How the Crusaders Saw Themselves

The crusades are a period of time in history which often gets brought up, especially in apologetic discussions. They are often mischaracterized so as to paint the Church in an especially poor light, as a way of undermining the authority of the Church, most often her moral authority. The purpose of this post is to offer some insight as to what the view of the crusades was during the time they took place, to understand what it was that the pope was calling for, and how it was that the crusaders saw themselves. 

The crusades were first called during the Council of Clermont by Pope Urban II for the primary and explicit goal of conquering the Holy City of Jerusalem back from the invading Muslim and for Christianity. ^1^ The crusades are often used as a weapon against the Catholic Church in discussions of history and the Church’s role in spreading the gospel of Christ. That is, the claim is sometimes made that the Church spread the gospel through violence, rather than the love that the message is supposed to be based on. But modern scholarship is learning that, as with all things, there is some falsehood mixed in with some fact.

Now, it is first most important as Christians to admit that yes, there were atrocities committed by some people - many people - who chose to take advantage of the situation. Conor Kostick describes the siege laid at Jerusalem by the crusaders and the result  on the occupying Muslims as one of desperation and violence:

“Those on the verge of starvation prioritized food...those desperate for water satiated themselves at the many cisterns in the city, despite the fact that they were becoming tainted by the flow of blood...all the while the massacre of the citizens of the city continued until it was a common sight to see Christian knights walking through the streets covered from head to foot with the blood of the slain.” ^2^

At face value, this does sound horrible. However, as with all battles, there were atrocities committed on both sides of the battle. Saladin, one of the primary characters on the Muslim side of history, is often portrayed during this time period as a humane leader. However, history shows otherswise. For example, Habib Malik writes: 

“…following the battle of Hattin in the Gahlee a few months earlier in July Saladin personally took part in butchering several Knights Templars and Hospitallers, and then he sat back and enjoyed watching his men behead the rest. Nor should the 70,000 Shiites he had killed near Aleppo be overlooked.” ^3^

This will not be a post comparing the atrocities of one side against the other. Both sides of this violent time can and should admit to wrong-doing. We too, in the modern day, should refrain from falling to the trap of “ interposing our justified sense of outrage and reading it back in time to those days” and then “paint an entire era with the brush of blame and condemnation.” To do so would be a “grave unfairness and error.” ^4^ 

So what exactly were the Crusades? Thomas F. Madden writes that the term “crusades” actually comes from the latin words “cruci signati,” meaning “those signed by the cross.” ^5^ If anything, this should help to underline the reality that the crusades were not simply a pursuit of vainglory for Knights seeking to make a name for themselves. This was a religious movement brought about out of a sense of fidelity to Christ. And though there were atrocities committed by some of the crusaders, these horrible actions were not the intention of the crusades.

In fact, Madden writes that there were initiatives taken to prevent such atrocities, though the Church was met with no success on this front. For example, “The Peace of God movement threatened divine sanctions against those who attacked noncombatants, and the Truce of God attempted to put a stop to warfare on Sundays and holy days. The church, however, like the kings of Europe, had little control over petty knights and landed barons.” ^6^

Aside from those who would take advantage of the situation and the call for military action against the Muslims, it is important to realize that for majority of the participants in the crusades, this was seen more as a “pilgrimages proceeding under protection by knights than as armed invasions.” ^7^ In fact, Pope Gregory VII did not characterize these crusades as a a holy war but instead viewed them as acts of mercy and charity, an assistance to the Christians in the East by the Christians of the West after the Eastern Christians had suffered at the hands of the Turkish invaders. ^8^ 

Opponents and critics of the Catholic Church - both within and without - will sometimes say that the Pope justified this as a Holy War and rewarded the combatants as such. For example, Jonathan Phillips writes that in return for participating in the crusades, the participants “would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward - the remission of all their sins - and thereby escape the torments of hell, their likely destination after lives of violence and greed.” ^9^ Thomas Madden characterizes it differently, however, writing: 

“Because of the great expense and difficulties of such a journey, a crusader received a remission from sins, the same as any pilgrim who traveled to a holy shrine. The crusader’s vow was frequently accompanied by other vows of fasting or abstention from sex or by special devotions to be performed during the course of the pilgrimage.” ^10^

Despite some atrocious actions taken by a few individuals that clung to their sinful side, the crusades were not the monstrous, militaristic and dictatorial force that they have been made out to be in recent years. Yes, without a doubt, there were some things done which only made the Christian case for truth harder to spread, and some actions which may have hurt the schism between the Eastern and Western Church. But it should be remembered that those few corrupt individuals are not what defines the crusades, any more than a few corrupt clergy are what defines the Church.

^1^ John Vidmar O.P., The Catholic Church Through the Ages: A History Second Edition (New York/New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2014), 128.

^2^ Conor Kostick, The Siege of Jerusalem: Crusade and Conquest in 1099 (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009), 46.

^3^ Habib Malik, The Crusades Between Myth and Reality (Theological Review, 2011, Vol. 32 Issue 2), 101. 

^4^ Malik, The Crusades Between Myth and Reality, 99.

^5^ Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades: Third Student Edition (Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield, 2013), 143 (Kindle Edition). 

^6^ Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades, 235-41 (Kindle Edition). 

^7^ Malik, The Crusades Between Myth and Reality, 104. 

^8^ Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades, 254 (Kindle Edition). 

^9^ Jonathan Phillips, “The Call of the Crusades” History Today (Nov2009, Vol. 59 Issue 11, p10-17), 11.

^10^ Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades, 303 (Kindle Edition).