The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15

Summary

In this Crash Course World History episode, John Green explores the Crusades, debunking myths and highlighting their true nature beyond the romanticized narratives. He explains that the Crusades were not initially 'holy wars' against Islam but were influenced by religious faith and political motivations. The video delves into the historical context, the role of key figures like Saladin and Richard the Lionheart, and the long-term impacts of the Crusades on Europe and the Middle East, emphasizing the importance of understanding the medieval mindset and the transformative effect of the Crusades on the participants' faith and lives.

Takeaways

• 🏰 The Crusades were a series of military expeditions from Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean, driven by religious faith but not initially a 'holy war' against Islam.
• 📖 The story of the Crusades has been romanticized and simplified, creating a narrative with heroes and villains, often idealized in literature and culture.
• 🕊 Early Islamic dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids were tolerant of Christians and Jews, allowing them to live peacefully as long as they paid a tax.
• 🗡 The Seljuk Turks disrupted this peace by sacking holy cities and making Christian pilgrimages difficult, which eventually led to the call for the Crusades.
• 📣 Pope Urban II initiated the first official Crusade in 1095 CE, using it as a means to unite Europe under a common enemy and to bolster his own authority.
• ⛪ Theologically, the Crusades were framed as pilgrimages with a side of warfare, as Christianity did not have a concept of a 'holy war' but did value pilgrimages to holy sites.
• 🗡️ The First Crusade was surprisingly successful, with the Crusaders capturing Jerusalem and establishing Latin Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land.
• 🛶 The Fourth Crusade deviated from the original intent, resulting in the sacking of the Christian city of Constantinople and a shift in the perception of who could be considered a Crusade's target.
• 👥 The Crusades were not just for noble knights but involved a wide range of people, including the poor, and were driven by religious motivations rather than economic gain.
• 🕌 Despite the efforts, the Crusades ultimately failed to establish long-term Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land, and the region remained predominantly Muslim.
• 🌏 The Crusades highlight the medieval mindset, emphasizing the importance of empathy and understanding when studying history and its impact on the lives of those involved.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the video script?

The video script focuses on the Crusades, a series of military expeditions from Europe to the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and discusses their historical context, misconceptions, and impact.

Why does the narrator express a dislike for the Crusades?

The narrator dislikes the Crusades because they have been romanticized and oversimplified in history, leading to a distorted view of the events and their complexities.

What was the initial purpose of the Crusades according to the script?

Initially, the Crusades were not a 'holy war' against Islam, but were driven by religious faith and a desire to help the Byzantines and liberate Jerusalem for Christian pilgrimages.

How did the Seljuk Turks impact the situation that led to the Crusades?

The Seljuk Turks moved into the region, sacked holy cities, and made Christian pilgrimages difficult, which contributed to the call for the Crusades.

What was Pope Urban II's strategy in calling for the First Crusade?

Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade to unite Europe under a common enemy, hoping it would help the Byzantines and possibly gain recognition for his papacy.

Why were the Crusades considered pilgrimages rather than just military operations?

Theologically, Christianity did not have the concept of a holy war, but pilgrimages to holy shrines had religious significance. Pope Urban II framed the Crusade as a pilgrimage with a side of warring.

What misconception does the script aim to dispel about the Crusades being an early form of European colonization?

The script clarifies that the Crusades were not an early form of European colonization of the Middle East, as they were primarily driven by religious motivations rather than economic or territorial gain.

Who were some of the notable leaders of the First Crusade mentioned in the script?

Notable leaders of the First Crusade mentioned in the script include Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond of Taranto, and Raymond of Toulouse.

What significant event occurred during the Third Crusade that impacted the future of crusading?

During the Third Crusade, the loss of Jerusalem led to a shift in focus towards Egypt as a target for future crusades, as it was seen as a strategic location.

Why did the Fourth Crusade result in the sacking of Constantinople instead of targeting the Holy Land?

The Fourth Crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople due to financial issues and political manipulations, leading the Crusaders to attack a Christian city instead of their original Muslim targets.

What was the long-term impact of the Crusades on the Byzantine Empire?

The Fourth Crusade significantly weakened the Byzantine Empire, which never fully recovered and was eventually conquered by the Turks in 1453.

What does the narrator believe is the most important takeaway from studying the Crusades?

The narrator believes that the most important takeaway from studying the Crusades is the exercise in empathy, understanding the medieval world's fundamentally different perspective and the deep religious motivations of the Crusaders.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Introduction to the Crusades

John Green introduces the topic of the Crusades in a humorous tone, expressing his dislike for the subject. He explains that the Crusades were not initially a 'holy war' against Islam but were influenced by religious faith. The script clarifies misconceptions about the Crusades, such as the idea that religion causes all wars, and notes the historical context of the Islamic empire's early tolerance towards Christians and Jews. The narrative then shifts to the influence of the Seljuk Turks and the call for help from the Byzantines, leading to the first official Crusade initiated by Pope Urban II in 1095 CE. Green emphasizes the Crusades as pilgrimages with a military aspect, rather than purely military expeditions.

05:03

😮 The Success of the First Crusade and the Third Crusade

This section details the surprising success of the First Crusade, despite internal rivalries and lack of organization among the Crusaders. It highlights the discovery of a holy spear at Antioch that boosted morale and the capture of Jerusalem, which was seen as a miraculous event. The narrative then moves to the Third Crusade, prompted by Saladin's successful recapture of Jerusalem. The response from European kings, including Richard the Lionheart, is discussed, along with the strategic shift towards targeting Egypt as a means to eventually take Jerusalem. The summary also touches on the cultural and religious tensions between Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the newly established Latin Christian kingdoms.

10:04

😱 The Fourth Crusade and Its Aftermath

The Fourth Crusade is depicted as a significant deviation from the original purpose of the Crusades. The large number of volunteers and the decision to travel by boat due to the challenges of land travel are outlined. The Crusaders' agreement to help the Venetians capture the Christian city of Zara, leading to their excommunication, is mentioned. The subsequent involvement in Byzantine politics, the sacking of Constantinople, and the failure to reclaim any part of the Holy Land are detailed. The consequences of the Fourth Crusade for the Byzantine Empire and the broader implications for the perception of Crusading as a legitimate endeavor against any enemy of the Catholic Church are discussed.

🤔 Reflections on the Crusades and Their Legacy

In the concluding paragraph, Green reflects on the Crusades as a reminder of the fundamentally different medieval world, where people believed in the sacrality of their actions. He emphasizes the importance of empathy in understanding the Crusaders' perspective and the transformative journey from pilgrimage to holy war. The paragraph also addresses the common misconceptions about the Crusades' impact on Europe's intellectual development and their role in the transition from the Middle Ages. Green wraps up with a call to appreciate the complexity of history and the unique insights it offers into human belief and action.

Keywords

💡Crusades

The Crusades were a series of military expeditions initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims in the medieval period. In the video, the Crusades are depicted not as a simple 'holy war' but as complex events driven by various factors including religious faith, political motivations, and economic opportunities. The term is central to the video's exploration of historical narratives and the romanticization of these events.

💡Pilgrimages

Pilgrimages are religious journeys to a particular place of significance. In the context of the Crusades, as discussed in the video, they were initially not military operations but religious acts of devotion, with the Pope Urban II framing the Crusade as a pilgrimage with a military objective on the side. This concept is crucial to understanding the religious motivations behind the Crusaders' actions.

💡Seljuk Turks

The Seljuk Turks were a group of medieval Turks who migrated to the region of modern-day Turkey and Iran, and their invasion of the region around the Mediterranean Sea is mentioned in the video as a catalyst for the Crusades. They are significant because their actions disrupted Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land, contributing to the call for the First Crusade.

💡Pope Urban II

Pope Urban II was a significant figure in the initiation of the Crusades. As mentioned in the video, he issued a call to arms in 1095 CE, partly to unite Europe under a common cause and to support the Byzantine Empire against the Seljuk Turks. His role is pivotal in the narrative of the Crusades as a religiously motivated endeavor.

💡Saladin

Saladin, known to the West as Sultan al-Malik al-Nasir Salah ed-Din Yusuf, was a Muslim leader who successfully recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders. The video highlights his military prowess and his role in the Third Crusade, illustrating the complex dynamics of the conflict and the respect he commanded from his European adversaries.

💡Richard the Lionheart

Richard the Lionheart was the King of England who participated in the Third Crusade. The video emphasizes his reputation as a great general and his strategic vision in attempting to take Jerusalem by first targeting Egypt. His efforts, though unsuccessful in the short term, had a lasting impact on the direction of Crusading efforts.

💡Fourth Crusade

The Fourth Crusade, as described in the video, was a significant deviation from the earlier Crusades, marked by its diversion from the original goal of liberating the Holy Land. Instead, it resulted in the sacking of the Christian city of Constantinople, which had profound consequences for the Byzantine Empire and the perception of Crusading.

💡Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empire, the eastern continuation of the Roman Empire, is mentioned in the video as a significant player in the events leading up to the Crusades. The empire's weakened state after the Battle of Manzikert and its subsequent call for help from the West set the stage for the First Crusade and had lasting implications for its eventual fall.

💡Ottomans

The Ottomans, a Turkish dynasty that rose to power in the late medieval period, are noted in the video as the eventual rulers of the region that was the focus of the Crusades. Their conquest of Constantinople in 1453 marked the end of the Byzantine Empire and the solidification of Muslim control over the area.

💡Empathy

Empathy, as discussed in the video's conclusion, is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. In the context of the Crusades, the video encourages viewers to exercise empathy to grasp the deeply held beliefs and motivations of the Crusaders, which were fundamentally different from modern perspectives.

💡Myth

The term 'myth' in the video refers to the misconceptions or oversimplified narratives that have arisen around the Crusades. The video seeks to dispel myths such as the idea that the Crusades were solely about religious conflict or were an early form of European colonization, emphasizing the complexity of historical events.

Highlights

The Crusades were a series of military expeditions from parts of Europe to the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, romanticized in history.

Initially, the Crusades were not a 'holy war' against Islam but were driven by religious faith.

Early Islamic dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids were tolerant of Christians and Jews, as long as they paid a tax.

The Seljuk Turks' arrival complicated Christian pilgrimages, leading to the Byzantines' call for Western help.

Pope Urban II initiated the first official Crusade in 1095 CE to unite Europe and establish a common enemy.

The Crusades were pilgrimages with a side of warring, not primarily military operations.

The First Crusade was remarkably successful, capturing Jerusalem and securing it for Christendom.

The Third Crusade was a response to Saladin's capture of Jerusalem and featured notable European kings.

Saladin was an exceptional general who successfully took Jerusalem and expanded his power.

The Fourth Crusade deviated from traditional Crusading, sacking the Christian city of Constantinople.

The Crusades did not bring Europe out of the Middle Ages or establish long-term Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land.

The Crusades were not an early example of European colonization of the Middle East.

Most Crusaders were not knights but poor people, and nobles were lords of estates, not their second or third sons.

Religion played a significant role in the Crusades, shaping the world and the motivations of the Crusaders.

The Crusades highlight the medieval world's fundamental differences from today, emphasizing the sacrality of their work.

Studying the Crusades allows for an exercise in empathy, understanding the transformative journey from pilgrimage to holy war.

Transcripts

Hi there! My name is John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going

to talk about the Crusades. Ohhh, Stan, do we have to talk about the Crusades? I hate them...

Here’s the thing about the Crusades, which were a series of military expeditions from

parts of Europe to the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The real reason they feature

so prominently in history is because we’ve endlessly romanticized the story of the Crusades.

We’ve created this simple narrative with characters to root for and root against, and

it’s all been endlessly idealized by the likes of Sir Walter Scott. And there are knights

with swords and lion hearts... NO, STAN. LIONHEARTS. Thank you.

[theme music]

Let’s start by saying that initially the Crusades were not a “holy war” on the

part of Europeans against Islam, but in important ways the Crusades were driven by religious faith.

Past John: Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Religion causes all wars. Imagine no war —

I’m gonna cut you off right there before you violate copyright, me-from-the-past. But

as usual, you’re wrong. Simple readings of history are rarely sufficient. By the way,

when did my handwriting get so much better?

I mean, if the Crusades had been brought on by the lightning-fast rise of the Islamic

empire and a desire to keep in Christian hands the land of Jesus, then the Crusades would’ve

started in the 8th century. But early Islamic dynasties, like the Umayyads and the Abbasids,

were perfectly happy with Christians and Jews living among them, as long as they paid a

tax. And plus the Christian pilgrimage business was awesome for the Islamic Empire’s economy.

But then a new group of Muslims, the Seljuk Turks, moved into the region and they sacked

the holy cities and made it much more difficult for Christians to make their pilgrimages.

And while they quickly realized their mistake, it was already too late. The Byzantines, who’d had their

literal-asses kicked at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, felt the threat and called upon the West for help.

So the first official crusade began with a call to arms from Pope Urban II in 1095 CE.

This was partly because Urban wanted to unite Europe and he’d figured out the lesson the

rest of us learn from alien invasion movies: the best way to get people to unite is to

give them a common enemy. So Urban called on all the bickering knights and nobility

of Europe, and he saideth unto his people: “Let us go forth and help the Byzantines

because then maybe they will acknowledge my awesomeness and get rid of their stupid Not

Having Me as Pope thing, and while we are at it, let’s liberate Jerusalem!” I’m paraphrasing, by the way.

Shifting the focus to Jerusalem is really important, because the Crusades were not primarily

military operations; they were pilgrimages. Theologically, Christianity didn’t have

an idea of a holy war – like, war might be just, but fighting wasn’t something that

got you into heaven. But pilgrimage to a holy shrine could help you out on that front, and

Urban had the key insight to pitch the Crusade as a pilgrimage with a touch of warring on

the side. I do the same thing to my kid every night: I’m not feeding you dinner featuring

animal crackers. I’m feeding you animal crackers featuring a dinner. Oh, it’s time for the open letter?

An Open Letter to Animal Crackers.

But first let’s see what’s in the Secret Compartment today. Oh, it’s animal crackers.

Thanks, Stan...

Hi there, Animal Crackers, it’s me, John Green. Thanks for being delicious, but let

me throw out a crazy idea here: Maybe foods that are ALREADY DELICIOUS do not need the

added benefit of being PLEASINGLY SHAPED. I mean, why can’t I give my kid animal spinach

or animal sweet potato or even animal cooked animal? I mean, we can put a man on Mars but

we can’t make spinach shaped like elephants? What Stan? We haven’t put a man on Mars?

Stupid world, always disappointing me.

Best wishes, John Green

One last myth to dispel: The Crusades also were NOT an early example of European colonization

of the Middle East, even if they did create some European-ish kingdoms there for a while.

That's a much later, post-and-anti-colonialist view that comes, at least partially, from a Marxist reading of history.

In the case of the Crusades, it was argued, the knights who went adventuring in the Levant

were the second and third sons of wealthy nobles who, because of European inheritance

rules, had little to look forward to by staying in Europe and lots to gain – in terms of

plunder – by going to the East. Cool theory, bro, but it’s not true. First, most of the

people who responded to the call to Crusade weren’t knights at all; they were poor people.

And secondly, most of the nobles who did go crusading were lords of estates, not their wastrel kids.

But more importantly, that analysis ignores religious motivations. We’ve approached

religions as historical phenomena — thinking about how, for instance, the capricious environment

of Mesopotamia led to a capricious cadre of Mesopotamian gods. But just as the world shapes

religion, religion also shapes the world.

And some modern historians might ignore religious motivations, but medieval crusaders sure as

hell didn’t. I mean, when people came up with that idiom, they clearly thought Hell

was for sure. To the Crusaders, they were taking up arms to protect Christ and his kingdom.

And what better way to show your devotion to God than putting a cross on your sleeve, spending

5 to 6 times your annual income to outfit yourself and all your horses, and heading for the Holy Land?

So when these people cried out “God Wills It!” to explain their reasons for going,

we should do them the favor of believing them. And the results of the First Crusade seemed

to indicate that God had willed it. Following the lead of roving preachers with names like

Peter the Rabbit- Peter the Hermit? Stan, you’re always making history less cool!

Fine, following preachers like Peter the Hermit, thousands of peasants and nobles alike volunteered

for the First Crusade. It got off to kind of a rough start because pilgrims kept robbing those they encountered

on the way. Plus, there was no real leader so they were constant rivalries between nobles

about who could supply the most troops. Notable among the notables were Godfrey of Bouillon,

Bohemond of Taranto, and Raymond of Toulouse.

But despite the rivalries, and the disorganization the crusaders were remarkably — some would

say miraculously — successful. By the time they arrived in the Levant, they were fighting

not against the Seljuk Turks but against Fatimid Egyptians, who had captured the Holy Land

from the Seljuks, thereby making the Turks none too pleased with the Egyptians. At Antioch

the Crusaders reversed a seemingly hopeless situation when a peasant found a spear that

had pierced the side of Christ’s side hidden under a church, thereby raising morale enough

to win the day. And then they did the impossible: They took Jerusalem, securing it for Christendom

and famously killing a lot of people in the al-Asqa mosque.

Now the Crusaders succeeded in part because the Turkish Muslims, who were Sunnis, did

not step up to help the Egyptians, who were Shia. But that kind of complicated, intra-Islamic

rivalry gets in the way of the awesome narrative: The Christians just saw it as a miracle.

So by 1100CE European nobles held both Antioch and Jerusalem as Latin Christian kingdoms.

I say Latin to make the point that there were lots of Christians living in these cities before the

Crusaders arrived, they just weren’t Catholic -- they were Orthodox, a point that will become relevant shortly.

We’re going to skip the second Crusade because it bores me and move on to the Third Crusade

because it’s the famous one. Broadly speaking, the Third Crusade was a European response

to the emergence of a new Islamic power, neither Turkish nor Abbasid: the Egyptian (although

he was really a Kurd) Sultan al-Malik al-Nasir Salah ed-Din Yusuf, better known to the west as Saladin.

Saladin, having consolidating his power in Egypt, sought to expand by taking Damascus

and, eventually Jerusalem, which he did successfully, because he was an amazing general. And then

the loss of Jerusalem caused Pope Gregory VIII to call for a third crusade. Three of

the most important kings in Europe answered the call: Philip "cowardly schemer" the Second

of France, Richard "Lionheart" the First of England, and Frederick “I am going to drown

anticlimactically on the journey while trying to bathe in a river” Barbarossa of the not-holy,

not-roman, and not-imperial Holy Roman Empire. Both Richard and Saladin were great generals

who earned the respect of their troops.

And while from the European perspective the crusade was a failure because they didn’t

take Jerusalem, it did radically change crusading forever by making Egypt a target. Richard

understood that the best chance to take Jerusalem involved first taking Egypt, but he couldn’t

convince any crusaders to join him because Egypt had a lot less religious value to Christians than Jerusalem.

So Richard was forced to call off the Crusade early, but if he had just hung around until

Easter of 1192, he would’ve seen Saladin die. And then Richard probably could have

fulfilled all his crusading dreams, but then, you know, we wouldn’t have needed the 4th Crusade.

Although crusading continued throughout the 14th century, mostly with an emphasis on North

Africa and not the Holy Land, the 4th Crusade is the last one we’ll focus on, because

it was the crazy one. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

So a lot of people volunteered for the fourth crusade — more than 35,000 — and the generals

didn’t want to march them all the way across Anatolia, because they knew from experience

that it was A. dangerous and B. hot, so they decided to go by boat, which necessitated

the building of the largest naval fleet Europe had seen since the Roman Empire.

The Venetians built 500 ships, but then only 11,000 Crusaders actually made it down to

Venice, because, like, oh I meant to go but I had a thing come up... etc. There wasn’t

enough money to pay for those boats, so the Venetians made the Crusaders a deal: Help

us capture the rebellious city of Zara, and we’ll ferry you to Anatolia.

This was a smidge problematic, Crusading-wise, because Zara was a Christian city, but the

Crusaders agreed to help, resulting in the Pope excommunicating both them and the Venetians.

Then after the Crusaders failed to take Zara and were still broke, a would-be Byzantine

emperor named Alexius III promised the Crusaders he would pay them if they helped him out,

so the (excommunicated) Catholic Crusaders fought on behalf of the Orthodox Alexius,

who soon became emperor in Constantinople. But it took Alexius a while to come up with

the money he’d promised the Crusaders, so they were waiting around in Constantinople,

and then Alexius was suddenly dethroned by the awesomely named Mourtzouphlos, leaving

the crusaders stuck in Constantinople with no money.

Christian holy warriors couldn’t very well sack the largest city in Christendom, could

they? Well, it turns out they could and boy, did they. They took all the wealth they could

find, killed and raped Christians as they went, stole the statues of horses that now

adorn St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice, and retook exactly none of the Holy Land. Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So you’d think this disaster would discredit the whole notion of Crusading, right? No.

Instead, it legitimatized the idea that Crusading didn’t have to be about pilgrimage: that

any enemies of the Catholic Church were fair game.

Also, the fourth crusade pretty much doomed the Byzantine Empire, which never really recovered.

Constantinople, a shadow of its former self, was conquered by the Turks in 1453. So ultimately

the Crusades were a total failure at establishing Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land long term.

And with the coming of the Ottomans, the region remained solidly Muslim, as it (mostly) is today.

And the Crusades didn’t really open up lines of communication between the Christian and

Muslim worlds, because those lines of communication were already open. Plus, most historians now

agree that the Crusades didn’t bring Europe out of the Middle Ages by offering it contact

with the superior intellectual accomplishments of the Islamic world. In fact, they were a

tremendous drain on Europe’s resources.

For me, the Crusades matter because they remind us that the medieval world was fundamentally

different from ours. The men and women who took up the cross believed in the sacrality

of their work in a way that we often can’t conceive of today. And when we focus so much

on the heroic narrative or the anti-imperialist narrative, or all the political in-fighting,

we can lose sight of what the Crusades must have meant to the Crusaders. How the journey

from pilgrimage to holy war transformed their faith and their lives. And ultimately, that

exercise in empathy is the coolest thing about studying history. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.

Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson.

Our graphics team is Thought Bubble, and the show is written by my high school history

teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. If you enjoyed today’s video don’t forget to like and

favorite it. Also, you can also follow us on Twitter or at Facebook. There are links

in the video info. Last week’s Phrase of the Week was: Ali-Frazier. You can guess at

this week’s Phrase of the Week or suggest future ones in comments where you can also

ask questions that our team of historians will endeavor to answer. Thanks for watching.

I apologize to my prudish fans for leaving both buttons unbuttoned and as we say in my

hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

Whoah! Globe, globe, globe...