four m ty hs about the crusades

8/13/2019 Four m Ty Hs About the Crusades

1/11

PaulF Crawford

FO U R MY TH S A BO U T TH E CRU SA D ES

I n 2001, former president Bill Clintondelivered a speech at Georgetown Uni-versity in which he discussed the West'sresponse to the recent terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11. T he speech contained ashort but significant reference to the cru-sades. M r. Clin ton observed tha t whenthe Christian soldiers took Jerusalem [in1099], they . . . proceeded to kill everywoman and child who was Muslim on theTemple M ount. H e cited the contempo -raneous descriptions of the event as de-scribing soldiers wa lking on the TempleM o u n t . . . wi th blood running up to theirknees. Th is story, Mr. Clinton said em-phatically, was still bein g told today inthe Middle East and we are still payingfor it.

This view of the crusades is notunusual. It pervades textbooks as well aspopular literature. One otherwise gener-ally reliable Western civilization textbookclaims tha t the Crusade s fused threecharacteristic medieval impulses: piety,pugnacity, and greed. All three were essen-tial. ' The film K ingdom ofHeaven(2005)depicts crusaders as boorish bigots, thebest of whom were torn between remorsefor their excesses and lust to continue

me nts such as T he soldiers of the FirstCrusade appeared basically withou t w arn-ing, storming into the H oly Land with theavowedliterallytask of slaughteringunbelievers ;^ T he Crusades were an earlysort of imperialism ;^ and Con frontationwith Islam gave birth to a period of reli-gious fanaticism that spawned the terribleInqu isition and the religious wars tha t rav-aged Europe during the Elizabethan era. ''T he m ost famous semipopular historian ofthe crusades. Sir Steven Runciman, endedhis three volumes of magnificent prosewith the judgment that the crusades were nothing more than a long act of intoler-ance in the name of God, which is the sinagainst the Holy Ghost. '

The verdict seems unanimous. Frompresidential speeches to role-playing gam es,the crusades are depicted as a deplorablyviolent episode in which thuggish West-erners trundled off, unprovoked, to mur-der and pillage peace-loving, sophisticatedMuslims, laying down patterns of outra-geous oppression that would be repeatedthroughout subsequent history. In manycorners of the Western world today, thisview is too commonplace and apparentlyobvious even to be challenged.


2/11

PaulF Crawford F O U R M Y T H S A B O U T T H E CRUSADES

But unanimity is not a guaranteeofaccuracy. W ha t everyone knows aboutthe crusades may not, in fact, be true.From the many popular notions about thecrusades, let us pick four and see if theybear close examination.

M Y T H I : T H E CRUSADESREPRESENTED AN UNPROVOKED

ATTACK BYWESTERN CHRISTIANSON THE MUSLIM WORLD.

Nothing couldbefurth er from thetruth,and even a cursory chronological reviewmakes that clear.InA.D. 632, Egypt, Pal-estine, Syria, A sia M inor, N or th A frica,Sp ain, F rance, Italy, and th e islands ofSic-ily, Sardinia,and Corsica wereallChris-tian territories. Inside theboundariesofthe Roman Empire, which was still fullyfunctional in theeastern M editerranean,orthodox Christianity was the official,and overwhelmingly majority, religion.Outside those boundaries were other largeChristian communitiesnot necessarilyorthodox and Catholic, but still Christian.M o s tofthe C hristian population ofPer-sia,forexample, was Nestorian. C ertainlythere were many Christian communitiesin Arabia.

By A.D. 732,acentu ry later, C hristian shad lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, NorthAfrica, Spain, most of Asia M inor,andsouthern France. Italyand herassociatedislands were under threat,and theislandswould come under M uslim rule in the nextcentury. The C hristian comm unitiesofA rabia were entirely destroyed in or shortlyafter 6 33 , when Jews and C hristians alikewere expelled from the peninsula. ' ' Thosein Persia were under severe pressure. Two-thirds of the formerly R oman C hristianworld was now ruled by Muslims.W h a t had happened? M ost people

The answer is the riseofIslam. Every oneof the listed regions was taken, withinthespaceofa hundred years, from C hristiancontrol by violence,in the courseofmili-tary campaigns deliberately designed toexpand Muslim territoryatthe expense ofIslam's neighbors.Nor did this concludeIslam's programofconquest. T he attackscontinued, punctuated from timetotimeby Christian attempts to push back. Char-lemagne blocked theM uslim advanceinfar western Europeinabout A.D. 800,butIslamic forces simply shifted their focusand began to island-hop across from N or thAfrica toward Italy andtheFrench coast,attackingtheItalian ma inland by837.Aconfused struggleforcontrolofsouthernand central Italy continued for the restof the ninth centuryandinto thetenth.In the hundre d years between 850 and950, Benedictine monks were drivenoutof ancient monasteries, the Papal Stateswere overrun, and M uslim pirate baseswere established along the coastofnorth-ern Italy and southern France, from whichattacks on the deep inland were launched.Desperate to protect victimized C hris-tians, popes became involvedin thetenthand early eleventh centuries in directingthe defense of the territory around them.

The surviving central secular authorityin the Christian worldatthis time was theEast Roman,or Byzantine, Empire. Hav-ing lostso much territoryin theseventhand eighth centuries to sudden amp uta-tionbythe M uslims,the Byzantines tooka long timetogain thestrength tofightback. By the mid- ninth century, theymounted a counterattack on Egypt,thefirst time since 645 that they had daredtocome sofarsouth. Betweenthe940sandthe 970s, the Byzantines made great prog-ressin recovering lost territories. Emperor


3/11

Paul F rawford FOUR MYTH S ABOUT THE CRUSADES

and he hadtoend his campa igns by 975without managing to retake Jerusalemitself. Sharp Muslim counterattacksfollowed, and the Byzantines barely managedto retain Aleppo and Antioch.

The struggle continued unabated intothe eleventh century. In 1009, a men-tally deranged Muslim ruler destroyed theCh urch of the Holy S epulchre in Jerusalemand mounted major persecutions of Chris-tians and Jews. He was soon deposed, andby 1038 the Byzantines had negotiated theright to try to rebuild thestructure,butothe r events were also makin g life difficultfor Chr istians in th e area, especially the dis-placement of Arab Muslim rulers by SeljukTurks, who from 1055onbegan to takecontrolinthe M iddle East. Th is de stabi-lized the territory and introduced new rul-ers (the Turks) who were not familiar evenwith the patchwork mo usvivendithat hadexisted between most Arab Muslim rulersand their Christian subjects. Pilgrimagesbecame increasingly difficult and danger-ous, and western pilgrims began bandingtogether and carrying weaponstoprotectthemselves as they tried to make their wayto Christianity s holiest sitesinPalestine: notable armedpilgrimages occurredin106465and 1087-91 .

In the western and centralMediterranean, the balanceofpower was tipping towardtheChristians and away fromtheMushms.In 1034,thePisanssacked a Muslim base in NorthAfrica, finally extending theircounterattacks across the Med-iterranean. They also mountedcounterattacks against Sicily in1062-63.In 1087, a large-scaleallied Italian force sacked Mah-

essofTuscany. Clearly the Italian Ch ris-tians were gaining the upper hand.

But while Christian power in the west-ern and central Mediterranean was grow-ing, it was in troub le in th e east. The rise ofthe M uslim Turks had shifted the weight ofmilitary power against the Byzantines, wholost considerable grou nd again in the 1060s.Attemptingtohead off further incursionsin far-eastern Asia Minor in 1071,theByzantines sufferedadevastating defeatatTurkish handsinthe battleofManzikert.Asa result of the battle, the Christians lostcontrol of almost all of Asia Minor, with itsagricultural resources and military recruit-ing grounds, anda Muslim sultan set upacapital in Nicaea, site of the creation of theNicene Creed in A.D. 325 and a scant 125miles from Constantinople.

Desperate, the Byzantines sent appealsfor help westward, directing these appealsprimarily at theperson they saw as thechief western authority: the pope, who, aswe have seen, had already been directingChristian resistance to Muslim attacks.In the early 1070s, the pope was GregoryVII, andheimm ediately b egan plansto


4/11

Paul F Crawford F O U R M Y T H S A B O U T T H E CRUSADES

leadanexpeditionto theB yzantines'aid.He became enmeshedin conflict withtheGerman emperors, however (what histo-rians call theInvestiture C ontroversy ),and was ultimately unabletooffer m ean -ingful help. Still,the Byzantines persistedin their appeals, and finally,in1095, PopeUrban II realized Gregory VII's desire,in what turned into the First C rusade.Wh eth eracrusade was what either U rbanor theByzantineshad in mind is a mat-terofsome controversy.But theseamlessprogression ofevents which lead to thatcrusade is not.

Far from being unprovoked, then,thecrusades actually represent the first greatwestern Christian counterattack againstMuslim attacks which had taken placecontinually from the inception of Islamuntil the eleventh century, and whichcontinued on thereafter, mostly unabated.Th reeofChristianity's five prim ary epis-copal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alex-andria) hadbeen capturedin theseventhcentury; both of the others (RomeandConstantinople) had been attackedin thecenturies before thecrusades.Thelatterwould becaptured in 1453, leaving onlyone of the five (Rome)inC hristian handsby 1500. R omewasagain threatened in thesixteenth century. Thisis notthe absenceof provocation; rather, it is adeadlyandpersistent threat, and one which hadto beansweredbyforceful defense ifChristen-dom were to survive.Thecrusades weresimplyonetoolin thedefensive optio nsexercised by Christians.

To put the questioninperspective, on eneed only consider how ma ny times C hris-tian forces have attacked either MeccaorM edina. T he answer, of course, is never. 'M Y T H #2: WESTERN CHRISTIANS

Again, not true. One version of PopeUrban II's speech at Clermont in 1095urging French warriorstoembark on whatwould become known as the First Crusadedoes note that they might make spoilof[the enemy's] treasures, but this wasnomore than an observation on the usual wayof financingwar in ancient andmedievalsociety. And FulcherofC hartres did w ritein the early twelfth century that those whohad been poor in the West had become richin the East asaresult of their efforts on theFirst Crusade, obviously suggesting thatothers might do likewise.'' But Fulcher'sstatement has to be read in its context,which wasa chronic andeventually fatalshortageof manpower for thedefenseofthe crusader states. Fulcher wasnotbeingentirely deceitful when he pointed out thaton em ighthecome rich as a result of crusad-ing. B ut he was not being entirely straight-forward either, because for most partici-pants, crusading was ruinously expensive.As Fred Cazel has noted, Few crusad-ershadsufficient cash both to paytheirobligationsathome andtosupport them-selves decentlyon a crusade. ' Fromthevery beginning, financial considerationsplayeda major rolein crusade planning.The early crusaders sold off so manyoftheir possessions to finance their expedi-tions that they caused widespread infla-tion. Although later crusaders took thisinto account and began saving m oneylong before theysetout, theexpense wasstill nearly prohibitive. Despite the factthat mo ney did not yet play a major role inwestern European economiesin the elev-enth century, there was aheavy and per-sistent flow of mo ney from west to east asa resultof the crusades,and thefinancialdemands of crusadin g caused profound


5/11

PaulF. rawford F O U R M Y T H S A B O UT T H E CRUSADES

sionto Constantinople, wasthefact tha titran out of money before it hadgottenproperly started, andwasso indebtedtothe Venetians tha tit found itself unabletokeep controlof its own destiny. Louis IX'sSeventh Crusade in the mid-thitteenthcentury cost mote than six times theannu al revenue of the crown.

Louis IX rusaderKingThe popes resorted to ever more des-

perate ploys to raise money to financecrusades, from instituting the first incometax in the early thirteenth century to mak-in gaseries of adjustments inthe way tha tindulgences were handled that eventuallyledto the abuses condemned by M ar t inLuther. Even by the thirteenth century,most crusade planners assumed that itwould be impossible to attract enoughvolunteerstomake a crusade possible, andcrusading became theprovince of kingsand popes, losing its original popularcharacter When the H ospitaller M aster

pope took steps enabling himtoassemblea great treasure, without which such a pas-sage [crusade] would be impossible. ''Afew years later, M arin o Sa udo estima tedthatitwould cost five million florins overtwo yearstoeffect the co nque stofEgypt.Althoughhe did not say so,and maynothave realized it, the sums necessary simplymade the goal impossible to achieve.Bythis time, most responsible officialsin theWest hadcometo the same conclusion,which explains why fewerand fewer cru-sades were launched from the fourteenthcentury on.In sho rt: very few p eople became rich bycrusading, and their num bers were dwarfedby those who were b ankrupted. M ostmedieval people were quite well a^vareofthis, and did not consider crusading a wayto improve their financial situations.

M Y T H #3: CRUSADERS WEREA CYNICAL LOT W H O DI D N OTREALLY BELIEVE THEIR OW N

RELIGIOUSP R O P A G A N D A ;RATHER, THEY HAD ULTERIOR,

MATERIALISTIC MOTIVES.Th is hasbeen a very popular argum ent,at least from Voltaire on.Itseems credibleand even compelling to modern people,steeped as theyare in materialist world-views. And certainly there were cynics andhypocritesin theM iddle A gesbeneaththe obvious differences of technology andmaterial culture, medieval people werejust as human as we are, and subject to thesame failings.

However, likethe first two myths, thisstatement is generally untrue, and demon-strablyso.For one thing, the casualty rateson the crusades were usually very high, andmanyifnot most c rusaders left exp ectingnot to return. At least one militaryhis-


6/11

PaulF Crawford F O U R MY T H S A B O U T T H E CRUSADES

thirteenth-century crusader Robert ofC rsques, that he had come from acrossthe seain order to die for Godinthe H olyLan d wh ich was quickly followedbyhis death in battle against overwhelmingoddsmay have been unusualinits forceand swift fulfillment, but it was not anatypical attitude.It ishard to imagineamore conclusive way of proving one's dedi-cationto a cause than sacrificing one's lifefor it, and very large numb ers of crusadersdid just that.

But this assertionisalso revealedto befalse whenweconsider the wayin whichthe crusades were preached. Crusaderswere not drafted. Participation was volun-tary, and participants hadtobe persuadedto go.Theprimary means of persuasionwas the crusade sermon, and onemightexpectto find these sermons representingcrusading as profoundly appealing.

Th is is generally speaking, not thecase.In fact, the oppositeis true: crusadesermons were replete with warnings thatcrusading brought deprivation, suffering,and often death. That this was the realityof crusading was well known anyway.AsJonathan Riley-Smith hasnoted, crusadepreachers had to persuade their listenersto commit themselves to enterprises thatwould disrupt their lives, possibly impov-erish and even kill or maim them,andinconvenience their families, thesupportof which they would. . .needifthey wereto fulfill their promises.

So why did the preaching work? Itworked because crusading was appeal-ing precisely bec useit wasaknownandsignificant hardship, andbecause under-taking a crusade with the right motiveswas understoodas an acceptable penancefor sin. Far from being a materialisticenterprise, crusading was impractical in

antique and medieval worlds, but sufficeitto say that the willing acceptanceof dif-ficulty and suffering was viewedas ause-ful way to purify one's soul (and still is, inCatholic doctrine today). Crusading wasthe near-supreme example of such difficultsuffering, and so was an ideal andverythorough-going penance.

Related to theconcept of penanceisthe conceptofcrusading asan act ofself-less love, of laying dow n one's lifeforone's friends. '^ From the very beginning,Christian charity was advanced as a rea-son for crusading, and this did not changethroughout the period. Jonathan Riley-Smith discussed this aspect of crusadinginaseminal article well-knowntocrusadehistoriansbutinadequately recognizedinthe wider scholarly world,letalone by thegeneral public. For C hristian s. . .sacredviolence, noted R iley-Smith,

cannot be proposed on any groundssave that oflove,. . .[and]inan agedominated by the theologyofmeritthis explains whyparticipation incrusades wasbelieved to be meri-torious, why the expeditions wereseen as penitential acts that couldgain indulgences, and why deathinbattle was regarded as mar tyrdom.. . . Asmanifestations ofC hristianlove, the crusades were as muchtheproducts of the renewed spiritualityof the central Middle Ages, withitsconcernforliving th e vita postlicand expressing Christian idealsinactive worksofcharity,aswerethenew hospitals,thepastoral workofthe Augustinians and Premonstra-tensians and the service of the friars.The charityofSt. Francis may nowappeal to usmore than that ofth e


7/11

PaulF rawford F O U R M Y T H S A B O UT T H E C R U S A D ES

As difficult as it may be for modernpeople to believe, the evidence stronglysuggests that most crusaders were moti-vated by a desire to please God, expiatetheir sins, and put their livesatthe serviceof their neighbors, unde rstood in theChristian sense.M Y T H #4: T H ECRUSADES T AUGH T

MUSLIMS T O HATEA NDATTACK C H R I S T I A N S .

Part of the answer to this myth may befound above, under M yth# 1 .M uslims hadbeen attacking Christians for more than450 years before Pope Urban declaredtheFirst Crusade. They needed noincentiveto continue doing so. But thereis amorecomplicated answer here, as well.

Up until quite recently, Muslimsremembered the crusades as an instancein which they had beaten back a punywestern Christian attack.Anilluminatingvignette is found in one of LawrenceofArabia's letters, describing a confrontationduring post-World War I negotiationsbetween theFrench man Stephen Pichnand Faisal al-Hashemi (later Faisal I ofIraq). Pichn presentedacasefor Frenchinterest in Syria going back to the cru-sades, which Faisal dismissed witha cut-ting remark: B ut, pardon me, which of uswon the crusades? '' '

Th i s was generally representative ofthe Muslim attitude toward thecrusadesbefore about World War Ithat is, whenMuslims bothered to remember themat all, which wasnotoften. M ostof theArabic-language historical writingon thecrusades before the mid-nineteenthcen-tury w as produced byArab C hristians, notMusl ims,and mostofthat was positive.'^There wasnoA rabic wordfor crusadesuntil that period, either, and even then

from other conflicts between Christianityand Islam.^'

N or had there been an immediatereaction to the crusades among Muslims.As Carole Hillenbrand has noted, TheMuslim response to the coming of theCrusades was initially one of apathy, com-promise and preoccupation with inter-nal problems. By the 1130s,a Muslimcounter-crusade did begin, under the lead-ership of the ferocious Ze ngi of Mosul .B ut it had taken some decades for theMuslim worldto become concerned aboutJerusalem, whichisusually heldinhigheresteem by Muslims whenit isno theldbythem than when it is. Action againstthecrusaders was often subsequently pursuedasameansofuniting theM uslim worldbehind various aspiring conquerors, until1291, when theC hristian s w ere expelledfrom the Syrian mainland. Andsurpris-ingly to Westernersit was not Saladinwho was reveredbyM uslimsas thegreatanti-Christian leader. That placeofhonorusually went to the more bloodthirsty, andmore successful, Zengiand Baibars,or tothe more public-spirited N ur al-D in.

The first Muslim crusade historydidnot appear until 1899. By that tim e,theM uslim world was rediscoveringthe cru-sadesbut it was rediscovering themwitha twist learned from Westerners.Inthe modern period, there weretwomainEuropean schools of thought aboutthecrusades. One school, epitomizedby peo-ple like Voltaire, Gibbon,and SirW alterScott, and in the twentieth centurySirSteven Runciman, saw the crusadersascrude, greedy, aggressive barbarianswhoattacked civilized, peace-loving Mus-limstoimprove their own lot. T he otherschool, more romantic and epitomizedbylesser-known figures such as the French


8/11

Paul F rawford F O U R MY T H S A B O U T T H E CRUSADES

airyhaddriven back M uslim hordes.Inaddition. Western imperialists began toview the crusadersas predecessors, adapt-ing their activities in a secularizedwaythat the original crusaders would not haverecognizedorfound very congenial.

A t thesame tim e, nationalism beganto take rootin theM uslim world. A rabnationalists borrowed theideaof a long-standing European campaign againstthem from the former Euro pean schoolof thoughtmissing the fact t ha t thiswas a serious mischaracterization of thecrusadesand using this distorted under-standingas aw ayto generate supportfortheir own agendas. This remained the caseuntil the mid-twentieth century, when,in Riley-Smith's words, a renewedandmil itant Pan-Islamism applied themorenarrow goalsof the Arab nationaliststo aworldwide revival of what was then calledIslamic fundamentalism and is now some-times referred to, a bitclumsily,asjihad-ism . T his led rather seamlessly to the riseof Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, offer-ingaviewofthe crusades so bizarre astoallow bin Ladentoconsider all Jewsto becrusaders and the crusadestobeaperma-nent and continuous featureofthe West'sresponsetoIslam.

Bin Laden's conception ofhistoryis afeverish fantasy. He is no more accurateinhis view aboutthe crusades thanhe isabout thesupposed perfect Islamic unitywhichheth ink s Islam enjoyed beforethebaleful influence of Christianity intruded.B ut the irony is that he, andthosemil-lionsofM uslims wh o accept his message,received that message originally from theirperceived enemies: the West.

Soitwasnot thecrusades that taugh tIslam to attack and hate Christians.Farfrom it.T hose activities had precededthe

the crusades. The irony is rich.BACK TO THE PRESENT

Let us return to President C linton's George-town speech. How much of his referenceto the First Crusade was accurate?

It is true that m any M uslimswhohad surrendered and taken refuge und erthe banners of several of the crusaderlordsan actwhich should have grantedthem quarterwere massacred by out-of-control troops. This was apparentlyanactof indiscipline,and the crusader lordsin questionaregenerally reportedashav-ing been extremely angry about it, sincethey knewit reflected badly on them.^'' Toimplyor plainly statethat this wasanact desiredbythe e ntire crusa der force,orthat it was integral to crusading, is mislead-ingat best. In any case, John Francehasput it well: T his notorious event shouldnotbeexaggerated.. . . However horriblethe ma ssa cre ... it was not far beyond whatcommon practiceof the day metedout toany place which resisted. And givenspace, one could appe nd a long and bloodylist, stretching back to the seventh century,of similar actions where M uslims w ere theaggressors and Christians the victims. Sucha list wou ld n ot, however, have served M r.Clinton's purposes.

Mr. Clinton wasprobably usingRay-mond of Aguilers when he referred to blood running upto[the] knees of cru-saders.^*^But thephysicsofsuch a claimare impossible, as should be apparent.Raymond was plainly both braggingandalso invoking the imageryofthe O ld Tes-tamentand theBookofR evelation.^''Hewas not offering a factual account,andprobablydid notintend thestatementtobe taken as such.

A sforwhetherornot we are still pay-


9/11

PaulF. Crawford FOUR MY THS ABOUTTHE CRUSADES

the First Crusade,butwestern distortionsof the crusadesin thenineteenth centurywhich were taught to, and takenupby,aninsufficiently critical Muslim world.

The problems with Mr. Clinton'sremarks indicate thepitfalls that awaitthose whowould attempt to explicateancient or medieval texts withoutade-quate historical awareness,andthey illus-trate very well what happens when one setsout topick through thehistorical recordfor bitsdistorted or merely selectivelypresentedwhich support one's currentpolitical agenda. This sortofabuseofhis-tory has been distressingly familiar wherethe crusades are concerned.

But nothingisservedbydistortingthepast for our ownpurposes.Orrather:agreat many things maybeserved. . . butnot thetruth. Distortions andmisrepre-sentationsof thecrusades will nothelpus understandthechallenge posedto theWest by amilitant andresurgent Islam,and failure tounderstand that challengecould prove deadly. Indeed,italready has.It maytake avery long time to set therecord straight about thecrusades. It islong past timetobeginthetask.

NOTES1 Warren HoUister,J. Sears McGee,andGale

Stokes, The WestTransformed: A History ofWestern Civilization vol.1 (New York:Cen-gage/Wadsworth, 2000), 3 11 .

2 R.Scott Peoples, Crusadeof Kings (Rockville,M D :Wildside, 2009),7.

3 Ibid.4 The Crusades: Camp aign Sourcehook ed. Allen

Varney (Lake Geneva, W I: TSR, 1994),1.5 Sir Steven Runciman,AH istoryofthe Cru-

sades: Vol. Ill Th eKingdom of Acreand theLaterCrusades (Cambridge: CambridgeUni-

Hawthorn Books, 1963), 47.7 Reynald of Ch tillon's abortive expedition into

theRed Sea,in118 2-83, cannotbecounted,asitwas plainlyageopolitical move designedto threaten Saladin's claimto be theprotectorof all Islam, and just as plainly had no hope ofreaching either city.

8 The VersionofBaldricofDol, inThe FirstCrusade: The ChronicleofFulcherofChartresand other source materials 2nd ed., ed. EdwardPeters (Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylva-nia Press, 1998),32.

9 Ibid., 220-21.10 Fred Cazel, Financing the Crusades, inAHistoryofthe Cntsades ed. Kenneth Setton,

vol.6 (Madison, WI: University of WisconsinPress, 1989),117.

11 John Porteous, Crusade Coinage with Greekor Latin Inscriptions, inAH istory of the Cru-sades 354.

12 AmemorandumbyFulkofVillaret, masterof the Hospitallers,on thecrusadetoregainthe Holy Land,c.1305, inDocuments on theLater Crusades 1274-1580 ed. andtrans.Norman Housley (NewYork: St.Martin'sPress, 1996), 42.

13 Norm an Housley, Costing the Crusade:BudgetingforCrusading Activityinthe Four-teenth Century, in The ExperienceofCntsad-ing ed. Marcus Bulland Norman Housley,vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cam bridge UniversityPress, 2003),59.

14 John France, Victory intheEast:AMilitaryHistory of he First Crusade(Cambridge: Cam -bridge University Press, 1994),142. Notallhistorians agree; Jonathan Riley-Smith thinksitwasprobablylower,though he does not ind i-cate justhow much lower.SeeRiley-Smith, Casualties and Knights on the First Crusade ,Crusades1(2002), 1719, suggesting casual-ties of perhaps 34 percent, higher than those ofthe WehrmachtinWorld WarII,which werethemselves very highatabout30percent.By


10/11

PaulF. Crawford F O U R M Y T H S A B O U T T H ECRUS ADES

15 The Templarof Tyre : PartIII of he Deedsof heCypriots, tuns.Paul F. Crawford (Burlington,VT:Ashgate ,2003) ,351,54.

16 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusad es, Christi-anity andIslam (NewYork:Columbia Univer-sity Press, 200 8), 36 .

17 John 15:13.18 Jonathan Riley-Sm ith, C rusading san A ct of

Love, History Gb (1980), 191-92.19 Letter from T. E. LawrencetoRobert Graves,

28 June 1927, in Robert Gravesand B. H.Liddell-Hart,T E.Lawrence to His Biographers(Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1938),52note.

20 Riley-Smith, Th e Crusad es, Christianity, andIslam,7\.

21 Jonathan Riley-Smith, Islam and the Cru-sadesinHistory, Crusades2 (2003),161.

22 Carole Hillenbrand, TheCrusades: IslamicPer-spectives, (NewYork:Routledge, 2000), 2 0.

23 Riley-Smith, Crusading, Christianity,andIslam, 73.

24 There is some disagreement in the primarysourceson thequestion of who was respon-sibleforthe deathsofthese refugees; the cru-saders knew that a large Egyptian army was onits wayto attack them, and there does seemto have beenamilitary decisionadayortwolater that they simply could not risk leavingpotential enemies alive. On the question of themassacre, see Benjamin Kedar, The JerusalemM assacre of July 1099inthe Western Histori-ographyofthe Crusades, Crusades3(2004),15-75.

25 France,Victoryin theEast 355-56.26 Raymond of Aguilers, in August C. Krey, The

FirstCrusade: The Accountso f Eye-witnessesan dParticipants (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1921), 262 .

27 Revelation 14:20.


11/11

Copyright of Intercollegiate Review is the property of Intercollegiate Studies Institute and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.