Crusades

[The Wrath]

Okay, I know very little about the Crusades and am just looking for an Objectivist's explanation, as well as a moral analysis.

[Alon]

You're asking for a lot. Unfortunately there isn't any one good book I can recommend, historians of the period tend to take one side or another. On opposite sides you have the position that the Christians were brutes fighting a war of aggression and conquest against a much more cultured civilization, the other the historian will at least treat the opposing forces as moral equals, at worst claim that Christians were a model of civilization and righteousness for the Oriental heathens.

Which ever book you read, keep in mind that both armies committed acts of savagery, one no less than the other.

Also, a point that is often ignored (and especially so by Islamic apologists) is the context of the Crusades. They did not occur in a vaccum. Islam had been expanding for four hundred years prior to 1099 at a tremendous rate, conquering huge territories of Christendom, including major centres of Christian thought: the whole of North Africa, Syria-Palestine, and Anatolia. Also, several territories which were conquered but not held were Spain, Portugal, southern France, and the Caucausus. Islam had thus encircled Europe from East to West. It is important to keep this in mind when considering the events of 1099.

Culturally the Arabs were far superior, relying on Classical antiquity they developed the sciences, arts, and philosophy which they inherited and imported many ideas from India. At the same time Europe was only emerging from the Dark Ages, entrenched in Augustinian theology and mysticism.

Does this mean that the Arabs should have our support? Who is to say? The decline of the influence of Classical antiquity upon Islamic civilization began while the Crusades were at their height, in its place was a growing religious conservatism and literalism to which we can trace the beginning of Islam's decline into its own Dark Age.

[punk]

One problem with understanding the Crusades is that they are typically separated out from the overall historical context.

In addition to the conventional 10 odd wars that constitute the Crusades in the Middle East there is the Reconquista within which the Christians took back Spain and Portugal from Muslim rule, as well as the crusades in north eastern europe (primarily in Poland and the Baltic) wherein the Christians (primarily Germans) conquered territory from pagan groups. There were also various crusades called within Europe where Christians killed Christians for purely political reasons (the most famous of these is the Albigensian Crusade).

In the case of the Reconquista and the Albigensian Crusade the issue was more backward areas conquering more advanced and civilized areas (in this case Spain, Portugal, and the Provence). In this case a primary result was the civilization of the High Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard and all that) and ultimately the Renaissance, although the civilization had been expanding into the backwards parts of Europe prior to that.

Also a result of the actual Middle Eastern Crusades was that the Latin Christians put some effort into deposing Eastern Christian rulers and bishops and replacing them with Latin Christians. In addition one of the Crusades consisted of nothing but a sacking of Constantinople and an attempt to make what was left of the Byzantine Empire Latin and subject to Rome.

However the conquest of Spain, Portugal and the Provence resulted in a more advanced and (relatively more) tolerant culture becoming much more hysterically intolerant.

I think one can observe that the Crusades were a part of an overall pattern of a backwards Latin Catholic Europe:

1. Expanding its territories by conquest

2. Eliminating dissent within its territories from Latin Christian orthodoxy

Edited October 19, 2005 by punk

[Adrian Hester]

These were both good short replies (Alon's and punk's). Just a couple of comments.

You're asking for a lot. Unfortunately there isn't any one good book I can recommend, historians of the period tend to take one side or another.

A good short one is Thomas Madden's Concise History of the Crusades. (I haven't read the revised edition, only the original one.)

Also, a point that is often ignored (and especially so by Islamic apologists) is the context of the Crusades. They did not occur in a vaccum. Islam had been expanding for four hundred years prior to 1099 at a tremendous rate, conquering huge territories of Christendom, including major centres of Christian thought: the whole of North Africa, Syria-Palestine, and Anatolia. Also, several territories which were conquered but not held were Spain, Portugal, southern France, and the Caucausus. Islam had thus encircled Europe from East to West. It is important to keep this in mind when considering the events of 1099.

The Crusades started out as efforts to free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Over several decades they developed into religious wars against non-Christians.

Does this mean that the Arabs should have our support?

Please, Muslims, not Arabs. Culturally Islam's a religion of three major peoples, Arabs, Persians, and Turks. The region where the Crusader States were established was largely Arab in population, but the great lights of classical Islamic culture were as often Persian as Arab (Avicenna, for example), and the military and political leaders were of all three language groups. (Saladin was Kurdish, for example, which is to say from a people who spoke an Iranian language, thus related to Persian.) As for Spain, its period of grandeur was under Arab rulers, the later Umayyads, and its decline was hastened with the introduction of Berber armies after the turn of the millennium (yet another distinct people important in parts of Islamic history). But enough with minor quibbles.

[punk]

Time to spice this up...

So far this thread has agreed that the Muslim world of c. 1100 CE was a superior civilization to the Christian European world of c. 1100 CE (i.e. the Muslims inherited the classical civilization and the Christians had driven Europe into a Dark Ages which they were only emerging from by learning from the Muslims). This means the Crusades represented barbarian Christians invading the lands of civilized Muslims.

Now, if we apply the reasoning the Objectivists apply to the current conflict between the civilized West and the barbarian Muslim World, we should conclude that the Muslims not only had the moral right to drive the barbarian Christians from their (the Muslim's) lands in c. 1100 CE, but they also had the moral right to invade and civilize barbarian Europe (i.e. set Christian Europe's house in order).

[DavidOdden]

Now, if we apply the reasoning the Objectivists apply to the current conflict between the civilized West and the barbarian Muslim World, we should conclude that the Muslims not only had the moral right to drive the barbarian Christians from their (the Muslim's) lands in c. 1100 CE, but they also had the moral right to invade and civilize barbarian Europe (i.e. set Christian Europe's house in order).

Yes, but Iceland had an even greater moral right to invade mainland Europe and drive the more barbarian Christians out of office (they were of course Christian, but politically were more correct that the rest of Europe). And yet, here we are, not speaking Icelandic. I admit that the Icelanders would be at a cultural disadvantage compared to those flourishing under the Golden Age of Islam, but the question is not who has the better art and music, rather it is which government respects the rights of individuals the best. The fact that some culture has crappy music is not what decides whether its government can rightly be deposed by another.

[punk]

Yes, but Iceland had an even greater moral right to invade mainland Europe and drive the more barbarian Christians out of office (they were of course Christian, but politically were more correct that the rest of Europe). And yet, here we are, not speaking Icelandic. I admit that the Icelanders would be at a cultural disadvantage compared to those flourishing under the Golden Age of Islam, but the question is not who has the better art and music, rather it is which government respects the rights of individuals the best. The fact that some culture has crappy music is not what decides whether its government can rightly be deposed by another.

By "culture" was intended the classical civilization, not art and music. The Muslim world preserved Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrites, Galen, and so on. That is science, mathematics, medicine and all that.

Essentially when the Christians were taking over the Roman Empire and suppressing classical pagan culture people fled to Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran). Compare this to all the scientists that fled Germany to the US when the Nazis took over (moving the US from basically being number 4 in the sciences and science education to being number 1).

Islam of course arose after all this, but took over the areas where the sciences were flourishing and basically let them be. It perhaps even encouraged the spread of the sciences into the Iberian Peninsula.

It seems like it was the take over of the Muslim Empire by the Ottoman Turks which pushed the area into the Dark Ages that it seems to have descended into.

Edited October 21, 2005 by punk

[Adrian Hester]

Essentially when the Christians were taking over the Roman Empire and suppressing classical pagan culture people fled to Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran).

I'm not sure of your point here. Yes, many Jews fled persecution to Mesopotamia and Persia, and that's where the members of the old Academy of Plato went too for a short while when it was closed under Justinian, but that had nothing to do with Islam; they fled to the Sassanid empire, which was officially Zoroastrian and by and large tolerated other religions. (Though not Roman Catholicism, which was the state religion of the enemy, Rome; and there were persecutions from time to time of Judaism and Nestorian Christianity.)

[jrs]

Even today, some Muslim countries tolerate slavery and persecute non-Muslims, e.g. Sudan.

I heard that the first Crusade was in response to the burning down of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (the holiest site to Christians where Jesus was buried and resurrected) by Muslims.

[Adrian Hester]

Islam of course arose after all this, but took over the areas where the sciences were flourishing and basically let them be. It perhaps even encouraged the spread of the sciences into the Iberian Peninsula.

It seems like it was the take over of the Muslim Empire by the Ottoman Turks which pushed the area into the Dark Ages that it seems to have descended into.

Heh, you must have added to this just as I was replying to it. I'd say the decline long predated the Ottomans. In general, Islamic learning flourished when there were rulers willing and able to patronize it, just as in other premodern states. One precondition for this was a fairly honest bureaucracy with regular pay that didn't press too hard on the taxpayers, rule centralized enough not to lead to frequent civil wars among local underlings jockeying for power, and rulers who weren't the figureheads of tribal or ethnic factions. It also required a love of high culture, or at least a desire on the part of the ruling elite for the glory of supporting high culture, and thus the fruits of peace and prosperity. The earlier Abbasids managed this (certainly before the introduction of Turkic mercenary armies in the mid-800s), as did the Umayyads in Spain, the Samanids in eastern Persia, and the early Seljuks. Also some of the early Ottomans (to some extent anyway). However, as in all premodern states there was a strong tendency to decentralization, to the rise of mercenary armies, to corruption (such as the rise of hereditary estates in lands meant to support officials only when in office) and vast economic despoliation, and to religious fundamentalism attacking worldly knowledge. These all hampered the preservation and spread of scientific knowledge and the ideas of antiquity.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[DavidOdden]

By "culture" was intended the classical civilization, not art and music.

Culture isn't limited to art and music: I was simply abbreviating some of the concretes. The point which you're deftly dancing around is that having a superior civilization is not what justifies invading another nation. Even if that civilization is the continuation of ancient Greek civilization. We may have great respect for the Greeks, but there are limits.

[Alon]

Time to spice this up...

...

Now, if we apply the reasoning the Objectivists apply to the current conflict between the civilized West and the barbarian Muslim World, we should conclude that the Muslims not only had the moral right to drive the barbarian Christians from their (the Muslim's) lands in c. 1100 CE, but they also had the moral right to invade and civilize barbarian Europe (i.e. set Christian Europe's house in order).

(Emphasis added)

Punk, this is a rather silly statement. Having a superior civilization (and for the sake of simplicity, lets qualify this statement to mean greater recognition of individual rights) does not give that civilization a free hand to crush any less civilized neighbour. It does have a moral right to vanquish enemies when they threaten that civilization.

Now in our example, Christianity presented no threat to Islam in the early centuries of the conflict. Islam easily swept through North Africa, the Middle East up to Turkey, and Spain. It was only stopped in the west in southern France and in the east somewhere south of the Ukraine. Christendom was surrounded and cut off from its major centres of intellectual thought and economy within 150 years of Islam's rise in Arabia.

I think according to Objectivist reasoning you would be correct to argue that Islam had a right to drive back the Crusaders (despite the fact that, given the context, the Crusaders were on the defensive), but saying that Islam had a right to conquer all of Europe is nonsensical. Europe no longer proved a threat to the Muslim world. Wars cost money, resources, and lives. A nation does not have a right to spend the resources and lives of its citizens because of higher civilization unless its existence is in danger, and even then, individuals are not the property of government, to spend and allocate how it wishes.

Simply put, only defensive wars can be considered moral, and Islam's was a war of aggression from its birth.

[punk]

(Emphasis added)

Punk, this is a rather silly statement. Having a superior civilization (and for the sake of simplicity, lets qualify this statement to mean greater recognition of individual rights) does not give that civilization a free hand to crush any less civilized neighbour. It does have a moral right to vanquish enemies when they threaten that civilization.

Now in our example, Christianity presented no threat to Islam in the early centuries of the conflict. Islam easily swept through North Africa, the Middle East up to Turkey, and Spain. It was only stopped in the west in southern France and in the east somewhere south of the Ukraine. Christendom was surrounded and cut off from its major centres of intellectual thought and economy within 150 years of Islam's rise in Arabia.

I think according to Objectivist reasoning you would be correct to argue that Islam had a right to drive back the Crusaders (despite the fact that, given the context, the Crusaders were on the defensive), but saying that Islam had a right to conquer all of Europe is nonsensical. Europe no longer proved a threat to the Muslim world. Wars cost money, resources, and lives. A nation does not have a right to spend the resources and lives of its citizens because of higher civilization unless its existence is in danger, and even then, individuals are not the property of government, to spend and allocate how it wishes.

Simply put, only defensive wars can be considered moral, and Islam's was a war of aggression from its birth.

Actually I wholly agree with you.

What I really intended by that statement was a back-handed comment on some of the things the more shrill Objectivists are advocating the US do in the current political situation.

Edited October 21, 2005 by punk

[HaloNoble6]

Remember that an "Objectivist" cannot advocate a position that is contrary to Objectivism and remain an Objectivist. Let's not call "Objectivists" those who advocate positions that are contrary to Objectivism.

[punk]

Culture isn't limited to art and music: I was simply abbreviating some of the concretes. The point which you're deftly dancing around is that having a superior civilization is not what justifies invading another nation. Even if that civilization is the continuation of ancient Greek civilization. We may have great respect for the Greeks, but there are limits.

I'm sorry. There was a school of historical analysis that distinguished "civilization" (Zivilization...it was originally German) from "culture" (Kultur). "Civilization" denoted basically technical achievement, and "culture" denoted basically artistic achievement. I thought that sort of thought was what you were getting at.

Heh, you must have added to this just as I was replying to it. I'd say the decline long predated the Ottomans. In general, Islamic learning flourished when there were rulers willing and able to patronize it, just as in other premodern states. One precondition for this was a fairly honest bureaucracy with regular pay that didn't press too hard on the taxpayers, rule centralized enough not to lead to frequent civil wars among local underlings jockeying for power, and rulers who weren't the figureheads of tribal or ethnic factions. It also required a love of high culture, or at least a desire on the part of the ruling elite for the glory of supporting high culture, and thus the fruits of peace and prosperity. The earlier Abbasids managed this (certainly before the introduction of Turkic mercenary armies in the mid-800s), as did the Umayyads in Spain, the Samanids in eastern Persia, and the early Seljuks. Also some of the early Ottomans (to some extent anyway). However, as in all premodern states there was a strong tendency to decentralization, to the rise of mercenary armies, to corruption (such as the rise of hereditary estates in lands meant to support officials only when in office) and vast economic despoliation, and to religious fundamentalism attacking worldly knowledge. These all hampered the preservation and spread of scientific knowledge and the ideas of antiquity.

The civilization of the early islamic world is a topic I've been interested in lately, but haven't been able to find a good book on, so my knowledge here is fragmentary.

From what little I know, it seem that most of the great names (including non-Muslims) from this civilization: Al-Farabi, Ibn-Rushd, Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, etc. come from the later part of the pre-Ottoman Muslim Empire, so the impression one is left with is that the rise of the Ottomans at least coincided with the end of whatever produced them.

[Adrian Hester]

From what little I know, it seem that most of the great names (including non-Muslims) from this civilization: Al-Farabi, Ibn-Rushd, Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, etc. come from the later part of the pre-Ottoman Muslim Empire, so the impression one is left with is that the rise of the Ottomans at least coincided with the end of whatever produced them.

I'd say a more important factor (which among other things led to the spread of the Ottomans) was the Mongol conquest, which was horribly destructive. As one example, the great poet Rudaki (the first major Persian poet after the Arab conquest) was recorded as having written 100,000 lines of poetry, though another poet said he actually wrote 13 times that. However, very little of it survives (only a thousand lines or so) because the rest was destroyed by the Mongols. (His oeuvre might even have made up some of the manuscripts they fed to their horses.)