The Rhetoric of Holy War

THE POST-ROMAN WEST and THE CRUSADING MOVEMENT HIST 1301 | History The Rhetoric of Holy War Christianity and human history are not new when it comes to the use of religion as an excuse for violence. However, violent acts place Christians in the uncomfortable situation of committing a serious sin and jeopardising their souls, according to Christian theology. The majority of Christian intellectuals, including Augustine of Hippo (354–430), had maintained that certain uses of force, including punishing offenders and repelling invaders, had to be accepted for the benefit of the society. Above all, a monarch or other acknowledged public authority was required to declare war in public. From this vantage point, Christians attempted to define what constitutes a "just war" or acceptable conflict, but the concept of a "holy war" did not emerge until the time of the crusades. Hence, a crusade was a "just war" that the pope, who promised spiritual benefits, called for. The pope's approval was not always sought by Christian kings before launching an attack on their non-Christian adversaries, according to this technical definition of crusade. There was very nothing that stopped past rulers from believing that God approved of some acts of violence or that God encouraged them to use force, particularly against non-Christians. In his battles against non-Christian peoples, Charlemagne made this claim and, upon his victory, forced the Saxons to become Christians. However, traditional Christian thought did not support the notion of waging war against other religions. Violence was seen by Christians as something that should be kept to a minimum and only used when necessary for defence. The older idea of a crusade was broadened to encompass Muslim kingdoms in Spain or elsewhere, non-Christian populations in Europe, and even the political rivalries of the pope. The Crusades complicated that formal definition. As a result of the Crusades, many came to believe that fighting for God was "just war," even if it wasn't defensive or supported by the populace. Urban, Peter the Hermit, and other conjurers conjured up pictures that suggested the Muslim occupancy of the Holy Land was unfair and that the Christian population was persecuted. This concept of Christian suffering dates back to the early church period, when Christians were persecuted by Rome for practicing an underground religion. While some historians have conjectured that the crusade was mostly joined by the younger sons of nobles, those who had little to inherit from their fathers, the truth was more nuanced. Together with knights, commoners (including the impoverished), ladies, the ill, and the elderly joined; influential nobility also responded to the appeal. To get the funds required to join the crusade, many people gave up their own land and possessions. The journey to Constantinople in particular was difficult because there were few facilities or routes to follow. Others may have been driven only by the desire to experience the earthly Jerusalem as a means of preparing for the heavenly Jerusalem that awaited them when they died and subsequently went home. Still others may have planned to acquire land if they stayed in the Holy Land. Others' motivations were less selfless. Jewish communities in the Rhineland were particularly vulnerable to attacks by plundering crusaders who demanded money from Jewish communities in exchange for their peace, thanks to the hate speech directed against non-Christians. German Jews were forced to provide supplies for the crusading bands of Peter the Hermit and other individuals whose goals were obviously religious. The Crusades signalled the start of unstable times for Jewish communities in Christian Europe, when they were vulnerable to mistreatment, deportation, and unexpected violence—even though the church forbade violence. Islam, in contrast to ancient Christianity, has had a concept of holy conflict termed jihad since its inception. Arabic for "struggle" is jihad, which can refer to a variety of things. The fight against weakness and self-doubt may be considered a sort of jihad by Sufi mystics. Under different conditions, Christians, Muslims, and Jews might all be friends in the fight against evil. The challenge of defining jihad and setting it apart from other battles is comparable to that of defining the crusade. Muslims were commanded by the Quran to refrain from hostilities with Christians and Jews unless those individuals had somehow provoked Muslims. Similar to the concept of a "crusade," jihad need to be declared by a legitimate authority, such the caliph or a prominent Muslim cleric. Thus, jihad and the concept of a "just war" for Christianity are comparable in several respects. In actuality, though, Muslim and Christian monarchs could both fight their unbelieving neighbours without issuing a formal proclamation of jihad and yet maintain that their acts served Islam and were sanctioned by Allah. Islam holds that because Jews and Christians practise monotheistic religions, they should be accepted. But in most cases, the notion of seeking to accomplish God's will also included the possibility of violent confrontation and conquest. A monarch was seen to be failing in his obligations if he did not care to strive against non-Muslims. Similar notions started to influence how Christians, particularly in Spain, saw their own disputes with Islam. One such belief was that areas that were formerly Christian should always be Christian, and the Holy Land was seen as especially belonging to Christians, despite the region's importance to both Muslims and Jews. When trying to do God's will, it was hard to discover subtlety.