Free The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips

PREFACE
     
    The Crusades—Medieval and Modern
     
    S INCE THIS BOOK was completed—in the autumn of 2003—events such as the Madrid bombing and the US-led invasion of Iraq have inspired parallels between the medieval crusades and contemporary times. Reviewers and analysts have sought to explain present-day tensions against a context of earlier conflicts between Islam and the West. A recent spate of documentaries and films testifies to a widespread fascination in the history of the crusades and its perceived relevance today.
    There is a rich seam of material to support such comparisons, yet one must be cautious in seeking an exact match. The most crucial difference lies in the place of holy war in the modern cultures of Islam and the West. In the West, holy war—one fought at God’s command—has, since the separation of church and state in the eighteenth century, been replaced by the idea of ‘just war.’ Religion remains important, but it fits alongside sovereignty and the protection of boundaries. Just war shares some aspects with its spiritual counterpart (legitimate authority, a justifying cause, the restoration of order), but does not require a divine mandate. In the medieval West, it was the pope who called upon the Christian faithful from all ranks of society to reclaim and then defend Jerusalem from the forces of Islam. Some episodes attracted criticism, particularly when a crusade turned against a controversial target, and the behaviour of individual crusaders was also condemned, but the basic principle was not. In the post-Enlightenment world, warfare in the name of religion became seen as old-fashioned and barbaric.
    For the West to label contemporary conflicts as crusades is to obscure the secular mandate of a just war and to ignore the fact that, in the Middle Ages, most westerners supported the crusades, while today there is tremendous opposition to military action. To foster the use of such terms is also to open up the bitter legacy of the medieval period. A statement from al-Qai‘da noted ‘the original crusade brought Richard [the Lionheart] from England. Today the crusading countries rushed as soon as Bush raised the cross.’
    In an Islamic society, however, religion remains integral to the political order—Muhammad was a religious and political leader. A defensive jihad is a binding duty on all Muslims and if there are insufficient numbers to defend a region, some jurists argue that it is the responsibility of others to help them (i.e. the fighters flooding in to Iraq). In October 2001 Osama bin Laden stated ‘our goal is for our nation [Islam] to unite in the face of the Christian crusade.’
    Notwithstanding this difference, parallels between the medieval and the modern abound. Islamists, as well as Arab nationalists such as Saddam Hussein, have employed the legacy of Saladin who, by capturing Jerusalem from the Christians in 1187, symbolised successful resistance to western oppressors. Saddam had a mural painted depicting himself alongside Saladin, leading their men to victory against their western enemies.
    The role of propaganda was, and remains, important. Both the coalition forces in Iraq and the armies of the Fourth Crusade perceived themselves as liberating forces. Yet they both faced severe opposition from a population long convinced of the evils of the West. Ideas of profit and honour are also to be found across the centuries. Some have accused the US of acting out of concern for oil investments in Iraq; to a few medieval contemporaries and to many later historians, the mercantile interests of the Venetian traders helped drive them to Constantinople in 1204. Similarly, the knightly classes of the crusaders sought to sustain the deeds of their forefathers. George W. Bush is often criticised for trying to complete his father’s unfinished business in Iraq.
    Both Islam and the West can choose to justify violence; the past can be invoked to help bolster and to understand a cause. While