Slaying Popular Myths and Misrepresentations of the Crusades

crusadesHistory helps define us. Whether a person knows a lot of history or a little, what they do know shapes their understanding of themselves and their world. Blacks in America are shaped by segregation and slavery; Jews by Israel and the Holocaust. America’s view of government is shaped by both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Kentucky Basketball and Alabama Football are shaped by their histories of coaches, players, and victories.

Since God reveals himself in historical events and even entered history Himself, Christians – more than most – are shaped by history. Whether it is Roman Catholics standing on centuries of accumulated tradition, Protestants extolling the courage of pioneer missionaries, or a twenty-something looking back on his fundamentalist upbringing with angst, Christians look to the past to define their future.

The problem with history is it can be adjusted. By including some pieces and ignoring others, we can create a history that fits our liking. That might mean tweaking a story so the church looks ignorant and dangerous, collecting all incidents of religious violence and presenting them without context to encourage secularism, or labeling certain periods to make us think more highly of them (the Enlightenment) or think less highly of them (the Dark Ages).

The Crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries are one example. Few historical events stir the consciences of Christians and ignite their opponents more than the Crusades. Nearly 2,000 Christians have participated in the Reconciliation Walk, a journey retracing the route of the first crusade during which apologies are offered to Jews and Muslims. In the year 2000 Pope John Paul II offered an apology for the church’s history of violence, most notably the Crusades. A brief search of atheist websites finds the Crusades invoked repeatedly as evidence of the inherent violence of religion. After Anders Breivik – a terrorist in Oslo, Norway – linked his crimes to the Crusades, Bill Maher couldn’t help but opine, “Christianity is perfectly capable of coming out of its dormant phase and once again becoming the violent, bloodlusty religion it was under the crusades.”

Are the Crusades the darkest sin of the church, requiring an apology from Christians and excusing hatred directed toward the West? Do they reveal the true end of all religious devotion and unmask what lies in the hearts of fundamentalists? In a word, no. History is far more complex than popular portrayals of the Crusades reveal. Let us look at three myths about the Crusades that fuel both apologies and animosity.

Myth 1: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack on a peaceful and enlightened Muslim world. Ancient Christianity flourished in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia Minor. The cities of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Damascus, and Carthage were centers of church life and leadership. However, by the 8th century, Christianity was on its way to extinction in all of these places because of an upstart new faith – Islam. Islam did not win converts by persuasion; it won them by conquest. All non-Muslims were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula. Then Syria fell to the advancing armies, followed by Persia, much of India, Egypt, North Africa, Sicily, southern Italy, and Spain. The Christian populations often faced the choice of conversion, slavery, or death. Others were taxed severely and prevented from building churches, praying or reading Scripture aloud, riding horses, or being armed. Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were seized, sold into slavery, and tortured. Muslims were poised to overthrow the Byzantines leaving the door wide open to Europe. As Rodney Stark points out, “…by the time of the First Crusade, Christendom had been fighting a defensive war with Islam for more than 450 years.”

Myth 2: The Crusaders went because they wanted land, wealth, and blood. If they had wanted wealth and land, the Crusades were a poor way to pursue those ends. If profit was their goal they would have responded to Pope Alexander II’s call to drive the Muslims out of wealthy Spain. Instead, they sold their holdings, borrowed funds, and impoverished themselves to make the journey. The Crusader kingdoms themselves were kept afloat only by support from Europe. So why go? Europe’s knights and nobles, in the words of Stark, “were both very violent and very religious.” The promise of the Pope that their sins would be washed away and that they could rescue the very place where Christ had walked was powerful. Most would lose their lives and gain nothing in return. Of the 130,000 who left in the first Crusade, only 15,000 would survive to Jerusalem.

Myth 3: The Crusaders’ crimes were excessive in the era in which they lived. The Crusaders had been taught since childhood to make war. They were violent, they looted, and they plundered – and this was normal for war in the 11th century. It is easy to pass judgment standing on nearly a thousand years of moral progress but much harder to imagine the world in which these men lived. They didn’t get a nice paycheck and pension for their service. They were not well-supplied and well-disciplined. And the Muslims they fought against were just as cruel if not more so. Baybars, Sultan of Egypt, after taking the city of Antioch ordered all the inhabitants enslaved or killed. 17,000 men were murdered and tens of thousands of women and children were made slaves. Much of the conduct of the Crusaders was barbaric by today’s standards, but normal for the time in which they lived and often exceeded by the armies they fought.

Does this mean the Crusades were good and the Crusaders right? No. It simply means history is complex and its events must be understood within their context. It means both apologizers and criticizers need to proceed with more caution. It means popular views must be overthrown in favor of accurate views. The Crusades shape many Christians’ and non-Christians’ views of the faith. Let us be sure it shapes us and them correctly. Stark summarizes it well when he says:

The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. The Crusades are not a blot on the history of Christianity.


Many of the insights for this article came from this excellent book:

triumphThe Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion by Rodney Stark, published by HarperOne, 2012.

(image credit)


The Undeniable Ugliness of Human Nature

In Joseph Conrad’s classic novel The Heart of Darkness, Marlow, a steamship captain, journeys up the Congo River at the end of the 19th century to bring home the sick and dying Mr. Kurtz. Kurtz is a station chief renowned for his command of language, his intelligence, and his ability to generate large quantities of ivory. Yet when Marlow pulls his boat up to Kurtz’ residence, he is shocked to find the yard decorated with severed human heads on poles. Marlow observes:

…there was nothing exactly profitable in these heads being there. They only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him – some small matter which, when the pressing need arose could not be found under his magnificent eloquence. Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I can’t say.

The lawless jungle had taken a civilized man and turned him into a brutal savage. Conrad sharpens the picture when Marlow goes to visit Kurtz’ fiancé after he dies. In the midst of her grief, she says, “…of all his promise and of all his greatness, of his generous mind, of his noble heart, nothing remains – nothing but a memory.” And again she says, “Men looked up to him – his goodness shone in every act.”

Classic literature digs deep into human nature including its often brutal ugliness – something lacking in many present-day novels. Whether it’s Melville’s Moby Dick, Golding’s Lord of the Flies, or Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, many of those who wrote in the past were well acquainted with the ugliness of human nature when the restraints of law and society were removed.

Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a small piece of a much larger tragedy. When the Congo was taken by King Leopold II of Belgium as a colony in 1885 he grabbed as much profit as he could in the form of ivory and rubber. The Europeans who went there found no restraint – governmental, social, or religious – to their behavior in gathering ever greater profits. Murder, starvation, disease, and a plummeting birth rate combined to cut the native population of the Congo in half in just 23 years. The good, noble, civilized men – like Kurtz – were responsible for the deaths of over 10 million.

The story of Ilanga – one woman who experienced the brutality personally – will illustrate its ugliness. Her village was busy with crops when soldiers came and pulled them from their fields and homes. She reports:

When we were all collected the soldiers brought baskets of food for us to carry, in some of which was smoked human flesh… We then set off marching very quickly. My sister Katinga had her baby in her arms and was not compelled to carry a basket; but my husband Oleka was made to carry a goat. We marched… each day until the fifth day when the soldiers took my sister’s baby and threw it in the grass, leaving it to die, and made her carry some cooking pots. On the sixth day we became very weak from lack of food… and my husband, who marched behind us with the goat, could not stand up longer, and so he sat down beside the path and refused to walk more. The soldiers beat him… Then one of them struck him on the head with the end of his gun, and he fell upon the ground. One of the soldiers caught the goat while two or three others stuck the long knives they put on the end of their guns into my husband. I saw the blood spurt out, and then saw him no more… Many of the young men were killed the same way, and many babies thrown into the grass to die.

These events in the Congo vividly display the depravity of human nature. Yet though they are not even a hundred years old they are nearly forgotten. We have moved on to the depravity of the latest pop star and convinced ourselves we aren’t so bad.  Yet 10 million killed in the Congo, eight-hundred thousand dead in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Holocaust under Nazi Germany, present day killings in the Sudan and Syria, and the empty eyes of millions of children sold into sexual slavery remind us there is something ugly in human nature. Laws restrain it, society pressures it, religion commands it, yet it remains.

We may protest, “Not me! I wouldn’t do those things!” Can we be so sure? It’s easy to believe in our goodness from the comfort of a suburban American living room. But what if we experienced real horrors in our life? What if the restraints on our various lusts and desires were suddenly removed?

Wrestling with his wicked deeds as he floated down the Congo River, Mr. Kurtz offered a final assessment with his dying words – “The horror, the horror!” If we were to be confronted with the sum total of all of our sin and its horrifying consequences our assessment may not be much different. All of us have inherited a corrupted and sinful human nature. Wayne Grudem writes:

This inherited tendency to sin does not mean that human beings are all as bad as they could be. The constraints of civil law, the expectations of family and society, and the conviction of human conscience all provide restraining influences on the sinful tendencies in our hearts. Therefore, by God’s common grace, people have been able to do much good… But in spite of the ability to do good in many senses of that word, our inherited corruption… which we inherited from Adam means, that as far as God is concerned we are not able to do anything that pleases him… every part of our being is affected by sin – our intellects, our emotions and desires, our hearts, our goals and motives, and even our physical bodies.

When surveying the havoc wrought by his own sin, the Apostle Paul exclaimed in Romans 7:24, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He looked into his own heart and was left with despair. Yet he goes on to write: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Jesus Christ was the one who could deliver him from the ugliness of human nature he saw within himself. Only Jesus can repair the corruption of the human heart.

Our hope isn’t found in a 6 step plan to be better people. It isn’t found in small lifestyle changes. It isn’t found in learning from the consequences of our actions. It isn’t found in progressively better laws with a big enough police force to enforce them. It isn’t found in foolishly patting ourselves on the back for being better than Hitler, the guy on the sex offender registry, or that crazy uncle on his fourth marriage.

The only hope for the ugliness of human nature is a Savior.


Information on the events in the Congo including Ilanga’s story comes from: Hochschild, Adam, King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

 (image credit)