Holy+War+in+Christianity

Holy War in Christianity
The funny thing about the origins of the Crusades is that Holy War was not a pillar of Christian teaching until quite some time after the death of Jesus Christ. Therein lies the great contradiction of medieval Christianity: turn the other cheek and do unto others as you would have them do unto you....but only if they are Christians. In fact, several historians have even argued that the army of the later Roman Empire was significantly populated by Christians who did not believe in killing in any way shape or form. This trend was so detrimental that there are records of entire armies refusing to fight. So, how did things change by 1095 to such an extent that Pope Urban II was able to call all Christians to not only fight and kill, but do so in the name of God?

The answer, to some extent, is that Pope Urban and others sought to justify their thinking by reaching into the past. They drew on the teachings of Church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo (d. AD 430) who was one of the first to break away from the pacifist character of Christianity. He wrote on the idea of "just war" and what constitutes appropriate reasons for engaging in violence.

//An image of Augustine of Hippo in later life. In the top left-hand corner of the image we can see the word "Veritas" ("truth").//

An extract that may help to understand Augustine's position is below:

//"According to the eternal law, which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, some actions have an indifferend [that is, neutral] character, so that men are blamed for presumption if they do them without being called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing them when required. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his own accord is shocking madness. His doing so at the commend of God proves him faithful and submissive..."// Augustine - extract from Allen, S.J & Amt, E. (eds.), //The Crusades: A Reader//, (Sydney, UNSW Press) 2003, p.7

So: 1. There is an eternal law, i.e. God, that governs all and the natural order 2. All men and women must follow the natural order 3. To go against this order is bad and wrong 4. To follow this order is good and right 5. To follow this "proves him faithful and submissive".

This certainly would have appealed to Urban and would have been a handy justification for any future military endeavours that could be underpinned with spiritual motives and aims. For more depth, read the rest of the extract available in //The Crusades: A Reader//, and answer the questions on page 9.

__**
 * __Johnathan Phillips

In //The Crusades 1095-1197//, Phillips states:

"With regards to the justification of violence, it should be noted that there was a recent tradition of papal involvement in warfare. Pope Leo IX had fought the Normans of Sicily in 1053 and in 1074 Pope Gregory VII had tried to assemble a group of knights known as the '//milites sancti Petri//' (the knights of Saint Peter) to implement papal policy. The main justification for the practice of war, however, was through reference to authoritative texts. By using the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) it was possible to construct a case whereby Christian violence could be commanded by God through his representative on earth - the pope - and if it was performed in the right circumstances (a just cause) and with the right intent (proper motivation) it was an act of Christian love. Part of this cause was Urban's call for a war of Christian liberation. Liberation was an idea very much in vogue at this time. The Reform Church was trying to free itself from the control of secular authorities in the struggle known as the Investiture Contest. Also...Sicily and parts of the Iberian peninsula were captured by Catholics in the latter half of the eleventh century."

So: 1. There was some historical precedent for the idea of "just" or "Holy" war in the eyes of the Church in the 11th century. 2. There was a strong emphasis on the need to use "authoritative" texts to justify their actions. 3. The pope would be the 'commander' and symbolic leader of the combined armies of Christian liberation - taking power away from secular authorities. 4. This liberation was an "act of Christian love" if based on a) a just cause and b) proper motivation.

In the following part of his book, Phillips argues that the alternative explanation, i.e. that the real reason for the call to crusade was in response to a letter by the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus to the Council of Piacenza in March 1095, is incorrect. This was put forward by Carl Erdmann in the 1930s, and, according to Phillips, influenced much of the understanding of the origins of the First Crusade since then. He refutes this argument stating that since the 1980s, historians have used charters (documents which record the cursader's sale or mortgage of lands or rights) and other evidence to prove that most crusaders intended (or at least left a record that stated their intention) to go on crusade to liberate Jerusalem. Not to help the Byzantines. Jerusalem was the spiritual home of Christianity, a unifying goal and a perfect justification of Christian violence.

Phillips then goes on to argue that it will never be possible to ascertain the individual motives of every crusader, nor can it be ignored that there were secular motivations for many participants. This will be explored in depth in Crusader motivations.


 * __Learning activity:__**

Find an extract from another Crusades historian that puts forward an argument about Christian violence. What is their point of view regarding why Christians went on crusade? What evidence do they use to argue their point? Do they refer to any other historians or arguments? Are they limited by historical or historiographical context?