Islamic extremists often talk about defeating the ‘Crusaders’ and believe that any wars involving America and the west are invasions by ‘Crusaders.’
Which raises an interesting question.
The Crusades are often painted in media and by some historians of today as evil Christians rampaging and killing innocent people, trying to impose their will and their religion on people.
But that’s a view not fully grounded in reality.
What were they really all about and what is the truth of history?
1. The first myth is that the Crusades were unprovoked against peaceful Muslims
The Crusades were preceded by centuries of conquest by Islamists, first through North Africa and the Middle East, and then Spain and starting to invade the rest of Europe. They had already conquered an appreciable part of the Christian world.
From Federalist Papers:
At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 in response to an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople.
Urban called the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of their eastern brethren. It was to be an errand of mercy, liberating the Christians of the East from their Muslim conquerors. In other words, the Crusades were from the beginning a defensive war. The entire history of the eastern Crusades is one of response to Muslim aggression.
2. The second myth is that people went crusading just to capture riches and grab lands.
On the contrary, crusading was a tremendously expensive endeavor.
Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. They were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home
While some stayed, most returned home.
So why did they go? Because they thought they were doing their religious duty and to atone for sin.
3. Some point to the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and claim that many were killed in the process.
But putting it into historical context, any pre-modern city in Europe and Asia that resisted capture was then sacked if they didn’t give up. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.
4. The Crusades were about taking over the lands, basically medieval colonialism.
But at this point in history, it wasn’t Europe that was the more dominant and powerful, it was the Muslim East that had the power and wealth, relatively. Most of Europe was still in deep poverty at this point.
The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader States was Muslim. They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader States was to defend the Holy Places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places. There was no mother country with which the Crusader States had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources.
That blows a lot of myths about the "evil" crusades.
But now, as Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.
