« The Weight of Stamps | Main | The White Green House »

November 26, 2007

Of Crusaders and the West

On this day in 1095, Pope Urban II officially commenced the First Crusade by issuing his Edict to take back Jerusalem from the infidel. The eastern emperor had appealed to Urban II for help against the Turks, and although eastern Christians distrusted the French who made up the first crusaders, the emperor had no choice but to accept the help. Thus began Christian Europe's first great expansion across the sea.

People have a tendency to assign moral values to historical events, and with the Crusades it's almost always bad. And why not? When the first Crusaders entered Jerusalem they killed every Muslim - including women and children - and burned the Jews alive in synagogues, where they had fled for safety. When Raymond of Aguilers visited the Temple it's reported that corpses and blood reached his knees. Some Crusaders, such as the Frankish army of the Second Crusade, even slaughtered fellow Christians. In their case, the Coptic Christians of the Nile. During the Fourth Crusade the Franks, joined by Venetians, sacked Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Christianity. They even put a French prostitute on the throne to entertain them. Of course the brunt was spared for Jews and Muslims who, as alluded to already, suffered horrible atrocities.

But if I may engage in a bit of moral relativism, it would be unfair to view the Crusaders outside of their historical contemporaries. As Urban II pointed out in drumming up support for the First Crusade, Syria, Egypt and North Africa were all Christian before savage attacks from raiding Muslim armies. And Palestine had seen its fair share of savage wars from Seljuks, the Fatimid dynasty and countless others. Thirty years before the First Crusade, a pilgrimage of 7,000 Germans set out for the Holy Land, but only 2,000 returned safely, thanks to the Fatimids. The Crusaders were not unique in their savagery, only in their organizational ability to get it done.

Middle Age warriors were, typically, brutal. But in them we can see a faint glimmer of our modern self awareness. Our understanding of society and the individual certainly has its roots in the Crusaders. Take these random lines from Sir Steven Runciman's History of the Crusaders:

  • "[Queen Melisande's] action was regarded as perfectly constitutional and was endorsed by the council."
  • "Trial by peers was an essential feature of Frankish custom."
  • "The King ranked with his tenant-in-chief as primus inter pares, their president but not their master."
In the Crusaders we see a flickering, unmistakable light of the modern West. Godfrey of Bouillon was elected supreme ruler of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, but he declined the title of "king" because he would not wear a crown of gold were Christ had worn a crown of thorns. He was also sure to give the state a constitution.

My point is that the Crusaders were generally ignorant and cruel, but they also carried seeds of a powerful philosophy. This philosophy was not merely order, but also faith, homage, fealty, duty, rights, inheritances, and honor. The feudal society - so at odds with modern equality - can obscure the complex gems within it. And if I may engage in a bit of moral relativism again, the Fatimids and others had nothing like this to compare. Saladin was a rare exception to what were typically lawless despots. The Saracens had no real polity.

Looking back at the Crusades it is hard to recognize anything of ourselves in those warriors. Their scientific and religious understanding was limited and their loyalty sometimes fickle. The ancient Knights Templar, of which I am a member, would at times serve their own pockets instead of the church and pilgrims. But let us at least acknowledge they formed the seeds of modernity in the West. The Crusaders are our kin, and as such we should remember both their sins and victories.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at November 26, 2007 12:00 AM

Comments

I think the Crusades were also the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages (or whatever they're being called these days). Reestablishing contact with the East led to the Enlightenment and Renaissance.

Posted by: Doug at November 26, 2007 08:47 AM | permalink

All this tells me is that certain conservatives favor moral absolutes except when they don't.

As far as advancing the faith, it certainly couldn't be a faith in Jesus Christ. In country, land, pride, flag or whatever, faith, yes. Sadly, that seems to be the prevailing view of faith in the world today. Heresy, more precisely. The attitude of the Crusades, from either side, seems to be the prevailing view in countries such as Iraq today.

Posted by: Joel Betow at November 26, 2007 10:27 AM | permalink

I have to agree with Joel here. The early Christians were clearly exceptional in their barbaric Roman times. They suffered horrific punishments for the sake of the cross, while only repaying those atrocities with love.

The crusaders clearly did not follow the example set by Jesus and the apostles. True Christianity was only at the periphery of Urban's vindictive power struggle for land and power. Then he used false theology in luring soldiers by threatening them with the loss of salvation.

While the crusades might not be out of character for the times, they are clearly out of character for true Christianity.

Posted by: Matthew at November 27, 2007 01:37 AM | permalink

I'm not sure about your point. It seems this is close to saying that Adolf Hitler was good for the Jews because it resulted in them getting a nation, except for his mistake of killing so many of them.

Posted by: jeff at November 27, 2007 09:08 AM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter