why matamoros, crudades

[m j anderson]

Karen Willmus wrote:

> I'm a little surprised in this "Matamoros" discussion on a "Christian" list
> that no one has brought up the obvious:
>
> Historical references such as the Matamoros, the Crusades, ... you name
> it...are things that we as Christians should point out as examples of how we
> sin --

Some have pointed out that this is not a "Christian list" but isn't the full
resonance of the Camino is missed if its Christian context is ignored, reduced
to sentiment (rather than doctrine & action) or if its history is rewritten for
the comfort of modern seekers of all stripes?

Below is a commentary on the crusades that I think is worth thinking about. The
Crusades were not wrong, though some individual crusaders were dispicable---this
is the condition of humanity--in every grouping, there are good and bad
examples. But let us remember that the context of the crusades cannot be
discarded if one has a genuine desire to understand Camino history.

Ultreya!
MJ Anderson
* *


A Concise History of the Crusades
Madden, Thomas F. (Professor of history at St. Louis University)

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. Generally portrayed as a
series of
unprovoked holy wars against Islam, they are supposed to have been the epitome
of
self-righteousness and intolerance -- a black stain on the history of the
Catholic Church in particular
and Western, Christian civilization in general. Since September 11, variations
of this theme have
been used to explain -- even justify -- Muslim terror against the West. Former
president Bill Clinton
himself, in a speech at Georgetown University, fingered Muslim anger at the
Crusades as the "root
cause" of the present conflict.

But the truth is that the Crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or
unprovoked aggression --
and in A Concise History of the Crusades, renowned medieval historian Thomas F.
Madden sets
the record straight. The Crusades, he shows, were not the brainchild of an
ambitious pope or
rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in
which Muslims had
already captured two thirds of the old Christian world. At some point,
Christianity as a faith and a
culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that
defense. Their entire
subsequent history is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances -- they were no
more offensive
than was the American invasion of Normandy.

               Get hundreds of "politically incorrect" facts like these:

     Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the
means of
     Muslim expansion was always the sword.


     With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the
Christians shortly after
     Mohammed's death. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt -- once the most heavily
Christian areas in
     the world -- quickly succumbed.


     By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North
Africa and Spain.
     In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern
Turkey), which had
     been Christian since the time of St. Paul.


     The Byzantine Empire was reduced to little more than Greece. In
desperation, the emperor in
     Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to
aid their
     brothers and sisters in the East.


     The end of the medieval Crusades did not bring an end to Muslim jihad --
Islamic states like
     Mamluk Egypt continued to expand in size and power, and the Ottoman Turks
built the
     largest and most awesome state in Muslim history.


     Under Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks came within a hair's breadth of
capturing Vienna,
     which would have left all of Germany at their mercy. At that point Crusades
were no longer
     waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself.


     It is often asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and
ne'er-do-wells who took
     advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. Recent
scholarship has
     demolished that contrivance. The truth is that the Crusades were
notoriously bad for plunder.
     A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.


     It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced
conversion of the Muslim
     world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Muslims who lived in
Crusader-won
     territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood,
and always their
     religion.


     It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion
efforts among
     Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any
case, such efforts
     were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.


     Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not
to kill Jews.
     Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the
Jews of Europe
     were to be left unmolested.


     The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further
unifying Islam, but
     also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging
deep into Europe
     itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy
for a distant
     people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to
survive.
     Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally
achieve its aim of
     conquering the entire Christian world.


     In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of
freak rainstorms
     that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his
artillery, it is virtually
     certain that the Turks would have taken the city.


     Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know
today would
     not exist without their efforts. Without the Crusades, Christianity might
well have followed
     Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.