Valparaiso University is a small Lutheran school in northern Indiana which recently decided to abandon its athletic team name, the Crusaders, because the term suggests “aggressive religious oppression and violence.” What’s your first reaction to the word “crusade?” What about the term “crusader?”
There have been a series of academic or popular works which have revised public perceptions of the Crusades. First and foremost was Stephen Runciman’s 1950s era, three-volume history of the Crusades. Terry Jones of Monty Python fame relied on this work for his BBC series “Crusades.” And no hall of shame would be complete without Ridley Scott’s execrable movie Kingdom of Heaven (2005). What do they all have in common? “Terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining” as one historian put it.
What is/was the misconception? The Crusades were a series of aggressive wars launched by a backward, religiously-fanatic West against a more peaceful, civilized East. Crusaders were a motley array of Kings in search of new domains, 2nd or 3rd sons of nobles (hence without title or prospects) seeking wealth, and peasants desperate enough to join, spurred on by fanatical clergy eager to make money off the endeavors. This toxic mix made Crusaders an intolerant, blood-thirsty, and rapacious force that broke the laws of war (as they were). Did I miss anything?
The funny thing is, the Crusades lasted 700 years (1095-1798), and happened at a time when common people, nobles, and the Church actually wrote about their lives and kept records. And little of what I described above comports with the historical record.
Let’s start with what was a “Crusade.” Like bowling, there were rules!
There were four rules for a crusade:
- The Pope had to call for, or endorse, it.
- Participants “took the cross,” an oath that they would not relent, or give up until the specific goal of the Crusade was achieved (and there was a specific goal). The Crusaders then sowed a red cross onto their clothes signifying their oath.
- Crusaders were promised that the lands and families they left behind were under protection of the Church (not insignificant when lords were constantly prowling to poach each other’s lands). They were exempt from many tolls and charges en route, and could expect the hospitality of the Church and the faithful on the way.
- Upon successful completion, crusaders were awarded an indulgence (a form of pardon for sins).
Why are these formal aspects of a crusade important? Various individuals or groups initiated their own crusades, or tried to tack alongside Crusader armies without “taking the cross.” These unauthorized crusades committed atrocities against Jewish communities, sacked towns, and robbed civilians. The Church criticized these efforts, suppressed them, and excommunicated those participating. Yet some historians started including these events in histories of the Crusades!
Were the Crusades aggressive or defensive? Islam had overrun the Holy Land by force in 637 Christian Era (CE). For the next four centuries, Islamic leaders permitted a steady stream of Christian pilgrims to visit the holy sites in Jerusalem, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1009 CE, a Fatimid Caliph ordered the destruction of the Church and other Christian sites, which caused a great outcry in Christian Europe, although the Caliph’s son permitted its rebuilding in 1048 CE. When the Seljuk Turks captured the Holy Land, they commenced persecuting Christian communities, culminating in the slaughter of twelve-thousand defenseless pilgrims outside Jerusalem in 1065 CE. The Seljuks defeated the Orthodox Byzantines at Manzikert and pushed toward Constantinople, and in 1095 CE Pope Urban II called the First Crusade to secure a safe path across Asia Minor to the Holy Land, and to liberate Jerusalem. If not defensive, this Crusade certainly had just cause.
Were the Crusades authentically religious, or was that only a pretense for economic motives? This is one of the most scurrilous charges, one easily believed by moderns, and one overwhelmingly disproved by the records. Over the centuries, Westerners have gone from believing in fighting for religion, to not believing in fighting over religion, to not believing in religion, to not believing anyone could ever believe in fighting over religion. But the Crusades happened during the first of these belief systems.
Runciman et al promulgated the notion that the Crusades were for the extension of kingdoms and the wealth of 2nd and 3rd sons. The problems with these assertions are manifold. First, the historical records show the vast majority of nobles “taking the cross” were eldest sons, those who had the most to lose. Kings and nobles alike went bankrupt just in paying to get their crusader armies to the Holy Land, and this was not unexpected. The many wars of Medieval Europe usually ended with all sides in economic ruin, and at least there, there was a chance to occupy nearby territory. On top of this, armies generally lost more troops to disease than combat, and travel involved inevitable new disease encounters. The most likely outcome for any crusader–rich or poor– was known when they “took the cross”: death by sickness or the sword in a far off place. Of the 60,000 crusaders in the First Crusade, only 300 knights and 2,000 common men lived to occupy Jerusalem.
Why take such a vow? Faith, supplemented by the possibility of an indulgence. Whatever you think of the practice of indulgences, they are only compelling IF one believes in Heaven and Hell. Faith is the consistent refrain in the contemporaneous writings of noble and commoner alike. Could they have been posturing for history? Perhaps. Did some have mixed motives? Probably. But for the vast majority, the cause was simple.
Were the Crusaders uniquely violent? This charge sometimes relies on the actions of the faux crusades and crusaders I mentioned earlier. But the most glaring piece of evidence is the Crusaders’ behavior after they captured Jerusalem, killing everyone in the city until “the streets ran ankle-deep with blood” or the Temple mount ran with blood “up to the knees” as quoted by former President Clinton in a post 9-11 speech at Georgetown University. Historians have demonstrated the mathematical and geometric impossibility of this claim, traced the gradual exaggeration over decades as eyewitness accounts were embellished, and generally debunked them using Muslim sources.
The point remains: many people died after the Crusaders broke through the walls. But this was Medieval siege warfare. Cities were offered the chance to surrender and let inhabitants flee. This happened at Jerusalem. The remaining Muslims and Jews–who fought side-by-side–were considered combatants, and any who surrendered after the walls were breached were subject to summary execution or enslavement. This was the way of war for the Christians and the Muslims in those times: surrender at first, and live as you were with a new ruler. Surrender while besieged and live to suffer the spoils of war. Fight on until the walls are breached and die or be enslaved. While it seems barbaric, remember that the attackers generally suffered huge losses in the breach; the Crusader army at Jerusalem appears to have suffered about thirty percent casualties in the attack. It is unspeakable by modern standards, but was not unique at the time.
How did the First Crusade ever succeed? First and foremost, the Muslim world was rent at the time by a series of deaths which left the various factions at war with one another. Second, the Crusader armies were tough and resilient.The Crusaders spent four years marching from various locations in Europe to regroup in Byzantine territory and set off across modern-day Turkey. There they fought off numerous Seljuk armies, successfully laid siege to several port cities (establishing a sea-line of communication and supply), and ended up outside the walls of Jerusalem almost four years later. After capturing it, they withstood a countersiege by Fatimid armies before establishing the various small Crusader states in the Holy Land. Finally, the Crusaders had a huge advantage in that they were highly motivated by the goal of capturing Jerusalem, while the Muslim defenders were much less so.
Wait, how can that be? Isn’t Jerusalem one of Islam’s holiest sites? Well, yes and no. Jerusalem is not mentioned (by either its Hebrew or Arabic names) in the Qur’an. There is a mention of the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to the “furthest mosque,” a title accorded to the al-Aqsa mosque on the Dome of the Rock (aka, the Temple Mount) in Jerusalem. The problem with that is that when the Prophet would have journeyed there (610 CE), there was a Byzantine Christian church on the site, but no mosque. The claims of al Quds (Jerusalem) as the “furthest mosque” really began after Muslim armies captured Jerusalem in 638 CE. So while the city had some import, it wasn’t the same for Muslim defenders and Crusader besiegers.
What led to the none-too-subtle shading of Crusades history? Salah al-din (a Kurd, by the way) famously emasculated the Crusader presence in the Holy Land in 1187 CE, and Islamic histories treated the period as a minor footnote, likening the Crusader presence to a temporary event of little significance. Likewise, Christian Europe lauded the individual crusaders but eventually came to see the overall enterprise as a failure. The Crusades became a historical trivia item, both East and West.
During the post World War II movement toward decolonization, however, activist academics cited the existing European colonies as modern-day Crusader states, and Arab nationalists grabbed hold of the claim, using it to bolster the cause of self-determination. The Crusades became a lens for arguing modern discontents, well beyond the historical record. Modern secular academics had a perfect foil in the Crusades: violent Catholic religious fanatics bent on subjugation against a peaceful, more enlightened Muslim opponent, who eventually prevailed.
So, the Crusaders certainly share a unique spot in military history. Are the Crusades something worth celebrating, or not? That is certainly a point for debate, but one that should be informed by the actual record, not a Monty Python skit version of history.
Nice piece, Pat.