Posted on 11/23/2003 10:16:01 AM PST by freedom44
With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
. .... From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
Yes, it was on FreeRepublic, and was titled "Group of Western Christians Apologizes for Crusades", and it was started by someone named Sandy on 5/3/99. Like I said, I know that it was a long time ago, so my comment may seem quite out of context. Interestingly, most of the comments that I've seen on the warious threads referring to this event were quite negative.
The Reconciliation Walk was a project which began because some Christians found that as they interacted with people in the Middle East, specifically Muslims, and they began to discuss their faith, often, they were faced with statements about the Crusades. Those Christians began to realize that although the Crusades had happened centuries ago, there was still a very real collective "recollection" if you will, and an offense still felt as a result of some of the bad things that happened during that time. They began to realize that this was also having a profound effect on their sincere interactions with both the Orthodox Christian and Jewish communities in the area as well. They came up with this idea as a way to take the first step in trying to bridge a gap. So they began to mobilize Western Christians who might be interested to go and share this apology in sincerity. I will try to find a copy of the apology in English so that you can view it. Thanks for asking.
How many IDs do you have?
The Crusades were a response to Islamic imperialism. The West has NOTHING to apologize for, and those who do apologize simply encourage the modern day jihad. The reason that muslims bring up the Crusades is because they are taught to hate the West and this is the most memorable piece of propaganda they have. The West did NOT start the conflict.
I have two id's. I originally signed-up at my office but listed my home e-mail. When I realized that I could not access my password until I went home, I resigned using the second name (lanice8).
I agree with you that the Crusades were a response to Islamic imperialism. However, I do not agree that everything that happened during the Crusades was commendable. There were many beneficial things which were accomplished, albeit temporarily through the Crusades (ie. the liberation of Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy land from Islamic control.) I do not and will not apologize for that. But not every Crusader was of the same ilk, and not all of them did valiant deeds. The apology focused purely on the wrongs which were done, and there is nothing wrong in apologizing for that. Throughout history, we see many movements,(even beneficial ones) frought with inequities and atrocities. That doesn't mean that the overall movement was bad, or that it should not have happened, but I believe that it takes strength of character to acknowledge that some things did go wrong- terribly wrong- and that they should be acnowledged and dealt with. It does not in some way diminish the strength or character of the Church or the West to acknowledge that we have gotten some things wrong. In fact, I think that it strengthens us and shows our confidence in who we are, because it shows that we are not afraid to admit our faults, nor are we intimidated by our enemies. Please don't misunderstand the aim. The Rec Walk was not about apologizing for who we are, pandering to Islamic sympathizers, discrediting the beliefs of Christianity or the values of the West, etc. It was simply about dealing with the things that were wrong.
Does Islamic civilization have alot for which it can "apologize"? Certainly! But I do not require their apology as a prerequisite to giving my own.
-- I do not agree that everything that happened during the Crusades was commendable.
I didn't say that it was. I believe lots of nasty things were done by both sides.
-- But not every Crusader was of the same ilk, and not all of them did valiant deeds.
Of course not, many were poorly educated and little more than barbarians. Some of them actually were barbarians. And the same was true of the Saracen hordes. Those were barbaric times, full of barbaric deeds. But, for the most part, what we would not do today was commonplace in those times and would not cause an eyebrow to be raised.
-- but I believe that it takes strength of character to acknowledge that some things did go wrong- terribly wrong- and that they should be acnowledged and dealt with.
Nothing 'went wrong' by the standards of that time, not in the way you mean it. Terrible atrocities were routinely committed by both sides as was the norm in that era. The concepts that shape Western Civilization had yet to be invented. You are applying today's standards to yesterday and that is unfair. It diminishes all the progress made by humanity in the intervening time. It is demeaning.
Furthermore, it is presumptious to apologize on behalf of people whose motives you do not understand.
The worst of it all is that your apology only sends a perception of weakness to people who are the exact same barbarians as they were when your barbarian predecessors were fighting their barbarian predecessors. And as a result innocent people who don't give a democrat's ass about your post-Christian guilt will die horrible deaths.
-- Does Islamic civilization ...
Islamic civilization collapsed long ago. The Islamic world of today would have little culture or technology if it weren't able to import it wholesale from the West in exchange for oil. They'd still be chopping each other up in order to steal each other's women and goats. Their biggest contribution to modern civilization was literally nothing, and even that they stole from ancient India.
And they have nothing to apologize for prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. Since then, however, they have a great deal to answer for.
Well, I can see that we are probably not going to agree on this issue. The standards that I apply are standards based upon my belief system. Certainly, Western civilization has changed since the Middle Ages, but Christian principles haven't. To crowd Jews into a synagogue and burn it down because they chose not to convert to Christianity is wrong. To slaughter Orthodox Christians because their form of worship was different (and not to a great degree), is wrong. To rape Islamic women and justify it by stating that they are infidels is wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not it was common practice. The standards of their belief system (Christianity) clearly spell out that this type of behavior is wrong, regardless of the justness of your cause. And THIS is what people "remember" when we begin to talk to them about what we believe. If Christianity is so good and virtuous, then how could people have done these things in the name of Jesus Christ, on a Crusade for Him? Well, according to the teachings of Christianity, they shouldn't have! Unfortunately, but not suprisingly, Islam allows for terrible deeds to be done in the name of religion. I still believe that those deeds are terrible and wrong. But, their belief system does not tell them not to do such things. Mines does, and so did the Crusaders'.
Fighting a war, liberating the Holy land, even killing the enemy, these things are not necessarily wrong, although they are unpleasant. They are quite noble when done for the right reasons, and carried out in the right ways. Now of course, ugly things happen during war, and not all of it is justified. Even some things done under orders are morally wrong. I find it suprising that in a group where conservative principles are valued, the belief that moral wrong IS wrong regardless of the generation or common practices of a people should be a novel concept.
Also, I don't think that you're hearing everything that I have to say. The apology was not directed solely at Muslims. It was geared equally toward Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Unfortunately, the press did not emphasize this as much. But I worked with the walk both in Turkey and Israel, and was able to share it with people of all three faiths. Contrary to your belief, I do not believe that it encouraged jihad (which was already in full swing by the time the Walk began. And I know this, because I was in the thick of it going to grad school in Israel at the time). I think that those who were going to respond to it did, and those who were bent on jihad were already inclined toward extremism, and our efforts made no impression on them except maybe to maintain an already seething disdain for anything Western. In short, I don't believe that the bad got worse, or that they were emboldened by our statement. The kinds of things that encourages radical Islam are, for example, when countries back out (ie Spain) out of fear of terrorist reprisal, or cowtow and change their laws in order to avoid terrorist threats (as the terrorists are trying to force in France). Another example is when the Israelis pulled out of Southern Lebanon in 2000, their enemy then getting the impression that they had worn down their resistance. This is the kind of thing that emboldens Islam. Simply sharing a truth of Christianity does not. Humility doesn't imply weakness, and those who perceived the apology as weakness already held that view of the West. But I know for sure that there were countless others who were sincerely moved, some to tears, and who even then began to understand something of the spirit of Christianity, once they were able to remove what they had alway understood it to be as a result of what they'd learned of the Crusades.
Also, I know that Islamic civ collapsed years ago. I believe that I may have been using the term simply to refer to the Islamic world, which though fragmented, still has a unified ethos worldwide. During the period of Islamic civilization, however, there were many great inventions and discoveries and great centers of learning which developed. The Islamic world actually did contribute to the continuing development of the Western world. They just got stuck in the Middle Ages, and are still unwilling to leave it. They're still looking back to the days of their "golden age". While I disagree wholesale with the religion, the radicalism it spawns, and the worldwide manipulation that has developed as a result of it, I will not deny them their heritage. Islamic civilization has a very rich history, and the information that it was able to transmit to the west (even knowledge gained from farther east) was of great benefit. And, we often received it once it had been synthesized through an Islamiic filter. Scholasticism and the concept of merging faith and reason were blatantly Islamic, learned by Western medieval thinkers in Islanic universities like those of Cordoba.
bttt
Thought you might enjoy this. I don't know who to ping at GG&G or if it was an appropriate topic.
Thanks for the ping. GGG is mostly an archaeology/anthropology ping list. This is more like history.
History piece for archiving ping.
me too.
Bump!
To my knowledge, there were several Crusades, the last of which bore little resemblance in motivation and behavior to that which came before it.
As I recall, it was focused more on destroying the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian.
So..."The Crusades" is a rather complicated catch-all phrase.
Link on the assault on the Zoroastrians in the Persian Empire [Iran], and their possible revival in Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208233/posts
Ping to post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027520/posts?page=33#33
More history to bookmark
Thank you freedom!
ping to all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.