Notícia

Primeira Guerra Religiosa, 1562-3

Primeira Guerra Religiosa, 1562-3

Primeira Guerra Religiosa, 1562-3

A Primeira Guerra da Religião (1562-63) foi a primeira de uma série de nove guerras que dividiram a França por quase quarenta anos e foi uma guerra geralmente inconclusiva que terminou por um acordo de paz.

Como grande parte da Europa, a França foi dividida pela Reforma. Os protestantes franceses, conhecidos como huguenotes, foram cada vez mais perseguidos durante o reinado de Henrique II, e isso continuou após sua morte em 1559. Naquele ano, viu o fim da longa série de Guerras Habsburgo-Valois, com a paz de Catteau-Cambresis de 3 de abril. Para cimentar a paz, a filha de Henrique, Isabel, se casaria com Filipe II da Espanha, enquanto sua irmã marquerita se casou com Emanuel Filibert, duque de Sabóia. Henry morreu em consequência de um ferimento infligido acidentalmente durante um torneio realizado em 30 de junho para celebrar o casamento deles, falecendo em 10 de julho de 1559.

Henrique foi sucedido por seu filho, o jovem Francisco II, mas o poder foi imediatamente tomado pelo duque Francisco de Guise e seu irmão Carlos, cardeal de Lorena. Todos os rivais foram afastados do trono e a política de repressão continuou. Isso ajudou a desencadear a Conspiração de Amboise de março de 1560, uma conspiração para capturar o jovem rei e derrubar os Guises. A conspiração falhou e, como consequência, cerca de 1.200 pessoas foram executadas, enquanto o príncipe Louis de Condé foi preso e condenado.

Os irmãos Guise caíram do poder com a morte de França II em dezembro de 1560. Seu irmão mais novo tornou-se rei como Carlos IX, e Catarina de Médicis garantiu que ela iniciasse seu regente. Os Guises foram demitidos, Condé foi libertado da prisão e Catherine reverteu a política anterior de opressão religiosa. Um colóquio foi convocado em Poissy em setembro de 1561, com representantes de ambos os lados, e embora esta reunião não tenha conseguido chegar a um acordo, foi seguido em janeiro de 1562 pelo Édito de Saint-Germain, mais conhecido como o 'Édito de Tolerância' ou de janeiro. Esse édito deu aos huguenotes o direito de pregar durante o dia no campo e permitiu que nobres protestantes administrassem igrejas huguenotes em suas propriedades.

A resposta católica a essa tolerância limitada foi previsivelmente hostil. No final de 1561, o duque François de Guise, o duque Anne de Montmorency, condestável da França, e o marechal Saint-André formaram uma aliança e se prepararam para buscar a ajuda de Filipe II da Espanha. Este recém-formado 'triunvirato' seria acompanhado por Antoine de Bourbon, rei de Navarra, para formar a liderança católica na guerra que se aproximava, embora apenas Montmorency sobreviveria à luta.

Foi Guise quem deu o gatilho para a guerra. Quando ele estava passando por Vassy em 1º de março de 1562, seus homens encontraram uma congregação protestante e abriram fogo. Os huguenotes responderam ao "massacre de Vassy" convocando um sínodo em abril, no qual pediram a Louis de Bourbon, príncipe de Condé, que levantasse tropas para protegê-los. Ele concordou com o pedido e fez um apelo para que o povo protestante da França levantasse tropas para se opor a Guise e seus aliados.

Nas primeiras semanas da guerra, um grande número de vilas e cidades se manifestou a favor dos huguenotes ou foram tomadas por eles. Tours, Blois, Angers, Beaugency, Poitiers, Lyon e Bourges foram alguns dos lugares que caíram em suas mãos. Os huguenotes também tentaram obter ajuda estrangeira, voltando-se para a Inglaterra protestante e a Alemanha para equilibrar a ajuda vinda de Filipe II da Espanha para a causa católica (que neste ponto ainda governava a Holanda espanhola).

Em 20 de setembro de 1562, Elizabeth I anunciou o Tratado de Hampton Court, no qual concordou em emprestar aos huguenotes 140.000 coroas de ouro. Em troca, eles prometeram entregar Calais aos ingleses se ganhassem a guerra, enquanto Le Havre estava ocupado como segurança.

Em julho de 1562, o exército real deixou Paris e marchou para o sul. Poitiers foi capturado e Bourges rendeu-se em 31 de agosto, após um curto cerco. O exército real então se mudou para Rouen, que sofreu um ataque em 26 de outubro de 1562. A vítima mais importante desse cerco foi Antoine de Bourbon, rei de Navarra, que morreu em 17 de novembro devido a um ferimento infligido no início do cerco.

Após a queda de Rouen, o exército católico se dispersou. Parte do exército foi enviado para quartéis de inverno, parte permaneceu na área ao redor de Orleans e parte, sob o duque de Guise, preparou-se para atacar os ingleses em Le Havre.

A Condé respondeu a esses contratempos marchando sobre Paris. O exército huguenote permaneceu fora da cidade entre 28 de novembro e 10 de dezembro, mas depois de duas semanas de negociações infrutíferas, ficou claro que a cidade era forte demais para ser capturada, e o exército huguenote levantou acampamento e começou a marchar em direção a Chartres e então a Normandia.

Em 19 de dezembro, eles foram interceptados pelo exército real em Dreux, e a única grande batalha da guerra foi travada. Tanto Condé quanto Montmorency foram capturados, e a batalha foi vencida por um contra-ataque liderado por Guise. As forças huguenotes restantes recuaram para Orléans, que logo foi sitiada.

Em 18 de fevereiro de 1563, quando o cerco de Orleans parecia estar chegando ao fim, Guise foi baleado e mortalmente ferido, morrendo em 24 de fevereiro. Isso eliminou o último dos principais líderes católicos, com três mortos e Montmorency em cativeiro. Catarina de Médicis conseguiu usar Condé para iniciar negociações de paz e, em 18 de março, a guerra foi encerrada pelo Édito de Amboise, que deu aos huguenotes algumas das liberdades religiosas prometidas em 1562, incluindo o direito de pregar fora das cidades. Este compromisso conseguiu manter a paz entre as duas comunidades religiosas por quatro anos, antes que o medo de uma conspiração católica internacional convenceu Condé e Coligny a tentar capturar o rei, desencadeando a Segunda Guerra da Religião.

O fim da Primeira Guerra Religiosa deixou os ingleses isolados em Le Havre. Na primavera de 1563, um poderoso exército real, que incluía vários huguenotes, moveu-se para sitiar Le Havre e, em 1º de agosto, os franceses reocuparam a cidade. No ano seguinte, a Inglaterra e a França assinaram a Paz de Troyes (11 de abril de 1564). Calais não foi mencionado, mas Elizabeth aceitou o pagamento de 120.000 coroas de ouro em troca de desistir de qualquer reivindicação ao Havre.


Visão geral

As guerras religiosas francesas (1562-1598) é o nome de um período de lutas civis e operações militares principalmente entre católicos franceses e protestantes (huguenotes). O conflito envolveu as disputas faccionais entre as casas aristocráticas da França, como a Casa de Bourbon e a Casa de Guise, e ambos os lados receberam ajuda de fontes estrangeiras.

O número exato de guerras e suas respectivas datas são objeto de debate contínuo por historiadores. Alguns afirmam que o Édito de Nantes em 1598 concluiu as guerras, embora um ressurgimento da atividade rebelde após isso leve alguns a acreditar que a Paz de Alaïs em 1629 é a conclusão real. No entanto, o Massacre de Vassy em 1562 é considerado como tendo iniciado as Guerras de Religião, até que uma centena de Huguenotes foram mortos neste massacre. Durante as guerras, complexas negociações diplomáticas e acordos de paz foram seguidos por conflitos renovados e lutas pelo poder.

Entre 2.000.000 e 4.000.000 de pessoas foram mortas em conseqüência da guerra, fome e doenças e, na conclusão do conflito em 1598, os huguenotes receberam direitos e liberdades substanciais pelo Édito de Nantes, embora isso não acabasse com a hostilidade contra eles. As guerras enfraqueceram a autoridade da monarquia, já frágil sob o governo de Francisco II e depois de Carlos IX, embora a monarquia mais tarde reafirmasse seu papel sob Henrique IV.


Conteúdo

O líder do ataque foi o tirano Clístenes de Sícion, que usou sua poderosa marinha para bloquear o porto da cidade antes de usar um exército anficônico aliado para sitiar Kirrha. Os atenienses também participaram com um contingente liderado por Alcmaeon. Do lado da Tessália, os líderes eram Eurilochos e Hípias. O que aconteceu depois disso é questão de debate: o relato mais antigo e, portanto, provavelmente o mais confiável, é o do escritor médico Thessalos. Ele escreveu, no século 5 aC, que os agressores descobriram um cano d'água secreto que conduzia à cidade depois de ter sido quebrado por um casco de cavalo. Um asclepiad chamado Nebros aconselhou os aliados a envenenar a água com heléboro, o que logo deixou os defensores tão fracos com diarréia que eles foram incapazes de resistir ao ataque. Kirrha foi capturado e toda a população foi massacrada. [2] Nebros era considerado um ancestral de Hipócrates, então essa história fez muitos se perguntarem se não poderia ter sido a culpa pelo uso de veneno de seu ancestral que levou Hipócrates a estabelecer o Juramento de Hipócrates. [3]

Historiadores posteriores contaram histórias diferentes. Segundo Frontinus, que escreveu no século I dC, depois de descobrir o cachimbo, a Liga Anfítica o cortou, causando grande sede na cidade. Eles então restauraram o cachimbo e os Kirrhans desesperados imediatamente começaram a beber a água, sem saber que Kleisthenes a havia envenenado com heléboro. [4] De acordo com Polyaenus, um escritor do século 2, os agressores adicionaram o heléboro à fonte de onde vinha a água. Polyaenus também deu crédito pela estratégia não a Kleisthenes, mas ao general Eurylochus, que ele afirmou ter aconselhado seus aliados a coletar uma grande quantidade de heléboro da Anticira, onde era abundante. [5] As histórias de Frontinus e Polyaenus têm o mesmo resultado que o conto de Thessalos: a derrota de Kirrha. [3]

O último grande historiador a apresentar uma nova história sobre o cerco foi Pausânias, que atuou no século II. Em sua versão dos eventos, Sólon de Atenas desviou o curso do Rio Pleistos para evitar através de Kirrha, mas o inimigo foi capaz de obter água suficiente de seus poços e coleta de água da chuva. Solon então adicionou uma grande quantidade de heléboro à água do Pleistos e deixou-a fluir para Kirrha. [3]

A Primeira Guerra Sagrada terminou com a vitória dos aliados da Anfictionia. Kirrha foi destruída e suas terras foram dedicadas a Apolo, Leto e Artemis e foi proibido cultivá-las ou deixar que animais pastassem nelas. Seus habitantes fugiram para a montanha Kirphe. Clístenes foi generosamente recompensado com um terço do saque. Para comemorar o fim da luta, os primeiros Jogos Pítios foram organizados, com Clístenes desempenhando um papel importante neles. No entanto, os estudiosos modernos são muito céticos quanto aos eventos exatos e à longa duração da guerra.


Guerras religiosas e o Édito de Nantes: 1588 - 1598

Henri de Guise foi assassinado em 1588 e Henrique III em 1589.

Naquela época, Henrique III planejava atacar Paris com seu primo huguenote, Henrique de Navarra. Com o assassinato, Henrique de Navarra passou a ter o direito legal ao trono e continuou a lutar contra a Santa Liga.

Apesar da Santa Liga ter novamente a ajuda da Espanha, Henrique teve algumas vitórias significativas. Depois de se converter ao catolicismo em 1593, ele entrou em Paris em 1594. Henrique IV foi notável por considerar o futuro da França mais importante do que as batalhas religiosas em curso e se converteu ao catolicismo com base nisso - essa era a única maneira de trazer a paz Para França. Em 1598 ele assumiu o trono como Rei Henrique IV (foto).

Em 1598, o Édito de Nantes concedeu liberdade de culto a toda a França. No mesmo ano, o Tratado de Vervins foi assinado entre a França e a Espanha. Essas duas etapas basicamente encerraram as guerras religiosas na França, e um dos capítulos mais terríveis de sua história chegou ao fim.

No século seguinte, grande parte do terreno arduamente conquistado seria recuperado, mas por enquanto a França finalmente teve um período de paz, após quase quatro décadas de guerras civis e dois dos extermínios sistemáticos mais brutais e sem sentido que a Europa viu , ou veria novamente até o século XX.


As Guerras Religiosas e a Guerra dos 30 Anos

As guerras religiosas foram causadas pela intolerância dentro e entre os estados onde diferentes religiões competiam por adeptos. A igreja cristã tem sido uma igreja quase universal, pelo menos na Europa, há mais de 1000 anos. A Reforma do início dos anos 1500 mudou isso. Pessoas em várias áreas foram evangelizadas por pregadores para seguir um ou outro movimento religioso.

No final dos anos 1500 e no início dos anos 1600, acreditava-se que um estado tinha que ser homogêneo para ser estável. Alguns monarcas e políticos não se preocupavam tanto com a religião praticada em particular, contanto que houvesse apenas uma. Isso não quer dizer que não houvesse reis religiosos devotos que acreditassem que o fogo do inferno e a condenação aguardavam aqueles que não aderiam à religião verdadeira. As duas crenças andaram de mãos dadas para criar uma luta pela consciência das pessoas em muitos dos estados da Europa. Na época, a coerção física era freqüentemente usada como meio de persuasão. Ocasionalmente, o resultado seria uma guerra civil e, mais tarde, uma guerra em toda a Europa.

As Guerras de Filipe II

Filipe II (rei de 1556-1598) foi um devoto rei católico da Espanha. Ele tinha muito mais territórios sob seu controle, incluindo Holanda, sul da Itália e Borgonha. Ele foi Habsburg, filho de Carlos V. No início de seu reinado, ele teve que lidar com calvinistas nas áreas do norte da Holanda, que desejavam ser independentes da Espanha, não apenas por causa da diferença de religião, mas porque sentiam que eram tributados muito pesadamente. Em 1609, os holandeses haviam efetivamente conquistado sua independência.

Enquanto essas lutas estavam acontecendo, Philip entrou em conflito com a Inglaterra. Maria da Inglaterra tinha sido sua esposa. Durante seu reinado, os dois tentaram reverter a Reforma Inglesa, trazendo a Inglaterra de volta ao aprisco católico. No entanto, muitos resistiram ao movimento. Quando Maria morreu, Isabel se tornou rainha e os protestantes voltaram ao poder. Em 1588, ele lançou um grande número de navios que deveriam recolher as tropas da Holanda que deveriam invadir a Inglaterra. Os ingleses, sabendo que a frota de invasão estava chegando, travaram uma batalha consecutiva de oito dias com os espanhóis. Embora os navios ingleses fossem menores, eles eram superiores em manobrabilidade e alcance de armas. Também soprou uma tempestade, e os navios espanhóis restantes foram forçados a navegar pela Inglaterra, ao redor da Escócia e Irlanda, e de volta à Espanha. Este evento há muito é celebrado nos anais da história inglesa como a "Derrota da Armada Espanhola". A Inglaterra nunca mais seria ameaçada por um ataque direto da Espanha.

Guerras na frança

Na França, uma guerra civil entre calvinistas, chamados huguenotes (liderados pelos Bourbons), e a população de maioria católica (liderada pela família Guise) se transformou em uma confusão complicada. Houve uma tendência de conflito secular entre os dois partidos, desde que o calvinismo começou a se infiltrar na fronteira com a Suíça. Muitos dos nobres se tornaram protestantes, para alguns foi uma conversão religiosa vital, mas outros usaram a religião como um meio de subverter o poder do rei. Neste momento Catherine de Medici era a rainha mãe. Ela era o poder por trás do trono de três filhos sucessivos. As coisas chegaram ao auge em 1562. Oito anos de combates terminaram em uma trégua em 1570.

Mas Catherine estava determinada a desferir um golpe nos huguenotes. Em 1572 ela projetou o Massacre do Dia de São Bartolomeu. Vários milhares de protestantes em toda a França foram massacrados a um sinal de Catarina.

O massacre trouxe indignação de muitos quadrantes. Henrique de Navarra (rei de um país separado no norte da Espanha) tornou-se o chefe dos protestantes. Ele marchou para a França e o Guerra dos Três Henrys começou. A facção católica era liderada por Henrique, duque de Guise. Uma facção moderada era liderada pelo rei francês Henrique III (o terceiro filho de Catarina de Médicis a ser rei). No final, Henrique de Guise foi assassinado pelos homens do rei, e o rei foi assassinado pelos homens do duque, deixando o caminho aberto para Henrique de Navarra tornar-se rei Henrique IV da França (1553-1610). Ele provou ser uma força unificadora, encerrando a luta civil na França.

A Guerra dos Trinta Anos

o Paz de Augsburg (1555) determinou que o povo de cada estado do Sacro Império Romano seguiria a religião do governante do estado, fosse luterano ou católico. Este acordo trouxe paz por um curto período de tempo entre as várias facções religiosas na Alemanha.

Em 1617, Fernando da Estíria foi feito rei da Boêmia. Algumas pessoas, especialmente os nobres calvinistas, temiam que ele os perseguisse por sua religião. Eles decidiram se rebelar. Para trazer todo o país consigo, alguns nobres entraram no palácio e atiraram dois dos oficiais do rei por uma janela alta. Este episódio foi chamado de Defenestração de Praga. ("Defenestração" na verdade significa atirar alguém ou algo pela janela. Às vezes também é usado para significar "remoção rápida do cargo".) Essa pequena demonstração provocaria uma guerra violenta que duraria trinta anos.

Os nobres da Boêmia (atual República Tcheca) declararam que Fernando foi deposto e elegeu um novo rei, Frederico. Seguiu-se uma guerra entre a Boêmia (com a ajuda de uma liga protestante de estados) e o Sacro Imperador Romano (Ferdinand, o rei deposto, acabara de ser promovido a essa posição). Em 1620, a rebelião na Boêmia foi esmagada.

Em 1625, o conflito explodiu novamente quando o rei luterano da Dinamarca decidiu ajudar os protestantes na Alemanha. Ele ficou alarmado com as vitórias católicas. Ele também foi duque de Holstein, outra província do Sacro Império Romano. O imperador contratou um contratante independente, Wallenstein, que reuniu 50.000 soldados e, ao lado das forças do imperador, destruiu o exército de Christian IV (1577-1648) e tomou Holstein dele. Christian desistiu das lutas internas do império e teve Holstein de volta como recompensa.

Todas essas lutas serviam para consolidar o poder da família Habsburgo no Sacro Império Romano. O império era há muito um conglomerado de Estados muito frouxo, os Estados-nação vizinhos começaram a considerar a unificação um problema. França, sob Cardeal Richelieu, embora um estado católico começou a apoiar os protestantes. O rei sueco, Gustavus Adolphus, decidiu intervir diretamente: para engrandecer algum território, derrubar os Habsburgos um ou dois estacas e defender sua religião luterana. Gustavo foi um general excelente e fez muitas inovações militares táticas que tornaram seu exército mais manobrável. Ele obteve várias vitórias, colocando os Habsburgos na defensiva. No entanto, ele foi morto na batalha de Lutzen e os Habsburgos novamente ganharam a vantagem. Em 1635, foi assinado um tratado muito favorável ao Sacro Imperador Romano.

A mudança geral de foco da guerra deve ser observada aqui. A Guerra dos Trinta Anos começou como uma luta religiosa, com fatores dinásticos e políticos em segundo plano. À medida que a guerra avançava, a política desempenhava um papel cada vez maior. O interesse dos Estados-nação tornou-se o principal. Foi por isso que em 1635 os franceses, liderados em sua maioria por um cardeal católico, Richelieu, entraram na guerra ao lado dos príncipes protestantes.

A entrada da França na luta fez pender a balança em favor dos rebeldes príncipes protestantes. Mas ainda assim a guerra continuou indefinidamente. Em parte, isso se devia ao fato de que príncipes, reis e imperadores não tinham dinheiro suficiente para pagar suas tropas. As tropas se uniram para conseguir dinheiro e suprimentos da única maneira que conheciam, que era continuar a saquear as regiões invadidas. Muitos reis tinham medo de fazer as pazes, porque não queriam que esses exércitos mal controláveis ​​voltassem para seus próprios territórios. Assim, a guerra continuou de forma desconexa até 1648. O final Tratado da Vestfália provou ser benéfico para a França, Suécia e Brandemburgo (Prússia). Também legitimou os calvinistas na Alemanha. O Sacro Império Romano tornou-se uma mera casca. O título de imperador tornou-se virtualmente sem sentido.

A Guerra dos 30 anos seria a última grande guerra entre católicos e protestantes na Europa. No entanto, ainda haveria lutas entre os protagonistas religiosos em várias regiões, como Irlanda do Norte, Rússia e Bálcãs. Em última análise, a religião se tornaria cada vez mais uma questão de consciência individual e menos uma questão de controle do Estado. Seria descoberto que a diversidade religiosa dentro de um estado não era prejudicial. Na verdade, a perseguição às seitas religiosas tanto na Espanha quanto na França (sob Luís XIV) provou ser economicamente ruinosa. Embora alguns indivíduos tenham visto benefícios saqueando os perseguidos, em geral, os pogroms e a virtual emigração forçada prejudicaram o poder do Estado porque a força de trabalho e a experiência foram repentinamente drenadas do país. Os países tolerantes, portanto, se beneficiaram com o influxo de trabalhadores altamente qualificados.

As guerras religiosas foram uma catarse que drenou o animus da diferença religiosa na Europa? Talvez tenha tido esse efeito. As pessoas começaram a ver que o custo das lutas que destruíram as economias e os povos de vastas regiões era um preço muito alto a pagar pela crença unificada (que se mostrou impossível de aplicar em qualquer caso). Na verdade, a perseguição freqüentemente tendia a provocar fanatismo por parte das seitas perseguidas. Desse momento em diante, embora as nações invocassem Deus para proteção ou para trazer a vitória no conflito, a religião desempenharia um papel amplamente moderador nas relações entre os Estados europeus.

Ao mesmo tempo que a contenda religiosa estava se manifestando no continente, também desempenhava um papel na Grã-Bretanha. Embora a Guerra Civil Inglesa e as lutas subsequentes fossem, em última análise, sobre o poder do Rei versus o poder do povo, da nobreza e da pequena nobreza, foi tingida de conflito religioso por toda parte.


1.400 anos de luta cristã / islâmica: uma análise

Fiquei muito desapontado ao ver que o U.S. News publicaria um artigo claramente falso, adotando a visão do mundo claramente falsa e politicamente correta (PC) do lugar das Cruzadas na história. O que torna tudo ainda pior, o artigo esconde seus pontos de vista sob a falsidade do título adicional, "A verdade sobre o conflito épico entre o cristianismo e o islamismo".

O título de abertura afirma: "Durante as Cruzadas, o Oriente e o Ocidente se encontraram pela primeira vez". Isso é um erro total, como bem sabe qualquer pessoa com o mínimo conhecimento de história. Oriente e Ocidente lutaram por pelo menos 1.500 anos antes da primeira Cruzada.

Para dar apenas alguns exemplos - os persas invadiram a Europa na tentativa de conquistar os gregos no século V a.C. O grego Alexandre, o Grande, tentou conquistar toda a Ásia, até a Índia, no século IV a.C. Tanto os persas do leste quanto os gregos do oeste estabeleceram impérios coloniais baseados em sangrentas conquistas militares. Os romanos estabeleceram por sangrentas colônias de conquista militar na Mesopotâmia, no noroeste da Arábia e na Assíria no século II d.C.

Um tipo diferente de conquista sangrenta ocorreu por meio do movimento de grupos tribais inteiros entre o leste e o oeste. Novamente, apenas para citar alguns, os hunos, os godos e os avares vieram de lugares tão distantes quanto a Ásia ocidental, a Ásia central e a China, respectivamente, do quinto ao sétimo século DC. De fato, os avares do norte da China e da Mongólia eram sitiando Constantinopla em 626 DC, no exato momento em que Maomé era um comerciante na Arábia. Na verdade, os ávaros, por esse cerco, foram uma das forças que enfraqueceram os bizantinos (havia muitas outras forças, talvez mais importantes) a ponto de a maior parte do império bizantino do Oriente Médio cair com relativa facilidade nas mãos dos muçulmanos.

Mas vamos dar ao escritor o benefício da dúvida e dizer que o autor quis dizer que "Durante as Cruzadas, o Islã e o Cristianismo se encontraram". Isso, é claro, também é totalmente falso.

Vamos rever a conquista muçulmana. Em 624, Maomé liderou uma operação de saque e saque contra uma caravana de Meca, matando 70 habitantes de Meca por mero ganho material. Entre 630 DC e a morte de Maomé em 632 DC, os muçulmanos - em pelo menos uma ocasião liderados por Maomé - conquistaram a maior parte do oeste da Arábia e do sul da Palestina por meio de aproximadamente uma dúzia de invasões separadas e conquistas sangrentas. Essas conquistas foram em grande parte "guerras santas", desmentindo outra declaração no artigo do US News que proclamava as Cruzadas "A Primeira Guerra Santa", como se os cristãos tivessem inventado o conceito de guerra santa. Após a morte de Maomé em 632, o novo califa muçulmano, Abu Bakr, lançou o Islã em quase 1.500 anos de conquista imperialista, colonialista e sangrenta contínua e subjugação de outros por meio de invasão e guerra, um papel que o Islã continua até hoje.

Você notará a sequência de adjetivos e pode ter alguma objeção ao meu uso. Eles são usados ​​porque são a verdade absoluta. Qualquer um que os negue é uma vítima do pensamento do PC, que ignora a história ou mente para proteger o Islã. Tomemos cada palavra separadamente antes de prosseguirmos em nossa verdadeira história da relação entre o Ocidente cristão e o Oriente islâmico.

Imperialista

As guerras muçulmanas de conquista imperialista foram lançadas por quase 1.500 anos contra centenas de nações, ao longo de milhões de milhas quadradas (significativamente maiores do que o Império Britânico em seu auge). O desejo pela conquista imperialista muçulmana se estendeu do sul da França às Filipinas, da Áustria à Nigéria e da Ásia Central à Nova Guiné. Esta é a definição clássica de imperialismo - "a política e prática de procurar dominar os assuntos econômicos e políticos dos países mais fracos."

Colonialista

O objetivo muçulmano era ter um governo central, primeiro em Damasco e depois em Bagdá - mais tarde no Cairo, Istambul ou outros centros imperiais. Os governadores locais, juízes e outros governantes foram nomeados pelas autoridades centrais imperiais para colônias distantes. A lei islâmica foi introduzida como a lei sênior, quer seja ou não desejada pela população local. O árabe foi introduzido como o idioma dos governantes, e o idioma local freqüentemente desaparecia. Duas classes de residentes foram estabelecidas. Os residentes nativos pagaram um imposto que seus governantes colonialistas não tiveram que pagar.

Embora a lei seja diferente em diferentes lugares, a seguir estão exemplos de leis colonialistas às quais os cristãos e judeus colonizados foram submetidos ao longo dos anos:

  • Cristãos e judeus não podiam portar armas - muçulmanos podiam
  • Cristãos e judeus não podiam andar a cavalo - muçulmanos podiam
  • Cristãos e judeus tiveram que obter permissão para construir - os muçulmanos não
  • Cristãos e judeus tiveram que pagar certos impostos que os muçulmanos não pagavam
  • Os cristãos não podiam fazer proselitismo - os muçulmanos podiam
  • Cristãos e judeus tiveram que se curvar aos seus mestres muçulmanos quando eles pagaram seus impostos e
  • Cristãos e judeus tinham que viver sob as leis estabelecidas no Alcorão, não sob suas próprias leis religiosas ou seculares.

Em cada caso, essas leis permitiram ao povo conquistado local menos liberdade do que a dos governantes colonialistas conquistadores. Mesmo os habitantes muçulmanos não árabes das terras conquistadas se tornaram cidadãos de segunda classe atrás dos árabes governantes. Esta é a definição clássica de colonialista - “um grupo de pessoas que se estabelecem em um território distante do Estado com jurisdição ou controle sobre ele e que permanecem sob a jurisdição política de sua terra natal”.

Falaremos sobre "sangrento" à medida que prosseguirmos. Porque o artigo do US News se relacionava apenas com o Ocidente cristão contra o Oriente muçulmano, exceto neste parágrafo, não descreverei os quase 1.500 anos de conquista imperialista, colonialista e sangrenta dos muçulmanos e subjugação de outros através da invasão e guerra ao leste da Arábia em Iraque, Pérsia e muito mais ao leste, o que continua até hoje.

Em todo caso, por ser a mais próxima geograficamente, a Palestina foi a primeira área ocidental não árabe invadida pela conquista imperialista, colonialista, sangrenta e subjugação de outros muçulmanos. Na época, a Palestina estava sob o domínio do chamado Império Romano do Oriente, governado a partir de Istambul por pessoas de língua grega e era católico ortodoxo oriental. O domínio ortodoxo oriental era despótico e o Império Romano do Oriente estava em sério declínio. Os governantes ortodoxos orientais eram déspotas e, na Palestina, subjugaram a grande população de judeus locais e cristãos monofisistas. Como os ortodoxos eram imperialistas, colonialistas e sangrentos, e ainda por cima se formavam em perseguição religiosa, o imperialismo muçulmano, colonialista e sangrento conquista e subjugação da Palestina, e depois do Egito, foi facilitado. Por causa da fraqueza ortodoxa e da velocidade relativa da conquista da Palestina e Israel, muitas vezes vi essa conquista sangrenta muçulmana, imperialista e colonialista descrita por escritores muçulmanos e do PC como "pacífica" ou "sem sangue". Esta afirmação simplesmente não é verdadeira.

A conquista e subjugação imperialista, colonialista e sangrenta muçulmana da Palestina começou com uma batalha, a 20 de agosto de 636, batalha de Yarmk (acredita-se que participaram 75.000 soldados - dificilmente exangues). Com a ajuda dos judeus locais que receberam os muçulmanos como libertadores, os muçulmanos subjugaram o restante da Palestina, mas não conseguiram capturar Jerusalém. Começando em julho de 637, os muçulmanos começaram um cerco a Jerusalém que durou cinco (quase sem sangue) meses antes de Jerusalém cair em fevereiro de 638. Os árabes não saquearam a cidade e os soldados árabes foram aparentemente mantidos sob rígido controle por seus líderes. Nenhuma destruição foi permitida. Este foi de fato um triunfo do controle civilizado, se é que o imperialismo, a colonização e a conquista sangrenta podem ser considerados "civilizados". Foi nessa conquista que muitas marcas significativas do colonialismo muçulmano começaram. Os conquistados cristãos e judeus foram obrigados a prestar uma homenagem aos muçulmanos colonialistas. Além disso, Bagdá usou as guerras de conquista imperialistas, colonialistas e sangrentas ao longo da vida de seu império para fornecer ao Califado um fluxo constante de escravos, muitos dos quais foram transformados em eunucos.

A conquista muçulmana do norte da África (cristã) foi relativamente fácil até que os povos nativos do norte da África (principalmente os berberes) foram encontrados a oeste do Egito. O povo norte-africano lutou tão fortemente contra os muçulmanos que a conquista imperialista, colonialista e sangrenta do Ocidente foi quase totalmente interrompida entre Trípoli e Cartago por mais de um quarto de século. Os muçulmanos irromperam em uma série de batalhas sangrentas seguidas de massacres sangrentos (vingança) dos oponentes muçulmanos (em grande parte cristãos). Essa conquista imperialista, colonialista e sangrenta muçulmana continuou pelo norte da África e pelo que hoje é a Espanha, Portugal e o sul da França, até que foram detidos na batalha de Poiters (dificilmente sem sangue) no meio da França.

Acredito que, se eu tivesse tempo, poderia mostrar que os muçulmanos, em suas conquistas imperialistas, colonialistas e sangrentas do oeste, mataram duas a três vezes mais cristãos do que os cristãos mataram muçulmanos em todas as Cruzadas combinadas.

Mas voltemos a Jerusalém.

The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.

When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.

In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s building small mosques on the top of Christian churches enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem etc.

Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc. and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.

The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.

So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?

The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.

But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.

The Crusades

First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.

A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?

Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."

Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.

To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?

Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."

Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.

One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:


Opções de página

Holy wars

Modern people often regard the idea of a holy war as a contradiction. Killing thousands of people and causing wholesale destruction seems to be as far from holiness as one can get.

But religion and war have gone hand in hand for a long time. Armies go into battle believing that God is with them, often after prayers and sacrifices to keep God on their side. In tribal cultures (including Biblical ones) when a people lose a war they often have to change to the worship of the winner's gods.

However involving God as part of the campaign does not make a war a holy war - for a war to be a holy war, religion has to be the driving force.

Holy wars usually have three elements:

  • the achievement of a religious goal
  • authorised by a religious leader
  • a spiritual reward for those who take part

Many of the wars fought in the name of religion do conform to the just war conditions, but not all of them.

Religious causes

Francis Bacon said there were five causes for holy war: (he wrote in a Christian context, but the categories would be usable by any faith)

  • to spread the faith
  • to retrieve countries that were once Christian, even though there are no Christians left there
  • to rescue Christians in countries that were once Christian from 'the servitude of the infidels'
  • recover and purify consecrated places that are presently being 'polluted and profaned'
  • avenge blasphemous acts, or cruelties and killings of Christians (even if these took place long ago)

Only the first of these causes is completely outside the scope of the conventional idea of a just cause. Some of the other causes, because of the length of time that can pass since the offending act took place are probably not just causes either.

Lawful authority

The legitimate authority for a holy war is not the government of a state (except in a theocracy) but the Church, or the relevant organisation or person who heads the religious institution concerned.

In ancient times the authority was often God - in the Bible there are several occasions where God gave direct instructions to peoples to wage war. This would not be the case today.

Personal reward

The third condition of a holy war is a spiritual reward for those who take part. The doctrine of the just war does not refer to any personal rewards for the participants - and such rewards would be against such a generally austere doctrine.

História

The first holy war was probably in October 312 CE when the Roman emperor Constantine saw a vision of the cross in the sky with this inscription "in hoc signo vinces" (in this sign you will win).

Constantine trusted the vision and had the cross inscribed on his soldiers' armor. Even though his forces were outnumbered, he won the battle against an army that was using pagan enchantment. (Historians regard this as a turning point in Christianity's fortune.)

The Crusades

The great series of western holy wars were the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 until 1291 CE. The aim was to capture the sacred places in the Holy Land from the Muslims who lived there, so it was intended as a war to right wrongs done against Christianity.

The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1095. He raged at the capture of the holy places and the treatment given to Christians, and ordered a war to restore Christianity. He said that the war would have the support of God:

Let this be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!

..Whoever shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast.

The pope also absolved all who took part in the crusade of all their sins.

The first Crusade captured Jerusalem after bitter fighting, and the residents of the city were brutalised and slaughtered by the Christian invaders. The invaders' conduct breached the principles of modern just war ethics, and the massacres still colour Islamic politics today.


Pagan belief

Silver Thor's hammer amulet, possibly worn for protection while at sea © We know almost nothing about pagan religious practices in the Viking Age. There is little contemporary evidence, and although there are occasional references to paganism in the Viking sagas - mostly composed in Iceland in the 13th century - we have to remember that these were written down 200 years after the conversion to Christianity. We know that chieftains also had some sort of role as priests, and that pagan worship involved the sacrifice of horses, but not much more.

We know rather more about the stories associated with the pagan gods. Besides occasional references in early poems, these stories survived after conversion because it was possible to regard them simply as myths, rather than as the expression of religious beliefs. The main sources of evidence are the Eddas, wonderful literary works which represent the old pagan beliefs as folk tales. Even here there is some Christian influence. For example, the chief god Odin was sacrificed to himself by being hanged on a tree and pierced in the side with a spear, and this was followed by a sort of resurrection a few days later - a clear parallel with Christ's crucifixion.

Even so, the Eddas provide a huge amount of information about the ®sir (gods), and their relationship with giants, men and dwarfs. The most powerful god was the one-eyed Odin, the Allfather, god of warfare, justice, death, wisdom and poetry. Probably the most popular god, however, was Thor, who was stupid but incredibly strong. With his hammer Miollnir, crafted by the dwarfs, he was the main defender of the gods against the giants. He was also the god of thunder, and he was particularly worshipped by seafarers. Amulets of Thor's hammer were popular throughout the Viking world. The brother and sister Frey and Freyja, the god and goddess of fertility, were also important, and there were many other minor gods and goddesses.


The Wars of Religion, Part I

The religious wars began with overt hostilities in 1562 and lasted until the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It was warfare that devastated a generation, although conducted in rather desultory, inconclusive way. Although religion was certainly the basis for the conflict, it was much more than a confessional dispute.

"Une foi, un loi, un roi," (one faith, one law, one king). This traditional saying gives some indication of how the state, society, and religion were all bound up together in people's minds and experience. There was not the distinction that we have now between public and private, between civic and personal. Religion had formed the basis of the social consensus of Europe for a millenium. Since Clovis, the French monarchy in particular had closely tied itself to the church -- the church sanctified its right to rule in exchange for military and civil protection. France was "the first daughter of the church" and its king "The Most Christian King" (le roy tres chretien), and no one could imagine life any other way.

"One faith" was viewed as essential to civil order -- how else would society hold together? And without the right faith, pleasing to God who upholds the natural order, there was sure to be disaster. Heresy was treason, and vice versa. Religious toleration, which to us seems such a necessary virtue in public life, was considered tantamount to letting drug dealers move next door and corrupt your children, a view for the cynical and world-weary who had forgotten God and no longer cared about the health of society.

Innovation caused trouble. The way things were is how they ought to be, and new ideas would lead to anarchy and destruction. No one wanted to admit to being an "innovater." The Renaissance thought of itself as rediscovering a purer, earlier time and the Reformation needed to feel that it was not new, but just a "return" to the simple, true religion of the beginnings of Christianity.

These fears of innovation certainly seemed justified when Henri II died suddenly in 1559, leaving an enormous power vacuum at the heart of social authority in France. The monarchy had never been truly absolute (although François I er made long strides in that direction), and had always ruled in an often uneasy relationship with the nobility. The nobles' sense of their own rights as a class, and the ambitions of some of the more talented, were always there to threaten the hegemony of the crown.

When the vacuum appeared, the House of Guise moved in. François II, although only 15, was married to Mary Queen of Scots, a niece of the Duc de Guise. The Guise were a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine (an independent imperial duchy) that were raised to the peerage by François I er . They were ambitious and had already produced at least two generations of exceptional leaders. The duc de Guise, François, was a military hero, and his brother, the Cardinal de Lorraine, was a formidable scholar and statesman. During François II's brief reign, Guise power was absolute.

This greatly threatened the House of Montmorency, an ancient line which had enjoyed great political prominence under Henri II, as well as the Bourbons, who as the first princes of the blood had the rights of tutorship over a minor king. François II was not technically a minor (14 was the age of majority), but he was young and sickly and no one expected much from him.

These dynastic tensions interweave with the religious and social ones. The Bourbon princes were Protestant (the Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre and the Louis de Bourbon, Prince de Condé), and although the constable de Montmorency was Catholic, his nephews, the Châtillon brothers (including Admiral de Coligny) were Protestants. The Guise identified themselves strongly as defenders of the Catholic faith and formed an alliance with Montmorency and the Marechal St. André to form the "Catholic triumvirate." They were joined by Antoine de Bourbon, who flip-flopped again on the matter of his religion. His wife, Jeanne d'Albret, the Queen of Navarre, remained staunchly Protestant and established Protestantism completely in her domains.

Catherine de' Medici tried to promote peace by issuing the "Edict of Toleration" in January '62, which made the practice of Protestantism not a crime, although it was restricted to preaching in open fields outside the towns and to the private estates of Huguenot (Protestant) nobles. This was not well-received by many Catholics.

The First War (1562-1563)

The national synod for the reformed church met in Paris and appealed to the Prince de Condé to become the "Protector of the Churches." He, his clients, and their respective client networks took on the task, and from this point the leadership of the Huguenots moves away from the pastors towards the noble "protectors", and takes on a more militant tone. Condé mobilizes his forces quickly and moves decisively to capture strategic towns along the waterways, highways, and crossroads of France. He takes a string of towns along the Loire and makes his headquarters at Orléans. He also contracts with Protestant leaders of Germany and England for troops and money.

The royal forces are slower to respond, as the permanent garrisons are located along the Habsburg frontiers. Catherine de' Medici was forced to turn to the Guise faction to deal with this alarming development. The Guise in turn sought help from the Pope and Phillip II of Spain. The Protestants were well dug-in in their garrisons, and the siege efforts to recapture the towns were long and costly. Only one open pitched battle was fought: that at Dreux which was a Catholic victory. At it, the Protestants captured Montmorency, the Catholics captured Condé. The young Admiral de Coligny managed to safely withdraw most of the Protestant forces to Orléans, which was then beseiged during the winter of '62-'63.

At Orléans, the Duc de Guise was killed by an assassin. Antoine de Bourbon had been previously killed at the siege of Rouen, and this last casualty pretty much eliminated the first generation of Catholic leadership. With the Huguenot heartland in the south virtually untouched and the royal treasury hemorrhaging, the crown's position was weak and Catherine bent her efforts towards a settlement. The noble prisoners were exchanged, and the edict of Amboise issued in March '63. This restricted Protestant freedoms somewhat, allowing worship outside the walls of only one town per bailliage , although the nobility still had the freedom to do as they would on their estates. This increased the resentment and tension in the towns and was generally unsatisfying to most.

The Second War (1567-1568)

The Third War (1568-1570)

The Protestant strategy this time was to fortify the Southwest and stand off the crown. This was reasonably successful for a fairly long time. However, at Jarnac, under the nominal leadership of the king's younger brother, Henri d'Anjou, the Protestants suffered a great defeat and the Prince de Condé was killed. Coligny met the Catholics at Moncoutour and suffered another defeat. However, he collected his forces and made a brilliant "long march" across the south of France, defeating the royal army on at least one occasion and depriving the crown of their chance to break the Protestant hold on the South.

The cost of keeping the army in the field was telling on the crown again, and yet another peace was negotiated at St. Germain. This peace was more favorable to the Protestants than the previous, naming specific towns as secure strongholds, returning confiscated property to Huguenots, and guaranteeing some equality before the law. This third war was more protracted, and brought the war to the rural areas in central and southern France, spreading the suffering to the population and raising the cultural tensions between Catholics and Protestants.

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572)

Protestant rhetoric had become increasingly revolutionary in the late 60's, with leading thinkers advocating that Christians did not have the obligation to obey leaders who themselves defied God. Calvin himself came to the conclusion, after advocating for many years that obedience to the civil authorities was a Christian duty, that a prince that persecuted the church had forfeited his right to be obeyed. François Hotman's Francogallia was written during this time (although not published until 1573). It advocated the existence of a mythical Frankish constitution whereby the kings of France were elected by the people and governed only through their consent. This was all very frightening and served to unite the Protestant faith with treason in the mind of the average person.

Along with these more abstract issues, tension between Catholics and Protestants had some more mundane economic and social elements. Protestants were often represented in the newer and more lucrative trades, such as printing, out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. The Protestant emphasis on literacy as the basis for understanding the Bible made for a generally better educated group. Protestantism was more an urban than a rural phenomenon (except in the Southwest), one well-suited to capitalists and merchants. For example, the 100 or so Catholic feast days that they didn't celebrate made for more days to do business. This wasn't viewed as being much of an advantage by the peasants, but was viewed as an unfair advantage by other Catholic townsmen.

The years of persecution had created a cell-like structure of congregations, consistories, and synods where people in the group stuck together and helped each other, both in matters of religion and everyday business. Like that other minority in Europe, the Jews, this engendered a feeling of suspicion about their "secret" organization.

The participation of women in the church service, with men and women singing together and studying the Bible, was viewed with a range of emotions: from a sign that society was collapsing when cobblers and women could debate the meaning of the Bible (even the Protestants were sometimes alarmed at the effects of their doctrine about "the priesthood of all believers"), to a conviction that Protestant worship must involve some kind of orgiastic rituals.

Prices had also risen very sharply between the beginning of the century and the 1560s, especially the prices of food, fuel, and shelter. This might seem irrelevant to matters of religion, but the sense of stress about making ends meet, increasing homelessness and poverty in the towns, a sense of anxiety about the future, and all the other things that go with this kind of economic pressure make for a fearful and hostile society looking for scapegoats.

Many Catholics felt that the toleration of heresy in their midst was like a disease in the body of Christ that threatened the very contract between God and his people. There was an increasing rhetoric among the popular preachers to purge this infection to restore God's favor and with it, social stability.

All of this tension is important background to the watershed event of the wars: the evening of August 23, 1572 -- the feast of St. Bartholomew. The 19 year-old Henri de Navarre and Margot de Valois were married in Paris on August 17 and the festivities were still going on. The entire Huguenot leadership came to Paris for this wedding. Henri himself brought 800 mounted noblemen in his train.

On August 22, as Admiral de Coligny was returning to his lodgings from a visit with the king, an assassin fired at him, breaking his arm and wounding him severely, but not killing him outright. The Huguenots were outraged and demanded justice from the king. Everyone suspected the Guises of the attack. When various Huguenot leaders counselled Coligy to flee the city -- certainly at this time they could have easily made it to the safety of a Protestant stronghold -- he reputedly refused, feeling that it would show a lack of trust in the king. However, the Huguenots were threatening riot in the streets if something wasn't done, and it was a very hot summer.

At some point during the night of August 23, the decision was taken at the Louvre to kill Coligny and the Huguenot leaders gathered around him. Charles IX was certainly there, Catherine de' Medici, Henri d'Anjou. It may not have been originally intended to be a general massacre. Charles IX was reputedly badgered into this decision by Catherine and his councillors, and when he finally broke he is alleged to have said, "Well, then kill them all that no man be left to reproach me."

During the early hours of Sunday morning, a troop of soldiers came to Coligny's door. They killed the guard that opened the door, and rushed through the house. Coligny was dragged from his bed, stabbed, and thrown out the window to the pavement below. Reputedly the Duc de Guise mocked the body, kicking him in the face and announcing that this was the king's will. Rumors ran thick and fast, and somehow the militia and the general population went on a rampage, believing themselves to be fully sanctioned by the king and the church. Catholics identified themselves with white crosses on their hats, and went around butchering their neighbors. The neighborhood militias played a very significant role in the slaughter. The killing went on for 3 days or so, with the city councillors and the king unable to bring the whole thing under control. There are numerous tales of atrocities, occasional ones of courage and compassion. Historians have debated what really happened and why in excruciating detail ever since.

The Louvre itself was not immune. Henri de Navarre slept in his bridal suite with an entourage of 40 Huguenot gentlemen, all of whom were killed. Henri and his cousin, the Prince de Condé (another Henri, the son of the late Louis who had been the champion of the churches), were dragged before the king and threatened with death if they did not convert. They did, and Navarre became a prisoner of the court for the next four years, living in constant fear of his life.

The massacres spread to the provinces over the next few months. Some thought they had directives from the crown to kill all the Protestants, others thought there was no such thing. The actions of the governors and mayors depended very much on the individuals and the circumstances in their areas. Areas with vocal Protestant minorities often suffered the most.

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, as it came to be known, destroyed an entire generation of Huguenot leadership. Henri de Navarre was a prisoner, not yet a known quality as a leader. Condé eventually escaped to Germany, and Andelot, Coligny's younger brother, was an exile in Switzerland. Although it wasn't clear at the time, this was the beginning of the decline of the Protestant church in France. In spite of the wars, the '60s had seen an enthusiastic growth in the Religion. Over the months following, many Protestants despaired and abjured their faith. The experience radicalised many of the survivors, creating a profound distrust of the king, an unwillingness to disarm, and an upsurge in the political rhetoric of resistance. Works with titles like The Defense of Liberty against Tyrants were to come off the Huguenot presses.

The Huguenot "state within a state" became solidified, as the churches organized themselves into an efficient hierarchy for communications and self-protection. They collected their own tithes, maintained their own armies and garrisons, and provided for the governance and social welfare of the Protestant communities.

The Fourth War (1572-1573)

The Fifth War (1576)

Meanwhile, Condé was raising money, troops, and support from the German princes, particularly Jan Casimir, the son of Frederick III of the Palatine. Henri de Montmonrency, the Sieur de Damville, Governor of Languedoc, who ruled his region as like an "uncrowned king of the south," brought another substantial army to the Protestant side. Although he himself was Catholic, the Languedoc was a heavily Protestant region and he was related to the Coligny brothers. In February '76 Navarre escaped from the court and headed into his own territory, raising an army behind him. The king's younger brother, the Duc d'Alençon, the last of the Valois sons, began to play to the anti-royalist factions. His propagandists put out manifestos portraying him as alternative ruler to the current king, one able to speak up for the rights of the people and rule more justly -- cutting taxes all the while, of course.

This was a potent alliance, one for which Catherine had no good counter at the time. When 20,000 troops invaded France under Jan Casimir in the spring of '76 and these various armies collected themselves together in the heart of France within striking distance of Paris, the crown was forced to negotiate. The Edict of Beaulieu, otherwise known as the Peace of Monsieur ("Monsieur" being the traditional title for the reigning king's next-oldest brother) was signed in May and was very favorable to the Protestants. In separate private agreements, the leaders got substantial settlements: Navarre was confirmed as Governor of Guyenne, Condé was made Governor of Picardy, Alençon was made Duc d'Anjou and given a raft of titles, and the crown agreed to pay the bills for Jan Casimir's mercenaries. It left Henri III smarting. The Parlement of Paris refused to register it, and some of the towns ceded to the Protestants refused to admit their troops. Picardy, for example, refused to admit Condé to his capital.

The Sixth War (1577)

This year saw the formation of the first attempt at a Catholic League to oppose the Protestants if the king would not. To coopt this threat to his authority, Henri III declared himself the head of it. However, somehow a royal force was put together to take back some of the Protestant towns along the Loire. La Charité fell in May of '77, but the bulk of the Protestant forces were at large in the South and there was no hope of a victory over them. The Peace of Bergerac was signed in July. It was more restrictive in allowing places of worship to the Protestants than the previous peace, but was still largely the same. It disallowed any leagues and associations, trying to fend off the growing movement from the Catholic right wing.


First War of Religion, 1562-3 - History

Religious toleration existed in some forms in some parts of the thirteen British colonies during some parts of the late eighteenth century. Not many people were members of churches, but the church buildings played important civic and political roles as meeting houses and community/cultural gathering places, so the influence of churches went far beyond the membership. Protestantism, with its various denominations, dominated the colonies as a whole. The Anglican Church (Church of England), later called Episcopalian, was the largest established church in the colonies, particularly strong in the southern and Mid-Atlantic colonies. The next largest church, most heavily concentrated in New England, was the Congregational Church, derived from the Puritan/Calvinist tradition.
Members of a number of Protestant denominations and Christian sects also settled in the thirteen colonies. The Quakers, led by William Penn, presented a significant presence in Pennsylvania, although some were physically abused in areas where they were a minority. Ann Lee brought the "Shaking Quakers," or Shakers, almost as an intact group from England to parts of New York. Lutherans, German Reformed, and Moravians, as well as Presbyterians, brought their religious traditions from Europe to America. Groups like the Baptists and the Methodists, some of whose members were attacked by angry members of other Protestant groups, gained many converts after the Great Awakening. Both before and after the Great Awakening, a massive Christian revival movement that swept the colonies in the 1740's, the numbers of these Protestant dissenters were small, but their influence on the American religious tapestry was profound. Although they were sometimes distrusted and mistreated, most members of Protestant denominations outside the dominant Episcopal and Congregational churches did not face legal discrimination, although many had to pay taxes to a colonial government which supported other churches.
Roman Catholics and Jews, on the other hand, were often subjected to both personal and legal discrimination. Roman Catholics were particularly targeted, even in a colony like Maryland, which had been founded as a haven for Catholics. Called "Papists," they were mistreated largely because of the strong anti-Catholic sentiment in England. This sentiment may have derived from the popularity of King Henry VIII's break with the church in Rome and the remembered terror of the reign of Catholic Queen Mary. Many of the Catholics in the British colonies settled in Maryland, established by the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore, but the colony's ruling Baltimore family eventually converted to Anglicanism, By the time of the Revolutionary War, the Church of England had been established in the colony, the capital had been moved from Catholic St. Mary to Protestant Annapolis, and Catholics had been deprived of political rights and prevented from holding religious services anywhere but in their own homes.


By 1794, there were only about 35,000 Catholics in the United States. They were slowly accepted in states other than Maryland, but many, especially the Irish, about 75% of whom were Catholic and many of whom were poor, were persecuted. Some Irish Catholic immigrants were or became wealthy, especially in New York and Philadelphia. Many became only nominal Catholics, and others joined Protestant denominations, since there were few Catholic churches or priests in America, and much of the Catholic faith depends of the presence of both churches and priests.
The first Jewish people to come to North America arrived in 1585, but the first Jewish community wasn't established until 1654, in New Amsterdam. By 1775, there were about 2,500 Jews in the colonies, and six Jewish communities in North America: Montreal, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Charles Town (South Carolina), and Savannah.

In the eighteenth century, many British colonies in North America declared Jewish people freemen or allowed them to vote. But, no Jewish person was allowed to hold office in any of the colonies, although, unlike Quakers and Baptists, Jews were generally not beaten or jailed. Most were shopkeepers or artisans, and some were businessmen and merchant-shippers in the larger towns and cities.

Although Christians were generally prejudiced against Jewish people, Jewish-Christian relations were, at least on the surface, relatively good. Various regions and colonies presented different conditions to Jewish settlers. In New England, life was far from easy for Jews. They were denied permission to live in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. After the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" in Britain, however, a more tolerant royal administration took over New England governorships, and the restrictions on Jews in Massachusetts relaxed. Jews were finally allowed to purchase and bequeath homes, serve as witnesses in Boston courts, and act as constables.

Quaker Pennsylvania and Anglican New Jersey allowed Jews residence in the 1600's, and, by the 1700's, they suffered relatively minor restrictions on voting and office-holding. In seventeenth-century Maryland, reactionary anti-Catholic sentiments led to the disenfranchisement of all non-Protestants, including Jews. A blasphemy law and injunctions against Jewish public worship and political rights served to work against freedom for Jews. In Anglican Virginia, Catholics, Dissenters and Jews were equally oppressed. In South Carolina, however, the constitution was framed by John Locke, English liberal political philosopher, who guaranteed Jews freedom of conscience, although Catholics were still excluded from the protection of rights. Thus, the first Jews to immigrate to Charles Town, South Carolina, were already free to worship and own property. In Georgia, Jews were protected by the colonial charter which promised the toleration of all immigrants except Catholics. James Oglethorpe, Governor of the colony, allowed Jews to settle in the fringes of his land, rented the Jewish community a house in which to hold services, and designated a plot of land for a cemetery. Although only Protestants were technically allowed to vote or hold office, Jews were voting by the mid-1700's and, in 1765, two Jewish people were elected port officials of Savannah.

Despite the presence of this range of religious affiliations in the eighteenth century, all the southern colonies, as well as four southern counties of New York, required residents to financially support the Episcopal Church, regardless of the resident's own religion. By 1776, nine of the thirteen colonies still provided public funding for one or more designated Protestant denominations. At the dawn of the Revolutionary War, non-Protestants were still generally considered second-class citizens by the Protestant majority. Religious acceptance and tolerance was far from an absolute reality in the United States, but many immigrants found in the new nation a degree of freedom unavailable in Europe.


Assista o vídeo: Pierwsza wojna światowa? - Wojna siedmioletnia (Janeiro 2022).