48 ISLAM AT WAR
alism, an idea that fit conveniently into the propaganda of the Cold War.
In actuality, the Crusades hardly fit the patterns that European imperialists
would later form. In the later period, well-organized and technically su-
perior nations would dominate less advanced peoples with vastly superior
trade, weapons, and cultures. During the Crusades, it was nearly the re-
verse—the Muslim states were clearly superior societies by every con-
ceivable measurement. It would be better to liken the crusaders to the
barbarians who swept down on the advanced Greek and Western em-
pires—this is a far better analogy than that of imperialism and fits in
completely with the actions of the Seljuqs and Mongols.
Another perception is that the Crusades were an appalling act of sav-
agery carried out by the warlike adherents of Christianity against the
peaceful followers of Islam. There could be some minor truth to this,
without historical context. Actually, if the crusaders were no more attrac-
tive as conquerors than most nations, they weren’t much worse either.
They were certainly warlike, but so were the Muslim states that they
confronted. It is possible that the Muslims, who properly considered them-
selves a superior culture, were most deeply offended by the scorn with
which the barbarians treated these superior cultures. If the mighty Byz-
antines were respectful of Islam and the Arab Middle East, how could the
Westerners act so?
The Crusades left few physical marks on the Islamic world other than
ruined castles that represent some of the finest examples of medieval mili-
tary architecture in the world. By way of culture, the invaders were little
more than barbarian hordes and had little to offer the more cultured ele-
ments of Islamic society. If anything, the Crusades brought much of Is-
lamic culture and learning back to the West where it helped to spur on the
birth of the Renaissance. The crusaders were not evangelical and made
no effort to convert the populace. Indeed, if their religion had any influ-
ence on the Middle East it was to the detriment of the local Christians.
They did have two major influences. First, they crippled the Byzantine
Empire by the storming and capture of Constantinople. This so weakened
the Byzantines that the Seljuqs were eventually able to overrun and con-
quer the doddering but resilient old empire. Had the crusaders not irrep-
arably damaged the Byzantines by their greed, the history of the Middle
East might have been significantly different.
The second major influence was the emotional impact the crusaders had
on the Middle East. The invasion by a force of infidels and their occu-
pation of Islamic lands for nearly 150 years was a tremendous shock to a
people who had known nothing but conquest and victory for five centuries.
The Crusades shattered the myth of the invincibility of Islamic armies and