Understanding the Context of the Crusades

There have been a lot of half-truths, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings about the Crusades - but before any of these can actually be tackled, one has to approach the situation in the context in which it occurred. Perhaps the biggest problem that faces a general understanding of this time period is the reluctance to look at it in its time period - and the few times that it is, it is done so from only a single perspective. This type of thing is easily achieved in movies such as Kingdom of Heaven, which director Ridley Scott, who approaches historical films with the promise of showing you a "new side" to them while notoriously missing every fact except the names, promised would explain the culpability of both sides of the Crusades and how just a few zealots on either side ruined it for everyone. With this film, all focus was from the Crusaders' perspectives, through Balien of Ibelin.

This was a historically contextual danger, as all it demonstrated as the concoctions and schemes of the Crusaders, with none of those of the East - and for anyone with a cursory glance at history, the notion that any side of a war could be absent of scheming is one that is laughable at best. Also like Kingdom of Heaven, many books, authors, and scholars opt to juxtapose ourselves into the time period of madness and chaos - and as much as it pains the author to use such a cliche, it is applying modern morality and perspectives to a time period that knew nothing of them.

As with any history, context is the key point in understanding the events as they occurred. So where then to start the study? It may seem easy to say that the obvious choice is the Council of Clermont, the clear beginning of the Crusades that many scholars and even an American president believes are still effecting us today. There is no clearer a moment that can be seen where it all started.

But this would be a terrible place to start one's understanding of the Crusades.