Crusade Propaganda: The abuse of Christianity's Holy Wars

National Review Online ^ | November 2, 2001 | Thomas F. Madden

[rob777]

"Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian control. "



The problem is that the western "crusaders" sacked and looted areas controlled by eastern Christians of the Byzantine Empire, as well as engaging Islam. Read Christian Historian Paul Johnson, or Rose Lane Wilder's "Discovery of Freedom". The crusades were NOT something worth defending.

[AppyPappy]

That's war.

[Darth Reagan]

And the Muslim conquest of most of Christendom from the 700s to the 1300s isn't worth defending either.

[Yougottabekidding]

Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.

[Taliesan]

The problem is that the western "crusaders" sacked and looted areas controlled by eastern Christians of the Byzantine Empire, as well as engaging Islam.

Yes, they did. But the "crusaders" were all kinds of people, religious and irreligious, and many were mercenaries. So, yes, some crusaders took the opportunity to loot Byzantium's riches on the way to liberate Jerusalem. But others were more pure, more sincere.

My point is just that these broad descriptors are not useful. As the article proves, you can no more say "the crusaders" as a whole did this or that than you can say much about "Christianity" or "Islam" that would be accurate for all those the term ostensibly embraces.

Network anchors in post-terror America bandy about the word "Muslims" as if that word embraces a monolithic group; so the argument rages back and forth whether muslims are peaceful or whether they are vicious. The truth is, some are this, some are that.

So it would be most accurate to say something like "The crusades were, in general, a defensive response to Arab military expansion -- but there were groups on both sides who used their causes as cloaks for looting and pillaging among the innocent."

Thus, we can take the writer's point and defend the crusades in general, while taking your point and condemning specific acts.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.

This must be one of the most evil sentiments ever expressed. Advocating killing innocents alone is the hallmark of terrorism. The remark was originally said after the killing of 100,000 people of the city of Beziers. The Christians doing the killing justified the slaughter of other Christians of Beziers with the above pharse.

[Cincinatus]

Warfare in the Dark Ages was brutal and barbaric. It's Whiggish history to retrofit modern sensibilities about limiting collateral damage and civilian casualties onto the template of medieval warfare.

As far as “defending” the Crusades goes, the purpose of history is neither to defend nor justify things in the past (over which we, after all, have no control) but rather to learn from historical examples. To learn the right lesson, one must fully understand the context and the response. Modern liberals have used the Crusades as examples of “bad wars,” largely because of their misunderstanding of their geopolitical context. They also have an agenda to bash Christianity and Crusader atrocities give them a free shot at that. What they don’t mention is the endless catalogue of Muslim atrocities: See Paul Fregosi’s Jihad in the West : Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries for a corrective to liberal “scholarship” on the Crusades.

[HELLRAISER II]

There is no religious war from our side, the religious propoganda comes from the Muslims wanting a religious war & to be honest about it, that's exactly what it looks like it's cooking up to be. From our point of view we were attacked by some Muslim nutcase, we retaliated & want his head on a platter. That's pretty understandable to all except Muslim Religious fanatics who interpret & twist current events to their own agenda.

[ExpandNATO]

The problem is that the western "crusaders" sacked and looted areas controlled by eastern Christians of the Byzantine Empire...

...and were excommunicated for it (BTW, it was not mere sack and loot, but conquest of the Byzantine empire). Same for the crusaders who sacked Jerusalem during the First Crusade. So I do wonder what the pope was apologizing for, his predecessor already did what he could.

Are you also going to pound on Richard Lionheart who having defeated the Muslims in battle and then negotiated a peace treaty in which the Muslims promised not to mug Christian pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem? Will you pound on the Crusade that consisted of the German Emperor landing a huge force on the shortest road to Jerusalem and then engaging Saladin in some quick negotiation about safe passage for pilgrims and then leaving? And notice BTW that safe passage for pilgrims keeps coming up, think the Muslims should have gone unpunished for mugging them?

Are you going to pound on the Crusaders who stopped the Muslims from coming into Europe through Spain or the Church sanctioned war that saved Vienna? Or the battle of Lepanto? Or would you rather see Europe look like the Middle East? I will note the complete absence of atheists, Protestants, Lutherans and non-Catholics in general in stopping Muslim invasions (and I am Lutheran, ie non-Catholic).

Some of the Crusaders are worthy of condemnation, some should be praised, some were simply incompetent, some simply no better than anyone else of their time. A good number did us valuable historical service keeping Muslims out of Europe. Or do you actually believe the Western world would still be as it is now with Moslems ruling much of Europe?

[DrNo]

We need CRUSADER RABBITT and RAGS THE TIGER to fight this war!

[baxter999]

Excellent post and great recap of history. As usual, Free Republic gets to the truth behind the distortions of the leftist media. As an aside to the Crusades the Spanish "reconquista" is worthy of note. The spanish fought a 700 year war against terrorism that did not end until 1492. Wonder if the "world's last remaining superpower" can sustain our current half-assed efforts for even a few months?

[aruanan]

Note to OWK: Read and learn.

[rob777]

"My point is just that these broad descriptors are not useful. As the article proves, you can no more say "the crusaders" as a whole did this or that than you can say much about "Christianity" or "Islam" that would be accurate for all those the term ostensibly embraces.

Network anchors in post-terror America bandy about the word "Muslims" as if that word embraces a monolithic group; so the argument rages back and forth whether muslims are peaceful or whether they are vicious. The truth is, some are this, some are that.



I am in complete agreement with you here.



"So it would be most accurate to say something like "The crusades were, in general, a defensive response to Arab military expansion"



I am not as convinced that the expansion of the Saracen civilization was largely due to military agression. Again, read Rose Lane Wilder's book "Discovery of Freedom", or Paul Johnson's book "A History of Christianity", or Professor Henry Chadwick's book "A History of the Early Christian Church" In a nutshell, after Christianity became "Romanized" by accepting the authoratarian structire of the Roman Empire, dissenters were marginalized and persucuted. The main military conflict on Chriatianity's eastern border in the heyday of Byzantium was with the Persian empire. The Arabs rose up in the aftermath of the collaspe of the Persian empire and the weakening of Byzantium. A BIG problem for the empire of the Christian east, was the wholesale defection of Arians and Monophysitites, who were condemend by the 1st and 4th Ecumenical Councils. A large portion of these people were in the east, particularly the Monophysites. They were not militarily conqured by the Saracens, but willingly intergrated into that civilization, all the while keeping their Christian identity. (They still considered themselves Christian, regardless of the decision of the Church councils) Greek scientist and other intellectuals also defected because of the lack of intellectual freedom they experienced. In a nutshell, the rise of Mideval Islamic civilization can no more be simply be explained away by pointing to military conquest, than the rise of modern western civilization can be explained away by pointing to alleged "Imperialism".

Be all that as it may, it is ilrelevent to the modern context. Fundalmentalist Islam of TODAY is fully totalitarian and moderate Islam does not speak out against it. We do not need to revisit the crusades in order to point out that a signifigant portion of modern Islam is hostile to the values of an open society.

[Taliesan]

I will note the complete absence of atheists, Protestants, Lutherans and non-Catholics in general in stopping Muslim invasions (and I am Lutheran, ie non-Catholic).

During the Crusades? That's like saying "Where were the Wesleyans when Athanasius needed them?"

[Taliesan]

Thank you for your response. I've read the Johnson (which I liked the least of his books) and the Chadwick. I'll watch for the other.

I suppose the distinction that might help us is between cultural advance and military capture of land, and this distinction is really not that tough to apply to history to extract moral conclusions.

If your religion wins my family's hearts and minds I have nothing to complain about, least of all "imperialism" -- but if your bishop (or Imam) rides and kills my kids and quarters horses in my living room -- you get the point.

I grant you your cultural factors; but the writer's point is that Islam's armies seized land, and European armies took it back. All the while, the eternal culture war of ideas waged, on its own battlefield, and largely irrelevant to this moral analysis.

[ExpandNATO]

ExpandNATO:
I will note the complete absence of atheists, Protestants, Lutherans and non-Catholics in general in stopping Muslim invasions (and I am Lutheran, ie non-Catholic).

Taliesin:
During the Crusades? That's like saying "Where were the Wesleyans when Athanasius needed them?"

I should have been clearer. Protestants were notably absent during the attacks by the Ottoman empire on Vienna and during the naval battle of Lepanto.

[Taliesan]

Protestants were notably absent during the attacks by the Ottoman empire on Vienna and during the naval battle of Lepanto.

Ah. I did not know that.

[Ditto]

The crusades were NOT something worth defending.

That's a very broad brush you paint with. The Crusades (note the plural) took place over the course of two centuries. And they are not something that needs to be 'defended' anymore than Alexander the Great needs defended. They need to be understood.

[valhallasone]

The Christians doing the killing justified the slaughter of other Christians of Beziers with the above pharse.

Do you have an authoritative citation for this? By authoritative, I mean any actual scholarly work (refereed academic article, book authored by a degreed historian, etc.) that sets about estabilishing this phrase originating at that point in time. I sincerely doubt that this is the origin of the phrase: "Kill them all and let God sort them out." I am prepared to be further educated, but it does not ring true.