Crusades take a significant part of human history and until nowadays there are disputes about their true motives and goals. The First Crusade was organized in 1096 by pope Urban II according to the request of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I. The seek for aid was sent primarily because of Asia Minor lands taken from him by Seljuq Turks. First, the pope asked French knights for a force union, but the crusade quickly turned into a big-scale military campaign attaching all the governments in Western Europe. The mutual idea of rescuing the saint city of Jerusalem was bonding the troops and leading them to the fight. As a result, in 1099, crusaders freed Jerusalem from Turks. In the modern historical overviews, it is oftentimes mentioned that the crusaders were led with hatred against Muslims. However, these opinions might be mostly based on subjective perceptions of the XI century’s events. Nicholas Morton provides a convincing statement that the First Crusade was not the reason to express hate towards Muslims, it was an action towards Turks’ religious beliefs and a consequence of a different perception of the enemy.
Morton proves that the true motive of the crusaders was to reconquest the Holy Land, and they were religious and perceived the road to Jerusalem as a pilgrimage. Indeed, strong belief in religion and the wish to help their brethren were leading factors of the First Crusade. In Urban II’s speech to the crusaders, it is seen that the pope brings up the topics of peace and unity in Christendom, respect to the church, and the importance of providing aid to their brothers in need. Urban II invokes: “O Sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church.” That highlights the deep motives of the war as the leader was using the above-mentioned arguments to motivate the crusaders and unite them. Moreover, Urban II’s speech contains essential words that express the attitude of Christians towards hate: “If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable.” If the initial purpose of these troops was hatred towards Muslims, the speech of Urban II would focus on the disparities between the religions and possible ways of despising them. However, Urban II applies to God and the call of Duty, the respect to the sacred, and the significance of supporting the common belief of humans. In crusader letters, it is also visible that the enemy is called Turks as the group of the population without any religious context and referring to Islam. For example, in one of the letters, no evil emotions are expressed to the competitor, crusaders narrate about past events, their succeeds and failures and ask to pray for the departed ones and peaceful life. Thus, the union of Christian believers was major in the motivation of the crusaders, not the hatred towards Islam.
Moreover, the First Crusade did not know enough about Muslims and could not develop hate towards them without any knowledge. Morton proves this argument by providing data about distance factors influencing this acquaintance as the frontier of Muslim countries that were located far from Britain, France, and Germany, and the information back in the days traveled slowly. Christian side indeed was struggling to understand the character and the ways of behavior of Seljuq Turks. In crusader letters, the unpredictable movements of the opponent are described such as pretending fair and setting traps that were not forecast by the Christians. The latter had to study the personalia, habits, and behavior models of the competitor during the war as they have never experienced getting to know Turks close enough. Morton also highlights the mixed ethnic groups participating in the First Crusade, for instance, Muslim troopers from the lands of Sicily. Some of the troops received more data about the Islam representatives; still, not many Christians knew the specialties of their culture, religion, rules, and life. Even though the biased attitude towards the enemy follows historical papers, nothing specific with regards to Turk’s customs, traditions, and religion can be found. Crusaders sometimes call the opponent a pagan and criticize their peace disturbance. However, no signs of blame or hate can be read in historical data used as primary sources for this assignment. Therefore, it might be hard to develop hatred for some ethnic groups people were barely contacting with. War with an anti-muslimism mood has to take roots from previous acquaintance with the enemy and focus on the disparities and mutual disagreement with the opponent’s customs.
Despite the mentioned above argument, Turks at the First Crusade’s period represented a rapidly changing culture with flexible customs due to their lifestyle. Turks were influenced by various cultures and religions along with the new land occupation leading a stepper way of existence. Without clear notice, their Islamic religion was absorbing a lot of features from the faith of the Near East. Even Arabs fighting with Turks alongside hated them more than Christians as Arabs believed Turks have major control over their population. Although the letters of the crusaders do not express judgment towards Turks or Islam, the majority of the letters highlight Christianity and trust in God’s will. Possibly, Christians did not develop a great hatred towards Turks because they did not remain a clear example of Islam. With constantly changing rules and flexibility to the new exceptions to the rules, Turks form an up-to-date culture standing in the middle of all religions.
However, it is hard to estimate the possible hatred towards Muslims, even if there was one when the crusaders did not always follow Bible principles showing cruelty at wars. The majority of sources claim that the crusaders were rescuing their brothers and fighting for Christendom. Nevertheless, there is no biblical excuse for conquering new lands, killing innocent people, and destroying cities for the sake of religion, Christendom. This argument is binary as it was hard to live without a fight back in the days, and during the war, it is almost impossible to distinguish innocent people from guilty ones. Crusaders can hardly be judged about their actions following the Bible as they lived in a time when war and bravery in the fight were deciding the most.
Hence, Morton in the article provides persuading arguments claiming the First Crusade was not the reason to express hatred towards Muslims. Crusaders were aiming to rescue their confederates, save the Holy Land of Jerusalem, and achieve peace believing in God’s will. It is evident from primary sources such as the speech of Urban II to the crusaders in 1095 and the evidence gathered from crusader letters. Christians perceived war from religious sides, and they could not develop hatred towards Muslims as they also did not possess vast knowledge about them. Also, Turks themselves represented a very flexible and rapidly changing culture becoming at the times of the First Order not a classical representative of Islam.
References
Morton, Nicholas. “Was the First Crusade Really a War Against Islam?” History Today 67, no. 3 (2017): 11-16.
Munro, Dana C. Letters of the Crusaders. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1896.
Thatcher, Oliver J., and McNeal, Edgar Holmes, eds. A Source Book for Medieval History. New York: Scribners, 1905.