Double Standards

I'm quite fed up with the dichotomy of our society. I've been fascinated by the Crusades and therefore have wanted to discuss them and debate them with people. To my dismay, the usual response to the Holy Wars in Palestine and Europe is a recitation straight from Runciman[1] that they were expeditions led by war mongering feudalists who's thirst for blood and brutality was insatiable. I am aghast that so many are disgusted by the Crusaders when they honor the Romans who invented crucifixion and conquered the world in the name of their gods with several Caesars claiming to be sons of god. I meet people who are enchanted by the Celts and Vikings. The Celts were a pagan people who committed regular human sacrifices and the Vikings raped, pillaged, and murdered innocent villagers and churchmen in the name of Oiden. Then there is the Greeks, everyone loves the Greeks who are known for their philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and Erasmus. However, the Greeks were so depraved that they regularly practiced incest, had massive orgies, and had festivals that even the Romans would not participate in.

What I find shocking is that the Crusaders get convicted for being brutal barbarians when the Romans, Greeks, and Pagan Europeans committed atrocities that our unfathomable today. Why are Celts, Vikings, Norse Nations, Romans, and Greeks exempt from accusation? Why do people honor them and even seek to pay tribute to their ancestors who served in their empires and tribes? The Crusaders were not by comparison cruel or cold hearted. In fact, the Crucinatius or those signed with the Cross weren't seeking Saracens to kill or lands to plunder, they sincerely sought The Holy Sepulchre [2]. The Crusaders weren't perfect, they did commit sins like any people before and after them, but to single them out as the bane of humanity is extreme, especially when you compare them to the paganized populace of Europe.

In truth, the Crusaders spent more time at peace with their Muslim enemies and they gained not the riches not the wealth that are fabled in the legends of the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant. The Crusaders risked life and limb for a kingdom in the desert, cut off from provision and reinforcements. Outremer was once a melting pot of civilization. Christians, Jews, and Muslims mingled together in the streets of Jerusalem. War was wedged between long periods of peace. So why then do so many secular people hate the Crusaders? How in their minds are they different from cultic Celts and religious Romans? I see a difference, but why are the latter pardoned and the former persecuted? Is it the dichotomy of waging war in the name of Christ that rubs people the wrong way? If you study The Crusades closely you'll learn that Bull issued by Pope Urban II was justified by the Laws handed down by Augustine who in turn barrowed and refined them from Cicero.

I'm willing to abide differences of opinion and I don't expect everyone to see the Crusaders as I do. What I can't tolerate is a double standard. I've grown weary of being lectured how evil the Church was in the Crusades and then praising the pagan Celts and Vikings. The Celts and Vikings prior to being evangelized did practices that were morose and gross. The Vikings invented The Eagle, which involves fillet the chest of living person and removing their rib cage, splitting it open, and folding the ribs into wings across the shoulders of the victim all while they are still alive. The Celts like the Mayans and Philistines offered human sacrifices to their gods. These are people who are to be admired and to aspire to be? Then we have the Romans, the most ruthless rulers to have ever existed. The Romans invented the excruciating form of execution known as Crucifixion. Crucifixion was slow and agonizing death. The condemned were nailed to a tree or cross made of a tree. The crucified individual then slowly suffocates for a minimum of three days and if he is given a stand for his feet like Jesus did, the crucified can push up to try and breath which prolongs the process.

The Crusaders in contrast dispatched and destroyed their enemies with the sword, arrow, Greek fire, and weapons of the Medieval World. They did not subject their enemies to The Eagle or The Cross, they merely rendered their foes asunder with the weapons of their warfare. In case you want to argue the tortures and devices in the shapes of the cross let me stop you there. That is the Roman and Spanish Inquisition, not the Crusaders who subjected people to pain in dark dungeons. I am not advocating the Inquisition, I am standing up for the Crusaders who when compared with The Vikings, Romans, and Celts are very civil and merciful.

I suppose the answer to why so many people chastise the Crusaders is misinformation and malice towards Christians. Images of knights warring the cross as they cut through the merciful Muslims abound and yet falsely depict what happened. I don't quite understand why directors like Ridley Scott feel they must pander to Muslims when they make films like Kingdom of Heaven. There is such a fear of offending Muslims when depicting the Crusades that the narrative becomes increasingly one sided. This is puzzlingly since the Muslims defeated the Crusaders. From Nar-ad Din [3] to Baibars [4] the Saracens conquered the Crusaders. As Jonathan Riley-Smith says, "Why are Muslims offended by the Crusades? They won. The Muslims defeated the Crusaders and thus can remember their victory over the Christians. Why then should they be stirred to hate and feel offended by events their ancestors cherished?" (The Crusades: A History, Paraphrase).

Perhaps the answer is that non-religious and other religious people fear a militarized Christianity. Maybe the Crusades remind them that once Christians took up arms and fought valiantly and now they fear it could happen again. I have mention the widespread persecution of Christians multiple times and this persecution could provoke a response not seen in over nine centuries. I don't think Christians will be sowing crosses on their shoulders anytime soon, but there must be a reason that defies logic for why the subject of the Crusades causes people such angst.

I would welcome an open debate if the double standard was dropped. If people would look at the vices of their favorite tribes and empires then maybe they would stop punishing the Crusaders and consider that all men are fallible and that the Knights of Christ in comparison were more courteous and civil than the Greeks or Romans.

[1] Sir Steven Runciman, Author of A History of the Crusades Vol I-III. A Victorian Crusader Historian.

[2] The Holy Sepluchre is the Church built first by Constantine to contain the True Cross, Golgotha, and The Tomb of the Resurrection of Christ. It was destroyed and later rebuilt by the Crusaders. To this day it is believe to be the place Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, and resurrected. Some British archaeologists argue It's authenticity is weak and opt for The Golgotha and Garden Tomb that is outside the Old City of Jerusalem.