The Crusades were
a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope
and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Terra
Sancta (Holy Land). The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The
main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291.The Crusades were fought
mainly by Roman Catholics against Muslims, [though some campaigns were
diverted to fight Greek Orthodox Christians in Byzantium.]
SCENARIO
IN THE MIDDLE EAST
A.
FOR THE CHRISTIANS
-
The Terra Sancta is the place of nativity,
ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, whom Christians
regard as the Messiah. It is, indeed, a very important place for Christians.
-
After the Constantine's conversion to
Christianity (313) and later, the founding of the Byzantine
Empire after the partition of the Roman Empire, the Holy Land had
become a predominantly Christian. Churches commemorating various events in the
life of Jesus had been erected at key sites.
B.
FOR THE MOSLEMS
-
Jerusalem in particular holds a significance in Islam
as it holds it to be the site of the ascension into heaven of
the prophet Muhammad whom Muslims believe to be the foremost
prophet of Allah and Jerusalem is often regarded as the third most
sacred site[1] in Islam.
-
The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the
initial Muslim conquest of Syria in the 7th century under the
Rashidun Caliphs. The Muslim armies' successes put increasing pressure on the Byzantine
Empire which had originally claimed the region as their territory.
C.
FOR THE JEWS
- Jerusalem also holds historical and religious
importance for Jews as it is the site of the Western Wall, the last
remaining piece of the Second Temple. Jews consider Jerusalem as their
ancestral homeland, and had been visiting the city since its destruction in
70 CE and its occupation in AD 136.
SCENARIO
IN WESTERN EUROPE
1.
The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense
religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay
people. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from
the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a
"Miles Ecclesiae".
People became personally engaged in a dramatic religious
controversy such as the Investiture controversy. The result was an awakening of
intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs, and was
further strengthened by religious propaganda, which advocated Just War in
order to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2. Indulgence or the remission of sin was a
driving factor and provided any God-fearing man who had committed sins with an
irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell.
POPE
URBAN II
The
immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexius I's
(1081-1118) appeal to Pope Urban II (ca. 1042 –
29 July 1099) for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances
into territory of the Byzantine Empire.
In
1071, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia
Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation
after the East–West Schism between the Catholic Church in Western
Europe and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped
for a positive response from Urban II.
Pope
Urban II defined and launched the crusades at the Synod of Piacenza then
at the Council of Clermont in 1095. He was a reformer worried about the
evils which had hindered the spiritual success of the church and its clergy and
the need for a revival of religiosity. He was moved by the urgent appeal for
help from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. Urban's solution was announced on the
last day of the council when the pope suddenly proclaimed the Crusade against
the infidel Muslims. He called for Christian princes across Europe to launch a
holy war in the Holy Land. He contrasted the sanctity of Jerusalem and the holy
places with the plunder and desecration by the infidel Turks. He exited outrage
by vividly describing attacks upon the Christian pilgrims. He also noted the
military threat to the fellow Christians of Byzantium. He charged Christians to
take up the holy cause, promising to all those who went remission of sins and
to all who died in the expedition immediate entry into heaven.
Then
Urban raised secular motives, talking of the feudal love of tournaments and
warfare. He urged the barons to give up their fratricidal and unrighteous wars
in the West for the holy war in the East. He also suggested material rewards,
regarding feudal fiefdoms, land ownership, wealth, power, and prestige, all at
the expense of the Arabs and Turks. He said they could be defeated very easily
by the Christian forces. When he finished, his listeners shouted "Deus
volt" (God wills it). This became the battle cry of the crusaders. Urban
put the bishop of Le Puy in charge of encouraging prelates and priests to join
the cause. Word spread rapidly that war against unbelief would be fused with
the practice of pilgrimage to holy sites, and the pilgrims' reward would be
great on earth, as in heaven. Immediately thousands pledged themselves to go on
the first crusade. Pope Urban's speech ranks as one of the most influential
speeches ever made: it launched the holy wars which occupied the minds and
forces of western Europe for two hundred years.
2 elements: lay piety + knightly energy (bloody and
un-Christian rage) = military-religious expedition against the Seljuk Turks
Pope Urban II placed himself at the head of the movement
and carried the masses with him. At that time Henry IV & French King
Phillip I were excommunicated so the Pope became the leader of all western
movement.
CAUSES OF
THE CRUSADES
a. Spiritual
Awakening
c. Moving
complaints of oppressions and exploitations by the pilgrims
d. Threat to
Byzantium by the Seljuk Turks
SUMMARY OF THE CRUSADES
a. First
Crusade or Peasant’s Crusade (1096-1099)
- Crusaders: disorganized (leaderless) and unenlightened
(uneducated) bands of peasants
- In the Rhineland there was a bloody pogroms
of Jews and in the Balkans as well so that Alexius I did not allow them to enter Constantinople.
- Leader of the Peasants: Under the
leadership of hermit Peter Amiens a part was able to reach Asia minor. Most of
the peasants died during the trip.
- Leaders of the Main Army of the knights: Raymond of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon
(with his brothers Baldwin and Eustachius) and Norman Bohemond of Tarentum
reached Constantinople by various routes.
- In 1099, Jerusalem was recaptured.
- The bloodbath is un-Christian and
un-Evangelical. It placed a heavy burden upon their conscience but who can
judge what went on the minds of these rough and uneducated warriors whose
religious fervor was mixed by a fight for life and death?
- Result of 1st Crusade: Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, a liege
state with smaller crusading states (principalities) of Tripolis, Antioch and
Edessa
Godfrey of Bouillon – 1st
Protector of the Holy Sepulcher; defeated Egyptian Sultan of Askalon
Baldwin I (1100-1118) – Christian King of
Jerusalem
Fulco of Anjou (1131-1143) achieved greatest
extension of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem
b. Second
Crusade (1147-1149)
- Leaders:
Bernard of Clairvaux who persuaded French King Louis VII and German King Konrad
III
- Result: Jerusalem was lost again in 1187
c. Third
Crusade (1189-1192)
- Leader: Emperor Frederick Barbarossa won over the
Turks at Ikonium but drowned at Saleph in 1190
- Result: English King Richard the Lion-hearted and
French King Philip II did not recapture Jerusalem but concluded a Truce with
Sultan Saladin which assures the peaceful visit of Christian pilgrims in the
holy land.
d. Fourth
Crusade (1202-1204)
- Last crusade
called by Innocent III
- Venetian
merchants diverted the crusade to Constantinople for selfish commercial
interest.
- Result:
1st conquest of Constantinople (July 17,
1203)
(+) corruption of the crusade: Crusaders must go to
the Holy Land
CHILDREN’S
CRUSADE (1212)
-
The thought rose
of sending defenseless children than armed warriors
-
Leaders: French
Shepherd Boy Stephen and 10 yr old Nicholas of Cologne
-
Result: Girls were
cruelly abused by swindler.
Others were sold as slaves in
Alexandria to ship owners
FRANCIS OF
ASSISI
-
He adopted peaceful
conversion than crushing conquest.
-
He visited the
Sultan at Damietta to bring him the message of the Gospel.
-
When the
Christians ravaged Damietta in 1219 and captured, they were spared by the
Sultan.
e. Other
Crusades
1). Fifth
Crusade (1228-1229)
- Leader: a private Project of Emperor Frederick II
(excommunicated at this time)
- Result: He negotiated with the Egyptian Sultan and
Jerusalem was returned to the Christians but in
1244 the city was lost for
good.
2). Sixth
Crusade (1248-1254)
- Leader: Louis IX (saint) of France who wanted to
conquer Egypt and eventually Holy Land
- Result:
The French army was defeated in Cairo (April 1250).
The king was captured with his troops
In 1270, Louis
IX undertook a second crusade à failure
In 1291, Acre and the last vestiges of the crusading
states were lost.
THE KNIGHT ORDERS
- Monastic
knights are the most unique phenomena in the middle ages.
- The
three orders of knights owe their existence to the crusading experience of the
Holy land.
- Vows: poverty, chastity, obedience,
care of exhausted and sick pilgrims, protection of the holy places against the
infidels.
a. Order of St. John (1120)
- It was founded in 1099 as the Brotherhood of
the Hospital of St. John in Jerusalem
- It was reorganized into an order in 1120
- Habit: Black coat with white cross
- Seats of Order: Cyprus (1291) à Rhodes (1309) à Malta (1539); Hence, Maltese Order.
b. Order
of the Templars (ca.1118)
- It was founded in 1118 by 8 French knights in
the Temple of Solomon
- Habit: White
coat with red cross
- Seat of Order: Cyprus
- It was dissolved by the Council of Vienne due
to the intrigues of the French King Philip the fair (1311-1312)
c. Order of the Teutonic Knights (1198)
- It was founded in 1189/1190 as a collegiate
brotherhood by citizens of Bremen and Lübeck
- It was reorganized into an order in 1198
- Grand Master: Hermann of Salza (1210-1239) Prussia became the seat of
Order
- Seat or Order: Marienburg, Prussia
- The order was devoted in building a state and
spreading Christianity in the Baltic.
- Habit: White coat with Black cross (Baliktad ng Order of St.
John!)
- In 1525, Grand Master Albrecht of
Brandenburg seized the state refashioned it into a secular Protestant dukedom.
THE MEANING OF THE CRUSADE MOVEMENTS
CONCLUSION
a. The Holy Land remained in the hands of the Moslems.
b. Millions may have died leaving their children behind
c. By bringing the war at the heart of the Moslems, the
crusade avoided or at least postponed the invasion of Europe.
d. European Renaissance can be understood.
e. A religiosity that is more Bible-oriented had a
political awakening. The Bible was read with new eyes. There is a need to
rediscover apostolic poverty.
POSITIVE SIGNIFICANCE
a. It greatly
strengthened the consciousness of the west
b. It expanded
European horizon.
c. It promoted
scientific learning through encounter with Byzantine and Islamic Cultures
d. Exchange of
goods and commerce between two civilizations
e. Eastern
influence on the growth of western Philosophy, Theology.
f. Western piety à the crusaders for the sake of Christ faced the perils
of peregrinatio religiosa
(religious pilgrimage), bearing the cross in imitation of Christ.
g. Christian
poverty movement was reawakened.
SUMMARY
1095 AD -
First Crusade called for by Pope Urban II
1096 AD - People's Crusade begins
1099 AD - Jerusalem taken, the massacre of Jews and Muslims taints all views of the crusades to the present day
1119 AD - Christian states erected, Templars and Hospitallers founded
1147 AD - Second Crusade, short and sweet - Christian army loses
1187 AD - Saladin retakes Jerusalem, crusaders' castles fall
1189 - 1192 AD - Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Christian army regains some ground, but fails to retake Jerusalem
1204 AD - Fourth Crusade, never reaches the Holy Land, sacks Constantinople instead - not a boost for ecumenism
1212 AD - Children's Crusade, total disaster, as they either die or become slaves
1217 - 1222 AD - Fifth Crusade, tries for Egypt, fails
1228 AD - Sixth Crusade, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II reoccupies Jerusalem under a peace treaty, not for long
1248 AD - Seventh Crusade, tries for Egypt again, King Louis IX (Saint Louis) captured
1291 AD - Acre falls, end of European presence in the Holy Land
1096 AD - People's Crusade begins
1099 AD - Jerusalem taken, the massacre of Jews and Muslims taints all views of the crusades to the present day
1119 AD - Christian states erected, Templars and Hospitallers founded
1147 AD - Second Crusade, short and sweet - Christian army loses
1187 AD - Saladin retakes Jerusalem, crusaders' castles fall
1189 - 1192 AD - Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Christian army regains some ground, but fails to retake Jerusalem
1204 AD - Fourth Crusade, never reaches the Holy Land, sacks Constantinople instead - not a boost for ecumenism
1212 AD - Children's Crusade, total disaster, as they either die or become slaves
1217 - 1222 AD - Fifth Crusade, tries for Egypt, fails
1228 AD - Sixth Crusade, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II reoccupies Jerusalem under a peace treaty, not for long
1248 AD - Seventh Crusade, tries for Egypt again, King Louis IX (Saint Louis) captured
1291 AD - Acre falls, end of European presence in the Holy Land
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.
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
|
·
Invasion
of Egypt
|
·
Cardinal
Pelagius
·
St.
FrancisAl-Kamil
|
Sixth (a.k.a. Crusade of Frederick II)
|
1228 – 1229
|
·
Restoration
of Jerusalem by treaty
|
·
HRE
Frederick II
|
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 11thcentury
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 11th 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 11th 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 11th and early 12th 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 11th 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 20th 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 12th 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 20th 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 A?ca, 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, 2nd 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.
[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, 2nd 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.
[1] Mecca is first and Medina is second.
[2]
One of the two famous division of Turks ( Seljuk and Ottoman). They were
terrible people coming from the East.
[3]
Byzantium developed hatred to the Latin Church
[4] Steve Weidenkopf is a
Lecturer of Church history at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom
College and the creator and presentor of the adult faith-formation program Epic:
A Journey through Church History He
is a member of the Society for the Study of the Crusades & the Latin East
and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. He and his family live in Northern
Virginia.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete