By Selwyn Duke, with introduction by Lewis Loflin
As a Deist, I see the Crusades through reason’s lens, not dogma. Selwyn Duke casts them as Christendom’s survival stand against relentless Muslim conquests—from Charles Martel’s hammer blow to Urban II’s call. Islam’s sword carved an empire; the Crusades were a shield, not a scepter. History, not myth, shows a civilization fighting to endure, not dominate.
In 732 AD, Europe faced an Islamic onslaught. Born in 622, Islam had conquered much of Christendom—Mideast and North Africa—by the seventh century. The Moors took Iberia by 718, then pushed into Gaul. At Tours, outnumbered Franks under Charles Martel crushed Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi’s army, halting Islam’s advance and earning Charles the title "The Hammer."
Islam’s hammer kept striking. By 1095, Seljuk Turks had seized Byzantine Anatolia, threatening Greece and the Balkans. Emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Urban II, who, at the Council of Clermont, rallied Europe to aid the East and reclaim Jerusalem—launching the First Crusade amid cries of "God wills it!"
Thomas Madden refutes the "intolerance" myth: the Crusades weren’t papal power grabs but a response to 400 years of Muslim conquests. From the seventh century, Islam’s sword divided the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The Crusades, like Martel’s stand, aimed to reclaim lost lands, not convert Muslims.
The Crusades were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.
Modern cynicism paints Crusaders as imperialists or fanatics, yet eleventh-century Europe wasn’t dominant—Islam was. Knights, often wealthy "first sons," risked all, not for riches or conversions, but duty. Madden notes they sought peace and aid for eastern Christians, not conquest, driven by faith, not greed.
The First Crusade, launched in 1096, faced a 1,500-mile trek to retake Nicea, Antioch, and Jerusalem by 1099—despite a disastrous "People’s Crusade" prelude. Later Crusades faltered: the Second failed in 1144, the Third, led by Richard the Lionheart, reclaimed coastlines but not Jerusalem. By 1291, Crusader states fell.
Myths persist: Crusades didn’t fuel modern Muslim resentment—that’s a nineteenth-century colonial fiction. Anti-Semitism claims overlook papal condemnation of rogue acts. Failures like the Fourth Crusade’s Constantinople sack widened schisms, but the era was a "holding action" against Islam’s tide, securing Europe’s survival.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this updated format. The original content remains Selwyn Duke’s, with my introduction and edits. Archived at: SelwynDuke.com
