Posts
On November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II
mounted a platform set up in a meadow outside the French city of Clermont,
surrounded in all directions by an immense crowd.
This is precisely the point where history began as far as the
mainstream narrative of the Crusades is concerned.
In 1999, the New York Times had solemnly proposed that the Crusades were
comparable to Hitler’s atrocities or to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
And this is precisely where the mainstream narrative of this
history ends.
God's
Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, by Rodney Stark
This book was recommended to me in the comments of a recent
post I had written on the topic of the Crusades, where I offered how my
thinking has evolved on this topic. The
book generally conforms to my views, but offers much more detail regarding the
history.
I do not intend to go into great detail in reviewing this
book; an overview of some of the key points is my intent. To begin…before Muslims lived in the Middle
East, Christians lived there. Before
Christians brought an army from Europe at the end of the eleventh century,
Muslims brought one about four centuries earlier.
Syria, Persia, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Sicily
and Southern Italy, major Mediterranean islands. To the extent Christianity “conquered” some
of these lands in the centuries after the Resurrection, this was accomplished
not by warriors but by missionaries who would become martyrs. To the extent all of these lands later
succumbed to Islam, this was not done by missionaries, but by warriors.
The narrative is that the Muslim invaders left the Christian
subjects in peace – once conquered. The
reality is not so neat. To the extent
there was peace, the Christians were always second-class – even third-class,
behind Jews. But this “peace” – such as
it was – would often be interrupted by episodes of violence, rape, forced
conversion, etc. I hope none of this is
controversial – invading armies and rulers behave this way often.
Further, there was no reason to believe that the Muslim
armies would be satisfied where they were – on the doorstep of Constantinople,
Rome, and Paris. It was in this
environment – and prompted by a request from the Byzantine emperor Alexius
Comnenus (a duplicitous character in his own right) – that the Pope gave his
speech.
Pilgrims to the Holy Lands were often persecuted, executed,
crucified, stoned; monasteries attacked with monks slaughtered or burned and nuns
raped; churches destroyed; the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
and the tomb below. And this was all
before the real difficulties surfaced, under the invasion by Seljuk Turks in
the eleventh century. It was in response
to this invasion that Alexius wrote his letter to the Pope in Rome.
The Crusades didn’t begin with the Crusades; more
specifically, the battle was not taken up by Europeans on foreign soil. The Muslim armies were first turned back at
Tours in France; Spain, Italy, and Sicily would be retaken; the seas would once
again be controlled – to a large extent – by the Christian navies of Europe.
Stark offers a contrary view on the idea that European
(Greek) culture and literature survived only due to Muslim scholars, noting –
for example – that this culture and tradition was surviving just fine under
Byzantium before the Muslims invaded. As
it was, even under Muslim rule much of the scholarship was conducted by
non-Muslims.
Stark further contrasts technologies employed by and
available to Christian Europe vs. Muslims in the east: transport, agriculture,
and military might (shielding and crossbows being two of the more important
examples) all favoring the Europeans.
Stark also offers a different picture of the typical
Crusader: not in search for riches, as the Crusade was self-financed, often by
selling or mortgaging much of his real property; not as a way to get rid of too
many sons, as often entire families and extended families would ride out
together. Many fought for the perceived
need for penance; many also saw in it the liberation of the Holy Land.
Regarding the First Crusade, the journey was arduous – by
land over thousands of miles, often unfriendly miles. Only a minority of Crusaders would ever get
to see the Holy Land, and only a few of these even survived the fighting once
there. In addition to the princes, there
was a “People’s Crusade,” led by Peter; most of these Crusaders died along the
way. There was the German Crusade and
the slaughter of Jews along their way.
Once the remnants reached Byzantium, they were virtually
abandoned by the same Alexius who requested aid. Over the course of the several Crusades, the
Byzantines would continue in such a manner – even to include making alliance
with the Muslims and against the Crusaders.
What follows are bloody victories; the struggle to maintain
and defend these kingdoms via further Crusades; Saladin and the retaking of
Jerusalem (no, he was not as honorable as we have been told); finally, the
abandoning of the entire endeavor.
Those in Europe were tired of fighting and paying taxes (the
Holy Lands were not a source of revenue, but a cost center); they found no
support from Byzantium – in fact, they found antagonism.
Conclusion
I will leave this in Stark’s hands:
The thrust of the preceding
chapters can be summarized very briefly.
The Crusades were not unprovoked.
They were not the first round of European colonization. They were not conducted for land, loot, or
converts. The crusaders were not
barbarians who victimized the cultured Muslims.
They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalion.
Of course, we could have a robust discussion around the
concept of “God’s battalion.” But that
is entirely a different subject.
