![]()
Felix Hinz and Johannes Meyer-Hamme
It was rather the conflict of opinion between Jews and Christians, as well as between Jews themselves, which compelled me to ponder the gaping discrepancy between what the National Socialists alleged concerning the Jews, and the image of Judaism as it presented itself to me. The contradictory teachings flowed over me wherever I went: at home, in the circles of the Jewish community and at school. To give but one example, within only a few years I had heard three different accounts of the history of the Crusades. The first portrayed the crusaders as the noble, proud army of Christendom, which set out to free the Holy Land from the clutches of unbelieving Muslims. At that time the history and reading books of the Prussian school system were still entirely within the Christian-Romantic tradition.
In the Jewish religious education we learned that the First Crusade was the prelude to horrific persecutions of the Jews. Wherever the crusader armies went – cobbled together from knights, adventurers, desperados and back-alley rabble – they left blood, smoke and ashes, in France, Germany, Hungary or the Holy Land itself. Our teachers emphasized that the then Pope, Urban II, remained silent about these atrocities. The first Crusaders had the opportunity to create the model for all further crusaders, as well as for the pogroms that would come later. This era marks the date of a deep alienation from which neither Jews nor Christians have been fully healed.
The third version we were taught was according to the redesigned curriculum that had been brought in line with National Socialism. The sermons on the Crusades, as elucidated by our brown uniformed history teacher, were only a means of harnessing the knighthood of the West for the Popes’ “goals outside those of the national interest”. In reality the Popes were not concerned with liberating the Tomb of Christ, but in expanding their own political power as well as plundering the fabulous riches of the East.1
This message by the Holocaust survivor Joel König serves as an example of how different the history of the Crusades can be interpreted. It is also an example of how intensely historical–political debates can be intertwined within a historical culture and history classes. The history of the Crusades in an international comparison is probably one of the most relevant subjects that continues to carry importance in a wide variety of contexts, despite the respective narratives fundamentally differing at times. The loss of Acre (1291), the last bastion of the crusader states in the Holy Land, was, and continues to be frequently presented as a significant historical break within the historiography of the Crusades. Although this date often was presented as the end of the Crusades, the idea was far from dead. The shadows of the Crusades still stretched long and far.2 Public interest in the Crusades was often revived, not only during the time of colonialism, but also in the victory of the Allies over the Ottoman Empire and the accompanying British conquest of Jerusalem by General Allenby in 1917.3 Moreover, the Crusades provide the basis for the founding myth of more than a few European states.4 The USA, the ‘nation with the soul of a church’ (Gilbert Keith Chesterton), were in the particular position to repeatedly draw on the idea of the Crusades.5 Since the 1990s, the topic has yet again become politically explosive. This is due to the reinvigoration of a political and aggressive form of Islam, as well as the realignment of the USA and the NATO to combat these forces.6 In conjunction with the wars against the Taliban and al-Qaeda (2001), as well as the Iraq War (2003), there has been discussion of ‘New Crusades’.7 George W. Bush even referred to the latter explicitly as such. When it became clear that this type of rhetoric only played into the hands of Islamic propaganda, the West avoided using the concept of the Crusades at all costs. Yet, nothing had significantly changed; the West was even forced into a fight against the Islamic State.
The importance of the Crusades is also reflected in historical cultures. One example of this can be found in literature. For instance, between 1823 and 2014 in English, there were at least 274 historical novels published on the Crusades to the Orient. Even in 2013, there were at least 16 novels on the Crusades published, and 21 in 2014.8 In the historical setting of the Holy City, it was not uncommon, during the respective formation period, to negotiate what be held as the final value for the society of the projected audience, and by which means one may or even must fight for it. The opinion forming power of the historical culture, to which state-regulated history classes belong, should not be underestimated. Although a respective academic level of knowledge is required, one should not forget that historians and teachers were and continue to be significantly influenced by the surrounding historical culture. Hence, the topic ‘Crusades’ has been highly controversial since the very appearance of the concept of a ‘Crusade’.9 The fact that history persists of historical narratives which vary according to the point of view was theoretically worked out in historiography (see Ch. 2) at least since the works of Johann Martin Chladenius (1710–1759). The question is how these narratives are constructed. What contextualization has been undertaken, and which interpretative frameworks are recognized and provide historical orientation? This list of questions could easily be enlarged. However, the focus of the current volume is not to work out the variety of the narratives that are cultivated within different societies. Instead, the focus is to present an international comparison of the dominant image of each respective historical culture and cultures of remembrance. It has to be kept in mind that countries should not be regarded as having one homogenous culture. Rather, they should be understood as not only synchronous, but also diachronic, multifaceted forms. Consequently, this implies historical narrations as well. Not only like the example in the introductory quote from Joel König demonstrates, but also as it plays out in the day-to-day within plural (migration-) societies. Notwithstanding, we decided to pursue an international comparison as a form of global history, in order to open up an overarching perspective for comparison.
At least within the West European historiography of the history of the Crusades, the British perspective currently dominates. Nevertheless, there are still large differences within European historical cultures, as the individual accounts in this volume (Ch. 3) display. We strove to compile this diversity, at least exemplarily. This is why we requested historians from different countries who work on the history of the Crusades and whose work meets Western academic standards to contribute. Most of these historians are located at a university.
However one arranges such a tableau, it must unavoidably remain incomplete. Yet when choosing the contributors, we were led by three aspirations: first, we wanted voices from hot-spots, i.e. from the frontlines of the history of the Crusades (viz. from the Middle East, the Baltic States and the Iberian Peninsula, as well as Malta). Second, we considered those places which represented the areas that constituted the numerically largest recruitment of crusaders (today France, Italy, Germany, England and the Benelux). Third, we wanted to look into those on the periphery (Norway) and even those behind the periphery (Ireland, Georgia, Russia, USA). In this way, we have ‘victim perspectives’ and ‘perpetrator perspectives’, ‘key players’ and ‘minor players’, as well as entirely different targets of the phenomenon.
All contributors were requested to answer two questions on only two pages:
It was important to us that the contributors did not answer these questions from a purely individual perspective. Instead, they were to provide answers that were relevant for a large group. Therefore, they were requested to support their reports with a few significant bibliographical references. That being said, it was not explicitly about merely comparing master narratives. To make this clear, we inserted a second French voice among the voices of the 26 different countries. Because most crusaders came from France and French vernaculars (the ‘lingua franca’) were the common language of the Crusader States, the French-speaking area carries a special importance for our question. The French contributors are both – like the majority of the others – seasoned historians with a large amount of experience and extensive knowledge about the Crusades. Here, it is by no means about establishing the worth or hierarchy among the individual texts. All are justified perspectives. The two French examples demonstrate that even historians in the same country – despite some obvious agreements – are by no means unified in their interpretations, and that controversy also exists within the same historical culture. Despite all the differences, we were aware that among all the points of views, the historians assembled are a part of a particular and international group: the scientific community. On the other hand, we determined that we would not grant any voices a platform that did not correspond to Western academic standards, and would therefore be classified as propaganda. Of course, these other voices exist alongside those depicted here – especially on the internet.
The way in which the 27 short narrations on the Crusades were compiled reveal, shared and conflicting memories of different groups. And these groups see themselves as heirs of the victims and observers, either positively as occupying heroes or negatively as occupying perpetrators of the Crusades. On the one hand, these self-assessments could change entirely in the course of time. On the other hand, there were lines of conflict that ran between the academics and the popular point of view within the respective groups. Nevertheless, in the context of each of these narrations – despite the attempt to provide a certain generally valid description of specific groups – they will always remain a subjective impression of the narrator.
This collection of short narratives offers extensive material on the Crusades as well as presenting, for present and later times, a rare and insightful profile of international, academic opinions on the Crusades. Proceeding in this manner, we might be able to substantially discuss four foundational questions:
Which forms of historical awareness within societies allow themselves to be differentiated for a comparison within an international perspective? In other words, in what way is the history of the Crusades in different historical cultures told? Which perspectives, interpretations and contemporary relevance can be distinguished and how are they to be explained (Ch. 2 and 3)?
What conclusions can be derived for the concept of historical learning in a globalized world from the variety of narratives? (Ch. 4)?
What pragmatic conclusions can be drawn for historical instruction in the classroom?
Which needs regarding empirical research on the Crusades become apparent?
Not least due to digital communication tools, it appears increasingly relevant within intercultural and transcultural discourse that not only historians reflect on the variety of narratives, but also that adolescents learn to constructively interact with this variety. With this background in mind, the collection presented here – with all the questions that are raised – could lay the foundation, in light of the current political state of the world, for important new discussions of the Crusades and their importance for ‘us’ today.
1 Joel König, David. Aufzeichnungen eines Überlebenden (David. Records of a Survivor) (Frankfurt a.M., 1979), pp. 52 f.a
2 These self-assessments could entirely change in the course of time; however, at times lines of conflict ran between academics and popular op...
