The Crusades were wildly misunderstood by the public following World War 2. Sir Steven Runcimen’s work, The History of the Crusades, denounced the wars to reclaim the Holy Land as all equally repugnant, disregarding the nuances of war. His take rose in popularity and became the cultural norm. Modern historians following the 1970s have attempted to dissect the good and bad attributes of the Crusades to develop an accurate understanding of history. To date, most modern historians acknowledge the nuances involved in the Holy Wars. However, the populace still subscribes to the incomplete narrative, ignoring the many misconceptions.
The first misconception is that the Crusades were expansionary campaigns to conquer the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Byzantine Empire was under significant attack by the Islamic Seljuk Turks. In desperation, Emperor Alexios called on Latin reinforcements. Pope Gregory the 7th sympathized with their condition, but he was too preoccupied in the West to call a Crusade to deliver them from the Turks. Gregory’s successor, Pope Urban the 2nd, answered the Emperor’s plea. He called on local knights to rise up and defend their neighboring Byzantine Empire, in addition to reclaiming Jerusalem. The call was answered and successful, but it was a defensive war. Even the Crusader States that emerged following the First Crusade were not colonies. The Christian Church was not expanding militarily to conquer the world by force. The Crusader States were outposts to protect pilgrims while visiting the Holy Land, but as stated before, the First Crusade was a defensive war.
The second misconception propagated by the media and Hollywood is that the Crusades were a Holy War to convert the Muslims. Conquered Muslims were not forced to convert. In fact, the Church would have considered such conversions as illegitimate since there was no conviction. The Catholic Church understood that Jesus’ Great Commission was spiritual, not a call to arms. Christ instructed his followers to “make disciples of all nations.” That did not imply military conquest, and the Church recognized that. The Crusades were a movement to reclaim the Holy Land, not convert the Muslims.
The third misconception is that Crusades were monetarily motivated campaigns. Most of the knights participating in the Crusades were already wealthy. They governed substantial fiefs, exercising significant power on their land. There was nothing for them to gain by going on a dangerous Crusade. The casualty rate is highly debatable, but it ranges from anywhere between 34%-75%. At their best odds, a Crusader had a 34% chance of dying. Just by comparison, American troops during World War 2 had less than a 2% chance of fatality. The Holy Wars were devastating to the Crusaders. Not only was it incredibly dangerous, but most Crusaders were forced to sell their property or take out loans to pay for the expenses. The “second sons” theory emerged to reconcile the disincentives for a wealthy aristocrat to engage in a Crusade. In the Middle Ages, kingdoms were given to the eldest son. Previously, they were divided among all the sons, causing serious problems. After a few generations, each kingdom was subdivided so much that it was reduced to powerlessness. The eldest sons received custody over their father’s assets to maintain family nobility. According to the “second sons” theory, the second sons, not the eldest, participated in the Crusades. Unlike their older brother counterparts, they lacked substantial wealth. The Crusades were a means for them to attain riches and power through plunder. However, this popularized theory was disproved by modern research. Very few modern historians hold to the “second sons” theory anymore. The Crusaders were largely the oldest sons who could afford to go on a Crusade, as modern evidence suggests. All that to say, the Crusaders were not motivated by money, since the campaigns were very costly and often bankrupted nobles.
In conclusion, there are many misconceptions surrounding the Crusades. Despite the historical evidence, most of America believes the Crusaders were bloodthirsty monetary-driven demons. The Church was not always in the right. The first wave during the First Crusade massacred Jews despite the Pope’s orders to leave the Jews alone. Constantinople was also sacked and pillaged for wealth during the Fourth Crusade. It was a humanitarian crisis. Did the Crusaders make many mistakes? Yes. Their actions were often grotesque and inexcusable. It is unfair to say the Crusaders were always justified in their actions. They most certainly were not. However, it is also unfair to label the Crusaders as heinous. Not all of the Crusades were equal. Some were more noble than others, and the Fourth Crusade was the most horrendous. That is why it is critical to recognize the nuances of war. They are rarely black and white. The good historian recognizes the good and bad of both sides in any war, and he is not disproportionately favorable to one side. The historian must show no partiality. He must acknowledge historical nuances and seek the truth.
Asher Sisneros 