The imposition of a special tax on people who have already been disenfranchised by the violent overthrow of their traditional government, coupled with their being treated like second-class citizens, is tantamount to forced conversion. It would be very difficult for the average person not to buckle under such pressure, especially when faced with the choice of converting to a religion that, superficially, actually seems easier to accept than their previous belief systems.
Furthermore, I should like to point out that the Muslims were running around taking a whole lot of land that they had no claim to, nor was it rightfully theirs. The attacks that these Islamic forces launched on such huge territories in the former Roman Empire were utterly unprovoked. Strangely, liberals will decry modern day "imperialism," but not this.
At any rate, by the time the 11th century rolled around, the Byzantine Empire was still somewhat intact (despite the loss of such huge amounts of land), but coming under renewed pressure from the Muslims. Additionally, Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being harassed by Jerusalem's Muslim rulers. Under these auspices, the Byzantine Emperor sent a plea to the Pope, appealing for help.
It should also be noted that by this time, the Great Schism of 1054 had occurred, officially severing the Eastern and Western Churches. So, it should be realized that for the Byzantine Emperor to appeal for help to the Pope, of all people, was a big step and a sign of true need.
What followed was Pope Urban II's appeal to the Christian kingdoms to stop fighting each other and to unite and assist their Christian brethren against the infidel. It was a legitimate military action following on the heels of literally hundreds of years of unprovoked warfare and conquests perpetuated by the Muslims. In modern times, we have alliances. Is it unjust to go to the aid of an ally when they are attacked? Just as Poland sent out a plea for help when the Nazis invaded, so too was the cry sent by the Byzantines in the 11th century.
Thus, I think this properly illuminates (in a brief fashion) the true causes of the Crusades.
This has gone on for a while, so tomorrow I shall return to this topic and deal with specific Crusades and specific charges of "evil." However, for now I think that should adequately elucidate an otherwise misunderstood series of historical events.
Among these spoils, generally speaking, is included the writing of history. Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Naturally, had the Nazis won WWII, history would not have been kind to him. As such, the outlook that is taken on historical events is often determined by whomever is writing the history at the time or who is later writing the history textbooks.
I think it's fairly safe to say that, since the Protestant Revolution, the Catholic Church has been history's big "loser," at least in terms of public relations. I think this is fairly self-evident, given something as basic as the term "Protestant Reformation," a term which conveniently ignores the facts that 1. the Protestants reformed nothing within the Church and 2. said "Reformation" resulted in the huge and bloody Wars of Religion that plagued the 16th century. "Reformation" simply doesn't carry the same conotations that a more accurate word- like "Revolution"- does.
One of the most maligned events in the Church's history is the series of wars grouped together and generally called the Crusades. Following September 11th, the media (ever-vigilant opponents of the Church) dredged up these events and reminded everyone of the "evil" things that Christianity had also done under the auspices of religion. This is a gross misportrayal of what really happened. However, to truly understand why this is such a distortion will require a bit of historical backtracking.
The First Crusade was called by Blessed Pope Urban II in the late 11th century, but the reasons for the Crusade go back much farther.
In the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and a great deal of the Empire followed in the centuries following. The western half of the Empire (largely Britain, France, Spain, Italy and North Africa) eventually collapsed, leaving the Church as the only real force in the West with any semblance of power or ability to govern. The eastern half of the Empire, centered at Constantinople (modern day Istanbul), survived for much longer.
In the mid 7th century, there arose, out of Arabia, a new religion- Islam. Properly speaking, it is perhaps more accurate to term Islam as a heresy of simplification. Mohammed was familiar with Christianity (Arabia was not so terribly far from Christian Eastern Roman [henceforth called Byzantine] administer territories), and Islam essentially does away with the difficulties that Christianity poses to the believer by abolishing both the priesthood and the Trinity. Thus, Islam offers the benefits of monotheism without Christianty's "difficult" doctrines.
Islam also swiftly adapted itself to the tribal systems of Arabia and their tradition of being fierce warriors. The Byzantine Empire and its middle-eastern rival, the Persian/Sassanid Empire had, before the advent of Islam, fought intermittent and prolonged wars which essentially exhausted the two. Thus, history witnessed one of the most phenomenally speedy ascensions to power it has yet seen- in the space of about a hundred years, Muslims had conquered all of Arabia, Persia, the Holy Land, Egypt, the rest of North Africa and Spain, were dominating the Mediterranean Sea and were pushing the Byzantine Empire farther and farther back into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).
Now, the Muslims were not the benevolent conquerors that anti-Catholics seem so inclined to paint them as. The Muslims imposed a special tax on everyone who wasn't a Muslim living under their rule and treated said people like second-class citizens. Islamic apologists will contend that this was "far better" than the so-called "forced conversion" practices that their Christian contemporaries engaged in, but that's a load of hogwash. The imposition of a special tax on people who have already been disenfranchised by the violent overthrow of their traditional government, coupled with their being treated like second-class citizens, is tantamount to forced conversion. It would be very difficult for the average person not to buckle under such pressure, especially when faced with the choice of converting to a religion that, superficially, actually seems easier to accept than their previous belief systems.
Furthermore, I should like to point out that the Muslims were running around taking a whole lot of land that they had no claim to, nor was it rightfully theirs. The attacks that these Islamic forces launched on such huge territories in the former Roman Empire were utterly unprovoked. Strangely, liberals will decry modern day "imperialism," but not this.
At any rate, by the time the 11th century rolled around, the Byzantine Empire was still somewhat intact (despite the loss of such huge amounts of land), but coming under renewed pressure from the Muslims. Additionally, Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being harassed by Jerusalem's Muslim rulers. Under these auspices, the Byzantine Emperor sent a plea to the Pope, appealing for help.
It should also be noted that by this time, the Great Schism of 1054 had occurred, officially severing the Eastern and Western Churches. So, it should be realized that for the Byzantine Emperor to appeal for help to the Pope, of all people, was a big step and a sign of true need.
What followed was Pope Urban II's appeal to the Christian kingdoms to stop fighting each other and to unite and assist their Christian brethren against the infidel. It was a legitimate military action following on the heels of literally hundreds of years of unprovoked warfare and conquests perpetuated by the Muslims. In modern times, we have alliances. Is it unjust to go to the aid of an ally when they are attacked? Just as Poland sent out a plea for help when the Nazis invaded, so too was the cry sent by the Byzantines in the 11th century.
Thus, I think this properly illuminates (in a brief fashion) the true causes of the Crusades.
This has gone on for a while, so tomorrow I shall return to this topic and deal with specific Crusades and specific charges of "evil." However, for now I think that should adequately elucidate an otherwise misunderstood series of historical events.
posted by Jason | Thursday, April 28, 2005
6 Comments:
But the crusades were not fought just to aid Byzantium, though they might have began that way. They became a call to eradicate an entire religion and race of people from a land that, after centuries, was no more Christian than it was Muslim. The crusaders were not just valient knights dedicated to saving their Eastern comrades. Along the way they raised Jewish and Christian communities to the ground, and even sacked Constantinople in all their religious fervor. (It is also important to note that both sides implemented forced conversion practices on conquered peoples as well as their own people.) Had the crusades really been fought merely to protect and come to the aid of Bzyantium, there would not be today's 'bias' against them. This 'bias' is, in fact, a warrented feeling of persecution after centuries of warfare.
Islam a heresy of simplification? Your classification of Islam as a heresy when it does not claim to be Christian, and your assertion that it is a "simple and easy to accept religion" both bespeak your ignorance of both that religion and your own. Islam is, in fact, incredibly complex and produced many important philosophies later to be adopted by Christian thinkers, including Aquinas. Furthermore, Islam's call to submit to God's will is arguably a far greater challenge than that presented by a faith that suggests that God can be coerced by the intercession of saints, or that God can be functionally be replaced by a priest (in persona Christi dogma cocktail anyone?). It is certainly much easier to play God than submit to His will....
As to your notion that the Islamic states were intolerant of other religions, you need to dust off your history books. The Islamic occupiers often adopted the methods of government and cultural attributes of those they occupied, and in consequence, allowed whole communities of Christians and Jews to live in peace albeit while charging them special taxes. By contrast, Christian kingdoms massacred whole communities of Jews and Muslims as a matter of course, and forced those who survived to give up their property, convert and/or assume only the most degrading of jobs. Heaven knows these communities were not protected, as they were in Muslim society. As a result, many Jews attempted to flee the persecution of Christians by going to Muslim held lands. Nor were the Muslims as brutal as the Christians in war. The sack of Jerusalem by Crusaders led to the massacre of countless men, women and children, along with untold rape and plunder. When the Muslims recaptured the city under Saladin, however, that leader allowed the Christians to leave unmolested. Indeed, such was the charity of that great Muslim leader that he almost always showed a willingness to accept the ransom and surrender of Christian troops, who would be treated charitably and often even granted medical aid!
Decidedly the best defense of the crusades I've read yet.
Could you put these posts about the Crusades in your menu? Also, you might be interested in a recent event: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2093921,00.html
It's funny how our little defender of Islam claims that you need to "dust off your history books" when in reality your post is thoroughly historical and virtually everything he writes is pure fantasy.
Muslim armies were famous for their brutality. Most cities, like Antioch, never recovered after being ravaged by Islamic invaders. Saladin, by the way, killed or sold into slavery all of the Christians who could not be ransomed when he invaded Jerusalem. According to Ibn Jubayr, a Muslim writer himself, medieval Muslims began moving into Crusader controlled areas because they were allowed to hold private property and the economy was better.
And no, there's nothing elaborate or advanced about Islamic culture. Medieval Muslims conquered huge areas of the culturally advanced Christian Greek Byzantine Empire and therefore inherited many of its brilliant Christian thinkers. Indeed, all the original designs for mosques were conceived by Christian Greeks living under Muslim captivity. But despite capturing the most advanced society of the era, Muslims weren't able to advance the culture further. In fact, they ran Byzantine civilization into the ground, the result being the quamire that is the Middle East and North Africa today, which in no way resembles the enlighted Christian Greek society that they destroyed.
Thank you, anonymous, for responding to my earlier critic.
I would, however, caution that relegating Islamic medieval civilization to being neither elaborate nor advanced is a bit dangerously pro-Byzantine. Certainly they ravaged Byzantine lands and destroyed a lot of that culture which they did not replace or supercede, but they DID make advances in a number of scientific disciplines which cannot be ignored.
Post a Comment
<< Home