This essay examines two revisionist scholarly perspectives on the Crusades, drawing on Jonathan Riley-Smith's "Crusading as an Act of Love" and Peter F. Crawford's "Four Myths About the Crusades." It explores how medieval Christians understood crusading as an expression of charity, sacrifice, and defense of fellow believers rather than a cynical grab for wealth or power. The paper contextualizes the Crusades within a broader landscape of Christian-Muslim conflict, challenges modern caricatures shaped by Enlightenment anti-clericalism and twentieth-century nationalism, and acknowledges the genuine hardships crusaders endured. The essay concludes that while revisionist arguments are persuasive, a fully balanced view must still account for the violence inflicted on marginalized populations, particularly Jewish communities.
The paper demonstrates source synthesis: rather than summarizing each text in isolation, it weaves both scholars' arguments together around shared themes — motivation, sacrifice, context, and historiography. This approach shows the reader how two different articles converge on a single interpretive position while allowing the writer to evaluate both critically.
The essay opens by contrasting the modern connotation of "crusading" with its original medieval meaning, then builds the revisionist case across several thematic sections: the theology of loving warfare, the geopolitical context of Christian-Muslim rivalry, the financial and physical sacrifices of crusaders, and the later political distortion of crusading history. The final paragraphs offer measured pushback before a conclusion that endorses contextualized historical thinking without fully absolving the Crusades of their brutality.
Crusading has become a synonym for something negative — typically describing an action zealously undertaken without thought or consideration for others, or without regard for alternative points of view. Yet when the actual Crusades were embarked upon, according to Jonathan Riley-Smith's article Crusading as an Act of Love, they were praised as actions "fired by the ardor of charity" (Riley-Smith, 2002, p. 32). Riley-Smith (2002) notes that during the era of the Crusades, the concept of a loving war was not seen as oxymoronic by Christians. The act of crusading was also viewed as imitating Christ — taking up one's cross in sacrifice. In Pope Innocent's own words at the time of the Fifth Crusade, the crusader's burden was a "soft and gentle" cross in comparison to the suffering borne by Christ for the sins of all humanity (Riley-Smith, 2002, p. 35).
While interpreted in modernity this may seem like rank hypocrisy, or at best a misreading of Christ's true message of love, it is important to remember that all of medieval society was structured upon the relationship between lord and vassal — that is, upon a chain of military obligations. In other words, the idea of a loving war was deeply embedded in the medieval worldview. Violence as an expression of brotherly Christian love was also understood as a means of liberating Christians living under what were considered the tyrannical rulers of the Ottoman Turks.
Furthermore, some of these attitudes may not be entirely as antiquated as one might like to think. Riley-Smith cites Peter Lombard, a contemporary Christian theologian who argued that while Christians should love all people, since this is not always realistically possible, loving fellow Christians more intensely might be considered the greater imperative. It was this type of prioritization, Riley-Smith argues, that the crusaders were demonstrating. Even if their actions were often bloody and xenophobic by modern standards, they viewed themselves as defenders of the faith and of fellow Christians in a society where war was seen as a zero-sum game with clear victors and losers. Tolerance was not a celebrated value in the era of the Crusades.
Riley-Smith's argument is challenging precisely because it asks modern readers to set aside present-day moral assumptions and engage seriously with the internal logic of medieval Christian thought. Rather than dismissing crusading as pure barbarism, he invites consideration of how the same theological framework that demanded love of neighbor could, within that cultural context, also demand taking up arms in that neighbor's defense.
Peter F. Crawford (2011), in his essay "Four Myths About the Crusades," likewise agrees that the Crusades are often depicted as "deplorable" acts of violence in the popular media — from political speeches to popular culture — and criticizes textbooks that portray them as acts of "pugnacity, piety, and greed" (p. 13). Crawford contextualizes the Crusades within a larger framework in which Islam was also engaged in an expansionist program "deliberately designed to expand Muslim territory at the expense of Islam's neighbors" (Crawford, 2011, p. 14). In other words, the Crusades took place within a broadly warring Europe in which there was constant jockeying for power between Christians and Muslims. It is not simply a question of Christianity consistently being the more aggressive faith. Crawford cites a Muslim ruler he describes as mentally unbalanced — a leader who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and engaged in active persecution of non-Muslims, including Jews.
Christian fears of persecution and the desire to defend co-religionists in the Middle East, therefore, were not solely based on hatred of other religions but had a basis in recent historical memory. There were concrete reasons to seek protection of Christians and Christian holy sites outside of Europe. Five of the major episcopal seats — Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople — had either been taken or attacked, and Crawford (2011) characterizes the Crusades as a justified and necessary counterattack to increasing Muslim encroachment. Muslims, he argues, were not the underdogs in this religious struggle.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.