Topic: The Crusades were not religiously motivated

[Shibboleth]

Do you want something that reads like a textbook or something a little more digestible?

[worldslaziestbusker]

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

[/quote]

The argument that the Crusades were a secular endeavour strikes me as similar to the argument that sexual abuse in churches is a secular matter.  You can't escape the fact that, in both cases, opportunities afforded by power over believers was taken advantage of.  No believers = no armies.  No armies = no crusades.  (In terms of church based sexual abuse, no believers = no opportunity for abuse.  No opportunities = no church based sex abuse).  Whether or not the leaders believed what they were doing was righteous is irrelevant because they convinced large numbers of people that it was.  The leverage that sent armies across a continent in an age when the average person would not otherwise see far beyond the next village was religious zeal.  The lines in the sand regarding who was friend and who was foe were based on beliefs.
The Crusades were sold as holy wars.  It's a bit late to try to weasel out of it now.

[jomike]

Do you want something that reads like a textbook or something a little more digestible?

I'm asking for evidence from reputable sources that support your contention, because you've not yet provided any.  What you're asserting is contrary to the current consensus, which is neatly summarized in the Christianity Today piece I linked a couple pages back:

Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen.

You're saying that Prof. Madden's assessment is incorrect.  On what sources & historical evidence do you base your disagreement?

[Shibboleth]

The argument that the Crusades were a secular endeavour strikes me as similar to the argument that sexual abuse in churches is a secular matter.  You can't escape the fact that, in both cases, opportunities afforded by power over believers was taken advantage of.  No believers = no armies.  No armies = no crusades.  (In terms of church based sexual abuse, no believers = no opportunity for abuse.  No opportunities = no church based sex abuse).  Whether or not the leaders believed what they were doing was righteous is irrelevant because they convinced large numbers of people that it was.  The leverage that sent armies across a continent in an age when the average person would not otherwise see far beyond the next village was religious zeal.  The lines in the sand regarding who was friend and who was foe were based on beliefs.
The Crusades were sold as holy wars.  It's a bit late to try to weasel out of it now.

The Crusades were not a secular matter and they did sell it as a holly war.

[Shibboleth]

You're saying that Prof. Madden's assessment is incorrect.  On what sources & historical evidence do you base your disagreement?

Madden isn't incorrect but he is telling a slanted story. First off most of the people involved in the Crusades were not wealthy land owners and they certainly weren't all knights. The Crusades called for the poor and rich to take up arms. You can claim that they didn't go to the East to loot but that is exactly what occurred. Had the Crusaders went to the East and just pushed back the invading armies most wouldn't even discuss the Crusades in negative terms.

It really is a fascinating topic to read especially when you start reading about the Italian merchants and their roll in the Crusades.

[Johnny Slick]

It always gets interesting what symbols with a religious history are allowed. People generally do not get upset at the fleur-de-lis, Yin Yang, triquetra, or Kalknut. I can understand why but I still find it fascinating. I find romanticism of the Vikings equally fascinating. While the Vikings did many great things they also did horrible horrible things.


Trust me as an Orthodox I am not happy that Constantinople wasn't returned to the Byzantines; however, if I were to list out the reasons why the crusades occurred I would probably list religion as 3rd.

I think that if I were to list the reasons for the 1st Crusade it would be...
1. To give the warring Franks a common enemy to fight over.
2. Politics, power, and wealth
3. Religion

Each crusade was fought for a different reason, but the first I would narrow down to:

1. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom.
2. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom and in so doing get your own sins negated in the eyes of God.
3. Everything else.

Otherwise, some crusades were more religious than others, but several of them - the Albigensian crusade in particular - flat-out did *not* have at their goal something remotely resembling uniting Europe or the Frankish people against a common foe. Nice try at rewriting history. What's your take on the Holocaust currently?

[jomike]

You're saying that Prof. Madden's assessment is incorrect.  On what sources & historical evidence do you base your disagreement?

Madden isn't incorrect but he is telling a slanted story. First off most of the people involved in the Crusades were not wealthy land owners and they certainly weren't all knights. The Crusades called for the poor and rich to take up arms. You can claim that they didn't go to the East to loot but that is exactly what occurred.

Well, no, that isn't exactly what occurred, at least on the current scholarly consensus.  Current best evidence clearly indicates that looting really was not their primary motivation.  As Prof. Madden noted, they weren't averse to grabbing booty where they could -- hey, who didn't, in those days? -- but that was not the primary motivation.  You've repeatedly asserted the contrary without offering any sources or evidence whatsoever to support the assertion.  There's nothing wrong with venturing an opinion, but you shouldn't be surprised if others don't find it convincing.

It really is a fascinating topic to read especially when you start reading about the Italian merchants and their roll in the Crusades.

True, that.  The phrase "useful idiots" comes to mind...

[Shibboleth]

Never in my wildest imaginations would I think that I would be attacking the Catholics and someone on the SGU forums would be defending their behavior.

[jomike]

Never in my wildest imaginations would I think that I would be attacking the Catholics and someone on the SGU forums would be defending their behavior.

So pointing out (the rather obvious fact that) the western Christians were more motivated by misguided piety than by simple greed amounts to "defending their behavior?"  Really?

[Shibboleth]

It always gets interesting what symbols with a religious history are allowed. People generally do not get upset at the fleur-de-lis, Yin Yang, triquetra, or Kalknut. I can understand why but I still find it fascinating. I find romanticism of the Vikings equally fascinating. While the Vikings did many great things they also did horrible horrible things.


Trust me as an Orthodox I am not happy that Constantinople wasn't returned to the Byzantines; however, if I were to list out the reasons why the crusades occurred I would probably list religion as 3rd.

I think that if I were to list the reasons for the 1st Crusade it would be...
1. To give the warring Franks a common enemy to fight over.
2. Politics, power, and wealth
3. Religion

Each crusade was fought for a different reason, but the first I would narrow down to:

1. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom.
2. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom and in so doing get your own sins negated in the eyes of God.
3. Everything else.

Otherwise, some crusades were more religious than others, but several of them - the Albigensian crusade in particular - flat-out did *not* have at their goal something remotely resembling uniting Europe or the Frankish people against a common foe. Nice try at rewriting history. What's your take on the Holocaust currently?

Dude relax. If you notice I stated those were the reasons for the 1st crusade. In the 4th Crusade they were just killing other Christians. They didn't even make it to the Muslim held territory.

[Shibboleth]

So pointing out (the rather obvious fact that) the western Christians were more motivated by misguided piety than by simple greed amounts to "defending their behavior?"  Really?

Yes.
First off I have two books by Madden. My views on the Crusades primarily comes from his book, "A Concise History of the Crusades."


Painting a picture where....
1. The Pope gets a plea from the Eastern Christians for help and feels it is his duty to send troops asks the Franks to take up arms against them.

2. The Franks that have been warring for years for political and financial gain, regularly defying the Church in the process, give up all worldly possessions to go help the Christians being attacked in the East.

3. Looting happens but they were there to save their souls.


Sorry but that is painting way way too nice of a picture on the Catholics.

[Johnny Slick]

It always gets interesting what symbols with a religious history are allowed. People generally do not get upset at the fleur-de-lis, Yin Yang, triquetra, or Kalknut. I can understand why but I still find it fascinating. I find romanticism of the Vikings equally fascinating. While the Vikings did many great things they also did horrible horrible things.


Trust me as an Orthodox I am not happy that Constantinople wasn't returned to the Byzantines; however, if I were to list out the reasons why the crusades occurred I would probably list religion as 3rd.

I think that if I were to list the reasons for the 1st Crusade it would be...
1. To give the warring Franks a common enemy to fight over.
2. Politics, power, and wealth
3. Religion

Each crusade was fought for a different reason, but the first I would narrow down to:

1. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom.
2. To retake Jerusalem for Christendom and in so doing get your own sins negated in the eyes of God.
3. Everything else.

Otherwise, some crusades were more religious than others, but several of them - the Albigensian crusade in particular - flat-out did *not* have at their goal something remotely resembling uniting Europe or the Frankish people against a common foe. Nice try at rewriting history. What's your take on the Holocaust currently?

Dude relax. If you notice I stated those were the reasons for the 1st crusade. In the 4th Crusade they were just killing other Christians. They didn't even make it to the Muslim held territory.

They successively petered out sooner and sooner, but even the 4th was initially undertaken, and got the troops in place, to fight for Christianity against the infidel. In fact, your characterization of "Christian vs. Christian" is misleading, as it was Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox.

[jomike]

So pointing out (the rather obvious fact that) the western Christians were more motivated by misguided piety than by simple greed amounts to "defending their behavior?"  Really?

Yes.

To explain is not to excuse or defend.

First off I have two books by Madden. My views on the Crusades primarily comes from his book, "A Concise History of the Crusades."

Painting a picture where....
1. The Pope gets a plea from the Eastern Christians for help and feels it is his duty to send troops asks the Franks to take up arms against them.

2. The Franks that have been warring for years for political and financial gain, regularly defying the Church in the process, give up all worldly possessions to go help the Christians being attacked in the East.

3. Looting happens but they were there to save their souls.

Sorry but that is painting way way too nice of a picture on the Catholics.

That's an oversimplification of Madden's position to the point of caricature.  Madden's views are hardly the ahistoric Roman Catholic apologia that you paint them to be; his account fairly captures the current consensus.  The more cynical view you hold to was the consensus for a long time, but it has been decisively disproved over the twenty or thirty years.