Download Socratic Seminar: The Crusades Background: Beginning in 1096

Socratic Seminar: The Crusades
Background: Beginning in 1096, and continuing until 1204, Christians engaged
in a holy war. Pope Urban II and the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople
appealed to Christians to stop Muslim attacks and reclaim Palestine in an effort
to reunite Christendom, which had split into Eastern and Western Branches in
1054. The Crusades had economic, political, and social goals as well as
religious. For this Socratic seminar, you are to answer the following questions:
1) For what reasons did individuals in Europe join the crusades? Were
people motivated by political, economic, or religious reasons?
2) Which “side” can be most easily defended during the crusades? Which
“side” is hard to defend?
3) What, if any, positive factors resulted from the Crusades?
4) Is it fair today for some Muslims to compare European colonialism and
American intervention in the Middle East to the Crusades?
Make sure to read and research in order to fully answer these questions during
the Socratic seminar! Review your Socratic seminar grading rubric to make sure
you know what is expected of you on seminar day. Come prepared and be ready
to share your thoughts and opinions!
Read the following SIX documents and answer any questions that follow.
There are a total of EIGHT questions to answer. Answering the questions
will help you prepare for the Socratic seminar!
Document 1
[In November 1095, Pope Urban II delivered a famous sermon at the Council of Clermont in which he
called for Christians to unite and recapture the city of Jerusalem from Muslims, inciting the First Crusade.]
What Pope Urban II had in mind when he preached the
Cohn is a Fellow of the British
First Crusade was, I think, a variety of quite practical
Academy and Professor Emeritus at
things. He hoped for the reunion of Christendom, which
Sussex University.
at that time was divided between the Latin Church and
the Greek Church. He hoped also to recapture
Jerusalem, which had been under Muslim rule for many
(more about Cohn)
centuries. And it was also a matter of giving the largely
unemployed and over-aggressive nobility of France
something to do, get them out of Europe and stop them devastating the ... lands. All these factors played a
part in his mind. Whether he himself had any particular beliefs about the imminence of the End, that's
really doubtful. But that is what was read into his speech by many uninformed people. ... He undoubtedly
wanted the knights to go on this great military expedition. He had not foreseen that they would be followed
by a mass of upstart peasantry. That, however, is what happened. And it was the peasantry which wreaked
the great destructions, the murder of the Jews all down the Rhine and the savage assaults on Muslims by
those who got to Jerusalem.
What had Urban offered to the knights?
What kinds of incentives did he offer?
Well, from his point of view, it was, I think, a
matter of salvation, that they could earn their
eternal salvation in this way. What many of
them looked forward to was getting an estate
somewhere in the Holy Land, which many of
them indeed managed to do.
Tell me about those hordes and masses who
joined along. And tell me a little bit about
the destruction they wreaked, and where it
happened, and about the first mass killings
of the Jews that took place.
The first mass killing of the Jews was carried
out by the so-called People's Crusade, which
attached itself to the army of knights and
followed on behind them ... . They came largely from Flanders. [But] they proceeded down the Rhine,
where there had been large Jewish settlements, ever since Roman times, the oldest Jewish settlements in
Europe. And they were really destroyed by these hordes, who felt that as a necessary preliminary to the
Second Coming, it was necessary to kill all Jews. This was not the official Church doctrine. The official
doctrine was that all Jews must be converted to Christianity before the Second Coming. But one way of
settling this matter was to kill them, and there would be no unconverted Jewish left. And that's what they
did, in very horrible massacres ... .
crusaders
I often describe the Crusades as the foreign policy of the
McGinn is a professor of Historical
new reformed papacy of the late 11th and the 12th
Theology and the History of Christianity
century. It was the papacy's attempt to reunite
at the Divinity School at the University
Christendom by bringing Eastern Christians back and by
of Chicago.
reconquering the Holy Land and especially the sacred
city of Jerusalem from Islam. And in that sense, it was
the genius really of Urban II to create a new form of lay
(more about McGinn)
piety. Whether we like this or not, it was an important
form of lay piety that combined holy war with the idea
of pilgrimage, and perhaps with certain eschatological and apocalyptic overtones, that so galvanized
Europe that hundreds of thousands went off marching to the East to recapture the sacred apocalyptic city.
What are the apocalyptic overtones of the Crusades?
Some scholars have argued that the First Crusade was fundamentally an apocalyptic event, and that those
who went believed that they were initiating the end times. I don't think the evidence supports that. One of
the accounts of Pope Urban's speech does indeed have him emphasizing apocalyptic motifs, but that
particular account of his speech was written some 15 years after the speech. And we have five different
accounts of his speech, and they all emphasize different motifs. I do think the image of the apocalyptic city
was probably important for some of the Crusaders. But I think that the reconquest of Jerusalem, the
conquest in the year 1099 (we're just celebrating the anniversary) did a lot for emphasizing the centrality of
Jerusalem in later apocalyptic traditions. And that may be the most important contribution of the Crusades
to the apocalyptic mentality of Europe. Not so much that the Crusade itself was an apocalyptic event, the
First Crusade; but that the reconquest of Jerusalem emphasized its centrality. And then when Christians lost
the city to Saladin in 1187, the necessity of reconquering it often took apocalyptic aspects or apocalyptic
overtones.
Did Urban have a certain kind of war or crusader in mind?
Pope Urban wanted only the knightly class to go off on the Crusade, and he felt that he was appealing to
their religious motivation to become both pilgrims and warriors. But what he got was something quite
different. He got a vast mass movement, which we know included many, many thousands of people who
were not part of that knightly class. And I think that shows us just how significant the appeal to the Crusade
actually was among all ranges of European society.
For a knight, there were indulgences of a certain kind being offered. But did peasants see it in
another way?
Well, I think it's quite possible that some of the masses of peasants saw the Crusade in a rather different
sense, and perhaps had a much more apocalyptic dimension to them. We have to remember, the status of
the peasant in Europe at the end of the 11th century was really quite a difficult and impossible one. And the
vision perhaps of going to Jerusalem and in some way sharing in some kind of millennial kingdom may
have been far more powerful with the peasants than with the knights. But once again, our evidence is in
many cases rather fragmentary about what motivated the peasants especially. We often know much more
about what motivated some of the knightly participants.
What happened in some of those cities,
particularly around the Rhine?
One of the most unfortunate aspects of the whole
crusading movement, of course, was the fact that it
marks, as many scholars have maintained, a
significant change in the relationship between Jews
and Christians, and some of the beginnings of the
most savage persecution of Jews by the Christians
in the massacres that took place along the
Rhineland cities as the crusading peasant groups
crusaders massacred jews along the
especially-- not so much the soldiers who wanted to
rhine
get money from the Jews, but the peasants-- took on
the terrible task of pogroms that slaughtered many
thousands of Jews. Now again, if that can be tied to
apocalyptic expectations, as some have argued, that is extremely significant. But the evidence is doubtful.
What were the motivations for those massacres?
I think the motivation for the massacres is really tied to the sense of "us" and "them." And if Christians
were going off to reconquer the Holy Land from Islam, seen as the enemy of Christianity, it was a very
easy but terrible step to take that any enemy of Christianity therefore was in the way, and should be
destroyed.
Do these massacres mark the beginning of a tradition of anti-semitism?
I think that the great slaughters, the terrible pogroms of the First Crusade, are a significant stage in the antisemitism of later Western history. Now again, there's been some debate over that recently among
historians. But nevertheless, the intensity of these forms of opposition, I think, is significant for history
getting worse in terms of relationship of Jews and Christians. ...
What happened when the crusaders conquered Jerusalem?
Well, I think what's amazing when we think about it here as we celebrate the 900th anniversary of that
conquest--July the 15th, 1099--is that it succeeded. Because of course, to march armies of tens of
thousands, both of knights and non-combatants, all the way across Europe, to have maybe one in 20
survive, and then to conquer the city of Jerusalem, seemed like a miracle. It even seems like a miracle to us
today. But it was that miracle, of course, which gave Christians--unfortunately, I think--in the 12th century
this sense of divine providence, that the city of Jerusalem was theirs; and of course then when the city was
lost in 1187, made it an even more critical moment in Christian views of history and its coming end.
When the crusading armies arrived at Jerusalem finally in mid-June of 1099, one of the things that they did
was to immediately have a religious procession around the whole city, a penitential rite, because Crusade
was also pilgrimage; and then to have an immediate assault on the city, because they felt again that God
was on their side. That assault failed. And so then the Christians began to build siege machines in order to
attack the city over the next few weeks. And then finally, in the middle of July (July 12th and 13th through
the 15th) the siege machines enabled the city to be breached, the crusaders to rush in, and then the most
terrible thing to happen: a slaughter, almost universal slaughter of Muslims and Jews in the city, which is
still the worst stain on the Crusade, I think, that history leaves to us.
How many people killed?
It's difficult to know exactly how many people were slaughtered at the conquest of the city, but it seems to
have been some tens of thousands. ... Crusading chronicles say that the blood from the slaughtered reached
up to the knees of their horses.
What is the legacy of the taking of the city for Christian apocalyptic mentality?
Well, we have to remember that the city of Jerusalem is the apocalyptic city par excellence. And it's not just
the heavenly Jerusalem, but it is the earthy Jerusalem. And so the miracle of the conquest of the city in
1099, and having it once again back in Christian possession, I think, enhanced the position of the earthly
Jerusalem as the apocalyptic city, and gave it then a centrality that was even more powerful than it had
previously.
Questions:
1) According to Cohn, why did many knights join the crusades? What were
they expecting?
2) According to Cohn, why did the “masses” join the crusades?
3) According to McGinn, why did Christians persecute Jews during the
Crusades?
Document 2
Crusades Notes
Origin of the word Crusades - comes from the crosses worn by those who participated.
Definition of the word Crusades - all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels,
i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication
State of the Christendom - 11th Century
General - Europe is divided into numerous states whose sovereigns (lords) were absorbed in tedious and
petty territorial disputes
The king or emperor of any region - was quarrelling over investiture (one of those mangy disputes where
the king and pope are fighting over the election of bishops)
Byzantines are rapidly losing land to the Muslims
So what is all the trouble…
Christians have made pilgrimages to Jerusalem for centuries, mostly to visit the Holy Sepulchre (apparently
the tomb of Jesus after he died on the cross)
1070 Jerusalem is taken over by the Seljuk Turks (Muslim)
1073 Emperor of Constantinople asked for assistance from the Roman (in Rome not the empire) pope,
Gregory VII, but too many other things (that investiture problem) were occupying the pope, he made some
plans up though for a force of 50,000 to go to Jerusalem
1091 The Greek Emperor is defeated at Mantzikert (leaves the rest of Byzantium at risk of occupation)
1096 Urban II got a hold of Gregory VII's plans and decided to try and attempt the Crusade
The Inconsistencies - Who started it all?
It has been rumored that the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, asked for help again in 1095 but that has proven
mostly false - he only wanted to get about 500 knights to enroll in his army
Peter the Hermit - a recluse monk went to Jerusalem and had a vision of the Holy Sepulchre, then
apparently went to Urban II and Urban commissioned Peter to preach the Crusade, but the accounts of
Peter's speeches do not attribute much importance to them
That leaves only…
The pope Urban II as the instigator
In the country of France, the region of Burgundy, a council at Clermont was held, Urban spoke directly to
the people in attendance
In attendance
14 archbishops
250 bishops
400 abbots
many knights and other people
Crusading
first group to arrive - Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless bring a hoard of people (not soldiers)
nearly all are slain by the Turks






the first, 1095-1101; 25,000 - 30,000 people went, characterized by plundering and slaughter of
Jews and Muslims, Jerusalem was regained by the Christians
the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47; Christians lost horribly but Jews were spared due to
the abbot St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Jerusalem was lost to Muslim commander Saladin
the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard the Lionhearted, 1188-92; won back a lot of
land but not Jerusalem, Richard was captured and only released after England paid £100,000
the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204; Crusaders decided to go by ship this
time but they had to strike a deal with the doge of Venice to pay for the boats (defeat the
Hungarian King - a papal vassal) and ended up getting excommunicated before they could ever get
to the holy land - alas they went anyway and captured Constantinople for the Latin Church, the
pope then readmitted them to the Church, lots of holy relics gained by the Western Christians
the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217; directed at Egypt, another miserable
failure
Later Crusades also end in miserable failure, 1291 it was all finally over
Impact of the Crusades
Perhaps the Crusades were not all bad…
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Broadened people’s outlook – sheltered European people saw (for the first time, again)
Byzantine and Muslim culture which had great cities, central government, thriving trade, and welldeveloped art and science
Stimulated trade and Towns – more demand for unique products (spices, sugar, silk…),
currency replaces barter trade, middle class sort of develops
Begins breakdown of Feudal system – nobility is weakened (lots died or sold land for
Crusades), new trade encourages development of merchants and artisans (middle class), rising
trade increases need for a central government (kings rise in prominence)
Weakened serfdom – freedom from serfdom by joining the Crusades, paid debts in currency
rather than in time, freedom after 1 year
Encourages Learning – Europeans are reacquainted with Plato, Aristotle, and Homer because
the Byzantines were the direct descendants of the Romans
Document 3
Western Humanities
Views of The Crusades
The Call to Crusade
Pope Urban II, 1095
From…Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very
frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an
accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its
heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has
depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its
own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the
churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.
Until now you have fought unjust wars; you have often savagely brandished
your spears at each other in mutual carnage only out of greed and pride…Now
we are proposing that you should fight wars which contain the glorious reward
of martyrdom, in which you can gain the title of present and eternal glory…
…Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre [Jerusalem], rescue that land from a dreadful race and rule
over it yourselves…
On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish
this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and
knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy
that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it
meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it…
All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall
have immediate remission (forgiveness) of sins.
Godfrey and Raymond Daimbert,
Letter to the Pope(1099)
From The Hanover Historical Texts Project
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344let.html
To lord Paschal, pope of the Roman church, to all the bishops, and to the whole Christian
people…
…God has manifested His mercy in fulfiling by our hands what He had promised in ancient
times.
…after the army had suffered greatly in the siege, especially on account of the lack of water, a
council was held and the bishops and princes ordered that all with bare feet should march
around the walls of the city, in order that He who entered it humbly in our behalf might be
moved by our humility to open it to us and to exercise judgment upon His enemies. God was
appeased by this humility and on the eighth day after the humiliation, He delivered the city and
His enemies to us….And if you desire to know what was done with the enemy who were found
there, know that in Solomon's Porch and in his temple our men rode in the blood of the Saracens
up to the knees of their horses.
Then, when we were considering who ought to hold the city, and some moved by love for their
country and kinsmen wished to return home, it was announced to us that the king of Babylon
had come to Ascalon with an innumerable multitude of soldiers. His purpose was' as he said, to
lead the Franks, who were in Jerusalem, into captivity, and to take Antioch by storm. But God
had determined otherwise in regard to us….
Therefore, when we learned that the army of the Babylonians was at their weapons, so that if
they wished afterwards to attack us, they did not have the weapons in which they trusted. There
can be no question how great the spoils were, since the treasures of the king of Babylon were
captured. More than 100,000 Moors perished there by the sword. Moreover, their panic was so
great that about 2,000 were suffocated at the gate of the city. Those who perished in the sea were
innumerable. Many were entangled in the thickets. The whole world was certainly fighting for
us…
After reading these documents, respond to the following questions:
4) Do the crusades seem justified? Why?
5) According to these documents, what did the people of Europe (crusaders) value? What are
their reasons for the crusades? What seems to be important to them?
Western Humanities
Views of The Crusades
Ibn Al-Athir, from The Perfect History
From The Norton Anthology of English Literature
http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/middleages/topic_3/alathir.htm
…the Franks moved on to Jerusalem and besieged it for more than six weeks. They built two
towers, one of which…the Muslims burnt down, killing everyone inside it. It had scarcely ceased
to burn before a messenger arrived…to bring the news that the other side of the city had fallen. In
fact Jerusalem was taken from the north on the morning of Friday 22 sha'ban 492/15 July 1099.
The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A band of
Muslims barricaded themselves into the Tower of David and fought on for several days. They
were granted their lives in return for surrendering….
In the Masjid al-Aqsa [mosque near the summit of the city] the Franks slaughtered more than
70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams [religious leaders] and Muslim scholars,
devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the Holy
Place. The Franks stripped the Dome of the Rock of more than forty silver candelabra, … and a
great silver lamp weighing forty-four Syrian pounds, as well as a hundred and fifty smaller silver
candelabra and more than twenty gold ones, and a great deal more [treasure].
Refugees … reached Baghdad …[and] told the Caliph's[Muslim religious and political leader]
ministers a story that wrung their hearts and brought tears to their eyes. On Friday they went to
the Cathedral Mosque and begged for help, weeping so that their hearers wept with them as they
described the sufferings of the Muslims in that Holy City: the men killed, the women and
children taken prisoner, the homes pillaged. Because of the terrible hardships they had suffered,
they were allowed to break the fast.
Note:
Ibn Al-Athir (1160–1233) wrote a history of the Moslem world from its beginnings to
1231. His is the most authoritative account, from the Moslem point of view, of the
first three crusades. He was an eyewitness to the Third Crusade.
Jerusalem was conquered on 7/15/1099 and 60,000 non-Christians were killed. Bodies were slit
open to search for gold coins they might have swallowed. Jews who had taken refuge in the
city's synagogue were burned alive, thousands of muslims were chopped to death in Al-Aqsa
mosque. According to the Archbishop of Tyre, who was an eye-witness:
"It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay
fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was
not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused
the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors
themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all
who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels
perished."
Questions:
6) How does Ibn al-Athir view the crusades and the crusaders? Do
you think his portrayal is accurate? Why or why not?
Document 4
Summary of the Third Crusade, and thoughts on the legacy of the
Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden, professor at St. Louis University
The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa
of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I
Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as
grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a
river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land.
Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an
already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the
king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French
holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted
leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory,
eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and
after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last
gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured
peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a
bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain
the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the
Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful
that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely
more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the
medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that
makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the
service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether
we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not
exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for
women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the
Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into
extinction.
Questions:
7) How does Dr. Madden defend the Crusades? Do you agree or disagree
with him?
Document 5
The Call of the Crusades
By Jonathan Phillips, professor at University of London
The most recent nationalist leader to invoke Saladin was Saddam Hussein. The two
men shared the same birthplace – Takrit – a fact the Iraqi leader made much of.
Children’s books,murals and postage stamps connected him to the man who had
defeated the Christian West, although Saladin’s Kurdish origins were conveniently
ignored by a man who persecuted his modern counterparts so ferociously.
In contrast to these largely secular emphases, Osama bin Laden’s pronouncements
have portrayed conflict with the crusading West in strongly religious terms. Jihad is
a central concept to the Islamic faith, unlike crusading which was invented centuries
after Christ. There is the higher jihad, that of the soul, and the lesser jihad which
seeks to bring the world under the sway of Islam. Like crusading, there is also a
defensive aspect to the jihad, frequently invoked by nationalists and Islamists
alike.According to the Koran, if Muslim lands and/or Islamic belief are attacked then
it is a religious duty to resist – if too few of the faithful are present to do so, then
neighbours should assist: ‘Yet if they ask you for help, for religion’s sake, it is your
duty to help them.’ Bin Laden calls upon this to combat what he terms a ‘JudeoCrusader alliance’ against Islam. He addresses his appeal to the Muslim community
as a whole and he frames the conflict in religious terms rather than the imperialist
struggle employed by Arab nationalists. When President Bush so disastrously used
the word ‘crusade’ in his unscripted response to the 9/11 atrocities he simply
fulfilled the claims Bin Laden had been making for years: ‘So Bush has declared in
his own words: “Crusader attack”. The odd thing about this is that he has taken the
words right out of our mouth.’ He deftly turned Bush’s words against him: ‘So the
world today is split into two parts, as Bush said: either you are with us, or you are
with terrorism. Either you are with the Crusade or you are with Islam. Bush’s image
today is of him being in the front of the line, yelling and carrying his big cross.’
Document 6
Christians and Muslims are distorting
crusades, says historian
By Allison Flood, guardian.com
Comparisons between modern Muslim-Christian tensions and the crusades of 1099 are a 'distortion',
announces Tom Asbridge at the Hay festival
Leave it in the past ... the taking of Jerusalem in the 11th century. Photograph: Hulton Archive/Getty
Images
Christian and Muslim attempts to draw parallels between the tensions of today and the crusades of almost
1,000 years ago are a distortion and manipulation of history, according to historian Tom Asbridge.
Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival today, Asbridge, author of two books on the crusades, argued that
the modern belief that the Christian and Muslim worlds have been "inevitably predicated towards conflict"
since the crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 is not based on historical realities.
"This is a manipulation of history, not a reality. I believe there is no division linking the medieval past and
the conflict of the crusades with the modern world," he said. "[It's a] misunderstanding which goes back to
the 19th century and western triumphalism in emerging colonialism, and the tendency of western historians
to start to glorify the crusades as a proto-colonial enterprise, an [obsession] with Richard the Lionheart and
a burgeoning interest in [Muslim leader] Saladin as almost the noble savage."
Parts of the Muslim world, meanwhile, seized upon George Bush's comment after the terrorist attacks on
9/11 that "this crusade … this war on terror is going to take a while" to show that they almost expected
there would come a reignition of a holy war.
"If you look at some Muslim groups and the likes of Osama bin Laden, you see repeated references to
western powers as a crusader alliance. That is at the core of their message," said Asbridge. "Saddam
Hussein was utterly obsessed with Saladin in many ways. You see repeated images of him next to Saladin
on bank notes and stamps; he even commissioned children's school books talking about him as the second
Saladin. Saladin was not an Arab though, he was actually a Kurd, which shows how details can become
swept under the carpet."
The feeling "that crusader history is repeating itself, that an element of conflict is still burning today"
started to emerge following the creation of Israel after the second world war, he said. According to
Asbridge, though, after 1291 the crusades became very insignificant in Muslim writing. "Islam had
achieved a victory and that's it, it's done. There was no constant reference back to the crusades as a form of
antagonism," he said.
He believes modern historians have presented distorted views of both Richard the Lionheart and Saladin,
lauded for taking Jerusalem largely without bloodshed. "Historians tell us this is what Saladin wanted, that
it was to his advantage to show how clement and peaceful Islam could be. I think this is a really profound
misunderstanding of the realities of the situation," said Asbridge. "Reading 70 or so letters, it becomes
apparent that Saladin was really embarrassed he hadn't butchered the Christians. He needed to show he was
dedicated to jihad; he built his empire on a promise he would bring jihad to western Christians – to defeat
them, to avenge their crimes. He only held back from the battle when the garrisons within threatened to
desecrate shrines in the city."
Richard I, meanwhile, "has been given too gentle a press by modern historians", according to Asbridge.
"He may have been a great general but he knew how to fight wars in western Europe. He hadn't appreciated
that crusading warfare was different, that it has a mercurial character, a devotional element, that allowed
crusaders to do [dreadful] things," he said. "Richard never managed to harness that force and that's one of
the reasons he failed to take the holy city."
There has been "distortion and simplification" of the truth about the crusades, and, concluded Asbridge,
"both sides [today] need to acknowledge the crusades for what they were … [they] belong in one place and
one place alone – and that is the past."
Question:
8) Who has a more valid point, Allison Flood or Jonathan Phillips? Do the crusades
have any relevance today?