THE CRUSADES AND THE EUROPEAN IDENTITY
rick murphy
http://www.diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=2186
7 November 2009
THE CRUSADES AND THE EUROPEAN IDENTITY
52 years have passed since the signing of the Treaty of Rome and the
start of Europe’s unification process. In 2007, the EU marked its
fiftieth anniversary with ceremonies and festivities. It was said that
the process undergone was a success story. However, Europe has still
not found the answer to the question, what is Europe?
Perhaps the next success story of Europe will be regarding identity.
In fact, there are many ideas in this field. For example, historian
Cajus Wypior uses history to describe “Europe” and being “European”.
It is a fact that lands and peoples produce their selves, concepts and
definitions with the past that they have had. According to Wypior, the
Crusades are very important in determining the concept of Europe. Like
Wypior, Michael Blume also has carried out a conceptual study and has
underlined the issue of religion.
European sociologists are of the opinion that since the end of the 80s
religions in a significant part of the world have undergone a
Renaissance. That religion should come to the fore in regional
conflicts and religious leaders become leaders in them shows that this
approach is not totally unfounded. Leaders who make use of religion
not for peace and reconciliation but for war and separation are making
the world a less and less secure place.
The Crusades have an important place in the social memory and genetics
of Europe. These wars which got the name they now bear from Leibniz in
the 17th century encompass the assaults carried out from 1291 onwards
with the calling of the Pope. Some European historians count every
campaign carried out during this period as a part of the Crusades and
some only those that were won by the Europeans. An important historian
Christopher Tyerman claims that the Crusades never took place.
The Crusades were very important in literature, music the arts and in
government administration in Europe and were so highly valued that
family histories took those who participated in these campaigns as
nobles. The situation was not much different in the 19th century. In
this century, the aristocracy tried to resuscitate knighthood with all
of its accompanying institutions.
Salahaddin has a very important place in the perception of the
Crusades in Europe, he is almost mentioned with great respect. In
fact, that Kaiser Wilhelm the Second took gifts to the grave of
Salahaddin in Damascus during his visit to the Ottoman Empire may be
taken as a sign of this respect. Richard the Lionhearted, another
important character in the Crusades is another impression set deep in
the European subconscious. In reality, the Crusades only began to be
studied after the middle of the 19th century. This effort expended in
order to produce arguments for the legitimacy of the states and of
national interests also constituted the background of British and
French imperialism in the Middle East in the following decades. So
much so that during the peace talks at Versailles in 1919, following
the First World War, France based its claims of mandate over Syria on
the Crusades.
As nations and nation states arose in Europe, the Crusades were an
important and rich source for “origins” and “corners stones”. England
made much use of Richard the Lionhearted as Belgium did of Godefroy de
Bouillon and Balduin. Although these “Belgian heroes” or “the heroes
of Belgium” had never heard of a country called Belgium in their
lifetimes, if it is indeed true that the Crusades are the work of
Belgium, as claimed by Belgian historian Godefroid Kurth, then one may
just have to accept it!
Another country which resorted to the Crusades in the process of
“national identity” and “national formation” was Germany. Germany made
a hero out of Frederick Barbarossa, who was drowned during the
Crusades. The Barbarossa myth, which was especially used during the
national socialism period was brought to a point in which history
books read that “the greatest losses suffered during the Crusades were
by Germany”. In the same books, the series of wars won by Europeans
against Turks were described as “the last and determining battles of
the Crusades between Asia and Europe”. The Crusades were also valuable
for Spain, where the Reconquista, that is the regain of the Iberian
Peninsula from the Moors was the origin of national identity.
In 1219, Denmark explained its entry into the Crusades against
Estonian pagans by claiming that the Danish flag had appeared on the
sky above the battlefield. There were of course attempts to the
contrary. For example, Poland and Russia have used the resistance they
had shown to the German Crusading order of Deutsche Orden as building
blocks of their national identities.
The situation continued unchanged until the mid 20th century. While
Hitler had paintings of himself made showing him as a Crusader Knight,
he had christened his great operation against Russia Operation
Barbarossa. While Himmler structured the SS in line with the
functioning and principles of Crusader orders, he was trying to revive
the Deutsche Orden. At the same time, in Spain, Franco was organising
a “cruzada” in order to save the church and to secure national unity.
Strangely enough, Moroccan Muslim legionaries were also taking part in
Franco’s cruzada.
It is known from his memoirs that Eisenhower had called the struggle
against Nazi Germany “the crusade in Europe”. In fact that Eisenhower
mentioned the “great Crusade” in the landing order he issued on the
6th of June 1944 has its place in the pages of history.
Although the word Crusade essentially carries the meaning of “unity
against the Turks” and the “joint struggle of European powers against
the enemy to the east”, in time it has become something like a code
used to mobilise people and to give a message to the subconscious in
order to awaken latent systems.
The Crusades played an important role in small fiefdoms transforming
into national identities and in the unification of cultures close to
each other. From the mid 20th century, the Crusades which were seen as
a precursor to colonialism and imperialism were criticised bitterly.
The massacres, plundering, wounds opened by the lust for gold and
wealth that took place during the Crusades and the unforgivable
offences such as the Inquisition and the witch hunts carried out by
the Church which supported these wars have prevented the Crusades from
being solely viewed through glasses of romanticism and idealism. So
much so that an American historian, Karen Armstrong has described the
Crusades as “preparation” and “the precursor of the Jewish genocide
carried out by Germany”.
This is of course a controversial approach. However what is certain is
that the culture of violence feeds off the Crusades and that the
inclination to render other and the traumatic views of daily problems
visible in European politics today relies on myths which are partly
remnants of the Crusades and partly developed later.
In pop culture in Europe, the Crusades is still entwined with
adventure and heroism. Though the European press uses the term
“crusade” to describe unjustified moves by individuals or
institutions, this form of usage cannot easily be generalised. A
similar situation is also true of the USA. The term “crusade” is used
both to commend and to criticise in the USA. For example while there
are “crusades” against cancer, for better education or towards a
scientific cancer, there are also warships and planes which bear this
name.
That the former President George W. Bush used this word to describe
the war on terror on the 16th of September 2001 and the television
channel History Channel using the expression “can a president finish
off what a king, a sultan and a pope started” ,n the publicity for a
documentary about the Crusades were worthy of note. That articles
saying Islam will conquer Europe and that the Turks must be stopped
appeared in 2001 in the wake of 9/11 – and perhaps still do – in
Europe may again be viewed as the influence of the Crusades. Between
the lines in Austria’s strong and bitter criticism to Turkey’s entry
to the EU, there were always impressions of the Crusades.
For example, the Deputy General Secretary of the European Council Boer-
Buquicchio and former undersecretary of the Austrian Foreign Ministry
Albert Rohan were saying that “with the onset of the ascendance talks,
Istanbul would be besieged peacefully”, in advocating the start of
negotiations with Turkey. During the same time, Siegfried Nagl, Mayor
of Graz could not stop any short of telling Austrian ORF channel the
following: “If Turkey enters the EU, I guarantee to everyone that this
Europe will disappear. The city of Graz has served as a fortress
against the Turks and defended western Europe for centuries. It will
today again act as a fortress against the Turks.”
In the 90s Bernard Lewis’ “the Roots of Muslim Rage” and Samuel
Huntington’s “Conflict of Civilisations” could not overlook the
Crusades.
Off course, the Crusades were not forgotten in the Eastern world
either. Nationalist leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Nasser tried to
identify themselves with Salahaddin. Today Nasrallah is also up for
the same role. The Arab world prefers to see the West’s support of
Israel in terms of the Crusades.
Actually, the Crusades may be beneficial and educating in terms of
“drawing lessons from the past” and to “show what using religion to
cover up real aims may lead to”. In the end, the damages wrought by
the Crusades and those who made use of the Crusades may be prevented
from occurring again.
The concept of “Europe” may off course be based on the Crusades; there
is no way to stop it once the will to do so is in place. However the
concept of “Europe” may also be based on the lessons learned from
these campaigns and to not repeating past mistakes. It must not be
forgotten that eight hundred and seventeen years have passed since the
Crusades.