Revisionism of the Crusades

[joel]

Unfortunately, it seems like it's becoming fashionable in some Christian circles (usually very conservative politically) to say that the Crusades were purely defensive wars against Muslim aggression and completely justifiable in that light.

Rodney Stark is now considered a top "historian" (just like Earl Doherty and GA Wells and any Myther McBlogger ) and a top authority on the subject. And actual historians are seen as overwhelmingly biased against Christianity - tell that to some atheists who think Medieval studies are dominated by apologists and "accomodationists"!
Here is one example, not an isolated one. I thought about responding but I figured it was old enough to just let it go.

Now of course centuries of conflict with Islam, where Muslims were often the aggressors, did play a role in setting the context for the Crusades. But this is very different from whitewashing the Crusades as just defensive wars. I admittedly have not read Stark's book (though I've read Tim's review), but I am not aware of any historians who go this far or even come close. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've written research papers on it in college, so I know more than most.

And from the description of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Crusades, it makes Stark sound like a neutral observer.

Some skeptics seem to think the Crusades were a uniquely horrible event in human history, and of course that is wrong and muddleheaded. Neither should the Medieval Islamic society be over-idealized as it sometimes is. However, the recent effort to sanctify the Crusades as an overwhelmingly positive thing is also disturbing, especially when the people who do so are usually very forthright about how they wish to connect it to contemporary political ideology.

[timoneill]

Apr 12, 2011 2:08:12 GMT joel said:

Here is one example, not an isolated one. I thought about responding but I figured it was old enough to just let it go.

That's from the notorious "Catch the Fire Ministries", which is the closest thing Australia has to the Westboro Baptist Church. They made a name for themselves when in the aftermath of the Victorian “Black Saturday” bushfires when their Pastor Danny Nalliah decided to dance on the graves of 173 victims by claiming he had been given a “prophetic vision” that the fires would happen as God’s vengeance for the decriminalisation of abortion.

He recently decided that making the entire nation hate this group once was not enough, so he linked the devastating floods in Queensland to some comment by (Queenslander) Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd criticising Israel and saying the floods, which affected an areas the size of France, made thousands homeless and killed 35 people, were simply “God trying to get our attention”.

But I left a comment with a link to my review on their site. We’ll see if it gets published.

[foxymoron]

Apr 12, 2011 2:08:12 GMT joel said:

Now of course centuries of conflict with Islam, where Muslims were often the aggressors, did play a role in setting the context for the Crusades. But this is very different from whitewashing the Crusades as just defensive wars. I admittedly have not read Stark's book (though I've read Tim's review), but I am not aware of any historians who go this far or even come close.

Thomas Madden seems to think so (although I know Tim disagrees). According to wiki he's "an American historian, a former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.[1] He is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States, and was often called upon as a historical consultant after the events of September 11, to discuss the connections between Jihad, the medieval Crusades and modern Islamic terrorism".

In his essay "The Real History of the Crusades" (www.thehaca.com/essays/Crusades.htm) written to address common myths about them he says:

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.

[timoneill]

Apr 13, 2011 10:02:41 GMT foxymoron said:

Apr 12, 2011 2:08:12 GMT joel said:

Now of course centuries of conflict with Islam, where Muslims were often the aggressors, did play a role in setting the context for the Crusades. But this is very different from whitewashing the Crusades as just defensive wars. I admittedly have not read Stark's book (though I've read Tim's review), but I am not aware of any historians who go this far or even come close.

Thomas Madden seems to think so (although I know Tim disagrees). According to wiki he's "an American historian, a former Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.[1] He is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States, and was often called upon as a historical consultant after the events of September 11, to discuss the connections between Jihad, the medieval Crusades and modern Islamic terrorism".

In his essay "The Real History of the Crusades" (www.thehaca.com/essays/Crusades.htm) written to address common myths about them he says:

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.

I don't disagree with Madden at all. But that's because Madden doesn't agree with Stark. Madden is quite right, the Crusades were fought to turn back and defend Christian lands - the (fomerly) Christian lands in Palestine that included the Holy Places. That's totally different to Stark's total nonsense about how they were to defend or win back Christian lands in Europe.

That idea is fantasy and is contradicted by a mass of evidence, as my review argued.

[joe]

The Crusades were fought to defend Christian lands in Europe. The Eastern half of the Empire was after all Europe. The Greeks lost a major battle in 1071 at Manzikert and lost lots of land and people as a result. By 1095 continual conflict with the Muslims left the Greeks weak, hence Alexis appeal to the pope for help. The French responded and kicked butt, if they hadn't perhaps Constantinople would of fell centuries earlier when the West was weak.

[joe]

Great site by the way!

[timoneill]

Jun 20, 2011 23:07:15 GMT joe said:

The Crusades were fought to defend Christian lands in Europe. The Eastern half of the Empire was after all Europe. The Greeks lost a major battle in 1071 at Manzikert and lost lots of land and people as a result. By 1095 continual conflict with the Muslims left the Greeks weak, hence Alexis appeal to the pope for help. The French responded and kicked butt, if they hadn't perhaps Constantinople would of fell centuries earlier when the West was weak.

That's not what Stark claimed. Read my review.

[joe]

I admit to skimming your review and apologizing for any misinterpertation/misrepresentation(s). However, I must say I feel Stark is correct, the Muslims did start the conflict the sack of Antioch, Jerusalem, North Africa (Augustians See, Hippo, as well as Carthage were Christian of course, the Christian Bible being declared at councils of 1st and 2nd Hippo and Carthage). The invasion of Spain and advance into Gaul/France was an act of war. Arguing that there is no agreement regarding the nature/extent of the Muslim incursion ergo it has debatable real value seems to be an argument from ignorance.

One could also tie the Muslim attack of 9/11/2011 to the first 9/11 of 1683. Jon Sobieski's destruction of the Muslims on 9/12/1683 marked 9/11/1683 as the last day the armies of Islam were an offensive military threat within Christiandom, the attack of 9/11/2011 could be seen as saying, "The game begins again."

Just as the Muslims would of swept into Europe if Vienna fell, they would have near 600 years earlier if Byzantium fell. Just my humble opinion. In closing, this website is going to break me, lots of smart people recommending lots of good books.

[timoneill]

Jun 21, 2011 0:11:05 GMT joe said:

I admit to skimming your review and apologizing for any misinterpertation/misrepresentation(s). However, I must say I feel Stark is correct, the Muslims did start the conflict the sack of Antioch, Jerusalem, North Africa (Augustians See, Hippo, as well as Carthage were Christian of course, the Christian Bible Canon being declared at councils of 1st and 2nd Hippo and Carthage). The invasion of Spain and advance into Gaul/France was an act of war. Arguing that there is no agreement regarding the nature/extent of the Muslim incursion ergo it has debatable real value seems to be an argument from ignorance.

Whether any of these tribal expansions can be seen as an “act of war” by “Islam” on “Christendom” is highly debatable to begin with. At best we could say that Islamic religious fervour gave the tribes doing this expansion added cohesion and a unifying identity. But the idea that they were some kind of conscious, co-ordinated effort by Islam to declare war on Christian lands a la Osama bin Laden and Al Qeda is simply anachronistic and silly.

That aside, Stark’s thesis is not simply that “’they’ started it”. He tries to pretend that the Crusades were an effort to defend Europe from Islamic encroachment. Which is ridiculous. The European hot spot for fighting back the tides of Islam (well, the nearest guys who happened to be Muslims anyway) was Spain. Yet just 32 years before the First Crusade a call for Christian knights to fight in Spain fell on deaf ears. So we’re supposed to believe that all Christendom was under threat from the vile “Muslim” menace and yet in 1063 AD virtually no-one could be bothered helping to fight the dreaded Mussulmen in their own doorstep. Then just 32 years later, according to Stark, the same people suddenly heeded the call to Crusade in their thousands to “defend Europe? That simply doesn’t make sense.

It also doesn’t make sense that they would fight off this vast threat to Europe by … attacking Jerusalem. Not by fighting in Spain. Not by attacking Arabia or Cairo. But by attacking … Jerusalem? That’s a weird way to “defend Europe”. It’s even a weird way to strike at “Islam”.

That’s because Stark is wrong and is projecting modern ideas (and hysterias) onto Medieval history. They weren’t defending Europe and they didn’t care at all about the Byzantine Empire either. They were fighting to win back the Holy Places – pure and simple.

Stark’s stupid thesis is post-9/11 conservative hysteria projected onto history.

[joe]

Tribal expansion? Miitary conquest on a massive scale is more like it. The fall of Byzantium would of been catastrophic to the West, shoring up Byzantium would of been much more important than defeating the Moors in Spain. The Moors in Spain could be handled after the Wests eastern flank was secured (as happened). Regarding Jerusalem, the best defense is a strong offense. Pushing your enemy off land and taking it is pretty much warfare and it does make sense.

[timoneill]

Jun 21, 2011 1:40:08 GMT joe said:

Tribal expansion? Miitary conquest on a massive scale is more like it.

And they can't be the same thing because ... ? Ever heard of the Mongols? I'm using that terminology because it is less misleading than language which makes out it was an ideological war by “Islam” on “Christianity”. Or even by “Muslims” on “Europe”.

The fall of Byzantium would of been catastrophic to the West, shoring up Byzantium would of been much more important than defeating the Moors in Spain.

So we might recognise now, with the benefits of centuries of hindsight and insight into things like geopolitics, later events and even geography that didn’t exist then. There is zero evidence anyone at the time saw things that way or were even thinking about things in that manner at all.

The Moors in Spain could be handled after the Wests eastern flank was secured (as happened).

See above. This wasn’t some kind of grand strategic struggle with people looking at maps of the world and making decisions about “securing flanks”. You’re imposing a view on this that simply didn’t exist.

Regarding Jerusalem, the best defense is a strong offense. Pushing your enemy off land and taking it is pretty much warfare and it does make sense.

See above. And if they were looking at this as some kind of grand strategic clash of civilisations (which they weren’t) then Jerusalem would be last place they’d strike. Cairo would make far more sense. But it’s a fantasy that they were “defending Europe” and thinking about doing things like “securing flanks” or “pushing ‘the enemy’ off land”.

These were wars to win back the Holy Places. I know that’s a weirdly Eleventh Century concept and doesn’t fit modern conceptions and modern political ideas and/or prejudices and fixations. But we are talking about Eleventh Century people doing Eleventh Century things in the Eleventh Century.

[fortigurn]

Thanks for a useful critique Tim. Stark seems to have overreached himself quite dramatically, and the apologetic screeds citing this 'politically incorrect' version of history are clearly more historically than politically incorrect.

[endrefodstad]

I think Stark can be an object lesson to academics who venture outside their field. His exchanges with Steve Bruce on the subject of the decline of religious beliefs in Britain were interesting and the ideas he put forth there were convincing. While Bruce did not agree, I have the impression that the added complexities Stark argued for - in a nutshell that measuring religious beliefs through church attendance alone were not enough - was a valuable contribution to the sociology of religion.

As Tim notes, his activities on crusading are not very valuable.

[joe]

Tim, You argue the Mongols and Muslim conflicts have the same root cause motivation? I don't buy it. The Mongol invasions could be put down to forced expansion of grazing areas in response to climate change. Not so the Muslim, Lepanto did not occur in response to the collapse of grazing areas. It was an attempted Muslim invasion that was crushed by Pius V and Don Juan. Second Vienna was not a comedy of errors, the Muslims were not going to the Black Sea for holiday and then got lost. It was an invasion, as evidenced by their holding on to the conquered Balklans until the 19th century.

[timoneill]

Jun 22, 2011 19:52:00 GMT joe said:

Tim, You argue the Mongols and Muslim conflicts have the same root cause motivation?

No, I don't. But I did say they were similar in some key ways. In both cases formerly disparate tribes that were always jockeying for ways to expand became politically and ideologically united. The cause of that unity differed (though not much, there was a religious element to Temujin’s dominance as well), but the result was the same.

The Mongol invasions could be put down to forced expansion of grazing areas in response to climate change.

If you wanted to be simplistic and reductionist. There was much more to it than that. But see above.

Not so the Muslim, Lepanto did not occur in response to the collapse of grazing areas. It was an attempted Muslim invasion that was crushed by Pius V and Don Juan. Second Vienna was not a comedy of errors, the Muslims were not going to the Black Sea for holiday and then got lost. It was an invasion, as evidenced by their holding on to the conquered Balklans until the 19th century.

None of that is relevant to what I’m saying.