Isabella of Spain: Crusader Queen

Books cited:
Isabella of Spain: the Last Crusader, by William Thomas Walsh
Isabel of Spain: the Catholic Queen, by Warren Carroll

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Isabella of Spain
• Isabel of Castile
• Fernando II of Aragon
• Granada
• Muhammad XII
• Crusades in Spain
• Reconquista
• Spanish Crusades
• Moors
• Christianity
• Islam
• Castile
• Aragon

[rahotep101]

The crusader attitude to setbacks is something that I struggle to make sense of. They rationalized Muslim victories as divine punishments and chastisements for Christian sins. This doesn't really make sense in the context of fighting a war supposedly that God willed, and which was waged in Christ's name and for his sake. God, ergo, must have been sabotaging his own war effort, and aiding infidels (whom he caused to exist in the first place)! Do you have any opinion re. divine intervention?

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@rahotep101 I've wondered about it too. Keep in mind there were many reactions to setbacks. God's wrath was just one. What's funny is that the Second Crusade, which was one of the biggest failures (in the Holy Land at least) was fronted by a very pious king like Louis VII, meanwhile Bohemond, who was kind of a cutthroat, won all kinds of victories in the First Crusade. I always thought Bernard of Clairvaux's explanation for that failure was pretty disappointing.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@rahotep101 I remember Christopher Tyerman commenting on this very issue. He said that the reaction in the West to military failures elicited personal soul-searching, whereas it should've provoked a desire to better understand the enemy - a looking outward, if you will. Of course the Muslims did the same thing, viewing Christian victories as punishment from Allah.

[rahotep101]

@RealCrusadeHistory I know Bernard of Clairvaux preached the Second Crusade saying that God had allowed Edessa to fall so that another generation of crusaders had an 'opportunity' to prove their worth and win salvation. I'm not sure how he rationalized the disastrous outcome of that crusade. Louis IX was another ultra pious king who failed miserably, whereas Frederick II who was excommunicate recovered Jerusalem without fighting! God/Allah seems to be a bit whimsical.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@rahotep101 Yeah, the history of the Crusades makes it plain that while piety is crucial to uniting men in the cause, when it comes down to the campaign strategy and planning are key. Bohemond, Richard the Lionheart, and Frederick II were all very shrewd strategists, in addition to being pious.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@Torur0A Oh, well I misunderstood you. Thanks for the post! You're right. Rahotep is all right too, though.

[Torur0A]

@RealCrusadeHistory i am answering rahotep because as very often he takes ideological questions into place in a manner that you simply cannot do when considering every age expect the 19th century up to today. And i tell him that priests cannot send armies to war just by propaganda inventions, it pretty much does not matter what they said. The crusades were justified and people knew that even if the priests had not said what they said.

[alanheath]

@RealCrusadeHistory Good examples - particularly from Sicily. I shall be going there soon!

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@alanheath James I of Aragon is a good example. His Muslim subjects were protected and allowed to practice their religion. Also, the Kings of Sicily had Muslims in their army for centuries.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@alanheath Yeah, but that was just one time in history. Muslims lived under Christian rule in Spain and Italy for centuries, often under very fair conditions. Also there were Muslims in the Crusader States who were protected by the Christian. Conversely, you find the same paradox in Islam, some Muslim rulers protected their Christian subjects. But look at the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, when they brutally massacred whole populations of Armenia.

[692ALBANNACH]

didn;t she married tom selleck