apologetics, Islam, Religions, theology

The Crusades: Wanton Religious Violence?

gb-starkThe Crusades are often cited as the prime example of the evils of religion and of Christianity specifically. The picture is often painted of an innocent world on which Christians came in violent fervor, raping and pillaging as they went. But this picture of the Crusades is inaccurate on a number of levels. Here, I’ll explore the historical context of the Crusades with an eye towards seeing why they occurred. I’ll wrap it up with a discussion on violence and religion.

The Historical Context of the Crusades

The Crusades were not just some bubbling up of violence latent within all religions. Instead, they were part of a history of conquest across the Asian and European continents. Prior to the Crusades, there was a sweeping conquest by the Muslims of territory formerly possessed by various Christian nations.

Muslim invasions had pressed in on all sides. Rodney Stark, in his extremely important work on the Crusades, God’s Battalions, notes the conquests which had pressed in on Europe from all sides. After surveying a number of Muslim conquests, he notes:

Many critics of the Crusades would seem to suppose that after the Muslims had overrun a major portion of Christendom, they should have been ignored or forgiven… This outlook is certainly unrealistic and probably insincere. Not only had the Byzantines lost most of their empire, the enemy was at their gates… (32-33)

Prior to the Crusades, it is absolutely essential to note that the invaders were, quite literally, at the gates. Constantinople was threatened in the East, and Spain was overthrown in the West. Europe was under assault. The map below illustrates the situation in the time during and before the Crusades well.

The question of the Crusades must be understood within this historical setting: much of the land which European countries had controlled had been taken, by force. Furthermore, those who had taken these lands were knocking on the very gates of Europe, having already crossed into Europe in many places. Stark’s words, therefore, seem to ring true: is it really genuine to assume that these invaders should have been ignored or forgiven? Is that the reality of “secular” nations? It seems to me the very fact that so much land had been lost, as well as so much wealth, would lead many to war for “secular” reasons rather than religious reasons.


Regarding the beginning of the Crusades, Stark writes:

[T]hat’s when it all [The Crusades] started–in the seventh century, when Islamic armies swept over the larger portion of what was then Christian territory: the Middle East, Egypt, and all of North Africa, and then Spain and southern Italy, as well as many major Mediterranean islands including Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and Sardinia. (9)

So the Crusades were not unprovoked mass murders of innocents. But they were indeed quite brutal, and involved no small amount of very un-Christian activities. Raping and pillaging has no part in the Christian worldview. But Stark once again has a sobering point: war was hell. “[I]t was a brutal and intolerant age” (29). The criticism of brutality equally applies to both sides, but it is also equally anachronistic about the realities of that time. This is not to say that the horrors which occurred were not awful; it is to say that to criticize the Crusaders or Muslims as though they were doing something extraordinarily brutal for their time period is extremely short-sighted.

The Crusades as a Polemic Device

The Crusades were not all-good or all-evil affairs. Like virtually any part of human history, both good and evil intentions and outcomes were involved. To view the Crusades as either an entirely evil affair showing how religion is ultimately prone to violence or as a benevolent attempt by loving people to liberate lands that were rightfully theirs is to grossly oversimplify the historical reality. Unfortunately, modern looks at the Crusades have largely leaned towards the former of these positions, without any acknowledgement of the historical context as noted above.

Instead, the Crusades were a complex of historical events which were often brutal, often provoked, and never motivated for just one reason. To say that the Crusades are a typical example of the violence of religion is, frankly, ahistorical. Was religion involved? Yes. Were there even “religious reasons” involved in the motivations for the Crusades? Clearly. But the general movement with recent attacks on Christianity has been to argue that the Crusades were purely religious instances of religious brutality. The historical perspective provided above provides evidence against that limited perspective.

The Crusades have been used as a kind of polemic device against Christianity. Whenever it is argued that Christianity is reasonable, someone inevitably brings up this historical period. Readers will note that this historical perspective has not attempted to explain away the Crusades. Instead, I have argued for the notion that these events were historically complex, involving a number of factors beyond purely war for the sake of a faith.

As Keith Ward has noted:

It is… beyond dispute that the Crusades were a major disaster… The Crusades can be seen as justified defense… but their conduct and continuance rapidly became unjustifiable on any Christian principles. (68-69, Is Religion Dangerous? cited below)

The point is simple: there were many motivations behind the Crusades, some of them justified. Yet in carrying out the Crusades, many horrible actions were taken which were unjustifiable. Does this somehow disprove Christianity? Not on Christianity’s own principles, on which we expect to see people acting as sinner-saints in the process of sanctification.

Crusade The Taking of BeirutReligious and Secular Violence

Apart from the historical outline given here, there is another, equally important point: the dichotomy between religious violence and secular violence is simply a myth. The reason for this is because human actions are far more complex in their motivations than a simple dichotomy of one or the other reason. In our everyday experience, we know that the decisions we make are very rarely made for only one reason.

Oddly, Stark is able to note that “many historians have urged entirely material, secular explanations for the early Muslim conquests…” (13). This, in contrast to the many historians and new atheists who continue to press that the Crusades were entirely religious in their provocations. The unfortunate truth this reveals is the very human tendency to simplify history beyond the point of breaking. Human actions, particularly corporate human actions, have extremely complex motivations behind them. They are not all-or-nothing affairs which happen due to one reason or another. Very often we make decisions for a combination of reasons of differing strengths, weighing options against each other whether we realize it or not.

By utilizing the Crusades as a rhetorical device–a polemic weapon–many have done damage to the historical events themselves. Worse, they have engaged in faulty reasoning and attacked the religious other due to their own emotional hatred. The Crusades were not all-good or all-evil affairs. They were affairs of human history. To forget that is to drown them in a sea of obfuscation. Let us get beyond simple polemical attacks on the “other.” Let us instead engage in honest history and dialogue with our neighbors.


The Myth of “Religion”: Constructing the Other as an enemy– I explore the notion that religion is violent and argue that one of the major difficulties with this notion is that the distinction between secular/religious is a myth.

For an interesting exploration of some aspects of Muslim Philosophy, see my book review: The Closing of the Muslim Mind.

Essential reading: Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions (New York: HarperOne, 2009).

Pacifism, Matthew 5, and “Turning the other cheek”– Glenn Andrew Peoples discusses pacifism in the Christian tradition and some of the arguments in its favor. Ultimately, he finds these arguments wanting.


Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions (New York: HarperOne, 2009).

Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

Image Credit:

The image of the map is from this page with free resources for instructors. I do not claim credit for this image, nor do I claim that the makers of this resource in any way endorse this post.



The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


10 thoughts on “The Crusades: Wanton Religious Violence?

  1. Would you say that The Inquisition also has these effects in play? it would be interesting to hear what secular reasoning has been overlooked in this brutal event

    Posted by Dustin Rhodes | March 20, 2013, 12:07 PM
    • Almost certainly. I haven’t read as much on the Inquisition, but I have read enough to know it is much more complex than it is often viewed. For one, there was the notion of consolidating secular authority by means of eliminating rivals–who often happened to be religious rivals as well.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 20, 2013, 1:51 PM
  2. “they have engaged in faulty reasoning and attacked the religious other due to their own emotional hatred” – Could ‘they’ simply not understand the intricacies of the Crusades? It would appear YOU are attacking ‘they’ out of your own emotional hatred.

    “new atheists who continue to press that the Crusades were entirely religious in their provocations” – Can you provide (any) references for this? Who has/ have argued that the Crusades were ENTIRELY religious?

    Posted by C | March 25, 2013, 10:33 AM
    • Your response seems to fairly illustrate what I’ve said in this post.

      I don’t feel I need to reply to the first comment, which is absurd. The second comment is baffling, because it is incredibly easy to demonstrate. For example, Dawkins, God Delusion, p. 23 asks us to: “Imagine a world without religion.” What is the consequence? Among other things: “No Crusades.”

      I am not surprised that I get a comment like this. But I really just have to note that it demonstrates essentially my exact point: a lack of even an attempt to interact with any scholarship on the topic (and, ironically, a charge that I did not).

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 25, 2013, 4:38 PM
      • “a lack of even an attempt to interact with any scholarship on the topic” – That’s because I agreed with your overall point that the Crusades are often misunderstood and inaccurately used as a polemic. But my point stands, I’ve never heard anyone claim that they were ONLY a function of religion. Dawkins did not make that claim – even in the above quote. Where has Dawkins (or other ‘New Atheists’ (Sam, Daniel, Christopher, Lawrence… anyone)) stated that the Crusades were purely (as in 100%) due to religion? Not a single one has ever made that claim – thus your statement “new atheists who continue to press that the Crusades were entirely religious in their provocations” is and utter fabrication and verifiably false.

        Regarding the first point, that’s simply where I shook my head. Again, your historical breakdown of the Crusades was wonderful and much needed. But saying that a group you disagree with “attacked the religious other due to their own emotional hatred” is itself emotionally charged, a sweeping generalization, and incredibly simplistic. Calling that point absurd doesn’t help conversation, but if you’re only looking to hear from those you agree with then perhaps I’ll read and comment elsewhere.

        Posted by C | March 26, 2013, 10:19 AM
      • Again, Dawkins explicitly states that if there were no religion, there would be no Crusades.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 26, 2013, 4:35 PM
      • “Again, Dawkins explicitly states that if there were no religion, there would be no Crusades” Again, he is not stating that the Crusades were “entirely religious” (which you initially wrote) but religion was such a significant component that without wich the Crusades *as they were*, would not have happened.

        If there were no religion would Islam have annexed so much territory to begin with? That is the thrust of your enemy at the gates argument. Any honest interpretation of history would suggest the answer is ‘no’. This would make Dawkins correct even if the Christians were acting purely out of self interest (as opposed to religious interest) – which, as you pointed out, is also not the case.

        Mr Wartick: “Were the Crusades entirely religious?”
        Prof Dawkins: “No”

        Posted by C | March 26, 2013, 6:05 PM
  3. What is an example of wisdom? Knowing when to apply Proverbs 26:4 and when to apply Proverbs 26:5. It is always hard to dialogue with those who refuse to see the truth.

    Posted by DogTags | January 12, 2014, 8:26 AM


  1. Pingback: The Crusades | Noteworthy Conservative Articles - March 20, 2013

  2. Pingback: Noteworthy Links: April 2013 | Well Spent Journey - April 3, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,809 other followers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: