Thank God for the Crusades

[total relism]

I think the larger issue that everyone has with it being an invasion as opposed to a war of liberation is the time difference. It was not an immediate reaction to Manzikert, Yarmuk had had happened hundreds of years before so it was NOT a reaction to islamic aggression of even the same decade. Even the Byzantines who at first were okay with the crusades helping them reclaim parts of anatolia didn't want the crusaders to continue on and make war with the fatmids.

It's not like the decade following the last Ottoman siege of Vienna during which it's expanse was gradually pushed back to the southern balkans, there was no immediate reaction to any major event at the time that made the muslim threat greater than immediately after manzikurt. The reason the first crusade was even successful is largely due to the fact that there was so much turkoman infighting that no major concerted response was able to happen until the siege of Antioch.

I'll agree with the premise that the crusades were good for western civilization in it's export of unlanded younger sons and a general renewing of trade and cultural ties with the near east, but to white wash it is silly. The time period was absolutely brutal for minorities no matter where. Was the looting and pillaging of jewish villages within 'germany' on the way to the crusades justified in any way? The crusaders were for the most part appallingly ignorant which is one of the reasons the later crusaders couldn't understand why their comrades within the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Tripoli, or Antioch were not so keen on making war on all the surrounding muslims. None of this excuses the outrages that were committed against christian minorities but it in the context of the period was totally normal. Bear in mind that last pagans of northern europe were and would continue to be 'converted' to christianity for quite some time.

I think you'd do better trying to determine what the acceptable time limitations are for liberating an ethnic/cultural/or coreligionist people. I could feel justified in a war against 'Islamic State' for the outrages that they have and continue to do, I could not feel justified in a war against Tunisia or Algeria for the crimes of the Barbary Coast states 200 years ago. The amount of time past does matter. Your broad definition is like the Chinese claiming the whole of East Asia because of the Qing Empire's previous hegemony there.

Great post and thanks for your perspective. I think your correct in saying some find it hard to see the crusades as being defensive since they were not [at least many of them were not] directly attacked. But think of this, would the crusades have happened had islam not expanded? of course not. Medieval Europe was connected only through the catholic faith, that was their bond. That aspect which was vital to their society was under threat and attack by Islam, that is undeniably from the previous 400 years. Just because today we view ourselves as servants of a nation, does not mean they did not view them selves as servants of Christ first. So when you cannot visit the holy lands, and your brothers [in Christ not in government] are persecuted, and when a religion of pagans [their view of Islam] is threatening you and your brothers call for help, than you respond.

"Although Crusaders responded to the papal call to engage in armed pilgrimage for a multitude of reasons, there is one motivator that outweighed all others: faith. Medieval people were steeped in the Catholic Faith; it permeated every aspect of society and their daily life. Above all, love of God, neighbor, and self drove participation in the Crusades.........Love of God and the desire to serve him dominated the themes of Crusade preachers. Popes and preachers used the image of a Crusader denying himself and taking up the Cross in imitation of the Savior to motivate warriors. Bl. Urban II told the assembly at Clermont that “it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you...... “It is a sure sign that he burns with love for God and with zeal when for God’s sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses, sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ.....Urban II granted an indulgence to anyone who “for devotion alone, not to gain honor or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God.”
Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College


But really it was a mix of things mentioned in my op [such as a recapture of the holy lands and allow pilgrims to visit them] the direct cause was the pleas for help from byzantine and the fact its emperor had dies and the army wiped that made the west know fear an Islamic expansion into europe not just from the south but the east.


Yes it was bad for minorities in any country during that time period, just see how those europeans Christians were treated under Islamic rule, that was a cause of the crusade. I am glad for the crusades, i do not approve of their every action. for the treatment of jews see here from my op

Were Jews to be Harmed?

"The Jews are not to be persecuted, nor killed, nor even forced to flee"
St Bernard of clairvaux- most famous preacher of second crusade

Jews were the only officially protected non christian group in medieval European society. St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested.

In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

The crusade lead by Emich that killed innocent Jews was against church decree. For his acts his crusade was denied entry past Hungary to continue on their crusade. Many Christians fought against him. John bishop of Speyer hid and saved Jews from the oncoming crusade and after went and persecuted those crusaders who had killed Jews. Bishop Rothard allowed Jews to enter his refuge in Mainz to than only be killed by a mob for it.

“Jews prior in Germany were protected by the crown and local lords, they thrived along the rhine, some local bishops tried to protect the Jews but many were killed all the same."
Thomas F. Madden The New Concise History of the Crusades



Ignorant? why do you say so? because they did not want to make war? I would disagree, their purpose is was not what you think, this was not a war against islam.

Were the Crusades a Conquest?

"the first crusaders and pope, thought all land would be returned to the byzantine empire"
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

No. At the end of the first crusade only 4,000 Europeans stayed, they did not view it as a conquest but as a armed pilgrimage. With a few staying behind to defend Jerusalem.

A War Between Religions? A Religious war? A war of Conversion?

"the distinction between holy war and pilgrimage was real. The crusades usually referred to themselves as "pilgrim" or "cross bearers".
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden

The war was not primarily between two religions, it was between two groups of people that happened to be of separate religions. The wars were because of a people group of people, that attacked another group, committed crimes such as rape, murder, forced conversion and conquest. Than in response [crusades] another people group, banned together and attacked the first group. No question there was religious nature to some motives, but had these been simply separate countries within western Europe or middle east, a war would have broken out.

“once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.” He notes that “the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” (Hamilton, p. 49.) While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj. This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law!
(Jonathan Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades, Swanston Publishing Ltd, 1191, p. 16 among others.)

Muslims in the Crusader States

Many times christian in the holy lands allied with Muslims against other Christians, or fought to help Muslims against invading Christians and vice verse. The king of Jerusalem Fredrick befriended and knighted Muslim emir Fakhr-ad-din. In fact many crusaders saw not Islam, but the Byzantine empire as the true enemy. Some of the awful crimes committed, wee done against Christians in the holy lands. Finally Muslims and Jews were allowed to practice their religion in crusader states.

[the crusaders]"even during the expedition to Jerusalem, they demonstrated a more malleable attitude towards Muslims, engaging in extensive negotiations with fatimids of Egypt, pursuing limited alliances with Muslim rulers of northern Syria like Omar of Azaz and happily formulating a series of admittedly exploitative truces with the emirs of southern Syria,Lebanon and Palestine. The evidence of this is intermittent, and to an extant our Latin sources seem keen to present the crusade as an intense and unbending religious conflict. In reality, contact may have been continuing on a completely different level. Raymond of Aguilers asserted that a Latin priest and visionary Evremar went to Muslim city of Tripoli to rest and recuperate during the latter stages of the siege of Antioch suggest that cross-cultural interaction may actually have been far more common than we know.
The first crusade Thomas Asbridge a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam