In the book of Deuteronomy, as God gives Israel his commandments and seals his promises, he says this: “and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (7:4). Nowadays, many Christians may struggle to reconcile all the times when God ordered the Israelites to commit acts of violence with their knowledge of a loving, forgiving God. God showed his faithfulness and love to the Israelites throughout the Old Testament, but we know that he loves all people, no matter what race, so why would he wish the destruction even of wicked people who did not know him? This question has bothered many theologians over the years. Does God still order righteous destruction? Would he order his people to fight and kill in modern times for the furthering of his glory? This question might be easier to answer if there hadn’t been so many wars fought in the name of God, most notably the pilgrimage wars of the Crusades. Were these wars fought ‘for God’ really supported by God? Many times, invaders in the name of God forced conversions under the threat of death. In any case, the Crusades were a period of church history that shaped the church’s identity for a long time.
The Crusades began in 1095 and did not end until 1291 when the last city controlled by Crusaders fell. There were four major Crusades to the Holy Land, as well as others that simply attempted to “combat any and all groups seen as enemies to the Christian faith,” including the famed “Children’s Crusade,” two failed attacks on Egypt in 1216 and 1248, and Crusades against those with different religions and political goals (History.com Editors). Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade in 1095 at the request of Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, stating that anyone assisting in retaking the Holy City of Jerusalem for the Church could substitute this journey for all penance, receiving forgiveness for all their sins. The Pope hoped to counteract the immoral actions of the knights of the time by giving them something productive to do that might yield some sort of spiritual growth. There was also considerable interest in controlling the city of Jerusalem for its importance to Christian pilgrims, and the move was seen as a way to perhaps mend weakening relationships with the Byzantine Empire
The Pope’s move backfired in several ways, as it was received enthusiastically by many laymen who saw a crusade as a chance for adventure, profit, and even forgiveness of their sins in release from penance. As the official group of knights and noblemen set out for Jerusalem, a much less organized and experienced group of commoners, the “People’s Crusade,” began the journey, led by a preacher called Peter the Hermit. This group, against advice, came into conflict with Turkish forces, who defeated them at Cibotus. The main crusader army met Byzantine forces in Constantinople, and they marched out together toward the fall of Jerusalem (History.com Editors). The city fell more quickly than expected, and the crusaders proceeded to kill every Muslim and Jew in the City; the number of dead was estimated at 3,000, including women and children. None of the other crusades were such victories for the crusaders, but the bloodshed did continue until the crusades finished years later (Cartwright).
This makes the crusades feel like a historical paradox: crusaders seem to have been bloodthirsty killers, but they also show signs of having a deep faith in their way. In their view, the entire concept of crusading was to further God’s glory, even if that’s not what happened. From one point of view, we can see great Christians, as the editor of Christian History Institute says: “the crusaders were real Christians. They deplored their sins. They longed for forgiveness. . . They yearned to do something noble and lasting for their Lord. They prayed and fasted before battles and praised God after victories” (Galli). Whether or not this was true, no one can ignore the fact that they engaged not only in warfare but also the massacre of women and children. The image we see today of the crusades is both conflicted and bloodstained.
The Crusades had a significant effect on the world and on the church. While the original intent was to make the holy city of Jerusalem more accessible to pilgrims, and the events there were certainly very important, people also used the Crusades as an excuse for political attack or forceful conversion of pagans and heretics. Christopher Tyermann, the author of two prominent books on the Crusades, says that “they affected many communities and regions very differently, from the foundation of Prussia, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christian schism, attacks on European Jewry. . . not just the peripheral occupation of parts of Syria and Palestine.” Today the Crusades are viewed in many different ways, often as an adventurous symbol of the High Middle Ages or as a saddening portrayal of Western Imperialism and of the political, manipulative church. They certainly did show high church officials using their significant influence for political and military ends. The Crusades are a complicated subject that certainly had good and bad results, but they overall are a blemish on church history, showing where Christians attempted to use violence and force to spread the gospel, oftentimes with the wrong motives, and almost always with bad results, such as death, violence, and pointless destruction.
Works Cited
Cartwright, Mark. “The Capture of Jerusalem, 1099 CE.” World History Encyclopedia, World History Publishing, 16 July 2018, www.worldhistory.org/article.
Galli, Mark. “The Crusades: From the Editor—The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Christian History Institute, christianhistoryinstitute.org.
History.com Editors. “Crusades.” History, July 21, 2022, www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/crusades.
Tyermann, Christopher. “What Happened After the Crusades?” Yale UP, 23 May 2019, yalebooks.yale.edu.
Image Credit:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-many-myths-of-the-term-crusader-180979107/