From the Eastern Orthodox Church’s perspective, the First Crusade — and especially the broader Crusading movement that followed — is often seen with skepticism, disappointment, and eventual bitterness. While the initial call for help from the Eastern Roman emperor (they weren’t called “Byzantine” until hundreds of years after Constantinople fell) played a role in prompting Pope Urban II’s actions, the Crusades quickly diverged from what the Eastern Church had hoped for. Here’s a breakdown of the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint: ⸻ ⚖️ Initial Hope — Strategic Military Aid • Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios I Komnenos did ask for limited military support from the West to help reclaim lost territory from the Seljuk Turks. • The Eastern Church (centered in Constantinople) viewed this request as a practical, defensive measure, expecting trained soldiers to be sent under Byzantine command. • They did not anticipate a massive religious war or a wave of Western knights crossing the empire as an independent army. ⸻ 😬 Rapid Disillusionment • The First Crusade (1096–1099) quickly became an autonomous Western-led mission, with Crusaders often acting independently or even in hostility toward Eastern Roman interests. • Relations between Crusaders and the Eastern Romans were tense — marked by mistrust, cultural differences, and conflicting goals. ⸻ 😡 Betrayal and the Sack of Constantinople (1204) • The greatest grievance from the Orthodox perspective came during the Fourth Crusade, when Crusaders sacked Constantinople — the heart of Eastern Christianity — in 1204. • This event was seen as a deep betrayal, far more devastating than any earlier grievances with Muslims. • The Latin occupation of Constantinople (1204–1261) is remembered as a trauma and disgrace, creating long-lasting wounds between the Eastern and Western Churches. ⸻ 🕊️ Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Impact • The Crusades, while launched under the banner of Christian unity, ended up deepening the East–West Schism (formally declared in 1054). • The Orthodox Church came to view the Crusades as: • A Western religious and political project, not a shared Christian endeavor. • A reflection of papal overreach and Latin aggression. • Spiritually compromised by the behavior of Crusaders (violence, looting, power-seeking). ⸻ In Summary: From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, the First Crusade: • Began with cautious cooperation, but • Quickly devolved into a Western-led campaign with its own agenda, • Culminated in deep betrayal with the sack of Constantinople, • And contributed to a lasting rupture between Eastern and Western Christianity. Pope Urban II betrayed those who were supposed to be his own people, and the ramifications of his greed continue to mar the societies of many nations, East Christian, West Christian, Muslim, and Jew, to this very day. If there is a Hell, that bastard’s burning in
1 month ago | 1
-- Pope Urban II answered a plea from the Byzantine Emperor for military assistance against the advancing Seljuk Turks -- Pope Urban II's main goal was to reclaim Christian territories from Muslim control (I didn't even try to click on what the questioner thinks is the "correct" answer)
1 month ago | 0
None of those. As a way to get rid of troublesome younger sons of nobility after the advent in the west of the doctrine of primogeniture
1 month ago | 0
So vatikan is warier not religes institution, wat kinde of rull it plays at present wars? That comes that rul last for very long time.
1 month ago (edited) | 0
hazards and catastrophes
Hey! Do you know what Pope Urban II’s main objective was when he called for the First Crusade in 1095? Watch this week's video to find out more!
Around the year 1100, Christianity in Europe was characterised by profound religious devotion and a desire among both clergy and laypeople to lead holy lives. Yet this era also saw the emergence of the Crusades — wars fought in the name of faith that had a profound impact on medieval society.
1 month ago | [YT] | 98