The First Crusade: Just War?

Yes, I know, I've only posted on article on the Sacraments. I've had a form of writer's block for much of the week, they'll come when they come, I suppose. Until then, I've decided to continue posting arguments and debates I've written for other purposes and places. Enjoy!

Ok, let's start with Just War theory in Catholicism. The Catechism, paragraph 2309 states:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Now let's examine the history of what happened.

A brief overview would show us that the Holy Land was up to the Arabic invasions, part of the Byzantine Roman Empire for almost a millennium. A good 700 years at least, the Caesars had ruled Palestine. This is historical fact.

Now, Mohammed and the Arab tribes he united, waged a lot of war. The expansion of the first caliphate's empire was impressive in speed and scope. From the conquest of Mecca, Mohammed and his followers turned to the rest of Arabia, made inroads up the Palestinian coast, along the North African coast, and into Persia.

Since we're dealing with the Crusades, we'll address specifically the wars between the Arabs and the Byzantines. What we have is pretty clearly a war of aggression on the part of the Arab nomadic tribes and a defensive war on the part of the Byzantines, indeed, the Byzantines were on the defensive for almost the entirety of the time between about 700 AD and 1453, when Constantinople finally fell to the Turks.

As this war progressed, Byzantine possessions were falling everywhere, Byzantine works of art, culture, religion etc. were being destroyed, Byzantine subjects mistreated, etc. all the usual turmoil of a war not just between empires but between cultures. Remember that the battle was at least partially religious in nature, and partially commercial and territorial. That the Arabs were the aggressors in all senses cannot be denied, they were previously nomadic tribes living in the Arabian desert, continually raiding one another, and trading amongst themselves. As much as they were fighting to spread Islam and control the Dome of the Rock, they were also fighting to gain access to lucrative trade routes, and more civilized territory.

And the Byzantines were, of course, no less self-interested. They were fighting to survive and hold onto their possessions and their trade, and their culture and ways of life.

Entering into this already twisted tangle were the Turks, who worked at conquering both the Arabs and the Byzantines, and who converted to Sunni Islam. It was under the Turks that things really got interesting, as they came to dominate the aggression against the Byzantines.

So what happened? Well, as things worsened for the Byzantines, as the Arabs and Turks were proving dramatically more effective on the field than the traditional Byzantine armies, the Byzantine emperor appealed to the Pope for aid. At this point, the Schism of 1054 had already occurred, and the West and East sections of the Church had already fallen out over authority and the Filoque clause. The Byzantine Emperor appealed anyway, a significant step, given the estrangement. The Pope then appealed to the Kings and Nobles of Western Europe, asking them to send aid to the Byzantines. The possible reasons for this call to aid are many, from establishing Catholic authority in the East, to protecting a brother Christian nation, to protecting Western Christian caravans and convoys of pilgrims (the fighting between the Turks and Arabs was as much of a problem in this instance as anything else), to a fear that Muslim invasions into Europe would only grow worse if the Byzantines fell (recall that at this point, the Muslims had already invaded into Spain, Sicily, France, etc., and had only truly been turned back at Tours). They still held much of Spain, particularly in the south, and controlled a lot of the Mediterranean, and it's entirely possible the Pope was worried about further invasions. A still further possibility was the desire to send Europe's knights off to do something other than kill each other, as the collapse of the Carolinian dynasty had led to internecine warfare.

My own belief on the subject is that it was a combination of all of these factors, and no single one was likely particularly dominant. But that's speculation, of course.

So, the Crusade itself. Armed pilgrims and warriors from Europe depart for the Byzantine Empire, which, incidentally, promised aid and supplies for those soldiers, and then reneged on its arrangement (they had some cause, since a group of peasants and lesser knights had already caused massive problems for the Byzantines in terms of supply). The cooperation lasted through the siege of Nicaea, and ended after Antioch.

Finally Jerusalem, and the siege which ended when Genoese ships were dismantled to be used as siege engines. The accounts of slaughter in Jerusalem are hard to substantiate. Several are riddled with liftings of language from the Bible, and others are accounts from non-eyewitnesses. And it certainly wasn't a "kill all Muslims" sort of situation, either, there are numerous references to living Muslims, to accepted surrenders, etc. Certainly it was a bloody end to the siege, assaults on walled cities always are.

So we return at least to the prominent question: "Was this a justifiable war?"

Certainly the damage to the Byzantine's by the Seljuk Turks and the Arab caliphates before them was lasting, certain and grave. The conquests were continual, and the only respite the Byzantine's knew was through the Crusade's efforts. And equally certain is that the Byzantines were on the defensive, fighting for their provinces which had been conquered or were being conquered. And finally, it is certain that the Crusade was a response on the part of Western Europe, particularly the Frankish kingdoms, to a call for aid from the Byzantines.

As to whether other means were tried, or effective, in ending the fighting, I do not know. I suspect, however, that they were certainly not effective, if tried, that much is obvious. Whether diplomatic means would be taken seriously by anyone at the time, given the unceasing aggression against the Byzantines I find quite doubtful.

As for the serious prospect of success, the First Crusade could hardly be called a doomed effort. It succeeded in relieving the Byzantines, capturing Jerusalem, etc.

The final aspect is the most interesting. Did the use of arms promote or create a greater evil than the one being defended against? In the first Crusade, most of the war was a series of battles and sieges progressing through Anatolia and into Palestine. Did they promote or incur a graver evil than the wars already raging? No. They were typical of any war of that period in their scope and means, thus they didn't use excessive force nor involve some graver evil.

Now, if there was a whole sale slaughter of Muslim citizens in Jerusalem analogous to a genocide, then there'd be a problem. But even the most colorful accounts which revel in bloody "glory" recall stories of Muslims being allowed to surrender and live and leave, etc. I would argue that it was a siege, like any other, and the city was pillaged, but that there was no whole sale slaughter of all Muslims or anything like it.

So yes, I'd say the First Crusade represents a possibly just war.