"Four Myths about the Crusades " Topic

"In 2001, former president Bill Clinton delivered a speech at Georgetown University in which he discussed the West's response to the recent terrorist attacks of September 11. The speech contained a short but significant reference to the crusades. Mr. Clinton observed that "when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem [in 1099], they . . . proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount." He cited the "contemporaneous descriptions of the event" as describing "soldiers walking on the Temple Mount . . . with blood running up to their knees." This story, Mr. Clinton said emphatically, was "still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."

This view of the crusades is not unusual. It pervades textbooks as well as popular literature. One otherwise generally reliable Western civilization textbook claims that "the Crusades fused three characteristic medieval impulses: piety, pugnacity, and greed. All three were essential."[1] The film Kingdom of Heaven (2005) depicts crusaders as boorish bigots, the best of whom were torn between remorse for their excesses and lust to continue them. Even the historical supplements for role-playing games drawing on supposedly more reliable sources contain statements such as "The soldiers of the First Crusade appeared basically without warning, storming into the Holy Land with the avowed literally task of slaughtering unbelievers";[2] "The Crusades were an early sort of imperialism";[3] and "Confrontation with Islam gave birth to a period of religious fanaticism that spawned the terrible Inquisition and the religious wars that ravaged Europe during the Elizabethan era."[4] The most famous semipopular historian of the crusades, Sir Steven Runciman, ended his three volumes of magnificent prose with the judgment that the crusades were "nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sounds about right, not to mention the contributing effect the Muslim conquest of the Levant had on precipitating the Dark Ages in Europe. You can't just cut the heart out of the Mediterranean & Levantine trade and commerce system and not hugely impact the rest.

O'Neill shows how the sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century was due entirely to the economic blockade imposed by Islam's war against Christendom. The Mediterranean, which had previously been a cultural highway, now became a frontier, and a very dangerous frontier at it. Prompted by Islam's doctrine of perpetual war against nonbelievers, Muslim pirates scoured the Mediterranean, effectively ending all trade between Europe and the great centers of civilization in the Near East. The flow of gold ended, as did the supply of all luxury items. And so too did the supply of papyrus from Egypt, without which Europeans were forced to rely on expensive parchment. Not surprisingly, literacy plummeted. Worst of all, the great cities of the West, which depended upon the trade in luxury items from the East, began to decline.

As the dominant power of the time, ideas originating in the Islamic world now began to penetrate Europe. From their Muslim foes Christian Europeans began to think in terms that would have been unimaginable a century earlier. The idea of "Holy War" entered the mindset of Christians, and, under the influence of Islam, the rationalism of Greece and Rome began to be replaced by a literal and intolerant interpretation of "The Book." Classical civilization was dead.

link

Good links.

Was aware of the myths, but that is a well written piece that deserves a widespread dissemination.

Hadn't seen that theory before, SB,makes quite a bit of sense.

More than the view used by de Camp in 'Lest Darkness Fall' that it was the Byzantine reconquest of Italy that led to the Dark Ages. Although the Vandals in North Africa and the Goths in Italy might have been better able to defeat the Muslim invaders (seems unlikely as the Belisarius beat them).

It should be noted that this is a reprint from _The Intercollegiate Review_, a publication on the right edge of the USA political spectrum, perhaps be read 'cum grano salis'

And how does that political viewpoint affect 500 years of Islamic expansionism?

Or Manzikert?

Frankly the recent histories tend to need a lost of salt.

Hi SB,

O'Neill mentions Henri Pirenne's theory of the Muslim blockade of the Mediterranean as cause for: economical and cultural collapse of the West, feudalism, religious intolerance… the real begginings of the Middle Ages.

But all of these have been refuted by modern scholars. All of these have their roots before seventh century, and, in fact, there was not anything remotelly similar to a "sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century". This was completelly imagined by Pirenne.

Anyway, he was a great historian and all his work is worthwhile a good reading. But the fact these proven wrong ideas emerge sometimes, once and again…

:)

Revisionist history at it's "finest".

But all of these have been refuted by modern scholars. All of these have their roots before seventh century, and, in fact, there was not anything remotelly similar to a "sudden relapse of Europe in the seventh century". This was completelly imagined by Pirenne.

Oh, really? I stumbled on this theory and it makes total sense from a logical stand point. You cannot remove key economic and innovation centers from a social/trading network and NOT impact the rest. The other barbarian invasions were like the tide rolling in and out, sometime like the various waves of Goths, and most of them ended up being culturally assimilated into, or adding their own cultural influences to the areas they controlled. And for the average person, after the tide of violence subsided, life went on more or less as normal -- same thing, different King. Business as usual.

But the Islamic conquests were total war, and total cultural change. When an invading Muslim army swept into the important manufacturing/trade and intellectual center of Damascus it wasn't business as usual. Damascus was largely disconnected from the broader Mediterranean/European trade system and added to the parallel system being forged by force by the Arab conquerors.

Life did not go on as usual for the average person -- they were either forced to flee, convert to Islam, or be enslaved or killed. And then they were disconnected from their old cultural ties and forced to live under the new system of Sharia Law. A total and complete change.

So lets's roll forward and remove ALL of the Levantine trade system. All of the important port trading cities like Antioch, Acre, etc. The major trading power house of Egypt -- gone. All of the North African city states and trade -- gone. Almost ALL of Spain -- gone! Removed from what had been an interconnected network of commerce and cultural/intellectual exchange.

Not to mention continued military actions and widespread piracy by Muslim corsairs. For example, can you image what kind of effect two large invading armies have on a region like France, both plundering their was towards Paris, getting as close as Tours and Orleans before being stopped in battle??

So not only did major important trade and intellectual partners get carved out of the European/Med trade system and added to the new parallel Muslim trade system, the remains of the European system were under constant attack.

How it does it make any sense to think there would be no effect on Europe as a contributing factor to the Dark Ages??

Here's a map of muslim army conquests by 732AD.

I love the absolutism in the article.

I love the absolutism in the article.

Don't even know what that means, please explain.

And the 100000s killed and enslaved. Why do you think all the villages of south France are on hills and way out of the sea, if possible? Raids, taking off women and children… Killing the rest, looting and destroying. Hundreds of years of it. No impact, sure.

Read History of Jihad – from Muhammad to ISIS. It covers history of Isamic wars very well.

Interesting video showing the waves of Muslim army conquests and battles sweeping the Med, and in contrast what the Crusades looked like.

YouTube link

And as far as I can tell, the idea of there being a pan-Christian identity, of "Christendom" didn't enter use in Europe until the 9th Century AD -- after 300 years of pressure and assault from aggressive wars of conquest and conversion by Muslim armies. Before then, local ethnic and cultural identity trumped religious identity -- but Islam militantly divided the world into two -- the Muslims and the Kafir -- all the rest. No wonder that Europeans ended up going the same path.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend.!

Amicalement
Armand

Hi SB,

All what you infer make sense… but for the fact that allmost everything you mention is wrong. That was the main problem with Pirenne theory.

You think about a total war, with people enslaved or killed, or forced to flee when not convinced to convert. That was not true, really. There was not such a prosecution of the religions of The Book. Special taxes, respect for local laws for such groups of Jews and Christians were the norm, both in the East and in the West of the Mediterranean Sea (and obviously there are exceptions to allmost every generalization).

Here in Hispania for instance, the Emir, the Calipha later, was the authority who convened Catholic Priesthood of Al-Andalus for Concillia in Toledo. This function was inherited from visigothic kingdom. Real problems with christian popullation under muslim rule only grew (and a lot) along ninth century. Relative peaceful coexistence and mutual distrust was the norm, but not this apocalyptic misconception of VII c.

Sarracen corsairs were much more important in later centuries than in VII c. Of course any conquest is quite disruptive in economy and people lives. But commerce was not cut in the Mediterranean in the VII c. Commerce at this time was very restricted in West Europe, due to poor economy of allmost subsistence. And this was so before and after the muslim great disruption.(And that is not saying there was no effect on Europe).

There is not a clear point in a timelime were we can say "we are entering the Middle Ages", and this one is not such a point. Not for the reasons you say, at least.

This is a very interesting period and it's always a pleasure to talk about it. Glad to talk with you SB.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend.!

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting and still topical. And pretty top of mind. My middle schooler was studying a period of history from the fall of Rome to the late Middle Ages, region by region of the world. Kinda cool, I didn't get that when I was a kid. But on the section of the Middle East the school did the following:

1. Had my kid learn the 5 Pillars of Islam

2. Taught that Islam is a religion of peace that "just spread"

3. Jihad is the internal struggle to better one's self, not war

4. Sharia is just a culture thing

They didn't teach the 10 Commandments when doing European history (and Jewish history didn't make the chapter on the Middle East, which dealt mostly with the explosive growth of Islam), nor did they have to memorize any of Buddha's teachings, etc.

So I had to do some research to put what the school is mis-teaching back into context.

Here's the formal disclaimer part of this -- yes the there is a historical record of militant expansion and Jihad and such, but most muslims aren't bad, etc. Duh, no brainer.

But not teaching real history in context hurts us all rather than hinders.

This is a very interesting period and it's always a pleasure to talk about it. Glad to talk with you SB.

And you!

on the section of the Middle East the school did the following:

1. Had my kid learn the 5 Pillars of Islam

2. Taught that Islam is a religion of peace that "just spread"

3. Jihad is the internal struggle to better one's self, not war

4. Sharia is just a culture thing

I'm very impressed with this school. Peace comes with understanding others & this wonderful school clearly understands this & actively promotes it. Congratulations on your kids' school: I doubt you could do better.

Peace comes from dealing genuinely with what is, on real understanding. A lasting peace cannot be based on bad information resulting in unrealistic expectations.

I can't disagree with you SB. And it seems your kids' school is promoting real understanding & solid information. Good on them!

I can't disagree with you SB. And it seems your kids' school is promoting real understanding & solid information. Good on them!

LOL, now . So I'll speak my piece.

1. Had my kid learn the 5 Pillars of Islam

No worries -- except they did not also teach the 10 Commandments, any of the teachings of Buddha, anything of the top animist religions of Africa, etc. If you are going to have kids memorize religious text in school, then do so for each culture you study.

2. Taught that Islam is a religion of peace that "just spread"

Islam primarily spread through conquest -- through fire and sword, not peaceful conversion and acts. That's why we see the explosive growth of Islam from the 7th Century out of the Arabian Peninsula. And maintaining the faithful is also a matter of force since in most muslim societies it is against the law to change your religion, and even enforce the death penalty for such a "crime."

3. Jihad is the internal struggle to better one's self, not war

Sort of, though this is a more modern interpretation of Jihad, which in literal translation means "struggle." However, in historical context and in context of the Koran, Jihad as primarily practiced across history means "Struggle *against* the unbelievers." Not struggle against sin or selfishness, but a struggle against other people who do not believe in the teachings of Islam, or who would threaten Islam (including other Muslims). Holy War against others. It's great if there' a reformation movement within Islam to adopt the tenets of personal struggle for self improvement, but that movement is small and isolated -- and is not helped by pretending Jihad is not what is has been, and remains to be for the majority in the Islamic world today.

4. Sharia is just a culture thing

No. Wearing robes, listening to Saudi Pop, eating your favorite foods and watching Lebanese soap operas is a culture thing.

Sharia is a complete Religious/Social/Legal/Political/Economic system in a box. It is a total package that dictates the minutia of society, essentially the Deuteronomic Code from the Bible plus a bunch of extra stuff. It dictates Civil Law (from contracts to construction), Criminal Law, Religious Law and Observances, etc.

Sharia Law is completely at odds with Western Secular law and the traditions and practices of individual rights and liberties.

So again, if you really want to see reform within the Muslim world (interesting book on this by Reza Aslan called "No God but God" you may want to look at), then you will not shy away from the realities of the history of Islam, what we observe today and the encoded intolerance of Sharia Law. And by not shying away from this you'll be more ready and able to support reformers, rather than excuse the orthodox.

Peace out!

It is a biases piece, it's desires to paint things in black and white (absolutism.)

How so?

Sharia is just a culture thing

Talk to Editor Gwen, she'll set you straight!

SB you can not see how this piece is biases really?

SB, I see that you live in America. Your child's textbook, by the description of the curriculum, was most likely based on "Across the Centuries," which begins with the Fall of the Roman Empire. Teaching the Ten Commandments would not have fit into the curriculum since those are from a much earlier era.

Your child probably did learn about the Medieval Christian Church in some detail, including the building of the cathedrals, holy orders, and the role of Christianity in daily life.

Perhaps your child studied the Ten Commandments in the prior year?