The Real History of the Crusades
Perhaps the most common attack made against Christianity goes something like this: "Christians suck because they want to kill everyone, look they tried in the middle ages! And you are a Christian and you suck too! You blood thirsty murdering scum!"
Ok, maybe the typical objection doesn't go quite like that. But with a bit of hyperbole I wanted to imply that attacking Christianity based on the crusades is really irrational. First, we should all remind ourselves that the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with the behavior of it's adherents. I could just as easily mention Hitler to an evolutionist or Stalin to an atheist.
I could even go on to point out that protestant Christianity shouldn't be blamed for the actions of Roman Catholicism.
I could stop there, but I won't. I won't because the truth of the matter is that we have all been indoctrinated with a politically correct historical revisionism. I'm going to quickly attempt to set the record straight by borrowing from Thomas F. Madden, author of The New Concise History of the Crusades .
The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
How often have you heard an Arab decry the western aggression that was the Crusades? It's interesting that they forget that these were Christian lands before they were conquered by Muslim agression.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
Shortly after Mohammed's death Islam began to conquer the region. For centuries they continued until the 11th century when the only remaining portion of the Byzantine Empire was Greece. In desperation the Emperor of Constantinople sent word to Christians in the west asking them to come to their aid.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
Pope Innocent III wrote this:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them?...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
This is just a taste of the true history as far as the best scholarship has been able to uncover. Remember this the next time you are made to feel guilty for what your religion has perpetrated against the peaceful Arab people...or the next time you are tempted to criticize a Christian, or Westerner for that matter, for the Crusades.

5 Comments:
A little while back you were talking about historical revisionism and looking for examples. Well, how about those holocaust deniers? As well, look at the deniers of the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese in WWII as well. Anyway, just some thoughts that came to mind recently.
Have a nice Christmas, btw! :)
You're right Dale. I would like to have half a dozen examples before I write a generalized article decrying historical revisionism in today's educational system.
I think another one that's common and noteworthy is the false history being taught kids about the Scopes trial. The only thing kids are taught about it is in the movie 'Inherit the Wind' which is admittedly fictionalized.
Another one, that I was not taught in school but which is being taught now, is that our founding fathers were secular deists rather than devout Christians. It doesn't seem to me like it would matter much in determining where our country goes, but what the left wants to do is deny that our country has a Christian beginning. I think this matters when they make a revisionist claim about the constitution (ie. it prohibits public prayer) because the fact is that the very faith and practices of the early American govt (really up to the 1950s) is overtly Christian, so it does NOT stand to reason that the constitution was meant to remove any religious expression from public life.
And Merry Christmas to you too!
I guess kingdom of heaven supports this view, it wasn't that good of a movie though.
V, I haven't seen that movie yet. I suppose I should because of the subject it deals with, even if it's not all that good.
V, I dug this up doing a little research: http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=5694
Doesn't seem to credit the movie with much historical accuracy. From your take on the movie, what part of the movie's depiction matched the history I provided?
Post a Comment
<< Home