No, It's Not the Crusades
Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2009
by Richard Warren Field
Shortly after the United States moved into Iraq in 2003, comparisons to "the Crusades" started popping up in the media, and in other forums in the international public square. Al Qaeda rhetoric has for many years invoked the "Crusader" image. Except for the consistent references to the Crusades by Al Qaeda, references to the Crusades have diminished. But with a new United States President talking about major changes in the American approach to the region, it serves us well to put this incendiary historical reference out of the thought process. What follows will be eight specific ways that the Crusades of history, Christian against Muslim wars from 1095 to 1291 in and around Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean, differ materially from the current activities of western forces in the region.
Before getting into the heart of the eight distinctions between the Crusades and the present day, I will clarify some terms. First, I will continue to use the term "Crusades," even though this term was not used at the time of these military activities. "The Crusades" will refer to western European military operations, including the taking and occupying of territories, between 1095 (the first time the Pope asked for a military mission to the Middle East to recapture Jerusalem) to 1291 (the year Acre fell and the last western European stronghold in the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East was returned to Muslim rule). I will call current military activities in the Middle East, which occurred after Nine-Eleven, and were largely the result of the Nine-Eleven attacks, "Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations."
Distinction One: The Current Conflict is Not a Religious War. This is the most obvious and strongest distinction between the Crusades and Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations in the Middle East. The Crusades were mounted to take over Jerusalem and return it to Christian control (specifically western European Christian control). Crusaders took territory and placed it under the rulership of Christian sovereigns. The "King of Jerusalem" was a Catholic Christian king who ruled in the name of Christianity for the purpose of maintaining a western Christian Jerusalem. In fact, there was really no stated purpose for the Crusades other than a religious purpose. Some historians point to advantages gained for some nobles who had low prospects in western Europe. They point to a sort of economic analysis of motives, a more modern way to look at history, and probably anachronistic when applied to that period. For the most part, the Crusades were a terrible risk of life and fortune, and most of those who went on the Crusades went to fulfill religious duties, not to gain economically or politically. In fact, many who went on the Crusades, never returned. During the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart spent a fortune of his royal treasury to go on the Crusade. If he had been looking solely at imperial and economic considerations, he would have stayed in Europe, and pursued interests in France and the British Isles.
Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations, whether people agree or disagree with the rationale, were not undertaken for any sort of religious purpose. When Iraq was taken over by United States and coalition forces, no effort whatsoever was made to impose any sort of religious doctrine. In fact, sensitivity was practiced by western coalition forces to avoid offending Muslim religious traditions, and to avoid any hint of proselytizing Christianity. This same approach held in Afghanistan. Though this is not in the immediate Middle East, it is arguably close by, and enough of a part of the Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations to refer to in this context.
The radical Islamic terrorists who planned Nine-Eleven, use the word "Crusaders" and seek to try to make this into a religious war. They would undoubtedly argue that the mere presence of non-Muslim western troops, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and on Muslim lands, create a religious angle to the conflict. But though they may try to manufacture a religious angle to this conflict, it is quite clear that the Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces have no desire at all to impose a religion on the people in the area. In Saudi Arabia, American forces were invited into the area to protect Saudi Arabia after the aggression of Sadaam Hussein into Kuwait. The United States forces left the area when asked to. United States and coalition forces were not invited into Iraq, but now that there is a new democratically elected government in Iraq, close attention is being paid to the wishes of that government. So the presence of Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces in this region cannot be considered by itself to constitute a religious war just because that mere presence inflames radical Muslims. A religious war, by definition, should involve two separate religions fighting for supremacy. Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations are not attempting to install Christianity as the supreme religion in the area.
Distinction Two: Western Armies Are Not Present to Permanently Hold Territory. There is no argument that the western Europeans of the Crusaders had every intention of establishing their own states in the Middle East/eastern Mediterranean area, in and around Jerusalem. For many years, states centered around Antioch, Edessa, Acre, and Jerusalem, originating as a result of the military operations of the First Crusade (1095-1099), were established with the intention of being ruled permanently by Christian sovereigns. Within the first one hundred years of the Crusader era, Edessa was returned to Muslim control. But Christian rule in Antioch remained long enough for Bohemond to submit to being a vassal of Mongols in the late part of the Crusader era. And the Kingdom of Jerusalem contained Jerusalem from 1099 to 1187, after which it hardly ever contained Jerusalem (except for a short period from 1229 to 1244) up to the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1291. In essence, Acre was the de facto center of the nearly two hundred year Kingdom of Jerusalem. During the Crusader era, it was the mission of western European military operations to hold territories in Christian hands and expand back into any territories retaken by Muslims.
Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations have never even hinted that they are going to annex Iraq or Afghanistan. Immediate attention was given to establishing governments run by Iraqis and Afghani leaders. It certainly can be pointed out that the United States and coalition forces maintain military forces in these nations, and that under most scenarios in the immediate future probably will maintain forces in these states. However, those forces, and the American government commanding those forces, do not assert overall political authority in the area. After a brief period of American and coalition control of post-Taliban Afghanistan and post-Sadaam Hussein Iraq, governments, chosen with free elections, were installed in positions of power and rulership in these countries. There is no attempt by the United States even to set up something like the British Commonwealth, or United Nations mandates, or set up some kind of colonial relationship. Sovereignty for the native citizens of these regions is the stated objective and the obviously sincere objective of Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces.
Distinction Three: The Geography and Geopolitical Considerations are Different. The Crusaders' military activities, first and foremost, centered around who would rule Jerusalem. That was the stated objective for the Crusades. While the Crusaders held the city of Jerusalem, the military activity centered around how they would hold the city. During periods when they did not hold the city, military activity centered around how they could possibly retake city. There were attempts during the Crusades to strengthen Christian states in the area, and some military activities undertook attacks at targets other than Jerusalem. (During the Second Crusade, there was a misguided attempt to attack Damascus, and during the Seventh Crusade, Tunis was attacked.) But though these were far off geographically from Jerusalem, the ultimate objective of these operations was to take over and rule Jerusalem under a western Christian king.
Jerusalem plays little direct role in the current Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations and the conflict with radical Islamic terrorists. Radical Islamic terrorists have attempted to invoke the conflict with Israel as the rhetorical justification for their activities. But this has been little more than rhetoric. The existence of Israel, not the rulership of Jerusalem, has been the point of conflict. When Arabs held half of Jerusalem, the same issues applied.
After the United States and coalition forces moved into Iraq, Al Qaeda proclaimed Iraq as the battlefield for their fight against their enemies. They referred to renewal of a modern Caliphate of Baghdad, harkening back to the golden age of Islamic rule in the area. The Crusades never got near Baghdad. The Caliph of Baghdad was openly hostile toward Saladin, the Muslim ruler who returned Jerusalem to Muslim rule after the Crusaders had first taken city. So Baghdad and Iraq, key locations in the current and recent hostilities had no relevance during the Crusades.
At this time, Jerusalem is ruled by Jews from the modern state of Israel. Comparing the current state of Israel to "Crusaders," as has been done by some radical Islamic terrorists, is the height of historical absurdity. Jews may have suffered more at the hands of Crusaders than Muslims. Crusaders slaughtered communities of Jews in Europe with genocidal attacks on the way to fight in the Middle East/eastern Mediterranean. Jews in the region had more to fear from Crusaders than from eastern Christians (Byzantine, Armenian, Georgian) or Muslims. Saladin welcomed Jews back to Jerusalem after Muslims retook the city in 1187. They had been banished from the city by the Crusaders. So the relationship between Jews and the other combatants is completely different for these two time periods.
Distinction Four: The Crusades Were Triggered in a Completely Different Way than Twenty-First Century United States and Coalition Military Operations. There is no doubt that the aggressors during the Crusades era were the western Christians from Europe. The most charitable interpretation of the western Christian rationale for moving into the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East was that they were asked to help fellow Christians-the Byzantine Emperor originally asked the Pope to help in his struggle against the Turk forces shrinking his empire from the east. And Turk rule of Jerusalem during this period tended to be harsher than Arab rule. In fact, very few incidents of oppression against Christians in Jerusalem existed during Arab Muslim rule of Jerusalem before the Crusades. In 1009, Caliph Hakim ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This was part of an overall persecution of Christians, Jews and even Muslims by a man who decided at one point that he was divine. By 1020 (starting in 1017), Muslim authorities invited Christians to return to Jerusalem and restored the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Christians. Christians and Jews who had converted to Islam under duress were allowed to return to their faiths without being subjected to penalties for apostacy. Caliph Hakim disappeared in 1021, probably murdered by his sister, though his fate is not known for certain. (He is credited with the origin of the Druze religion. This religion has followers in Israel, Lebanon and Syria. The Druze religion combines tenets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.)
Between the Battle of Manzikert, in 1071, the decisive Turk victory over the Byzantine Empire, and the First Crusade in 1095, the Seljuk Turks and the Shiite Fatamid Dynasty centered in Egypt fought over possession of Jerusalem. But Christians were not part of this fight, and were treated without hostility by the two warring powers. Pilgrims had a more dangerous route to Jerusalem, but this was because of the dangers of passing through a war zone, not because of any deliberate state policy of attacking them. This all seems to be thin justification for western Christians to charge into the region to take over and rule territories. In fact, ironically, by the time the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099, Turk rule of Jerusalem had ended, and the Fatamid Dynasty of Egypt, Shiite Arab rule, had supplanted the Turks in Jerusalem. So by the time western Christians arrived, the original Turk enemy they were asked to fight was no longer in power in Jerusalem.
Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations developed from a completely different rationale. It is not within the scope of this essay to evaluate whether the Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces should have undertaken the military operations they did in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it cannot be denied that United States and coalition forces never would have undertaken these operations if it had not been for the terrorist attacks and attempted attacks against the United States on the United States' own soil. So the trigger for the military conflict and operations was completely different.
Distinction Five: No Deliberate Sanctioned Atrocities by United States and Coalition Forces. One of the most famous events of the Crusades was the slaughter of nearly everyone in Jerusalem in 1099 when western Christian forces took the city. I have previously mentioned Christian slaughter of Jews on their way to the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East, as if they decided to add genocide against people whom they perceived as "Christ-killers" on the way to battle the Muslims. Richard the Lionheart, deliberately, in cold blood, executed nearly three thousand hostages taken in Acre in 1191 when their ransoms were not paid quickly enough for him. So Crusaders were clearly guilty of multiple atrocities.
Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces have taken scrupulous steps to avoid any hint of atrocities. Innocent civilians were killed when Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces took over Iraq. But every effort was made to avoid such casualties. This could hardly be considered an atrocity, but an unfortunate consequence of war. In fact, when these civilian casualties are compared to the numerous mass graves found in Iraq, it's hard to understand why the focus has been on the regrettable incidental civilian deaths of war, and not on Sadaam Hussein's deliberate extermination of his people in a manner reminiscent of his heroes, Hitler and Stalin.
The Abu Ghraib prison fiasco has also been pointed out as some sort of atrocity. There is little evidence that the United States military (or government) had any overall policy of ordering this sort of behavior. When this activity was discovered, steps were taken immediately to prosecute and punish those who had overstepped their authority and responsibility when they abused prisoners with sick games. But these fall far short of some of the horrible atrocities committed by Crusaders (and by Sadaam Hussein and the insurgents in Iraq after Sadaam Hussein's rule was over).
Arguments are also made that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay constitutes some sort of war crime or atrocity. Such a label minimizes to meaningless the word "atrocity." If providing prisoners with religiously sensitive meals, allowing associations with fellow prisoners, and meticulously refraining from any serious physical abuse, regardless of prisoner behavior (incidents of throwing feces and spitting, among other disgusting and provocative behaviors have been detailed), can be considered an "atrocity," then a new word is needed for the abuses of captured prisoners in the past, starting with North Vietnamese treatment of American prisoners, and looking back to World War II and beyond. Arguments can me made that the "waterboarding" of three highly placed Al Qaeda officials was improper treatment. But compared to Crusader actions, and compared to actions by insurgents in Iraq against captured United States military and contract soldiers, "atrocity" is a silly term. The men, women and children executed at Acre by Richard the Lionheart's troops would no doubt find these Twenty-First Century allegations of "atrocities" ridiculous. By any standard of comparison, Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military forces have conducted operations with utmost sensitivity and compassion.
Distinction Six: No Systematic Muslim Terrorism of Innocents. This distinguishing characteristic between the Crusades and Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations is another huge discrepancy between these two eras. If we are asked to name Muslim leaders who led forces during the Crusades, we would probably consider Saladin to be one of the key rulers of that time and the best known. And Saladin was known for his generosity and morality, particularly with respect to innocents. There are numerous stories of Saladin's magnanimous behavior. There is the story of the siege at Kerak where he found out a recently married man was on his honeymoon, so Saladin directed the bombardment of Kerak take place away from where the honeymoon was taking place. Saladin made sure the conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 was completed in the most humanitarian way possible, without the slaughter the Christians had inflicted on the city almost a hundred years before. He put in place a method of civilians ransoming themselves to reduce the numbers of captured civilians who would be sold into slavery. One of the most famous stories about Saladin is when he ends up executing Reynald of Chataillon. The story is extraordinary because of the prominence of the Muslim custom of hospitality. Back at that time, if a Muslim captured an enemy in battle, and gave him hospitality, he more or less guaranteed that prisoner would not be harmed. The fact that Saladin had to clarify that the goblet of water passed to Reynald from King Guy, also taken on the battlefield, was not offered by Saladin, or Saladin's options for dealing with Reynald (a man Saladin considered a criminal) would have been limited demonstrates how seriously Muslims of that period took this concept of hospitality and the humane treatment of captured prisoners. These stories of Saladin's generosity and magnanimity are recounted in Muslim and Christian chronicles. Their veracity is nearly certain.
When we contrast the behavior of Saladin during the Crusades with the behavior of radical Islamic terrorists today, we cannot help but be struck by the diametrically opposed behavior of these two Muslim groups. They seem to have only their stated religion in common. Twenty-First Century United States and coalition military operations were triggered by the deliberate indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians in a non-Muslim country by radical Muslim terrorists. There is no doubt, based on the historical record, that Sultan Saladin would have found this behavior abhorrent. The terrorist acts undertaken by these radical Muslim terrorists have often killed as many innocent Muslims as people from other religions. In fact, it can be argued that more Muslims have been killed by these terrorists than people from other religious groups. In Iraq, Muslim populations were terrorized by Al Qaeda in a Sadaam-less Iraq. Also, it is unfortunately well-documented that captured western forces in Iraq have been subjected to horrendous tortures. Saladin, again, would have been disgusted with this maltreatment of innocent prisoners. The beheading of western prisoners, not even affiliated with the military forces aligned against the radical Islamic terrorists, broadcasted on the internet for a world wide audience, would have been completely contradictory to any standards Saladin would have approved.
Distinction Seven: Islam was the Tolerant Religion During the Time of the Crusades. This statement will be subjected to some scrutiny. I am not trying to argue that Islam of the Crusades era was more tolerant than western cultures and governments are today. Certainly Christians and Jews had a second class status in a medieval Muslim state. There was the dhimmi tax ostensibly paid for the protection of "the People of the Book" (with the same Bible but without benefit of Mohammed's message in the Koran). But there is absolutely no doubt that Islam was the most tolerant religion in this era. Jews and Christians could rise far in these states. Saladin had a Jewish doctor. This occurred at the same time western Christian Crusaders were slaughtering Jews. Muslims could not have risen to positions of importance in a Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Distinction Eight: Islamic Culture was the More Scientifically/Technologically Advanced Culture in the World at the Time of the Crusades. At the time of the Crusades, the backward group was from western Europe. Western Europeans were coming out of their "Dark Ages," poorly educated, organized in rudimentary feudal states. Muslims, during this period, preserved ancient Greek learning and made advances in some of those disciplines, including astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. In fact, it can be demonstrated that contacts with Muslims in the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East brought western Europeans into contact with intellectual, scientific and technological innovations that helped advance their culture.
At present, few would argue that the advanced civilization is the Muslim civilization. This is a tricky area, because evaluating a civilization is a subjective enterprise. And by advanced, I am not speaking of spiritually advanced, or aesthetically advanced. But if we look at the area of material prosperity, and scientific and technological advancement, it cannot be denied that the West is more advanced than Muslim states (just as it cannot be denied that the Muslim civilization was more advanced in those areas than western Europe during the Middle Ages). Certainly the radical Islamic terrorists seek to return Islam to a less material and scientific/technological age. This is peculiar, since Islam at the time of its golden age embraced knowledge and the idea of advancing humanity's learning and technological capabilities.
---
You lost me at your “Distinction One:” After reading the reports that Donald Rumsfeld started military briefings with President Bush by reading from the Bible and used cover-sheets and photographs adorned with Scripture verses in the build-up to the war in Iraq, it’s hard to conclude that this was not at least started as a religious war.
ok i'm 14 and reading this for a school comparison on the crusades and the Iraq war. i've read quiet a few articals about it and this has been by far the most helpful though in all of them I seem to be missing a major point of it. Why did the US and everyone else go into Iraq in the first place??