The Christian Crusades: How Religious Fervor Led to Catastrophe

Overview

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, historians commonly identify at least eight major Crusades between 1096 and 1270, while also recognizing related movements such as the People’s Crusade, the Children’s Crusade, and the Albigensian Crusade. These expeditions were launched by western European Christians for several overlapping reasons, including aiding Byzantium, checking Muslim expansion, and attempting to recover or defend territories regarded as Christian. Their history, however, is far more complex than a simple story of religious devotion or military success.

Main Argument

To put it plainly, the Crusades were, in the long run, a deeply costly and only partially successful movement. The First Crusade did achieve a remarkable short-term victory by capturing Jerusalem and establishing Crusader states in the Levant, but those gains proved difficult to maintain. Over time, the broader crusading effort failed to secure lasting control of the Holy Land and often produced destructive, unintended consequences for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Byzantines alike.

 

The Crusades were frequently undermined by poor coordination, disease, harsh travel conditions, logistical strain, and conflicting political aims. The human cost was unquestionably severe, but exact casualty totals remain difficult to establish because medieval sources are incomplete, rhetorical, and often contradictory. For that reason, broad numerical claims should be treated cautiously even while acknowledging the scale of suffering involved.

Examples of Atrocities

Among the most notorious examples of Crusader violence were the following atrocities:

 

1.       The Rhineland massacres of 1096, carried out by forces associated with the People’s Crusade, devastated Jewish communities in cities such as Speyer, Worms, and Mainz.

2.       The capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was followed by the mass killing of many Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during the general slaughter that followed the Crusader victory.

3.       The sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade involved extensive looting, destruction, and desecration in one of the most important cities in Christendom, badly damaging the Byzantine Empire and deepening distrust between East and West.

Strategic Failures

The planning behind many Crusader campaigns showed a striking lack of long-term coherence. The First Crusade initially answered a Byzantine appeal for aid, but cooperation between crusaders and Byzantine authorities was often fragile and shaped by mutual suspicion. Rather than building a stable and lasting alliance, crusading leaders frequently pursued their own territorial ambitions and established vulnerable Crusader states that were difficult to defend over time.

 

There was also no consistent central command and no durable political structure capable of funding, coordinating, and stabilizing the movement over time. In many cases, crusading armies functioned as competing private forces rather than as a unified campaign with a coherent peace strategy. This helps explain why military success, when it occurred, so often failed to produce lasting political order.

Long-Term Consequences

The Crusades also damaged relations within Christendom and intensified hostility toward Jewish communities. Violence against Jews during the People’s Crusade marked a grim turning point in medieval Jewish-Christian relations. The Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople in 1204 further deepened the divide between the Roman Catholic West and the Orthodox East. Although the schism between Rome and Constantinople is conventionally dated to 1054, historians emphasize that the breach developed over centuries; the events of 1204 made reconciliation far more difficult and left a lasting scar on relations between the two churches.

For a compelling history of the Crusades Podcast see: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eva+schubert

For a terrific book on the Byzantine Empire see:  "Lost to the West" by Lars Brownworth, 2009,  Crown Publishers.  Brownworth has an engaging podcast on Byzantine history called: 12 Byzantine Rulers

NIMBY Syndrome in History: Deja vù All Over Again

A few years ago, I stumbled upon a podcast called “12 Byzantine Rulers: A History of the Byzantine Empire” by Lars Brownworth who also wrote the book “Lost to the West.”  I was impressed with the podcast and followed it up with the book.  A big take-away for the story of the extinction of the Byzantine Empire was the lack of assistance from the Christian world of the west, meaning Western Europe. They had no interest in helping the Byzantines repel the marauding Ottoman Turks as they ate away at their territory piece by piece until only the city of Constantinople was left in the early part of the 15^th century. 

 

The Turks, under Sultan Mehmed II amassed a huge army, estimated to be around 80,000 troops and besieged Constantinople in May of 1453 and destroyed it.  The Byzantines had only 5,000 troops to defend the city.  The last emperor of the Byzantines, Constantine XI, and his officials, made a last-ditch effort to beg their fellow Christians in Europe for help but were turned down.  Giovanni Giustiniani, a Genoese nobleman and military commander was one of the few to respond.  The Venetians sent a few ships, but they were of little help.  A handful of other Europeans volunteered but too small a number to be effective.  Giustiniani gathered 700 mercenaries and made it to Constantinople, but they were totally overwhelmed by the superior Ottoman forces, both in number and in weapons.  The Ottomans had just acquired a cannon capable of breaking the famous impregnable city walls of Constantinople. Giustiniani died the month after the fall of Constantinople, at the age of 35, probably due to wounds he received during the battle. 

 

Upon breaching the city walls, the Turks went on a killing spree.  Marauding Ottoman soldiers swept the city killing all they encountered.  Those not killed were enslaved. Why did their fellow Europeans fail to help them?  The Ottoman Turks had been on a conquest for hundreds of years.  I asked Lars Brownworth, in an e-mail, the same question.  There is no easy answer.  

 

The Catholic-Orthodox schism of 1054 AD did a lot of damage, not only in religious matters but in the tense relations between the Greek Orthodox east and the Roman west.  As in a feuding family, they despised each other.  This, perhaps, was a major reason for the Byzantines getting no help from their brother Christians.  A second reason could be attributed to the notion of “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome; meaning if the danger is not in my back yard, I don’t care.  This is a common malady today.  Many liberals and conservatives in the United States do not want to help Ukraine against the invading Russians for the same reason.  The Europeans were very wrong about NIMBY for they, themselves, became the next target of the Ottomans.  Within a 70-year span after the fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans were at the gates of Europe.  In 1529 the first Siege of Vienna happened but was repelled.  By 1571 the battle of Lepanto took place between the Ottomans and a coalition of Europeans, Spanish, Italians, Austrians and others.  The Ottomans lost the huge naval battle at Lepanto, most of their navy and about 25,000 killed.  This marked the largest naval battle since the Greeks and Persians at Salamis in 480 BC.

 

The Ottomans were not yet finished.  They again tried to conquer Europe with the second siege of Vienna in 1683; they were repelled with the help of a European coalition and the fierce counterattack by an army which arrived just in time, led by the king of Poland, King Sobieski, a brilliant military commander.  Finally, the Europeans realized that cooperating was the way to go. With a NIMBY attitude Europe would have been Muslim today.

 

In a fine history book by Victor Davis Hanson called “The Father of us All, War and History,” regarding the Christian League that fought at Lepanto, Hanson says that France and England refused to cooperate in fighting the Ottomans: “both had long ago cut their own deals with the Ottomans.  Indeed, during the winter of 1542 the French had even allowed the Ottoman corsair Barbarossa the use of their harbor at Toulon to refit as he conducted raids along the Italian coast.” (Chapter 7).   Call it what you want but this was treachery at its worst by brother Christians and fellow Europeans.

 

History is a great teacher, but few ever learn.  Same mistakes are committed over and over, whether its World War I or the appeasement of Hitler in World War II.  Hitler did not learn from Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812; the United States learned nothing from the French debacle in Vietnam or the problems encountered in Korea in the early 1950s.  This same mistake is repeated today.  When will they ever learn? to take a que from the 1950s song by the Kingston Trio, “Where Have all the Flowers Gone?”

 

In today’s Europe, we have leaders like Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who refused to help Ukraine against the evil Russian regime of the dictator Vladimir Putin.  Now, the first question I would ask Mr. Orban would be:  Sir, your country was viciously oppressed by the Soviet Union for over 70 years.  Remember what the Russians did to Hungary in 1956 when they brought tanks to Budapest to crush you?  Perhaps you never heard of it.  Here is a link for you to look up.  Are you suffering from the Stockholm syndrome?  Similarly, we have some right-wing politicians such as Matteo Salvini in Italy who openly admires Vladimir Putin.  Am I missing something?  NIMBY roars its ugly head again. 

The Limits of Diplomacy, or When Will They Ever Learn?

History is filled with examples of nations and politicians refusing to see reality and believe only what they want to believe.  They have learned to regret it - and at times at heavy costs, including the lives of millions.  Let's see some examples:

• The fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 to the Muslim Turks.  After hundreds of years of struggle, the Muslim Turks accomplish their desire to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire, then known as the Byzantine Empire, which had lived for over 1,500 years.  This happened while the rest of Christian Europe looked on as if this was some far away continent that did not have any impact on them.  Indeed, the Turks assured the Europeans that they had no intention of molesting them after they took Constantinople, the seat of Christianity at the time.  In his masterful book about the Byzantine Empire, Lost to the West, author Lars Brownworth describes how the leader of the Turks at the time, Mehmed II, known as Mehmed the Conqueror, went out of his way to assure the Europeans that he meant no harm to them.  He had previously made this same promise to the Byzantines earlier too.  They foolishly believed him.  Why?  They had to know that the Turks would not stop there. Appeasement failed miserably.  The Turks spent the next 400 years trying to conquer Europe.  They got as far as Vienna and besieged it not once, but twice, in 1529 and 1683. 

• In 1571 the Turks were preparing to invade Europe but were defeated at the Battle of Lepanto, off the coast of Corinth, Greece; they had learned their lesson from 1453.  A combined European naval fleet defeated the Ottoman Fleet and stopped a sure invasion of Europe.  Again, deeds speak louder than words.   Unfortunately, the Europeans forgot this lesson in 1939 when Adolph Hitler had conquest in his mind and was in the process of following through.

• Neville Chamberlain declares "peace in our time" after Adolph Hitler signed a piece treaty promising not to engage in any additional military action against any other country after his conquest of Czechoslovakia.  The Europeans, wanting to believe what they heard, against their better judgement, believed the tyrant.  Within two to three months of the treaty, Hitler invaded Poland, followed by France, Belgium, Russia, Britain and the rest of Europe. The Europeans chose to be fools.

• In our day we have the example of North Korea.  In the mid 1990s North Korea promised they would not build a nuclear bomb. The United States signed an agreement with them and loosened sanctions.  North Korea violated the agreement almost immediately; they lied; yet the rest of the world, wanting to believe this chose to be fools.

• The United States and Iran.  In the past twenty years, the United States has tried to deal diplomatically with Iran's nuclear ambition to no avail.  The United States has publicly stated that they would not accept a nuclear Iran.  All American presidents from Reagan to Obama have tried diplomacy; it has never worked.  Now, the Obama administration is trying to accept what the French have called "a sucker's deal," agreeing that Iran can build their nuclear program up to 20%.   Now, is there any evidence that the Iranians can be trusted? None whatsoever, but the Obama administration is so eager to agree not to take any military action that they will believe whatever they wish were true; not reality.  Do you remember 1979 and the taking of the U.S. hostages? They have not learned from history; they have chosen to be fools.

The Europeans in 1453 chose to believe what they wished to be true even though they had to know it could not be true so they allowed the Muslim Turks to conquer the hart of Christianity along with all the Christians in the country.  The Turks, to this day, persecute their Christian citizens.  One of our parish priests who was a United States Air Force Chaplain stationed in Turkey, said that the Christians could not even ring the bell of their church without the permission of civil authorities which was rarely given.

Last year the CBS TV program "60 Minutes" broadcast a piece about the persecuted Christians in Turkey. Click here to read the story and watch the video. Among the many things they mentioned was the fact that the Turks have now banned any Christian Seminaries. They want to make sure that Christians will disappear.  Peace at any price?  Christianity in 1453 lost almost half of the territory they inhabited. To give you some perspective of the enormity of this debacle, imagine that the world outside of Europe had refused to participate in World War II to fight the Nazis.  The Nazis would be ruling Europe today.  This was exactly the effect of Europe's failure to help their fellow Byzantine Christians resist aggression by the Turks.  They chose to be fools.

In 1939, the Europeans were so eager to avoid war that they wanted to believe anything even though they had to know that they would pay a heavy price for appeasing Hitler.  Indeed, they paid a heavy price, not only financially but in the enormous loss of life. Eighty-five million people died in World War II as a result.  Peace at any price?  They chose to be fools.

If you follow today's news you will see that we, in the United States, are repeating these same mistakes, as described earlier.  The US looks like it has chosen to be the fools.  When will they learn?