Crusades - Criticism

Criticism

Elements of the Crusades were criticized by some from the time of their inception in 1095. For example, Roger Bacon felt the Crusades were not effective because, "those who survive, together with their children, are more and more embittered against the Christian faith." In spite of such criticism, the movement was widely supported in Europe long after the fall of Acre in 1291.

St. Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines to meet the Sultan of Egypt. Hoeberichts cast doubt on the intentions most Christian historians assign to Francis.

From the fall of Acre forward, the Crusades to recover Jerusalem and the Christian East were largely lost. Later, 18th century Enlightenment thinkers judged the Crusaders harshly. Likewise, some modern historians in the West expressed moral outrage. In the 1950s, Sir Steven Runciman wrote a resounding condemnation:

"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed ... the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God".

Ibn Jubayr's described the Muslims living under the Christian crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem:

We left Tibnin by a road running past farms where Muslims live who do very well under the Franks-may Allah preserve us from such a temptation! The regulations imposed on them are the handing over of half of the grain crop at the time of harvest and the payment of a poll tax of one dinar and seven qirats, together with a light duty on their fruit trees. The Muslims own their own houses and rule themselves in their own way. This is the way the farms and big villages are organized in Frankish territory. Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.

One aspect of the crusades that shocked some easterners was the formation in the west of military religious orders. This went against canon law.

Another criticism was raised that the crusaders had sworn to uphold the emperor's claims to the holy land, but upon taking Jerusalem the crusaders established "Latin" states there.

"After several confrontations and some stand offs Godfrey agreed to swear fealty and recognition of Alexius over all the lands that he conquered."

Further criticisms have been leveled; the misdirection of the crusading movement being one. This is especially evident in the Fourth Crusade which instead of attacking Islam attacked another Christian power - the (Eastern) Roman Empire, viewed as a change in direction, not just literally, but in the ethos behind the movement where material considerations became more pronounced.