Why are the Crusades such a big deal to the Muslim world?

[ZOmegaZ]

I'm not a historian, history major, history minor, or even very well informed at all in the bigger scheme of things. But I do enjoy learning about history, so I hope someone can indulge my ignorance.

Here's the broad strokes of the political history of the Levant, as I understand them:
Held by ancient Israel and other independent states. Conquered and held by a succession of empires, including Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Selucid, Roman, and Byzantine, with occasional decades of independence here and there. Once the Roman empire split, the area was traded back and forth between Constantinople and Neo-Persia. After the Persian empire finally fell, Islam was founded, and now Constantinople lost those territories to the Arabs, who later lost them to the Seljuk Turks. Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos asked Pope Urban II for some mercenaries, and got the Crusades. These armies had varying degrees of success temporarily taking parts of the Levant, before they were all reclaimed by Saladin. Then the Mongols came, and while they didn't take the Levant, they killed just about everyone else, leaving the area to the Ottoman Empire for the next several centuries.

I have the impression that much of the Muslim world still blames the west/Christian world for the Crusades. Why? Were they substantially different in scope or horror than all the other previous and subsequent wars over the same territory? Because it was done to Muslims? Are other similar events thought of the same way? Is it one of those cultural brain-bugs that doesn't necessarily make sense? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the cultural attitude or sequence of events?

[Thanas]

The crusades were a real shock because it signified the beginning of the decline of Muslim superiority in the eyes of some. I disagree because they were ultimately a failure, but the sentiment exists.

Up until that point, the Muslim faith and its followers had proven stronger. Their advance was checked by the Byzantines and the Franks/Spanish, but they had advanced. Now suddenly it starts to go wrong - the Byzantines recover, the Spanish start the reconquista and the Christian crusaders defy all odds and conquer Jerusalem. Also, the territories were not recovered by Saladin. It took over a century for the last bastion to fall. That is a huge deal and had a huge impact.

Even more, the western world started to catch up in technology, no small part due to the crusades. So what you have here is the start where most of the Muslim world (except for the Ottomans) started to slide back. They lost their monopoly on ruling the sea, they lost their technological edge, they lost a great many people and they suffered a lot of ignoble things.

So the crusades are the perfect thing to use in propaganda, especially with the historical connotations of Christian invaders coming in, killing people and then being driven out by the faithful.

[Elheru Aran]

Bear in mind also that the Muslims weren't particularly genocidal by the standards of the time-- after the initial fighting of conquest, once they won they basically told everybody "want to be a Muslim? Cool, there's the line. Everybody else do your own thing, here's the rules." The Crusaders, on the other hand, were notoriously bloody-handed even in their own accounts, although this is a part of history that is often debated. The reconquest of Jerusalem in particular-- can't remember right now if that was First or Third Crusade, First I think-- was notable for their execution of large numbers of Muslims and Jews once they took the city.

So that gives the Muslims more ammunition for the grist-mill. They can with some legitimacy claim that the Crusaders were more barbarous and destructive than the Muslims themselves were. One does have to bear in mind that there is a tendency for much hyperbolic language to be used about the events of this period, though...

[Thanas]

I am utterly unconvinced by statements such as "muslims weren't particularly genocidal" or "Crusaders were more bloodthirsty", for we know full well that their sieges and sacks were not in any case less damaging than other sieges. BTW, if we discount the initial excesses then the crusaders were actually quite tame as well, integrating others and adopting local customs.

[FTeik]

As Thanas said the Crusades hit the Islamic World when it was at a cultural and political peak. Unlike the arabic /islamic advances in the centuries prior (and the crusades are often argued to be a reaction to those) they did hit, when the christian world was already at a low (compared to what had been before). It isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing, so the impact in the historical memory of the Europeans is a lot lower.
It was the beginning of a decline from which the arab world hasn't recovered till today (and even now only partially because of the oil) and one could also argue, that the time of colonialism was a more recent repeat of the crusades and reinforced the idea in the collective memory (note, that this is also the time Wahhabit Islam and the more radical versions of "Jihad" emerged).

[Metahive]

It's the same reason why Pearl Harbor/9-11 are such traumas for Americans, they were huge-scale attacks out of the blue that hit the islamic world in its very heart when it was at its peak and thought itself untouchable by people they considered uncultured, dirty rabble.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course, the Mongols proceeded to hit them much harder; I've heard it argued that it was the trauma of the Mongols that really did more to alter the course and character of Islamic civilization. But rhetorically there's no meaningful sense in which one can take revenge for the actions of Ghengis Khan, while the distant descendants of the Crusaders are still around and conspicuously powerful...

[ray245]

But the mongols did convert to Islam as well. The crusaders on the other hand, did not.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But the mongols did convert to Islam as well. The crusaders on the other hand, did not.

Not all of them did, and they did burn Baghdad down.

[ray245]

Not all of them did, and they did burn Baghdad down.

I think the perception that the Mongols could be converted does affect how people's perception of who is most responsible for the collapse for the Islamic empire. From a cultural perspective, an invader trying to destroy your religion and culture could have easily been seen as being more dangerous and more destructive than an invader who is interested in conquering lands and razing cities, but could be converted into your religion and culture.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Not all of them did, and they did burn Baghdad down.

I think the perception that the Mongols could be converted does affect how people's perception of who is most responsible for the collapse for the Islamic empire. From a cultural perspective, an invader trying to destroy your religion and culture could have easily been seen as being more dangerous and more destructive than an invader who is interested in conquering lands and razing cities, but could be converted into your religion and culture.

I think the real trouble is that Muslim lands were occupied for a few decades in recent memory by the West, whereas the Mongols have largely been forgotten.

[Thanas]

Of course, the Mongols proceeded to hit them much harder; I've heard it argued that it was the trauma of the Mongols that really did more to alter the course and character of Islamic civilization. But rhetorically there's no meaningful sense in which one can take revenge for the actions of Ghengis Khan, while the distant descendants of the Crusaders are still around and conspicuously powerful...

Yes, but they did beat the Mongols in a giant battle which pretty much broke the Mongol's back.

They however never beat the west convincingly.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the Crusaders as such were defeated quite thoroughly, as demonstrated by the fact that by 1300 there were no remaining Crusader strongholds in the Middle East. But the region from which they came was not- so in that sense you are correct.

[PKRudeBoy]

Well, it's not like the Arabs went and conquered Mongolia either.

[Prannon]

Based on my (admittedly limited) readings about Islamic history, it basically comes down to a couple of points that have already been made in this thread. I base the following on my readings from "Destiny Disrupted" by Tamim Ansary, though it's been a while since I read it and I may not get the points entirely correct. I should mention that the book isn't necessarily academic in its approach either, so any actual historians are welcome to correct me.

From the very beginning, Islam was a community "project" of sorts. It was an attempt to bring forth a perfect and just community, as defined by God, to replace the unjustness that existed on the Arabian peninsula at the time. It was legitimizing for the early Islamic community that they were able to spread and conquer such large areas of the world in such a short period of time, so much so that Islamic character up to the Crusades was pretty much defined by its own success. The community couldn't fail in their goals, because theirs was the perfect community brought forth onto the Earth by God. Failure meant that something was wrong with the community itself.

So you have the crusades and the Mongols. The Crusades were an invasion by the "dirty rabble" as someone put it that swept into Palestine and weren't done away with for at least a century. The Crusades as an event, though, were actually not such a big deal as compared to the Mongols' burning of Baghdad. That had a far greater traumatic effect on Islamic character than the Crusades themselves did.

Fast forward another few centuries, and the West has become something of the boogieman for the Islamic world. This isn't really because of the Crusades, but because of the colonial period and the collapse of the Ottoman, Persian, and Mughal empires, which were largely due to direct Western wars (see the Ottomans) or Western meddling (see Persians and Mughals). In that sort of context, if I were an Egyptian out on the street thinking about the state of my people, I probably wouldn't find it very difficult to remember the Crusades and chalk it up next to all of the other Bad Things the Westerners did to my people. There would probably also be a fair bit of soul searching on how the Islamic community could find its way back to perfection (and success) like in the good old days.

This is a very shallow view. Please don't hit me with a stick.

[Prannon]

Well, it's not like the Arabs went and conquered Mongolia either.

Right, but it's not like the Mongols ever really rubbed shoulders with the Islamic community anywhere near like they did with the Western nation states after the Mongols were defeated. The Ottomans warred with Christiandom for centuries, even after they wiped out the Byzantines.

[lord Martiya]

I think it all comes up to psychological damage: the Mongols may have done more MATERIAL damage than the Crusades, but the Europeans were the wake-up call, and where the Mongols broke up in different empires fairly quickly with two of them converting to Islam, the Europeans became stronger, stopped the new Islamic advance of the Ottomans and actually conquered many of their lands AGAIN. AND may be seen as responsible for the birth of the modern State of Israel (I don't know if they actually do, but Britain controlled Palestine until '48 and that could be enough), and we all know the mess about that.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think the real trouble is that Muslim lands were occupied for a few decades in recent memory by the West, whereas the Mongols have largely been forgotten.

Put me in that camp as well. Most of the "Mongols" and "Crusaders" rhetoric wouldn't really be at work if it wasn't for the more recent trauma of imperialism and the crappy politics and outside intervention of the past century or so. It's just another thing to layer on top of that stuff, to give the conflict a feeling of greater depth.

[Simon_Jester]

Based on my (admittedly limited) readings about Islamic history, it basically comes down to a couple of points that have already been made in this thread. I base the following on my readings from "Destiny Disrupted" by Tamim Ansary, though it's been a while since I read it and I may not get the points entirely correct. I should mention that the book isn't necessarily academic in its approach either, so any actual historians are welcome to correct me.

It occurs to me that while thus correcting, it should be borne in mind that part of the point of that particular book is to informally explain how Muslims perceive their own history. Therefore, one should be careful about academic studies on the subject coming from, say, European historians who say "no, that's not what Muslims think at all."

[Thanas]

Well, the Crusaders as such were defeated quite thoroughly, as demonstrated by the fact that by 1300 there were no remaining Crusader strongholds in the Middle East. But the region from which they came was not- so in that sense you are correct.

Not really. Cyprus only fell in the sixteenth century and Christian raiding did occur throughout that time.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm, sorry, I wasn't thinking of islands off the coast as part of "the Middle East." Overly strict definition.

[Thanas]

You're not wrong per se, I was just trying to point out that despite being defeated they were a constant presence throughout the centuries.

[Prannon]

It occurs to me that while thus correcting, it should be borne in mind that part of the point of that particular book is to informally explain how Muslims perceive their own history. Therefore, one should be careful about academic studies on the subject coming from, say, European historians who say "no, that's not what Muslims think at all."

And perhaps that is the point of the entire thread, given that we are discussing why the Crusades are such a big deal to the Muslim World. That very question is deeply influenced by human, communal, institutional, and cultural perceptions, memories, and stories. That tends to be a great deal different from factual, academic history, and given that is what that particular book deals with, perhaps that is what makes it a valuable resource for the layman.

We're probably agreeing on that point, in any case. My point is the Crusades and the West in general are - for lack of better terms - outside-of-context problems for Islam. It doesn't make sense that the perfect Godly community that should be seeing success after success is hemmed in, dominated, and worst of all... diluted by the West after so many centuries of success, conquest, and dominance. It just doesn't make sense in the culture or in their story.

It'd be like the US being overrun, or at least commercially dominated, by China (as an example, since China often serves as a boogieman), to the point where the military is disbanded on Chinese commercial influence and sections and portions of the country were partitioned away into protectorates or zones of influence that had no sovereignty of their own. Americans are used to being successful on the world stage after two centuries, and if something like that were to happen over the course of 50 years, it would be quite a humiliating and confusing interruption of the American story as the everyday people would see it.

[Block]

It occurs to me that while thus correcting, it should be borne in mind that part of the point of that particular book is to informally explain how Muslims perceive their own history. Therefore, one should be careful about academic studies on the subject coming from, say, European historians who say "no, that's not what Muslims think at all."

And perhaps that is the point of the entire thread, given that we are discussing why the Crusades are such a big deal to the Muslim World. That very question is deeply influenced by human, communal, institutional, and cultural perceptions, memories, and stories. That tends to be a great deal different from factual, academic history, and given that is what that particular book deals with, perhaps that is what makes it a valuable resource for the layman.

We're probably agreeing on that point, in any case. My point is the Crusades and the West in general are - for lack of better terms - outside-of-context problems for Islam. It doesn't make sense that the perfect Godly community that should be seeing success after success is hemmed in, dominated, and worst of all... diluted by the West after so many centuries of success, conquest, and dominance. It just doesn't make sense in the culture or in their story.

It'd be like the US being overrun, or at least commercially dominated, by China (as an example, since China often serves as a boogieman), to the point where the military is disbanded on Chinese commercial influence and sections and portions of the country were partitioned away into protectorates or zones of influence that had no sovereignty of their own. Americans are used to being successful on the world stage after two centuries, and if something like that were to happen over the course of 50 years, it would be quite a humiliating and confusing interruption of the American story as the everyday people would see it.

Thing is, the point Tamim makes is, that up until the late 1800s and maybe beyond, the Muslim world didn't think of the Crusades as nearly a big a deal as the West did. They called the Crusades the "little catastrophe" as opposed to the Mongol invasion's "Great Catastrophe." The destruction of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was a bigger loss than anything in the Crusades except the sack of Jerusalem, which they took back.

[Elheru Aran]

In that light, the inference to be made is that the Crusades are a priority now as the East lost its power for quite some time after the initial heights of the Mongol conquests. Europe, in its turn, filled the vacuum and managed to, in time, control much of the Muslim world. That can be viewed as somewhat of a second crusading era by Muslims, especially given that the European colonizers were frequently accompanied or shortly followed by missionaries.

Just a thought, though.