The Crusades
Reality, Myths,
& Politics
Both
the rationale for and the events that transpired during the Crusades are seriously misunderstood and misrepresented in contemporary popular history. Given the frequency with which people,
ranging from religious leaders to U. S. Presidents to Islamist terrorists, point
to the Crusades to justify or explain some modern day occurrence, it is
extremely important for Catholics and all people who seek truth to do a better
job in setting the record straight.
Politics’ Impact
on Popular History
As Dr. Thomas Madden points out, one
of the most important things to recognize about the Crusades is that much of
what is believed in popular culture today is contradictory to modern historical
scholarship.
It is generally thought that Christians
attacked Muslims without provocation to seize their lands and forcibly convert
them. The Crusaders were Europe’s lacklands and ne’er-do-wells, who marched
against the infidels out of blind zealotry and a desire for booty and land. As
such, the Crusades betrayed Christianity itself. They transformed “turn the
other cheek” into “kill them all; God will know his own.”
Every word of this is wrong. Historians
of the Crusades have long known that it is wrong, but they find it
extraordinarily difficult to be heard across a chasm of entrenched
preconceptions. For on the other side is, as Riley-Smith puts it “nearly
everyone else, from leading churchmen and scholars in other fields to the
general public.” . . . It was (Sir Steven) Runciman who called the Crusades “a
long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy
Ghost.” The pity of it is that Runciman and the other popular writers simply
write better stories than the professional historians.
So we continue to write our scholarly
books and articles, learning more and more about the Crusades but scarcely able
to be heard. And when we are heard, we are dismissed as daft.[1]
Why
would so many educated people continue to repeat the disproven myths about the
Crusades despite the overwhelming historical scholarship? Whether it is true ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation,
the political ramifications are very detrimental. For example, when leaders such as a former U.S. President point to the Crusades as the rationale for modern-day Islamist
terrorism, without at least questioning or clarifying their true historical
basis, it can make many westerners reticent to forthrightly confront such
extreme views. For example, shortly
after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other U. S.
targets, former President Bill Clinton, stated in a speech at Georgetown,
Those of us who come from various European
lineages are not blameless . . . Indeed, in the First Crusade, when the
Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with three
hundred Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim
on the Temple Mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe
soldiers walking on the Temple Mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood
running up to their knees. I can tell
you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still
paying for it.[2]
Erroneous
Beliefs
Perhaps
the most fundamental error about the Crusades is that there was no reasonable
basis for the Church to undertake them.
Many people including Catholics assume that Christians of the Middle
Ages engaged in the Crusades for selfish and essentially immoral reasons.
Westerners in general (and Catholics in
particular) find the Crusades a deeply embarrassing episode in their history.
As the Ridley Scott movie Kingdom of Heaven graphically proclaimed, the
Crusades were unprovoked campaigns of intolerance preached by deranged
churchmen and fought by religious zealots against a sophisticated and peaceful
Muslim world. According to the Hollywood version, the blind violence of the
Crusades gave birth to jihad, as the Muslims fought to defend themselves and
their world.[3]
The
reality of the Crusades, however, is much different than the popular
narrative. Catholics need to acknowledge
the excesses, but clearly point out four truths that can put the Crusades in a
totally different perspective.
1) The Crusades were primarily defensive wars
against Islamic expansion. Christian
pilgrims en route to the Holy Land had long been attacked and persecuted. Muslim armies had overtaken most of the
formerly Christian lands in northern Africa and the Middle East through armed
jihad. And, the First Crusade was called
at the request of the Byzantine emperor because Constantinople was in danger.
2) The vast majority of those who went on the
Crusades did so as an act of religious piety and a penitential pilgrimage. They “took the Cross.”
3) Going on a crusade was extremely costly for
the crusaders - - in terms of material wealth, health, and risk to life. Many knew they would never return alive.
4) While they were ultimately unsuccessful in
liberating Jerusalem, the Crusades did do great good in certain areas. The Reconquista in Spain eventually succeeded in returning
that country to Christianity. Also, many
of the other crusades slowed or weakened Muslim advances and in so doing prevented further conquests
in the West.
Encounter
Between the Saint and the Sultan: A Fascinating “What-If”
Many
people like to contrast the armed battles of the Crusades with the attempt at
achieving peace that St. Francis engaged in. That meeting between St. Francis and the Sultan
of Egypt during the course of a disastrous battle for the crusaders
Late in the summer of 1219, Francis of Assisi
crossed enemy lines during the Fifth Crusade, hoping that he could convert
Egypt’s Sultan Malik al-Kamil to Christianity.
Francis, who had begun his ministry after recovering from the trauma of
a horrific battlefield experience and imprisonment, hoped to end the violence of
the Crusade by winning over the sultan.[4]
There
are conflicting accounts of what transpired between St. Francis and the Sultan
and none can be documented well enough to know the details, but all accounts seem
to agree on three seemingly miraculous aspects of their meeting:
- St. Franicis
and a friar named Illuminato were conducted safely across Muslim lines by Saracen
sentries and ushered into the presence of Sultan Malik al-Kamil
- St. Francis
and the Sultan did engage in significant conversation and St. Francis was
allowed to try to persuade the Sultan about the truth of Christianity despite
the opposition of other Muslim religious leaders who were present
- St. Francis
and his companion were treated as respected guests and were ultimately
escorted safely back to the Christian side along with the gift of an ivory horn,
now displayed in the Basilica in Assisi.[5]
Although
St. Francis was unable to convert the Sultan to Christianity, his endeavor did
show the medieval world that a reasonable dialogue could be held even between
enemies during a period of conflict. “The contemporary concept of
interreligious dialogue didn’t exist at the time, but this was nonetheless a
dialogue—a peaceful exchange of ideas about two competing religions.”[6]
We
can only wonder what might have happened if St. Francis had succeeded in
converting Sultin al-Kamil to Christianity.
Could it have changed the course of history as dramatically as
Constantine’s conversion had done 900 years earlier? Since God at least allowed the failure in
His permissive will, we can trust that He will bring some good from it, even if
we never comprehend it in this world.
At
the same time, Catholics need to avoid the temptation to characterize St.
Francis’s efforts as good and all the crusaders efforts as evil. The need for some just wars will probably
always be a reality in our world because sin will be
present in the world until Jesus’ second coming. To minimize the need for future armed
conflict, we must objectively study our history and proclaim the truth. We must also affirm the legitimate
sacrifices of Christian warriors of the past. Many of them died to preserve the Christian heritage that we too often take for granted.
[1]
Thomas F.
Madden, “Inventing the Crusades,” First
Things, June, 2009, accessed February 18, 2016, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Paul, Moses,
"Mission improbable: St Francis & the Sultan," Commonweal, 136, no. 16 (September 25,
2009): 11, ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost, accessed February
26, 2016, http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a743bbed-b972-439e-8b05-b1b079c54771%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4205
[5] Ibid, 12,16.
Bibliography
Madden, Thomas F. “Inventing the Crusades.” First Things. June, 2009. Accessed February 18, 2016 http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/06/inventing-the-crusades
Moses, Paul. "Mission improbable: St Francis & the Sultan." Commonweal, 136, no. 16 (September 25, 2009): 11-16. ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, EBSCOhost. Accessed February 26, 2016. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a743bbed-b972-439e-8b05-b1b079c54771%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4205
No comments:
Post a Comment