There are many popular myths about history that are busted if you look at the facts. Here are some regarding Jewish medieval history:

Myth: Medieval Jews didn’t fight.

Reality: Medieval Jews fought in the service of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mongol, Indian, Chinese, and other armies. Jews also fought back against oppression and massacre, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

The myth is based in two facts:

• There were indeed many times and places when Jews were banned from bearing arms or armor. For example, in 1181 England ordered its Jews to get rid of any “mail or hauberk” they had – then expelled them a century later. However, being banned from bearing arms in many places does not mean they were banned in all.
• Jews were a very small percentage of the population. As a result, even if a Jewish community successfully defended itself against an initial attack it could be overwhelmed when additional forces joined the fight, as in Mainz in 1349. Therefore most surviving medieval Jewish histories from Christian Europe focused on making sure the dead are remembered, not glorifying combat and warriors.

Myth: Jewish medieval history was all gloom, doom, and oppression.

Reality: Historian Salo Baron, one of the leading 20^th century historians, called this the “lachrymose conception of Jewish history.” While there were indeed times of horror, there were also good times of growth, joy, and great accomplishment. Dwelling on only the bad times gives a stunted and twisted view of history, which in turn prevents one from asking useful questions such as “What factors helped change conditions from bad to good?”

Myth: Christian and Muslim attacks on Jews were solely motivated by religion.

Reality: In almost every attack, either the attackers or the people inciting the attack stood to profit from it – even when the perpetrators used religion as an excuse.

In many cases the profit was financial. For example, the rioters who massacred the Jews of York in 1190 were urged on by a group of nobles seeking to wipe out their debts, and as soon as the Jews were dead those nobles went to the official archives – which were stored in a cathedral — and burned their records.

In other cases the gain was in political power. For example, the kings of Catholic Visigothic Spain passed harsh laws against Jews when they wanted to weaken the nobility (since the Visigothic nobility often used Jews to help manage their estates), relaxing those laws when seeking nobles’ support instead.

Such political attacks usually involved whipping up fear of a nonexistent threat, making it easier for the instigators to rally support and to brand their opposition as dangerous traitors.  For example, the Spanish Inquisition was founded in 1478 claiming a Jewish threat to Spanish Christianity.  The Spanish Jewish community of the time had already been pretty well crushed and posed no threat to anyone, but the Crown was facing opposition from the nobles and the challenges of unifying two kingdoms into a united Spain while the Catholic Church was facing increasing Protestant opposition.  After the Jews were expelled in 1492 the Inquisition kept up the useful fear (it justified their jobs and their methods) by expanding their target list – the Inquisition even imprisoned the Archbishop of Toledo and twice questioned Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits.

Yes, religious differences and teachings were a big part of the problem. Sometimes religious institutions led the attacks, most famously the Inquisition. Furthermore even when the Church leadership did not want the Jews actually killed but merely kept alive in a subordinate role (as in the case of York, where an enraged King Richard chose the Bishop of Ely to lead the force hunting the perpetrators), centuries of painting Jews as a contemptible “Other” provided a ready-made excuse for the greedy and a handy tool for inciting mobs.

However, if one wishes to fully understand an attack one should follow the old Roman adage and ask “Cui bono?” – “Who benefits?” – even when, or especially when, the attackers claimed to have had more selfless motives.

Myth: Impersonal historical forces, not individuals, determined events.

Reality: While in many cases people acted as one would expect given the economic and other pressures upon them, not everybody did so. For example, the Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms of the 12^th and 13^th centuries were neighbors with similar economies and military challenges. Both used Jewish troops to help in the Reconquista – the retaking of Iberia from the Muslims. By 1248 the Christians owned all but a small corner of Iberia, the Reconquista’s ultimate success was assured, and Jewish military services were no longer essential. In Spain Jewish conditions soon deteriorated, but the Portuguese kings – facing the same economic, military, and religious situation – chose to protect not only their Jewish population but also refugees from Spain for another two and a half centuries.

Yes, the economic, military, political, and religious pressures upon people need to be understood – as noted above, people’s actions can often be “predicted” by looking at their raw self-interest. However, often is not always. Individuals still chose how they reacted to those pressures, and their different choices made significant differences in peoples’ lives. Peoples’ choices mattered.