Historians have tried so much to set the record straight by giving accounts of the Crusades because there are too many misconceptions about them. In the eleventh century, Christianity and Islam were not at their best in terms of peace. Immediately after the death of Mohamad, Islam waged war against Christianity and invaded formerly Christian dominated regions of the Middle East. They targeted the area around the Mediterranean and were successful so much so that Christianity succumbed. The Roman Empire that had dominated the region for very many years was reduced to nothing (Bentley & Herbert 187). Now the problem was the motivation behind the incursion, and the reason Islam conquered Christianity was to expand and serve their interests. This invasion led Constantinople to ask for help from other Christians in Europe to come to their aid in order to conquer and take over Jerusalem which had been taken over by Islam. It happens that the city of Jerusalem was the bone of contention between the two factions because both considered it their holy city. Islam is a naturally warring religion, and for them to stay true to their faith and teaching, they had to go to war with Christianity just like Mohamad had started long before that. The Pope and Christianity sought to restore their lands and authority and it is for that reason that they also waged war against Islam, and they are commonly referred to as the Crusades. But in as much as some historians, Christianity and Islam would wish to justify the wars, they were wrong for a number of reasons and were not supposed to happen in the first place.
Just like any other war, there had to be collateral damage, and the two factions involved were not engaging in a war of words. It was a war that swords were involved and, therefore, led to the deaths of very many people. Thousands if not millions of Christians and Muslims died because the wars were poorly commanded at that time. The Popes were only out to check the advances made by Islam, and wanted to restore the holy places of Jerusalem. After Christians had succeeded in the first war, they went ahead and set base in the places they had captured, much to the displeasure of Islam that were out to retaliate. The retaliations that followed meant that the two factions had to go into war (Amento et al. 201). Very many lives were lost, both on the Christian and Islam sides. If at all the battles were being fought on religious grounds, the question that comes up is why the leaders stood by and watched people die in the name of war that was meant to benefit them. These deaths meant that there were losses to either side.
It is bad though that many innocent lives were lost. It is believed that when the crusaders captured the city of Jerusalem in 1099, several innocent lives were lost. The crusaders massacred every man, woman and child that came their way. There was great violence because it is a proven fact that whenever a city was captured and was not ready to surrender, the inhabitants were slain mercilessly. If the invaded city willingly gave in, then the invaders were to take them captive and their fate solely lied in their hands. The innocent loss of life here through violence is one of the saddest things to have happened in the name of religion. Christianity preaches peace, but to imagine that Christianity was at the forefront of such madness as to take responsibility for the painful deaths of several innocent lives is very sad. In as much as they were keen on getting back their lands, violence was wrong but they were left no choice but to use it (Catherwood 91). Muslim cities that willingly surrendered were not left untouched it, therefore, meant that even those who were not out to defend themselves were treated with violence.
The Crusades were not the very best that the church could do because they put a stain on the Catholic church that has led to very many questions than answers about the motive behind them. It is through them that Western civilization introduced to a rather peaceful Middle east at the time. It is true that Islam had invaded the region several years before and taken up Christian territories. But then, it was wrong enough that Christians had to hit back long before the dust had settled. It could have been better if they hit back at a time when Islam was fighting to take up the Christian territory (Bentley & Herbert 65). By the time the Crusades were taking place, the region had enjoyed peace for some time, for it to be taken back to war by a few Popes; whose interests were different from the order that their religion professed. Peace could never have been traded with war, especially when it is thought to have been a holy war. Christianity does not advocate war, and so the Popes were wrong to have started something their religion preached. It is as if they were preaching water while drinking wine.
One other thing that makes the Crusades unworthy and makes them look like the worst mistake at time is that Italians, through the church wanted to get products principally found in the Middle East. At the time, the Far East boasted of the smoothest silk, spices, and luxury items. Italians wanted to access the materials cheaply and quickly, and the only way out was to conquer the land where they were found. In fact, the primary interest of the Crusades was mere expansion, and religion was just but a tool that was supposed to ensure that happened. The name of the Roman Catholic Church was only used to serve the interests of Europeans, and this was not the best thing to do. They used religion for their selfish interests, something that is not only wrong before God but is morally unacceptable. These Crusades were by all means bad because they were not fought in sincerity, but as a scapegoat to spearhead personal and human interests.
The Crusades were bad because they brought upon the church and the leadership a problem with how they got along with each other. It resulted in a lot of resentment between the princes and the papacy. The princes felt that they were in a position to rule their lands and create their principalities in the Middle East without the help of the Popes, who considered themselves absolute leaders in the region (Catherwood 39). The princes did not like the interference caused by the Bishop of Rome, and their rose issues of competition between them; such completion between state and the church portrayed the leadership of both as selfish and were not meant to serve the interests of the people. Tension between the papacy and the princes is a clear indicator that both were not good intentioned because both were thirsty for absolute power.
It also needs to be remembered that when Pole Urban II asked the knights of Christendom to fight back the incursion of Islam, there were thousands of warriors who took up the challenge and prepared for war. The motivation behind the tremendous response was because they wanted to go fight not because they had the best interests of religion at heart; but because they were keen on looting and bring home their loot much to their advantage. The warriors were there to serve their best interests and not of the religion they professed (Amento et al. 76). Islam boasted of riches not found anywhere else in the region, and had taken up much of what belonged to the church. In retaliation, the young warriors just wanted to get back what they believed had been taken from their forefathers. The wars were, therefore, not good intentioned of the common good of everyone; but they were meant to retaliate of hit back, so that Islam could pay pack for the perceived problems they had caused Christianity from the past. The wars were not good intentioned but served for the benefit of a few persons who wanted to take that chance to satisfy their greed, and for that reason, they were unjustified and uncalled.
Both religions were fighting for supremacy and could not even for a moment of the other religion as better. It is this competition that led the Christians to force the Muslim world to convert, just like the Muslims had changed Many Christians along the Mediterranean. Christians were keen on forced conversion just like it had been done by Muslims. One other factor that needs to be considered is the fact that the two religions have two conflicting ideologies about Jesus Christ. The Christians, therefore, looked as Muslims as enemies of Christ. Under normal circumstances, no religion should consider the other as less significant, in as much as there seems to be competition between different faiths (Bentley & Herbert 31). Such competition is very ungodly because, at the end of the day, it will not have served for the right of the followers, but leads to ultimate destruction, just like it did in this case. The Crusaders were only interested in conquering, defeat and defended themselves from the religion they deemed rogue. But that goes against the spirit of the God they profess to worship. It is even funny that Muslims who lived in the conquered areas were allowed to continue with their worship; then one wonders why there were wars in the first place, because they had not achieved anything in converting them.
The Crusades were pure war, and there is nothing good that ever comes out of any war. The brutal violence led to a lot of blunders, mishaps as well as crimes that brought a lot of damages, not only for loss of life but also loss of property. What is more painful is the fact that there were a lot of innocent lives that were lost. For instance, it was wrong that several Jews died, and properties taken away in the war of 1095 when Count Emicho Leiningen led troops through Rhine (Amento et al. 91). Even if the local bishops tried to stop the damage, there is nothing much they would do. Jews suffered in a war where they were not directly involved, not because they had done anything wrong, but because Christians were taking it out of them because they were opposed to Christian practices. In as much as there was widespread belief that that was the best thing to do, it should be remembered that they suffered for the sins of Muslims.
When holding all factors constant, analyzing the reasons why there were the Crusades in the first place, it becomes apparent that the reasons behind them were personal and were serving the interests of a minority group of people. Islam was holding onto Perhaps these Crusades form part of the history that led to the holocaust, because just like the holocaust; they were religious oriented, and one group of people was keen on seeing the extinction of the other (Catherwood 98). Just like any other religious war that has been witnessed in the world, the Crusades were a mistake and ought to have not been there in the first place. All the Crusades wanted to counter a trend that was beyond them, but all they left behind was a trail of destruction. The Crusaders themselves were killed in the process, and one cannot say that they benefitted anyone. In the wake of the disaster that spanned a couple of centuries, nothing good can be said about them.
Works Cited
Armento, Beverly J., Gary B. Nash, Christopher L. Salter, Karen K. Wixen. Across the Centuries. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. Print
Bentley, Jerry H. and Herbert F. Ziegler. Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective On The Past. Boston: Mc-Graw Hill Co, 2000.
Catherwood, Christopher. Making War in the Name of God. New York: Kensington Publishing, 2008. Print
