In God's Battalions, award-winning author Rodney Stark takes on the long-held view that the Crusades were the first round of European colonialism, conducted for land, loot, and converts by barbarian Christians who victimized the cultivated Muslims.
To the contrary, Stark argues that the Crusades were the first military response to unwarranted Muslim terrorist aggression. Stark reviews the history of the seven major Crusades from 1095 to 1291, demonstrating that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations, centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West, and sudden attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places. Although the Crusades were initiated by a plea from the pope, Stark argues that this had nothing to do with any elaborate design of the Christian world to convert all Muslims to Christianity by force of arms. Given current tensions in the Middle East and terrorist attacks around the world, Stark's views are a thought-provoking contribution to our understanding and are sure to spark debate.
©2009 Rodney Stark; (P)2009 Tantor
"An excitingly readable distillation of the new, revisionist Crusades historiography." (Booklist)
"God's Battalions" has the unfortunate subtitle, "The Case for the Crusades." That makes it sound more polemical than it appeared to me as I listened to it. Rodney Stark seems to be arguing, not that the Crusades were a righteous cause, but that the European participants THOUGHT they were a righteous cause, and that we should take their declared motivations seriously. It's not so much pro-Crusades as it is anti-anti-Crusades.
Stark doesn't think the Crusades were a cynical grab for land and power. By analyzing family connections and financial data, he argues that most people who went on the Crusades did so at tremendous cost, sometimes bankrupting themselves in the process, for little or no material gain. He concludes from this that they truly felt they were participating in a "higher cause."
Stark's strong suit is using sociological and economic data to fill in the historical picture. Surprisingly, he manages to do this without turning the book into a dry thesis: he sticks to a strong narrative line, filled with battle descriptions, anecdotes, and extensive quotes from letters and other contemporary documents. Most of all, he tries to be specific: which families were involved, which groups participated in pogroms, which factions (Christian and Muslim) set off the conflict, when did accusations of conquest and colonialism first arise.
The narrative is crafted into a compact and comprehensible outline that makes the book a useful introduction to the subject. Of course, I have to admit, in saying that, that this IS the first book I've read on the subject. I was drawn to it by the liveliness of the writing (and the excellence of David Drummond's narration) more than anything else. Even if Stark's analysis fails to stand up over time, he has included a wealth of information in a concise and very well-organized format.
...to modernity's rewriting of history. Stark lays out the arguments against the establishment's version in a very cogent and approachable way. Excellent.
Great topic. Heavy on names and dates, but the subject matter and the contrarian aspect of the case make it one worth listening too. As with any history book, much of the interpretation of the events is in the eye of the beholder. I suggest reading it in large chunks so that the scale of the history can be enjoyed.
Good book. Well researched. Well read. It is difficult to find a so called "history" w/o an agenda, and this one's is at least clearly stated: to counter a revisionist view of history that seems to condemn the crusades as motivated by barbaric "Christians" seeking gold and glory while the "high and tolerant" culture of an Islamic Middle East (increasingly accepted as truth)was being destroyed. The author makes a convincing case against such revisionist thinking. I think this book should be read and debated in a wide forum. I would also like to see more titles from Rodney Stark in the Audible catalogue.
This work hits several myths about the Crusades head on and provides historical evidence to expose their errors:
* The myths of why the RC Church called for the 1st Crusade
* The myth of the victimized peace-loving Muslims minding their own business
* The myth of the Crusader as a blood-thirsty, raping, greedy mercenary.
* The myth of Saladin the Noble Warrior
* The myths surrounding the Fall of Jerusalem
Stark is a fearless iconoclast when it comes to the myths progressives invent to support their anti-Western narrative.
Stark does not whitewash the atrocities that were committed by some of the Crusaders. He frequently acknowledges that bad things were committed by some Crusaders. The corrective he offers is a vision of the Crusades as understood by contemporaries, against the vision offered by Enlightenment-Progressive scholarship which interprets the entire history as evidence of why white, European Medieval Christians and the history they made should be condemned.
This and works like it are greatly needed.
This is not politically correct!
Baldwin, and others like him sold everything of their of their worldly possessions and took their families, recruited an army and marched from France to the Holy Lands to defend the Christians who were being slaughtered by the Saracens as they tried to visit the Holy Lands. These people decided to commit their lives to defending these people and these sites for Christianity. It was a calling and they heard the call. They never intended to survive this Crusade and return to France, they were going to establish a defensive position in the Holy Lands or die trying. This was not a quest for riches, this was a quest to defend the oppressed Christians of the land.
Really, this was a compelling telling of the story.
One group of crusaders did not have enough money to arm themselves and fund their trip to the Holy lands, so they decided to attack the Jewish communities along the way since they decided that the Jews were evil anyway. The Jews were actually defended by Catholic priests in Cathedrals. This is contrary to the typical version of the story known today.
The next time you year someone defending the horrible acts by Islamic barbarians toward Christians or the West as a reaction to the Crusades some 9 centuries ago, listen to this book. It will set the story straight.
yes. I think the authors case is well-built overall. It's another area where the rhetoric of modernity had me blinded a bit. Stark is a good myth buster.
Much less like a textbook and much more like an enjoyable read. The author goes through all five crusades breaking down some of the biases which we moderns have picked up. Interacts with 19th and 20th century arguments.
I found myself very much agreeing with the author's perspective from my limited study of the time.
very nice job of clear reading.
sure, but it's not exactly a suspenseful thriller.
I think many historians in the years to come will see that Stark is basically right in much of his perspectives. It's good to know that the dark ages weren't really so dark. this work was also very balanced and showed some of the horrors of war and siege warfare.
Rodney Stark has done it again; he has taken 'common knowledge' and turned it on its head with characteristic adeptness and smooth prose. ApplyIng his great learning to the history of the Crusades, Stark shows that they were not early and unprovoked attempts at greedy Western colonialism, but instances of pious 'penitential warfare' in the Augustianian just war tradition. They were the reactions of the pious to the religious colonialism of Islam in the tradition of Mohommed, which conquered pagan and Zorastrian Arabia and Mesopotamia, Hindu and Buddist India, and Christian Asia Minor and North Africa before they were for a time beaten back by the Christian Crusaders. For a masterful popular history of this time, this book is a must read (or perhaps, must listen)!
Report Inappropriate Content