Anyone read "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades&quot

[guy]

I was wondering whether anyone has read the new book by Rodney Stark about the crusades.

 

Alhough it's title is unnecessarily provocative-God's Battalions:The Case for the Crusades, the book seems to have potential. It looks like an attempt to give balance to the view that the peaceful Muslim Empire was unjustly attacked by the murderous Christian zealots.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Gods-Batt...e/9780061582615

 

It always seemed to me that historians have been too quick to accept the destruction of the remnants of the Christianized Roman Empire in Northern Africa, Asia Minor, and Visigothic Spain by the Muslim armies as inevitable and even a positive event. These same historians are quick to harshly condemn the expected push back by the Christian European forces.

 

History shows, I think, the result of this sharp rupture of the GrecoRoman or even Sassanian traditions in many parts of the world by an invading Muslim force. And the results aren't pretty.

 

One critic of the book wrote:

 

"I would ask Mr. Stark, who historically have been responsible for more "terrorism" and "aggression" than the Christian world?"

 

 

For many of us on this forum, the answer is obvious.

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited December 12, 2009 by guy

[Northern Neil]

I have not read this, although I may be tempted to buy it if only for the fact that it puts forward a much needed argument. For decades the crusades - in Europe at least - have been seen one sidedly as a Christian assault on civilised Islam. I suspect that this revisionist view, now mainstream, has become entrenched partly on account of a very vocal and growing minority who would naturally insist that this view holds sway.

 

"I would ask Mr. Stark, who historically have been responsible for more "terrorism" and "aggression" than the Christian world?"

Guy also known as gaius

 

Where I work (with teenagers) there are history books which put forward a very pro - Islamic version of the story, whilst glossing over the fact that Islam maintained an aggressive policy of conquest of Christian lands for 1000 years. The critic who voiced the above comment would learn a lot from looking at a basic atlas of medieval history (Colin McEvedy's 'Penguuin Atlas of Medieval History for example). When I read this at age 14 I was under no illusions as to who had invaded and taken more territory off whom. Maybe, like Ward Perkins with his work on the Fall of Rome, this author will remind people of the evidence which is staring people in the face.

 

His unfortunate and possibly partisan use of the word 'Terrorism' may dent his credibility somewhat.

[sylla]

Far as I'm aware, the First Crusade and related expeditions massacrated the not necessarily pacific Muslims, Jews, orthodox Christians, contemporary heretics & bystander populations for almost purely fanatic religious reasons.

The successive Crusades and Crusade-like expeditions, the same as the Muslim counteroffensives, did more or less the same, but now seemingly more for political than for religious motives.

There was often a lot of pragmatism but also an immense absurd fanaticism from both sides.

Edited December 12, 2009 by sylla