Assignment cover sheet Note: (1) The attention of students is drawn to: the Academic Regulations, the Academic Honesty Policy and the Assessment Policy, all of which are accessible via http://www.acu.edu.au/policy/136703 (2) A de-identified copy of your assignment may be retained for University quality (audit) processes, benchmarking or moderation. Student ID Number/s: Student Surname/s: Given names: S00152525 Moloney Joseph William Course: School: Theology & Philosophy Unit code: THCT101 Unit title: The Church in History Due date: 07 Jun 2013 Date submitted: 07 Jun 2013 Lecturer-in-Charge: Dr. Girola Tutorial Group/Tutor: Assignment Title and/or number: “In what way are the crusades of concern to the student of Church history today?” DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY By submitting this assignment for assessment, I acknowledge and agree that: this assignment is submitted in accordance with the University’s Academic Regulations, Assessment Policy and the Academic Honesty Policy. I also understand the serious nature of academic dishonesty (such as plagiarism) and the penalties attached to being found guilty of committing such offences. no part of any assessment item has been copied from any other source without acknowledgement of the source. no part of this assignment has been written by any other person, except to the extent of collaboration and/or group work as defined in the unit outline. this assignment has not been recycled, using work substantially the same as work I have completed previously and which has been counted towards satisfactory completion of another unit of study credited towards another qualification, unless the Lecturer in Charge has granted prior written consent to do so. a copy of the original assignment is retained by me and that I may be required to submit the original assignment to the Lecturer in Charge upon request. the Lecturer-in-Charge may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment: reproduce this assignment; authorise the reproduction of this assignment; provide a copy of this assignment to another member of the University; and/or communicate, or authorise communication of, a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism checking service, such as the “Turnitin” service operated by iParadigms LLC (or such other service utilised by the University at its absolute discretion). I acknowledge that a plagiarism service provider may then retain a copy of this assignment on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking. Signature of student(s): Date: 07 Jun 2013 The Church in History: In what way are the crusades of concern to the student of Church history today? The Crusades are possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Myths abound that the Crusades were a series of barbaric unprovoked Western aggressions against a peaceful Islamic civilisation. Other modern fallacies focus on a distorted view of the Crusades as Church sanctioned barbarism and looting, where indulgences were granted by the Pope’s for their wicked conduct in battle. There are two main reasons for this concert of misunderstanding in popular modern discourse. The first is that the history and events of the Crusades are too often judged by modern sensibilities and ethics and as isolated events - that is, they are judged out of their historical context. The second reason is that the Crusades were for the conquest of the Holy Land and linked to the Catholic Church, even promoted by the Pope, and therefore often seen to be purely religious/holy wars. While this was one dimension of the Crusades, it would be a gross over-simplification to analyse the Crusades only in this light. Further, it doesn’t mean the wars were fought entirely for noble/religious purposes or entirely by Saints. More tellingly, the popularity of focusing on the Catholic Church’s role in the Crusades parallel with the worst of the atrocities of the wars is a common ploy for those engaged in ideological/religious banter when railing against the Church. Michael Haag, The Tragedy of the Templars: The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States, (London, UK: Profile Books, 2012): http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/01/30/even-muslims-flourished-in-crusader-states/. Students of Church history must grapple with the glaring inconsistencies between the popular myths about the Crusades as against a larger historical, political and religious reading of the Crusades in context. “Virtually all Westerners have learned to apologize for the Crusades, but less noted is the fact that the Crusades have an Islamic counterpart for which no-one is apologising and very few are even aware”. Robert Spencer, Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), (New York, NY: Regnery Publishing, 2005): 124, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/australiancathu/Doc?id=10381253&ppg=1 In recent times, many historians, apologists and authors have identified the terribly misconstrued popular reading of the Crusades and attempted to answer such criticisms See bibliography for Coren, Crawford, Haag, Madden, Madrid.. The first Crusade was declared by Pope Urban II in 1095, however, it wasn’t a random unprovoked act, but a consequence of a long series of actions by Muslim actors that eventually forced the Pope’s hand. “The Crusaders sack of Jerusalem in 1099, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the ‘starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West’”. Spencer, Politically Incorrect Guide, 123. Yet this is a distinctly a-historical perspective, because the history of the conflict between the Muslim East and the Christian West went back centuries before, and was not started by Christians, but by conquering Muslims: In 632, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories. By 732, a century later, Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her associated islands were under threat, and the islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century. Paul F. Crawford, “Four Myths about the Crusades,” Intercollegiate Review, Spring Edition (2011): http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1483. Hence, shortly after the appearance of Islam, there began a century of military campaigns to expand Muslim territory, which were so successful that two-thirds of the formerly Christian world would come to be ruled by Muslims. And, although not as successful, the next three centuries would be punctuated with further Islamic aggression toward continental Europe from the south (Italy), west (Spain/Portugal), east (Byzantine Empire) and in Jerusalem itself. In 827, Muslim forces begun to conquer Sicily, and in 846, Saracens sacked Rome, raiding many basilicas, and even looted Saint Peter's Basilica for its treasures. Such aggression had Christians fearful of Islamic incursions and expansion – a fear demonstrated in the building of the huge Leonine Wall to encompass the Vatican Hill in Rome. But it was in the area that is modern day Spain and Portugal where Islamic expansion was most successful in Western Europe, even, for a time the region was one of the greatest Muslim civilizations in history. In 1009, one Muslim ruler even destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and heavily persecuted Christians there. In the East, the Byzantine Empire had suffered massive territorial loses to the Muslims. However, it wasn’t until 1071 after the Muslim Turks crushed the Byzantine army at Manzikert that the Emperor finally appealed to the Pope for support against the Islamic threat in the east, which request eventually lead to the Crusades. To add to this, in the years before the first Crusade the Pope was constantly informed of how Christian pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land were being harassed, robbed and murdered by marauding Turks. The Crusades that began in 1095 can hardly been seen as unprovoked after centuries of conflict with Islam, the Christian West had lost the Holy Land and the earliest Christian cities, suffered an attack on Rome and the Papacy, endured continual aggression towards pilgrims as well as the destruction of holy sites in Jerusalem. “This is not the absence of provocation; rather, it is a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to survive. The crusades were simply one tool in the defensive options exercised by Christians”. Crawford, Four Myths about the Crusades. Given the fact no Christian army before, during or after the crusades attacked Muslim holy cities such as Mecca or Medina, it is legitimate to argue that Christians were only defending what was lost after more than 450 years of Islamic aggression. In this sense, the Crusades were not Holy Wars seeking to eradicate Islam, but instead recapture what was lost. Further, when considering that three of the Catholic Church’s five primary episcopal sees: Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, had been captured in the seventh century and that both Rome and Constantinople had been attacked in the centuries before the crusades, it is arguable that the Crusades were a just war. This background is the context that popular modern commentators resist, are reluctant to admit, or are simply unaware of. The other important contextual information often missing from discussions about the Crusades is in the barbaric manner in which wars were fought a millennia ago. In every criticism of the Crusades the irony of a Holy War being conducted so grotesquely at times is highlighted – the question is how could the Catholic Church license such despicable behaviour in the name of Christ? This is a legitimate question, and certainly one that was asked at the time by many Christians, including and especially the Pope on many occasions. “The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions” Thomas F. Madden, “The Real History Of The Crusades”, Making Sense of Society, (Washington, D.C.: Morley Publishing Group, Inc., 2002). http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4461. So despite the Crusades being “Holy Wars” they were certainly not fought by saints, but rather ordinary people, susceptible to all the same temptations and vices as anyone else. Hence, the history of the Crusades, like all wars, is littered with some despicable acts of brutality committed by the Crusaders. The Sack of Constantinople by an ill disciplined and unruly army is one such an example. This event was a disgrace to the Crusading armies and western civilisation and was promptly condemned by Simon de Montfort (a commander) and by Pope of the time Innocent III who said of the incident: "No wonder the Greeks call you dogs!" Hence, it is clear that not all crusaders or the Church condoned such behaviour. Another popular example cited of dreadful conduct is the anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe. These too, though were events in direct violation of a Papal decree protecting Jews, and were condemned by the Church. These pogroms were committed in the earliest days of the first Crusade and were perpetrated by group of peasants commonly known as the Peasant Crusade that: …made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find… In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ… Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. Madden, The Real History of The Crusades. But they were terribly wrong, and the local Bishops and many in the Church came out and strongly condemned the attacks on the Jews Jonathan Riley-Smith, First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, (London: Continuum International Publishing, 2003): http://site.ebrary.com/lib/australiancathu/Doc?id=10250812&ppg=63. While these events are horrific, even racist, they still need to be viewed through the correct lens of history. The excesses and violence committed during the Crusades must be evaluated in the context of military history at the time. So, to give balance to any modern condemnation, it should be known that it wasn’t an entirely extraordinary event in history of medieval warfare. Armies back then were not logistically supplied like modern armies are, but instead, were forced to live off the land they were in, which often meant plundering and looting. Sean McGlynn, “The myths of medieval warfare”, History Today, Vol. 44 Issue 1, (1994), 28: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=f0d5c01f-c0a0-4d64-b9d8-4ab9615161b3%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=wdh&AN=9401127625 The crusading armies were reluctant to plunder fellow Christians, so instead they targeted the Jews, who were both wealthy and also, conveniently, “held to be enemies of the Church within the territories of Christendom”. Riley-Smith, First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p54. There is no doubt, however, that in certain instances, especially during this Peasant Crusade in 1096, that the looting and killing of Jews went beyond what was tolerable even by expectations of the day. Two main factors lead to such violence during the Crusades, but particularly the Peasants Crusade. The first factor is that the peasants didn’t have any supplies or money when they set off on their crusade and so were completely reliant on the land and what they could plunder. Due to this, at many points on the way, armies starved and thousands either deserted or died. This created a sense of desperation that certainly contributed to increase the prevalence of plundering. The second factor is that these peasant crusaders were whipped into zealous frenzies by men such as the illiterate, but compelling, Peter the Hermit, who lead forced conversions of a whole village of Jews in Regensburg, for instance. Or worse, the most notable culprit for much of what was perpetrated against the Jews in Germany was Count Emicho, who was motivated by greed and the wealth of the Jews, yet despicably played on the faith of the peasants to do so. Thus what happened to incite such violence against the Jews was a combination of greed and desperation that was given license and justified by ambitious and manipulative leaders using a twisted version of the Christian faith to their advantage. As evidence that these reprehensible instances of violence during 1096 were not representative or a product of the Catholic Church or its teachings, “most of the bishops made some effort to protect the Jews, taking them into their fortified palaces and, at Speyer, Mainz and Cologne, dispersing them in their villages in the countryside”. Riley-Smith, First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p53. Soon after, Pope Alexander II specifically forbade attacks on Jews clarifying that Jews and Muslims are certainly dissimilar because they aren’t persecuting Christians and driving them from the towns and their own dioceses like Muslims are in the Holy Land. Given this historical context, the acts perpetrated are no less deplorable. However, while medieval warfare was at times barbaric, it is most important to note that the “religion” of the Crusaders didn’t compel or permit such barbaric behaviour. These events were not the product of their faith, but instead their own vices and passions, and acts which were contrary to Catholic teaching and resoundingly condemned at the time – a point sometimes lost to modern critics of the Catholic Church and the Crusades. Like any other human endeavour the Crusades had its share of saints and sinners. The Crusades were never religious wars in the sense that Christians planned to kill or convert all Muslims. The objective of the Crusades was to reclaim the Holy Lands and those cities which were once Christian but captured by Muslims – it was not to force conversions on Muslims. The Crusades were a provoked defensive response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression and incursion into Christian Europe, and hence were equally a political response as much as a religious one. Taking away the religious (Christian v. Islam) character of the Crusades all together, such warring is hardly exceptional between European and Middle Eastern cultures – take for example that 1400 years before the first Crusade, Persians were landing in Greece. The tendency of modern commentators is to focus on the Christian character of the Crusades to the exclusion of the historical context both specifically (the grim reality of medieval military conduct) and generally (that war between Eastern and Western civilisations existed for at least a millennia – well before Islam or Christianity). Moreover, while there is no doubt that some individuals diverted the Crusades from its sacred purpose for commercial, political or personal aims, this is by no means reflective of the endeavours of the majority. Modern critics of the Crusades forget that the crusaders were men of their time - and the times were brutal and violent. These are the challenges and some of the concerns for the modern student of Church history – so while I don’t excuse the acts of the crusaders and I lament the poor representation of Christian civilisation at times, I implore modern critics to judge the Crusades for what they really were and in the greater historical context of the times, and emphasise that any attempt to apply modern ethical standards is pointless.  Bibliography Coren, Michael. “The Crusades”, Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity, Canada: Signal Books, 2012. Crawford, P., “Four Myths about the Crusades,” Intercollegiate Review, Spring Edition (2011), http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1483. Haag, M., The Tragedy of the Templars: The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States, London, UK: Profile Books, 2012. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/01/30/even-muslims-flourished-in-crusader-states/ Madden, Thomas. “The Real History Of The Crusades”, Making Sense of Society, Washington, D.C.: Morley Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4461 Madrid, Patrick. The Pope and the Crusades in Pope Fiction, Dallas, TX: Basilica Press, 1999. McGlynn, S., “The myths of medieval warfare”, History Today, Vol. 44 Issue 1, (1994), 28. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=f0d5c01f-c0a0-4d64-b9d8-4ab9615161b3%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=wdh&AN=9401127625 Riley-Smith, Jonathan, First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, London: Continuum International Publishing, 2003. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/australiancathu/Doc?id=10250812&ppg=63 Spencer, Robert. Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), New York, NY: Regnery Publishing, 2005. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/australiancathu/Doc?id=10381253&ppg=1 Tyerman, Christopher. Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=40ebb6a1-07cb-4901-ae6e-b38979f03d8a@sessionmgr11&vid=1#db=nlebk&AN=208530 THCT101 The Church in History S00152525 Joseph W. Moloney 11 |