The Crusades (1095-1291) were wars Christians had fought against Muslims to take back the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. All the gains made in the first hundred years were lost in the second hundred.
There were nine numbered Crusades altogether. The first five were called by the pope. Most Crusaders came from what is now Britain, Germany, Italy and especially France. The Byzantine Greeks, like the Muslims, called them all “Franks”, and did not think much of them.
In the late 1000s the Turks had taken over the Holy Land from the Arabs. Christians pilgrims could no longer freely come and go. They were thrown in prison, sold as slaves or killed. Even worse, in 1071 the Turks defeated the Byzantine Empire at Manzikert and were on the march to Constantinople. The Byzantine emperor desperately asked the pope for help.
In 1095, Pope Urban II called the First Crusade
It was a huge success for the Crusaders. They took Jerusalem in 1099 in a terrible bloodbath, killing men, women and children. They also took Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch. These four cities each became the centre of a Crusader state. Christians ruled Jerusalem for 88 years (1099-1187). Some Crusader states lasted well into the 1200s.
But there was a fifth city that the Crusaders failed to take that was the key to all the rest: Damascus. Failing to take Damascus, each Crusader state fell in time.
In 1187, Saladin, a Kurd, led the Muslims to take back Jerusalem. The Christians never got control of Jerusalem after that. Later Crusades failed or scored only small successes.
In 1291 the last Crusader states fell.
Not all Crusades made it to the Holy Land:
- 1204: the Fourth Crusade, led by Venice, burned Constantinople and set up a short-lived Latin Empire.
- 1212: the Children’s Crusade ended with the children either lost at sea or sold as slaves in Egypt
What the First Crusade had done to slow Turkish advance into Christian lands, the Fourth Crusade had undone 109 years later. The Byzantine Empire was never more than a small kingdom after that. It also destroyed any chance of bringing the Catholic and Orthodox churches back together, a split that lasts to this day. Only the Turks stood to gain.
Book burnings:
- 1109: over 100,000 books burned in Tripoli
- 1204: hundreds of works by Ancient Greeks lost forever as the last surviving copies burn in Constantinople.
The Crusades were not considered to be a great event in the Muslim world at the time. It was nothing compared to the threat Egypt presented by going Shia under the Ismailis. No one thought to push the Crusaders into the sea till they began to threaten Mecca and Medina.
It was not seen as a crime against the Muslim world till the 1900s when Western armies returned. Some see Israel as a latter-day Crusader state. If it lasts as long as the Kingdom of Jerusalem it will fall in 2036.
Body count: 1.0 million. (The Reconquista of Spain, for comparison, killed 7 million).
See also:
You shoud write about Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn, the most chivalrous sultan and how merciful he treated the crusaders. Its really a great subject
LikeLike
Very interesting. I have heard that in addition to the European crusaders, there were some Arab and even a few “Nubian” (Ethiopian?) Christians in the crusades. However, I have also read that some Arab Christians were killed during the sacking of Jerusalem. If anybody has further information on this, I would be interested in reading it.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
I’m curious, what are you implying?
LikeLike
Coincidence?
Nope.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
You make some interesting points. Do you think this pattern is unique to the West? I do think that the reason there are so many Muslims in the UK and France is do to them having colonies in the Muslim World, not because of the Crusades. Like you said, it was a long time ago, I don’t know if there is a connection. However I think it is interesting that there is (percentage wise), more Muslims in Sweden than the UK, and Sweden never had any colonies in the Muslim World as far as I know.
But anyways, yeah, there does seem to be a pattern. A Western nation fights or invades a non-Western nation, and then a bunch of non-Western people from that country end up in the West with a growing community.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi/Benjamin
I hve a hard time connecting the crusades to immigration from the colonies. I think the Crusades are only connected to the early stage of colonialism: The Spanish and Portugese up to the 17th century. The muslim immigration to France and Britain is a phenomenon of the late colonial and post-colonial period, often directly connected to decolonization.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
From what I understand, though, weren’t the Crusades partially in response to Muslim aggression? I mean, prior to the Crusades, several centers of Christianity (including Jerusalem), had fallen under Muslim control. Two others – Rome and Constantinople – were attacked by Muslims, but didn’t fall. In addition, at various points during Muslim rule, local Muslims tended to attack Christian pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. This leads me to believe that the Crusades were ideologically different than the European Imperialism that later ended up dominating most of the world.
However, I agree that the zeal the Crusaders had, could be likened to that of the Imperialists of the 19th century. And of course the Crusades were all incredibly bloody affairs, with precious few enemies being spared by the Crusaders. And as I believe abagond mentioned, for countries like Spain and Portugal, the Crusades never really ended because of the “Reconquista”. So that mindset appears to have carried over into those countries’ empires in the New World and elsewhere. So while I do not see The Crusades and 19th-century European Imperialism as the same thing, I can see how the former perhaps morphed into the latter.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
“From what I understand, though, weren’t the Crusades partially in response to Muslim aggression?”
If I remember correctly, the direct cause of the First Crusade was an appeal for help from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch to the Pope and Western Christendom. They were getting whipped by the Muslims and had lost control of several important cities and strategic sites, including Jerusalem.
The first crusaders kicked ass and took back pretty much all the contested land, but then they refused to give it back to the Eastern Orthodox and instead set up their own kingdoms and city-states. They adapted some to Eastern ways but they retained a lot of their own culture and of course continued to follow Roman Catholicism. Those crusaders who chose to stay did send for their families and remained in the region for generations. So it could in fact be seen as early colonialism, although not quite in the same form as the modern era.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Right, I think I’m in agreement with you. Certainly there are similarities between the Crusades and European Imperialism. But my point was the initial motivation for the Crusades could be seen as partially defensive in nature, rather than purely imperialistic. Later on, as the Crusaders set up their Latin Kingdoms in the Middle East and the surrounding areas, it does begin to look more and more like colonialism. So while I see similarities, I do not see the same thing.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
“But my point was the initial motivation for the Crusades could be seen as partially defensive in nature, rather than purely imperialistic. Later on, as the Crusaders set up their Latin Kingdoms in the Middle East and the surrounding areas, it does begin to look more and more like colonialism.”
I see your point, and from the viewpoint of Eastern Christians, it was definitely defensive. But I believe it had been a couple centuries since Rome and France were under any direct threat of Muslim conquest. The First Crusade was promoted more as a defense of Christendom and its earliest holy sites. The Eastern Christians were absolutely flummoxed when the Westerners decided to keep what they had conquered. There was at least one crusader who, when his army conquered a city on the way to Jerusalem, said, “Welp, I’m done. I’m just gonna set myself up a nice little kingdom here and start levying taxes. Y’all have fun. Say hi to Jesus for me.” So the kingdom-building started before the First Crusade even finished.
I’m not entirely disagreeing with you. It is a different bird than modern imperialism. A lot of these dudes were younger sons of nobles, and this was their opportunity to set up ruling houses of their own. They weren’t claiming land for their king and country but making themselves kings.
But maybe there is a connection in that Western European Christians felt they had a right to those lands due to their religion. That still comes in play somewhat today. American Christians, for instance, can get quite heated about the need to protect Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem “because that’s where our savior walked.”
@ Kiwi
I hadn’t heard of that study but I’m not at all surprised. I didn’t mean to imply that there was no intermarriage.
LikeLike
@Kiwi,
“You could also say that about the War on Terror, which George W. Bush referred to as a Crusade. I say it is just an excuse, a pretext to justify war and pillage.”
I disagree that it was solely an excuse. Clearly there was Muslim aggression going on, even if it wasn’t against Latin Christians. As Solitaire said, the First Crusade came when the Byzantine Empire was asking Western Christendom for help with repelling the Seljuk Turks, who were at the time invading Anatolia. And while this wasn’t consistent, at various points in time Christian pilgrims were suffering attacks at the hands of Muslims in Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
It was definitely an excuse for many Crusaders, and it ultimately turned into something akin to modern day imperialism. But had Muslims not been invading Christian lands, then the Byzantine Emperor probably wouldn’t have sent a request for aid to Pope Urban II, and in turn Pope Urban II would have never called for the First Crusade.
@Solitaire
“I’m not entirely disagreeing with you. It is a different bird than modern imperialism. A lot of these dudes were younger sons of nobles, and this was their opportunity to set up ruling houses of their own. They weren’t claiming land for their king and country but making themselves kings.”
That theory has actually been disputed. No doubt it was the case for some individuals. But I watched a video where apparently most Crusaders were actually peasants, as oppose to gangs of nobles.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
Well, yes, I meant the leaders of the various armies, who were also the ones setting up their private feudal city-states. Sorry about that. The majority of the troops were peasants, which is pretty much always the case, isn’t it?
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
Admittedly I’m not sure if I am at the height of academic opinion on the matter. But are you sure about the peasant thing? Of course there wss the People’s Crusade, but even that had some knights. And the main crusade armies had a substantial force of knights.Of course that doesn’t mean they accounted for the majoritiy of the people involved.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
From what I understand, there is an idea floating around that the main “drivers” of the Crusaders were second born nobility, looking to increase their financial power. This seems to be what Solitaire was suggesting. Something like “I’m the second son of a Lord, I’m not inheriting land, so I’m going to gather my fellow second born sons and go around plundering the Middle East.”
In reality, most Crusaders were lead by Kings and High Nobles, and most foot soldiers who answered the call to battle were peasants. But yes, knights – in addition to second born nobility – were also present.
I have a video I will share in the next comment, hopefully it will go through moderation more quickly.
LikeLike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zudTQelzI)
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
This is the guy I was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_I_of_Jerusalem
He was the youngest son of a count, and although he didn’t stick with the crusading army all the way to Jerusalem, he was later made king of that city.
There was also this guy, who was the eldest son of a count from a first marriage that had been declared invalid, thus making him a bastard and ineligible to inherit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemond_I_of_Antioch
I am open to correction if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there were any kings present on the First Crusade. Some brothers of kings, yes, and other high nobility. Kings did take part in later crusades, yes, most notably the Third Crusade. But the First Crusade was the one in which crusaders took over land and established their own rule.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
You are right about the First Crusade. For the point I was making, I was thinking about the Crusades as a whole. I should’ve specified that. My main point is that throughout the Crusades – overall – the idea that the Crusaders were all in the Middle East purely for plunder is a false narrative. These were religious men in a very religious time. To say that they all were using religion as a cover for pillaging or land grabs is something I don’t believe to be true.
No doubt some of them did use religion as a cover – just like some religious extremists do today. But there are and always have been religious people who go and kill for their cause because they really do believe that is what God wants.
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
Agreed. Certainly there was a mix of motivations, but the religious one shouldn’t be downplayed.
LikeLike
The later-born sons idea is certainly a contributing factor at best. And even then one has to keep in mind that the land the crusaders conquered was tiny compared to countries they came from.
On the other hand it cannot be ignored that the Crusades fell into a period of general expansion in Europe. Both externel towards the east and internal.
LikeLike
I have heard it said many times that people died in the name of God and religion. I was never good at history or geography but from reading this thread post about the crusades i am understanding where that statement is born.
LikeLike
I was discussing this with someone, and yes, I think the crusades were violent but they were a response to aggression. Islam is a younger religion than both Judaism and Christianity. Much of the M.E that we now consider Islamic was Christian and that includes Syria, Lebanon, even Turkey. The crusades occurred after hundreds of years of muslim aggression in which the Byzantine Empire was destroyed and its capital Constantinople seized.
These pages have some interesting maps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
The maps show the Christian (since the third century) Byzantine empire at its greatest extent in AD 555 and the Islamic Ottoman Empire in 1683. As you can see, they were completely overrun including Jerusalem and the “Holy Land”. I think a historical examination of the region complicates the question of what is “native” in the context of the conflict involving Israel in Palestine.
I think those of us in Christendom are well aware of the imperialism of Christian countries but we might be less quick to recognize others. In 1400 years Islam’s gains and conquests were astounding. Islamic Iran today was Zoroastrian Persia (connected to today’s Yazidis whom ISIS rape and slaughter). Islamic Indonensia and Malaysia today were Buddhist/Hindu. India/Pakistan came under muslim rule for centuries during which many Hindus were massacred.
And of course, Africa was not spared. We know about the slave trade that predated the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Ab’d is an Arabic word which means servant/slave and abeed is the plural, IIRC. Black Africans were used so ubiquitously as slaves that the term abeed became synonymous with the race. In fact, as recently as 2014 there was a campaign called “Drop the A-Word” which encouraged Arab Americans to stop using the word to refer to black people. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-culture/2014/02/27/New-online-campaign-urges-American-Muslims-to-drop-the-A-word-.html
LikeLike
It should also be recalled that long after the crusades the early 20th century saw the Armenian genocide (1.5 million Christians), Pontic Greek genocide (hundreds of thousands of Christians) and the Assyrian genocide (hundreds of thousands of Christians) all carried out by the Islamic Ottoman Empire. [It’s interesting that the “Young Turks” political movement is believed to have been involved in the Armenian genocide making it a sketchy name for a liberal youtube channel]
Later, leading up to WWII, when the Jews were being eliminated in Europe at the hands of the Nazis the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini, said:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3q5dFD61V5oC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=mufti+%22It+is+the+duty+of+Muhammadans%22&source=bl&ots=_tPk16sLRd&sig=-RThhThoAYvUI4Q6MHYHj2JyI-8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ3cSK5ZLRAhUkxoMKHQ7YDgQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=mufti%20%22It%20is%20the%20duty%20of%20Muhammadans%22&f=false
He wasn’t lying about the bolded section. There’s a passage in the Islamic hadith that explicitly connects an end-time scenario to the genocide of Jews.
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=52&translator=1&start=0&number=177#177
The 1988 Hamas charter begins with a quotation:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)”
Then the passage from the hadith which says stones will betray jews to execution is quoted later in Article 7. The Jews charge anti-semitism. Can’t say I blame them. Can they really negotiate with and trust an organization that has sworn to wipe them out? If Jew-hatred is a religious imperative, and it appears to be, then peace will not be possible and negotiation is not in good faith. The aim seems to be to win a public relations battle against Israel since Israel has proven militarily superior on multiple ocassions when directly attacked.
LikeLike
@Origin
“The Jews charge anti-semitism…Can they really negotiate with and trust an organization that has sworn to wipe them out? If Jew-hatred is a religious imperative, and it appears to be, then peace will not be possible and negotiation is not in good faith.”
How does the alleged funding of Hamas by the Israeli government fit in this narrative?
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israeli-palestinian-relations/wikileaks-israel-actively-supported-hamas-6980
LikeLike
@ Origin
This Washington Post article adds more detail:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/
LikeLike
@Afrofem
I would not be surprised about at all. I think negotiation in good faith broke down a long time ago because the situation represents a true deadlock. Most of what has happened diplomatically in the last decades has been the definition of “dog and pony show”.
Let’s consider the “two-state solution” that is supposedly desired at this point. That is a solution that has been rejected multiple times since the beginning of overt hostilities. AFAIK, the first proposal for separate Arab and Jewish states in Palestine was the Peel Commision which took place during the 1930s riots while the area was still under British control.
The commission recommended that abolition of the British Palestine Mandate and the establishment of two separate states. The Jews would have received a minority of territory in the North, would have been forbidden from purchasing land in the Arab areas, and would have probably had to pay the new Arab state (since the wealthier Jews helped pay for administration of the Mandate and that would end after partition).
While the Jews were concerned about the small Jewish state under the Peel recommendations they seemed prepared to accept it as they would have gained a state. However it was seen as a complete loss by the Arab side and was ultimately rejected. It’s interesting that these negotiations took place before the WWII holocaust leading some Jewish leaders to wonder what might have been different if Jews had a state willing to accept them while Hitler was eliminating them from Europe. This was compounded by the “White Paper of 1939” which generally defined British policy towards Palestine during the WWII period. It limited Jewish immigration to the region (even while the holocaust was going on), rejected partitioning of Palestine, restricted Jewish right to buy land from Arabs and required Arab support before a Jewish state could be established.
So after WWII the British decided to end Mandatory Palestine and asked the United Nations to determine what would replace it. The UN resolution recommended a partition with economic union. So again, essentially a two-state solution with Jerusalem being governed independently. The Jews accepted the plan while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and all voting members of the UN which were muslim nations voted against it. Violence broke out in Palestine leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war after the Jewish declaration of independence. The current situation largely descends from the six-day war of 1967 when Israel captured former British Palestine Mandate territories in the West Bank from Jordan (not from a state of Palestine) and Golan Heights from Syria (not from a state of Palestine) then started building settlements. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt on multiple occassions. The state of Palestine had been rejected at least twice.
The lines of enmity would have been clearly drawn by the 1980s so I would not be surprised if Israel infiltrated a nascent Hamas in its own perceived national interest.
LikeLike