Just War, Just Cause, and Just Conduct

For decades the actions of those in less civilized centuries have been scrutinized and considered barbaric. An example is the Crusades. Many historians say the Holy Wars were deplorable acts of zealotry. The consensus is that the Europeans were motivated by ambition and fanaticism. That they saw the Land of Milk and Honey and sought to exploit it. Their venture is depicted as a rash and uncalculated scheme leaning towards financial and political gain. However, those that makes these claims seem to have ignored the cost of Crusading and decades of planning. The truth is most who "Took up the Cross" lost lands, estates, and much of their inheritance. It was costly business to crusade and most of those who committed to the cause sold their 'stock' and went to the Holy Land nearly penniless.

As for the Clergy who evoked the call to crusade, well they weren't naves. They knew about the Greek and Roman causes for war. They knew the implications of Just War, Just Cause, and Just Conduct. Just War was coined by Aristotle, who claimed you could go to war if it was for the sake of peace, to defend your territories, expand the empire, and etc. Just Cause was coined by the Romans, who said that if you entered into contract with another nation and they broke it, you had just cause to go to war with them. Finally there is Just conduct, which Cicero said was how warriors were to conduct themselves in battle: this meant being courageous and valorous and chivalrous. These concepts were fresh in the minds of those who called for holy war. Therefore it perplexes me why people today accuse the crusades of being bigoted and intolerant, when the crusaders adhered to the Greek Rules of War.

At the time of The First Crusade, the Turks had conquered Palestine and much of Europe. Southern Italy, Spain, and Africa were under Turkish control. In these occupied places, reports reached all of Christendom of the mistreatment of Christians under Turkish rule. Finally Byzantine (Byzantine was north of Palestine or modern day Israel, It's capital Constantinople) called for aid. They had lost many of their territories and now were being oppressed by the Turkish forces. In response to this growing threat, Pope Urban II at Clermont called for all warriors to take up the cross and go liberate their brothers. Thus began the The First Crusade. The Turks were routed out of Europe and were chased all the way back to Palestine. Here it is important to understand the medieval mind: If you caused harm to me, if you were cruel and tried to invade my territory, I am obligated to beat you off my land and then go to your land and seize it as a reprimand. In short "an eye for an eye" was the medieval way of life. They could not afford to turn the other cheek, least it make them look weak and they be conquered. The Middle Ages were turbulent times, full of progress, innovation, threats, pestilence, and death. The average person only lived to forty years of age, leaving nations often in perpetual peril of being invaded. Some countries like England were conquered five to six times within the span of ten years (an estimate).

Finally believers today must try to reconcile Christians killing Saracens in the name of God. There is paradox that most theologians have not been able to understand. How is that God says to Moses, "You must kill (stone) murderers," and tells Saul to eradicate the Amalekites but then says "Love your enemy," and "turn the other cheek." Many are left wondering what the heck? How can these contradictions be reconciled? Doesn't it say God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? How can God condone and even encourage bloodshed one moment and then the next say be a pacifist? The point is context. The Medievalists understood that in the Latin there were two kinds of enemies: Inimicus which meant personal enemy, and hostis publicus which meant public enemy. The latter does not appear in the New Testament. Let me explain it like this: if my neighbor vexes or offends me, if someone I love hurts me, I do not take up my sword and slay them, but instead forgive them. But if a regime like the Nazis threatens my life and my nation, I am obligated to kill them. Thus there is distinction between private and public responsibilities. Christ doesn't mention the Romans who are occupying the Jews, but he does talk about the devil and the demonic legions that hold power over those who wield swords. The point is that a shift was happening: in the Old Testament the common people didn't have the Holy Spirit. Only kings and prophets could enter the presence of the Almighty. Thus evil had to be dealt with through slaughter, since the power to take on dark powers wasn't in the hands of the people. Post Christ this all changed, and the saints were given authority over the devil and could now fight the spiritual war that effects the physical world. Jesus did not support the zealot sect during his time because he knew challenging Rome militarily was futile. He knew to prevail over the Eagle, you had to use the Gospel. The Romans wouldn't respond to a sword, they needed a cross. They wouldn't marvel at the prowess of Jewish armies, but they would notice a people standing in the coliseum, singing praises as they were devoured by lions. God was able to see that a sword was not necessary to defeat Rome. However, the he did say a day would come "when you must pick up your swords."

The crusaders were faced with a threat unlike the Romans. In the Zealot Extremist perspective of Islam, to kill in the name of Allah is justifiable and even encouraged. The only thing better is to become a martyr (which guarantees salvation and twelve virgins). With the Turks the crusaders couldn't just turn the other cheek, they didn't respect Christian martyrdom. Instead the crusaders had to prove the might of Christ with a lance. The crusaders had to instill fear in these zealots and show them that the armies of Christendom were not to be underestimated. Eventually there were truces instituted and long periods of peace reigned between Christian and Moslem. In fact, contrary to common belief, the battles were in between long lulls and periods of peace.
    
What frustrates me is how pseudo-historians and ignorant people try to demonize the crusaders. These dogmatic individuals ignore that the soldiers of Christ applied the principles of Just War, Just Cause, and Just Conduct. The world today honors Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and the other philosophers: and yet for some reason they pick on religious people who merely obeyed the Greek precepts. The Crusaders had a just holy war: they had as Aristotle advised gone to war to defend their territories, liberate their oppressed brethren, and expanded their European empire. In fact, they fulfilled all the requirements for a just war. They also employed Just Conduct, by not butchering everyone in the Fall of Jerusalem (Read Rodney Stark's God's Battalions: The Case For The Crusades to get the full account) and they as Aristotle demanded maintained peace after their conquest. So according to Greek Rules, religious conviction, and humanitarian obligation the crusaders did what anyone would have done in their shoes. So before people go judging these men as bigots, they should try reading some Aristotle and Roman politico: because their beef is with more than clergy, its with the great philosophers, caesars, heroes, and politicians.

For Further Reading:

God's Battlelions: The Case For The Crusades, Rodney Stark. 

God's War, Christopher Tyerman (Oxford Historian).