The First Crusade

For class last week I read Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade A New History: The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam.  Asbridge presents a very readable history of the First Crusade.  His subtitle made me think that the book was going to try and show how the First Crusade caused the roots of the conflict between Christianity and Islam, however the book didn’t really back up the statement.  His book does show how the fractured Islamic leadership, with centers in both Baghdad and Cairo, caused the Muslim forces to remain divided and thus defeatable.  He showed the varying ways that crusaders and Muslims interacted in Asia Minor and the Holy Land.  At times the Crusaders allied themselves with Muslims if it was to their advantage to do so.  Asbridge makes the Islamic internal divisions and power struggle a central reason as to why the First Crusaders were able to be successful; but he doesn’t make a strong case for the First Crusade being the cause of the religious conflict.  The Crusaders acted in ways that looked to their short term interests and needs.  Anyway, aside from disagreeing with the subtitle I really enjoyed the book.  

Through the course of the book he showed how Christian-Muslim relations began to deteriorate as time went on.  He even states that the decay really happened after the Crusade.  As the memory of the events began to fade from the European’s minds their descriptions of the victories became more exaggerated and anti-Islamic.  Muslims then began to take offense at the Christian’s boldness and their divine mandate ideology for control of Jerusalem.  When Muslims united against the Christians the long bitter struggle for the Holy Land began.  Westerners harkened back to the success of the First Crusade as a rallying point and as the justification for future crusades. 

Throughout the warfare variations on European warfare rules of engagement were typically followed.  Knights and nobles on both sides were often ransomed.  Though some plundering occurred the Crusaders didn't go on rampages burning every town they came across.  Horrible massacres only really occurred after the two great sieges, at Antioch and Jerusalem, but given all the horrors the troops had been through, it was understandable.  The Muslims were facing a group of religious fanatics, who had gone through hell to reach Jerusalem.  These men survived a walk to the Holy Land, seeing friends and animals die of wounds and starvation, having an enemy mock and provoke you from within their walls, enduring stressful siege situations, and using your religious convictions to create a moral high ground for yourself that allows you to kill people on God’s behalf.  How much sanity do you expect them to have left when they reached the end of the Crusade?

Throughout the narrative Asbridge provides a detailed account of the crusaders struggles and successes, he is able to transport the reader back to the events and show the human qualities of the crusader council.  The military crusade leaders had to hold in tension the desire for penance and forgiveness of sins with the Western views of conquest and plunder.  The spiritual piety of a pilgrimage had to be assisted by the military leadership associated with conquest.  The council had to constantly weigh their actions against possible future retaliations, and against potential divine judgment.  In some instances the leaders made truces and treaties with local Muslim leaders, and they even fought alongside Muslim allies if it was to their benefit.  At one point during the crusade a treaty was reached with Cairo and peace established.  As the Crusade unfolded inter-religious cooperation occurred more often than outright oppression and persecution. 

The discovery of the Holy Lance, whether or not it was authentic, reinvigorated the crusaders during a dark hour.  With the assurance of God’s blessing they were emboldened to attack and were able to defeat the Muslim host that had arrived to besiege them within the walls of Antioch.  Some of the crusader actions are seen as contradictory to the modern reader, such as their actions following the brutal massacre and sacking of Jerusalem.  One of the most vivid images in my head from the book is the thought of men attended a prayer service in the Holy Sepulcher still covered in blood from battle and clutching their spoils.

By the end of the book I sat back and wondered how they managed to be successful.  The surprising thing about the First Crusade is that the crusaders managed to do what they set out to do.  Under a council of lords and a common purse they managed to largely overcome their differences and no one rivalry among the princes and their followers was strong enough to deter them from their common purpose.  The Western Europeans reached and liberated Jerusalem and they set up counties that the victors ruled.  It's the only crusade to have a resounding success and when the survivors returned to Europe tales of their exploits and adventures spread far and wide.  Future crusades hearkened back to the successes and divine mandate of the First Crusade as a rallying point.  The success of the First Crusade left a permanent mark on Europe and led future crusaders to overestimate themselves and their chances of success.