Essay Revision

Charles Stater

Dr. deGravelles

Block 4

6 February, 2013

Of Blood and Sand: Combat in the Holy Land

            The Crusades were seen by two polar opposite sides as a “Holy War” or “Jihad”, and were a series of campaigns launched in the 11^th and 12^th centuries AD. Led by Frankish knights, (many from France) they smashed into the Middle East to wage holy war on Muslim “infidels.” The Muslims responded in turn, bringing massive armies to recapture important cities, such as Constantinople and Jerusalem, and war erupted across the Holy Land. What led to these full-scale invasions across scorching sands into foreign lands? What factors were at play here?

            First we must know a little more background information about the bloody turf wars, resulting in centuries of mistrust and hatred: the Crusades themselves. There were nine numbered Crusades, the largest and most bloody being the 1^st through 4^th,  along with a series of other, smaller Crusades that were also sent out later on. Among these smaller Crusades was the so called “Children’s Crusade”, which is unique among the crusades as it was solely religious in nature (while all the Crusades were thought to be justified by religious reasoning, many had other aims that were less holy in nature; more on this later) and not a drop of blood was shed. It all began when a French shepherd, by the name of Stephen “had a vision in which Jesus commanded him to raise an army to aid the Holy Land” (“Children’s Crusade”). And so off the little party marched, and Stephen soon had quite a following. He persuaded the ungainly rabble of children that it was all for the good of Christendom and that with the help of Jesus, they could retake Jerusalem, the Holy City. Sometime afterwards, the mystery of the Children’s Crusade arose as the children were spotted near Mainz, but according to the Funk and Wagnall’s account of the tale, Children’s Crusade, “the great majority simply disappeared without trace.” None of the other Crusades had quite the same aura of mystery surrounding them, but every one of them failed, and for the most part the Crusades were noting but a massive drain on men and resources, says the Professor of Crusading History at the University of London, Jonathon Philips. He even went so far as to say that “leprosy was the only thing that Europeans had gained from the crusades.” Indeed, very little was gained from the later Crusades, the First being the only one where anything of real importance, the capture of Jerusalem, was achieved, Philips mentioned later.

 Philips also delved into the motives of the Crusades, on the Frankish side. Why would as many as 60,000 knights journey all the way to the Holy Land in just the First Crusade alone? Because, Philips said, “In return they would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward — the remission of all their sins — and thereby escape the torments of Hell, their likely destination after lives of violence and greed.” A total forgiveness of sins; what a tempting reward Urban II offered. Why would he offer such a huge spiritual “shortcut”, of sorts? Well, perhaps he legitimately felt one of the best ways to serve God was to campaign against and combat “heathen” religions, felling foreign men and women alike. The acquisition of Jerusalem would bring a new trade city under control, one with a lot of religious weight to it as well. And this is similar to an advertising ploy- he wasn’t trying to sell what he had, he was trying to sell the fear of living without his service, which was in this case a total remission of sins. Frankish knights jumped at this opportunity again and again, numbering in the tens of thousands, all called by the Vicar of Christ to reign death upon the non-believer, in order that they might save not only their victims but also themselves. But what did the Muslim’s think of this situation? What drove them to labor on against the crushing steel of the Frankish knights?

In the Middle East, the officials weren’t going to let the Christians invade without resistance. In a typical Muslim sermon of the age, recounted by Robert Irwin, former lecturer in the Department of Modern History at the University of St. Andrews, a quotation such as this emerges- “By God they are the source of all misfortune and treason. It is because of them that strangers beset us. While you are trying to destroy the enemy's country, they are building here in safety a country of their own. And major secrets will leak out to the enemy through them.” The fury in the words is evident: the Muslims felt as strongly, if not more so, about their religious justification than the Franks, as clearly demonstrated by this sermon. Irwin discusses the context of this quote, which wasn’t even to agitate an audience into going on the march; it was more so to inspire “vigilante justice” against the Christians accused of acts such as arson in Cairo, Egypt. The officials in the Muslim world were raging against the Christians with a religious fervor to back up their sentiments and agitate the crowds into more and more violence. But these are all just the big, loud public figures. What about the common man?

For Christians, he common man was embodied by a young French priest by the name of Peter Tudebode, whose work by the name of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere was so graciously translated by the American Philosophical Society. In  Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere  we get an in-depth look into the mindset and general life of the average Christian man living during this time period. In this excerpt, Tudebode writes about his experience during a siege: “Now before Christmas grain and all victuals became very scarce. But we were afraid to stray far, and we found no food in Christian lands…” Resources were scarce, and bravery and chivalry rarer still. Tudebode was venturing with a host during the First Crusade, the most successful of all the Crusades. The men were described in harsh reality when Tudebode recounted the story of a foraging venture: “ ‘If the Turks, who watch and lie in ambush day and night in hope of killing or capturing you, find you are isolated or alone, surely they, will now kill you if you scatter in retreat.’ Following completion of this speech, the masses considered the proposition pro and con, and Bohemond found himself almost alone…” This offers a prime example of the true mettle of Christian soldiers of the age, albeit with an exceptionally brave and loyal commander. And not only did Tudebode, an eyewitness, think this way- Jonathon Philips was quite clear about what he thought of the men of Christendom, that they fought in the Lord’s name with His words on their tongues, “…although at times knights' determination to win fame for themselves could cause them to put notions of honour ahead of the greater Christian cause.” Some of the Christian knights’ goals were spiritual and holy, some less so. Average Muslims, however, were a very different story.

The average, ever-day Muslim at the time of the Crusades would be assailed constantly by propaganda from all sorts of mediums. (The Christians had the same kind of propaganda though not quite as intense as Muslim) There were the famous speeches and sermons, as mentioned up above, but these paled in comparison to what really compelled Muslims to fight fiercely against Christian aggression. The capture of Jerusalem was really the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” as it were, explained Hadia Dajaani-Shakeel in his article “The Muslim Defense”. He went on to say that the capture of Jerusalem, what with it’s significant Muslim religious meaning and holy sites, such as the legendary Dome of the Rock, was seen as “the greatest loss in their history. To profane Muslim shrines was to abuse Islam itself.” The Muslims eventually recaptured Jerusalem, under the lead of a rising Muslim political figurehead, Saladin. When the conquering Muslims re-entered the city, Dajaani-Shakeel said that “The bitterness of the Muslims against defilement of their religious places, a bitterness that had been fed throughout the century, erupted in destruction of Christian images and objects…” The Muslim general populace was so outraged at the Christian “defilement” of their holy sites, it seems, that there was quite a riot in Jerusalem (not for the first time). Muslim and Christians did seem to share this one trait--they were religious to the point of insanity.

The Muslims and Christians tore at each other viciously throughout the Crusades. Their religions drove them to impressive lengths, from launching difficult over-seas campaigns to capturing massive, nigh on impregnable cities. The lust for gold and land compelled many to take up the sword and shield as well, especially on the Christian side of the war. Total remission of their sins was also hanging temptingly over the Christians, so desperately desired by any man. Their perspectives were vastly influenced by their time period, their location, and above all else, their religion. Without many of these factors coming head to head, it is highly unlikely that anything even close to resembling the Crusades will have occurred. Unity between the great super-powers of Europe and the might caliphates in the Middle East might well have led to centuries of peace and plenty, although one must keep in mind that no matter how beneficial harmony is, mankind will never stop its endless practice of waging war.

Works Cited

Dajani-Shakeel, Hadia. "The Muslim Defense." Christian History 12.4 (1993): 33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Jan. 2013.

Phillips, Jonathan. "The Call Of The Crusades." History Today 59.11 (2009): 10. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 11 Jan. 2013.

Tudebode, Peter. Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. Philidelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1974. Print.

 Irwin, Robert. "Muslim Responses to the Crusaders." History Today 1997: 1-2.
     Print.

 "Children’S Crusade." (n.d.): Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. Web. 15 Jan. 2013.