When I heard that Islamic terrorists were referring to us here in the Great Satan as the "Crusaders" I knew I had to brush up on the subject. Any moniker that's been around for a thousand years must refer to something pivotal in history, right?
I picked the right book. At only about 200 pages, this book is just what it says: concise. It's a good introductory book on the Crusades; you won't get too much detail, but you will get a general understanding of the times, the motivations, and the events that constitute one of the most misunderstood episodes in world - and religious - history. It was, in fact, just what I was looking for in my search for general reading on the subject.
Madden is an associate professor of medieval history at Saint Louis University and, as co-author of a history on the fourth crusade, is well-qualified to expound on the subject. He is careful to define the limits of his work in the preface. He focuses mainly on the so-called 'numbered' crusades to the Holy Land, which took place over two centuries (1095-1291). Some mention is given to the reconquista (the crusade against the Spanish Muslims), the Albigensian Crusade, the Children's Crusade, and other movements within Europe, but the thrust of the book involves the Holy Land. There is also a fascinating Afterword where Madden summarizes the long-term effects of the Crusades (for example, the Spanish conquistadors of the New World "naturally viewed the people of the New World through the lens of four centuries of crusading.").
A common mistake is to view historical events from a modern perspective. While there is plenty to condemn about the Crusades, it would be wrong to categorize them as mistakes made by an ignorant, warlike people. The anti-Catholic historian Edward Gibbon reckoned that not only did the crusades squander the wealth of western Europe, they wasted lives that could have been used to better Christian/Muslim relationships. Madden calls this conclusion "highly questionable," that without an external enemy, Europeans "... simply would have continued to wage internal warfare with greater vigor." Also, "(g)iven the steady Muslim conquest of Christian lands over the centuries, it also seems unlikely that good relations could have been forged between the two religions without first establishing firm and secure borders." To "dismiss the crusades as morally repugnant, cynically evil, or... 'nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God'... tell(s) us more about the observer than the observed."
So did the Crusades do any good at all? Well, yes. Madden's conclusion is that they slowed the advance of Islam into Europe. In other words, they bought Europe some time when time was vital. The possibility of the Muslim conquest of Europe should not be underestimated. Martin Luther, who derided crusades as an evil manipulation of the people by the pope, was considered a friend by the Turks for his position (Luther changed his tune in 1529 when the Turks threatened Germany). In the carnage of the Crusades, it's easy for us to overlook the fact that Europe, and with it, Christianity, was dangerously close to falling.
This book reads well (not like a textbook) and will introduce or reacquaint the reader with names he should know: Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, Henry II, Philip Augustus, and Suleiman the Magnificent, among others. It's a fast read, too. Get it. Everyone should know a little history.
- John Trudo, August 2003
The crusades began as a reaction to the threat of Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks. The Turks had conquered Jerusalem and caused a great deal of instability in the region. Constantinople, fearing conquest, asked the West (specifically, Pope Gregory VII) for help.
The First Crusade: 1096. Leaders included Raymond, Count of Toulouse; Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond, and Baldwin of Boulogne. The crusaders achieved a surprising victory by capturing Nicaea, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
The Second Crusade: 1145. The goal was to recapture Edessa. Leaders included Louis VII of France and Conrad II of Germany. Conrad's army was almost completely destroyed near Dorylaeum by the Turks. Most of the French army was massacred by the Turks at Laodicea a year later. An attempted siege of Damascus was disastrous. The Second Crusade overall was a fiasco.
The Third Crusade: 1189. This was the height of the crusading movement. Leaders were Henry II, Philip II, William II (of Sicily), Richard the Lionheart, and Frederick Barbarossa (Germany). The Third Crusade was launched in response to Saladin's victories. Besides taking back most of the territories won by the First Crusade, Saladin had won the True Cross (Christianity never got it back). The German army crushed the Turks and captured Iconium, but Frederick drowned in a river shortly afterward and his army dissolved without him.
Massacres on both sides characterized this crusade: Richard had 2700 of the Muslim garrison at Acre executed in full view of Saladin. Saladin, in return, killed most of his Christian hostages. The crusade's objective was to re-take Jerusalem, but Richard saw the capture of Jaffa as a strategic goal that had to be met first. Richard's army defeated Saladin's and took Jaffa and Ascalon. However, Richard realized that Jerusalem was too strongly fortified to be taken at that time. The crusade ended with an uneasy truce. Richard agreed to hand over Ascalon to Saladin (after destroying the fortifications), and Saladin agreed to respect Christian territories and travel, even to Jerusalem. The Third Crusade was considered successful because most of Saladin's victories were swept away and the crusader kingdom again united.
The Fourth Crusade: 1202. Leading figures: Count Baldwin of Flanders, Count Thibaut of Champagne, Marquis Boniface of Montferrat. This crusade got out of control early. Many of the crusaders earned excommunication when they sacked Zara, a Christian city, after being warned not to by the pope. The Fourth Crusade is also known for its atrocities in sacking Constantinople. More than anything else, this single act did more to poison east against west for centuries.
The Fifth Crusade: 1217. Leading figures: Frederick II (Sicily/Germany), al-Adil (Saladin's brother), and Duke Leopold VI (Austria). The crusaders aimed for Egypt and took Damietta. Al-Kamil, the Muslim defender, feared the loss of his kingdom and offered the crusaders the entire kingdom of Jerusalem with the exception of fortresses in the Transjordan, a good deal of monetary tribute, and a 30-year truce to the Christians in the kingdom. The crusaders, tempted (Jerusalem was, after all, the ultimate goal of attacking Egypt), decided not to accept as they did not believe the truce would hold. Negotiations got nowhere. Interestingly, St. Francis of Assisi showed up in at attempt to convert al-Kamil! Needless to say, he failed.
The Muslim commander eventually used the Nile to flood the crusader route, trapping them. Because of inept leadership and the empty promises of Frederick II (he and his army never showed), the Fifth Crusade failed. While things looked optimistic many times, they always ended in humiliation for the crusaders.
Frederick was blamed by many, including the pope. Still, Frederick promised to lead a crusade but procrastinated. Meanwhile, al-Adin's sons squabbled, causing the Muslim front to fragment. A Muslim envoy to Frederick promised him Jerusalem if he would spare Egypt and take Damascus instead.
Frederick finally launched his crusade in 1227, but he got sick and delayed his own departure a year. The pope, furious at yet another delay, excommunicated him. Frederick did indeed finally arrive in the Holy Land, though, and struck a deal with al-Kamil, the sultan: a ten-year truce between the Muslims and the Christians in return for giving Frederick Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. Frederick agreed not to fortify Jerusalem and to allow Muslims to stay. The Mosque and the Dome of the Rock would remain in Muslim hands.
Frederick was not popular with the crusaders, who felt he had sold them out. Both sides felt betrayed. Frederick had himself crowned as ruler of Jerusalem, then left. The city itself had been reduced from a Holy City to a secular prize.
As far as crusade objectives go, Frederick's crusade was successful. There was no bloodshed and Jerusalem had been won back.
(For a much better essay on the Crusades than my feeble attempt above, see the author's essay here.) There is also a further letter from the author clarifying a Crusades piece in U.S. News and World Report here.
* Paraphrased from the book, for the most part.