Political Crossfire Forums

[bob.appleyard]

This is a pet hate of mine, but one that I felt I had to share with you on this forum, due to the real misconceptions which exist about what the Crusades were, and their impact on the world. My intent is first to try to dispel what I see as mischaracterisations of the phenomenon (I have a pathological desire to share my knowledge, not just prove points), and further to stimulate discussion about the role of religion and war, and how they can interact.

Though they appeared hopelessly idealistic, the numbered Crusades were a practically minded response -- centuries too late -- to the Turkish invasion of Byzantium. However, there were other wars which in all other respects were crusades, but where the setting was not in the Holy Land (and sometimes the targets were not Muslim -- such as the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc). Their emergence coincided with that of the reform movement in the Church and in particular its attempt to curb the violence that was rampant in medieval society. The whole crusade system was designed by Leo IX to stop the Normans on his doorstep and was based on the "plenary indulgence" -- all sins would be forgiven. This was designed to attract people to the cause, but it also fit in with the reformist popes' (loopy) doctrine of being the earthly reincarnation of St Peter. It was sold to the masses using extreme religious rhetoric, including repeated references to Jerusalem. Combined with chivalry, this virtually compelled aristocrats to participate, but it also attracted thugs and ruffians eager to have their sins absolved with a tour of penitence. This meant that Christendom (almost inadvertently) had a place to send their most violent criminals from whence they would probably never return. However, Combined with this were some collossal misfires which basically scuppered the whole thing, like the Fourth Crusade. A few battles went to the Christians, but ultimately Islam won the Crusades -- Byzantium was lost forever. By then, the important players left on the Christian side (France, Spain, Holland, Flanders, England) had moved onto bigger things.

While they were a lost cause in the end, the development of centralised states, mediterranean trade, trade on any significant scale in fact, simply would not have occurred without the without the Crusades. It is very likely that the classical texts which spurred the Renaissance would have returned to Europe as soon as it did without the Reconquista, as it is unlikely the books of "pagans" would be of any interest to a merchant, whereas there was a totally different attitude among the clergy -- a rabid desire to find out as much about the enemy as possible. They also contributed enormously to the vibrant culture of the High Middle Ages.

However, there are two characterisations of the phenomenon which I have found to be commonly held, neither of which are correct. I believe them to be influenced, predictably enough, not by academics, but by the popular entertainment industry. It isn't helped when, in the instance of my own country, art historians and comedians pretend to elucidate subjects on the most cursory of reading.

First, there is the Enlightenment position, which states that the Crusades were universally bad. This is usually held by dour "historians" and talking heads, or people wanting to make some kind of point or other, though you can see it in the occasional film. Then there is the Romantic position, which holds respect for the valour, sincerity and conviction of the men involved. This is what most works of fiction stick to. However, these say more about the movements these portrayals sprang from than what the Crusades were about, or why they were good, or why they were bad. The public mind has lost because of this. At a time when political theology is revived and on the march, we should be aware of the last time such a thing happened, so some comparisons (including the vast cultural and temporal divide, and so major differences).

The best book by far at outlining the academic consensus Crusades is a collection of essays, T. Maddon The Crusades (Oxford/Malden MA, 2002) which has a good introduction by Madden, as well as essays by the top minds in the field in the past 50 years, providing accurate summaries of their views on the subject. I suggest that anyone wanting to find out more about this topic should consider starting with this book, and following its suggested further reading, as (along with most things) you won't get anything like a full picture from watching movies, or television, or (to a certain extent) books intended for popular audiences. The historically more correct views are less profitable, in part because they don't oversimplify or make judgements, something which history is generally subjected to in public discourse.

[eynon]

I think that History of the Norman wars against the Papacy and Byzantium in the late 11th century offer some facinating insight into some of the motives behind the first crusade.......the Pope and the Greek Emperor were in no small measure trying to redirect the Norman/Frankish sword away from their own throats.

[sherborne]

Im writing my dissertation on crusading\holywar at university at the moment and agree with much of what you say. However, there is a little bit of retrospective judgment on the part of historians in labeling the crusades crusades. The first crusade for instance was not a pre meditated attempt at instituting holy war in christian society. Therefore should it be considered as a crusade. Generally in the historiography of the crusades there are a number of different schools of belief:

Traditionalists:- People who believe a crusade is a crusade if it is in the holy land/egypt/syria i.e. the target is the most important thing.

Pluralists:- People who believe any expedition sanctioned by the pope is a crusade.

Contemporary historians tend to fall in the bracket of pluralists, but this group can then be further sub divided. I would reccomend Tyreman "The invention of the crusades" as a good book to start at. My tutors book is pretty usefull too and easy to understand as it covers all the major themes:- "crusading and the crusader states" by Andrew Jotischky.

The crusades in my view have had a very large impact on the world order to day and they still excite much debate and romanticism. Richard the Lion Heart, Saladin, the roots of western imperialism and anti-semitism. the list could go on. The story of the crusades is a damning indictment on the catholic church and makes me thankfull that i am not a catholic.

For anyone who wants to look at (perhaps) the two most significant events in crusading history then i think the 1st crusade and the pontificate of innocent the III are most influential. But Tyremans books are of most value IMO!

[bob.appleyard]

Eynon81 wrote: I think that History of the Norman wars against the Papacy and Byzantium in the late 11th century offer some facinating insight into some of the motives behind the first crusade.......the Pope and the Greek Emperor were in no small measure trying to redirect the Norman/Frankish sword away from their own throats.

That could very well be argued. After the Pecheneg and Seljuk incursions, Byzantium was on its knees. If there hadn't been a massive rebellion back in Italy, Guiscard could have taken Byzantium in 1080 and the Middle Ages would have turned out totally different. The southern Italian Normans were fairly hostile to papal intrusions, and the pope was absolutely terrified of encirclement (thus persuading the Norman kings to call themselves "king of Sicily, of the dukedom of Apulia and of the princedom of Capua"). Furthermore, the Norman kings appeared to be constantly eying up Byzantium for takeover.

However, after Leo IX, primarily through the diplomatic efforts of aboot Desiderius of Monte Cassino, an alliance between the Normans and the reform Papacy was forged. It was the Normans who reclaimed Rome from Henry IV for Gregory VII. Guiscard and Count Roger were vassals of Gregory.

The First Crusade was effectively another Norman conquest. Members of the Hauteville clan took bits of old Byzantium, and people closely related to them took the rest, which Roger II was able to use to annoy the second reform movement when they took over the Papacy in the 1130s.

The popes were persuing a complex strategy that cannot simply be explained as an alliance with Byzantium, but a series of alliances which they attempted to play off against the other, in part using the Crusades to achieve this. You could argue, for instance, that Bohemond's participation was more to do with the popes co-operating with the Hauteville family to give Guiscard's eldest something to do.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: Im writing my dissertation on crusading\holywar at university at the moment and agree with much of what you say. However, there is a little bit of retrospective judgment on the part of historians in labeling the crusades crusades. The first crusade for instance was not a pre meditated attempt at instituting holy war in christian society. Therefore should it be considered as a crusade. Generally in the historiography of the crusades there are a number of different schools of belief:

Traditionalists:- People who believe a crusade is a crusade if it is in the holy land/egypt/syria i.e. the target is the most important thing.

Pluralists:- People who believe any expedition sanctioned by the pope is a crusade.

I was going to go into that, but I felt my post was already getting too big for the point I was trying to make. You summarised the views quite well-- although "pope-sanctioned" is perhaps a little too broad. William of Normandy received a papal banner when he conquered England, and Robert Guiscard received one for his conquest of Sicily. Were these Crusades? I don't think there are many pluralists who would agree.

The criteria are a little more sophisticated, in that the wars had to "look" like crusades as well -- indulgences, taking of the cross, strong papal presence (through prelates). I think you know this already, though, and were just going for brevity.

Quote: Contemporary historians tend to fall in the bracket of pluralists, but this group can then be further sub divided. I would reccomend Tyreman "The invention of the crusades" as a good book to start at. My tutors book is pretty usefull too and easy to understand as it covers all the major themes:- "crusading and the crusader states" by Andrew Jotischky.

Haven't read the second one. First is a good 'un though, for sure.

Quote: The crusades in my view have had a very large impact on the world order to day and they still excite much debate and romanticism. Richard the Lion Heart, Saladin, the roots of western imperialism and anti-semitism. the list could go on. The story of the crusades is a damning indictment on the catholic church and makes me thankfull that i am not a catholic.

I would disagree strongly with the second bit. It was a product of its time, is unconnected with Catholicism, and Catholics cannot be blamed. I don't think you can place the roots of western imperialism and anti-semetism at the door of the Crusades. After all, what about the Roman Empire? The kings of Germany were dreaming of a world empire in the Tenth Century. And anti-semitism has as much to do with the silly usury laws of the day as it does to any other factor.

Quote: For anyone who wants to look at (perhaps) the two most significant events in crusading history then i think the 1st crusade and the pontificate of innocent the III are most influential. But Tyremans books are of most value IMO!

Hmm yeah, Fourth Crusade...

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote:
I was going to go into that, but I felt my post was already getting too big for the point I was trying to make. You summarised the views quite well-- although "pope-sanctioned" is perhaps a little too broad. William of Normandy received a papal banner when he conquered England, and Robert Guiscard received one for his conquest of Sicily. Were these Crusades? I don't think there are many pluralists who would agree.

The criteria are a little more sophisticated, in that the wars had to "look" like crusades as well -- indulgences, taking of the cross, strong papal presence (through prelates). I think you know this already, though, and were just going for brevity.


Yes but when i say pope sanctioned warfare then that requires the issue of an indulgence. Something that was lacking in William of Normandy and Robert Guiscard's conquests's. Bishop Ermenfuld confirmed all of the penances on Williams men after the battle of hastings despite it being a papaly sactioned war. William even built a monastry to pray for the souls of his men who were killed.

bob.appleyard wrote: I would disagree strongly with the second bit. It was a product of its time, is unconnected with Catholicism, and Catholics cannot be blamed. I don't think you can place the roots of western imperialism and anti-semetism at the door of the Crusades. After all, what about the Roman Empire? The kings of Germany were dreaming of a world empire in the Tenth Century. And anti-semitism has as much to do with the silly usury laws of the day as it does to any other factor.


Im not blaming catholics. Im blaming the Catholic church as an institution. They are the religious mafia as far as im concerned throughout the ages. Far from being a force of good in the world it has largley been a force of dogmatism and biggotry. When Urban unleashed the power of holy war in christian society he opened up a pandoras box that largley resulted to the detriment of the Jews, Muslims, and any other opponent of the pope (did someone mention Byzantium :wink: ). At the preaching of nearly every crusade their were nearly always pogroms against jews, particularly in the first crusade. Emich, a crusader, believed that the conquest of Jerusalem would hail the end of days and that all Jews would be converted (as is mentioned in the bible). He thus systematically set about 'converting' all Jews in the Rhineland in a serise of bloody pogroms.

I take your point that it is hard to link something that happened so long ago to the present. yet the crusades still excite such fervent passion in people. Why John Paul (the late pope) even apologised for them in his pontificate. The lesson of the crusades is that if any faith feels threatened, then they usually respond with religiously sanctioned violence. As was the case with the Jews with Moses, the christians with the crusades, the muslims with the ottomans, the Jews in Israel, the Islamic fundamentalists today. Their all causally linked in my view. A good book that covers it in further detail is karen Armstrong "Holy War". She is a theologian so patience is needed but its a pretty interesting read.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: Yes but when i say pope sanctioned warfare then that requires the issue of an indulgence.

Okay, so you were going for brevity. Sanctioning something is usually less formal than granting indulgences.

To the second bit: ok.

The popes were arseholes. Agree with much of it. But the Crusades were not the root cause of anti-Semitism in Christendom, I would say it had more to do with the usury laws. And people found plenty of reasons to exterminate Jewish communities before and after the Crusades were raging.

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: Yes but when i say pope sanctioned warfare then that requires the issue of an indulgence.

Okay, so you were going for brevity. Sanctioning something is usually less formal than granting indulgences.

To the second bit: ok.

The popes were arseholes. Agree with much of it. But the Crusades were not the root cause of anti-Semitism in Christendom, I would say it had more to do with the usury laws. And people found plenty of reasons to exterminate Jewish communities before and after the Crusades were raging.

Well the root cause of anti semitism is that the jews killed christ and rejected christianity. So shall we come to a compromise and say that the crusades did nothing to enhance the image of Jews in europe. :-D

[eynon]

bob.appleyard wrote: Eynon81 wrote: I think that History of the Norman wars against the Papacy and Byzantium in the late 11th century offer some facinating insight into some of the motives behind the first crusade.......the Pope and the Greek Emperor were in no small measure trying to redirect the Norman/Frankish sword away from their own throats.

That could very well be argued. After the Pecheneg and Seljuk incursions, Byzantium was on its knees. If there hadn't been a massive rebellion back in Italy, Guiscard could have taken Byzantium in 1080 and the Middle Ages would have turned out totally different. The southern Italian Normans were fairly hostile to papal intrusions, and the pope was absolutely terrified of encirclement (thus persuading the Norman kings to call themselves "king of Sicily, of the dukedom of Apulia and of the princedom of Capua"). Furthermore, the Norman kings appeared to be constantly eying up Byzantium for takeover.

However, after Leo IX, primarily through the diplomatic efforts of aboot Desiderius of Monte Cassino, an alliance between the Normans and the reform Papacy was forged. It was the Normans who reclaimed Rome from Henry IV for Gregory VII. Guiscard and Count Roger were vassals of Gregory.

The First Crusade was effectively another Norman conquest. Members of the Hauteville clan took bits of old Byzantium, and people closely related to them took the rest, which Roger II was able to use to annoy the second reform movement when they took over the Papacy in the 1130s.

The popes were persuing a complex strategy that cannot simply be explained as an alliance with Byzantium, but a series of alliances which they attempted to play off against the other, in part using the Crusades to achieve this. You could argue, for instance, that Bohemond's participation was more to do with the popes co-operating with the Hauteville family to give Guiscard's eldest something to do.

:tu: the First Crusade also inundated the Eastern Med. with Franks, traditional rivals of the Normans, sure that helped out the balance of power some.....

[bob.appleyard]

Eynon81 wrote: the First Crusade also inundated the Eastern Med. with Franks, traditional rivals of the Normans, sure that helped out the balance of power some.....

Mmm, well one should understand that "Frank" was used by Byzantines and Muslims as a catch-all term for Westerner, and the ethnic make-up was actually more heterodox still.

A new balance of power did emerge after the First Crusade in the Holy Land, and the crusader states became incorporated into a wider, predominantly Muslim, diplomatic system. This led William of Malmsbury to complain that the denizens of the crusader states "prefer baths to battles"!

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: Well the root cause of anti semitism is that the jews killed christ and rejected christianity. So shall we come to a compromise and say that the crusades did nothing to enhance the image of Jews in europe. :-D

That I can agree on, although killing Christ would not seem to be the only criterion. After all, there was another group of people involved in Christ's death.

The archbishop of Heraklion put it succintly during the conquest of Byzantium following 1204, stating "I see no reason why I should ever recognise the primacy of the Roman church, as it was Roman soldiers who nailed our Lord to the cross."

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: Eynon81 wrote: the First Crusade also inundated the Eastern Med. with Franks, traditional rivals of the Normans, sure that helped out the balance of power some.....

Mmm, well one should understand that "Frank" was used by Byzantines and Muslims as a catch-all term for Westerner, and the ethnic make-up was actually more heterodox still.


Frank was used as a catch all term only to begin with (largely because early crusading participation consisted of nearly all Franks). Yet after the second crusade the Germans were heavily involved and the third crusade was predominantly an english adventure. The Byzantines were more likley to refer to westerners as barbarians because Frankish, German and English nobles were considered primitive by the standards of Byzantium. Indeed they probably were! The Byzantines were skilled diplomats and scientific people.

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: Well the root cause of anti semitism is that the jews killed christ and rejected christianity. So shall we come to a compromise and say that the crusades did nothing to enhance the image of Jews in europe. :-D

That I can agree on, although killing Christ would not seem to be the only criterion. After all, there was another group of people involved in Christ's death.

The archbishop of Heraklion put it succintly during the conquest of Byzantium following 1204, stating "I see no reason why I should ever recognise the primacy of the Roman church, as it was Roman soldiers who nailed our Lord to the cross."

Its also interesting that the Roman-Greek schism was a motivating factor in the conquest of constantinople. Many Franks believed the Greeks to be heretics. The old church was never meant to be dominated by the Roman see anyway. Christianity was supposed to be governed by the patriachs of Alexandria, constantinople, antioch and rome. The church is no different to many other institutions: Corrupted by bitter infighting. Thats what you get for leaving man to do gods work i guess.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Eynon81 wrote: the First Crusade also inundated the Eastern Med. with Franks, traditional rivals of the Normans, sure that helped out the balance of power some.....

Mmm, well one should understand that "Frank" was used by Byzantines and Muslims as a catch-all term for Westerner, and the ethnic make-up was actually more heterodox still.


Frank was used as a catch all term only to begin with (largely because early crusading participation consisted of nearly all Franks). Yet after the second crusade the Germans were heavily involved and the third crusade was predominantly an english adventure. The Byzantines were more likley to refer to westerners as barbarians because Frankish, German and English nobles were considered primitive by the standards of Byzantium. Indeed they probably were! The Byzantines were skilled diplomats and scientific people.

Barbarian just means foreigner. They called the Turks barbarians. All non-Byzantines were considered primitive, though. It tends to happen to empires, that kind of thinking.

[sherborne]

bob.appleyard wrote: sherborne wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Eynon81 wrote: the First Crusade also inundated the Eastern Med. with Franks, traditional rivals of the Normans, sure that helped out the balance of power some.....

Mmm, well one should understand that "Frank" was used by Byzantines and Muslims as a catch-all term for Westerner, and the ethnic make-up was actually more heterodox still.


Frank was used as a catch all term only to begin with (largely because early crusading participation consisted of nearly all Franks). Yet after the second crusade the Germans were heavily involved and the third crusade was predominantly an english adventure. The Byzantines were more likley to refer to westerners as barbarians because Frankish, German and English nobles were considered primitive by the standards of Byzantium. Indeed they probably were! The Byzantines were skilled diplomats and scientific people.

Barbarian just means foreigner. They called the Turks barbarians. All non-Byzantines were considered primitive, though. It tends to happen to empires, that kind of thinking.

A good case could be made to suggest that westerners were primitive to byzantium. Their theory on war was much less barbarous than western interpretation. There was an active willingness i the west for christian martyrdom. There was no such feeling in Byzantium. Thats why the Byzantines would pay soldiers who were not part of the Greek Orthodox church, because killing was below most Byzantines. That was something primitive westerners got involved in.

[Jehan]

Here's an interesting what-if: What if Frederick Barbarossa and his army of 100,000 soldiers had made it to Jerusalem?

[sherborne]

Jehan wrote: Here's an interesting what-if: What if Frederick Barbarossa and his army of 100,000 soldiers had made it to Jerusalem?

Good question, though i doubt it was actually 100,000. I would imagine that all of the holy land would have been reconquered. Although Frederick and Richard might have fallen out somewhat. What a way to die though. Its a bit tame dont you think? Drowning in a river. Its probably that heavy armour he was wearing.

[bob.appleyard]

sherborne wrote: A good case could be made to suggest that westerners were primitive to byzantium. Their theory on war was much less barbarous than western interpretation. There was an active willingness i the west for christian martyrdom. There was no such feeling in Byzantium. Thats why the Byzantines would pay soldiers who were not part of the Greek Orthodox church, because killing was below most Byzantines. That was something primitive westerners got involved in.

I see you're a Whig then?

[Saracen]

bob.appleyard wrote: This is a pet hate of mine, but one that I felt I had to share with you on this forum, due to the real misconceptions which exist about what the Crusades were, and their impact on the world. My intent is first to try to dispel what I see as mischaracterisations of the phenomenon (I have a pathological desire to share my knowledge, not just prove points), and further to stimulate discussion about the role of religion and war, and how they can interact.

Though they appeared hopelessly idealistic, the numbered Crusades were a practically minded response -- centuries too late -- to the Turkish invasion of Byzantium. However, there were other wars which in all other respects were crusades, but where the setting was not in the Holy Land (and sometimes the targets were not Muslim -- such as the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc). Their emergence coincided with that of the reform movement in the Church and in particular its attempt to curb the violence that was rampant in medieval society. The whole crusade system was designed by Leo IX to stop the Normans on his doorstep and was based on the "plenary indulgence" -- all sins would be forgiven. This was designed to attract people to the cause, but it also fit in with the reformist popes' (loopy) doctrine of being the earthly reincarnation of St Peter. It was sold to the masses using extreme religious rhetoric, including repeated references to Jerusalem. Combined with chivalry, this virtually compelled aristocrats to participate, but it also attracted thugs and ruffians eager to have their sins absolved with a tour of penitence. This meant that Christendom (almost inadvertently) had a place to send their most violent criminals from whence they would probably never return. However, Combined with this were some collossal misfires which basically scuppered the whole thing, like the Fourth Crusade. A few battles went to the Christians, but ultimately Islam won the Crusades -- Byzantium was lost forever. By then, the important players left on the Christian side (France, Spain, Holland, Flanders, England) had moved onto bigger things.

While they were a lost cause in the end, the development of centralised states, mediterranean trade, trade on any significant scale in fact, simply would not have occurred without the Crusades. It is very likely that the classical texts which spurred the Renaissance would have returned to Europe as soon as it did without the Reconquista, as it is unlikely the books of "pagans" would be of any interest to a merchant, whereas there was a totally different attitude among the clergy -- a rabid desire to find out as much about the enemy as possible. They also contributed enormously to the vibrant culture of the High Middle Ages.

However, there are two characterisations of the phenomenon which I have found to be commonly held, neither of which are correct. I believe them to be influenced, predictably enough, not by academics, but by the popular entertainment industry. It isn't helped when, in the instance of my own country, art historians and comedians pretend to elucidate subjects on the most cursory of reading.

First, there is the Enlightenment position, which states that the Crusades were universally bad. This is usually held by dour "historians" and talking heads, or people wanting to make some kind of point or other, though you can see it in the occasional film. Then there is the Romantic position, which holds respect for the valour, sincerity and conviction of the men involved. This is what most works of fiction stick to. However, these say more about the movements these portrayals sprang from than what the Crusades were about, or why they were good, or why they were bad. The public mind has lost because of this. At a time when political theology is revived and on the march, we should be aware of the last time such a thing happened, so some comparisons (including the vast cultural and temporal divide, and so major differences).

The best book by far at outlining the academic consensus Crusades is a collection of essays, T. Maddon The Crusades (Oxford/Malden MA, 2002) which has a good introduction by Madden, as well as essays by the top minds in the field in the past 50 years, providing accurate summaries of their views on the subject. I suggest that anyone wanting to find out more about this topic should consider starting with this book, and following its suggested further reading, as (along with most things) you won't get anything like a full picture from watching movies, or television, or (to a certain extent) books intended for popular audiences. The historically more correct views are less profitable, in part because they don't oversimplify or make judgements, something which history is generally subjected to in public discourse.

This is quite enlightening, bob. I appreciate the courtesy in coming out and speaking your mind about such perceptions regarding the crusades.
The bolded parts were the ones that most impressed me, though.
Now I have a little question: what exactly motivated the Christians of the North to slaughter all of Jerusalem's inhabitants, regardless of religion, when they took over?

[sherborne]

Saracen wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: This is a pet hate of mine, but one that I felt I had to share with you on this forum, due to the real misconceptions which exist about what the Crusades were, and their impact on the world. My intent is first to try to dispel what I see as mischaracterisations of the phenomenon (I have a pathological desire to share my knowledge, not just prove points), and further to stimulate discussion about the role of religion and war, and how they can interact.

Though they appeared hopelessly idealistic, the numbered Crusades were a practically minded response -- centuries too late -- to the Turkish invasion of Byzantium. However, there were other wars which in all other respects were crusades, but where the setting was not in the Holy Land (and sometimes the targets were not Muslim -- such as the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc). Their emergence coincided with that of the reform movement in the Church and in particular its attempt to curb the violence that was rampant in medieval society. The whole crusade system was designed by Leo IX to stop the Normans on his doorstep and was based on the "plenary indulgence" -- all sins would be forgiven. This was designed to attract people to the cause, but it also fit in with the reformist popes' (loopy) doctrine of being the earthly reincarnation of St Peter. It was sold to the masses using extreme religious rhetoric, including repeated references to Jerusalem. Combined with chivalry, this virtually compelled aristocrats to participate, but it also attracted thugs and ruffians eager to have their sins absolved with a tour of penitence. This meant that Christendom (almost inadvertently) had a place to send their most violent criminals from whence they would probably never return. However, Combined with this were some collossal misfires which basically scuppered the whole thing, like the Fourth Crusade. A few battles went to the Christians, but ultimately Islam won the Crusades -- Byzantium was lost forever. By then, the important players left on the Christian side (France, Spain, Holland, Flanders, England) had moved onto bigger things.

While they were a lost cause in the end, the development of centralised states, mediterranean trade, trade on any significant scale in fact, simply would not have occurred without the Crusades. It is very likely that the classical texts which spurred the Renaissance would have returned to Europe as soon as it did without the Reconquista, as it is unlikely the books of "pagans" would be of any interest to a merchant, whereas there was a totally different attitude among the clergy -- a rabid desire to find out as much about the enemy as possible. They also contributed enormously to the vibrant culture of the High Middle Ages.

However, there are two characterisations of the phenomenon which I have found to be commonly held, neither of which are correct. I believe them to be influenced, predictably enough, not by academics, but by the popular entertainment industry. It isn't helped when, in the instance of my own country, art historians and comedians pretend to elucidate subjects on the most cursory of reading.

First, there is the Enlightenment position, which states that the Crusades were universally bad. This is usually held by dour "historians" and talking heads, or people wanting to make some kind of point or other, though you can see it in the occasional film. Then there is the Romantic position, which holds respect for the valour, sincerity and conviction of the men involved. This is what most works of fiction stick to. However, these say more about the movements these portrayals sprang from than what the Crusades were about, or why they were good, or why they were bad. The public mind has lost because of this. At a time when political theology is revived and on the march, we should be aware of the last time such a thing happened, so some comparisons (including the vast cultural and temporal divide, and so major differences).

The best book by far at outlining the academic consensus Crusades is a collection of essays, T. Maddon The Crusades (Oxford/Malden MA, 2002) which has a good introduction by Madden, as well as essays by the top minds in the field in the past 50 years, providing accurate summaries of their views on the subject. I suggest that anyone wanting to find out more about this topic should consider starting with this book, and following its suggested further reading, as (along with most things) you won't get anything like a full picture from watching movies, or television, or (to a certain extent) books intended for popular audiences. The historically more correct views are less profitable, in part because they don't oversimplify or make judgements, something which history is generally subjected to in public discourse.

This is quite enlightening, bob. I appreciate the courtesy in coming out and speaking your mind about such perceptions regarding the crusades.
The bolded parts were the ones that most impressed me, though.
Now I have a little question: what exactly motivated the Christians of the North to slaughter all of Jerusalem's inhabitants, regardless of religion, when they took over?

Medieval logic would be what a christian bishop said in the sacking of a French city in the Languedoc during the Albigensian crusade:

"kill them all! God will know his own!"

It was common for conquerers to kill a lot of people in a city that they capture. Some groups were worse than others. The Mongols for instance were so 'successful' because they butchered everyone in the cities that they conquered. What the crusaders did at Jerusalem was no different to what the Jews did to the Cananites in the bible. The old testament is very violent and many crusaders probably took their influence from that. Its a shame they didnt absorb more of the new testament really. But that didnt really correspond with their way of life.