The Crusades refer to several religions wars between the Muslims and the Christians with the main agenda of controlling the holy sites. There were eight major crusades which happened between the 11th and the 13th century characterized by violent and bloody combats (Wise, 1978). The events created obstacles that can still be felt today when considering the relationship between the Christians and the Muslims (France, 1996). The painful consequences have produced great suspicion between two religions because of the indelible marks left. There are several effects of crusades which are damaging to the current missions of spreading religions. The research paper will critically discuss how members of two religions viewed each other, the influential figures and how Karen Armstrong and other historians opposing her views perceived crusades. Contemporary effects of the historical phenomenon, especially the western perspective on Islam will also be discussed in detail.
A Brief History
Crusades began in the 11th century as a series of movements with large numbers of members who left their motherland to spread their culture and religion in other regions. These activities were characterized by military enterprises and religious interests that often created conflict with the new communities. The Christians were determined to recapture Jerusalem, a land they considered holy. During this era, the power of the church could be felt worldwide with the pope determined to impose religion on foreign nations. On the other hand, Muslims were using all the means possible to spread their influence regions such as Spain, the eastern Mediterranean region and the north of Africa. The Byzantine Empire had a remarkable influence on the spread of Islam, which marked the peak of the religious standoff. Pope Urban II’s speech at Claremont marked the beginning of the first Crusade activity after he claimed that militants threatening Christians peaceful missions of spreading the gospel, more specifically in Jerusalem, would face dire consequences (Cowdrey 1970). From the speech, Muslims, especially the jihadists armed themselves to handle any outcome because of the Pope’s power and influence. After the defeat of the Muslims in Jerusalem, the mission was considered successful. The crusades that followed created a big problem because of the battles between the nobles and the new princes (Madden, 2005). These parties tried to ruthlessly outdo each other in the spheres of money, trading routes, and power.
The Muslim world seemed to fall after Nur ad-Din died although the presence of Saladin restored their crusading position (Lewis, 1953). The new leader was devoted to jihad and had a great commitment to unite the already conquered Islamic world. He won the confidence of many subjects because of the tactical approaches and unorthodox attack of Jerusalem. The city was recaptured through warfare characterized by massacres. Saladin success was also contributed by the leper-king’s inability to motivate and encourage the Christian forces. There were also strong disagreements in the Christian world after the second crusade making Saladin to triumph. Guy of Lusignan made a wrong decision and moved away from the watered lands making Saladin able to exploit the Christian army. In the religious war, the enemy was capitalizing on the slightest mistake that the opponent made and responding with an asymmetrical force.
The Crusades are considered to have failed because they never succeeded to rule Jerusalem for a long period. Most of the lands that were not previously occupied by Christians became regions for conflict in an attempt to spread influence. Despite the negative impacts, Crusade brought a higher standard of medicine and a new form of learning in Western Europe as well the positive Greek and Muslim cultures (Phillips, 2013). Through the trade routes that opened up, commodities like spices and silk were made readily available for the people who needed them. Although Crusades created enmity between Christians and Muslims, followers from both sides have learned to embrace tolerance in the most difficult situations that threaten their peaceful co-existence in the modern world.
After the Crusades’ era, each succeeding generation gave different versions of the historical activities that took place. The views inform how crusades are understood in the modern world. The French believed it was an attempt by the western world to continue spreading their influence. Marxists perceived the activities of this era as being motivated by the need to address the shortage of resources but under the name of spreading religion (Zagacki, 2001). Karen Armstrong’s positions increased the ever-mounting pressure on the Pope to apologize for the atrocities during the Crusades.
Scholars Arguments on Crusades
Karen Armstrong, who was a former nun made significant contributions for the understanding of the Crusades from a political and a religious perspective, criticized the negative western attitude towards Muslims as a result of the historical injustices to the East by the West (Shadid " Van, 2002). The Christians are presented as fueling the brutal war in the Muslim world and labeling the other religion as intolerant and anchored on sword doctrine under which enemies would meet immediate death (Hughes, 2013). The fanatical intolerance has dominated the westerners’ ideas about Islam causing suspicion and hatred. From her account, it can be argued that the Crusade is to blame for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, a position opposed by many scholars for what is considered as factual errors (Schaffer, 2002).
Historians opposed to Armstrong’s perspective consider her views as based on shallow facts with anti-Catholic prejudice although being logically appealing (Gabriele, 2016). Whenever he raised his opinions on Crusades, she is believed to show contempt on the subject without adequate objectivity in the inquiry attitude. The support that the US gives to the state of Israel, according to Armstrong, can be linked to the negative perception of the Middle Eastern nations (Lieber, 1998). The enthusiasm of the crusaders is still deeply rooted in the American sense of identity and an affinity with Zionism. Despite what is considered a pseudo-historical analysis of crusades, Armstrong’s account has a strong impact on the understanding of the events in the modern world.
To understand the Crusades and evaluate the ideas presented by other historians like Karen Armstrong, the theological works of historians like William Cavanaugh are of great importance. The idea of religion is deconstructed to establish the role it plays in the modern world within the religious and political spheres. Cavanaugh opposed Armstrong’s ideas and argued that from a functionalist perspective, even ideologies like capitalism would qualify to be religions (Cavanaugh, 2009). The extensive violence in the modern world needs an empirical investigation in order to establish the line between secular and religious violence. The configurations of authority and power make the definition of religion to vary from one setting to another. States are also capable of exploiting the religious-secular violence in order to expand their power and influence. The differences between the two further make it possible for the policy makers within the state to manipulate its ideological role, authorizing certain actions while others are considered illegitimate. From the argument, it becomes possible for Christianity to promote patriotism, a private aspect, with patriotism which is a public aspect of the state.
A look at the concept of religion and politics from the arguments raised by Armstrong reveals that religion is more important and has been driving the affairs in the political world. The western world’s motivation to control the Middle East has both secular and religious agendas. However, a profound analysis of the ideas proposed by historians such as Cavanaugh reveal religion and politics are of equal importance. To prove his position, he borrowed concepts from classical scholars such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo through the contributions they made on religio (Kerr, 2009). Aquinas believed that religion is a virtue and should be a practice cultivated to promote the good of all, anchored on the principles of creation upon which the government is formed (Kerr, 2009). From the argument, it is evident that the Crusades were diverting from the real intentions of the religion’s existence and overemphasizing on one aspect of two equal and intricately intertwined ideas.
The balance between religion and politics which should be integrated into the modern political philosophies can be found in the works of other scholars who contributed to the formation of the supra institutions under the social contract. John Locke’s argument proved that politics and religion are two mutually inclusive concepts, with none being important than the other. Attempts to spread religious doctrines and military influence during the 11th, 12th and the 13th century and the negative outcomes prove that more emphasis was placed on religion. Locke’s ideas criticize the approach and argues that religion is a state of mind incapable of being regulated by any civil authority (Coleman, 1977). It is further evidence that there should be a balance between the private interests of the religious groups and the public interests of the state. Religion is, therefore, a normative concept that does not only help to describe social phenomena but reinforces their positive attributes for the promotion of peace.
From the underlying motivations of the wars of religion, it is evident that the elites were more motivated by the need to consolidate power in order to control their rivals. Politics, therefore, played a central role in organizing the killings. Despite the increased pressure to maintain the dichotomy of religion and politics in the modern world, it is evident that these goals are yet to be achieved. Instead of a separation between two concepts, the state seems to be motivated by the need to substitute religious goals with those promoting political gains. Narratives from the Wars of Religion ended up creating myths in the modern world which shape the manner in which the preexisting chaos would be understood. Although nations like the US have shown the determination to promote religious tolerance amongst the citizens, it is evident from the outcomes that the move is meant to legitimize violence against the Middle East, a position supported by Karen Armstrong.
In the First Amendment, the United States’ domestic policies on social-economic affairs were meant to promote a neutral, secular world with the faith on the national principles sealing loopholes created by the different faiths (Viteritti, 1997). However, an analysis of concepts such as patriotism reveals that there is a huge difference between eastern and western culture based on religion. The Muslim culture is presented as being violent and irrational, an idea that is event propagated in the media and films. The West is yet to uphold the virtues of the secular world that is free from conflicts and irrational religious wars that dominate the nation-state. Besides, the inability of the west to flee from unacceptable religious absolutism is increasingly making the state unable to prevent the negative effects of preexisting religious conflicts.
Effects of Crusades on the Modern World
There have been myths shaping the manner in which the western world perceives Islam from the misconceptions that exists on crusading activities. The mention of Islam creates fear, suspicion and to an extent, hatred because of the assumption that the religion supports violence and Jihad practices. These behaviors can be noticed from the manner in which the policies regarding the Middle East are formulated despite the approval from various internal actors. Some of the serious grievances raised by the people in the Middle East revolve around the issue of crusades and the unequal effects created thereafter. America has played a central role in reawakening the crusades’ hatred in the Arab world, an action that is currently promoting extremisms and radicalizations.
After the September 11 attack, the US decided to take the enemies in the Middle East more serious. One of the techniques used was to fight back, a decision that triggered the centuries-old conflict from the first activities of the crusades. President George W. Bush was quoted saying that the crusade and the war on terrorisms are likely to go on for a while as he prepared his troops for a revenge mission (Gurtov, 2006). The Middle East was provoked by the choice of words used because of the graveness of the possible reactions. Europe was equally unpleased because of the direct impacts of crusades felt when the spread of influence was at its peak. The overall impact of the American intervention was the spark of a new clash of civilization with roots anchored on the crusading activities.
Declaring the Iraq War by the Bush administration was a clear proof that echoed the Crusading activities because it was not the whole country that had been involved in the attack. Targeting the al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist groups ended up being an intervention which interfered with the nation’s territorial sovereignty and integrity. Although the mission was aimed at promoting peace not only in the region but also in the whole world, the attack on innocent civilians created mistrust between the Christian and the Muslim world. American activities in the Middle East further proves that they were motivated by Pope Urban II’s desire to free the Holy Land from the enemies. His plea to protect the Christians against persecution was well embraced by the followers, ordinary citizens and the military elites. The soldiers in the armed pilgrimage wore the cross as a symbol of a religious war, with the main objective of limiting the influence of the Muslims. Some of the most influential key players who responded to the call were Teutonic Knights and Knight Templar (Woodhouse, 1879). The combined forces ensured that the pilgrimage was safe traveling from one region to another to spread the Christian values, hence a greater influence. The activities angered the Muslims who were also determined to spread their religion to some areas already occupied by the Christians. The conflict often resulted in more religious wars in which many lives were lost because of strong religious beliefs.
In the western world, the perception of Islam is yet to be free from negativity and the invocation of a feeling of confrontation. Europe, in particular, has been considering Islam as a military threat since the events of the Crusades. Although there has been a direct experience with Islam, the culture is yet to be fully embraced in the western world. In the United States, Muslims make up less than 3% of the entire population. The percentage is also below 10% in France, England and other European states (Arkoun, 2002). In Germany, there are relatively more Muslims due to the policy of accommodating refugees running away from war torn regions in the Middle and the Far East. Hostilities between the two religious groups has begun to be felt through the radicalization and extremist ideologies brought by the immigrants. The American’s assumptions of the Crusade activities were amplified during the hostage crisis on the US embassy which shaped Muslims as being guided by extremist doctrines of spreading their influence even through force. Other attacks have also been witnessed in the US embassies in the Middle East and Africa. By default, Islam’s public face creates a perception of anti-Americanism and a big threat to peace. These treatments have made Christians in the Middle East to be vulnerable to persecution and even killings.
The 9/11 attack made more people to be concerned about the intentions of Muslims on the position of the US. Scholars began to explore the idea of Islam, and how it has evolved from the Crusade era, the dangers it posed on the modern western world and the measured that could be taken to reduce the negative impacts in the attempt to expand their sphere of influence. Television programs and even the talks regarding Islam begun presenting the followers in a negative manner, a wrong generalization which cannot be eradicated because of the deep roots established. The western world is still questioning why Muslims hate their people despite being welcoming and embracing new ideas, progressive ideas from any sound religion. It should, however, be noted that political leaders in America have been patient and to an extent, rational on most of their retaliatory policies. The leaders continue to emphasize that although a few individuals are threatening the peaceful religious coexistence, Islam still promote peace and are not anti-American or terrorists. The position has however been subjected to criticism as a result of America’s continued interference and meddling in the Middle East’s policies which can be argued as being motivated by the need to serve their interests.
To get a deep understanding of the effects of Crusades in the modern world, it is essential to understand the motivating factors behind the great enmity between the Christians and the Muslims. Most of the battles were aimed at controlling Jerusalem, a campaign that has cost millions of lives. Even in President Trump’s administration, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital seemed to shift the possession of the Holy Land to the Christians, a decision that makes one question the western leadership doctrines which should be free from religious influence. The president’s decision created a tense environment in Israel which saw the security being tightened to deal with any eventuality. There are other positives aspects of Crusades which promote progress in the world. These attributes make conflict a necessary element and an integral part of the development in any community.
The increased trade in Europe is as a result of the crusades which boosted trade hence the growth of the economy. Many Crusades were interested in the luxurious goods they found, taking them home after successful missions. The European traders' activities in the Middle East were characterized by the exchange of commodities such as silk, porcelain, coffee, spices among other products. The modern ports and cities in Europe were created during this era, making the European economy to stabilize and become much stronger. Besides, the economy was able to shift from barter trade and began to use money as a form of exchange currency. The living standards also improved and a new class of wealthy people emerged. The impact of the Crusade on the modern world further goes beyond the improvement of the economy to the establishment of financial institutions like banks, which further facilitate the growth of the economies.
Crusades made the Catholic Church wealthier because of the power accorded to the papacy. The pope became influential source of authority, an impact that is felt until the present day. However, leader of the Holy Seas was by then playing other prominent roles such as the direct involvement in military activities and the consolidation of Christendom resources. Besides, the role he played in the intellectual and social world made people consider him as an able leader to guide the people. The current resources owned by the Catholic Church, therefore, has a history dating back to the crusades era that amplified the institution’s power.
Europe’s intellectual development can also be traced back to the Crusades era. The Europeans were exposed to different cultures which promoted liberalization hence greater enlightenment. Crusaders further visited new cities in other parts of the world borrowing new ideas and appreciated the value of tolerance for a peaceful co-existence. Latin intellectual ideas further laid a foundation upon which learning has been expanded to exploit the various aspects of the modern world. The current impact of this knowledge can be felt in disciplines such as medicine, mathematics, geography, and arts.
The modern world has also learned the value of preserving social and economic values, especially the ones anchored on the Muslim culture. Although the European armies suffered from huge loses, Muslims also suffered psychologically and financially. The culture should not be eliminated because there are positive attributes from the preservations. The Arab has been conservative and resisting adaptations even when placed under disadvantaged position. Whether to modernize the Islamic world or to preserve it has been a major issue of debate which factors all the positive consequences. However, there is a common agreement that the culture in the Arab should not be diffused.
Conclusively, the Christian-Muslim conflict that dates back to the crusade era from the 11th century. Both sides incurred huge loses in an attempt to spread their religion and other aspects that would enhance their influence. The Byzantine Empire and the pope’s influence fuelled the crisis during this era. Jerusalem was the center of conflict because each side claimed possession based on the religious history. Various historians have studied the Crusade, to offer an explanation of the events and the impacts they have in the contemporary world. Karen Armstrong believes that the western world is to be held responsible for the existing divide, which continues to worsen the relationships between the two religions. Armstrong’s views are shaped by the increased American troops’ presence in the Middle East, which infringes on the peoples’ rights especially the innocent civilians. She further believes that religion has dominated America’s policies in the Arab world. Her position is however refuted by historians like Cavanaugh who argues that politics and religion are two sides of the same coin with equal influence. Crusades created a negative perception of the Muslims, as the American media reveals. The east is portrayed as promoting intolerance and always ready to invoke violence to spread influence through brutish approaches like jihad. Even if historians might criticize Armstrong’s position, her account will continue to inform the popular understanding of the Islam-Christian’s relationship in the modern world. Her historical account on Crusade activities proves to be in touch with the real political and religious events happening around the world.
References
Arkoun, M. (2002). The unthought in contemporary Islamic thought (p. 13). London: Saqi Books.
Cavanaugh, W. T. (2009). The myth of religious violence: Secular ideology and the roots of modern conflict. OUP USA.
Coleman, D. C. (1977). The economy of England, 1450-1750(Vol. 197). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Cowdrey, H. E. (1970). Pope Urban II's preaching of the first crusade. History, 55(184), 177-188.
France, John. Victory in the East: a military history of the First Crusade. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Gabriele, M. (2016). Debating the ‘Crusade’in Contemporary America. The Mediaeval Journal, 6(1), 73-92.
Gurtov, M. (2006). Superpower on crusade: The Bush doctrine in US foreign policy (p. 35). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hughes, D. A. (2013). Liberal Warfare: A Crusade Twice Removed. International Studies Review, 15(3), 351-373.
Kerr, F. (2009). Thomas Aquinas: A very short introduction. OUP Oxford.
Lieber, R. J. (1998). US-Israel Relations Since 1948. Middle East, 2(3), 12.
Lewis, B. (1953). Saladin and the Assassins. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 15(2), 239-245.
Madden, T. F. (2005). The new concise history of the Crusades. Rowman " Littlefield.
Phillips, J. (2013). The Crusades 1095-1197. Routledge.
Shadid, W., " van Koningsveld, P. S. (2002). The negative image of Islam and Muslims in the West: Causes and solutions. Religious freedom and the neutrality of the state: the position of Islam in the European Union. Leuven: Peeters, 174-196.
Wise, T. (1978). Armies of the Crusades (Vol. 75). Osprey Publishing.
Woodhouse, F. C. (1879). The Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages: The Hospitallers, the Templars, the Teutonic Knights, and Others. With an Appendix of Other Orders of Knighthood: Legendary, Honorary, and Modern. Banton Press.
Viteritti, J. P. (1997). Blaine's Wake: School Choice, the First Amendment, and State Constitutional Law. Harv. JL " Pub. Pol'y, 21, 657.
Zagacki, K. S. (2001). Pope John Paul II and the crusade against communism: a case study in secular and sacred time. Rhetoric " Public Affairs, 4(4), 689-710.
