Were the Crusades defensive?

[Ivashanko]

I just read an article that quite persuasively makes the case that the Crusades were effectively a defensive response to Islamic Expansion, in other words as a counter-attack. The article, of course, is only addressing the Crusades to retake the Holy Lands, rather than the Northern or Albigensian Crusades (or Crusades in that ilk). The article is only focused on the earlier Crusades as well.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Doukan]

Defensive?
Trudging hundreds of miles to a foreign land isn't really "defensive", counter attack maybe.

 

[Ivashanko]

Defensive?
Trudging hundreds of miles to a foreign land isn't really "defensive", counter attack maybe.

My OP was very poorly worded. I hate jet lag!

In case anyone is wondering I do have my own opinion on the matter but I am just interested in what others think.

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

no
if done by the Byzantines maybe.
but English, French, and Germans declaring war, travelling thousands of miles and setting up catholic kingdoms when they never existed isn't defensive by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Hibernian]

Link to the article you're talking about, so we can see the arguments for this "Defence".

Also, this should clearly be in the History forum.

 

[SDSkinner]

The First Crusade was not intended to be a defensive measure against Islamic expansion (which had essentially halted 300 years before). Rather it was justified on the grounds that the Turks were attacking pilgrims to the Holy Land and that the region needed to be secured to safeguard their passage.

 

[Gatkramp]

I just read an article that quite persuasively makes the case that the Crusades were effectively a defensive response to Islamic Expansion, in other words as a counter-attack. The article, of course, is only addressing the Crusades to retake the Holy Lands, rather than the Northern or Albigensian Crusades (or Crusades in that ilk). The article is only focused on the earlier Crusades as well.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

I'm more of the opinion that it was a reaction to a variety of real and imagined slights. Add in a whole bunch of religious elements, and you get to a war that wasn't simply "let's conquer land for our God". Unfortunately, too many people seem to want to simplify down to bloodthirsty Christians hating Muslims.

 

[soda7777777]

I'm more of the opinion that it was a reaction to a variety of real and imagined slights. Add in a whole bunch of religious elements, and you get to a war that wasn't simply "let's conquer land for our God". Unfortunately, too many people seem to want to simplify down to bloodthirsty Christians hating Muslims.

That, or claim it's colonialism.

 

[Ivashanko]

Link to the article you're talking about, so we can see the arguments for this "Defence".

Also, this should clearly be in the History forum.

I'll see if I can find an online version. And if the mods want to move this to the history forms, that is completely fine by me.

SDSkinner, I know the Turks actually did not mean to fight the Byzantines in the conflict leading up to Manzikert, but the article argues that the Crusades were in large part a reaction to the battle and the fear of future Islamic Conquests (and given past Islamic Conquests this fear would have seemed to be very real to the Christians of the era).

I'm almost willing to think that both sides thought they were fighting an essentially defensive struggle- the Christians might have believed (and some we know did) they were defending a Christendom that had been under attack for hundreds of years, and the Muslims believed (obviously) that they were defending against an army that was invading land they had held for centuries.

 

[Enravota]

The objective of the classic Crusades was to liberate the Church of the Sepulchre, fear of conflict doesn't seem to play a meaningful role. The Spanish reconquista was swinging back and forth at the very same time and had a significantly higher chance of spilling into Western Europe, yet there was no comparable centralised effort of Catholic powers to intervene (it was usually individual nobles that intervened at their leisure, most notably Burgundy). AFAIK there was an actual ban on Iberian laymen to join the Crusades, so not to drain manpower away, but that was more or less as far as consolidated effort went on that front. As such, it seems like one cannot really classify the Crusades as a pre-emptive strike or a defensive measure.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

SDSkinner, I know the Turks actually did not mean to fight the Byzantines in the conflict leading up to Manzikert, but the article argues that the Crusades were in large part a reaction to the battle and the fear of future Islamic Conquests (and given past Islamic Conquests this fear would have seemed to be very real to the Christians of the era).

No.

There was consciousness of Manzikert, but "Islamic Expansion" was not a concern for Latin Europe at the time. There were muscular Islamic states closer to home, e.g. Spain, North Africa, which had been threats to western Europe in earlier centuries. But Syria? No threat had ever come from Syria. If anything, the area had traditionally been regarded as allies.

I'm not aware of any "defensive" argument made then by anybody, other than defending Byzantium itself, or defending routes.

 

[Ivashanko]

I've also asked the question at a few other historical boards- I am interested in finding out what the overall consensus is. I have heard good arguments from both sides so far, though my time playing devil's advocate has been limited.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

The overall consensus is everyone had different motives for participating.

Since the bulk of the Crusader armies were descendants of Vikings, who had themselves been raiding Christendom and Christian shrines not long before (some only ten minutes before), I put a good part of it down the usual restlessness of rapacious Norsemen finding another shore to raid.

 

[SDSkinner]

I'll see if I can find an online version. And if the mods want to move this to the history forms, that is completely fine by me.

SDSkinner, I know the Turks actually did not mean to fight the Byzantines in the conflict leading up to Manzikert, but the article argues that the Crusades were in large part a reaction to the battle and the fear of future Islamic Conquests (and given past Islamic Conquests this fear would have seemed to be very real to the Christians of the era).

I'm almost willing to think that both sides thought they were fighting an essentially defensive struggle- the Christians might have believed (and some we know did) they were defending a Christendom that had been under attack for hundreds of years, and the Muslims believed (obviously) that they were defending against an army that was invading land they had held for centuries.

The problem with the idea is that the first wave of Islamic conquests were part of one political entity which was no longer true by the time of the Crusades. While it was perfectly possible to believe individual Islamic states were a threat, I don't see how one could see them as a unified whole threatening Christendom (at least until the Ottomans). This should have been especially obvious given the Seljuks came to power attacking other Muslims to consolidate their empire.

The overall consensus is everyone had different motives for participating.

Since the bulk of the Crusader armies were descendants of Vikings, who had themselves been raiding Christendom and Christian shrines not long before (some only ten minutes before), I put a good part of it down the usual restlessness of rapacious Norsemen finding another shore to raid.

Ah yes. Part of the implicit church motive was that since good Christians shouldn't kill each other, they would find an alternative outlet for the energies of the warrior class. Hopefully something to save their souls and... okay, okay we will give you loot and land if you go kill the people over there.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

The overall consensus is everyone had different motives for participating.

Since the bulk of the Crusader armies were descendants of Vikings, who had themselves been raiding Christendom and Christian shrines not long before (some only ten minutes before), I put a good part of it down the usual restlessness of rapacious Norsemen finding another shore to raid.

You're leaving out the murderous meddling of the Popes.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Ah yes. Part of the implicit church motive was that since good Christians shouldn't kill each other, they would find an alternative outlet for the energies of the warrior class. Hopefully something to save their souls and... okay, okay we will give you loot and land if you go kill the people over there.

More alluring was the contemporary example of two celebrated Neo-Vikings: William the Conqueror and Robert Guiscard. They had shown how little, poor feudal lords can carve out big, rich kingdoms for themselves, if they just get on a ship and try their fortunes abroad.

Everyone wanted to be the next Guiscard.

Just got to tap into that normanitude.

 

[Enravota]

Since the bulk of the Crusader armies were descendants of Vikings, who had themselves been raiding Christendom and Christian shrines not long before (some only ten minutes before), I put a good part of it down the usual restlessness of rapacious Norsemen finding another shore to raid.

While Normans were very well represented in the Crusades, I don't think it is merited to say they represented the bulk. Most of them weren't going by boat either.

 

[Ivashanko]

The problem with the idea is that the first wave of Islamic conquests were part of one political entity which was no longer true by the time of the Crusades. While it was perfectly possible to believe individual Islamic states were a threat, I don't see how one could see them as a unified whole threatening Christendom (at least until the Ottomans). This should have been especially obvious given the Seljuks came to power attacking other Muslims to consolidate their empire.

I'm not so sure. When reading through the Christian material I've come to believe that the Christians really didn't know anything about Islam. The greatest proof of this is the widespread belief in the so-called 'Islamic Trinity' that many Christians believed the Muslims had. But another was the obsession with the small town near Cairo called 'Babylon' that the Christians seemed to believe was effectively the capital of all of political Islam, which was believed in as late as the Third Crusade.

Also, and here I am playing Devil's Advocate, to at least some of the Christians of the era there seemed to be a belief that God would aid them if only they could take and hold Jerusalem. So in that light taking Syria and Palestine (which, as noted above, posed no threat to Christendom) would aid Christians fighting in Anatolia or Iberia, and thus (in a certain point of view) could still be seen as defensive in nature. Plus the belief (as noted in several chronicles), the belief that the Muslims were oppressing the native Christian inhabitants (who made up a majority in many of the regions around North Africa and the Middle East, and a large minority in others).

 

[btdenn]

Not really into religion but I assume Jerusalem is important to Christians because that's the birthplace of Jesus, his crucifixion, etc. Essentially it's where Christianity began, right? I wonder if Muslim religious leader(s) would have sent in armies to take Mecca if at some point since the birth of Islam it was occupied by non-muslims. I'm guessing they would. Is it true non-muslims aren't even allowed in Mecca?

 

[Auxiliary]

Not really into religion but I assume Jerusalem is important to Christians because that's the birthplace of Jesus, his crucifixion, etc. Essentially it's where Christianity began, right? I wonder if Muslim religious leader(s) would have sent in armies to take Mecca if at some point since the birth of Islam it was occupied by non-muslims. I'm guessing they would. Is it true non-muslims aren't even allowed in Mecca?

It's correct. And speaking of Islamic expansion and whether it was defensive, I believe Muhammad himself besieged and took cities in order to safeguard their accessibility for Muslims. Since some suggest that Muhammad and then the Muslims during their early conquests after his death only fought defensive wars question is if Christianity shouldn't get off just as easily.

And concerning the topic, while the Muslims in the Levant and nearby areas did not pose an immediate threat to Frankish lands there were some threats to people as Christians overall. Some offences that actually had some truth to them were having pilgrims attacked and butchered or enslaved, or mistreated in other way on their way to the holy land. And at the start of the Crusade the response was just a bigger pilgrimage, pretty much. Though the people suffered the same fate. This wasn't a time when they cared about land in the modern nationalistic sense, nor do I think that the Catholics felt that Jerusalem was any less Christian because it had been ruled by Eastern Orthodox Christians.