Understanding the Context of the Crusades

There have been a lot of half-truths, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings about the Crusades - but before any of these can actually be tackled, one has to approach the situation in the context in which it occurred. Perhaps the biggest problem that faces a general understanding of this time period is the reluctance to look at it in its time period - and the few times that it is, it is done so from only a single perspective. This type of thing is easily achieved in movies such as Kingdom of Heaven, which director Ridley Scott, who approaches historical films with the promise of showing you a "new side" to them while notoriously missing every fact except the names, promised would explain the culpability of both sides of the Crusades and how just a few zealots on either side ruined it for everyone. With this film, all focus was from the Crusaders' perspectives, through Balien of Ibelin.

This was a historically contextual danger, as all it demonstrated as the concoctions and schemes of the Crusaders, with none of those of the East - and for anyone with a cursory glance at history, the notion that any side of a war could be absent of scheming is one that is laughable at best. Also like Kingdom of Heaven, many books, authors, and scholars opt to juxtapose ourselves into the time period of madness and chaos - and as much as it pains the author to use such a cliche, it is applying modern morality and perspectives to a time period that knew nothing of them.

As with any history, context is the key point in understanding the events as they occurred. So where then to start the study? It may seem easy to say that the obvious choice is the Council of Clermont, the clear beginning of the Crusades that many scholars and even an American president believes are still effecting us today. There is no clearer a moment that can be seen where it all started.

But this would be a terrible place to start one's understanding of the Crusades.

This would be akin to following the Red Sox in 2006, and inquiring what all the excitement about "another" World Series is. You need to understand what happened before and around to get a full understanding of the events as they transpired, otherwise the Crusades are at best just another notch on the wall of war, or at worst, are as children are being taught every day: an unmitigated slaughterfest that started because of an intolerant Pope that wanted to eat Muslim babies.

It would be wonderful to suggest that the latter alternative stated above was an exaggeration - but there is a truly widespread belief, especially amongst the Islamic world, that the Christian Crusaders consistently feasted on newborn flesh. Such an ancient, but common taboo should be openly laughed at - and for the most part, historians always do. The Japanese used the tactic to scare civilians into taking their own lives rather than settle under American Marines, Romans had convinced their citizens that Christians ate babies and used that threat to convince them to turn in any who they may have been hiding - and each of these times, with no evidence outside of the enemy's claim, the notion is laughed at.

Except in the Crusades. The issue has become as politically charged as it has historically. There are millions of reasons for this - and this series of learning packets aren't meant to figure out the political reasonings behind the world's obsession with maintaining medieval myths, but rather to introduce readers to and give them a confident level of understanding of the Crusades.

So to the previous stated question, there is no reason to turn to the Council of Clermont as the beginning point in any study of the Crusades. Not only is this already midway through the saga of events, more importantly, it is not a preemptive action. On the contrary, it is a reactive action, a response. Therefore one cannot study a response by itself, but one has to look at the events that warranted this response first.

For example, one does not simply fast forward to Darth Vader explaining that he is Luke's father - it would seem deranged and out of place. A man in a suit is telling a currently disarmed young man that he is his father to howls of protest, why does this matter? Without understanding the history, the contempt that Luke feels after the revelations laid on him by Obi-Wan Kenobi, the terrible hopefulness he feels for the search of his father, only to have these dashed at the revelation that all the answers lead back to this black-clad figure, we cannot understand why this scene is both powerful for our protagonist and why it has an effect on the original audience, or more importantly, why it has endeared as one of the most important moments in movie making.

There are two points of study that anyone interested in the Crusades should start with - to gain at least a proficient level of understanding. Although the author has stated it several times, it cannot be over-stated that the fall of the Roman Empire is a pivotal point in European history that needs to be fully examined and proficiently understood to grasp the course of European history.

At its barest, the collapse of centralized Rome freed up the lands to the principalities and fiefdoms that controlled them before. As lords were once loyal to the Roman Empire, the capitol downright disappeared and rather than breakdown like a hive with the absence of a queen, instead they became self-autonomous cells. These cells gave rise to feudal lords that bickered and argued throughout the Dark Ages before finally melding together into the loose structure of nations as we know them today.

The feudal system remained for generations however - and perhaps not even until World War I were the permanent borders we see today finally enacted.

The second important event is the rise of the Islamic Empire. Often times when trying to understand the Crusades, this pivotal detail is left out. The city of Jerusalem - which played a remarkably little part in these holy wars that were fought over it - was not a traditional domain of the Arabs and Muslims, but it is often portrayed as though it was. It was not a traditional domain of the western Christian kingdoms either, though there is less of a drastic attempt to portray events as though it was.

It needs to be understood how the Muslims came to possess the Holy Land and the events that led up to the retaking of them.

Sources:

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/book99/crusadbk.htm
The Alexiad - Anna Comnena
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Edward Gibbons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llToMMeOLnc
Warriors of God - James Reston Jr.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm