How did the Crusaders reconcile their militancy with the idea of Christian pacifism?
I understand that the Crusades likely were more for political/economic reasons than religious ones, but many of the common soldiers and knights were motivated by their faith. And at the very least, the knights in holy orders like the templars must have had a little more knowledge of the religion than the serf-turned-crusader.
How did they explain the discrepancy? I don't know much of the Bible, but I do seem to recall that most of the war and possible justifications for war are in the Old Testament, usually the Israelites killing people (correct me if I'm wrong). Are there any justifications for militancy in the New Testament? Or that Jesus himself might have given?
pic unrelated
>>478549
Well, first of all, the average crusader couldn't even read the bible. It didn't start getting mass produced until after the reformation. Also, we're talking about the Catholic Church. If the pope says something and can find a way to back it up with scripture/tradition, then they consider it to be righteous. They didn't just believe that God allowed the crusades, they believed that he WILLED them. Thus the term, Deus Vult.
>>478571
So how did the church typically explain it away? Did the even use the Bible or were they really that duped?
>>478574
I'm not totally privy to exactly what scripture urban might have used as justification, if any, but like I said, it probably didn't require much convincing. And when it came to the church at that time, they pretty much had a monopoly on what was okay in Christianity and what was not. And like I said, most people couldn't read, and if they could, the bible was only printed in Latin at the time. The way we think about war and religion nowadays is just different than how someone from a thousand years ago did.
>>478549
Christianity is rife with contradictions. An amalgamation of monotheism, dualism and animism. Why not look at how christians killed eachother in the tens of thousands over slight differences in interpretation when Catholics fought Protestants?
>>478602
Differences between Catholics and Protestants were just as political as the reasons for Crusades
>>478549
>I understand that the Crusades likely were more for political/economic reasons than religious ones
You would be wrong, there is no evidence for financial or political interest behind the crusades.
Remember that it was just meant to be a helping hand for Byzantium. Catholics were never supposed to get anything from the first crusade. Nobody in the West knew the Byzantines would give up and Catholics would get the land themselves.
Also, it wasn't a centralized event. It's not like the king of France or elsewhere decided that all those nobles would heed the call. It just happened. Faith is still the best explanation.
As for your question, it's simple: the casus belli was the defense of the Christians of Orient. Read Urban II speech, it was basically "the Turks are killing all the Christians over there, we can't let that happen!"
Not so different from any modern interventionist war (not talking about the war on terror here, more like "Saddam is killing everyone, we've got to stop him!)
There was this absolute madman Bernard of Clairvaux (one of the first supporters of the knights templar) who defended the idea of the ''warrior monk'' and thats the only shit I know and im sure somebody else can further elaborate.
>>478598
>because you cant read
Most of the Crusaders were literate. In fact the Crusader States had the highest literacy of all Christendom bar the Byzantines.
>>478549
The Pope has the power to give indulgences which are basically get out of hell free cards. He gave them to all crusaders. So anything you do on the crusade isn't a sin because the pope said the magic word.
The actual war itself was justified with Saint Augustine's Just War Doctrine which basically says it's not a sin to kill sinners.
So the short answer is that Catholicism, they can lawyer their way around anything they want.
>How did the Crusaders reconcile their militancy with the idea of Christian pacifism?
Cognitive dissonance
>>478549
>How did the Crusaders reconcile their militancy with the idea of Christian pacifism?
That was pretty much the whole idea behind the first crusade, creating religious warfare by going on an armed pilgrimage
>I understand that the Crusades likely were more for political/economic reasons than religious ones
There were hardly any economic gains to make, the crusades had hardly any real impact on europe, they were however purely religiously motivated with the idea of uniting Europe through Christianity
It's simple. Religion no matter how seemingly peaceful will always succumb to humanity's animal nature of relegating people to an in-group or an out-group. The in-group is always privy to the boons and the out-group is where the negative tendencies are directed. Always.
>>478602
>slight differences
Heretic pls
>>478549
Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When,' truly',' having fulfilled his vow be wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, "He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Here is the full speech
http://www.donparrish.com/EssayPopeUrban.html
Essentially drum up religious fervor while also convincing the nobles of Europe that they could absolve all their sins and claim land to rule over in the Holy Lands.
