Preparation for Year 12 History Unit 1: The Crusades and the Latin Kingdoms, 1094-1204
SECTION A: Reading
Read the article by acclaimed Crusader historian Dr Jonathan Phillips (p.2 of this document) and
annotate or make notes about it. Consider:
-How has the term ‘crusade’ been used to advance different causes?
-Is the term ‘Crusade’ easy to define? Why/why not?
SECTION B: Research
Go to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk and then click on the Medieval section. Create a mind
map about the Medieval World, including the following areas: Medieval towns, medieval farming,
law and order, health and medicine, food and drink, the church and religion, and finally, feudalism
and feudal services. (Don’t try to re-write all the information; instead, focus on key facts and
information to try to give an overview about medieval life).
This work should be completed over the summer, and brought to your first History class in
September. The work can be completed on paper or word processed, but a hard copy should be
given to your teacher in September. The work should be completed in your own words, and
independently.
IN ADDITION- to become even better prepared for your course in September (and to really
impress your teachers) try to also do the following:
 Visit the British Museum (it’s free!) and check out the objects in Room 30 (The Islamic
World) and Room 40 (Medieval Europe).
 Watch a documentary about the Crusades- there are lots out there- the best are ‘The
Crescent and the Cross’ and Thomas Asbridge’s new 3 part series ‘The Crusades’.
 Take a look at some medieval maps (lots on the internet). How was the medieval world in
the 11th-13th centuries different from today? E.g. what was the Byzantine Empire?
The Call of the Crusades
By Jonathan Phillips | Published in History Today Volume: 59 Issue:
11 2009
RELIGION SOCIAL CRUSADES MEDIEVAL (4TH-15THC)
An idea promoted by Pope Urban II at the end of the 11th century
continues to resonate in modern politics. Jonathan Phillips traces
the 800-year history of ‘Crusade’ and its power as a concept that
shows no sign of diminishing.
Pope Urban II preaches the First Crusade at the
Council of Clermont.
Crusade: according to circumstance, either a
toxic byword for conflict between Christians and
Muslims or a shorthand for what people believe
to be a good and worthy cause. In the former
context one might quote Osama bin Laden or, in
parallel, the allegations made against Erik
Prince, the founder of the Blackwater security
company, in Iraq: ‘[he] views himself as a
Christian crusader tasked with eliminating
Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.’ In
a more secular arena, any western politician
asking for a cut in hospital waiting lists might call
for a ‘crusade’. Yet such utterly divergent
meanings originate with an idea conceived over
800 years ago, a concept that has produced one
of the most long-lasting and adaptable legacies
of the Middle Ages. Tracing how ‘crusade’ has
evolved, mutated and been appropriated by
individuals across the broadest possible
spectrum is to follow an intriguing and often
surprising trail.
In November 1095 Pope Urban II called upon the
knights of France to journey to the Holy Land and liberate the city of Jerusalem and the Christians of
the east from Muslim power. In return they would be granted an unprecedented spiritual reward –
the remission of all their sins – and thereby escape the torments of Hell, their likely destination after
lives of violence and greed. The response to Urban’s appeal was astounding; over 60,000 people set
out to recover the Holy Land and secure this reward and, in some cases, take the chance to set up
new territories. Almost four years later, in July 1099, the survivors conquered Jerusalem in an orgy of
killing. While most of the knights returned home, the creation of the Crusader States formed a
permanent Christian (or ‘Frankish’) presence in the Levant. In 1187, however, Saladin defeated their
forces at the Battle of Hattin and brought Jerusalem back under Muslim control. The Franks held
onto other lands until 1291 when they were finally driven out by the Mamluks of Egypt to end
Christian rule in the Holy Land.
Yet the roots laid down by crusading proved extraordinarily deep, in part because of the idea’s
flexibility. In the course of the 12th and 13th centuries crusades were launched against the Muslims
of Spain and other enemies of the faith such as the pagan tribes of northeastern Europe (the Baltic
Crusades). Further targets included the heretical Cathars of southern France, as well as the Mongols
and the Greeks. The preservation or the recovery of Jerusalem was undoubtedly the most important
and prestigious of these endeavours and,while certain expeditions (such as the crusade in southern
France) were controversial, crusading as a whole took place with the broad approval of European
society.As the range of targets shows, crusading was not a static concept. Other developments in
medieval society intertwined with and influenced the idea, most particularly chivalry. Crusading
offered a platform for knights to show bravery and integrity. The idea of fighting for God, the
ultimate lord, gave service in crusading armies a special attraction, although at times knights’
determination to win fame for themselves could cause them to put notions of honour ahead of the
greater Christian cause.
Crusading was too deeply established within Catholic Europe to disappear after the loss of the Holy
Land in 1291. The reconquest of Spain continued; the Teutonic Knights (another military order first
set up in the Holy Land) took control of areas of the Baltic and during the late 13th and early 14th
centuries many nobles journeyed there to fight the pagans and gain glory. One noteworthy
participant was Henry Bolingbroke. Long before he became King Henry IV, the young knight made
two visits to the Baltic, in 1391 and 1392, to gain a noble reputation and to serve Christ’s armies;
Bolingbroke also went to Jerusalem on pilgrimage in 1393.
The Ottomans emerged as the primary focus for crusades and their drive into south-eastern Europe
prompted several attempts to rouse new crusading expeditions. The problem was that emergent
national identities caused so many deep tensions in the Catholic West that this, combined with a
weakening papacy, meant it became ever harder to realise the common crusading cause of centuries
past. Sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople in 1453 and, although the Ottomans reached the
gates of Vienna in 1529, their conflict against the Habsburg dynasty had (on both sides) taken on
more of an imperial than a religious aspect. Crusading was, by this stage, in steep decline: when the
Baltic region became Christianised any justification for crusading was lost; Spain was reconquered by
1492 and the Catholic Church now faced the challenge of the Reformation. Indulgences were
attacked as a venal charge on the naïve; no longer was a good Christian required to make an epic
journey to the Middle East, he could simply purchase God’s grace by attending a sermon. While
similar compromises had long been established, by this stage the feeling that the preachers simply
kept the money for themselves meant the idea of indulgence had lost almost all credibility.
Perhaps the last crusading battle of note took place at Lepanto in 1571 where a fleet of Spanish,
Venetian and Military Order vessels defeated the Turks. The Knights of St John (the Hospitallers)
preserved control over their island outposts of Rhodes, until 1523, and then Malta, but otherwise
crusading subsided. The advent of Protestantism brought severe judgements on such a papallydirected concept. Thomas Fuller, the English churchman and protohistorian, wrote (c.1639): ‘Some
say purgatory fire heateth the pope’s kitchen; they may add, the holy war filled his pot, if not paid
for all of his second course.’ By the 18th century and the so-called Age of Enlightenment crusading
was disparaged as a worthless, fraudulent charade. In 1769 William Robertson dismissed it as ‘a
singular monument of human folly’ and, a few decades later, Edward Gibbon claimed that ‘the
principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism …’and that it ‘had checked rather than forwarded
the maturity of Europe’. In mid-18th century France, Voltaire gave crusading an ironic label: ‘une
maladie épidémique’. Taking the sickness metaphor further he insisted that leprosy was the only
thing that Europeans had gained from the crusades.
Yet during the 19th century, crusading, or a mutated form of it, gained new interest in the West.
One reason was the writing of Sir Walter Scott whose tales of chivalric endeavour in the Holy Land,
most particularly Ivanhoe (1819) and The Talisman (1832), enraptured audiences across Europe. As a
Calvinist, Scott’s view of ‘intolerant zeal’ was restrained, but overall he gave a positive impression of
the crusades. Scott’s works were translated into numerous languages and in France alone he had
sold over two million books by 1840. Ivanhoe alone inspired almost 300 dramas; within a year of its
publication, 16 versions of the story were being staged across England. Orientalism was another
prominent cultural movement of the time and an interest in the east promoted renewed
consideration of the medieval holy wars.
In tandem with these developments, the 19th century saw a dramatic expansion of European
political power into the Muslim near east, largely at the expense of the declining Ottoman Empire.
France invaded Algeria in 1830 and soon afterwards Spain and Italy, too, embarked upon North
African adventures. Some looked to the crusades as a forerunner, especially after France took
control of Syria in 1920. Paul Pic, Professor of Law at the University of Lyon, regarded Syria as ‘a
natural extension of France’, while in 1929 Jean Longnon wrote that: ‘The name of Frank has
remained a symbol of nobility, courage and generosity … and if our country has been called on to
receive the protectorate of Syria, it is the result of that influence.’
Voltaire insisted that leprosy was the only thing that Europe had gained from the crusades. Yet
crusading did not re-emerge solely as a reminder of past glories overseas; the idea was also
employed within western Europe. In 1848, during a bid to drive out the ruling Austrians from his
Italian territories, King Carlos Alberto launched a half-hearted invasion of Lombardy and Pope Pius
IX,who had been unwilling to fight another Catholic country, sent in an expeditionary force under
General Giovanni Durando to help him. In an effort to push Pius into open support for the nationalist
cause Durando attempted to convince the public that his undertaking had full papal – and therefore
divine – sanction. His men advanced dressed as crusaders, complete with crosses sewn on their
uniforms. He also issued a press release: ‘Soldiers! … The Holy Father has blessed your swords,
which, united now with those of Carlos Alberto, must move in concord to annihilate the enemies of
God, the enemies of Italy, and those who have insulted Pius IX … such a war of civilisation against
barbarism is accordingly not just a national war but also a supremely Christian one … Let our battle
cry be:God Wills It!’ Pius was furious at this arrogation of his authority; he repudiated the war and
reminded everyone that he was the head of all Christendom and not just Italy alone.While this
particular pseudo-crusade failed, it still shows that the idea was perceived to possess real power.
The secular version
The outbreak of the First World War provided an obvious arena for a concept associated with moral
right. Clearly many other issues formed the propaganda effort on both sides of the conflict, but
crusading did feature prominently. Lloyd George made a speech at Conway in May 1916 in which he
claimed men were flocking to join ‘a great crusade’ for justice and right. A young Harold Macmillan
fought at Ypres in May 1916 and in a letter home to his mother wrote of the devastation of war and
the thrill of battle: ‘Many of us could never stand the strain and endure the horrors which we see
every day, if we did not feel that this was more than a war – a Crusade. I never see a man killed but
think of him as a martyr. All the men (tho’ they could not express it in words) have the same
conviction – that our cause is right and certain in the end to triumph. And because of this
unexpected and almost unconscious faith, our allied armies have a superiority in morale which will
be (some day) the deciding factor.’ Austen Chamberlain, then president of the Liberal Union
Association, sketched out his understanding of the crusading cause:‘[We should be wrong] if we
thought we are merely embarked in a chivalrous crusade on behalf of another nation, without our
interests being engaged … it is not for Belgium only we are fighting. It is not merely a crusade for
right and law against wrong and brute force – though it is all of that – but it is a struggle for the vital
interests of this country.’ Other than omitting an appeal for divine support, these are all points
shared with the earlier crusades and this represents an idealised, secular version of the medieval
forerunner.
The most apposite setting for parallels with earlier crusades came with General Allenby’s capture of
Jerusalem in December 1917. The symbolism of a British commander entering the Holy City was
apparent to all and Punch magazine published a cartoon of Richard the Lionheart gazing at
Jerusalem saying: ‘At last my dreams come true’, a reference to his failure to take the city during the
Third Crusade. For Allenby the link was profoundly uncomfortable. He was acutely aware that a large
part of his army were Muslims and that it would be insensitive to describe his actions within a
framework of holy war. The fact that the Germans were trying to stir the millions of Muslims
elsewhere in the British Empire into a jihad added to the urgency of the situation. The War Office
Press Bureau issued a D-notice:
The attention of the Press is again drawn to the undesirability of publishing any article, paragraph or
picture suggesting that military operations against Turkey are in any sense a Holy War, a modern
Crusade, or have anything whatever to do with religious questions. The British Empire is said to
contain a hundred million Muhammodan subjects of the King and it is obviously mischievous to
suggest that our quarrel with Turkey [the Ottomans] is one between Christianity and Islam.
Yet for all Allenby’s efforts to stage a secular, restrained entry into Jerusalem, in the popular
imagination the link was too strong. Allenby continued in his attempts to dislodge the connection
but the label had stuck and, as we shall see, percolated into the Muslim world too.
The Americans also invoked the crusading theme during the First World War. General John ‘Black
Jack’ Pershing was the subject of the first official US government war film, made by the US Signal
Corps and released in 1918, titled Pershing’s Crusaders. In France, the country most associated with
crusading, one recruiting poster proclaimed: ‘Pour achever la croisade au droit’. The Germans also
called upon a crusading past and boasted that victory over the Poles in August 1914 was revenge for
the defeat of the Teutonic Knights at the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410. The Germans erected a huge
memorial on the battlefield and this became the burial place of the esteemed German commander
of the day, General Hindenburg, who was represented as a medieval knight. Hitler and the Nazis
later adopted these themes and staged nationalist ceremonies at the same site.
The last major western figure to draw upon the crusading theme was General Francisco Franco.
When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936 his nationalist movement found common ground with
the Catholic Church which became a vital element of Franco’s legitimisation. The Bishop of
Salamanca built upon a papal endorsement for the nationalists and published a text, approved by
Franco himself, which presented the rebel cause as ‘a crusade against communism to save religion,
the fatherland and the family’. Franco argued that: ‘Our war is not a civil war … but a crusade … we
who fight are soldiers of God.’ Franco associated himself with El Cid, the hero of medieval Spain
who, in reality, had been a hired hand who fought for Christian and Muslim paymasters in the late
11th century, but within decades of his death had been embraced as a hero of the reconquest.
Decline and re-emergence
The Second World War saw far less crusading imagery. The chivalric aspects of the idea had been
torn to shreds on the battlefields of northern France and huge civilian casualties and acts of
genocide moved the conflict outside of previous reference points. That is not to say that the notion
disappeared – Eisenhower called the D-Day landings a ‘Great Crusade’ and in a more satirical vein
Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Slaughterhouse 5 (1969) was subtitledThe Children’s Crusade: A Duty Dance
with Death, an ironic recognition of the youth of many American conscripts sent to Europe.
While images connected with crusading reemerged in the West during the 19th century, in the lands
of Islam the memory of this era (and in some cases the counterpart of the crusade, the jihad),were
dormant for a little longer. While some holy war rhetoric pervaded the conflict between the
Ottoman and Habsburg empires in the 16th century, jihad sentiments tended to be reserved for the
Shia Safavids of Iran. One way in which the memory of the crusades survived was through songs and
folklore. Street entertainers recited the Sirat al-Baibars, the story of the fearsome Mamluk sultan
who ruled Syria and Egypt between 1260 and 1277. Baibars’ jihad spirit, superb military
organisation, harsh discipline and low cunning saw him capture crusader castles such as Krak des
Chevaliers to lay the foundations for his successor’s victory at Acre in 1291. An English visitor to
Cairo in the 1830s reported about 30 storytellers earning their living exclusively from telling the Sirat
al-Baibars. Oral traditions are central to Islamic culture and it is clear that the adventures of the
medieval hero – and his opponents, including the crusaders – were extremely popular.
With Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 the West began to encroach on Islamic lands once more,
although in this instance the French were keen to stress the absence of a religious edge to their
actions.As Napoleon pointed out in a communiqué translated into Arabic: ‘I honour God, his Prophet
and the Koran … is it not we who destroyed the pope, the Christian enemy of the Muslims? It was
this army who destroyed the Chevaliers of Malta, the ancient enemies of your faith.’
The expedition of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany is thought to have provided the strongest stimulus to
the reappearance of the Muslim world’s other medieval hero (Baibars aside), Saladin. The sultan had
enjoyed a fine reputation in the crusading West and Scott’s novels (known to have been read by the
kaiser) reinforced this. The kaiser made great play of the dignity, chivalric virtue and statesmanship
of Saladin and laid a wreath on his humble wooden resting place in Damascus. The kaiser also paid
for the grotesque marble tomb which still stands alongside the sultan’s casket.A couple of decades
after this, the first push towards a widescale jihad took place with the pan- Islamic approach of the
Ottoman ruler, Abdulhamid II. In his role as caliph (spiritual leader of the Muslim world) and in an
attempt to preserve his dynasty’s crumbling empire, he brought the sentiments of the conflict back
to the fore with his 1914 call for a jihad. Acting with the encouragement of the Germans, he
proclaimed a holy war against the enemies of Islam.
While there was relatively little response to this, the profile of Saladin and holy war greatly increased
and one or both were soon adopted by a variety of leaders in the Middle East who began to draw a
parallel between their own situation and the medieval period. The fact that Saladin had defeated the
crusaders and forced them out of Jerusalem seemed even more relevant following the foundation of
the state of Israel, although this viewpoint ignored the crusaders’ brutal treatment of Jews in
medieval Europe.
During the 1950s Arab nationalism came to the fore under the leadership of President Gamal Abdel
Nasser of Egypt.His success in the Suez crisis of 1956 imbued him with the confidence to form the
United Arab Republic,welding Egypt with Syria, just as Saladin had done.Nasser looked to Saladin for
context and inspiration, reminding his audiences that ‘the whole region was united for reasons of
mutual security to face an imperialism coming from Europe and bearing the cross in order to
disguise its ambitions behind the façade of Christianity’.His speeches contained frequent references
to Muslim victories over the crusaders: ‘Fanatic crusaders attacked us in Syria, Palestine and
Egypt.Arab Muslims and Christians fought side by side to defend their motherland against this
aggressive, foreign domination. They all rose as one man, unity being the only means of safety,
liberty and the expulsion of the aggressors.’ Nasser archly demolished a celebrated, but fictional,
phrase by Allenby in 1917.He asserted that the westerners ‘had never forgotten their defeat [by
Saladin]’ and wanted revenge in another ‘fanatical, imperialist, crusade’. Nasser then
‘quoted’Allenby: ‘when he entered Jerusalem during World War One he [the general] said:
“Today,we end the fight of the Crusaders who were defeated 700 years ago.”’Nasser’s use of this
statement shows why Allenby strove so hard to uncouple the tie between the medieval crusades
and his own experiences – and it demonstrates just how completely he had failed to do so.
Another medium through which Nasser’s message was transmitted was Youssef Chahine’s 1963
film Salah ad-Din Nasser in which Saladin leads the Arabs to victory against the treacherous
crusaders.After the Battle of Hattin the sultan proclaims that ‘Jerusalem has been returned to the
Arabs’.While Islam was important to Arab nationalism, the creed was based on regional and cultural
identity, rather than faith. Most of the Christians in the film are bellicose, greedy and duplicitous,
with Richard the Lionheart a noble exception – the worthy opponent of the great Saladin. Showing a
humanity that some of his fellowcrusaders lack, the English king worries about the losses of troops
and this eventually brings him to the negotiating table. Saladin points out that ‘Jerusalem belongs to
the Arabs’ and he tells Richard to inform the people of the West that ‘war is not always the solution’,
another reflection of Nasser’s desired image. His rival acknowledges the Arab victory and the
Lionheart is received by the sultan at the gates of Jerusalem (a completely fictitious scene – the two
men never met).
Nasser died in 1970 but the enthusiastic identification with Saladin was taken up by the Syrian leader
Hafiz al-Asad, a man determined to oust the ‘neocrusaders’ in Israel.When former US President
Jimmy Carter visited Asad in Damascus in 1984 he saw a huge mural on his office wall depicting
Saladin’s victory at Hattin. Carter noted: ‘As Asad stood in front of the brilliant scene [the picture]
and discussed the history of the crusades and the other ancient struggles for the Holy Land, he took
particular pride in retelling tales of Arab successes, past and present.He seemed to speak like a
modern Saladin, feeling that it was his dual obligation to rid the region of all foreign presence.’ The
most public legacy of Asad’s admiration for Saladin stands in front of the citadel of Damascus: an
equestrian statue of the sultan flanked by a Sufi holy man and a jihad warrior and trailed by two
defeated, dejected crusaders. The message is obvious: as Saladin triumphed over the crusaders, so
will Asad.
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 ‘Judeo- Crusader 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.’
One further role awaits Saladin in 2010.Demonstrating his extraordinary adaptability he will star in a
new cartoon series as ‘the ultimate hero: courageous in the face of danger, never willing to admit
defeat and funny when he needs to be’.To take a figure with such a huge historical reputation is an
intriguing move. While openly fictional, the makers (al-Jazeera Children’s TV) have taken a period in
his career when the young man learns the lessons of life needed to make him the great leader he
became. The crusades are part of the backdrop, although in the trailer they are described in neutral
terms as an invading army from the West, rather than anything more polemical. In fact, one of
Saladin’s friends is a Frank, although Reynald of Chatillon (Saladin’s prime foe) provides a justifiably
sinister villain.
Crusading has been taken as a more distant metaphor in countless other circumstances – the
Women’s Temperance Crusade in the USA of the 1870s or the Jarrow Crusade of 1936 are two
examples of note. All have helped preserve this centuries-old idea. Since the efflorescence of
interest in crusading in the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001 and the Madrid bombings in 2004 and,
especially with the controversy over President Bush’s use of the word, there has been a greater
awareness of the historical context of ‘crusade’ and the negative connotations that it carries in the
Muslim world. It is worth remembering, too, that the Greek Orthodox church has remained angered
by the events of 1204 when the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople; in the summer of 2001
senior Greek clerics compelled Pope John Paul II to apologise during a visit to Athens. Of course,
while it is easy to draw parallels between the medieval and modern eras, the call to the First Crusade
bears only a limited resemblance to the colonial and imperial enterprises of the 19th centuries
because it was conceived as a war to recover territory, rather than as an aggressive acquisition of
new land. Nonetheless, a crusade in the sense of fighting for a good cause with a moral right
continues to prove a potent and alluring concept across the western world, albeit one that
politicians are now considerably more wary of. Saladin, meanwhile, the crusaders’ greatest rival,
continues to maintain the highest of reputations across both Sunni Islam and in the West.