With Due Respect: What about the Crusades?

[The editor and author of this post is not a history major. He also does not endose violence against people with differing views, nor seek to justify the Crusades. The purpose of this post is to encourage deeper thinking on whether Christianity is an inherantly violent religion that led to terrible atrocities, in this case the Crusades.]

Map of Medieval Europe, Asia and Africa from the game, Medieval 2:Total War

I often heard from my friends that Christianity is violent. They point out that during the Crusades, the Christians rode into the Middle East unprovoked and slaughtered both Jews and Muslims. This seems to concur with Richard Dawkins's (2006) assertion that Christianity is a violent religion For instance, King Richard I mercilessly executed 2,700 Muslim soldiers captured at Arce in 1191.

For this post, I will be focusing on the Crusades of the Middle East, and not other campaigns, such as the Northern Crusades and the Reconquista.

What are the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of Christian military expeditions to the Middle East that started in 1095 to 1272. These soldiers were blessed by the Pope and aimed to return capture the Middle East for Christianity.


How do you justify such violence?
I don't. The Crusades was a horrific event that happened and etched the horror of Christianity in the minds of its opponents.

I do not deny that the Crusaders did in their zeal and greed led to the massacre the residents of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople.

Misconceptions of the Crusades

A) The Crusades were an unprovoked attack on the Middle Easterns
In 1095, much of the Byzantium Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) had fallen to the Muslim Arabs. Looking at the map, this included cities like Nicaea, Antioch, Arce, Alexandria, Damascus and of course, most importantly, Jerusalem. Facing anniliation, the Byzantium Emperor Alexois I appealed to Pope Urban II to aid him in the interest of Christian brotherhood (The Byzantines were Orthodox Christians, while the Pope was the head of the Roman Catholic Church). This kicked off the First Crusade, where Pope Urban II's rousing speech (and promises of instant paradise for those who perished in the expedition) convinced a force of 35,000 men to embarked on this venture.

Furthermore, Western Europe was not untouched by the Arab aggression. In fact, Arab pirates had threatened Rome (where the Pope resides) before. To the Western Europeans, the Arab attackers were not far away, but near.

In other words, the Crusades were a response to the aggression against Christians in the once-Byzantium lands. 

French Medieval armour, taken at the French Imperial War Museum in 2011

B) The Crusades was a period of constant warfare
The Middle Eastern Crusades lasted from 1095- 1272. This seems to suggest that the Christian soldiers were actively attacking the Holy Lands for about 200 years. However, about 90% of those years were spent organising and travelling.  For instance, the Third Crusade (the longest campaign) lasted for six years (1187 to 1192), but the actual fighting in the Middle East only started in 1189 (with the Siege of Arce).

C) The Crusader Kingdoms mistreated the non-Christians
Another criticism is that the Crusader Kingdoms that were established abused and mistreated the non-Christians inhabitants. The Crusaders did segreate their community from Jews, Muslims and Eastern Christians (Prawer, 1981). While slavery of non-Christians was allowed, Crusaders had to free slaves who chose to convert to Roman Catholicism.

However, it has to be stated that the Crusaders generally allowed a degree of autonomy among the non-Christian inhabitants. Ibn Jubayr (an Arab Muslim chronicler) complained

"Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks [Crusaders], whose justice they can always rely on."  (Pernoud, 1963)

In fact, the Crusaders relations to the non-Christian inhabitants was not regarded as especially special for that time period. It was "neither friendly, nor hostile" (Ellenblum, 2006)

Conclusion
The Crusades were an example of the misuse of Christianity. In fact any idea can be manipulated to violence. Even the belief in no God (i.e. atheism) had led to the despotic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (Mcgrath , 2004).

To pretend that the Crusaders were particularly worse than their contemporaries is misleading.


References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

 Ellenblum, R. (1998) Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

Mcgrath, A. (2004) Twilight of Atheism

Pernoud, R. (1963) The Crusaders

Prawer, J. (1981) Crusader Institutions

For further readings

Aren't Christians responsible for most wars?

Theology 1.0: What were the crusades?

What were the crusades?

Every now and then, one must deal with the question of the Crusades. The Crusades were a military expedition sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church to invade and annexed territory from Muslims, pagans and heretics. Due to horrific atrocities committed during such expeditions, the Crusades are often used as a sore point to show that Christianity promotes violence.

The word "Crusades" have a negative connotation till this day. The Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name to Cru to avoid the controversy. The Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy churches had bad blood with each other because of the actions of the Fourth Crusade (the Crusaders sacked Orthodox churches during that Crusade).

For this post, I will be focusing the expeditions to the Holy Land (Judea and the surrounding territory) that lasted from 1095 to 1291.

Whose land?
Judea (roughly Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Egypt) once belonged to the Christian Eastern Roman Empire.

With the rise of Islam, Judea fell to Muslim armies during the 600s and 700s. In 1095, the Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios I asked Pope Urban II for military aid. Stirring religious emotion, many knights, nobles and even peasants committed to the cause.

Due to the success of the First Crusade (against overwhelming odds), the attractiveness brought more and more adherents to the cause. This resulted in escalation of violence, which included the massacre of 60, 000 Jerusalem inhabitants during the First Crusade and execution of 2, 000 Muslim prisoners during the Third Crusade,

Points to think about
While the Crusades left a dark stain on the perception of Christianity, let us note the following:

1) The Crusades was a military response to the loss of land
2) Wars have been fought in the name of religion, and Christianity is hardly immune to it
3) Atrocities were committed by all sides.

For further reading:

wikipedia

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

References
Sire, J. (2006) Why Good Arguments Often Fail