Racism in the Crusades: Fact or Fiction?

Introduction: Was Racism a Driving Force Behind the Crusades?

This article will explore whether racism was a driving force behind the Crusades. Was race as significant an issue during the Medieval period as it is today? Did people of a particular religion or “race” perceive others different from them as inferior beings? Did they even differentiate people as separate races like we do today?

Modern Interpretations of Race and the Crusades

Living in a modern world utterly obsessed with race and utilizing differences to separate us into numerous groups, many people today who view race as the end-all and be-all of history and human interaction claim that racism was a primary motivator for the Crusades. After all, it was whites who “invaded” Arab countries. It was Christians attacking Muslims; race or religious bigotry or both must have been primary motivators, say the critics.

War, Power, and Politics: The True Motivators?

But the truth is condemning the Crusades as a racist operation misses the mark. Across Europe, wars were going on between whites and had been for hundreds of years, likewise in the Middle East. War is rarely tied to racism; most often, it is over power, land, and politics. There were religious motives for the crusade directed at the Holy Land (not Muslims as a whole, or Islam itself), and even here, only because they had taken the Holy Land from Eastern Christians, not white Europeans who lived in Europe! The causes that took crusaders to the East would have also caused a response with a “white” Muslim (or pagan) population that acted the same. In other words, just because a war is fought and one side is generally Muslim and the other Christian does not mean it is a religious war. Muslims were in Southern France and in the case of Spain, for hundreds of years, and no Pope called a Crusade against them. The Crusades were not launched due to the loss of white territory but rather to the loss of the Holy Land.

The Albigensian Crusade: A Bloodier Conflict

Massacre against the Albigensians by the Crusaders

The Albigensian Crusade against heretical whites in the south of France was more bloody than the Crusades in the Holy Land. Further, the crusade in Southern France aimed to remove and replace the entire society altogether, seeing it as a vast evil needing to be eradicated; this was not the stance towards Islam. Pope Gregory IX thought the crusade against the excommunicated Frederick II was more vital than the crusade in the Holy Land. When the excommunicated Emperor Frederick brought Jerusalem back under Western control in 1229, no bishop would crown him king. The local Christians threw “filth” at him; as an excommunicant, he was less tolerated than Muslim rulers were. Peter the Venerable considered warfare against Christians more justified than against non-believers like Muslims Pope Paschal II pushed for newly returned crusader Count Robert of Flanders to go after European Catholics who objected to church reform!

Crimes Against Fellow Christians

Some of the terrible crimes committed by Crusaders were carried out against fellow Christians in the Holy Land. Crusaders, including the famous Richard the Lionheart, attacked multiple Christian areas before arriving in the Holy Land. The Fourth Crusade’s most famous example was the seizure and sacking of what was considered the most significant Christian city, Constantinople. Italian cities were known to trade with Muslims for financial gain.

Christian-Muslim Alliances and Diplomacy

Antioch

It was not uncommon for Christians in the Holy Land to form alliances with Muslims against other Christians or to fight alongside Muslims against invading Christians. For example, Princess Alice, ruler of Antioch, sought aid from Muslim leader Zengi against the kingdom of Jerusalem. Emperor Frederick II even befriended and knighted Muslim emir Fakhr-al-Din. Some crusaders considered the Byzantine Empire their enemy rather than any Islamic country. Muslim chronicler Ibn Zafir preferred crusaders rather than despised Muslim Turks controlling Jerusalem. Crusaders and Muslim states had local agreements, maintained friendly relations at various times, and were allies. A Muslim chronicler described a battle near Gaza in 1244, writing, “The Christian banners, on which was a cross, were seen intermixed with those of Muslims. The Christians formed the right wing, the troops of Nasir Daoud the left, and the emir Mansour formed the centre with the Syrians.”

Personal Interactions and Friendships

When we study history, we tend to focus on the accounts of the noblemen and their battles, often overlooking the everyday people. In his autobiography, a Muslim soldier named Usamah ibn Munqidh, who lived in the 12th century and fought under the rule of Saladin, wrote about his close relationship with the “Franks” (crusaders) in the Crusader states. Although not a fan of the Westerners as a whole (the only thing he found genuinely admirable about the Crusaders was their fighting ability), they referred to each other as “brothers” and spent considerable time together. Usamah’s Frankish friend even expressed his desire to take Usamah’s son back to Europe to train him to become a chivalrous knight. When he visited Jerusalem under the Crusaders he spoke of the Templars as his friends. He told of a time when he went to worship, and the Templars were already there. They saw him and left the room quietly to allow him space to worship, but a Western Christian began harassing him. So the Templars took care of the Western Christian, removing him so the Muslims could pray alone, and they apologized for the Western Christian’s behaviour.

Integration Between Cultures

Miniature of Peter the Hermit leading the People’s Crusade (Egerton 1500, Avignon, 14th-century)

Fulcher of Chartres, a priest and historian who journeyed on the First Crusade, wrote of how easily the Latin people had integrated into Eastern culture, including marriage to former Muslims:

“For we who were Occidentals now have been made Orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank is now a Galilaean or an inhabitant of Palestine. One who was a citizen of Rheims or of Chartres now has been made a citizen of Tyre or Antioch. We have already forgotten the places of our birth; already they have become unknown to many of us, or, at least, are unmentioned…Some have taken wives not merely of their people, but Syrians, Armenians, or even Saracens who have received the grace of baptism…Different languages now made common, become known to both races, and faith unites those whose forefathers were strangers. As it is written, “The lion and the ox shall eat straw together.” Those who were strangers are now natives.”

Muslim Views on Tolerance and Alliances

Muslims were more than tolerant of Christians; Ibn-al-Athir criticized Muslims for not wanting to expel the Latins from the Holy Land and pointed to the Emperor of Byzantium, who sent envoys to Muslim nations, telling them to attack the Westerners before they became established. This led al-Athir to say that the Byzantine Emperor “shows greater zeal for Islam than you.” The Sunni and Shia Muslims were divided and, at times, saw the Crusaders as allies in their internecine conflicts. Both Muslims and Christians held to their word over diplomatic arrangements even when they harmed others of their religion.

Diversity in the Crusader States

The Crusader states were more ethnically diverse than any place in the West. And those Western Christians who migrated to them were fine with leaving Europe behind and instead becoming the minority race and religion, living alongside Muslims, Jews, and various Eastern sects of Christianity. Professor Thomas Asbridge wrote, “There is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, religious or racial hatred of the other.”

Religious Tolerance Under Crusader Rule

Under the rule of the Crusaders, local Muslims were allowed self-governance. The Crusaders did not come in to obliterate their religion or way of life. Instead, they allowed them to keep their faith, customs, and politics. Forced baptism of Muslims was prohibited. Yet they welcomed Muslims who wished to be baptized in friendship and faith. However, various Muslim converts sought to evangelize; for example, one Muslim who converted to Christianity brought thousands of proselytes to the faith. Even some of the notorious Muslim “assassins” converted to Christianity and joined the crusader states.

Religious Freedom and Governance in the Crusader States

Muslims had the liberty to choose both their religion and politics, either Christian or Muslim. After capturing Antioch, Crusader lord Bohemund allowed local Muslims who wished to convert to follow a newly baptized Emir, while the others stayed under the laws of the “Saracens.” Professor Bernard Hamilton wrote,

“…once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of their non-Christian subjects…Indeed, the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects. Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns; while recent research has shown that Muslim villages in the Nablus area enjoyed full rights to practice their religion in the traditional way, which may even have included permission to make the haj.

The Christian rulers might believe Islam is wrong, endangering the eternal salvation of its followers, yet still believed Muslims had the right to be judged by their customs. A Muslim pilgrim from Spain to the Holy Land said they “live in great comfort under the Franks…Muslims are masters of their dwellings and govern themselves as they wish. This is the case in all the territory occupied by “Franks.” Muslim commentator Imad ad-Din wrote that the Crusaders “changed not a single law or cult practice” of the local Muslims. Islamic shrines and mosques were left alone, and Muslim observer Yaqut wrote, “The Franks changed nothing when they took the country.”

Muslims swore oaths on the Qur’an, Jews on the Torah, and Christians on the Bible. They enjoyed full religious rights, including visiting the Dome of the Rock. Hospitals were created to serve Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Muslims were allowed private property and were taxed less than when under Muslim rulers.

Comparing Views on Political Slavery and Tyranny

According to the 12th-century historian William of Malmesbury, the Muslim Sultans had large, powerful empires because their people “know not how to cast off slavery;” in contrast, Western peoples are “bold and fierce.” As a result, the West, said Malmesbury, would not long subjugate itself to political slavery. Not just the Crusader states but all of feudal Europe considered “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” and resisted tyrants at every turn, due to their Christian belief and thus maintaining liberty. In complete opposition, Muhammad taught his people to allow their subjugation and to be blindly obedient to Islamic dictators. When a follower asked Muhammad what the people should do if a tyrant steals their rights, he said, “Ye must hear them and obey their orders: it is on them to be just and good, and on you to be obedient and submissive.” Muslims are to support all Muslim rulers, even tyrants, who came to power unjustly so long as they are Muslim!

The Crusader states were like the feudal monarchies of Europe and, therefore, very libertarian in their policy, leading many Muslims willingly to migrate to the Crusader states rather than live under the more authoritarian Islamic regimes. All inhabitants, regardless of religion, had lower taxes under Crusaders than local Muslim and Jewish realms and villages.

Europe’s Mixed Relations with Muslims

In Europe, Muslims and Christians taught and worked together in the same universities in Christian Italy, and European Christians sold weapons to Muslims during the Crusades. European universities used Jewish and Muslim commentaries and studied Muslim philosophers such as Averroes. Saladin remains more popular and respected amongst Western Christians than in the Islamic world.

Not long before the Crusades, Christians allied with Muslims to attack other Christians in Italy under Robert Guiscard, father of Bohemond of Taranto, the first Prince of Antioch. The most famous Spanish medieval warrior, El Cid, fought both for and against Muslims, and Christians fought with Muslims against Christians and vice versa.

Tolerance Under Medieval Spanish Rule

Speaking of the toleration and acceptance of Muslims under medieval Spanish rule, scholar Henry Kamen wrote, “Before the advent of the modern (‘nation’) state, small autonomous cultural groups could exist without being subjected to persecution….the coming of the centralized state, in post-Reformation Europe, removed that protection and aggravated intolerance.” He goes on to write that those Spanish who opposed the later Spanish Inquisition and intolerance in general “’ Were not progressive’ but simply part of a European tradition stretching back into medieval times.”

During the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII did not see Islam as an utterly separate religion or as worshipping another God; in a letter to the Muslim King of Mauretania, he stated, “We worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world.”

A Shift in Relations Over Time

Racism of one kind or another has always been an issue, but in later centuries the centralization of political power, forcing distinct groups into the same political system where a majority rules, intensified it. People began despising the “other” groups they contested with for control and began to blame them for their loss of self-government. Relations further deteriorated after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, as men began to view each other as distinct, lesser evolved species than the medieval mindset of one large family of diverse people groups descended from Adam and Eve; all image bearers of the divine.

The Jerusalem Massacre: A Closer Look

Other critics say the slaughter of the Jerusalem population when the Crusaders retook the city near the end of the First Crusade was motivated by religious and racial hatred. The option for the defenders was to convert or die. The first thing to understand is that the Church and Crusaders made almost no efforts or plans to convert the population; that was never their goal or mission. When Catholics did attempt to convert Muslims, they sent twelve friars (led by Francis of Assisi, no less) in tattered clothing during the Fifth Crusade to convert by “reasoned evangelism.”

The Crusades were neither an evangelistic effort nor a form of racial cleansing. It was not their intention to destroy Muslim towns and people beyond occupying Jerusalem and a few strategic locations that were necessary for their defence. They were willing to accept gifts and payments to avoid conflicts with Muslim cities and countries or avoid them altogether. The first crusaders attempted to regain control of Jerusalem diplomatically, but al-Adal, the Egyptian ruler who had recently taken over from the Turkish Muslims, refused. Multiple times around Jerusalem, the Crusaders captured Muslim towns and allowed the inhabitants to leave unharmed.

Siege Warfare and Psychological Tactics

Siege warfare brought out the most brutal side of humanity. It was not uncommon in both Europe and the Middle East that if the defenders held out, hoping for a relief army (because both sides would suffer starvation, disease, etc. as the siege dragged on), the besieging army had it in their right to pillage and burn and loot. As Professor Thomas Madden wrote, “By the standards of the time, adhered to by both Christians and Muslims, the Crusaders would have been justified in putting the entire population of Jerusalem to the sword. Despite later highly exaggerated reports, however, that is not what happened…many were allowed to purchase their freedom or were simply expelled from the city.”

Revisiting the ‘Slaughter’ of Jerusalem

Siege warfare often turned into psychological warfare with heads being launched into the city, prisoners from both sides being publicly tortured and their bodies displayed, heads of soldiers spiked onto spears, etc. This does not justify actions taken by a desperate besieging army, but we should not suppose that the slaughter of defenders after long sieges never occurred without some racial or religious motivation. Crimes against subjugated people occurred irrespective of race or religion. Even Christians were victims of the Crusades’ atrocities.

But even so, the “slaughter” has been greatly exaggerated. Records indicate that the number of casualties ranged from a few hundred to 75,000, despite the city’s population being only between 20,000 to 30,000. However, not all inhabitants were killed; some were captured and ransomed, while others were expelled from the city. Steve Weidenkopf estimated the actual number of those killed to be between a few hundred and a few thousand.

But some might ask, what about the reports from Crusaders describing blood flowing as high as ankles? These were poetic phrases taken from the Bible referring to God’s judgment of pagans, found in Revelation 14:20 and Isaiah 63:3. The Christian society that existed during the Crusades understood the references; modern secular historians sometimes fail to make that connection and thus inflate the estimated number of murders.

Modern Reactions to the Massacre and Comparisons

Further, we are horrified at the massacre of Jerusalem and assume racist motives, but when whites from America drop bombs on Asians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we don’t flinch an eye.

Muslim Perspectives on the Crusades

“Claims that Muslims have been harbouring bitter resentments about the crusades for a millennium are nonsense. Muslim antagonism about the crusades did not appear until about 1900…And anti-crusader feelings did not become intense until the founding of the state of Israel.” – Rodney Stark God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

Changing Attitudes Over Time

Ultimately, the Islamic world took back the Holy Land and conquered Constantinople. They were the victors of the Crusades. Centuries passed without the Crusades being mentioned in the Islamic world. As Professor Stark shows, the Islamic world was not antagonistic to Christianity or the West due to the Crusades. Historian Thomas Madden wrote, “The Crusaders were virtually unknown in the Muslim world even a century ago… the first Arabic history of the Crusades was not written until 1899.” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith Wrote, “One often reads that the Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors bitter memories of the violence of the crusaders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Muslims had not hitherto shown much interest in the crusades, on which they looked back with indifference and complacency.”

Political Use of Crusades in Modern Times

It was not until the creation of the modern state of Israel caused hostilities that, for political usefulness, the Crusades were brought in in an attempt to unite the Islamic world against what they saw as infidel foreign nations. Indeed, the seething, centuries-long resentment of the Crusades by Muslims is as much a myth as are anachronistic modern-day assertions that Crusaders were one and all engaged in a racist, imperialist, colonialist enterprise.