#also he has messed up knees and ankles because of previous battles that resulted in him not being able to go onto the field anymore | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wymanthewalrus · 8 years

Text

I think I'm going to go on a bit of an educated and probably pretentious-sounding rant about popular perceptions of both current and historical events in, for lack of a better term, the Middle East. It's gonna be LONG.

FOREWARNING: I'm not a published expert on the subject and this isn't intensively cited or peer-reviewed. I may get facts wrong. TAKE EVERYTHING I SAY HERE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

So this post has been brewing for a while, but was specifically set off by something I saw on Reddit today. Someone, in a discussion about ISIS and the Syrian Civil War, said, and I quote: "We need a new Crusade." It's a sentiment I've seen a lot in the past few months in various forms all around the internet and the news, and it reflects, in my opinion, the complete and total ignorance of both history and politics of the people making those statements.

Now I'm going to start with the modern and geopolitical problems with that statement first because they're the simplest to explain and observe.

PROBLEM THE FIRST: Do we need a "new Crusade" to bring down ISIS? Not at all. The Iraqis and Kurds are currently in the process of winning the conflict. By quite a lot. The question is not IF ISIS will collapse, but WHEN. The big problem is that the conflict with ISIS is part of a much larger and more complicated quagmire of violence in Iraq and Syria. There are dozens of factions fighting amongst themselves for a dozen different reasons, which is complex enough, but the greater Syrian Civil War conflict has extended further into a sort of proxy war between local powers. Every neighboring country, and some that aren't even close, has a stake.

There are several important players and power blocs to consider. The first is Turkey. With the 8th largest military on Earth, and still riding a wave of popularity following the recent failed coup, Turkey's government has several goals. The first is to prevent Turkish Kurds from seceding in the even that the inevitable defeat of ISIS gives rise to an independent Kurdistan. Second, Turkey wants to keep the wider conflict from crossing over its borders.

Saudi Arabia and its Gulf State allies, being primarily Sunni Muslim, are treating the war as a way to gain a leg up over the primarily Shia Muslim Iran in regional influence, so different militias supported by both factions are thrown into the mix.

Add in the Syrian Government and its brutal human rights abuses and recent Russian Interference on the regime's side, targeting non-ISIS rebels more often than ISIS troops and a resultant spike in tensions with the US and Turkey. In the middle of it all are the Kurds and Iraqis, operating with US and Iranian support in Northern Iraq and Syria. These guys are the ones who are currently doing most of the winning against ISIS, as far as I am currently aware.

The entire situation is a tangled mess of alliances, ambitions, angry rebels, and zero foresight. Anyone who has studied history can point to another specific war that highlights just how bad an unnecessary escalation would be: The First World War. It all started as a regional conflict between independence-seeking rebels and Austria-Hungary, but escalated when other European powers started treating it as a way to advance their own interests. A tangle of alliances and treaties fired off and BAM, Europe was in chaos.

An escalation of the greater Syrian Civil War conflict, could easily result in something similar. Besides ALL of that, the most often-cited reason for an invasion is ISIS, the ones who are currently losing to the Kurds and Iraqis. So an escalation would not only be potentially devastating, it would also be completely pointless.

Which brings me back to the idea of the Crusades.

The implication of a "new Crusade" would be a religiously-justified war against a specific religious group, in this case Christian armies attacking Muslims. Now aside from the fact that this would be, according to a 2010 study, declaring war on 1.6 billion people and would almost certainly result in nothing but a further downward spiral in stability in the Middle East and a continuing cycle of violence, poverty, migration, and xenophobia, there is a much deeper issue with this Reddit post.

The Crusades are commonly portrayed in Western, European-descended cultures as a cut-and-dry series of wars waged by Christian Europe with the intent to return the holy land to Christian hands.

This explanation skims the surface of the reality of the Crusades and adds a cultural bias for good measure. It has parts that could be construed as accurate from a certain standpoint, but obscures massive amounts of complexity for the sake of a specific narrative.

To understand the Crusades, we have to understand the time period. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095. The world at the time, and the way religion was treated, was vastly different from the modern world. The previous four hundred years had seen the rise of a series of vast, immensely powerful Arabic Islamic Empires - the Caliphates. Following directly in the wake of the founding of Islam and the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the first of these empires quickly expanded from a small realm around Mecca and Medina all the way into North Africa and Central Asia.

I would argue that these conquests were not religiously motivated, but rather the same natural drive for expansion that every large Empire in history has required to remain intact, but that's an argument for another time.

Of immediate relevance to this rant is the interactions between the Islamic Empires and Europe. At the time of their first appearance, Christian Europe was in the midst of what we know of as the Dark Ages. Literacy rates and urban populations were at rock bottom and most people relied on farming to survive. There really weren't any powerful countries in Western Europe, but in Greece and Turkey the Byzantine Empire - the last vestige of Rome - reigned supreme as the sole bastion of civilization in a dark, dark Europe.

The Caliphate entered the scene while the Byzantines were locked in conflict with their rivals, the Sassanid Empire of Persia. In a relatively short amount of time, the Sassanids had been destroyed and the Byzantines had lost control of Egypt and North Africa to what became known as the Rashidun Caliphate. Byzantium was still powerful, though, and resisted multiple invasions over the next several centuries.

In essence, the Byzantine Empire became a sort of barrier preventing the Caliphates from pushing into Eastern Europe. Eventually, however, Spain came under Arabic control as well, and the initial wave of conquest was stopped by a Frankish army at the Battle of Tours in 732.

For the next three centuries, the rising Christian Kingdoms of Europe remained sheltered from conquest by the natural barriers of the Pyrenees Mountains and the Byzantine Empire. During this time, the Islamic Caliphates were HIGHLY tolerant of other religions and cultures, creating special ordinances and codes that protected non-Muslims' rights and encouraged their participation in local government. The Europeans were too busy slaughtering pagans and heathens to take note, but Christian and Jewish pilgrims were free to travel to their holy sites.

Fast forward to 1071. A nomadic people from Central Asia, the Seljuqs, have taken control of Persia and Iraq and crushed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. The Byzantines barely retain control of the coast of modern-day Turkey, with everything in the interior and East falling into Seljuq hands. The Seljuqs, although Islamic like their Caliphate neighbors, have less-pleasant policies towards other religions, and cut off the main overland pilgrimage route to the Holy Land.

The Byzantines appealed to the Pope for aid. I could go into the whole Catholic/Orthodox nature of this in detail, but it's not really worth the space. Suffice to say that Catholic and Orthodox Christians didn’t see eye to eye, and getting them to cooperate was nigh-impossible. What IS important is that the Byzantines were requesting help with the reasoning that is Byzantium fell, Europe would as well.

The problem for the Pope, thanks to the Catholic/Orthodox issue that I'm skimming over, was that "Help the Byzantines" wasn't a good reason to call for a holy war. Because his only influence over Europe was through the lens of religion, he needed a good enough religious reason to rally the European Kingdoms and get them fired up to invade. Fortunately for the Pope, the Seljuqs had cut off the pilgrimage routes and he could ask the European Kings and Nobles to invade for the purpose of "returning the Holy Land to Christian hands."

That right there is the important part. The Crusades did NOT start for religious purposes, they simply used them as a convenient excuse and rallying cry. Amusingly, although the Crusaders DID invade through Seljuq-controlled lands, the First Crusade also targeted lands and cities that weren't even under Seljuq control. Jerusalem, for instance, was controlled by the Fatimid Caliphate.

While I'm on the subject of Jerusalem, I should mention that the super-Christian Crusaders, upon taking the city, slaughtered pretty much every non-Christian they could find. Although massacres were relatively commonplace in medieval warfare, the Massacre of Jerusalem is often said to have exceeded even the standards of the time.

Eyewitnesses reported that the Crusaders waded through blood as high as their ankles or even knees in some places. The Jewish synagogue was burned with the Jews who took refuge there still trapped inside. On the Temple Mount, one crusader stated that over 10,000 innocents, including women and children, were butchered. Some Muslims were spared as captives and made to drag the corpses out of the city into massive, house-sized piles.

Ultimately, the Crusades were useless. They accomplished nothing and served only to spill the blood of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. The Fourth Crusade even ended up as an invasion of the Byzantine Empire, sealing the coffin of the declining Empire's fate with a betrayal by supposed allies. So, in conclusion, the crusades were ineffective wars fought in the name of a religion by highly-religious warriors for a completely non-religious purpose that the failed at more miserably than just about anyone has ever failed in history while at the same time committing stomach-churning atrocities.

Do we "Need a new Crusade?"

No.

No, we absolutely don't.

16 notes · View notes