Holy Warriors

Agent327

Observer
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
16,102
Location
In orbit
Book review

Butchers and Saints

By ERIC ORMSBY

Published: March 12, 2010

The villains of history seem relatively easy to understand; however awful their deeds, their motives remain recognizable. But the good guys, those their contemporaries saw as heroes or saints, often puzzle and appall. They did the cruelest things for the loftiest of motives; they sang hymns as they waded through blood. Nowhere, perhaps, is this contradiction more apparent than in the history of the Crusades. When the victorious knights of the First Crusade finally stood in Jerusalem, on July 15, 1099, they were, in the words of the chronicler William of Tyre, “dripping with blood from head to foot.” They had massacred the populace. But in the same breath, William praised the “pious devotion . . . with which the pilgrims drew near to the holy places, the exultation of heart and happiness of spirit with which they kissed the memorials of the Lord’s sojourn on earth.”

14ormsby-articleInline.jpg

Illustration by Stephen Savage


HOLY WARRIORS


A Modern History of the Crusades


By Jonathan Phillips
Illustrated. 434 pp. Random House. $30

It’s tempting to dismiss the crusaders’ piety as sheer hypocrisy. In fact, their faith was as pure as their savagery. As Jonathan Phillips observes in his excellent new history — in case we needed reminding at this late date — “faith lies at the heart of holy war.” For some, of course, this will be proof that something irremediably lethal lies at the heart of all religious belief. But the same fervor that led to horrific butchery, on both the Christian and the Muslim sides, also inspired extraordinary efforts of self-sacrifice, of genuine heroism and even, at rare moments, of simple human kindness. Phillips, professor of crusading history at the University of London, doesn’t try to reconcile these extremes; he presents them in all their baffling disparity. This approach gives a cool, almost documentary power to his narrative.
At the same time, “Holy Warriors” is what Phillips calls a “character driven” account. The book is alive with extravagantly varied figures, from popes both dithering and decisive to vociferous abbots and conniving kings; saints rub shoulders with “flea pickers.” If Richard the Lion-Hearted and Saladin dominate the account, perhaps unavoidably, there are also vivid cameos of such lesser-known personalities as the formidable Queen Melisende of Jerusalem and her rebellious sister Alice of Antioch. Heraclius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, is glimpsed in an embarrassing moment when a brazen messenger announces to the assembled high court where he sits in session that his mistress, Pasque, has just given birth to a daughter.
Phillips is especially good portraying 12th-century Muslim personalities — from Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami, a preacher of jihad, whose fiery exhortations sound alarmingly familiar, to the refined Usama ibn Munqidh, poet and man of letters, and the grumpy but astute Ibn Jubayr, a sharp-eyed traveler through Crusader territories. “Holy Warriors” brings these otherwise exotic figures thumpingly back to life. About the assimilation of the Franks, many of whom chose to settle in the Holy Land, Usama could write, “He who was born a stranger is now as one born here; he who was born an alien has become a native.” The battle lines were sharply drawn, the campaigns were pitiless, each side had contempt for the others’ beliefs; and yet, somehow, on the margins of hostility, a grudging accommodation, if not friendship, sometimes developed.
Phillips concentrates on the seven “official” crusades, from 1095 to the final disastrous campaigns of Louis IX (St. Louis) of France in 1248-54 and 1270, but he also describes the fiasco of the so-called Children’s Crusade as well as the horrifying Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southwest France. As he notes, “holy war” was as often as not waged against coreligionists: Catholics against Cathars, Sunnis against Shiites. In the rigid, polarized mentality of the holy warrior, any deviation can signify a dangerous otherness. This is the best recent history of the Crusades; it is also an astute depiction of a frightening cast of mind.

Eric Ormsby’s new collection of essays, “Fine Incisions,” will be published next fall.

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Ormsby-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3
Excerpt: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/excerpt-holy-warriors.html?ref=review)
 
The 2nd title looks like an interesting book, and there is much need of it.

Inevitably, people will point to the massacre on the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, and judge it in a modern context. The nature of the crusades as being a 'religious' motivation sets them up for this. While inexcusable, some of the atrocities in the early stages were the result of ignorance and superstition, rather than an interpretation of holy orders. Or they simply got carried away, which has happened throughout the history of warfare, in fact some tried to prevent it.

Once they had been there for half a century that changed somewhat, as a matter of survival. As well as the better known warlords, mention should be made of Baldwin IV. You don't hear much about the massacres of Christian civilians crossing Anatolia, or what happened in Antioch and Acre as it drew to a close.

I think it is a mistake to look at the Crusades in isolation. It was another chapter in the centuries old conflict between Muslim empires and Christian Europe that took on a wider scope, when they went on the offensive for a brief period. The motivation was glory, wealth, and salvation. Is that much different than the Jihad ?

The early stages of the Spanish reconquista merged with the crusades, but the motivation was national survival. The Teutonic Knights launched their own crusade, but it wasn't against Muslims, and the motivation was expansionism.
Then there are the various other crusades that were proclaimed against 'heretics', like the Hussites in Bohemia, and Cathars already mentioned. So clearly it was a much overused and abused tool of religious-political control for centuries, and crusaders can't all be painted with the same brush. Among the stories of fanatacism and brutality are some remarkable episiodes of heroism, self-sacrifice, and co-existence.
 
The 2nd title looks like an interesting book, and there is much need of it.
Why? Isn't Christopher Tyerman's book written on similar premises as regards the religious character of the Crusading period (albeit taking much more interest in, well, a lot more stuff than individual personalities)?
 
The 2nd title looks like an interesting book, and there is much need of it.

It's a single review of Holy Warriors, A Modern History of the Crusades by Jonathan Phillips. (I just copied the title and general layout of the review, which reads "Butchers and Saints" and puts the actual book title after the first paragraph.)
 
There is some limited evidence that the massacre of jerusalem may be apocryphal.
 
Considering the general treatment of infidels as well as fellow Christians during the various Crusades that would make little difference to the overall record - though I'd be interested in seeing a citation for this. The overall result was to create a lasting hatred against Western Christians among Muslims specifically (there are similarities - though less cruel perhaps, and generally without the massacres - with the Reconquista in Spain and Portugal and the Eastern Crusades; in this sense the Crusade era marked a sharp contrast with the pre-Crusades era.
 
Considering the general treatment of infidels as well as fellow Christians during the various Crusades that would make little difference to the overall record - .

You feel the general record is that bad after 1099 ? When you balance what was done by both sides in the years that followed, it seems the eastern crusaders rarely had any opportunity for wholesale massacres. Different in Auvergne of course.
 
I beg to differ:

- St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who in his preachings had encouraged the Second Crusade, was upset with the amount of misdirected violence and slaughter of the Jewish population of the Rhineland.[4] (2nd Crusade)

- the 4th Crusade ended up with the virtual destruction of the Byzantine empire (from which it never fully recovered)

- When Innocent III's diplomatic attempts to roll back Catharism[1] met with little success and after the papal legate Pierre de Castelnau was murdered (allegedly by an agent serving the Cathar count of Toulouse), Innocent III declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people were massacred during the crusade.[2]

- Between 1232 and 1234, there was a crusade against the Stedingers. This crusade was special, because the Stedingers were not heathens or heretics, but fellow Roman Catholics. They were free Frisian farmers who resented attempts of the count of Oldenburg and the archbishop Bremen-Hamburg to make an end to their freedoms. The archbishop excommunicated them, and Pope Gregory IX declared a crusade in 1232. The Stedingers were defeated in 1234. The Teutonic Order's attempts to conquer Orthodox Russia (particularly the Republics of Pskov and Novgorod), an enterprise endorsed by Pope Gregory IX, can also be considered as a part of the Northern Crusades.
 
Wealth was not much of a motivation for the Crusades in the Holy Land. Those who embarked upon it had to give up much of their land and wealth when travelling thousands of miles for months to get there.
 
I beg to differ:.

Interesting stuff JELEEN, but I point out that every case you cited was a crusade against other christian europeans that got out of hand. I even identified Auvergne as an example. So how does that differ from my assertion that the eastern crusaders rarely had any opportunity or inclination for such atrocities after the capture of Jerusalem ?

I won't argue that the notion of crusading in itself was an abused, archaic institution, but it does not support the general condemnation of all who decided to follow the cross, given their time and place.
 
Yeah sorry I'll try and produce one. But what I remember reading is that Muslim accounts said literally nothing about any Christian massacre in Jerusalem. It was thought that perhaps some limited crimes did occur, and guilt among the Christians led them to greatly exaggerate as a sort of penance.


Considering the general treatment of infidels as well as fellow Christians during the various Crusades that would make little difference to the overall record - though I'd be interested in seeing a citation for this. The overall result was to create a lasting hatred against Western Christians among Muslims specifically (there are similarities - though less cruel perhaps, and generally without the massacres - with the Reconquista in Spain and Portugal and the Eastern Crusades; in this sense the Crusade era marked a sharp contrast with the pre-Crusades era.
 
JEELEN said:
Considering the general treatment of infidels as well as fellow Christians during the various Crusades that would make little difference to the overall record - though I'd be interested in seeing a citation for this.

Considering that most military actions of the past would be considered reprehensible in modern terms I just find it surprising that the Crusades is picked on with such interest. The innocent ERE practiced mass population removal, didn't think much of sacking cities and had no issue with butchering surrendering Bulgars. Hell, the innocent Cathari murdered a Papal legate which turned what had amounted to Papal indifference into fury. And even then the then Pope was content to try to negotiate a settlement.

JEELEN said:
The overall result was to create a lasting hatred against Western Christians among Muslims specifically (there are similarities - though less cruel perhaps, and generally without the massacres - with the Reconquista in Spain and Portugal and the Eastern Crusades; in this sense the Crusade era marked a sharp contrast with the pre-Crusades era.

... No, it didn't. It created antagonism between some Christians and some Muslims. It wasn't by any means the only or indeed the earliest instance of Western Christians and Muslims coming to blows. The modern interpretation of the Crusades as a forerunner of some great and lasting feud between faiths owes more to the colonial experience than anything principally due to the substantial body of modern Islamic thought that was generated in Egypt around the turn of the 20th century. Christians and Muslims at the time internalized each others presence just fine.

JEELEN said:
- St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who in his preachings had encouraged the Second Crusade, was upset with the amount of misdirected violence and slaughter of the Jewish population of the Rhineland.

Yes, they slaughtered Jews. That wasn't exactly uncommon.

JEELEN said:
the 4th Crusade ended up with the virtual destruction of the Byzantine empire

There were massacres when Constantinople was taken but that was largely the result of the politics and actions of both parties. And besides: how is the destruction of the ERE in the hypothetical future tantamount to massacre?

JEELEN said:
Albigensian Crusade...

Those figures should read: "killed in wartime" for the majority. Massacres did take place and some were quite large - Beziers - but the majority of the casualties came from fighting, sieges and economic dislocation.

JEELEN said:
Stedingers...

Other that the dubious political motives for the Crusade were they're any actual massacres?
 
Wealth was not much of a motivation for the Crusades in the Holy Land. Those who embarked upon it had to give up much of their land and wealth when travelling thousands of miles for months to get there.
For those who already had 'little', such as the second sons of certain lords, wealth was very much a goal, while some magnates actually attempted to maintain holdings on opposite sides of the Mediterranean (some successfully, some spectacularly unsuccessfully); you tend to find this especially in the earlier period in Outremer, when a significant part of the political infighting of the day was due to X lord taking advantage of Y neighboring lord because Y left his holdings relatively ill-defended by going back to, say, Champagne and arranging his affairs there. This happened multiple times to the entire County of Tripoli, for instance.
 
Back
Top Bottom