Crisis Magazine recently published an excellent article which may be of interest to members entitled:
Crash Course on the Crusades
The
Crusades are one of the most misunderstood events in Western and Church
history. The very word “crusades” conjures negative images in our
modern world of bloodthirsty and greedy European nobles embarked on a
conquest of peaceful Muslims. The Crusades are considered by many to be
one of the “sins” the Christian Faith has committed against humanity
and with the Inquisition are the go-to cudgels for bashing the Church.
While the mocking and generally nasty portrayal of the Crusades and
Crusaders on the big screen ranges from Monty Python farce to the cringe
worthy big budget spectacles like
Kingdom of Heaven (2005), it is the biased and bad scholarship such as Steven Runciman’s
History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary,
The Crusades,
hosted by Terry Jones (of Monty Python acclaim) that does real damage.
From academia to pop-culture, the message is reinforced and driven home
with resounding force: the Crusades were bad and obviously so. The real
story is of course far more complicated and far more interesting.
It is worth our time to be versed in the facts and especially to
recall the tremendous faith, sacrifice, and courage that inspired the
vast majority of the Crusaders to act in defense of Christendom.
What were the Crusades?
When answering the question “what were the Crusades” one has to keep
in mind that Crusading took on many different forms throughout the
movement which spanned a significant portion of European history lasting
from 1095 – 1798.
There were Crusades against the Muslims (in the Holy Land, in Spain,
in the Balkans and even in Austria); against pagan tribes in the Baltic
regions; against heretics (notably in southern France); and even against
enemies of the Pope (e.g. the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II).
Despite the many different forms, there were four essential ingredients that classified an armed expedition as a Crusade:
The taking of the Cross
Participants took a public, binding ecclesiastical vow to join a
military expedition with defined aims. As a sign of their vow, they
sewed a red cross onto their garments. The cross could only be removed
upon successful completion of their armed pilgrimage.
Papal endorsement
A Crusade had to be called by the Pope or endorsed by him.
Privileges
A crusader received certain privileges from the Church, specifically,
the protection of family and property. Those who attacked a crusader’s
land were subject to severe ecclesiastical penalties (including
excommunication). Additional privileges included the right to demand and
receive hospitality from the Church on the journey, exemption from
tolls and taxes, immunity from arrest, and exemption from interest
payments.
Indulgence
Crusaders were granted a partial or plenary indulgence for completion of their armed pilgrimage.
When most people think of the Crusades they simple think it was a
prolonged martial engagement of European knights against the Muslims in
the Holy Land. The truth is that each expedition was launched for
distinct reasons with years and even decades separating the campaigns.
Crusade historians have traditionally numbered these distinct
expeditions in the following manner:
Crusade
|
Dates
|
Major Events
|
Major Characters
|
| First |
1096 –1102 |
- Liberation of Antioch
- 1098
- Liberation of Jerusalem
- 1099
|
- Godfrey of Bouillon
- Raymond of Toulouse
- Bohemond
- Bishop Adhemar
|
| Second |
1147 – 1149 |
- Siege of Damascus (failed)
|
- Louis VII of France
- Conrad III – Holy Roman Emperor (HRE)
|
| Third |
1189 – 1192 |
- Liberation of Acre
– 1191
- Treaty = Christian access to Jerusalem for 3 years
|
- Saladin
- HRE Frederick Barbarossa
- Richard I – King of England
- Philip II – King of France
|
| Fourth |
1201 – 1205 |
- Sack of Constantinople
– 1204
|
- Pope Innocent III
- Doge Enricho Dandolo – Venice
- Alexius Angelus
- Boniface of Montferrat
|
| Fifth |
1218 – 1221 |
|
- Cardinal Pelagius
- St. FrancisAl-Kamil
|
| Sixth (a.k.a. Crusade of Frederick II) |
1228 – 1229 |
- Restoration of Jerusalem by treaty
|
|
| Seventh (First Crusade of St. Louis) |
1248 – 1254 |
|
- King St. Louis IX of France
|
| Eighth (a.k.a Second Crusade of St. Louis) |
1269 – 1272 |
|
- King St. Louis IX of France
|
With this backdrop, we can now address the five most enduring modern myths regarding the Crusades.
Myth #1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression
From its beginnings, Islam has been a violent and imperialistic
movement. Within 100 years of the death of Mohammed, Islamic armies had
conquered ancient Christian lands in the Middle East, North Africa, and
Spain. The Holy City of Jerusalem was captured in 638. Islamic armies
launched raids throughout the Mediterranean and even attacked Rome in
846. Life in the conquered regions for Christians was not easy; many
were forced to convert, others converted due to societal pressure
(Christians and Jews were considered to be barely above the status of
slaves in Islamic society); still others maintained the Faith at great
risk.
Although there were periods of relative peace and calm between
Muslims and Christians, including Christian pilgrims from Europe, the
situation radically changed in the early 11
th century when the Egyptian Muslim ruler of Jerusalem ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
The church was later rebuilt, but the arrival of the Seljuk Turks
(non-Arab Muslims), who conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Muslims in
the late 11
th century, negatively altered the landscape for
the Christians. In 1065 the Seljuks began a campaign of persecution
against Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land in which the Bishop of
Bamberg and 12,000 pilgrims were massacred by the Muslims only two miles
from Jerusalem. They waged war against the Christian Byzantine Empire,
winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Manzikert (1071). It was
this event that one historian has described as “the shock that launched
the Crusades.”[1]
After losing the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Emperor wrote the
Pope a letter requesting western aid. It was for this reason and for
the liberation of Jerusalem and other ancient Christian lands that
eventually led Pope Bl. Urban II to call the First Crusade at the
Council of Clermont on November 27, 1095.
The Crusaders understood they were participating in an armed
pilgrimage for the restoration of ancient Christian lands. The Crusades
were defensive wars aimed at the restoration of property not unprovoked
aggressive campaigns of conquest.
Myth #2: The Crusades were about European greed for booty, plunder and the establishment of colonies.
Scholarship over the last forty years has clearly demonstrated the
fallacy of this modern myth, yet it still persists. The myth postulates
the reason for the Crusades grew out of the European population boom
experienced in the mid 11
th century, which saw the rise of
numerous second and third born sons who could not inherit the family
land. As a result, European society became violent and the Church
channeled this violence by directing the attention of these latter born
sons to the Holy Land where they could acquire land and wealth through
violent conquest. In short, the Crusades were colonial enterprises
aimed at increasing European wealth. This sounds logical; however, the
facts do not fit the myth.
Modern scholars have shown through meticulous research that it was
the first-born sons, not the second and third, who made up the majority
of Crusaders. As one historian has remarked, “it was not those with the
least to lose who took up the cross, but rather those with the
most.”[2] The vast majority of Crusaders actually left the Holy Land and
returned home upon completion of their vows; just as pilgrims today go
to a church or shrine and then return home.
Of the 60,000 fighting men who went on the First Crusade, only 300
knights and 2,000 infantry remained after the liberation of Jerusalem.
If the Crusades were an ancient land-grab, then why did so many
European knights travel 2,500 miles, finance four times their annual
income for expenses and risk certain death to go?
It is hard for the modern mind to grasp the reality that the society of the late 11
th and early 12
th
century was a society rooted in the Catholic Faith. Men left the
comfort of home to engage in an armed pilgrimage because of their love
for Christ and a concern for their souls.
Records left by these first Crusaders show they were motivated by the
granting of a plenary indulgence in reparation for their sins. One
crusader, Odo of Burgundy, undertook
“
the journey to Jerusalem as a penance for my sins… Since divine
mercy inspired me that owing to the enormity of my sins I should go to
the Sepulchre of Our Savior, in order that this offering of my devotion
might be more acceptable in the sight of God, I decided not unreasonably
that I should make the journey with the peace of all men and most
greatly of the servants of God.”[3] Indeed, one contemporary chronicler remarked, “
the Crusader set himself the task of winning back the earthly Jerusalem in order to enjoy the celestial Jerusalem.”[4]
Although many crusaders were motivated by piety, of course not all
participants had such pure motives. As with any human undertaking, the
Crusades also drew men more concerned with temporal affairs than
spiritual affairs. “A crusade army was a curious mix of rich and poor,
saints and sinners, motivated by every kind of pious and selfish
desire…”[5]
Recognizing this reality does not give credence to the modern myth,
rather it acknowledges human nature. The fact remains that the vast
majority of crusaders were pious warriors fighting to liberate the land
of Christ from the yoke of the Muslims in order to bring peace.
Myth #3: When Jerusalem was captured in 1099 the crusaders
killed all the inhabitants – so many were killed that the blood flowed
ankle deep through the city.
Soon after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, former President
Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University wherein he embraced
this modern myth and said one reason why Muslims dislike the Western
world was because of the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in
1099.
Despite the obvious physical inability for blood to flow ankle-deep
through a city, this myth fails to take into account the harsh reality
and rules of 11
th century warfare. Standard practice at the
time dictated that a city that refused to surrender at the sight of a
siege army would suffer any and all consequences of a successful siege;
this is why many cities agreed to terms before commencement of the
siege.
Both Christian and Muslim armies followed this policy. If a city
surrendered before the siege, the inhabitants were allowed to remain in
the city and keep their possessions. Crusaders allowed Muslims to keep
their faith and practice it openly upon surrender. In the case of
Jerusalem, most of the city had fled at the news of the incoming
Christian army. When the Crusaders broke through the defenses and took
the city, they did kill many inhabitants, including non-combatants;
others were ransomed and some were expelled.
Myth #4: The Crusades were also wars against the Jews and should be considered the first Holocaust.
As the First Crusaders marched through Europe on their way to the
Holy Land via Constantinople, many smaller bands of armed men followed
in their wake. A leader of one of these bands, Count Emich took it upon
himself to march down the Rhine valley targeting various Jewish
communities.
Emich embraced the anti-Semitic notion that it was pointless for
Crusaders to march 2,500 miles to fight Islam when there were “enemies
of Christ” in their midst. His force engaged in pogroms in numerous
German towns in search of money and a misguided and unsanctioned sense
of holiness. The Church in no way endorsed Count Emich’s tactics and
many bishops tried to protect local Jews; indeed, the Bishop of Speyer
had those engaged in pogroms arrested, tried and punished. The Bishop
of Mainz allowed local Jews to take up refuge in his palace;
unfortunately, Count Emich violated this sanctuary, stormed the palace
and killed them all. It is important to note that numerous contemporary
chronicles condemn the actions of Emich and like-minded men. The
Church also actively spoke out against such outrages.
During the time of the Second Crusade (1147 – 1149), St. Bernard of
Clairvaux, who after the Pope was the most well-known and respected
churchman in Christendom, spoke out strongly against anti-Semitism. He
wrote,
“We have heard with joy that zeal for God burns in you, but
wisdom must not be lacking from this zeal. The Jews are not to be
persecuted, nor killed, nor even forced to flee.”[6]
A Cistercian monk named Radulf preached and exhorted the people to
engage in pogroms in the Rhineland. Upon hearing reports of Radulf’s
preaching, St. Bernard went to Germany, severely rebuked Radulf and sent
him back to his monastery.
None of the anti-Jewish “armies” made it to the East, after their
rampage of murder and plunder, the brigands dispersed. So, these groups
cannot accurately be called Crusaders. Although numerous Jewish
populations were harmed during the time of the crusading movement, these
attacks were not directly part of the movement as none of the main
armies participated in them and the Church did not sanction the attacks,
rather, she worked to stop them.
Myth #5: The Crusades are the source of the modern tension between Islam and the West
Those searching for answers to explain the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks have turned to the Crusades. They cite the Crusades
as the reason for Islamic hatred of the West and believe Muslims are
trying to “right the wrongs” of centuries of oppression stemming from
the Crusades. Little do these individuals know that the Crusades were
mostly forgotten in the Islamic world until the 20
th century.
From an Islamic perspective, the Crusades were an insignificant
historical period, only lasting 195 years (from 1096 – 1291);
interestingly, the first Arabic history of the Crusades was not written
until 1899. The main reason for this lack of interest stemmed from the
fact that the Crusades were unsuccessful in establishing the permanent
liberation of the Holy Land.
As an example of the lack of import Islam placed on the Crusades
concerns Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888 –1918) and the Muslim general Saladin.
Saladin was the great liberator of Jerusalem, re-conquering the city
from the Christians in 1187 after a decisive victory over a large
Christian army at the Battle of Hattin. He also fought battles against
the legendary King Richard I, the Lionheart, during the Third Crusade,
as a result, the name and fame of Saladin was well remembered in Europe
throughout the centuries. In 1899, Kaiser Wilhelm traveled to Damascus
and while there desired to visit the tomb of Saladin. When he found it,
he was shocked at its dilapidated state. The tomb of the man who had
united Islam in the 12
th century and re-conquered most of the
Crusader states, had been forgotten and allowed to decay. The Kaiser
laid a wreath with the inscription, “to the Hero Sultan Saladin” and
then paid for the restoration of the tomb. [7]
It wasn’t until widespread European colonialism after the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in the early 20
th
century that the Crusades came to be used as anti-imperialist
propaganda both in European academia and in the Muslim world. This
propaganda has, unfortunately, found widespread acceptance and focus in
the Muslim world and has led to a gross historical misunderstanding.
One Crusade historian has remarked how “
generations of Arab
school children have been taught that the crusades were a clear case of
good vs. evil. Rapacious and zealous crusaders swept into a peaceful
and sophisticated Muslim world leaving carnage and destruction in their
wake.”[8]
This false history was exploited by the likes of Osama bin Laden and
continues with other Jihadists groups today, which frequently use
crusading imagery and even the term “crusaders” in relation to the
Western world. Mehmet Ali Ağca, the man who attempted to assassinate
Pope John Paul II, was enamored with this false history as he stated,
“I have decided to kill Pope John Paul II, supreme commander of the crusades.”[9]
There are many reasons for the current tension between Islam and the West but the Crusades are not one of them. In
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas Madden summarizes the situation today well:
“…that led to the attacks of September 11, but the artificial
memory of the crusades constructed by modern colonial powers and passed
down by Arab nationalists and Islamists. They stripped the medieval
expeditions of every aspect of their age and dressed them up instead in
the tattered rags of 19th century imperialism. As such, they
have become an icon for modern agendas that medieval Christians and
Muslims could scarcely have understood, let alone condoned.”[10]
Pope Benedict XVI has emphasized the need for a “New Evangelization”
to re-spread the Faith to areas of the world where it has been lost or
forgotten. Part of the New Evangelization is learning the authentic
history of the Church and Western Civilization. No greater example, of
an area where authentic learning is paramount, is found than the
Crusades.
[1] Hilaire Belloc,
The Crusades – the World’s Debate, ( Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1992), 17.
[2] Thomas Madden,
New Concise History of the Crusades, (New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005), 12.
[3] Quoted in Ibid., 148.
[4] Quoted in Regine Pernoud,
The Crusaders – the Struggle for the Holy Land, trans. Enid Grant, (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2003) 23.
[5] Madden,
New Concise History, 13.
[6] St. Bernard,
Epistolae, quoted in
Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. Elizabeth Hallam, (New York, NY: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989), 126.
[7] Jonathan Riley-Smith,
The Crusades – A History, 2
nd ed., (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 305.
[8] Madden,
New Concise History, 220.
[9] Madden, editor,
Crusades the Illustrated History, (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2004), 208.
[10] Madden,
New Concise History, 222.
