Rating: 
(New York: Harper Collins, 2009)
276 pgs
Rodney Stark is well known for his politically incorrect approach to history. This book follows that tradition! In this book, he expresses concern for the revisionist approach to the Crusades that portrays Christian invaders as barbaric, imperialistic, greedy, proselytizers who invaded the lands of the peaceful, sophisticated Muslim peoples. He summarizes the popular view today this way: “During the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam” (8). He claims that many scholars today believe that “Far from being motivated by piety or by concern for the safety of pilgrims and the holy places in Jerusalem, the Crusades were but the first extremely bloody chapter in the long history of brutal European colonization” (4). Such a popular view today has been reinforced by Christian as well as government leaders such as US president Barak Obama, issuing apologies to the Muslim people for the barbarities inflicted upon them during the Middle Ages. Of course, anyone aware of current world events knows that Christian suffering at the hands of Muslims is much more current than the Middle Ages.
Pope Urban II sparked the First Crusade by a sermon on November 27, 1095 (2). Nevertheless, Stark argues that no one sermon could have instigated such a massive and expensive undertaking. Clearly there was far more at play than an emotional response to a well-delivered sermon.
Stark begins his presentation by examining the aggressive, often violent expansion of Islam into territory that had previously been Christian. Muhammad, in his farewell address had proclaimed, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (12). Stark notes that it was economic pressure and overpopulation that drove Muslims out of Arabia to conquer Syria and regions beyond (13). Stark cites numerous example of Muslim brutality as they conquered cities and beheaded all of the men and enslaved the women and children. Generally occupied peoples were told to convert to Islam or be killed. In more tolerant regimes, Christians and Jews were allowed to live but were to be treated to feel “inferior” to their Muslim neighbors (28-29). Often Christians were forced to pay fines in order to remain in the land under their Muslim overlords.
Stark goes into some detail to disprove the commonly held view that the Muslim culture was far more advanced and sophisticated than the backward Crusader culture that invaded it. Stark demonstrates that whether it was architecture, or medicine, or technology, the Muslim knowledge stemmed from the peoples’ it had conquered, not from its own advances. Stark argues that there never was a “Dark Ages” in Europe (54). Rather, it was during that period that Europe advanced in numerous areas of human achievement so that it was clearly more advanced than any other culture at its conclusion. The invention of the saddle and stirrups made European cavalry far superior to Muslim cavalry. The invention of the crossbow gave Europeans an enormous military advantage. The Muslim navy was always inferior to the Europeans and often relied upon Europeans to sail their ships.
Stark notes that two events incited Europeans to launch the Crusades. One was the desecration of Christian churches and relics in the Holy Land. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed which incited much Christian protest. A second grievance was the harassment and often the killing of Christian pilgrims. A plea was issued for Christians to subdue the Holy Land so pilgrims could travel to it in safety and so Christian holy places could remain unharmed.
It has been commonly assumed that the Christian knights were typically landless younger sons of the nobility, or adventure seekers, or people greedily seeking to colonize foreign lands for profit. However, Stark points out that it cost a fortune to finance or undertake a crusade. Many noblemen had to sell off lands and go into enormous debt to finance them. Likewise, wealth did not flow from the conquered lands back to Europe. Rather, Europe had to continually send support through additional soldiers and funds to sustain the Christian bridgehead in the turbulent Middle East. Stark also points out the piety of many of the Christian leaders. He cites a term, “penitential warfare” as a descriptor of the Crusades. (107) This combined the Christian knights who spent their lives training for warfare with an act of penitence. This enabled “laymen” to use their skills for religious purposes. It also helped them find a significant means for performing penitence for their numerous sins. This may explain in part the widespread zeal for undertaking such a dangerous and costly enterprise./p>
Stark challenges popular myths surrounding the Crusades, such as that the Christians were barbaric but the Muslims were civilized. He cites numerous examples of Muslim cruelty. At times they promised safety to citizens of a besieged city if they would surrender. However, once the soldiers marched out of the city, they were seized upon, contrary to the vows of the captors, and all the men were beheaded while women and children were enslaved. Stark challenges the view that Saladin was an enlightened leader, and recounts his pleasure in watching while captured Christian knights were beheaded (200). He also challenges those who criticize the killings and pillaging by Christians. He notes that it was a barbaric age and it is not helpful to retroactively judge the Middle Ages by the standard of the Geneva Convention 158). He also notes that, compared to Muslim atrocities, Christian excesses were typically more humane. He also points out that generally Christian rulers in the Middle East allowed Muslims to practice their own religion without penalty or persecution. This generally was not true of Muslim governments (171).
He concludes his book by stating: “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. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions” (248).
Stark readily acknowledges that he is not a specialist in the Crusades (9). Nevertheless, he seeks to challenge the current revisionist approach to the Crusades. This faulty view of history motivates many Christians today to feel guilt for the “crimes” of their fellow Christians in the Middle Ages. Stark does not deny that atrocities occurred, but he argues that the Muslims were equally guilty and often more barbaric than the Christians they now seek to chastise. Stark believes that the Crusades have become a convenient excuse every time a Muslim seeks to kill a Christian today or to justify his own imperialistic ambitions.
Stark is an interesting writer who tackles relevant historical issues. I appreciate his effort to make history accessible and readable for the common person. I felt he was generally fair in his approach. He did not overlook Christian excesses but he tried to place them in the larger context of the times they occurred. He also has the courage to tackle widely held opinions, even if it makes him unpopular.
In light of the relevance of this particular topic and the continuing citing of the Crusades as a critique of contemporary Christianity, it behooves Christians to read books such as this so they do not blindly accept attacks on their history without being able to make a knowledgeable rebuttal. Surely it is time to put the Middle Ages behind us and to judge the actions and abuses of Christians and Muslims based in what they are doing today.
by Richard Blackaby