Religious Studies: The Crusades and Christianity Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

The war between Christians and Muslims was then focused on the holy land, which included Jerusalem and the Middle East. Initially, these lands were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. However, Islam began to spread to other parts of the world, including Europe. In its earliest days, the Islamic faith spread quickly because of its peaceful nature, as not warriors but “the preacher and the trader… carried their faith into every quarter of the globe”.¹ Aziz stresses that the methods of preaching mentioned in Quran are peaceful, since it is stated that “obey God and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away, the duty of Our Messenger is only to deliver the message clearly”.²

As Fantus observes, Muslims did not try to kill or harm people of other religion until Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah took power and not only killed Christians but also burnt down churches.³ Walker notes that during his reign (996-1021), this ruler introduced new and often conflicting policies, and had inconsistent attitudes towards other religions, such as Christianity and Judaism.⁴ Some researchers suggest that the reasons behind Al-Hakim’s cruelty was his desire to bring order to his kingdom and ensure righteous way of life of his people.⁵ Ferguson and Binks claim that the adoption of the “convert or die” philosophy is not confined to religious beliefs, but is a product of people’s personal traits, experiences, as well as their community.⁶ The adoption of this approach or radicalization based on religious motifs is based on micro-, meso- and macro-level factors.

At this point, Rome and Pope Urban II felt the need to protect Christendom and sought the help of their faithful in declaring war on Muslims. This essay looks into the purpose of the crusades from a Christian viewpoint, including their aftermath and relevance for the Medieval society. The discussions presented in the essay demonstrate the fact that faithful Christians believed that their spiritual wellbeing was negatively affected and corrupted by the growth of Islam. Thus, they had to do everything they could to stop the growth of this competing religion.

Early Doctrinal Developments in the Ancient Church

Before the crusades, there were significant early doctrinal developments in the ancient church. Arguably, it is these developments that eventually led to the First Crusade, which will enhance understanding of the purpose and intent of the crusades. Fantus notes that leaders in the Christian church, especially the Roman Catholic Church through Pope Urban II believed that their faith was in danger due to encroachment from Islam and other religions between the eleventh and the eighteenth centuries.⁷ Not only was the church fighting for its rights based on the conversion of people into Islam, but it was also trying to remain relevant among communities.

For instance, the radical conversion under the rule of Al-Hakim was regarded as inappropriate since Christians had to convert to Muslims, flee, or be killed.⁸ People who lived in Egypt in the tenth and eleventh centuries practices different religions, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Although these three religions had not witness considerable oppression previously, Al-Hakim started attacking non-Muslim Egyptians forcing them to conversion.⁹ Marco Nievergelt argues that between 7 AD and 70 AD, the church lost several members due to a sought of liberation.¹⁰ This, coupled with the fact that some members were subscribing to a new faith, made it prudent for the church to initiate self-preservation techniques.¹¹

The growth of Islam brought in two main factors that enhanced the need and desire for the crusades. The first, as Rodney Stark mentions was both a political and social factor. Since 7 AD when Islam was conceived, the religious leaders who subscribed to this faith sought not only to expand their population but also to acquire land.¹². Stark notes that Muslims had acquired territories in the Middle East and in North Africa before 70 AD.¹³ However, they began gaining interest in the gaining interest in areas of the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, many of the believers in the region were Christians.

During Pope Urban II’s speech on the need for the crusades, he argued that one of the purposes or intents of the activities was to free Christians in the Eastern part of the empire from the suffering they were enduring because of the invasion of Muslims. The Pope was concerned that even though majority of the Christians had not converted to Islam, they would be spiritually affected by the Muslims.¹⁴ This influence was mainly associated with Christians’ becoming less focused on their worship and their giving to god and to the Church. Urban II believed that the potential impact of the growing role of Islam was considerable because people could start comparing practices and beliefs or accept the fact that other religions could exist. Such bold ideas could lead to a substantial decrease in the size of Christian congregation.

There were also some political issues that led to the crusades. Going back to the Pope’s argument that Islam would corrupt Christians spiritually, many of the people who supported the crusades did so due to fear of being punished by God. In his speech, Urban II refers to the possible divine punishment of those who disobey God’s laws and let Muslims commit their crimes against Christ:

For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death.¹⁵

In a way, the Pope draw a parallel between those who commit crimes by practicing another religion and those who do nothing to fight this kind of wrong. Clearly, such speeches made people fearful of possible punishment in their afterlife and considered joining the troops that went to fight against infidels. Clearly, economic gains were another reason for following the call of duty and attacking Muslims.

Political goodwill enhanced this fear as politicians did not put in place any measures to curb the growth of Islam in the traditional Christian territories. Fantus explains that religious leaders had more political power than politicians in the early developments of the ancient church.¹⁶ This premise can be used to explain why the crusades were initially not influenced by political leaders but rather religious ones. Islamic factions also had internal political squabbles and this affected their ability to invade other regions. For example, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was known to kill Christians and torch down churches in regions he controlled, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. However, other Muslim leaders did not torture Christians and even allowed them to practice their religion with minimal interruption.

Such differences in ideologies in the leaders of Islam led to the loss of Jerusalem as a Muslim state in 969 AD.¹⁷ One of the reasons for internal opposition among Muslims was religion-based because Shia and Sunni Muslims had certain differences in their core beliefs. Some Shia leaders, including, Al-Hakim, cold not address Sunni Muslims even for the sake of defending Jerusalem. The representatives of these two Camps saw each other as heretics who were not much different from such infidels as Christians or Jews. Christians tried to rebel, but their efforts were not successful until the first crusades when massive military groups were sent to Jerusalem. The Pope then urged Christians to participate in the crusade after the break of Jerusalem from Islamic rule and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.¹⁸

The Church also debated the role of warfare in Christianity, particularly because many Christian doctrines preached peace and not war. Additionally, one of the commandments urged people not to kill, as it is a sin. To change the mindset of people, the clergy argued that the crusades were acceptable because individuals would be fighting for their God.¹⁹ One of the ideologists of the “just war” was Augustine who identified the term and explained the reasons behind the necessity (as compared to the possibility) of crusades and killing people for the sake of certain religious beliefs. Augustine found it acceptable and even critical to state just wars or “avenge injuries, if some nation or state against whom one is waging war has neglected to punish a wrong committed by its citizens, or to return something that was wrongfully taken”.²⁰ Augustine’s doctrine implied that justice could be achieve if all the wrongdoing was punished accordingly. In simple terms, such sins as murder and robbery were justified by the need to help God restore justice and maintain the order in the world.

After several deliberations, it was agreed that the Truce of God be observed and no warfare would take place on Sundays and other identified holy days.²¹ This measure was established first in 1027 during the Synod of Elne where any violence was suspended until the end of festivals. Later, similar steps were undertaken by the church, and sometimes meetings involved secular leaders. For example, the emperor Henry IV was present at the synod that took place in Mainz in 1082. The church had to involve the political lords and the knights who had also been fighting over land and resources in order to properly organize and manage the war.

Therefore, the third purpose of the crusades was penitential warfare, which also sought to bring together the knights, the political lords and the church. Penitential warfare became an important element in the opposition between the West (Christians) and the East (Muslims) during the middle Ages. Penitential warfare could be referred to as any activity associated with the participation in a crusade or a just war. Knights, political lords, and the church all pursued their own interests that were related to economic gains. Some invested money to support the troops, while some provided their men and armament, and went to the distant land to fight for Christ. Although the three groups were talking about penance, they concentrated on potential gains, such as property of the Muslims (or other people) who lived in Jerusalem or other places controlled by Muslims.

Fantus argues that the rallying call of the crusades after Pope Urban II’s speech was “God wills it” to show the spiritual obligation the crusades had on Christians.²² At that time, they truly believed that their spiritual wellness was being corrupted by Muslims and God had willed it that they declare war against all Muslims. The growth of Islam also affected Christians spiritually as they believed that it was their duty to stop any “evil” from spreading. This pushed the agenda and the passion for the Christian faithful to support the crusades.

Warfare and Reasons Behind Crusades

The first crusade occurred between in 1096, and it was led by four army commanders in an attempt to save Christians who were being tortured in Byzantium.²³ This first crusade recorded various social and economic impacts. First, socially, it allowed different groups of Christians who believed that it was their duty to kill Muslims or face eternal damnation to join in the war. Fantus explains that several separate groups were formed by different pastors and churches with the most common being led by a preacher referred to as Peter the Hermit.²⁴ These groups could not be easily controlled and they ended up massacring women and children in Islamic villages and Jewish communities.

The economy of these regions was negatively affected due to the warfare. Towns and cities were often devastated due to destruction and the lack of resources. Destroyed communities were abandoned, people did not work in the fields as they had nothing to sow and traders had nothing to trade.²⁵ Moreover, diseases also resulted in additional economic burden. Also, the Roman Catholic Church, the knights and the political lords contributed large investments in sustaining the war and this affected the general economy. The majority of European countries that took part in crusades had to face certain economic challenges as they invested heavily in warfare, but economic gains were insignificant or even non-existent.²⁶ The armies needed food, weapons, and other resources that were extracted from their communities. Moreover, many young men went to fight in the Middle East instead of working in fields and producing goods. Nevertheless, some countries had considerable gains, such as Italy, that was trading with both Muslims and Christians.

The issue of the Christian’s concern on how their faith was spiritually affected by the growth of Islam was also clearly demonstrated during the first crusade. Gerard Delanty explains that Tancred, who was the nephew of one of the four appointed commanders leading the war, had proclaimed that women and children would not be harmed during the war.²⁷ This proclamation was crucial for those who did not fully accept the idea of the “just war” as they knew that innocent people would not be harmed. The commander made the promise that was consistent with the doctrine of Augustine that people doing wrongs should be punished, so Christians were more willing to take part in crusades. Additionally, through other political agreements, villages and towns were not to be destroyed as this would, as mentioned, negatively affect the economy of the area.

The second most significant crusade was the third crusade which occurred between 1189 and 1192. This was an important crusade as the city of Jerusalem had been recaptured by Muslims and Christians were killed in similar manner as Muslims were during the first crusade.²⁸ The third crusade acted as a reaction to the fall of Jerusalem and was called for by Pope Gregory VIII. The whole of Europe supported this crusade: the Pope asked for help from King Philip II of France, King Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, and King Richard I of England, all of whom accepted the call and pledged both armies and finances to support the third crusade. The fact that Jerusalem had fallen due to internal wrangles between Christians also motivated the crusaders to work effectively together as they blamed themselves for the city’s loss. Unlike the previous two crusades, the political wing was heavily involved in the third crusade and political alliances were established. The leaders would often travel to the different cities to encourage the crusaders as they checked on the progress of the war.

The involvement of the political elites opened the door for other lords to join the fight in the best way they could. By the time the eighth was being conducted in 1270, it was mainly run by the political elite. Delanty explains that King Louis IX of France began the eighth crusade with the help of Prince Edward of England.²⁹ Whereas the last crusades were mainly driven by the political elite, the Church still had an important role to play in ensuring that the crusaders were motivated to end the war. Delanty explains that because the crusades began as a religious fight, there was no way of changing it into a political one despite the fact that it was being led by politicians.³⁰

Additionally, the crusaders believed that God anointed their political rulers. Therefore, their involvement in the crusades was a welcomed idea as it also meant that God, by extension, approved of the crusaders’ actions against Muslims. Nievergelt argues that the united Christian front and the failing Muslim front ensured that the battle for the Holy Land was won by Christians.³¹ Muslims were fighting amongst themselves (Shia and Sunni factions) and this greatly affected their ability to continue with the war. Additionally, lack of resources led to the fall of many of the Islamic states that had already been established. Many factors led to the decay of communities and even states, including environmental issues (such as drought) and political. Wars led to the decrease in population so fewer laborers were available and could produce goods. Trade was also declining due to wars as merchants were afraid of being robbed or killed and they looked for new routes. Therefore, many Muslims lost their lives, including those that were not directly involved in the wars.

Stagnation in the Middle Ages

There are several things that came about during the later years of stagnation in the Middle Ages. These include the fact that more political allies were involved in the cause. It is important to note that after the eighth crusade, there were a lot of activities that happened in the holy land that have been referred to as the “stagnation years.”³² One main activity during the stagnation years was the rebuilding of the Holy Land. Montgomery notes that the Holy Land had been negatively affected by the war with both infrastructure and human life lost.³³ The efforts to restore the Holy Land fell mainly on the political elite, although the church declared that it equally invested.³⁴ Although the Church provided some resources, but they still originated from the elites’ donations, so, in a sense, secular groups bore the heaviest economic burden where rebuilding the Holy Land.

Interestingly, a few Muslims remained in some of the areas due to treaties and truces that had been discussed. One of such agreements was the treaty of 1272 that implied a 10-year truce between crusaders and Egypt. According to this truce all religious groups could live in Jerusalem, but certain restrictions regarding fortification and armament were introduced.³⁵ However, Jerusalem, which was important for both Christians and Jews was, remained an area of contention. Whereas Christians and Jews had been fighting over this area long before the wars, the situation that had been advanced by the crusades led to the long Palestinian-Israel war that continues to this day. The history of the area made the two groups hostile to each other as too many people were killed and tortured during the crusade on both sides.

Equally important to point out is that the stagnation years encouraged the break between religion and political leadership. This argument is based on the fact that many kings, albeit still being tied to the Church, looked for other alliances and ways of achieving their goals without involving the Church. One of the reasons for this was the fact that the last crusades were highly political, especially the last two crusades, where kings supplied most of the forces and finances to regain control of the Holy Land.

Notably, the conquests to take back and protect the Holy Land ensured that crusaders had lands they could conquer and explore. Fantus explains that the idea that crusaders would get as much land as they wanted after the conquest was used to motivate them even further.³⁶ This premise ties closely with the legal issues that faithful in England had been fighting. Fantus explains that the English law allowed only firstborn sons to inherit their father’s lands.³⁷ The younger sons were motivated to participate in crusades to earn some money to start a prosperous life when they are back home.

Also, during the stagnation years, a new regime referred to as the Mamluks was formed.³⁸ The group was mainly made up of former slaves of the Muslim empires that had been destroyed by the crusaders. Indeed, it is arguable that the group sought freedom from both their masters and the new Christian faithfuls that had taken charge of their villages and homes. A majority of the crusaders, at first, did not see these slaves as a threat despite the fact that they practiced Islam. Indeed, several were killed during the war but those that remained were largely ignored. After the formation of the group and their activities in Palestine that halted the crusaders’ ability to invade the country, they were attacked and stopped in the ninth crusade. It is important to note that there are critics who do not consider the attack on the Mamluks as a crusade. This is because it was smaller in size and less significant in the history of Christianity.

Aftermath of the Crusades

There were several implications of the crusades in the years that followed. This section analyzes the political, social and theological implications of the crusades.

Political Implications

One of the biggest political implications of the crusades was that they enhanced the power of the political leaders and significantly lowered that of the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas it is true that the crusades began as a purely religious venture, other factors that contributed to the later crusades moved the agenda from a religious one to a political one. Stark explains that the first crusade sought to help Christians who were being tortured in Islamic states, bring together Christian factions that were fighting each other, and free Jerusalem from Islamic rule.³⁹ However, by the fifth crusade, it was evident that the war could also help countries trade more effectively by opening up new routes of trade especially to the Middle East and Africa. This made the crusades a significant political tool for many of the kings who were involved.

Additionally, Stark explains that since a significant percentage of the finances that were used during the crusades were collected from kingdoms, and kings had to raise taxes of the noble families in order to allow the crusades to continue.⁴⁰ This power also ensured that nobles who refused to pay their taxes were branded traitors of the Church. It is arguable that there are some leaders who took advantage of the situation to extend their reach, especially in Rome. Their power over the crusades also made them more powerful in Rome as the Church needed their resources and their support to motivate the crusaders. It is arguable that this power continued to grow as the crusades continued.

Social Implications

One of the most significant social impacts of the crusades was the large population movement from England to other parts of the world. Many young men joined the crusades to conquering new lands and settle there. Scaruffi notes that it is not only the young poor families that sought to make their lives better.⁴¹ The fact that the kings had become more powerful than ever due to their control of the crusades also encouraged some nobles to relocate to other areas that had been conquered. Scaruffi explains that due to the increased taxation by many of the Christian kings, a good number of nobles were forced to sell off their property or be jailed due to failure to pay taxes.⁴² Also, failure to pay taxes meant that they were religiously unfaithful. Joining the crusades, albeit not at the forefront, ensured that these nobles had a chance to relocate and gain new lands.

Falk goes further to explain that whereas no one had denied poor people the freedom to relocate before the war, the costly nature of the relocating made them stay and live in squalor.⁴³ This changed during the crusades as they would be transported to the new lands without paying anything. Thus, the majority who joined the cause and survived the wars would choose to stay in East. This demonstrates that those joining the fight were motivated by a combination of both social and political issues, often much more than religious reasons.

Theological Implications

Indeed, the most significant debate regarding the crusades is whether or not they were part of a “holy war.” Delanty supports this premise arguing that both Muslims and Christians valued the Holy Land due to its tie to both religions⁴⁴. Jerusalem was critical to Christians as it was the land where Jesus was crucified according to the Christian tradition. On the other hand, places such as current-day Mecca were important to Muslims as it held a significant role in the religion.⁴⁵ Therefore, the war was not simply for purposes of stopping the recruitment of members of both religions but also a preservation of the two faiths. Significantly, the initial rallying call for Christians was “God wills it” to prove that the war had been ordained by God.

The crusades were a holy war as they purposed to save tortured both Christians and Muslims. Additionally, Christian churches were burnt down by Muslims who had invaded their territories. From the beginning, the war was clearly defined as a religious one. This changed only in the last crusades, as explained above. The same can be said for Muslims who were looking to also protect the Holy Land through their own customs. To them, the land had been invaded by heathens, and they wanted to do anything to secure it and guide the people back to Allah. Kaplan introduces the controversial debate of who was more hostile between the Christians and the Muslims during the war.⁴⁶ Indeed, Kaplan points out that even though Muslims did torture Christians in some areas, a majority of them did not force either Jews or Christians to convert. This was unlike the Christians who killed every Muslim they met without even the chance to convert.

Relevance of the Crusades

There are two main factors when talking about the relevance of the crusades. The first is that the “winners” of the war were seen as a superior religion compared to the rest. Kaplan explains that Jerusalem was in the middle of the war due to its significance to three religions – Christianity, Jewism and Islam.⁴⁷ For Christians, Jesus was crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem. On the other hand, for Jews, it was where the original temple of God was built by King Solomon while for Muslims, it was where Muhammed ascended to heaven.⁴⁸ The fact that Christians won and ended the war automatically gave them an upper hand in terms of faith. It is arguable that this is one of the reasons why a large percentage of the world’s population is Christian compared to the other religions.

From a religious standpoint, it is also arguable that the war was relevant to determine the status of the different religions in terms of the strength of their gods. This comes from the fact that all the religions involved in the war believed that the God they worshiped had ordained their actions. For Christians, this was Jehovah while for Muslims it was Allah.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the crusades formed a crucial part of the history of Christians, Muslims and even Europe as a political block. There are three main purposes of the crusades as stipulated by history. These three purposes were projected by Pope Urban II who championed for the start of the crusades. One of the reasons is the need to fight for Jerusalem. Both Muslims and Christians had deep attachments to Jerusalem as it was believed to have been the place where Muhammed ascended to heaven and where Jesus was crucified. The second purpose of the crusades was the freeing of Christian faithful in the East who were being tortured by Muslims. Thirdly, Pope Urban II argued that the crusades would bring harmony amongst some factions that were significant to the medieval church.

These reasons were based on the faith and beliefs of Christians. They agreed to the war rallying call “God wills it” to attract individuals to join the crusades. Additionally, kingdoms in Europe gave both financial and other human resources to support the church in order to stop Muslims from expanding to their lands. It is important to note that after the first few crusades, the activities became politically driven as opposed to the religious reasons at the beginning, asmore political leaders got involved in the war. One of the reasons for this is that the war created a viable opportunity for trade by opening up new trade routes especially to the Middle East. Indeed, debates on the topic can take either a political, social or combined or holy war approach. Regardless of the school of thought, it is evident that the crusades were a very significant part of the history of world religions.

Bibliography

Allen, Susan Jane. An Introduction to the Crusades. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017.

Aziz, Zahid. Islam, Peace and Tolerance. Wembley: A.a.i.i.l. (u.k.), 2017.

Delanty, Gerard. Christianity in the Making of Europe. In: Formations of European Modernity. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Falk, Avner. Franks and Saracens: Reality and Fantasy in the Crusades. London: Routledge, 2018.

Fantus, James Michael. “The Last Word: Why the Timing of the World’s Religious Writings Matters.” Open Journal of Philosophy, no. 9 (2019): 252-264.

Ferguson, Neil, and Eve Binks. “Understanding Radicalization and Engagement In Terrorism Through Religious Conversion Motifs”. Journal of Strategic Security 8, no. 1-2 (2015): 16-26.

Fulcher of Chartres. “Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095.”Fordham University, Web.

Kaplan, Jeffrey. “Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted: Premodern Religious Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 31, no. 5 (2019): 1070-1095.

Montgomery Guyton, ed. “An Examination of Religious History: 33-1500 A.D.” 26th Annual NWFSBS Lectureship, Cantonment, FL, 2018.

Nievergelt, Marco. “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem: National Identity, Beleaguered Christendom, and Holy War during the Great Papal Schism.” The Chaucer Review 49, no. 4 (2015): 402-426.

Pryor, H. John, ed. Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Scaruffi, Piero. What the Muslims knew. PDF. Self-Published, 2018.

Stark, Rodney. “The Case for the Crusades.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20, no. 2, (2016): 9-28.

Syse, Henrik. “Augustine and Just War: Between Virtue and Duties,” in Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Henrik Syse, Gregory M Reichberg (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 38.

Tyerman, Christopher. The Debate on the Crusades. London: Manchester University Press, 2015.

Walker, Paul E. “Al-Ḥākim And The Dhimmīs”. Medieval Encounters 21, no. 4-5 (2015): 345-363.

Footnotes

1. Zahid Aziz, Islam, Peace and Tolerance (Wembley: A.a.i.i.l. (u.k.), 2017), 89.
2. Aziz, Islam, Peace and Tolerance, 90.
3. Michael James Fantus, “The Last Word: Why the Timing of the World’s Religious Writings Matters,” Open Journal of Philosophy, no. 9 (2019): 253.
4. Paul E. Walker, “Al-Ḥākim and the Dhimmīs,” Medieval Encounters 21, no. 4-5 (2015): 345.
5. Walker, “Al-Ḥākim and the Dhimmīs,” 350.
6. Neil Ferguson and Eve Binks, “Understanding Radicalization and Engagement in Terrorism Through Religious Conversion Motifs,” Journal of Strategic Security 8, no. 1-2 (2015): 18.
7. Fantus, “The Last Word”, 253.
8. Walker, “Al-Ḥākim and the Dhimmīs,” 345.
9. Ibid.
10. Marco Nievergelt, “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem: National Identity, Beleaguered Christendom, and Holy War during the Great Papal Schism,” The Chaucer Review 49, no. 4 (2015): 402.
11. Guyton Montgomery, ed., “An Examination of Religious History: 33-1500 A.D,” (26th Annual NWFSBS Lectureship, Cantonment, FL, February 18-22, 2018), 21.
12. Rodney Stark, “The Case for the Crusades.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20, no. 2, (2016): 10.
13. Stark, “The Case for the Crusades,” 11.
14. Christopher Tyerman, The Debate on the Crusades (London: Manchester University Press, 2015), 17.
15. Fulcher of Chartres, “Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095,” Fordham University, Web.
16. Fantus, “The Last Word,” 253.
17. Tyerman, The Debate on the Crusades, 17.
18. Nievergelt, “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem,” 403.
19. John H. Pryor, ed., Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades (New York: Routledge, 2016), 21.
20. Henrik Syse, “Augustine and Just War: Between Virtue and Duties,” in Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Henrik Syse, Gregory M Reichberg (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 38.
21. Pryor, ed., Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades (New York: Routledge, 2016) 22.
22. Fantus, “The Last Word”, 254.
23. Nievergelt, “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem,” 416.
24. Fantus, “The Last Word”, 253.
25. Susan Jane Allen, An Introduction to the Crusades, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 14.
26. Ibid.
27. Gerard Delanty, Christianity in the Making of Europe. In: Formations of European Modernity, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 12.
28. Nievergelt, “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem,” 405.
29. Delanty, Christianity in the Making of Europe, 18.
30. Delanty, Christianity in the Making of Europe, 18.
31. Nievergelt, “The Sege of Melayne and the Siege of Jerusalem,” 425.
32. Montgomery, ed., “An Examination of Religious History,” 21.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Allen, An Introduction to the Crusades, 52.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Fantus, “The Last Word”, 254.
39. Stark, “The Case for the Crusades,” 18.
40. Stark, “The Case for the Crusades,” 22.
41. Piero Scaruffi, What the Muslims knew, (PDF. Self-Published, 2018), 9.
42. Scaruffi, What the Muslims knew, 10.
43. Falk, Franks and Saracens: Reality and Fantasy in the Crusades, 37.
44. Delanty, Christianity in the Making of Europe, 21.
45. Delanty, Christianity in the Making of Europe, 22.
46. Jeffrey Kaplan, “Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted: Premodern Religious Terrorism,” Terrorism and Political Violence 31, no. 5 (2019): 1070.
47. Kaplan, “Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted,” 1085.
48. Kaplan, “Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted,” 1086.