(no subject)

Feb 07, 2022 17:06

В своей "Истории крестовых походов" Джонатан Райли-Смит пишет:

For most of the last two thousand years Christian justifications of war have rested on two premises. The first was that violence as an act of physical force which threatens, deliberately or as a side-effect, homicide or injury to the human body -- was not intrinsically evil. It was morally neutral until qualified by the intention of the perpetrator. If his intention was altruistic, like that of a surgeon who, even against the wishes of his patient, amputated a limb - a measure which for most of history endangered the patient's life - then the violence could be regarded as being positively good. The second promise was that Christ's wishes for mankind were associated with a political system or course of political events in this world. For the crusaders his intentions were embodied in political conception, the Christian Republic, a single, universal, transcendental state ruled by him, whose agents on earth were popes, bishops, emperors and kings. A personal commitment to its defense was believed to be a moral imperative for those qualified to fight. Propagandists gave this theory expression in terms the faithful could understand: within the earthly extension to Christ's universal empire the Holy Land was his royal domain or patrimony; Livonia (approx. Latvia) on the Baltic was the Blessed Virgin Mary's private estate, a kind of queen mother's dower.

По-видимому все же религиозная мотивация участников крестовых походов было очень сильна.

историческое, книги, размышлизмы

Previous post Next post
Up