Topic: The Crusades were not religiously motivated

[ting-bu-dong]

The notion that the cross is not a Christian symbol comes up all the time, especially in the context of graveyards and funerals. In those cases it's usually a case of honest Christian privilege, but this sounds more like deliberate legal games.

Uhm, what, exactly, is "honest" Christian privilege?

I meant it in the sense of honestly not being aware of the privilige rather than pretending not to be for political or rhetorical purposes. I think the lawyers making the arguments in the OP are in the latter category, whereas many Christians who feel persecuted when for example school prayer is banned are in the former.

[Ajzzz]

The Byzantines were also conquerors, they played the game, and not everyone under their rule loved them, and not everybody hated being under Norman rule. Freeing and protecting "the land"? I don't think so. How were the Byzantines gathering their wealth that found its way into their Orthodox churches?

Just for clarity I am going to call Byzantium new Rome. By the time that Rome converted itself to Christianity and the East started referring to itself as Byzantium there really wasn't much conquest going on in the east. Rome was in a state of decline and the Roman-Persian wars left both sides drained which ultimately allowed for the Muslim armies to move in and gain a foothold in the area.

Much of the wealth in Constantinople was gained through the fact that it was a major trade center being the bridge between the east and the west. That isn't to say that the Byzantines weren't without sin. The Byzantines weren't without sin, the Persians weren't without sin, and the Muslim invaders certainly were not without sin. As we know from history the areas of the holy land weren't happy under Roman rule, weren't all that happy under the Israelite leaders, didn't enjoy the Persian rule all that much, and certainly didn't like the Assyrian rule.

The most interesting thing that I see in regard to the Crusades is that many people don't understand that the area of Constantinople was Greco-Roman. It was settled by Greeks and later came under Roman rule. It was constantly defending itself from the Persians and the Arabs were the invading new comers. It just wasn't a Muslim land at that point and never had been.

My understanding was that land was being traded between the factions before the Crusades, conquering, reconquering, and that while Byzantines were well established they ruled over different peoples, the conquered even if it was in Roman times. Places like Antioch, who deserved to rule over Antioch? Who was being set free or protected in that scenario?

[AxeGrrl]

The notion that the cross is not a Christian symbol comes up all the time, especially in the context of graveyards and funerals. In those cases it's usually a case of honest Christian privilege, but this sounds more like deliberate legal games.

Uhm, what, exactly, is "honest" Christian privilege?

I meant it in the sense of honestly not being aware of the privilige rather than pretending not to be for political or rhetorical purposes.

Ah, ok......you meant honest ignorance.  Gotcha

[Shibboleth]

My understanding was that land was being traded between the factions before the Crusades, conquering, reconquering, and that while Byzantines were well established they ruled over different peoples, the conquered even if it was in Roman times. Places like Antioch, who deserved to rule over Antioch? Who was being set free or protected in that scenario?

Anitoch was also a Greco-Roman city founded by the Greeks. When Christianity rolled around, Peter established his first Church in Antioch and it was the original seat of the Church. It definitely became a focal point for many of the battles and was sacked on multiple occasions. The Persians and Arabs had killed for driven out many of the original Greco-roman residents by the time of the Crusades so as to who deserved to rule over Antioch at that point in history? I donno.

[Neon Genesis]

What I want to know about the Crusades is what happened to that Jewish dude who said to love your enemies and turn the other cheek?

[Shibboleth]

What I want to know about the Crusades is what happened to that Jewish dude who said to love your enemies and turn the other cheek?

He was crucified by by the people that lived in the area.

[Vincegamer]

and during the Crusades they found all 7 of the True Crosses he was crucified on as well as the 3 spears the roman soldier stabbed him with.

[Shibboleth]

Don't forget that the Naked Archiologist recently found the nails. They did way better than the people searching for the fountain of youth.

[Vincegamer]

the Naked Archiologist recently found the nails.

Ouch!  That must have been painful.

[rreppy]

   The Crusades were instigated by popes, with the cry of "Deus Volt!" (God Wills It!) and undertaken by common men because crusaders were promised passage into heaven. If that isn't religious, I don't know what it. The military lawyer is an idiot.

[Shibboleth]

   The Crusades were instigated by popes, with the cry of "Deus Volt!" (God Wills It!) and undertaken by common men because crusaders were promised passage into heaven. If that isn't religious, I don't know what it. The military lawyer is an idiot.

There is a difference in why someone says they are doing a thing and why someone is actually doing a thing. Religion was used as justification for the action just like WMD's were used as justification for going into Iraq but the impetus for most people involved in the Crusades was not religion.

In any respect that shouldn't matter because the objection around the crusader shield is based on perception. "What are people going to perceive when they see this symbol?" When you are talking about symbolism, perception is everything and therefor it should be avoided.

[jomike]

There is a difference in why someone says they are doing a thing and why someone is actually doing a thing. Religion was used as justification for the action just like WMD's were used as justification for going into Iraq but the impetus for most people involved in the Crusades was not religion.

You keep asserting this, and it's contrary to the assessment of most historians as well as the testimony of a great many of the participants.  Do you have any evidence to back your claim?

[Vincegamer]

... the impetus for most people involved in the Crusades was not religion.

This is over-selling it in the same way the JAG lawyer was over-selling it.
Most people involved in the Crusades were motivated for many reasons, of which religion was one.
There was no single impetus for most people involved. Saying it the way you did implies that religion was not a significant motivator, which clearly it was.

[Shibboleth]

You keep asserting this, and it's contrary to the assessment of most historians as well as the testimony of a great many of the participants.  Do you have any evidence to back your claim?

While I appreciate your ability to Google you are just going to have to do some reading of some historians on the subject. Most books by historians will tell you exactly what I am relating.

Pope Urban II was doing everything he could to stop the fighting of the Franks and bring reforms to the area. He was doing everything from banning fighting from Friday to Monday and on religious holidays and then added a ton of religious holidays to the calendar during the summer months. He excommunicated the King of France and set his clergy on the area to enforce reforms. Once the Crusades were in motion Urban passed a rule that said that while the Crusades were going on you couldn't wage war with other Christians for fear of excommunication.

When the Orthodox came pleading for help from the invading Muslims, Urban used it to encourage the lords to stop fighting each other. He called for a religious war but the underlying message in all of it was for the Franks to stop fighting among themselves and start fighting the invaders.

I would love to say that when the Crusaders came to the east that they pushed out the invading Muslims and helped the Byzantines but they looted Churches, claimed the land as their own, and claimed leadership. Those aren't things that you want to do when you are trying to earn favor with God.

During the reformation the there was a huge revisionist attempt to make everything the Catholic Church did and had done evil and much of that revisionism still sits in the western psyche today. It is so ingrained that many people believe that places like Antioch and Constantinople were Muslim lands and for no apparent reason the Catholic Church decided to attack them and drive them out of the area. That simply wasn't the case. It was far more akin to Iraq invading Kuwait and the west sending help. The major difference is that when America went into Kuwait they didn't pillage the land and claim it as American territory.

I am Orthodox. I have reason to hate the Crusades, and I do, but humans are humans and while there were certainly religious zealots involved, most humans are motivated by other factors just like today.

[jomike]

Most books by historians will tell you exactly what I am relating.

Such as?