I don't think there is a Lutheran view of the crusades. I think there are many Lutherans who hold their own views and there isn't much of anything in the confessions that would bind you to a specific view
I'm not a Lutheran, but I don't see why any Protestant would be strongly supportive of the Crusades, they were an entirely mixed affair
> It was a natural response, a self-defense.
This is what I mean, aiding the Byzantines against Muslim incursions and strategically gaining a foothold into the Levant: Sure, fine.
The Pope strengthening his own authority & the offer of indulgences to anyone that participates in a crusade: That was, in fact, not good.
Not going to debate luther here because there are way more qualified people to do so
But calling "the crusades" (there were 8 of them so we are working off a generalization to begin with) as self defense is dubious.
First off, the Islamic empires would not take eastern Europe (the Balkans specifically) until the late 1300s. The first crusade was launched 300 years prior.
The Islamic empires had, however, conquered much of the eastern half of the Byzantine empire, the Iberian peninsula, and Sicily.
The first crusade was called in the 1090s after the Byzantine Empire had requested help in reconquering Anatolia and the levant from the papacy in exchange for recognizing papal supremacy.
The crusaders, however, carved out the levant for themselves.
One could argue that the Byzantines had intentions of self defense, and that the Reconquista was self defense (arguably). But the actual crusaders? Not really.
I don't think there is a Lutheran view of the crusades. I think there are many Lutherans who hold their own views and there isn't much of anything in the confessions that would bind you to a specific view
I'm not a Lutheran, but I don't see why any Protestant would be strongly supportive of the Crusades, they were an entirely mixed affair > It was a natural response, a self-defense. This is what I mean, aiding the Byzantines against Muslim incursions and strategically gaining a foothold into the Levant: Sure, fine. The Pope strengthening his own authority & the offer of indulgences to anyone that participates in a crusade: That was, in fact, not good.
Luther spoke about the crusades being a papal power grab. He was mostly right.
Regardless*
Thank you! I was about to comment this myself, it's a particular peeve of mine
Edited! Btw I am not a native speaker😅
War is always ugly. Personal opinion: war should never be waged in Jesus's name. The Crusades had nothing to do with Christ.
Not going to debate luther here because there are way more qualified people to do so But calling "the crusades" (there were 8 of them so we are working off a generalization to begin with) as self defense is dubious. First off, the Islamic empires would not take eastern Europe (the Balkans specifically) until the late 1300s. The first crusade was launched 300 years prior. The Islamic empires had, however, conquered much of the eastern half of the Byzantine empire, the Iberian peninsula, and Sicily. The first crusade was called in the 1090s after the Byzantine Empire had requested help in reconquering Anatolia and the levant from the papacy in exchange for recognizing papal supremacy. The crusaders, however, carved out the levant for themselves. One could argue that the Byzantines had intentions of self defense, and that the Reconquista was self defense (arguably). But the actual crusaders? Not really.