Lesson 4: The Crusades

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson covers the history of the Crusades from a biblical and church history perspective. The Crusades were military campaigns primarily aimed at retaking the Holy Land from Muslim control, spanning roughly 1095 to 1291. The lesson examines the political and religious context that led to the Crusades, including the rise of the Seljuk Turks, changes in pilgrimage policies, and Pope Urban II’s famous speech at Clermont.

It traces the major crusades—the First Crusade’s unexpected success in taking Jerusalem, the Second Crusade’s failure, the Third Crusade featuring Richard the Lionheart, and the disastrous Fourth Crusade that sacked Christian Constantinople instead. The lesson also covers the crusader states, military monastic orders like the Knights Templar, and the long decline of crusader presence in the Levant. Throughout, the lesson wrestles with the complex legacy of the Crusades—acknowledging both the genuine religious devotion of many crusaders and the terrible violence committed, including massacres of Muslims and Jews.

It addresses how these events shaped Christian-Muslim-Jewish relations and concludes with reflections on how Christians should view the Holy Land, Israel, and the call to spread the gospel through love rather than warfare.

Key Lessons:
1. The Crusades arose from a complex mix of genuine religious devotion, political ambition, and papal authority
2. Medieval Christians believed holy war honored God, but this contradicts Jesus’ teaching that His kingdom is not of this world
3. The First Crusade succeeded militarily but involved terrible massacres that stained Christian witness
4. The Fourth Crusade’s sacking of Constantinople shows how far crusading zeal could stray from its stated purpose
5. Siege warfare was the dominant military strategy, costly for both attackers and defenders
6. Military monastic orders like the Templars combined warrior and monk identities in ways that both served and corrupted the church
7. The Crusades permanently damaged Christian-Muslim-Jewish relations with consequences still felt today
8. Christians should have compassion for all peoples in the Holy Land while maintaining biblical convictions about Israel and the gospel

Application: We are called to spread God’s kingdom through the gospel of love and grace, not through military conquest or political power. The Crusades remind us that even sincere religious zeal can lead to terrible outcomes when divorced from Christ’s actual teachings.

Discussion Questions:
1. How should Christians today think about the relationship between religious conviction and the use of force?
2. What can we learn from the Crusades about the dangers of mixing political power with spiritual mission?
3. How do the Crusades continue to affect Christian witness in the Muslim world today?

Scripture Focus: John 18:36 — “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight.” Romans 11:28 — “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.”

Outline

• Introduction: Context for the Crusades
• The Rise of the Seljuk Turks and the Pilgrimage Crisis
• Understanding Medieval Pilgrimage
• Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont
• The First Crusade: The People’s Crusade and the Prince’s Crusade
• The Siege of Antioch
• The Fall of Jerusalem
• Accounts of the Fall of Jerusalem
• The Crusader States and Military Orders
• The Second Crusade
• Saladin and the Fall of Jerusalem to Muslims
• The Third Crusade: Richard, Philip, and Frederick
• The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
• Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade
• The Decline and End of the Crusader States
• Legacy of the Crusades
• A Christian View of Israel and the Holy Land
• The Gospel and the Kingdom

Introduction: Context for the Crusades

Church history course. We’ve already traced some significant persons, events, and ideas of the Middle Ages. Last week, we looked at the continued empowerment of the Roman papacy in the high Middle Ages, but also the papacy’s tragic corruption and great schisms.

I mentioned to you that by the high Middle Ages—again, think of a thousand to about 1300—and odious popes claimed some seriously significant spiritual powers. We talked about a number of them. These spiritual powers often were used by the popes as leverage over the secular rulers of Europe and beyond.

One of these claimed powers that we didn’t get to describe last week was the ability to proclaim crusade. That is a divinely sanctioned holy war against a land or against a ruler or against a people. We’re going to go back and now talk about that one particular claimed power of the popes today. We’re going to talk about medieval crusades.

As to our more specific agenda, we’ll first introduce and overview the Crusades. We’ll discuss the most significant first crusade and then we’ll discuss the second, third, and fourth. They’re the other more significant of the crusades and we’ll spend some time discussing each of those.

Let me pray before we continue.

Lord God, as we examine history again, being informed, viewing it all from your scripture, Lord, I pray that we would receive great benefit. We would understand more of why the world is the way it is. What is some of the inheritance, both good and bad, that we’ve received as Christians today?

But Lord, also warning and encouragement from what our brothers went through in the past. Help me to be able to explain this material in Jesus’ name. Amen.

The Crusades are fascinating events in history and in church history. There have been many books, movies, documentaries, and even video games about these unique movements.

Because the crusades are such a popular topic, however, we must again beware of the traditional narratives that we’ve heard describing them. People have often drifted to one of two extremes when it comes to the Crusades and how to view them, how to understand them.

People either think that the Crusades were glorious, ideal, and righteous wars. They were fought out of a love for God, love for Christians, a love for fellow Christians, and a zealous hatred of evil. Or people think that the Crusades were a hypocritical sham. They were merely about power and control.

There was nothing honorable about the Crusades at all. They were brutal and shameful episodes in Christian history. Today, this latter approach is more widely held.

“The Seljuk Turks replaced the Arab caliphate across the Middle East around 1050, controlling territory from modern Turkey to Palestine to Iran.”

The truth is something in the middle. The Crusades were part chivalry, part barbarism. They were part righteous, part unrighteous.

Certainly, the Crusades would impact relations between Christians and Muslims for centuries. Even today, the crusades are fixed in the memories of many Middle Eastern Muslims and they partly fuel hostility toward Christianity and toward the nations of the West.

When people talk about the Crusades, they usually mean the Christian wars to retake the Holy Land, which occurred in the Levant, the Middle East from 1095 to 1291. Historians identify seven to nine major crusade movements to this area. Whether you count seven or nine depends on whether you split some of these crusades into their own crusades or not. There were many minor crusades as well to the Middle East.

But these weren’t the only places where crusades were called or took place. In Spain, there was the successful Reconquista from the Spanish Christians against the Moors until 1492. In Spain and France, the Pope called several crusades against those he deemed Christian heretics. There were wars between Christians, you could say.

In Northern Europe, the Teutonic Knights fought the Northern Crusade against the unchristianized barbarian tribes in today’s Baltic states. This crusade ultimately would also be successful.

But again, the crusades as people think about it usually refers to the wars to retake and maintain the Holy Land. That’s what we’re going to focus our discussion on this morning.

What sparked these crusades? This sudden zealous drive to control the land of Christian history mostly stemmed from a change in leadership in the Muslim Empire in the East.

The Seljuk Turks Replace the Arabs

You see, after the caliphate’s initial expansion by Muhammad’s successors in the late 600s into the early 700s, the empire split into different pieces with a large piece—the Arabian Empire—controlling the Middle East and fighting continually with the Byzantine Empire. However, like the Persians replaced the Babylonians in the Bible, you had a succession of one empire after the other.

So we see in the Middle East a new people group, the Seljuk Turks around 1050, came to replace the Arabs and their empire, which you can see in a little picture on the screen. That yellow territory would be what the Seljuk Turks came to control. They ruled from modern Turkey to Palestine to modern Iran and parts of Central Asia.

A large empire basically replaced the previous Arabian Empire in many ways. Now, with this new Muslim empire, not only did the Byzantines—the Eastern Roman Christians—lose territory, Turkey in particular and much of Turkey, but there was a change in Muslim policy toward Christians.

Previously under the Arabian Empire, not only could Christians practice their religion within the empire with some limitations and they had to pay a tax, but also visiting Christians were free to travel through Muslim territory on pilgrimage. Now, you may have heard the term before: pilgrimage. Can anyone tell me what a pilgrimage is?

“The Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt had previously taken Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks before the Crusaders arrived—the Crusade was not simply Islam vs. Christianity but involved competing Muslim powers.”

The Rise of the Seljuk Turks and the Pilgrimage Crisis

Holy. It’s a journey often to the Holy Land. Want something specific like when they grow up in the Mecca. Is it something like that?

Pilgrimage is not just a Christian idea. That’s right.

Understanding Medieval Pilgrimage

Sometimes we see it in Muslim religion or even Eastern religions. It’s a holy journey, usually a journey to a holy site, often as a work of devotion.

How pilgrimages became increasingly popular in the Middle Ages among Christians. Just as many were drawn to ascetic life in pursuit of God and salvation, many were drawn to pilgrimages as a way to get closer to God, as a way to pay for sins, as a way to fulfill a vow, as a way to gain righteousness, as a way to experience some miracle, as a way to express thanks to God.

There were many reasons why people would go on pilgrimage, and they would go to many different places. Pilgrimage sites existed all over Europe. Some of the famous sites would be Santiago de Compostela in Spain, right on the northwest part of Spain, where the shrine of St. James was set up.

Pilgrimages to Rome and Italy and the seat of the pope were also popular and prestigious. But the most revered pilgrimage site, the one most desired, was Jerusalem in Israel—the places where Jesus himself lived and walked and ministered. Especially the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which most likely contains not only Jesus’s tomb but also the crucifixion site.

We can sympathize with this, I think, because how many of you have wished to visit certain Christian holy sites associated with biblical events or with Jesus and the apostles? Some of you have gone to Israel or would like to go to Israel specifically for that reason.

We can sympathize with these medieval pilgrims and their desire to go to the Holy Land, as they called it, as a way to express devotion to God or even grow in devotion to God.

“Pilgrimage was a central devotional practice for medieval Christians—a holy journey to sacred sites as an act of devotion, penance, and spiritual growth.”

Pilgrimage in the Middle Ages

Many Christians therefore traveled to Palestine on pilgrimages, which worked out well for both Muslims and Christians. Muslims got the extra business from visiting Christians who were kind of like tourists to Muslim areas, and Christians got to fulfill their works of piety.

But the newly reigning Seljuk Turks in the mid-11th century made a change out of devotion to Islam. They forbid Christian pilgrimages and mistreated those Christians who still attempted the journeys.

Word soon spread to the west of Christians on the way to Jerusalem being attacked, being kidnapped, or even being killed or enslaved. Lay preachers throughout Europe began to appear, calling on Christians to help out their persecuted brethren in the east.

Now, we’ve already had the Great Schism at this point, the east-west schism. Nevertheless, that wasn’t the end of Christian relations between the two halves.

These preachers would acknowledge that those Eastern Christians may be a little off doctrinally, but look what’s happening to them at the hands of the godless Saracens. Saracen was a term the Europeans would often use to describe Muslims during this period.

The zeal of many European Christians was aroused as well as their hatred towards unbelievers and that unknown other who seems so vicious. Lots of new zeal and hatred towards the Muslims but also toward the Jews.

Just as preachers began to call for action against the Turks, so too did Byzantine emperors.

The Crisis: Turks Block Pilgrimages

In 1076, the emperor called out to the pope for help in fighting against the Turks. The pope was not ready to give aid at that time.

Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont

Then in 1095, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos sent a desperate letter to Pope Urban II calling for assistance. Urban II was ready to help and convened the Council of Clermont in France in the same year to discuss the crusade and preach it.

At that council, Urban II delivered an important and famous speech about the crusade, one of many subsequent speeches. Various versions of this speech were recorded, but here is one account by Fulcher of Chartres. Listen to how he describes how Urban wanted to motivate people to fight in the east against the Muslims.

Here are several sections. Follow along either by reading what’s on the screen or just listening to me. So here’s Urban II according to Fulcher:

“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. There remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God.”

Urban II’s Speech at Clermont

For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania, that is the Greek Empire, as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the arm of St. George.

They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.

On this account, I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present. It is meant also for those who are absent.

Moreover, Christ commands it. All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.

Oh, what a disgrace if such a despised and base race which worships demons should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ. With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who with us profess the Christian religion?

Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have begun long ago. Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become knights.

Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians.

Motivations for Crusade

Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold, on this side will be the sorrowful and poor. On that the rich, on this side the enemies of the Lord, on that his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses. And as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let them eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide.

Now, I know this is a translation, but even in translation, you probably sense this is inspiring. This is a pretty inspiring speech.

What are the ways? What are the different ways that Urban II seeks to motivate crusade? What’s one of them? Your sins.

The remission of your sins. That’s right. Now remember, the idea of purgatory is pretty standard in Western Christianity and even in some aspects in the east at this point. And so remission of sins, getting rid of that penalty for your sins, that sounds like a pretty good deal, pretty good idea.

You won’t go to purgatory at all if you go on crusade. What else? Yeah, Leela, an outlet for their anger. So you’re fighting anyway, just go fight something good. That’s right.

So it’s a rechanneling of what seems to be natural destructive energies among the lords and knights of Europe. He redirects formerly bad behavior into righteous behavior. You guys have been fighting amongst yourselves. You’ve been robbing one another. Why not channel those energies into something righteous, something that will gain you eternal reward? Fight against the infidel. What else?

Okay. So he says this is out of obedience to Jesus. Okay. What else?

Okay, this will show your friendship to Jesus. What else? Christ’s honor demands it. How dishonorable if we are letting our Christian brethren be defeated, to allow these lands that are special to Jesus be taken. And we also should be motivated out of love for our brethren in the east. Many have been killed. Many churches have been destroyed. We need to help them.

And there’s also a practical aspect of defense. If left unchecked, the Saracens will attack more and more and maybe even reach us in Western Europe.

The Cross as Symbol

So this is a multi-pronged appeal. And many of these sound pretty noble. To his listeners who were familiar with the idea of a just war, if ever a war was just, this war was such a war.

And Urban’s appeal was met with ready enthusiasm. The cry returned to the pope upon hearing his speech was “Deus vult,” or the French equivalent, which means God wills it. God wills it. There is an immediate recognition: this is God’s will. Let’s accomplish it.

Urban was said to have replied to that phrase, “Deus vult. It is the will of God. Let those words be your war cry when you unsheathe the sword. You are soldiers of the cross. Wear it as a token that his help will never fail you, as the pledge of a vow never to be recalled.”

Crusaders, who never actually used the term “crusade,” sewed red crosses upon themselves and proclaimed themselves the faithful of St. Peter or the knights of Christ.

Indeed, many who preached crusade, including the famous monk Bernard of Clairvaux, found ready military metaphors and analogies in the Old and New Testaments about fighting for God against idolatrous foes. Fighting the good fight, being a good soldier of Jesus Christ, now had new meanings and new applications.

“The term ‘crusade’ comes from the practice of sewing red crosses on garments—crusaders saw themselves as soldiers of the cross on an armed pilgrimage.”

The First Crusade: The People’s Crusade and the Prince’s Crusade

Many responded to the call to fight for Christ in the east. Throughout the crusades, there were rich, poor, kings, knights, and serfs—Scandinavians, Franks, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Britons, and more.

All took part in what they truly believed to be righteous action. These first warriors, the first warriors, I should say, set out on an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Overview of the Crusades

This is still a pilgrimage. It’s just like what we’ve done before, but this time we’re taking arms, swearing to uphold the honor of Christ and to restore the lost lands of Byzantium to Byzantium’s control. The goal was not to convert the Muslims or even to kill them. It was to restore the Holy Land to the Christians.

Now, surely, there were other less pure motives for European warriors taking up the cross. Historians Ernest Thompson and Elton Eagganberg write this in their book, “Through the Ages: The History of the Christian Church.” Many considerations played a part.

It was wise military strategy to sustain the eastern empire, which stood between the western states and this new threat to their safety. Old trade routes were blocked and needed to be reopened. Ambitious nobles longed to carve out new conquests in the fabulous east. For the common soldier, there was always the hope of loot.

The crusades appealed to the imagination of romantic youth, but the religious element was also strong. Urban II and his successors made unabashed appeal to this motive. There is a variety of motives, but there is some true religious fervor behind it.

Crusade behavior sometimes called into question religious devotion. On route to the east, many crusaders plundered the land that they traveled through, which was Christian land. But this was common in medieval practice.

Additionally, crusading armies, which were made up of many different Europeans, sometimes fell into conflict with one another—infighting and disagreement that hampered the crusaders’ military effectiveness. We’ll see this more specifically later on.

Furthermore, crusading zeal did cause pogroms against Jews throughout Europe. Overzealous for Jesus, they decided to persecute and even kill different communities of Jews. Definitely some evil behavior among the crusaders.

Still, people really believed that they were honoring Christ through crusade. True to Urban II’s suggestion, the first crusade set out the next year in 1096.

We won’t talk about all the crusades, but we will talk briefly about the most notable ones, spending most of our time on the first crusade. We can divide the crusading period into three main sections.

The first 50 years were moderately successful. The second 50 years were a failure. The final 100 years were a slow decline until the crusaders were totally removed from the Levant. We’ll see those different phases.

Let’s now talk about the first crusade. Really, the first crusade was the only successful one in the Middle East in terms of achieving its goal.

The People’s Crusade

There were two waves to the first crusade: a people’s crusade and a prince’s crusade. The people’s crusade consisted of about 20,000 peasants who trusted in God rather than any military training to bring them victory against the enemy.

They showed up in Constantinople ready to help. But when the emperor saw that he had just gained 20,000 useless beggars in his city, he sent them off with his blessing toward the Turks.

The Seljuks easily crushed the weak and pitiable horde. It was not a very nice outcome.

“The People’s Crusade was a disorganized movement of roughly 20,000 peasants who trusted in God rather than military training—the Byzantine Emperor was horrified and the Seljuk Turks easily defeated them.”

The Prince’s Crusade

The prince’s crusade was what the eastern emperor and Urban II actually wanted. This is a crusade of battle-ready knights. They arrived in Constantinople and soon recaptured Nicaea, which had been taken by the Turks, and then the group proceeded toward Jerusalem.

However, because of infighting along the way, it’s a miracle that even the prince’s crusade did not end in cataclysmic failure. You have a variety of people from different parts of Europe and even in the Eastern Roman armies trying to work together, and they’re having a really hard time doing so.

The crusaders barely take Antioch in Syria after an eight-month siege, but then find themselves besieged themselves by newly arrived Muslim forces. Everything seems like it’s about to be lost.

But suddenly, the army finds a religious relic that inspires the troops. A certain holy man among the crusaders supposedly received a vision and claimed to find the spear of Longinus, supposedly the spear that pierced Christ’s side.

Inspired by this relic, believing that they had special holy power from God to defeat the enemy, the crusaders were in fact able to do so. They defeated the Muslims who were besieging them and were no longer in danger at Antioch.

With Syria and Antioch under their control, the Christian warriors were able to regroup and recover. They had taken out one of the strongest cities in the region and thus were able to make treaties with other cities or force cities to surrender without a battle.

Making their way through Turkey down to Syrian Antioch, they’ve taken out one of the most important obstacles. The crusaders eventually march on Jerusalem and take the city in about a month.

The Siege of Antioch

Now Raymond of Aguilers, a priest and eyewitness, reports on the aftermath of the Christian taking of Jerusalem. Listen to these two paragraphs.

“Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men, and this was more merciful, cut off the heads of their enemies. Others shot them with arrows so that they fell from the towers. Others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses.

But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted. In the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.”

It’s pretty grisly. Listen to another account. This is from a Muslim contemporary, Ibn al-Athir, who describes the post-siege situation in Jerusalem.

“The population was put to the sword and the Franks remained in the town killing the Muslims for one week. The Franks killed more than 70,000 people in the Al-Aqsa mosque. Among them were a large number of Muslim imams and scholars, as well as devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion.

In this venerated place, the Franks stripped the Dome of the Rock of more than 40 silver lanterns, each weighing 3,600 dirhams, and a great silver lamp weighing 40 Syrian pounds, as well as 150 smaller silver lanterns and more than 20 gold ones and a great deal more booty.

Refugees from Syria reached Baghdad in Ramadan accompanied by the judge Abu Said al-Harawi. They held in the diwan a speech that brought tears to the eye and wrung the heart. On Friday, they went to the principal mosque and begged for help, weeping so that their hearers wept with them as they described the sufferings of the Muslims in this venerated town—the men killed, the women and children taken prisoner, the homes pillaged. Because of the terrible hardships they had suffered, they were allowed to break the fast.”

You hear those two accounts? It sounds pretty awful, right? Crusaders, supposedly these guys who are all about securing the Lord’s honor, and this is what they do in Jerusalem.

But before we shudder and shake our heads at this crusader behavior, a few items are worth noting. First, massacre after a siege was common in medieval warfare. This is not a uniquely Christian versus Muslim response or tactic. Why is this?

Medieval Siege Warfare

You see that sieges were very costly in time, resources, and men, and they were also very risky. The attacking army made itself very vulnerable during a siege.

They were just as much in danger of running out of food and supplies as the defenders, who usually burned the countryside so that invaders had a harder time foraging.

At any time, reinforcements could come and attack the besieger, and they would be pinched between the town they’re besieging and the reinforcing armies. A very dangerous spot to be in.

Thus, it was generally recommended military policy to avoid sieges if at all possible. How would you do this?

One way was by threatening a city with what would happen as a result if the city refuses to negotiate a surrender.

The proposition was given like this: “You can surrender now and we’ll spare all of you, or you can choose to make us siege you. You can hold out and choose to make us siege you. And when we defeat you, we’re going to kill everyone in the city. Do you really want that?”

The Holy Lance

Now, if a city refused to surrender and ended up experiencing a massacre, it was to be a lesson to other cities. But again, this was about avoiding sieges, not about unbridled hatred of the enemy or just blood lust.

Attackers sometimes didn’t follow through on their threat of massacre. But defenders knew that if they did not negotiate at the beginning of a siege, they had no reason to expect mercy at the end of a siege.

That’s something to keep in mind here in these accounts about Jerusalem’s fall. But second, there is good reason to believe that the accounts of large-scale slaughter in Jerusalem are exaggerated.

Let me ask you, why would Christians want to exaggerate slaughter?

The Fall of Jerusalem

Medieval Christians.

The Crusaders Reach Jerusalem

Yes. Okay. I think that’s part of it to emphasize the extent of their victory, the extent of their power, but also to emphasize the extent of their piety because remember the idea is that you are defeating these enemies of God.

Accounts of the Fall of Jerusalem

You’re putting them to the sword. God is honored by that. And the more you kill, the more God is honored. You may have noticed a certain biblical phrase appears in Raymond’s account. He says, “Blood up to the horse’s bridles.” Have you ever heard that phrase before? Revelation. From the Bible, from the book of Revelation. This is assuredly not accurate.

There’s no way there was that much blood in Jerusalem after the siege ended. But by using that description, it paints a certain apocalyptic picture. It makes the Christians look like they’re practically God’s agents fulfilling the Bible. It makes them seem not only more powerful, but more righteous.

Now, why would Muslims want to exaggerate the slaughter?

“Raymond of Aguilers described the aftermath of Jerusalem’s fall: ‘Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies… Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city.’”

Get power. You say to get power, to generate sympathy, to make them look more righteous. Yes. It will ultimately be to inspire jihad, to get people motivated to drive the crusaders out, to see these crusaders as a wicked enemy that must be destroyed.

You may have noticed in Ibn al-Athir’s account he not only talks about how Christians killed thousands of Muslims, but he also gives other details that would have aroused the zeal of Muslim brethren, including that these crusaders killed imams. These were holy men. They desecrated holy sites for money. They killed ascetics who just wanted to live in pious seclusion. This makes the Europeans seem a lot more evil in the eyes of Muslims.

In contrast to these likely exaggerated accounts of tragedy, look at two other accounts from Syrian historians. These would be Muslims in the same time period. Each account is the total of what this historian has to say about the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders.

Muslim Accounts of the Fall

First, subsequently, the Franks turned to Jerusalem and rested from the hands of the Egyptians. Godfrey took possession of it and they burned the synagogue. That’s it.

Or here’s the other one. The Franks attacked the town and took possession of it. Some of the inhabitants withdrew to David’s tower and many were killed. The Jews assembled in the synagogue and they burned it over their heads. They took possession of David’s tower under safe conduct on the 22nd of Shabban, the 14th of July of this year. They destroyed the shrines in the tomb of Abraham.

In contrast to the Arabian account we heard earlier, what do these latter Muslim accounts seem to indicate about the fall of Jerusalem? Where are the tales of slaughter?

Where’s all the weeping, the words describing the tragedy? You don’t see that. How do these Muslim chroniclers treat the fall of Jerusalem? It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. It was no huge tragedy for Islam.

You may notice in the second account that some of the people who are noted to have died are ones still trying to defend the city. They withdrew to the tower. It makes sense that they would die. They’re still fighting.

Additionally, historian Conrad Hersshler points out that not only is the brevity of such accounts poignant, but also the reference in the first account to Egyptians rather than Muslim inhabitants. Why would that be significant?

You see, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, another section of the former greater caliphate, had taken over Jerusalem from the Seljuks shortly before the crusaders did. The Syrian chronicle then didn’t see the crusader invasion as a fight against Islam itself, but just another regional power struggle for land, no different than the Fatimid invasion.

The Egyptians took it from the Turks and now the Franks have taken it from the Egyptians. It’s just normal medieval warfare and life.

In fact, almost no Muslims use the language of jihad to talk about crusaders until about 50 years after Jerusalem is taken by the West. Then we hear much more about the terrible massacre that took place during the first crusade. This is used to stir up support for jihad and for driving out the Europeans.

It’s this later version of what happened to Jerusalem that dominates Muslim memory. And it’s what helps fuel animosity toward Americans and Europeans today.

Evaluating Casualty Claims

Even other European accounts mention how some surrendering Muslims were allowed to leave, how some were spared, and how some were left alive and charged with burying the dead. They didn’t just kill all the inhabitants that they could find, not according to other chroniclers.

Rather than a death toll of 70,000 like Ibn al-Athir had told us, we’re probably looking at something closer to 3,500, which is still a significant amount of death, but actually quite consistent with normal post-siege practices in Europe and in the battles in the Middle East. It’s nothing like what was later reported to have occurred by Muslims.

“Modern historians estimate approximately 3,500 killed in the fall of Jerusalem—still significant, but far less than the 70,000 often cited. Medieval accounts on both sides tended to exaggerate for rhetorical effect.”

The Burning of the Synagogue

It is true that after the city was taken, the crusaders burned down the synagogue, reportedly killing 400 Jews.

But remember, the Jews in Jerusalem were fighting alongside the Muslims in resistance to Christian assault. So it’s not like they were just innocent bystanders. They fall under the normal expectation. You held out. You have no right to expect mercy. You fought against us.

“The Jews of Jerusalem fought alongside the Muslims against the Crusaders and were killed when the Crusaders burned down the synagogue. Jews were not innocent bystanders but active defenders of the city.”

Correcting the Myth of Christian-on-Christian Violence in Jerusalem

By the way, you may have heard that the crusaders in their blood lust also killed Eastern Christians in the city. But this is not true. Christians in the city had been expelled before the assault due to fear of them working with the enemy.

Crusaders killing Christians in Jerusalem is a myth. As you process these records of massacre, keep all of these extra details in mind. With Jerusalem taken, the goal of the first crusade was complete.

The Crusader States and Military Orders

Succeeding seemingly against all odds, Christians could not help but take their victory as a sign of God’s approval of their venture and of later crusades. Now, because Byzantine forces had turned back before reaching Jerusalem, the crusaders felt like Byzantium had betrayed them, and the crusader princes were not therefore obligated to return the land to Byzantium that was conquered in Palestine like they had previously vowed.

Instead, the crusaders set up several crusader states—Latin Christian kingdoms along the coast of the Levant. Significant ones would be Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem. Different principalities and kingdoms operated by leaders from the west, Latins.

Christian pilgrimages were thus restored unhindered, and different warrior monk orders were created specifically to protect pilgrims and protect the Christian kingdoms of the Holy Land. You may have heard of some of these military orders: the Knights Templar and the Hospitalar Knights.

The Knights Templar

Side note, the Knights Templar are subject to all sorts of legends and conspiracy theories. You’ve probably heard some sort of conspiracy connected to the Knights Templar. There’s not really anything to them. The reason these conspiracies exist is probably because the Knights Templar became very rich as bankers.

They created a system in which pilgrims in Europe could deposit money with the Templar and then travel to the Holy Land and withdraw money, which was a lot safer than trying to carry all your money with you. The Knights Templar made money on the interest. It worked out for everybody, and the Templar became very rich.

The Hospitalers, also called the Knights of St. John, are famous for establishing hospitals throughout their pilgrimage routes to the Middle East. They’re called the Hospitalers because they probably made hospitals—kind of like hotels or areas for the sick and the injured to recuperate.

These warrior monk orders were a new idea, but based on a previous one: the idea of monkish asceticism. Not only was a member of the Templar or the Hospitaler Knights going to live as an ascetic and take ascetic vows, but he was also pledging to help Christian brethren as a knight.

These knights swore to enter battle no matter the odds, never to run from a fight, never to surrender, and never to accept ransom for their release.

“The Knights Templar became enormously wealthy as medieval bankers—pilgrims deposited money with the Templars in Europe and withdrew it in the Holy Land, creating an early international banking system.”

The Second Crusade

Basically, they’re going to go down with the ship. They will fight to the death, which is pretty intense. And they gained a reputation among Europeans for being elite warriors during this time.

With the crusaders going home, many with relics, life went pretty well for the new crusader states until about 50 years passed. Then Muslim enemies struck back at the established crusader states.

Moving on from the first crusade now, in the 1140s, certain Muslim forces retook Edessa and a call for crusade was renewed. We now have the second crusade, 1145 to 1149.

Louis VII and Conrad III

This was the first crusade to include European monarchs. Louis VI of France and Conrad III of Germany led armies to retake Edessa and repel Muslim invaders.

Saladin and the Fall of Jerusalem to Muslims

The crusaders sought to reach Jerusalem and then attack Adessa from the south through Damascus, but the crusaders were defeated in several battles. European warriors returned home without success while Muslim forces saw their victory as a sign of God’s judgment against the Christians.

Still, at the end of this crusade, most of the crusader states, especially Jerusalem, were intact. But this would change after the rise of a certain Muslim leader, Saladin, or Saladine if you like.

His full name was Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub. He was an extremely competent government official and brilliant general, rising through the ranks of the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt.

Saladin not only successfully waged war against crusaders but also conquered Muslim territories—the territories of Syria and Mesopotamia. Now you actually have this block that was not previously united around the crusader states, but now it is, with Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia under Saladin’s control.

He turned his efforts against the crusader states, successfully reducing their territories and recapturing Jerusalem, the heart and soul of Christian crusade. Christians could not let Jerusalem remain in Muslim hands.

So a crusade was announced yet again. We have the Third Crusade, 1189 to 1192.

The Third Crusade: Richard, Philip, and Frederick

The third crusade features a monarch you’ve probably heard of due to his inclusion in the tale of Robin Hood, Richard the First of England, also known as Richard the Lionheart, a title given to him for his great courage and skill in battle. He joined Philip Augustus, King of France, and Friedrich Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor of the Germans, to retake Jerusalem and defeat Saladin.

Frederick Barbarossa’s Drowning

The campaign did not have an auspicious start because while traveling through Turkey, Frederick drowned in a river while attempting to cross with his horse. He apparently had not wanted to use a crowded bridge. He thought he could just ford the river, but the currents were too strong for him and his horse, and he drowned.

Understandably, this greatly diminished crusader morale, and many of Frederick’s troops immediately returned home. Later, however, the crusaders did find success against Saladin’s armies. They retook some territory.

But then conflict arose between Richard and Philip and also between Frederick’s successor Leopold V.

Richard vs. Philip and the Aftermath

And the latter two monarchs, the ones over the French and the Germans, they returned to Europe without finishing the job. They returned to Europe with their armies.

Richard continued, and he did find some success alone against Saladin. He was twice close to retaking Jerusalem. But a freakishly bad hailstorm and continued conflict in the ranks prevented him from actually attacking the city.

Not only this, but Richard was also hearing reports of Philip of France and Richard’s brother, Prince John, plotting against Richard. So Richard was eager to return to England and squash that plot.

Richard’s Treaty with Saladin

Unable to attack Jerusalem, the third crusade ended with Richard securing a treaty with Saladin, allowing unarmed Christian pilgrims to visit Jerusalem.

But the city remained in Muslim hands.

The third crusade then was not ultimately successful, though it did strengthen the weakened crusader states.

The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople

With Jerusalem still in enemy hands, there’s going to be another crusade later to rectify that situation. And that will bring us to the infamous fourth crusade, 1202 to 1204.

The fourth crusade is the most bizarre and embarrassing of the major crusades. If people really want to paint the crusades or the crusaders in a negative light, you just have to cite the fourth crusade because it really is that bad.

The Venetian Deal

The goal of the fourth crusade was to strengthen the crusader states and retake Jerusalem. But rather than march slowly through hostile Anatolia, modern day Turkey, the crusaders wanted to attack Egypt, eliminate that power base for the Muslims, and then approach Jerusalem from the south.

This plan required a sizable fleet. The pope at that time, Innocent III, made a deal with the Venetians, renowned ship builders. “Build us a fleet and we’ll supply the money and we’ll supply the soldiers.”

However, when the fleet was completed, fewer than expected crusaders showed up in Venice. The crusaders who did show up did not have enough money to pay. The Venetian economy depended on crusader payment, and the pope did not want to see the crusade movement collapse.

So the Venetians came up with a plan: “Let’s raise money by taking over some eastern lands that have been rebelling against Venetian control.” These would be Christian lands, but they were rebelling against Venice.

Diversion to Constantinople

If you help us out taking them out, that’ll get you some of the money that you need. The crusaders and the pope, they weren’t completely comfortable with this. Some crusaders went home at this plan, but others decided to keep going and they went along with the Venetian idea.

So the crusaders successfully attacked some of the lands of Hungary on behalf of the Venetians. But while attacking, one of the crusader leaders started making a deal with a claimant to the Byzantine throne. Alexius IV and Jeelos promised that if the crusaders helped him become emperor of Byzantium.

The Sack of Constantinople

Then Alexios would pay all crusader debts to Venice. He would submit the Greek church to Rome’s leadership, and he would personally sail the crusaders to Egypt using the Byzantine fleet. Whether Alexios IV was making false promises or not, the Venetians, who did not have good relations with the Byzantines, the Pope, and the Crusaders decided this offer was too good to pass up. Let’s do it.

So the crusaders and the Venetians, on behalf of this claim to the Byzantine throne, attacked Constantinople, and Alexios IV became co-emperor. The taking of the city was mostly without bloodshed. It was a pretty clean battle in that sense.

However, the story just keeps taking funny turns. Alexios IV found that most of the Byzantine treasuries were already depleted. To pay the crusaders, he had to seize and melt down many religious icons throughout the city.

This greatly upset the city populace, who were even more incensed that these treasures were being melted down for the schismatic crusaders of the West. It’s not like you’re using this for us; you’re using it for them. And they don’t even follow God truly, at least not as they ought.

Unrest exploded in Constantinople with the rise of the anti-crusader Alexios Doukas, also called Morphilis—which is a great name. He led this new movement against the new emperor. They imprisoned and murdered the previous emperor, and Alexios Doukas was crowned Emperor Alexios V.

So the crusaders were in a bind. They had just lost the emperor who was going to give them the deal of a lifetime, who had promised to pay their debts and take them to Jerusalem. They demanded that this new emperor, Morphilis, honor the previous emperor’s deal. “Look, we just went through a whole ordeal to get to Jerusalem. You have to fulfill the demands.”

Well, Morphilis, who came to power on anti-crusader sentiment, refused. “I’m not going to do that for you. I didn’t make that deal with you.” He prepared the city of Constantinople to fight against the crusaders.

The crusaders then decided they would fight against the usurper and take what was due them by force. Encouraged by the Latin clergy of Constantinople, who said the Greeks were worse than Jews, the crusaders fought, conquered, and sacked Constantinople.

This was not a clean battle. This was a bloody battle, and the aftermath was very sad. Twentieth-century Byzantine historian Spyros Vyronis describes the carnage: “The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days, they murdered, raped, looted, and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable.”

Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered—they were themselves semi-Byzantines and saved much of it—the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics.

Eyewitness Accounts of the Sack

The crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of the Hagia Sophia and seated upon the patriarchal throne a man who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of east and west which had proceeded over the centuries culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.

The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The fall of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The fourth crusade and the crusading movement generally thus resulted ultimately in the victory of Islam. A result which is the exact opposite of its original intention.

Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade

Very sad. What a bizarre outcome. How horrible. With this unexpected tragic outcome to the fourth crusade, east-west relations were permanently weakened.

Hard to come back after this, right? The Byzantine Empire was mortally wounded and Jerusalem was left in Muslim hands.

This crusade was definitely a fail.

The Latin States in Byzantium

Crusaders set up Latin states in Byzantine territory. There was a western Christian empire in Constantinople and the surrounding regions for a little while.

Though this was eventually retaken by the Greeks, many of the treasures of Constantinople were indeed taken west, especially to Venice.

The Pope’s Response

The Pope declared his dismay at such a tragedy, though he also accepted the Byzantine wealth into the papal treasury and recognized the legitimacy of the new Latin states in Byzantium. He said, “Well, I guess this was God’s way of getting the Greek church back in line with the West.”

After the fourth crusade, most of the crusading attempts into the Holy Land were weak and unsuccessful, though the sixth crusade did restore control of Jerusalem for a time to the Christians.

The Decline and End of the Crusader States

When the fourth crusade ended, we entered the last phase of crusader history—a period of long, slow decline until the last crusader state in Palestine, Acre, fell in 1291. That was the end of the crusades into the Levant.

Though crusades did continue in other areas of the world.

Legacy of the Crusades

As I said in the very beginning, there are many pitiable and even shameful aspects of the crusades, but also some admirable ones. The people who went on crusade truly believed that they were honoring God and helping their brethren in the east.

Many crusaders, while inspired in the conflict against the heretical Muslims, were not genocidal. They concluded treaties with various Muslim powers.

Complex Legacy for Christian-Muslim-Jewish Relations

Christians and Muslims sometimes even work together against a common enemy. Nevertheless, there was also genuine hatred on both sides against the other. The tales of crusade massacres and the language of jihad would stain Christian-Muslim relations till this day.

Furthermore, the many pogroms worsened Christian-Jewish relations throughout Europe. The fourth crusade severely damaged east and west Christian relations.

Also, even if the crusaders had good intentions, that doesn’t excuse their wrong beliefs, nor the misleading promises of the Pope. The Pope does not have the ability to grant remissions of sins for holy war.

Christians do not honor Christ by defending mere locations as if those locations had some special power or as if God tied his honor to those locations. Christians do not honor Christ by slaying unbelievers in battle.

“The Crusades have a complex legacy: genuine devotion mixed with terrible violence. The language of jihad, massacre accounts, and the Fourth Crusade’s betrayal continue to shape Muslim perceptions of Christianity today.”

The Crusades and the Gospel Mission

Christians honor Christ by receiving, living, and preaching the good news of salvation to unbelievers. While it is righteous to help brethren in need, and there was some of that, these wars went far beyond that purpose, and they really ultimately got in the way of the gospel mission.

Unfortunately, the barrier that exists in the Middle East today toward the gospel does have the Crusades partly to blame.

“The Crusades remind us that even sincere religious zeal can produce terrible results when it contradicts Christ’s actual teaching. Christians honor Christ not by conquering territory but by proclaiming His gospel of grace.”

But even here, God is not thwarted. God will build his church just as he determines. He will work his salvation through his gospel declarers despite even the great mistakes of the believers in the past.

That takes us to the end of today’s lesson. Do you have questions about what you heard?

Glenda, go ahead.

I just want to know: is there any record of what happened to the true church of God during the Crusade time? Where were they? If they were somewhere else, is there any record of what the true church is or what it accomplished during the Crusades?

That’s a good question. Where was the true church during this time?

Because this seems pretty off. This doesn’t seem consistent with true Christianity. It’s similar to a question you asked previously, and the answer is similar.

Nominal Christianity Then and Now

Remember that though the west is Christian, almost every kingdom in Europe is going to say we are Christian. Mostly, this is a nominal Christianity, just as it was in the latter Roman Empire when Constantine and others either encouraged or promulgated that this is the only religion accepted in the empire. You have a ton of Christians who are not really Christians.

So where are the Christians? Well, they are among the nominal Christians, different from nominal Christians. They do sometimes, many times, believe things that are wrong, but they do ultimately hold to the true gospel. And sometimes they’re caught up in the errors of those who are not really belonging to God. But often times they’re standing apart.

So did real Christians go on crusade? Maybe some of them did, but many assuredly did not.

Like it is probably in every time, Christians—true Christians—are always going to be the minority, the remnant. I mean, think about Christianity in America today. Where are the Christians? Is it all the professing Christians? Is it roughly 50% of our population according to the census? No. We don’t have 50% true Christians in this country. It’s a remnant of those who profess to be Christian.

So it was at that time. So we often are not going to hear the testimonies or stories of these true Christians. I will mention some specific individuals in some of the later lessons where we say, “Yeah, this guy, we’re pretty sure he knew the Lord.” Even though he did hold to praying to saints or he did also have some adherence to purgatory, he did have the core of the gospel, right? And he did love the Lord, or she did love the Lord.

But most of the time, we’re not going to know who those specific people were. We just know that they’re out there. And we will see even more of them more specifically when we talk about the pre-reformation movements, which begin around the 1200s.

“Just as many medieval ‘Christians’ were nominal believers, many professing Christians today do not truly follow Christ. The church has always been a mix of genuine believers and those who merely bear the name.”

The Remnant of True Believers

In the middle of the crusader period, we see them in the 1200s, the 1300s, and the 1400s where we can very obviously say, “Wow, these guys have got the gospel. These men and women are definitely following the Lord.” There’s more specific identification and encouragement to come, but just recognize throughout this whole period, you’ve got the remnant.

You’ve got the remnant throughout Europe and elsewhere. What else? Yeah, Mark.

How do you think we as Christians today should view the Holy Land and its preservation and protection?

A Christian View of Israel and the Holy Land

Good question. How should Christians view the Holy Land today and its preservation and protection? I don’t know if my answer will be surprising or upsetting to some of you, but there are a couple things to keep in mind.

I think there’s an overzealousness for Israel today among Christians. Let’s remember that Jesus said regarding the people of Israel, “Your house is left to you desolate until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” They are called in the New Testament “a synagogue of Satan.”

Now Paul also says that though they are enemies when it comes to the gospel, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

So we are Christians somewhat caught in two biblical sentiments at the same time where we recognize the Jews living in Israel are apostate and under the judgment of God. Yet God is not done with Israel. He will honor his promises given in the Old Testament and even originally to Abraham to restore the people to himself and even to restore them to the land.

So how does that translate practically? I’ll just speak of my own personal conviction.

I do have sympathy for what the Jews suffer in history and in the 20th century specifically when it comes to persecution and even genocide and the situation of Jews in the Middle East today. I do think there is necessary compassion and help for them.

But I also think we need to have sympathy and compassion for non-Jews who are also living in the land because they are also unbelievers and they are also in a sense oppressed by the religious system and the political systems that they are under. So it’s not as simple as just supporting Israel no matter what.

The Gospel and the Kingdom

But it’s not. It’s neither. Well, they’re just like anybody else and they do bad things, too. So let them fend for themselves.

I think it’s a little complicated. I think there’s going to be a little bit of difficulty in determining what’s the right stance to have towards Israel and toward modern Jews today. I don’t know how that makes you feel, but I think that’s where I’ve come to in my understanding of the Bible and history.

I don’t think we want to be careful about taking a naive view towards the Jewish state today. You can talk to me afterwards if you have more thoughts about that, and maybe you take a different view.

We’re out of time today. If you have further questions or comments, you can come talk to me afterwards. But let me end our time with a word of prayer.

Lord Jesus, it is significant what you proclaimed to Pontius Pilate. You said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight.” For some reason, Lord, our brethren in the past ages somehow got to thinking that your kingdom was of this world and that they should literally fight. Lord, your kingdom will come.

Christ’s Kingdom Is Not of This World

Yes, it will be a literal kingdom and it will be in Israel and it will extend across the earth. But you won’t need us to fight for that. No, Lord, your word proclaims how that will happen. You yourself will wage war. You yourself will defeat and destroy every one of your enemies.

And it won’t be a contest. We will ride with you, but not so much as warriors, but as accompanying worshiping spectators at your power. But Lord, how good you are and how instructive it is that that is not the way you have yet come.

You proclaim again and again in the gospel of John, “I have not come as a judge to the world but to save the world.” Oh Lord, how we Christians can learn from that. We have not come to wage swords and judgment of unbelievers.

No Lord, we have come to proclaim the gospel and to extend your love and mercy to unbelievers that they might be saved and included in the kingdom. Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, whomever it may be, whatever their religious background.

“John 18:36 — ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight.’ Jesus explicitly rejected military conquest as the means of building His kingdom.”

A Prayer for All Nations

Lord, you have extended your beautiful gospel net to them all. Lord, may we be your faithful net bearers. We might see all come and be saved. Lord, give us wisdom even in navigating some of the political intricacies of our own day, even how to understand Israel.

Lord, the Jews are beloved in one sense and yet in another sense they are enemies of the gospel. Lord, we pray that you would bring repentance to the Jewish nation and that you would bring more even as we think about our kingdom workers and Jews for Jesus. That you would raise up more first fruits from among the Jews, but not just them, Lord, the Muslims and many others.

Lord, we pray that they would become part of your one flock and that we might rejoice in common salvation with them in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Thank you everyone.