Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. They are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church.
I really enjoyed this article and have to confess only a limited knowledge of the Crusades prior to reading it. However, something is itching at the back of my mind . . . the author makes the comparison between the Crusades as a defence of religion and modern wars as a defence of political ideology, say democracy. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't generally buy that the war on Iraq is primarily to defend democracy and I think there are several ulterior motives at the root of it, i.e. oil, land, etc. Democracy is just a front to get people to fight. Similarly, during the Crusades, couldn't religion have been used in a similar way (to cover for ulterior motives)? This articles definitely stops me from jumping to that conclusion, but I suppose the answer has been lost to the sands of time . . .
I do not appreciate the binary opposition presented here by Tomas Madden between "revisionists", for which he only offers the following elaboration, "who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit," and "mainstream scholors," that according to Mr. Madden offer "the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship."
This seems to me a strikingly amateur perspective.
Additionally, I don't think any article with a title that begins, "The Real History of..." can be considered a piece of this "very serious scholarship," that Mr. Madden admires. "Very" serious? The hyperbole gives him away.
Additionally, if the prodominant narrative is currently other than the one proposed by Mr. Madden, should we not consider his a "revisionist" piece? And the fact that his article exists within a much larger scholarly community (perhaps all of whom are not so "very serious" as he is), does it not prove that the "real history" will probably not be presented by any single narrative?
I am disappointed that GodSpy has presented this piece.
Mr. Madden's attempt to reclassify the Crusade (a modern term, he reminds us, hinting that Medieval Pilgrimages would be a more appropriate one) as an act (singular) of "restoration" and not "colonialism" is flattening. The word "restoration" recommends that there existed, or perhaps exists, a kind of innate Christian ownership of Jerusalem and "the other places made holy by the life of Christ," perhaps as a result of that life.
I am also flattened by how much space he alots to the reexamination and soft justification of the Crusade. Take, for example, the presentation of Pope Innocent III's paper concerning the rescue of the Christians of the East from their "heaviest servitude," which he follows with his own, "The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong." If this is in deed the case, and we are to accept this logic, why does Mr. Madden neglect to acknowledge the "heaviest servitude" that many of these same Knights Templar saved for their fellow Christians at home?
I can accept the author's main thesis that the crusades were fundamentally about regaining Christian holy places and freeing Christians living in seige-like conditions. However, as with all wars, there are atrocities and barbaric acts on both sides. The author's use of the war on terror as an entry point to reflect on the crusades raises similar questions. There are atrocities committed by the so-called "good guys" as well. Tens of thousands of innocent lives have been destroyed in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the while, global arms traders and oil barons to grow richer as they profit from this horrible war. History will reveal the true story. If we -Christians and the world- are honest with ourselves, we will one day bow our heads in shame for believing that we could solve the world's problems or acquire and keep what we wanted through violence. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all proclaim belief in one God. What a pity that as God-worshipping people, we could forsake the restless desire for peace written on our hearts to gain wealth, territories and power. Jesus rejected these in the desert before he began his mission. War, even with the purest of intentions tends to bring out the worst in everyone.
when the popes orderd the crusades were they speaking ex cathedra? If they were does that not call into question the authority and infallibility of the popes? Christ said he did not come to the world to bring peace , but a sword. Was this a warning to us about wars to come? Jesus said love your enemies and do good to those ehwo harm you? could the popes have dismissed these words?
August 15, 2005 10:44 AM
