Few themes bring together so much certainty and so little knowledge as the Crusades. They became synonymous with fanaticism, always cited, almost never studied. Take the test: can you name three specific characters from the Crusades, not the event, but the people? Anyone who gets stuck on this question doesn't have a problem with intelligence, but rather a problem with narrative. No one told the whole story, with context.
And context changes everything.
What came before
The Crusades were not born out of nowhere, in the 11th century, out of pure violent impulse. They come after around four centuries of military advances over territories that were Christian, from the Middle East to North Africa and the Iberian peninsula. The pressure on the pilgrims who went to Jerusalem, and on access to the holy places, is the immediate trigger. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the first expedition.
This does not make them exempt from criticism. It just means that they have causes, and those who ignore the causes judge only by appearance.
Neither holy nor demonic
The manual version oscillates between two extremes: the Crusade as a heroic gesture of faith, or as a blind barbarism of the Church. Both are caricatures.
There was genuine faith, and there was also ambition, greed and cruelty. The sack of Constantinople, in the Fourth Crusade, was a scandal committed against other Christians. There were indefensible massacres. And there were, at the same time, men who left sincerely believing they were fulfilling a sacred duty. The real story is made up of this mixture, not the purity of just one side.
Judging the Crusades without context is like reading the last page of a book and thinking you understand the plot.
What actually resulted
From a military point of view, the Crusades were, on the whole, a failure: Jerusalem was taken and lost, and after almost two centuries the Christian East was reduced. But the contact between West and East that they provoked, in trade, ideas and texts, had lasting cultural effects, which helped prepare the ground for the Renaissance.
To see the Crusades as a whole
The Crusades only make sense within the larger history of the medieval Church. To study them rigorously, without cliché on one side or the other, the reference is the collection History of the Church of Christ, by Daniel Rops, which honestly documents both the lights and the shadows. To avoid going through a ten-volume work alone, there is guided reading, chapter by chapter, with all the context.
Estudo aprofundado
Curso História da Igreja, com o Prof. Dr. Rodrigo Bitencourt
Leitura aprofundada da obra de Daniel Rops, a história da Igreja contada com rigor e narrativa, do Império Romano ao Vaticano II.
Conhecer o curso de História da IgrejaFrequently asked questions
What were the Crusades?
These were military expeditions from the 11th to 13th centuries, called to reconquer and protect the holy places and the access of pilgrims to Jerusalem, in a context of military advance on previously Christian territories.
Were the Crusades wars of conquest for no reason?
It's a simplification. They emerged as a response to centuries of military expansion and pressure on pilgrims. There was faith, but also ambition, serious mistakes and indefensible episodes. A good story hides neither side.
How many Crusades were there?
It is customary to count eight major Crusades to the East between 1096 and 1270, in addition to other campaigns. The results were, on the whole, militarily frustrating.
Continue: The Church in the Middle Ages · Why study Church History today · The Church Fathers: who they were and why they matter