Introduction

Critics of Christianity commonly use the Crusades to imply that Christianity is barbaric and generally not interested in peaceful relations with others. While this criticism deserves very little merit, the entire history of the Crusades is far more involved and diverse than the simple talking point that Christianity is terrible or equivalent to Islam. The misconception that Christianity is bad for engaging in the Crusades will be highlighted in this paper and will show that Christianity while bearing some blame for the Crusades, takes a disproportional role when compared to Islam with its initiator and instigator role in the origination and continuation of the crusades. The paper will focus on the first crusade to minimize the vast scope of crusader history. The paper will review the circumstances, justifications, and the Christian response.

Historical Background

It is essential to understand some of the history involved with the area of conflict to understand the Crusades. The province of Judea became a Roman protectorate with the installation of the Herodian dynasty, with the Roman government taking control of Judea in 4 B.C. With the successive Jewish revolts in both 70 A.D. and 132 A.D. The Roman government dispersed the Jews, Judea was renamed Palestine, and Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina.[1] The Palestinia region would remain in Roman hands until the establishment of the Byzantine Empire under Constantine, who also would be the first Roman emperor to recognize Christianity as a legal religion. Christianity would grow and flourish in the Byzantine Empire, including the area of Palestinia. The next significant change for the region would come from the conquest of the Muslims in the 7th century, not long after Islam was established. The American Muslims for Palestine state, “During the immediate decades following Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies defeated the Byzantines, who had conquered the Romans and driven them out of the Holy Land.”

Notwithstanding their incorrect interpretation of the development of the Byzantine empire, the American Muslims for Palestine recounts the conquest of Palestine by Islamic armies. The region of Palestine would remain firmly in Muslim hands from the 6th to the 9th century under the Abbasids and Fatimid dynasties. Both empires profited from the growing practice of pilgrimage by Christians to the Holy Land. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009 by al-Hakim, the Caliph of Egypt, instigated the coming crusades. The church of the Holy Sepulcher was the site where Christians believed that Jesus was buried. The church would be rebuilt by Muslims around 40 years after al-Hakim’s destruction through a treaty between Byzantium and the ruling Muslims.[2] The reports of the killing of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem and the defeat of the Byzantines by the Seljuq Turks set the stage for the first Crusade.

Contemporary Interpretation of the Crusades

The relationship between Islam and the West came to the forefront of modern thought with the attack of September 11, 2001. With this change in perception of Islamic relations, the past interactions with Islam bubbled to the surface, and the current popular conception that the Crusades were Christianity’s fault became popular opinion. A famous example of the prevailing attitude towards the crusades is found in Jonathan Riley-Smith’s book The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam; Riley-smith states, “The Kingdom of Heaven, released in 2005, throughout which a cruel, avaricious, and cowardly Christian clergy preaches unadulterated hatred against the Muslims.”[3] The Kingdom of Heaven is a gross misrepresentation of the Crusades and is used as a cudgel against Christianity. A Second example of this was the speech given by President Barak Obama on February 5, 2015, when he stated, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”[4] Obama’s speech, while holding a nugget of truth, misrepresents the facts of the crusades. Obama’s speech, while short, touched off heated debate with analysis and refutations and counter-refutations issued to correct Obama’s statement. Jay Michaelson wrote an analysis of his speech, and in it, he states, “Along the way, the Crusaders massacred. To take but one example, the Rhineland Massacres of 1096 are remembered to this day as some of the most horrific examples of anti-Semitic violence before the Holocaust.”[5] Michaelson is correct, but he fails to mention this was an isolated event perpetrated by a tiny minority of crusaders. What he also fails to mention is that the Bishop at both Speyer and Worms shielded or attempted to shield the Jews, followed up by the pope condemning the attacks.[6] The withholding of crucial information is not relegated to one side but is used as a tool for furthering one’s point, either for against the crusades.

The Crusades originally was a minor footnote in the history of Islamic conquest. As Thomas Madden states in his book The Concise History of the Crusades, “For Muslims, the Crusades were hardly worthy of attention. As late as the seventeenth century, the Crusades remained virtually unknown in the Muslim world.”[7] The change in opinion occurred during the 19^th century with the publication of Sa’id Ashur’s History of the Crusades and its use to illustrate the struggle between Islam and the West. Some have used this attitude to justify jihad against the West and its Islamic collaborators.[8] The idea of Jihad is coupled with statements from news organizations like Aljazeera in articles where it is stated, “The Muslim world, a mighty power for the previous four centuries, was shocked by the Christian annexation of large parts of their empire,”[9] This is a grossly misrepresentative statement. The Levant was originally Jewish, then Roman, Byzantine, and Persian before Islam conquered the Levant through force of arms, in many cases, the Syrian recruits to the Byzantine army just switched over to the Muslim army.[10] It is unscrupulous for Aljazeera to claim Muslim innocence regarding the crusader conquest when they were the current occupiers of the Levant due to their conquest.

The First Crusade

Pope Urban II called the 1st Crusade to liberate the Byzantine lands of Muslims and return the Holy Land to Christian hands. There had been a history of atrocities against Christian pilgrims and sites by Muslims from 634 to 1099, including the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. While the atrocities were relevant to the decision to clear the Levant of Muslim forces, it was the successive defeats of the Byzantine army and the prospect of Islamic Turks pushing into Europe through the Bosporus straight that led the pope to call for a crusade to help the Byzantine empire.  While Pope Gregory VII had made plans to raise an army to help push the Turks back, it was not until 1095, when Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus requested help, that Pope Urban II preached the first crusade.

One of the First Crusade anomalies was the People’s Crusade and Peter the Hermit. Peter preached with such zeal that he raised a ragtag army comprised primarily of the poor, ill-equipped, poorly trained, and even consisted of some women and children. The Peoples Crusade charged across Europe and arrived in Constantinople far earlier than Emperor Alexius expected. The Emperor tried to convince the Peoples Crusade to wait for the main body, but the people who made up the crusade would not hear of waiting. Because the people judged food prices too high, they began pillaging Constantinople’s suburbs. So, on August 6, 1096, The Peoples Crusade was transported across the Bosporus and was promptly slaughtered in Anatolia. Peter the Hermit escaped the massacre and later joined the main body of the crusader army.[11]

The main body of the crusader army left Europe in August of 1096 with men such as Godfrey of Boulogne, Bohemond of Taranto, and Raymond, Count of Toulouse. All arrived in Constantinople at various times, with Emperor Alexius securing oaths with Godfrey and Bohemond so that the Crusaders would return all ancient Byzantine lands to the emperor and the Byzantine empire. The first target of the Crusades was Nicaea, with the Crusades successfully laying siege to the city. The Turkish garrison negotiated with Alexius for the surrender of the city, and in the dead of night, the Byzantine ship docked at the port, and Byzantine flags were raised over the city, catching the Crusaders by surprise. Many of the crusaders felt cheated, invoking a feeling of justification for breaking their oath. The breaking of the oath would play a significant role in the ownership of the Levant.[12]

The crusading army had a series of victories in Edessa via a coup, Antioch, and finally, at the walls of Jerusalem. At the walls of Jerusalem, the Crusaders prepared for an assault on the city and decided that the city should be stormed on June 13, 1099. The Crusaders could not take the city because they lacked enough ladders and siege machinery. Soon after the first assault, six Genoese and English ships carrying supplies sailed into Jaffa. The second assault of Jerusalem began the night of July 13th and 14th, with wheeled siege castles being rolled into place. On July 15th, the Christians were able to breach the walls and take the city. At this point, the history of Christians during the Crusades takes a dark turn and is the primary source of much of the criticism. While there is an exaggeration with statements like, “Jerusalem coursing with knee-deep high rivers of blood”[13], the medieval audience understood this statement as hyperbole, but modern audiences accepted the statement as fact. Current estimates of the dead range from between three and four thousand, with many purchasing their freedom or being expelled from the city.[14]

Justification and Reward

The Crusades were built on the theory of a just war. The history of the just war in Christianity traces its roots back to Augustine, who states:

The real evils in war are the love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, the lust for power, and such like, and it is generally to punish these things when force is required to inflict the punishment that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way.[15]

Augustine makes the case that war should be conducted apart from the evils above and to punish those who engage in such evils. Pope Urban II made the case that the Muslims had invaded the Holy Land, and then they proceeded to exemplify the traits above, the love of violence, revengeful cruelty, and lust for power. It was up to good men in obedience to God to take up arms and punish the Muslims for their unjust use of war.[16] Through our modern lens, a war called to punish is incomprehensible. A modern lens is not a luxury the medieval man who was proud to answer the call for justice could use. While the call to a just war is theoretically sound, the execution could be very different, with the sack of Jerusalem cited as an example. Unethical fighting men had fallen into the very behavior they were supposed to abhor and exact justice. It is up to the Christian to accept this facet of the crusade because it is repeated on a far grander scale with the sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. It is essential to be honest in debate and acknowledge the poor execution of the 1st crusade at Jerusalem, but also remember that a just war was a sound premise for action in 1095.

A parallel driving force for the crusades was offered in the form of indulgences, which is defined as “remission of part or all of the temporal and especially purgatorial punishment that according to Roman Catholicism is due for sins whose eternal punishment has been remitted and whose guilt has been pardoned.”[17] By 1095, the Catholic church had become as much a governmental body as it was ecclesiastical.[18] The fact that the church was as much a governmental body was evident in the control exerted by the Catholic church over rulers and countries. Penance is subscribed for Catholics to atone for their sins,[19] so when crusaders were offered the ability to forgive their sins through holy pilgrimage and war, they took the offer despite the cost and personal sacrifice. With a literal get-out-of-jail-free card, crusaders were given a compelling reason to accept the cross and join a holy war.

Christian Response

In response to critics regarding the crusades, Christianity should be open and honest about its history and involvement. Only when all the facts are on the table and acknowledged can a productive debate arise determining the impact the Crusades had on both Christian and Islamic history. As laid out above, Christianity, while justified in its concept of holy war, stumbled in its execution. What gets ignored or glossed over is that the other party in this holy war was the various Islamic empires. As illustrated above, the popular notion in Islamic circles is that a civilized and innocent Islamic world was invaded by a bloodthirsty Christian army.

The first point of contention is that the Muslim world was a civilized world. Rodney Stark, in his book How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity, states, “Some Muslim-occupied societies gave the appearance of sophistication only because of the culture sustained by their subject peoples Jews and various brands of Christianity.”[20] Stark lays out the case in his book that the concept of a civilized Islamic world is an illusion, specifically its system of science. Stark states the Muslims did not create their original system of science but inherited much of what was already in place during their various conquests. The conquered people of Byzantium, consisting of Copts, Nestorians, and Zoroastrian Persians, or DHIMMI culture, provided the underlying culture of science. As the Muslims assimilated and finally stamped out almost all religious nonconformity, the borrowed Islamic culture of science dried up. As DHIMMI culture declined, so did the Islamic golden age of science.

The second part of the contention is that the Muslims were a peaceful culture that did not deserve to be attacked. A peaceful Muslim culture is built on a false premise; not only had the Muslims been fighting with the Byzantine empire, but they fought as much among themselves as with outsiders. The various Islamic empires included the Seljuk Turks, Fatimids, The Abbasid Caliphate, and the Mamluks. All vied for power in the region and had fought against one another throughout crusader history. Baibars receives special attention due to his treachery and brutal treatment of the residents of the Levant. Baibars was responsible for what has been described by Stark as “the single greatest massacre of the entire crusading era”[21] with the massacre at Antioch. Baibars would brag about the slaughter by sending a letter to Count Bohemond VI describing the events during the sack of Antioch. While Baibars represent the extreme side of destruction, even the supposed noble Saladin, while generous in the creation of mosques, libraries, and convents, was still brutal in his treatment of captured prisoners. Madden states, “Saladin had sworn to behead this criminal with his own hands, and he did so with satisfaction.”[22] He also ordered the mass execution of all captured Hospitallers and Templars, except for the Master himself,”[23] as described by Saladin’s secretary, Imad al-Din. Islam and Christianity both were responsible for atrocities, and both should acknowledge their share of the blame.

Conclusion

The crusades were the result of the rise of Islam and its conquest of the Holy Land, which at the time was a Byzantine territory. Was Christianity justified in its conquest of the holy land? The answer is yes; the call for justice in the face of atrocities was a noble cause that found itself becoming the evil it was supposed to defeat. In accepting that Christianity was justified in its liberation, it is also important to note the atrocities committed in the name of a holy war, specifically the sack of Jerusalem, the persecution of Jews, and the sack of Constantinople (not discussed). Once the atrocities of Christianity are addressed, it is appropriate to point out that Muslims who conquered by the sword should not be surprised when the sword is turned on them. The Islamic Golden Age most likely did not happen in the way that romantic retelling portrays it. Most of the cultures they conquered were all eventually assimilated against their will or, in many cases, destroyed outright. While Christians may have committed atrocities at Jerusalem and Byzantium, the Muslims would do the same at Antioch and Acer. In conclusion, if Islam had not invaded and conquered other cultures, there would have been no reason for the Crusades to expel the invaders. 

[1] “Ancient Jewish History: Roman Rule,” Jewish Virtual Library: a project of AICE, accessed April 8, 2019, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/roman-rule-63bce-313ce.

[2] Dan Graves, “Church of the Holy Sepulcher Destroyed,” Christianity.com,” July 2007, accessed April 8, 2019, https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/901-1200/church-of-the-holy-sepulcher-destroyed-11629783.html.

[3] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam (New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 2011), Kindle Edition, 67.

[4] Barack Obama, “Speech at The National Prayer Breakfast” (speech, Washington D.C., 2015), The Washington Post February 5, 2015, Juliet Eilperin, “Critics Pounce after Obama talk Crusades, slavery at prayer breakfast,” accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?utm_term= .e68b42015b7d.

[5] Jay Michaelson, “Was Obama right about the Crusades and Islamic extremism (Analysis),” The Washington Post, February 6, 2015, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ was-obama-right-about-the-crusades-and-islamic-extremism-analysis/2015/02/06/3670628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?utm_term=.190eaece91df.

[6] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2009), Kindle Edition, 282.

[7] Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: (Critical Issues in World and International History) 3^rd Student ed. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), Kindle Edition, Preface.

[8] “Understanding the Crusades from an Islamic Perspective,” The Conversation, July 9, 2018, accessed April 13, 2019, https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-crusades-from-an-islamic-perspective-96932.

[9] “Revival: The Muslim Response to the Crusades,” The Crusades and Arab Perspective, December 14, 2016, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/the-crusades-an-arab-perspective/2016/12/revival-muslim-response-crusades-161210142659166.html.

[10] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2009), Kindle Edition, 15-17.

[11] Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: (Critical Issues in World and International History) 3^rd Student ed., Chapter 2, The peoples Crusade (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), Kindle Edition.

[12] Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: (Critical Issues in World and International History) 3^rd Student ed., Chapter 2, To Constantinople (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), Kindle Edition.

[13] Ibid., Chapter 2, From Antioch to Jerusalem

[14] Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: (Critical Issues in World and International History) 3^rd Student ed., Chapter 2, To Constantinople (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), Kindle Edition.

[15] Arthur F. Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 64, cited in “Just War Tradition,” Christian Research Institute, April 20, 2009, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.equip.org/article/just-war-tradition/.

[16] Oliver Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediaeval History (United States: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905), Section 279, accessed April 13, 2019, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42707/42707-h/42707-h.htm#mh279.

[17] Merriam Webster, s.v. “indulgence,” accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indulgence.

[18] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 102

[19] “The Forgiveness of Sins,” Catholic Answers, November 19, 2018, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-forgiveness-of-sins

[20] Rodney Stark, How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity, Chapter 2, The West and the Rest (New York, NY: ISI Books, 2014), Kindle Edition

[21] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2009), Kindle Edition, 231.

[22] Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: (Critical Issues in World and International History) 3^rd Student ed., Chapter 4, The Horns of Hattin (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), Kindle Edition.

[23] Ibid., Chapter 4, The Horns of Hattin.