“A Respected and Controversial Scholar Argues that the Crusades Were a Justified War Waged Against Muslim Terror and Aggression” – Back of the Book
I had not read much on the crusades, but I certainly had many ideas about them which I probably acquired via the influence of our culture. But as soon as the advanced copy of Starks book came across my path I read it in two days flat! First let me present my stereotype; secondly, let me present Starks thesis.
In the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves I remember a comical scene where the Christian Crusader, Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) and his Muslim friend Azeem (Morgan Freeman) are looking over the hill at the enemy forces. While Robin is squinting his eyes to see the distance, Azeem quickly creates a telescope using makeshift materials and hands it to Robin who, when peering through, scrambles for his sword and starts swinging it through the air like a maniac thinking that the enemy is upon him. Azeem hangs his head in disbelief and comments, “how did your kind ever take back Jerusalem”. The message of course is that Azeem the Muslim is advanced his sophisticated while the great Christian Robin Hood is barbaric and uncivilized. This theme comes out often in the film and plays directly into a typical stereotype.
Shortly after 9/11 former president Bill Clinton said, “those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless”, referring back to the Crusades; and everyone from the Catholic Pope – John Paul II – to Protestant march rallies are tripping over themselves apologizing for the Crusades. Why? Because in them we see the worst of Christendom: Barbaric and uncivilized Christians marching with sword in hand in the name of Christ slaughtering civilized, sophisticated and innocent Muslims for the purpose colonization and greed.
But is this portrayal of history accurate? Rodney Stark says ‘No’. It is easy (perhaps too easy) to demonize the Catholic Church of that era for the Crusades having existed and to jump quickly (too quickly) into hypothesis involving perceived motives and half truth stories about specific events. But when those events are placed in their context then clarity becomes 20/20 and humility is had! God’s Battalions is a highly readable and well researched case for the Crusades: that contrary to popular opinion “the Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims.” (p.248) On the contrary, “the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places” (p.8) until Europe finally said "Enough is enough". In other words, the Crusades were an answer to a plea for help by the Christian East who were being brutalized, slaughtered or forced to convert. Someone had to come to the rescue, and someone did. Consider this, had Constantinople been taken by the Muslims “the way would have been open to invading Europe” (p.36) and historians see Constantinople’s withstanding of the Muslim forces as no less than a “turning point in the history of mankind” (p.37 italics added) because, “Had they captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe – and America – might be Muslim today” (ibid). So it appears we might owe more to the crusaders then we typically pay them due.
All in all I give this book 4.5 out of 5; it is an excellent read and I suggest anyone interested in the subject to pick it up as soon as it comes out (October 2009 - all page references are subject to change as I was using an uncorrected proof and not the final product).
Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com
