Nobiscum Deus! Of Eastern Orthdox Crusades

Could there be Eastern Orthodox Crusades? Surely there were many wars against Muslims by the Byzantines and the Balkans, but I'm thinking about something as formalized and church-approved as the crusades, with a similar objective (not necessarily Jerusalem).
 
Could there be Eastern Orthodox Crusades? Surely there were many wars against Muslims by the Byzantines and the Balkans, but I'm thinking about something as formalized and church-approved as the crusades, with a similar objective (not necessarily Jerusalem).
IIRC there wouldn't be a crusading movement in the proper sense because the Orthodox church was already so deeply tied into the East Roman foreign policy; the Orthodox church was essentially an organ of the Roman state, and thus already backed every Roman war against the Muslims.
 
IIRC there wouldn't be a crusading movement in the proper sense because the Orthodox church was already so deeply tied into the East Roman foreign policy; the Orthodox church was essentially an organ of the Roman state, and thus already backed every Roman war against the Muslims.

Maybe the Byzantines and their prelates could have beefed up their defenses in preparation for a Western assault. Such a preparation would have spared them the insult and trauma of the Western sack of Constantinople. I doubt that the Byzantines, in their socio-political state, would have mobilized on a pseudo-religious expedition.
 
Crusades are a very alien concept to Orthodox Churches and polities. There's a significant overlap between the church and the state, and churches often had a pronouncedly anti-militarist outlook, to boot. Wars were justified for immediate reasons, not becasue there was to be a never-ending stuggle.
 

Philip

Donor
The theology behind (used to promote, if you prefer) the Crusades does not really exist in Orthodoxy. It would be a hard sell from that point of view.
 
The crusading mentality was a very foreign concept to Byzantine minds, they saw war as a breakdown of diplomacy not as a means to an end. Something I always found very Christian about them.
 
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) made "holy war" onto Muslims and had all fallen soldiers declared as martyrs. His murderer and successor, John Tzymiskes, came close to retake Jerusalem. Then civil wars and the neo-Bulgarian quagmire prevented the empire from trying anything decisive.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) made "holy war" onto Muslims and had all fallen soldiers declared as martyrs. His murderer and successor, John Tzymiskes, came close to retake Jerusalem. Then civil wars and the neo-Bulgarian quagmire prevented the empire from trying anything decisive.

And we all know how Phokas went down in Byzantine history...it's not often you see the epitaph "the Tyrant" awarded to many rulers. IIRC, Phokas' declaration of a "holy war" just pissed off the Byzantine populace even more. As has already been said, the whole concept of using religion to justify a war was repugnant and perverse to the Byzantines.
 
But there were more Orthodox besides Byzantium...

Why did the Russians never make one of their wars with the Ottomans about reclaiming Constantinople? Too difficult?
 
Probably not on such a sustained manner.

Generally the Byzantines did not believe that war brought heavenly glory, earhly was a different matter

That said there were a number of wars with a specifically religious dimension, and it is worth looking at the career of John Kurkas, who seized the Mandylion from Edessa.
There is no unavoidable reason their theology could not have evolved differently from the 10th century.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
There is no unavoidable reason their theology could not have evolved differently from the 10th century.

This is very true, and I suppose one could see a sort of "Crusader" sect becoming powerful, especially once Jerusalem is lost. But we mustn't disregard the cultural issues here. The Byzantines (by and large inheritors of the Hellenic tradition) were usually rather bummed when diplomacy broke down and fighting became necessary. So while the theology may evolve differently, it will probably be a hard sell to the majority of the populace.
 
But there were more Orthodox besides Byzantium...

Why did the Russians never make one of their wars with the Ottomans about reclaiming Constantinople? Too difficult?

If you mean the Russians, then their medieval church was even more anti-militaristic; additionally the Princes mostly fought defensive and internecine wars in the middle ages, with the exception of raiding and counter-raiding with their steppe neighbours (Cumans etc.)

That was actually frowned upon, and even princes underwent penitence for waging wars (for example, barred from communion for a time until repentance is complete). It was generally a little better for them when they managed to beat up pagans rather than other Christians, and there are a few warrior-saints. However saintly peaceful princes outnumber them in the canon by a very wide margin.

That said, yes, things could potentially change, but it's not an easy goal to accomplish using modest PODs.
 
The only time Byzantium came close to this was during the last Persian War, and that was specifically in revenge for the sacking of Jerusalem and the seizing of the Holy Cross. Thus, the war was fought in part to get it back.
 
Top