Noticias

Primera Guerra de Religión, 1562-3

Primera Guerra de Religión, 1562-3

Primera Guerra de Religión, 1562-3

La Primera Guerra de Religión (1562-63) fue la primera de una serie de nueve guerras que dividieron Francia durante casi cuarenta años, y fue una guerra generalmente inconclusa que terminó con una paz de compromiso.

Como gran parte de Europa, Francia fue dividida por la Reforma. Los protestantes franceses, conocidos como hugonotes, fueron cada vez más perseguidos durante el reinado de Enrique II, y esto continuó después de su muerte en 1559. Ese año vio el final de la larga serie de guerras Habsburgo-Valois, con la paz de Catteau-Cambresis de 3 de abril. Para cimentar la paz, la hija de Enrique, Isabel, se casaría con Felipe II de España, mientras que su hermana Marquerite se casó con Emanuel Philibert, duque de Saboya. Henry murió como resultado de una herida que le infligieron accidentalmente durante un torneo que se llevó a cabo el 30 de junio para celebrar su matrimonio, falleciendo el 10 de julio de 1559.

Enrique fue sucedido por su hijo, el joven Francisco II, pero el duque Francisco de Guisa y su hermano Carlos, cardenal de Lorena, tomaron el poder de inmediato. Todos los rivales fueron apartados del trono y la política de represión continuó. Esto ayudó a desencadenar la Conspiración de Amboise de marzo de 1560, un complot para apoderarse del joven rey y derrocar a los Guisa. La conspiración fracasó y, como consecuencia, alrededor de 1.200 personas fueron ejecutadas, mientras que el príncipe Luis de Condé fue arrestado y condenado.

Los hermanos Guisa cayeron del poder con la muerte de Francia II en diciembre de 1560. Su hermano menor se convirtió en rey como Carlos IX, y Catalina de Medici se aseguró de que ella comenzara su regente. Los Guisa fueron despedidos, Condé fue liberado de prisión y Catherine revirtió la política anterior de opresión religiosa. Se convocó un coloquio en Poissy en septiembre de 1561, con representantes de ambos lados, y aunque esta reunión no logró llegar a un compromiso, fue seguida en enero de 1562 por el Edicto de Saint-Germain, más conocido como el 'Edicto de Tolerancia' o de enero. Este edicto otorgó a los hugonotes el derecho a predicar durante el día en el campo y permitió a los nobles protestantes administrar iglesias hugonotes en sus propiedades.

La respuesta católica a esta tolerancia limitada fue previsiblemente hostil. A fines de 1561, el duque Francisco de Guisa, la duque Ana de Montmorency, alguacil de Francia, y el mariscal Saint-André formaron una alianza y se prepararon para buscar la ayuda de Felipe II de España. A este 'triunvirato' recién formado se uniría a Antoine de Borbón, rey de Navarra, para formar el liderazgo católico en la próxima guerra, aunque solo Montmorency sobreviviría a la lucha.

Fue Guise quien proporcionó el detonante de la guerra. Cuando pasaba por Vassy el 1 de marzo de 1562, sus hombres se encontraron con una congregación protestante y abrieron fuego. Los hugonotes respondieron a la 'masacre de Vassy' convocando un sínodo en abril, en el que pidieron a Luis de Borbón, príncipe de Condé, que reuniera tropas para protegerlos. Estuvo de acuerdo con su solicitud y emitió un llamado para que el pueblo protestante de Francia levantara tropas para oponerse a Guisa y sus aliados.

En las primeras semanas de la guerra, un gran número de pueblos y ciudades se pronunciaron a favor de los hugonotes o fueron ocupados por ellos. Tours, Blois, Angers, Beaugency, Poitiers, Lyon y Bourges fueron algunos de los lugares que cayeron en sus manos. Los hugonotes también intentaron obtener ayuda extranjera, recurriendo a la Inglaterra protestante y Alemania para equilibrar la ayuda que llegaba a la causa católica de Felipe II de España (que en ese momento todavía gobernaba los Países Bajos españoles).

El 20 de septiembre de 1562, Isabel I anunció el Tratado de Hampton Court, en el que acordó prestar a los hugonotes 140.000 coronas de oro. A cambio, prometieron entregar Calais a los ingleses si ganaban la guerra, mientras que Le Havre estaba ocupada como seguridad.

En julio de 1562, el ejército real salió de París y marchó hacia el sur. Poitiers fue capturado y Bourges se rindió el 31 de agosto después de un breve asedio. El ejército real se trasladó luego a Rouen, que cayó en un asalto el 26 de octubre de 1562. La víctima más importante de este asedio fue Antoine de Borbón, rey de Navarra, que murió el 17 de noviembre de una herida infligida anteriormente en el asedio.

A raíz de la caída de Rouen, el ejército católico se dispersó. Parte del ejército fue enviado a cuarteles de invierno, parte permaneció en el área alrededor de Orleans y parte, bajo el mando del duque de Guisa, se preparó para moverse contra los ingleses en Le Havre.

Condé respondió a estos reveses marchando sobre París. El ejército hugonote se sentó fuera de la ciudad entre el 28 de noviembre y el 10 de diciembre, pero después de dos semanas de negociaciones infructuosas quedó claro que la ciudad era demasiado fuerte para capturarla, y el ejército hugonote levantó el campamento y comenzó a marchar hacia Chartres y luego Normandía.

El 19 de diciembre fueron interceptados por el ejército real en Dreux y se libró la única batalla importante de la guerra. Tanto Condé como Montmorency fueron capturados y la batalla se ganó con un contraataque dirigido por Guise. Las fuerzas restantes de los hugonotes se retiraron a Orleans, que pronto fue sitiada.

El 18 de febrero de 1563, justo cuando el asedio de Orleans parecía llegar a su fin, Guisa fue baleado y herido de muerte, muriendo el 24 de febrero. Esto eliminó al último de los principales líderes católicos, con tres muertos y Montmorency en cautiverio. Catalina de Medici pudo usar a Condé para comenzar las negociaciones de paz, y el 18 de marzo la guerra terminó con el Edicto de Amboise, que otorgó a los hugonotes algunas de las libertades religiosas prometidas en 1562, incluido el derecho a predicar fuera de las ciudades. Este compromiso logró mantener la paz entre las dos comunidades religiosas durante cuatro años, antes de que el temor a una conspiración católica internacional convenciera a Condé y Coligny de intentar apoderarse del rey, desencadenando la Segunda Guerra de Religión.

El final de la Primera Guerra de Religión dejó a los ingleses aislados en Le Havre. En la primavera de 1563, un poderoso ejército real, que incluía a varios hugonotes, se trasladó a sitiar Le Havre, y el 1 de agosto los franceses volvieron a ocupar la ciudad. Al año siguiente, Inglaterra y Francia firmaron la Paz de Troyes (11 de abril de 1564). No se mencionó a Calais, pero Isabel aceptó un pago de 120.000 coronas de oro a cambio de renunciar a cualquier derecho a Le Havre.


Visión general

Las Guerras de Religión francesas (1562-1598) es el nombre de un período de luchas internas civiles y operaciones militares principalmente entre católicos franceses y protestantes (hugonotes). El conflicto involucró las disputas entre facciones entre las casas aristocráticas de Francia, como la Casa de Borbón y la Casa de Guisa, y ambas partes recibieron ayuda de fuentes extranjeras.

El número exacto de guerras y sus respectivas fechas son objeto de continuo debate por parte de los historiadores, algunos afirman que el Edicto de Nantes en 1598 concluyó las guerras, aunque un resurgimiento de la actividad rebelde que siguió a esto lleva a algunos a creer que la Paz de Alaïs en 1629 es la conclusión real. Sin embargo, en la Masacre de Vassy de 1562 se acuerda haber iniciado las Guerras de Religión hasta que un centenar de hugonotes murieron en esta masacre. Durante las guerras, las complejas negociaciones diplomáticas y los acuerdos de paz fueron seguidos por renovados conflictos y luchas de poder.

Entre 2.000.000 y 4.000.000 de personas murieron como resultado de la guerra, el hambre y las enfermedades, y al final del conflicto en 1598, el Edicto de Nantes concedió a los hugonotes derechos y libertades sustanciales, aunque no puso fin a la hostilidad hacia ellos. Las guerras debilitaron la autoridad de la monarquía, ya frágil bajo el gobierno de Francisco II y luego de Carlos IX, aunque la monarquía reafirmó más tarde su papel bajo Enrique IV.


Contenido

El líder del ataque fue el Tirano Clístenes de Sición, quien usó su poderosa armada para bloquear el puerto de la ciudad antes de usar un ejército aliado de Anfición para asediar Kirrha. Los atenienses también participaron con un contingente liderado por Alcmaeon. En el lado de Tesalia, los líderes eran Euríloco e Hipias. Lo que sucedió después de esto es un tema de debate: el relato más antiguo, y por lo tanto probablemente el más confiable, es el del escritor médico Thessalos. Escribió, en el siglo V a. C., que los atacantes descubrieron una tubería de agua secreta que conducía a la ciudad después de que la rompiera un casco de caballo. Un asclepiado Nebros aconsejó a los aliados que envenenaran el agua con eléboro que pronto dejó a los defensores tan débiles de diarrea que no pudieron resistir el asalto. Kirrha fue capturada y toda la población fue masacrada. [2] Nebros fue considerado un antepasado de Hipócrates, por lo que esta historia ha hecho que muchos se pregunten si no pudo haber sido la culpa por el uso de veneno de su antepasado lo que llevó a Hipócrates a establecer el Juramento Hipocrático. [3]

Los historiadores posteriores contaron diferentes historias. Según Frontino, quien escribió en el siglo I d.C., después de descubrir la pipa, la Liga Anficiónica la cortó, lo que provocó una gran sed dentro de la ciudad. Luego restauraron la tubería y los desesperados Kirrhans inmediatamente comenzaron a beber el agua, sin saber que Kleisthenes la había envenenado con eléboro. [4] Según Polyaenus, un escritor del siglo II, los atacantes agregaron el eléboro al manantial de donde provenía el agua. Polyaenus también dio crédito por la estrategia no a Clístenes sino al general Eurylochus, quien, según él, aconsejó a sus aliados que recolectaran una gran cantidad de eléboro de Anticyra, donde era abundante. [5] Las historias de Frontinus y Polyaenus tienen el mismo resultado que la historia de Thessalos: la derrota de Kirrha. [3]

El último gran historiador que avanzó una nueva historia del asedio fue Pausanias, quien estuvo activo en el siglo II. En su versión de los hechos, Solón de Atenas desvió el curso del río Pleistos para evitar a través de Kirrha, pero el enemigo pudo obtener suficiente agua de sus pozos y recolección de agua de lluvia. Luego Solón añadió una gran cantidad de eléboro al agua de los Pleistos y la dejó fluir hacia Kirrha. [3]

La Primera Guerra Sagrada terminó con la victoria de los aliados de la Amphictyony. Kirrha fue destruida y sus tierras fueron dedicadas a Apolo, Leto y Artemisa y estaba prohibido cultivarlas o dejar que los animales pastaran en ellas. Sus habitantes huyeron a la montaña Kirphe. Clístenes fue recompensado generosamente con un tercio del botín. Para celebrar el final de los combates, se organizaron los primeros Juegos Pitios en los que Clístenes desempeñó un papel importante. Sin embargo, la erudición moderna es muy escéptica sobre los eventos exactos y sobre la larga duración de la guerra.


Guerras de religión y el edicto de Nantes: 1588-1598

Henri de Guise fue asesinado en 1588 y Enrique III en 1589.

En ese momento, Enrique III había planeado atacar París con su primo hugonote, Enrique de Navarra. Con el asesinato, Enrique de Navarra tuvo derecho legal al trono y continuó luchando contra la Liga Santa.

A pesar de que la Liga Santa volvió a contar con la ayuda de España, Enrique obtuvo algunas victorias importantes. Después de convertirse al catolicismo en 1593, entró en París en 1594. Enrique IV se destacó porque consideró que el futuro de Francia era más importante que las batallas religiosas en curso, y se convirtió al catolicismo sobre esa base: esa era la única manera de traer la paz. a Francia. En 1598 asumió el trono como rey Enrique IV (en la foto).

En 1598, el Edicto de Nantes concedió la libertad de culto a toda Francia. En el mismo año se firmó el Tratado de Vervins entre Francia y España. Estos dos pasos esencialmente terminaron las guerras de religión en Francia, y uno de los capítulos más terribles de su historia llegó a su fin.

En el siglo venidero, gran parte del terreno ganado con tanto esfuerzo se volverá a luchar, pero por el momento Francia finalmente tuvo un período de paz, después de casi cuatro décadas de guerras civiles y dos de los exterminios sistemáticos más brutales e insensatos que había visto Europa. , o volvería a ver hasta el siglo XX.


Las guerras de religión y la guerra de los 30 años

Las guerras de religión fueron causadas por la intolerancia dentro y entre estados donde diferentes religiones competían por adherentes. La iglesia cristiana había sido una iglesia casi universal, al menos en Europa, durante más de 1000 años. La Reforma de principios del siglo XVI cambió esto. Los predicadores evangelizaron a personas de diversas áreas para que siguieran uno u otro movimiento religioso.

A finales del siglo XVI y principios del siglo XVII se creía que un estado tenía que ser homogéneo para ser estable. Algunos monarcas y políticos no estaban tan preocupados por la religión en particular que se practicaba siempre que hubiera una sola. Esto no quiere decir que no hubiera reyes devotamente religiosos que creyeran que el fuego del infierno y la condenación aguardaban a quienes no se adhirieran a la religión verdadera. Las dos creencias fueron de la mano para crear una lucha por la conciencia de la gente dentro de muchos de los estados de Europa. En ese momento, la coerción física se usaba a menudo como un medio de persuasión. Ocasionalmente, el resultado sería una guerra civil y, más tarde, una guerra en toda Europa.

Las guerras de Felipe II

Felipe II (rey desde 1556-1598) fue un devoto rey católico de España. Tenía muchos más territorios bajo su control, incluidos los Países Bajos, el sur de Italia y Borgoña. El era un Habsburgo, hijo de Carlos V. Al principio de su reinado tuvo que lidiar con los calvinistas en las áreas del norte de los Países Bajos que deseaban ser independientes de España no solo por la diferencia de religión, sino porque sentían que estaban demasiado gravados. En 1609, los holandeses habían obtenido efectivamente su independencia.

Mientras se desarrollaban estas luchas, Felipe entró en conflicto con Inglaterra. María de Inglaterra había sido su esposa. Durante su reinado, los dos habían tratado de revertir la Reforma inglesa, trayendo a Inglaterra de vuelta al redil católico. Sin embargo, muchos se habían resistido al movimiento. Cuando María murió, Isabel se convirtió en reina y los protestantes volvieron al poder. En 1588 lanzó una gran cantidad de barcos que iban a recoger tropas de Holanda que iban a invadir Inglaterra. Los ingleses, con la inteligencia de que se acercaba la flota de invasión, libraron una batalla de ocho días consecutivos con los españoles. Aunque los barcos ingleses eran más pequeños, eran superiores en maniobrabilidad y alcance de armas. También sopló una tormenta, y los barcos españoles restantes se vieron obligados a navegar por Inglaterra, alrededor de Escocia e Irlanda, y de regreso a España. Este evento se ha celebrado durante mucho tiempo en los anales de la historia inglesa como la "Derrota de la Armada Española". Inglaterra nunca más se vería amenazada por un ataque directo de España.

Guerras en Francia

En Francia, una guerra civil entre calvinistas, llamados hugonotes (liderados por los Borbones), y la población mayoritaria católica (liderada por la familia Guise) se convirtió en un complicado lío. Había habido una corriente subterránea de luchas seculares entre las dos partes desde que el calvinismo comenzó a filtrarse a través de la frontera de Suiza. Muchos de los nobles se hicieron protestantes, para algunos fue una conversión religiosa vital, pero otros usaron la religión como un medio para subvertir el poder del rey. En este momento Catalina de Medici era la reina madre. Ella era el poder detrás del trono de tres hijos sucesivos. Las cosas llegaron a un punto crítico en 1562. Ocho años de lucha terminaron en una tregua en 1570.

Pero Catalina estaba decidida a asestar un golpe a los hugonotes. En 1572 diseñó el Masacre del día de San Bartolomé. Varios miles de protestantes en Francia fueron masacrados por una señal de Catalina.

La masacre provocó indignación en muchos sectores. Enrique de Navarra (rey de un país separado en el norte de España) se convirtió en jefe de los protestantes. Marchó a Francia y el Guerra de los Tres Henrys comenzó. La facción católica estaba dirigida por Enrique, duque de Guisa. Una facción moderada fue dirigida por el rey francés Enrique III (el tercer hijo de Catalina de Medici en ser rey). Al final, Enrique de Guisa fue asesinado por los hombres del rey, y el rey fue asesinado por los hombres del duque, dejando el camino abierto para que Enrique de Navarra se convirtiera en el rey Enrique IV de Francia (1553-1610). Demostró ser una fuerza unificadora, poniendo fin a la lucha civil en Francia.

La Guerra de los Treinta Años

los Paz de Augsburgo (1555) había determinado que la gente de cada estado del Sacro Imperio Romano seguiría la religión del gobernante del estado, ya fuera luterano o católico. Este acuerdo trajo la paz por un corto tiempo entre las distintas facciones religiosas en Alemania.

En 1617, Fernando de Estiria fue nombrado rey de Bohemia. Algunas personas, especialmente los nobles calvinistas, temían que los persiguiera por su religión. Decidieron rebelarse. Para traer a todo el país con ellos, algunos nobles entraron al palacio y arrojaron a dos de los oficiales del rey por una ventana alta. Este episodio se llamó Defenestración de Praga. ("Defenestración" en realidad significa arrojar a alguien o algo por la ventana. También se usa a veces para significar "destitución rápida del cargo".) Esta pequeña demostración provocaría una guerra feroz que duraría treinta años.

Los nobles de Bohemia (República Checa actual) declararon depuesto a Fernando y eligieron un nuevo rey, Federico. Se produjo la guerra entre Bohemia (con algo de ayuda de una liga de estados protestantes) y el emperador del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico (Fernando, el rey depuesto, acababa de ser ascendido a ese puesto). En 1620 la rebelión en Bohemia fue aplastada.

En 1625 el conflicto estalló de nuevo cuando el rey luterano de Dinamarca decidió ayudar a los protestantes en Alemania. Estaba alarmado por las victorias católicas. También fue duque de Holstein, otra provincia del Sacro Imperio Romano. El emperador contrató a un contratista independiente, Wallenstein, que levantó 50.000 soldados y junto a las fuerzas del emperador destruyó el ejército de Christian IV (1577-1648) y le quitó a Holstein. Christian se retiró de las luchas internas del imperio y recuperó a Holstein como recompensa.

Toda esta lucha estaba sirviendo para consolidar el poder de la familia Habsburgo en el Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico. El imperio había sido durante mucho tiempo un conglomerado muy flexible de estados, los estados nacionales cercanos comenzaron a considerar la unificación como un problema. Francia, bajo Cardenal Richelieu, aunque un estado católico comenzó a apoyar a los protestantes. El rey sueco, Gustavus Adolphus, decidió intervenir directamente: para engrandecer un territorio, derribar a los Habsburgo un par de clavijas y defender su religión luterana. Gustavus era un general soberbio e hizo muchas innovaciones militares tácticas que hicieron que su ejército fuera más maniobrable. Obtuvo varias victorias, poniendo a los Habsburgo a la defensiva. Sin embargo, fue asesinado en la batalla de Lutzen y los Habsburgo volvieron a ganar. En 1635, se firmó un tratado que fue muy favorable al emperador del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico.

Cabe señalar aquí el cambio general de enfoque de la guerra. La Guerra de los Treinta Años comenzó como una lucha religiosa, con factores dinásticos y políticos de fondo. A medida que avanzaba la guerra, la política desempeñaba un papel cada vez más importante. El interés de los estados nacionales se volvió primordial. Por eso, en 1635, los franceses, dirigidos en su mayor parte por un cardenal católico, Richelieu, entraron en la guerra del lado de los príncipes protestantes.

La entrada de Francia en la lucha inclinó la balanza a favor de los príncipes protestantes rebeldes. Pero aún así la guerra siguió y siguió. Esto se debió en parte al hecho de que los príncipes, reyes y emperadores no tenían suficiente dinero para pagar a sus tropas. Las tropas se unieron para conseguir dinero y suministros de la única forma que sabían, que era seguir saqueando las regiones invadidas. Muchos reyes tenían miedo de hacer la paz, porque no querían que estos ejércitos apenas controlables regresaran a sus propios territorios. Así, la guerra continuó de manera intermitente hasta 1648. El final Tratado de Westfalia resultó beneficioso para Francia, Suecia y Brandeburgo (Prusia). También legitimó a los calvinistas en Alemania. El Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico se convirtió en un mero caparazón. El título de emperador quedó prácticamente sin sentido.

La Guerra de los 30 Años sería la última gran guerra entre católicos y protestantes en Europa. Sin embargo, todavía habría luchas entre los protagonistas religiosos en varias regiones como Irlanda del Norte, Rusia y los Balcanes. En última instancia, la religión se convertiría cada vez más en una cuestión de conciencia individual y menos en una cuestión de control estatal. Se encontraría que la diversidad religiosa dentro de un estado no es perjudicial. De hecho, la persecución de las sectas religiosas tanto en España como en Francia (bajo Luis XIV) resultó económicamente ruinosa. Aunque algunas personas vieron beneficios al saquear a los perseguidos, en general, los pogromos y la emigración virtual forzada dañaron el poder del estado porque la mano de obra y la experiencia se agotaron repentinamente del país. Los países tolerantes se beneficiaron así de la afluencia de trabajadores altamente calificados.

¿Fueron las guerras de religión una catártica que agotó el ánimo de las diferencias religiosas en Europa? Quizás tuvo este efecto. La gente llegó a ver que el costo de las luchas que destruyeron las economías y los pueblos de vastas regiones era un precio demasiado alto para pagar por una creencia unificada (que resultó imposible de hacer cumplir en cualquier caso). De hecho, la persecución a menudo tendía a provocar el fanatismo de las sectas perseguidas. A partir de ese momento, aunque las naciones invocarían a Dios en busca de protección o para lograr la victoria en los conflictos, la religión desempeñaría un papel en gran medida moderador en las relaciones entre los estados europeos.

Al mismo tiempo que la lucha religiosa se desarrollaba en el continente, también desempeñaba un papel en Gran Bretaña. Aunque la Guerra Civil Inglesa y las luchas subsecuentes fueron, en última instancia, sobre el poder del Rey versus el poder del pueblo, la nobleza y la nobleza, estuvo teñida de luchas religiosas en todo momento.


1.400 años de lucha cristiano / islámico: un análisis

Me decepcionó mucho ver que U.S. News publicaría un artículo claramente falso, adoptando la visión claramente falsa y políticamente correcta (PC) del mundo del lugar de las Cruzadas en la historia. Lo que lo empeora aún más, el artículo oculta sus puntos de vista bajo el título adicional de falsedad, "La verdad sobre el choque épico entre el cristianismo y el Islam".

El encabezado de apertura dice: "Durante las Cruzadas, Oriente y Occidente se conocieron por primera vez". Esto es un error total, como bien sabe cualquier persona con el más mínimo conocimiento de historia. Oriente y Occidente habían estado luchando durante al menos 1.500 años antes de la primera Cruzada.

Para dar solo algunos ejemplos: los persas invadieron Europa en un intento de conquistar a los griegos en el siglo V a.C. El griego Alejandro Magno intentó conquistar toda Asia, hasta la India, en el siglo IV a. C. Tanto los persas del este como los griegos del oeste establecieron imperios coloniales fundados sobre una sangrienta conquista militar. Los romanos establecieron colonias de conquista militar sangrienta en Mesopotamia, el noroeste de Arabia y Asiria en el siglo II d.C.

Un tipo diferente de conquista sangrienta ocurrió a través del movimiento de grupos tribales enteros entre el este y el oeste. Una vez más, solo para nombrar algunos, los hunos, los godos y los ávaros vinieron de lugares tan lejanos como Asia occidental, Asia central y China, respectivamente, en los siglos V al VII d.C. De hecho, los ávaros del norte de China y Mongolia fueron sitió Constantinopla en 626 d. C., en el mismo momento en que Mahoma era un comerciante en Arabia. De hecho, los ávaros, por este asedio, fueron una de las fuerzas que debilitaron a los bizantinos (había muchas otras fuerzas, quizás más importantes) hasta el punto de que la mayor parte del imperio bizantino del Medio Oriente cayó con relativa facilidad ante los musulmanes.

Pero démosle al escritor el beneficio de la duda y digamos que el autor quiso decir que "Durante las Cruzadas, el Islam y el cristianismo se encontraron por primera vez". Esto, por supuesto, también es totalmente falso.

Repasemos la conquista musulmana. En 624, Mahoma dirigió una incursión por el botín y el saqueo contra una caravana de La Meca, matando a 70 mecanos por mera ganancia material. Entre el 630 d.C. y la muerte de Mahoma en el 632 d.C., los musulmanes, en al menos una ocasión dirigidos por Mahoma, habían conquistado la mayor parte del oeste de Arabia y el sur de Palestina a través de aproximadamente una docena de invasiones separadas y conquistas sangrientas. Estas conquistas fueron en gran parte "guerras santas", lo que desmiente otra afirmación del artículo de U.S. News que proclamaba las cruzadas como "la primera guerra santa", como si los cristianos hubieran inventado el concepto de guerra santa. Después de la muerte de Mahoma en 632, el nuevo califa musulmán, Abu Bakr, lanzó al Islam a casi 1.500 años de continua conquista imperialista, colonialista y sangrienta y subyugación de otros a través de la invasión y la guerra, un papel que el Islam continúa hasta el día de hoy.

Notarás la cadena de adjetivos y es posible que tengas alguna objeción a que los use. Se utilizan porque son la verdad absoluta. Cualquiera que los niegue es víctima del pensamiento de la PC, ignorante de la historia o mintiendo para proteger el Islam. Tomemos cada palabra por separado antes de seguir adelante en nuestra verdadera historia de la relación entre el Occidente cristiano y el Oriente islámico.

Imperialista

Las guerras musulmanas de conquista imperialista se han lanzado durante casi 1.500 años contra cientos de naciones, en millones de millas cuadradas (significativamente más grandes que el Imperio Británico en su apogeo). El ansia de conquista imperialista musulmana se extendía desde el sur de Francia hasta Filipinas, desde Austria hasta Nigeria y desde Asia central hasta Nueva Guinea. Esta es la definición clásica de imperialismo: "la política y la práctica de tratar de dominar los asuntos económicos y políticos de los países más débiles".

Colonialista

El objetivo musulmán era tener un gobierno central, primero en Damasco y luego en Bagdad, más tarde en El Cairo, Estambul u otros centros imperiales. Los gobernadores locales, jueces y otros gobernantes fueron nombrados por las autoridades imperiales centrales para las colonias lejanas. La ley islámica se introdujo como ley principal, tanto si la deseaba la población local como si no. El árabe se introdujo como idioma de los gobernantes y el idioma local desapareció con frecuencia. Se establecieron dos clases de residentes. Los residentes nativos pagaban un impuesto que sus gobernantes colonialistas no tenían que pagar.

Aunque la ley difiere en diferentes lugares, los siguientes son ejemplos de leyes colonialistas a las que los cristianos y judíos colonizados fueron sometidos a lo largo de los años:

  • Los cristianos y los judíos no podían portar armas, los musulmanes sí
  • Los cristianos y los judíos no podían montar a caballo, los musulmanes sí
  • Los cristianos y los judíos tenían que obtener permiso para construir, los musulmanes no
  • Los cristianos y los judíos tenían que pagar ciertos impuestos que los musulmanes no pagaban.
  • Los cristianos no podían hacer proselitismo, los musulmanes sí
  • Los cristianos y los judíos tenían que inclinarse ante sus amos musulmanes cuando pagaban sus impuestos y
  • Los cristianos y los judíos tenían que vivir bajo la ley establecida en el Corán, no bajo su propia ley religiosa o secular.

En cada caso, estas leyes permitieron al pueblo conquistado local menos libertad que a los gobernantes colonialistas conquistadores. Incluso los habitantes musulmanes no árabes de las tierras conquistadas se convirtieron en ciudadanos de segunda clase detrás de los árabes gobernantes. Esta es la definición clásica de colonialista: "un grupo de personas que se establecen en un territorio distante del estado que tiene jurisdicción o control sobre él y que permanecen bajo la jurisdicción política de su tierra natal".

Hablaremos de "sangriento" a medida que avancemos. Debido a que el artículo de US News se refería solo al oeste cristiano contra el este musulmán, excepto en este párrafo, no describiré los casi 1.500 años de conquista sangrienta, imperialista, colonialista y subyugación musulmana de otros a través de la invasión y la guerra al este de Arabia en Irak, Persia y mucho más al este, que continúa hasta el día de hoy.

En cualquier caso, por ser la más cercana geográficamente, Palestina fue la primera zona occidental no árabe invadida por la conquista sangrienta imperialista, colonialista musulmana y el sometimiento de otros. En ese momento, Palestina estaba bajo el dominio del llamado Imperio Romano de Oriente, gobernado desde Estambul por personas de habla griega y era católica ortodoxa del este. El gobierno ortodoxo oriental fue despótico y el Imperio Romano Oriental estaba en grave declive. Los gobernantes ortodoxos orientales eran déspotas y en Palestina habían subyugado a la gran población de judíos y cristianos monofisitas locales. Debido a que los ortodoxos eran imperialistas, colonialistas y sanguinarios, y además se especializaban en la persecución religiosa, la conquista y subyugación sangrienta, imperialista y colonialista musulmana de Palestina, y luego de Egipto, se hizo más fácil. Debido a la debilidad ortodoxa y la velocidad relativa de la conquista de Palestina e Israel, a menudo he visto esta conquista sangrienta musulmana, imperialista, colonialista descrita por escritores musulmanes y del PC como "pacífica" o "incruenta". Esta afirmación simplemente no es cierta.

La conquista y subyugación sangrienta musulmana imperialista, colonialista de Palestina comenzó con una batalla, el 20 de agosto de 636, batalla de Yarmk (se cree que participaron 75.000 soldados, casi sin sangre). Con la ayuda de los judíos locales que dieron la bienvenida a los musulmanes como libertadores, los musulmanes habían subyugado al resto de Palestina, pero no habían podido capturar Jerusalén. A partir de julio de 637, los musulmanes iniciaron un asedio de Jerusalén que duró cinco (casi sin sangre) meses antes de que Jerusalén cayera en febrero de 638. Los árabes no saquearon la ciudad y, al parecer, sus líderes mantuvieron a los soldados árabes bajo un estricto control. No se permitió la destrucción. Este fue en verdad un triunfo del control civilizado, si es que el imperialismo, la colonización y la conquista sangrienta pueden alguna vez decirse que son "civilizados". Fue en esta conquista que comenzaron muchos sellos importantes del colonialismo musulmán. Se hizo que el pueblo judío y cristiano conquistado rindiera homenaje a los musulmanes colonialistas. Además, Bagdad utilizó las sangrientas guerras de conquista imperialistas, colonialistas a lo largo de la vida de su imperio para proporcionar al Califato un flujo constante de esclavos, muchos de los cuales fueron convertidos en eunucos.

La conquista musulmana del norte de África (cristiana) fue relativamente fácil hasta que los pueblos nativos del norte de África (sobre todo los bereberes) se encontraron al oeste de Egipto. El pueblo norteafricano luchó con tanta fuerza contra los musulmanes que la conquista sangrienta, imperialista y colonialista musulmana en Occidente se detuvo casi por completo entre Trípoli y Cartago durante más de un cuarto de siglo. Los musulmanes se abrieron paso en una serie de sangrientas batallas seguidas de sangrientas (venganza) masacres de los opositores musulmanes (en su mayoría cristianos). Esta conquista musulmana imperialista, colonialista y sangrienta continuó por el norte de África y por lo que hoy es España, Portugal y el sur de Francia, hasta que fueron detenidos en la batalla de Poiters (apenas incruenta) en medio de Francia.

Creo que si tuviera tiempo, podría demostrar que los musulmanes, en sus conquistas occidentales imperialistas, colonialistas y sangrientas, mataron de dos a tres veces más cristianos que los cristianos mataron musulmanes en todas las Cruzadas juntas.

Pero volvamos a Jerusalén.

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.

Las cruzadas

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. ¿Pero hoy? ¡Por supuesto! 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:


Opciones 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.

Historia

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.)

Las cruzadas

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.


Ver el vídeo: CONTRARREFORMA Católico Romana - Incitó Las Atróces Guerras de Religión (Enero 2022).