Crusades-Encyclopedia
The Hall of Shame A Guide to the Ridiculous Concerning Online Information on the Crusades
Editor's Note: The purpose of this page is to provide a short guide to online information about the crusades that students should avoid. The main determinant for inclusion in this section of the crusades-encyclopedia website is the quality and context of the information given by each online source. Also, while no historian or source is truly objective, there are occasions when extreme advocacy will simply interfere too much with the value of the commentary provided on the crusades. A common example might be an article which selectively quotes a particularly gruesome passage in a crusades source with no analysis or context. Often this is done with no other intention than to attack the modern Catholic church and as a result usually provides a poorly informed perspective of the crusades. This is not to say that criticism of the crusades is unwelcome on this website. It is just that usually such attacks for modern political purposes make bad history. Equally, a strident defense of the crusades that does not provide source analysis and offers an equally ill informed analysis of the crusades will be considered for inclusion in this section. The editor welcomes the submission of online information about the crusades to be considered for inclusion on this website. Please email him at a-holt@comcast.net
1. Transcript of a  May 9, 2005 CNN Report by Jonathan Mann and Christiane Amanpour on the crusades that revolves around the Ridley Scott film Kingdom of Heaven. The information on the crusades provided during most of the report is tailored to provide no analysis or background information. One gets the feel that the reporter is seeking confirmation that the crusaders were bloodthirsty. Plus the information is largely incorrect and outdated, especially the information on the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem. This is probably because it is provided by non-specialists including Dr. Akbar Ahmed. He is not a crusades historian but an international relations specialist at American University. They do briefly cite the highly respected crusades historian Dr.Jonathan Phillips, but his name seems to only serve as window dressing for the rest of the report, as he is not cited in a substantive way. Interestingly, near the end of the report, Dr. Paul Halsall during an interview with Jonathan Mann cites these problems with the report and, perhaps as a result, his interview seems to end rather quickly. His rebuke of the information provided in a report he is a part of is both humorous and noteworthy. Perhaps CNN should be given credit for providing it in the transcript. See below: Partial Transcript: MANN: Well it may not be the issue to Hollywood, but let me ask you, as someone who sees a lot of young people, who is trying to teach them about things that have actually happened in the past, are all of us getting bad information? I mean, more people will see the average Hollywood movie than read a history book. HALSALL: I think there is just as much bad information, for instance, in Christiane's report or in your previous segment, than is in the film. For instance, the idea that the Muslim world has this memory of the Crusades is very largely incorrect. It is a recovered memory. The idea that Jerusalem is Islam's third holiest place, Islam has many third holiest places. The idea that the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was particularly horrific. All of these things are truisms repeated repeatedly on television, but they are not in fact correct.
2. The following article about Saladin from Beliefnet.com by Rhonda Roumani titled Hero Who Fought Crusaders is Role Model for Muslims contains the following little gem: "'For Arabs and Muslims, the Crusades marked a time of assault and destruction—a time when the Muslim world was in dire jeopardy, defending against bloodthirsty crusaders bent on destroying their land and their people simply because they were not Christian—or because they were Muslim. For two centuries, the crusaders killed several million Muslims,” explains Zakkar. 'They left in this country a very bad memory of killing, destruction, spoiling and devastation.'" Where do we begin? How about the with the article by Dr. Thomas Madden on how the misuse of crusades history does little more than promote animosity and potential violence in the Muslim world? Or the part about the "blood thirsty crusaders" who killed "several million Muslims"....of course this was done "simply because they were not Christian." This may be an article which seeks to present a modern Muslim view of the crusades, as the quote provided above is from a Muslim, but the fact that such information is presented in the story with no analysis to demonstrate its absurdities will no doubt leave many readers thinking this was in fact the case with the crusades. First, Syria was conquered earlier by Muslim armies, their subjugation of Christian populations before and after the crusades is well documented, the idea that "millions" were killed is ridiculous, Muslims conquered two-thirds of the known Christian world before the very belated and comparatively weak response of the crusaders, Muslims killed just as many Christians, if not many more, Saladin was not quite the enlightened type many seek to portray him as, just ask the 700 captive Christian knights he had executed, etc...This article seems to provide a text book example of the effects of the twisted understanding of the crusades so common in popular perceptions of the crusades in both the West and the Islamic world.
3. Article on The Reconciliation Walk Movement: Includes the Text of an Apology for the Crusades given in 1996. This organization went on a walking tour apologizing for the crusades and wrote off the entire crusading movement as fuelled only by "fear, greed, and hatred." Apparently, the Muslim conquest of two-thirds of the known Christian world prior to the crusades seems to have made little of an impact on them. They did march through Germany and apologize to Jews, which is more understandable than apologizing to Muslims. Yet they make no mention of how the attacks on Jews during the First Crusade were aberrations that were not endorsed by the crusades leadership including various popes who and St. Bernard. As a result of their efforts, such violence fell off dramatically after the First Crusade. Also, as many students like to point out, one questions the usefulness of an apology for events carried out 900 years ago. Should Muslims also then apologize for their much more sweeping conquests of Christian lands, from which they have never left?
4. Papacy Uncovered This website is run by by a fundamentalist protestant who seems to have no other goal that to attack the papacy, and by extension the Catholic Church, as an institution. Normally, I would not bother to include a Christian polemical site devoted to converting Catholics to Protestant fundamentalism, but the site comes up regularly on Google searches, especially the section on the crusades, titled Crusades of the Papacy. The author of the site, J. Michael Gainor, seems to labor under the misunderstanding that Christian texts do not advocate warfare and he does not allow for the validity of ancient and medieval Christian interpretations of scripture advocating warfare in some cases. The author seems to acknowledge his inability to write about the subject when he notes, "To enter upon a detailed history of the Crusades of the Papacy is beyond the scope of this website. Others have already done a very good job of it, and where their work is excerpted here, links are provided." He then slaps together links and quotes from encyclopedias [even a brief excerpt from the old Catholic-Encyclopedia] and works of mostly mostly anti-Catholic protestant authors citing outdated opinions. He does not cite a single crusade historian as he seems to be unfamiliar with any of them or their works.
Return to Table of Contents