In Defense of Our Holy Religion- More on the Crusades
As promised, I am returning to the subject of the Crusades. I think that my previous post has sufficiently set the stage, so to speak, for a more specific discussion of individual Crusades.
As with any human institution or action, the Crusades did not always stay true to their original calling. I would be remiss if I did not now elaborate on the actions of Crusaders in their specific Crusades.
The original causus belli of the Crusaders was both to aid Byzantium and free the Holy Land from the infidel, to make it safe for Christian pilgrims again (i.e. basically to put the sites sacred to Christianity back into Christian hands). Unfortunately, the popes who called Crusades were generally unable to control their outcome or, really, to direct the massive power that they unleashed.
This lack of control occurred for a number of reasons. The potential for gaining riches was a big drive behind many of the knights' decision to travel on crusade to the Holy Land. However, to discount the religious fervor of the Crusaders and relegate the desire to crusade solely to a desire for riches is as erroneous as it is deceptive- that is to say, very. It is difficult, in our secularized society, to understand the mindset of the Medieval peoples. Religion was as much of an integral part in their lives as it is not today. They may not have gone to Mass everyday, but the Church provided a common denominator for the cultural identity of all of Christendom in a way that it cannot today (due, perhaps, largely to the Protestant heresies). As such, to underemphasize the identification that Christians had with their religion and their view of Islam as alien, pagan and (to an extent) evil, would be incorrect.
However, despite the best of intentions behind the Crusades, upon their arrival some of the Crusaders did, in fact, deviate from the original intent. The allure of riches and land turned many of the warriors from their goal and re-oriented them on plunder and conquest. This was an unfortunate occurrence, but it did not stop the First Crusade from achieving its overall goal and liberating the Holy Land.
The slaughter of Muslims and Jews that many people allude to in discussions of the Crusades need to be put in their specific context. The most prevalent slaughtering of Jews occurred under the leadership of Peter the Hermit, who led a "crusade" made up, primarily, of people from the lower classes. These slaughters were terrible, but this "crusade" was in turn decimated by Islamic forces when they reached Asia Minor and should NOT be confused with crusades led by nobles and knights.
Additionally, the slaughter of the Muslim inhabitants of the lands that the crusaders conquered was a traditional tactic of war at the time. Whenever a city did not surrender but instead held out and had to be taken by force or through a prolonged seige, it was unlikely that much mercy would be shown to the inhabitants. This is true not only of Christian armies but also of their Muslim counterparts, so any statement that "Christians slaughtered Muslim women and children" needs to be accompanied by its complementary statement that "Muslims did exactly the same thing." As such, the general tactics of war in that age may be condemned, but the general condemnation of a specific army or religion for engaging in such tactics is as ignorant as a condemnation of the Spanish for bringing the Plague to the New World (since, after all, the Spanish had no idea they were doing so).
With regard to discussions of specific Crusades, it shall here suffice to limit the discussion to the First and Fourth, as the Fourth is different from the rest and the First generally characterizes the others in terms of tactics. The First Crusade was the only Crusade to successfully capture the Holy Land and hold it- it was subsequently lost and other crusades to liberate it again failed.
The Fourth Crusade, called by Pope Innocent III, is the cause of much contention and a great deal of ill-will towards the Roman Church by the Orthodox Christians. This crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, an unfortunate event that deserves some explanation.
When Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade, events almost immediately spiralled out of his control. This, coupled with his later actions, should (and do) exonerate him of any wrong-doing in this matter. Most of the blame should be placed (in my opinion) on the Venetians.
The organizers of the Crusades needed transport to the Holy Land (some speculate that the goal of the Fourth Crusade was Egypt; the original goal of the Crusade is not relevant, as shall become evident) and so contacted the Venetians. When the knights showed up to go on crusade, the organizers found they had greatly overestimated the number of ships they would need. With such a reduced number, the crusaders were not able to pay the Venetians the full amount for transportation. Thus, the Venetians offered the crusaders a deal- if the Crusaders would sack the (Christian) city of Zara (a trading rival of Venice), they would forgive what the Crusaders owed.
Many of the Crusaders were reluctant to attack a Christian city. Venice is a city composed of a series of islands in a lagoon- the Crusaders were trapped on an island and without boats (as the Venetians had intended). As such, the Crusaders eventually reluctantly agreed, because they couldn't get out of Venice any other way. Innocent III learned of the plans of the Venetians and commanded them not to sack Zara. After the sacking of Zara, Innocent III excommunicated everyone involved. He later rescinded the excommunication of the crusading knights on the condition that they go to the Holy Land.
On the way to the Holy Land, a deposed Byzantine emperor approached the Crusaders with an offer to help him get back on the throne. I shall have to greatly simplify this part, because Byzantine politics were extremely confusing and this case is no exception. Suffice it to say that the would-be emperor offered the crusaders a generous, shall we say, enticement package, if they assisted him, so they obliged (although, again, it was the leaders of the Crusade; many of the individual crusaders were extremely reluctant).
What followed was a disgrace. The Crusaders did indeed install their desposed emperor-friend, but in the process they also sacked the city for several days. [As evidence of this sacking, go to Venice. Venice is now the best example of Byzantine art and architecture in the world.] The new emperor did not make good on his promises, so the crusaders eventually deposed him and set up a Catholic Byzantine state. And so, the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 remains a sore spot with the Orthodox Christians to this day. Following the sacking, Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders again.
And so, I hope that sheds some light on some much-maligned events in history. They are not cut and dry examples of goodness or evil, but rather a mixture of both. However, to make a blanket statement about the Crusades as "evil" is to express one's ignorance of the events, or one's own bias against the Church.
As with any human institution or action, the Crusades did not always stay true to their original calling. I would be remiss if I did not now elaborate on the actions of Crusaders in their specific Crusades.
The original causus belli of the Crusaders was both to aid Byzantium and free the Holy Land from the infidel, to make it safe for Christian pilgrims again (i.e. basically to put the sites sacred to Christianity back into Christian hands). Unfortunately, the popes who called Crusades were generally unable to control their outcome or, really, to direct the massive power that they unleashed.
This lack of control occurred for a number of reasons. The potential for gaining riches was a big drive behind many of the knights' decision to travel on crusade to the Holy Land. However, to discount the religious fervor of the Crusaders and relegate the desire to crusade solely to a desire for riches is as erroneous as it is deceptive- that is to say, very. It is difficult, in our secularized society, to understand the mindset of the Medieval peoples. Religion was as much of an integral part in their lives as it is not today. They may not have gone to Mass everyday, but the Church provided a common denominator for the cultural identity of all of Christendom in a way that it cannot today (due, perhaps, largely to the Protestant heresies). As such, to underemphasize the identification that Christians had with their religion and their view of Islam as alien, pagan and (to an extent) evil, would be incorrect.
However, despite the best of intentions behind the Crusades, upon their arrival some of the Crusaders did, in fact, deviate from the original intent. The allure of riches and land turned many of the warriors from their goal and re-oriented them on plunder and conquest. This was an unfortunate occurrence, but it did not stop the First Crusade from achieving its overall goal and liberating the Holy Land.
The slaughter of Muslims and Jews that many people allude to in discussions of the Crusades need to be put in their specific context. The most prevalent slaughtering of Jews occurred under the leadership of Peter the Hermit, who led a "crusade" made up, primarily, of people from the lower classes. These slaughters were terrible, but this "crusade" was in turn decimated by Islamic forces when they reached Asia Minor and should NOT be confused with crusades led by nobles and knights.
Additionally, the slaughter of the Muslim inhabitants of the lands that the crusaders conquered was a traditional tactic of war at the time. Whenever a city did not surrender but instead held out and had to be taken by force or through a prolonged seige, it was unlikely that much mercy would be shown to the inhabitants. This is true not only of Christian armies but also of their Muslim counterparts, so any statement that "Christians slaughtered Muslim women and children" needs to be accompanied by its complementary statement that "Muslims did exactly the same thing." As such, the general tactics of war in that age may be condemned, but the general condemnation of a specific army or religion for engaging in such tactics is as ignorant as a condemnation of the Spanish for bringing the Plague to the New World (since, after all, the Spanish had no idea they were doing so).
With regard to discussions of specific Crusades, it shall here suffice to limit the discussion to the First and Fourth, as the Fourth is different from the rest and the First generally characterizes the others in terms of tactics. The First Crusade was the only Crusade to successfully capture the Holy Land and hold it- it was subsequently lost and other crusades to liberate it again failed.
The Fourth Crusade, called by Pope Innocent III, is the cause of much contention and a great deal of ill-will towards the Roman Church by the Orthodox Christians. This crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, an unfortunate event that deserves some explanation.
When Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade, events almost immediately spiralled out of his control. This, coupled with his later actions, should (and do) exonerate him of any wrong-doing in this matter. Most of the blame should be placed (in my opinion) on the Venetians.
The organizers of the Crusades needed transport to the Holy Land (some speculate that the goal of the Fourth Crusade was Egypt; the original goal of the Crusade is not relevant, as shall become evident) and so contacted the Venetians. When the knights showed up to go on crusade, the organizers found they had greatly overestimated the number of ships they would need. With such a reduced number, the crusaders were not able to pay the Venetians the full amount for transportation. Thus, the Venetians offered the crusaders a deal- if the Crusaders would sack the (Christian) city of Zara (a trading rival of Venice), they would forgive what the Crusaders owed.
Many of the Crusaders were reluctant to attack a Christian city. Venice is a city composed of a series of islands in a lagoon- the Crusaders were trapped on an island and without boats (as the Venetians had intended). As such, the Crusaders eventually reluctantly agreed, because they couldn't get out of Venice any other way. Innocent III learned of the plans of the Venetians and commanded them not to sack Zara. After the sacking of Zara, Innocent III excommunicated everyone involved. He later rescinded the excommunication of the crusading knights on the condition that they go to the Holy Land.
On the way to the Holy Land, a deposed Byzantine emperor approached the Crusaders with an offer to help him get back on the throne. I shall have to greatly simplify this part, because Byzantine politics were extremely confusing and this case is no exception. Suffice it to say that the would-be emperor offered the crusaders a generous, shall we say, enticement package, if they assisted him, so they obliged (although, again, it was the leaders of the Crusade; many of the individual crusaders were extremely reluctant).
What followed was a disgrace. The Crusaders did indeed install their desposed emperor-friend, but in the process they also sacked the city for several days. [As evidence of this sacking, go to Venice. Venice is now the best example of Byzantine art and architecture in the world.] The new emperor did not make good on his promises, so the crusaders eventually deposed him and set up a Catholic Byzantine state. And so, the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 remains a sore spot with the Orthodox Christians to this day. Following the sacking, Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders again.
And so, I hope that sheds some light on some much-maligned events in history. They are not cut and dry examples of goodness or evil, but rather a mixture of both. However, to make a blanket statement about the Crusades as "evil" is to express one's ignorance of the events, or one's own bias against the Church.
posted by Jason | Friday, April 29, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home