The Truth Versus Hoax About The Crusades

Truth versus hoax about the Crusades: Christians defend the Turkish atrocities and slavery. Contemporary Islam is something similar. The idea of the Crusades is dead?


This article debunk rumors about the crusaders as the “first imperialistic” in the Middle East, and explains that historical hoaxes are not random

The theme of the Crusades now comes to life in the context of Islamic fundamentalism. Radical Muslim circles indicate military action in Iraq and Afghanistan “drag”, cross-novověkým suicide bombing fanatics in New York, Madrid and London are often presented some aggressive mohamedánskými by clerics as “revenge for the crusade”. Medieval kruciáty have since the Enlightenment, something wrong with sticker and underhanded. In the history books, the following actions are evaluated negatively as a manifestation of will, cruelty, intolerance and expansiveness of the then Catholic Church. But what is the reality?

Defense of the Holy places and the pilgrims

First, it is necessary to establish who was the aggressor and who resisted. Under General clichés were medieval crusade 11.-13. century. war actions against the Turks in the great, so called Saracénům, who occupied Palestine, including the places connected with the life of Jesus Christ, and therefore precious each of this.

The Crusader wars were wars of defence against aggression was used to protect the defenseless Turks and Palestinian Christians and pilgrims. Catholic Europe was not the aggressor, by contrast, were the early Turkish, which is clearly right to say

This basic historical lesson of bears but in itself the germ of lies. Indeed, the idea that induces the Christians they did not hesitate to flood the entire region with the blood in the name of their religiously motivated claim to Palestine. In fact, already in the 7. century. Muslim Arabs conquered the Holy land. The contemporary Christian world didn’t object when these rulers were mohamedánští to residents of Licinius Christians there, and allow European Catholics held pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth.

So it worked without problems up to the 11. century. Christian Europe not to take any military actions in Palestine and respect the Muslim administrative control over it. In 11. century. but the changed circumstances. Muslim Arabs from Palestine were also forced out the Muslim Turks. Christian pilgrims and Palestinian Christians have occurred in bad times. The Turks attacked and is sold into slavery, in which a better case. At worst, he is bullied and murdered. In addition, the Turkish Sultan led the old war against Byzantium, and it was her Emperor Alexios i. Komnen, who, though Orthodox, turned for help to the Pope and the Catholic West.


Pope Urban II blessed.  

Pope Urban II blessed. r. 1095 convened a synod to the French Forces. There were bishops of familiar for the Byzantines, which joined the hermit harangued, who had to emigrate from Palestine, because his life was at stake. All gatherings were shaken by their cruelty, that terrifying funniest Turks committed Christians. They Usekávali hands and feet, women were raped. The Pope responded by proclaiming a crusade to defend the life of Christian pilgrims and Palestinian Christians, rather than giving priority to re-conquer the Palestine, as they can often be found in the literature.

The legitimacy of the Crusades


That’s a huge difference. Crusader quest, known for Urban II was ethically absolutely justified, given that its motivation was not in an attempt to conquer some territory of the paramount, but in protecting the lives and health of the weak and defenseless of the pilgrims and Christians in Palestine, issued bestiálnímu cruelty, murder and taking into slavery. This was an act of love for his fellow man, which is in charge to take to defend the weak and innocent against the aggressor in his hand and the gun if they are exhausted all peaceful means. For something like that is the Catholic Church certainly has nothing to apologize for.


But the truth is that after the capture of Jerusalem, 1099 r. occurred by the victorious Crusaders to unnecessary bloodshed. It would be against the intentions of Pope Urban II, who wished the merciful approach. His successor Paschal II. According to the testimony of some contemporary chroniclers expressed regret over it, even if it did not hide their joy over the recovery of the Holy places. However, even here it is necessary to defend against overstating this certainly sad fact. Jerusalem, the Crusaders did not give up and it was a common practice of the time, surviving even from paganism, that in this case, did the winners to the physical liquidation of the civilian population. The Church often in vain for mercy and said an investigation of innocent lives.

In the case of the conquest of Jerusalem, but it remains the unanswered question, if the Crusaders really killing the civilian population, including women and children, or if he killed the man, who fought back with a gun in his hand. Contemporary chroniclers speak grandly about “streams of blood”, without specify event. Serious historians are leaning toward the other version because even after the publication of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem remained mostly Muslim city of Jerusalem and the Mohammedans have enjoyed religious freedom. When the Sultan Saladin r. 1183 again conquered Jerusalem and captured the last Catholic King Quida, local Muslims and called for the return of this Christian monarch.


St. Bernard of Clairvaux

The shady sites, in particular the first and second crusades (there were a total of seven), including bashing of Jewish ghettos, forced baptisms of Jews and their murders. However, these crimes nepáchalo the Crusader army, but the mob, consisting of adventurers and criminals, who foresaw an opportunity to enrich and create different pseudooddíly would-be volunteers. Against their killing spree issued sharp Bull most Popes 12. century, to defend the Jews spoke also of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.


SV. Bernard of Clairvaux

Also, you cannot defend the aggression of the Venetians, the organizers of the 4. the Crusades who r. # 1201 to Palestine to Constantinople, arranging accounts with its longtime enemy-Byzantium. After the sack of Constantinople declared the so-called “there. Latin Empire. Pope Innocenc III. However, the Act sharply denounced and banned violent re-catholicisation process of Orthodox Greeks.

Failures of the Crusaders after the fall of Jerusalem to the Turks contributed to the spread of naive opinions that what generals did not achieve, can achieve the Holy and innocent souls, preferably children. Took some criminals, trading with the Turks, who supply young slaves and slave. You have organized the r. 1212 called. the children’s crusade (was never recognised as a good crusade) and nothing that they failed to heed Pope Innocenc III. such an undertaking has forbidden under penalty of excommunication. Ships brought children who in the Holy enthusiasm wanted to fight for the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre, in fact mohamedánských vezírů into slavery and Caliphs. However, the ships had failed during a storm, part of the children died, she fell into the hands of the Muslim part of slavery, part managed to save and return back to their families.

The Crusades were certainly huge shallow of spirit of the Christian middle ages. It must raise a real admiration and enthusiasm of thousands of nobles of ordinary farmers, who in the name of Christ were willing to sacrifice everything, even his own life. Something similar to modern period had almost not being able to. Great respect they deserve, and all those who have this sense of the sacrifice of the people raised and led, whether a number of precious Popes or saints of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.


The French King St. Louis IX

St. Louis IX and his “charity”

In the end, however, the Divine Providence has shown another path, as is evident by the example of the French King St. Louis IX, the Commander of the 7. and the last crusade. She too was unsuccessful, King Louis had fallen into captivity in Egypt. Redeemed, but did not return home because he remained in the Middle East as a private person, to find out the number of Christians who have fallen into slavery by Muslims. Send email from France’s left money to redeem all of the losers in the end and allow them to return to Europe. God so eventually this Holy King presented a different solution than he originally intended – instead military expedition commissioned him a generous charitable actions.

Catholic Christianity is certainly has nothing to be ashamed of the idea of the Crusades. One can only regret that eventually join other motivation, which undermined the whole idea of the sublime. The secular rulers who all militarily organized, often followed other interests than the liberation of the Holy places and the protection of the defenseless against the savagery of the Turks. Here is the reason for the failure of this grand and ethical page good initiatives.

Catholic Europe was not the aggressor

The Crusades brought also in regard to the positives and negatives of culture. To those first is undoubtedly contact with the Oriental world. From the Arabs took over Christian Europe interested in Aristotle’s philosophy, which became the basis for thinking the greatest geniuses of the middle ages St. Peter. Albert the great and St. John. Thomas Aquinas, further deepened their knowledge of mathematics, astronomy and the natural sciences. At the same time but have penetrated into Europe’s superstition and theological delusions. Considerably widened the astrology and fortune telling, also revived under the influence of Oriental thought import Manichean idea of the good and the evil deity, which found its expression in the delusion of a sect of albigenských, that God and the devil are equal.

The idea of the Crusades was definitely not something negative in the history of the Church, especially not by the term ‘ European and Catholic imperialism against the mohamedánskému of the world “, as it is constantly repeated by enlightened times. The Crusader wars were wars of defence against aggression was used to protect the defenseless Turks and Palestinian Christians and pilgrims. Catholic Europe was not the aggressor, by contrast, were the early Turkish, which is the need to clearly tell offhand. Regret, and to some extent also to condemn it is necessary to other targets and the organizers of the Crusades and the associated with them which led to the above can’t be physically proved.