Preaching held priority over war in converting infidels

Evidence

To a modern reader these appear drastically different: preaching the Gospel and passively accepting execution on the one hand, waging war on the other. Tudebodus will try to present these as essentially similar acts: the crusaders are the new apostles and martyrs, ushering in a new age for Christ and his church. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 615 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Where acts of war were out of the question there often developed a strange desire to provoke violence instead. Some missionaries seem to have allowed or encouraged ‘preaching’ and ‘disputation’ to degenerate into provocation. Lull exemplified this when he ‘defended’ the Trinity by publicly abusing Islam; Ricoldo, more sympathetically, showed, amid considerable evidence of courage for religion’s sake, no sign at all of zeal for the martyr’s crown. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 683 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval wars killed infidels rather than converting them; Medieval Christians debated conversion by preaching versus military conquest — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1070; Conquest cannot convert peoples; preaching requires language skill and doctrinal study — R. W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle…, 338 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Crusade chroniclers equated preaching and passive martyrdom with waging war #complicates (0.80) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 615
• Crusade chroniclers blurred the distinction between preaching martyrs and waging war #complicates (0.80)
• Medieval missionaries often converted preaching into deliberate provocation of violence #complicates (0.75) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 683