Politics Does religion actually create wars?

[chargers 09]

Now i'm far from becoming a religous cleric, but It annoys me how people always say religion is the cause of all wars.

In the end i can only think of one war/conflict created by religion- the crusades?

So what do you guys think does religion cop a lot of flack for creating "all" conflicts in recorded history?

Can anyone add to my list of conflicts created by war?

 

[bit_pattern]

No. Money, greed, power and lust cause wars, religion simply justifies them.

 

[TheBloods]

Religion definitely has created, or contributed to, wars.

Religious based wars in 16th and 17thC Europe - e.g. wars of the reformation, 30YW - that's why 1520s-1700s were called the Age of Religious Wars.

The Crusades were religious based.

The Arab conquests were at least partly religious based.

Plenty of Byzantine wars had strong elements of religion to them.

Elements of religion to Aztec wars.

 

[chargers 09]

Religion definitely has created, or contributed to, wars.

Religious based wars in 16th and 17thC Europe - e.g. wars of the reformation, 30YW - that's why 1520s-1700s were called the Age of Religious Wars.

The Crusades were religious based.

The Arab conquests were at least partly religious based.

Plenty of Byzantine wars had strong elements of religion to them.

Elements of religion to Aztec wars.

This is my gripe, these wars are usually about gaining land and economic gain, although religion is a factor it is usually a minor factor. Im not a history expert but i assume you mean that Byzantine wars were the Ottoman conquests? If so the main motivation was gaining land the minor factor was spreading islam

 

[Mundy]

Now i'm far from becoming a religous cleric, but It annoys me how people always say religion is the cause of all wars.

In the end i can only think of one war/conflict created by religion- the crusades?

So what do you guys think does religion cop a lot of flack for creating "all" conflicts in recorded history?

Can anyone add to my list of conflicts created by war?

- The continuing civil unrest in Iraq - Shiite & Sunni
- Hitler and the Jews
- Palestine and Israel

Wow.

 

[chargers 09]

- The continuing civil unrest in Iraq - Shiite & Sunni
- Hitler and the Jews
- Palestine and Israel

Wow.

Was thinking this migh come up,

The first one you are probably right, Hitler was not having a war against the jews so no this would not be one and Palestine and Israel a fighting over a strip of land.

 

[bit_pattern]

Religion definitely has created, or contributed to, wars.

Religious based wars in 16th and 17thC Europe - e.g. wars of the reformation, 30YW - that's why 1520s-1700s were called the Age of Religious Wars.

The Crusades were religious based.

The Arab conquests were at least partly religious based.

Plenty of Byzantine wars had strong elements of religion to them.

Elements of religion to Aztec wars.

I'd argue that (with exception of the reformation wars because tbh I'm not that familiar with them) that in all of those conflicts land and resources played a bigger role than religion. Religion is just a way to get the plebs to go out and die on your behalf. Even the Israel/Palestine conflict which someone else mentioned is much more about land and resources 9in thos case water) than i ever was about religion.

 

[bit_pattern]

Was thinking this migh come up,

The first one you are probably right, Hitler was not having a war against the jews so no this would not be one and Palestine and Israel a fighting over a strip of land.

The Zionist movement began in the 19th century, WW2 was just an unfortunate impetus for increased immigration. The formation of Israel had as much to do with declining British power as it did the Holocaust.

 

[TheBloods]

This is my gripe, these wars are usually about gaining land and economic gain, although religion is a factor it is usually a minor factor. Im not a history expert but i assume you mean that Byzantine wars were the Ottoman conquests? If so the main motivation was gaining land the minor factor was spreading islam

The Crusades to the Holy Land were predominantly religion, not gaining land or economic benefit.

The religious wars in the 16thC were significantly religious.

Religion was an essential element in the Arab Conquests, that yes including desire for booty too.

The Byzantine Church and State were combined, so many of their wars were religious, especially as most of their existence was in defensive mode.

In no way was religion a minor element in any of these.

 

[TheBloods]

I'd argue that (with exception of the reformation wars because tbh I'm not that familiar with them) that in all of those conflicts land and resources played a bigger role than religion. Religion is just a way to get the plebs to go out and die on your behalf. Even the Israel/Palestine conflict which someone else mentioned is much more about land and resources 9in thos case water) than i ever was about religion.

I'll just focus on one - the Crusades. This was overwhelmingly religious based.

The people who chose to take the cross did it for religious reasons, as medieval charters demonstrate. They mortgaged or sold their property to go on these ventures. It was enormously expensive. When they reached their destination the vast majority of them returned to their home land, much poorer for the venture. The Crusades were an evolution of the pilgrimage, which had become enormously popular in the 11thC. It was an armed pilgrimage, with the benefit of undertaking it spiritual.

There were of course some crusades that were sidelined by secular interests, but these were generally later.


There are also the French Wars of Religion in the 16thC and the English Civil War also has very large aspects of religion to it.

You can of course find temporal aspects to most wars, but religion is a major driving force - not a minor one - in so many wars.

 

[TheBloods]

Was thinking this migh come up,

The first one you are probably right, Hitler was not having a war against the jews so no this would not be one and Palestine and Israel a fighting over a strip of land.

But not just any strip of land - the holiest place in Judaism and one of the three holiest places in Islam.

 

[CAS79]

TheBloods

Yes you are correct, Religion was the motivation for many a pleb to make the trip.

But Christendom was more an economic empire for those who controlled it of the age rather than a spiritual one. And Urban was all for continuing to expand his power over an ever growing land and people and merging the churchas after their separation was probably in his motives, with him in control after rescuing a flagging ally.

Many of the Lords/knights who went and promoted the cause in their homeland were promised lands in the holy lands of success. Many (but not all) were the lesser family members - at5 least after the first crusade which probably had more fanatics than those that followed. By carrying the cross they were promised lands or to have a stigma attached to their family removed. For further reading and evidence check how the fourth crusade in fact ended.

The Byzantine empire were not impressed with the army that had been sent and in fact feard as much it could take over their lands as defewnd them.

Money and empire building was a major factor for the West to agree to send an army. The problem was in efforts to build an army they created a swell of religious fanaticism across Europe too.

People have fought under the name of religion, they believed they were defending it it with their life. Rarly is it not the case their cause is being controled by those stirring up trouble in the name of the religion just to benefit their cause.

 

[TheBloods]

TheBloods

Yes you are correct, Religion was the motivation for many a pleb to make the trip.

But Christendom was more an economic empire for those who controlled it of the age rather than a spiritual one. And Urban was all for continuing to expand his power over an ever growing land and people and merging the churchas after their separation was probably in his motives, with him in control after rescuing a flagging ally.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the medieval papacy and Urban in particular. The crusades had a spiritual not a temporal motivation. Uniting the churches was definitely one of his aims, but again that was a spiritual aim, not a secular one.

Many of the Lords/knights who went and promoted the cause in their homeland were promised lands in the holy lands of success.

There was mention in Urban's account of potential benefits in "the land of milk and honey" but most crusaders already had land and as I said it was an expensive venture.

Many (but not all) were the lesser family members - at5 least after the first crusade which probably had more fanatics than those that followed. By carrying the cross they were promised lands or to have a stigma attached to their family removed. For further reading and evidence check how the fourth crusade in fact ended.

The view that the crusades were made of up mainly landless younger sons is an old one and thoroughly discounted by the work of Riley-Smith and Bull.

The Byzantine empire were not impressed with the army that had been sent and in fact feard as much it could take over their lands as defewnd them.

Because the Byzantines expected a small mercenary force they could control not an independent army.

Money and empire building was a major factor for the West to agree to send an army.

No it wasn't. There is no suggestion that money or empire building prompted the First Crusade or any of the early ones for that matter. As mentioned most of the crusaders returned after their expedition.

The problem was in efforts to build an army they created a swell of religious fanaticism across Europe too.

The religious feeling was already there in Christendom. The crusading sermons simply tapped into it and focussed it.

 

[bit_pattern]

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the medieval papacy and Urban in particular. The crusades had a spiritual not a temporal motivation. Uniting the churches was definitely one of his aims, but again that was a spiritual aim, not a secular one.

You don't think that controlling the churches was a power play? I men, I'm sure it was dressed up in spiritual language but at the end of the day organised religion is a system of power and control.

Not to mention that whoever controlled the Holy Lands pretty much controlled the crossroads of the trade routes and all that flowed between Asia and Europe.

 

[CAS79]

Really TheBloods.

How many of the successful nobility attempted to keep control of any lands they established. Who marched back to constantanople to hand these lands over to Alexius . Of course nothing was written, evidence of such heresy would be such a powerful weapon in the hands of ones enemies.

And if you think Alexius was happier when the army of the nobility showed up with Bohemond of Taranto rather than the army of the fanatics you must be kidding. He had already been at war with Byzantium before on behalf of his father who had recognised it as weakning and attempted to take lands from it previously, with fluctuating success. Alexses was terrified of losng control of the lands he consided his own. He did after all make the men take an oath to return the lands to his control, but who did.

Bohemond continued to control his area which included the trade city of Antioch of which he later referred himself to as Prince of and remained in the family power for some time.

Yes the powerful wanted to return to Europe, they didn't want to live their they just wanted the spoils and the honor in Europe, many nobles held lands away from their lived and controlled on their behalf.

Peter led the fanatics and they were probably scarier, genuinely fanatical. Im sure the majority of the nobility conned themselves into believing they were doing the work of the pious but given the opportunity to obtain land or produce few were not angered to lose it.

 

[chargers 09]

I'll just focus on one - the Crusades. This was overwhelmingly religious based.

The people who chose to take the cross did it for religious reasons, as medieval charters demonstrate. They mortgaged or sold their property to go on these ventures. It was enormously expensive. When they reached their destination the vast majority of them returned to their home land, much poorer for the venture. The Crusades were an evolution of the pilgrimage, which had become enormously popular in the 11thC. It was an armed pilgrimage, with the benefit of undertaking it spiritual.

There were of course some crusades that were sidelined by secular interests, but these were generally later.


There are also the French Wars of Religion in the 16thC and the English Civil War also has very large aspects of religion to it.

You can of course find temporal aspects to most wars, but religion is a major driving force - not a minor one - in so many wars.

Notice in the introduction I said that the crusades were definitely religious based conflicts. I will read up on some of your evetn tommorow and ill see if i agree, just trying to find a comprehensive list of wars that were almost purely religious based. In my opinion most modern wars 20-21 century are about differing ideologies, land and economic gain. Now ive conceded the fighting between the Sunnis and the shieties can't think of any others as i dont think the dispute about the gaza strip is PURELY about religion.

 

[TheBloods]

You don't think that controlling the churches was a power play? I men, I'm sure it was dressed up in spiritual language but at the end of the day organised religion is a system of power and control.

No. For the most part the reformed medieval papacy was not about secular politics - it was about saving the souls of Christians.

 

[TheBloods]

Really TheBloods.

How many of the successful nobility attempted to keep control of any lands they established. Who marched back to constantanople to hand these lands over to Alexius . Of course nothing was written, evidence of such heresy would be such a powerful weapon in the hands of ones enemies.

Most of the first crusaders went home. There was a dramatic shortage of men in the Outremer throughout its history.

And if you think Alexius was happier when the army of the nobility showed up with Bohemond of Taranto rather than the army of the fanatics you must be kidding.

What are you on about? When did I say Alexius was happy about any of it?

He had already been at war with Byzantium before on behalf of his father who had recognised it as weakning and attempted to take lands from it previously, with fluctuating success. Alexses was terrified of losng control of the lands he consided his own. He did after all make the men take an oath to return the lands to his control, but who did.

Citing Bohemond or Tancred as evidence of land greed is specious as they are very much the exception.

Yes the powerful wanted to return to Europe, they didn't want to live their they just wanted the spoils and the honor in Europe, many nobles held lands away from their lived and controlled on their behalf.

What spoils? Most lost a lot of money undertaking the venture. And most crusaders, not just the most powerful, returned to Europe.

Peter led the fanatics and they were probably scarier, genuinely fanatical. Im sure the majority of the nobility conned themselves into believing they were doing the work of the pious but given the opportunity to obtain land or produce few were not angered to lose it.

The crusaders on the 'People's Crusade' under Peter the Hermit were actually very similar to the crusaders in the 'First Crusade' - they just lacked leadership and a bit of luck.

Again I will state, most evidence and most of the modern research is very strongly in favour of the view that most of the early crusaders were motivated by spiritual reasons.

 

[bit_pattern]

No. For the most part the reformed medieval papacy was not about secular politics - it was about saving the souls of Christians.

I find it hard to believe but I will defer to the fact you obviously are more intimate with the subject than I will ever be.

I found it interesting to note though that a lot of the quotes from Urban I just read have a very strong racial element to them and racial hatred is one thing I neglected in my list of shit that causes war.

And, although I realise cause and effect are two very different things, I note that one of the results of the Crusades was a dramatic increase in trade and a consolidation of Roman power throughout the Med and the Black Sea. A fortuitous coincidence at the very least.

 

[TheBloods]

There are elements of Urban's speech that do contain some racial epithets to it. But the Crusades weren't really anti-Arab or anti-Muslim specifically, but rather pro-Christian and anti anything that prevented that.

Your last point is an important. Those things did occur, but they were indeed fortuituous coincidences, however they attracted much greater secular interest, eventually seeing a downfall in the power of the medieval papacy and a rise in secular powers. There was certainly no temporal plan to achieve these things, but the papacy was not about to let an advantageous circumstance go begging (ultimately to its detriment).

 

[Sloth]

Now i'm far from becoming a religous cleric, but It annoys me how people always say religion is the cause of all wars.

In the end i can only think of one war/conflict created by religion- the crusades?

Man you seriously need to brush up on you history, especially before starting such a thread.

Off the top of my head:
English Civil War
Moorish invasion of Iberia, and Reconquista
Partition of Ireland
etc etc

 

[tesseract]

Now i'm far from becoming a religous cleric, but It annoys me how people always say religion is the cause of all wars.

In the end i can only think of one war/conflict created by religion- the crusades?

So what do you guys think does religion cop a lot of flack for creating "all" conflicts in recorded history?

Can anyone add to my list of conflicts created by war?

Anti-theists say religion is the cause of all wars and problems because it fits conveniently with their version of the truth and their ideology.

 

[TheBloods]

Anti-theists say religion is the cause of all wars and problems because it fits conveniently with their version of the truth and their ideology.

Would you like to counter some of the claims rather than make bland general statements?

 

[bigburger]

No. Money, greed, power and lust cause wars, religion simply justifies them.

/thread.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ I like this guy!