God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

Very well written in a style that is true to the history and easily readable for the non historian. Very informative and again, love the ability of the author to tell the story that keeps you locked in.

When it comes to studying history, what is often needed is greater perspective. Often we have so little information that we can only have one perspective on things, but not so with the Crusades. We have lots of information on the Crusades, from extensive records and narratives to eye witness accounts. Rodney Stark is quick to point out that up until the late nineteenth century the Muslims harbored no resentment for the Crusades. However, after a Muslim history was published in 1899, all of a sudden the Muslims were up in arms about the monstrosities of the Crusades. Why is this? Why would no one care for centuries? Is it because no one knew? No, says Rodney Stark, and this is because the Crusades were not considered a terrible thing back in their day. Even Ibn Zafir, an Islamic historian who wrote an account of the Crusades at the end of the twelfth century, said that the Crusades were a good thing because they kept the hated Turks away and occupied. In this book, Rodney Stark makes a very good attempt to show the Crusades the way they really were (so to speak). He does this by setting the backdrop for the Crusades, before telling the story of the Crusades as they happened.In this review I will go chapter to chapter in an attempt to fairly outline the book.Chapter One is titled "Muslim Invaders," and seeks so show how the Muslims were not innocent prior to the Crusades. They did provoke Europe with several invasions, and mentioning some of the slaughters of Christians at the hands of Muslims. They also conquered almost the entirety of North Africa, which mostly consisted of Christian nations. He also goes into the lie of Muslim "tolerance" of the religions of conquered people, and how all of the non-Muslims had to have severe handicaps in society because they would not convert to Islam (forced conversions are not allowed in Islam). They were not allowed to carry arms, wear nice clothes, and in some areas they were not allowed to own livestock. They were also taxed ridiculous amounts.Chapter Two talks about several Christian victories over the Muslims, and these were all victories in Christian territory. The point of this chapter is to show the aggression of the Muslims and their eagerness to attempt to conquer European countries.Chapter Three really isn't anything new, but rather is just a necessary chapter to counter the hypothesis of historians like Edward Gibbon and Karen Armstrong. The name of the chapter is "Western 'Ignorance' versus Eastern 'Culture.'" The point of this chapter is to show that Europe never really had the Dark Ages, and that the Muslim countries really never had a major surge of culture. He does this by outlining just a few things which made Europe a very prosperous continent during the mythical Dark Ages, such as new inventions in the areas of transport, agriculture, and military weapons. He also shows how the Muslim "culture" was heavily reliant on the cultures of conquered nations, and once there technologies and cultures were discovered, there were hardly ever any attempts to build on them. Muslims even bragged about the burning of the library of Alexandria, even though there is a good chance that they didn't do that (but what does this tell us about the Muslim respect of culture?).Chapter Four outlines the Christian concept of pilgrimages. Major church fathers generally did not like the idea of pilgrimages, but the typical layman wouldn't really care about that and would go on one anyway. Nevertheless, pilgrimages held a relatively important place in Christian society. Enter the Muslims, who began taking liberties with the Christian pilgrims, often slaying dozens of Christian monks and pilgrims in the same attack. Just prior to the end of the first millennium, Tariqu al-Hakim became caliph, and he had all the Christian churches in Muslim territories razed to the ground.So if anything, the Crusades were certainly provoked. The rest of the book is spent outlining the five different Crusades, and the Christian successes and failures that took place in each one. He makes an argument for why you shouldn't glorify Saladin and how the Byzantine Emperors continuously screwed over the Latin Crusaders. Stark also makes a defense of the Latin sacking of Constantinople in the fourth Crusade, which I found compelling and convincing. Overall, chapters five through ten made up a very rich and rewarding read. Very rarely can you find a historian that makes everything as interesting as Stark does. He has a very relaxed and informative style of writing that kept me glued to this book for long periods of time.The conclusion basically runs over what he said in the introduction, but he also talks about the last defenses of the Christian territories in the Holy Land. He mainly focuses on how the Muslims made several peace treaties with the Christians, and that if the Christian would agree to lay down their arms and evacuated the land they would be spared, only to slaughter them once they had done so. This happened about three times. He then briefly runs over the history of Muslim hatred towards the Crusades (basically what I said in the intro to this review, and then some).To summarize: I really enjoyed this book. It's rare that I enjoy books this much, so I have to give it five stars. I'm going to have to study the Crusades some more to really see what I think of them, but Rodney Stark has really hit a home run with this book. I highly recommend it.

Rodney Stark believes that “the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations.” He claims they were launched to secure safe passage for Christian pilgrims and to stem the loss of Christian lands to Muslim rulers who were often brutal. There were seven major Crusades from 1095 to 1291. The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in 1099, but in 1187, Jerusalem fell to Saladin. In 1291, Christians abandoned their last stronghold in Palestine. Stark argues that the Crusades 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 were good guys who sincerely believed that they were doing God’s work. Stark presents a compelling narrative and believes that the Crusades were just wars.Stark acknowledges that the Crusaders have been seen as the bad guys in academic circles since the 1950s. Steven Runciman, a British historian, produced his highly influential three-volume "A History of the Crusades" in 1954. He portrayed the Crusaders negatively and the Muslims favorably. By the 1970s the Crusaders had been re-evaluated and had become an embarrassment. In Ridley Scott's 2005 film about the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, "The Kingdom of Heaven," many Crusaders are portrayed as homicidal nut jobs. They don't seem that much different from ISIS today, while the Muslim commander, Saladin, was portrayed as a wise and merciful ruler. Stark's book is revisionist history and he believes that Runciman was wrong.Stark shows that Muslims, over a thousand-year period, tried to conquer Europe and the Mediterranean. The Roman Empire had been Christian but starting in the 7th-century Muslim armies started to push Christianity out of North Africa and the Middle East. The New Testament book Revelation mentions seven churches which are now in present day Turkey. Saint Augustine came from present-day Algeria. Muslim armies took Alexandria in 642 which had been one of the main centers of Christianity. Over the centuries France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy were attacked. As Europe became more powerful it pushed the Muslims out of western Europe. Stark believes that Muslim aggression ended with the Battle of Vienna in 1683 when "the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world."Stark argues that Muslims were not tolerant of non-Muslims in the lands they conquered, and Christians were usually treated as second class citizens and often worse. As a result, Christians converted to Islam. Stark states that “mass murders of Christian monks and pilgrim were common … These events challenge the claims about Muslim religious tolerance.” Stark also discusses the friction between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire (formerly the Eastern Roman Empire) was once Europe's main defense against the Muslims. But it was in terminal decline from the 11th century. It asked for help from the West but there was a falling out and Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders in 1204. It was eventually captured by a Muslim army in 1453.The author argues that Islamic culture was not technologically and intellectually superior to that of Europe because many of the intellectual advances were made by Jews, Christians, and Persians. Stark believes argues that “to the extent that Arab elites acquired a sophisticated culture, they learned it from their subject peoples.” For example, because the inventor of Algebra was Persian (today they are called Iranians) this does not really count as a Muslim invention. This is an odd argument.Stark has other strange ideas which do not help his credibility. He believes that the Dark Ages were a myth. Europe did not go backwards after the demise of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. Many Europeans, like me, would regard this as nonsense. After the collapse of the Roman Empire Britain endured a dystopian nightmare. I grew up in an English city which had been a Roman city. Nearby there was a recently discovered Roman villa, which I visited on school trips. It had been built in the 1st century AD and had mosaic floors, under-floor central heating, lead pipes, hot water, and an integral bathhouse. Such luxuries were lost until the 18th century. The Saxons and Vikings lived in wooden huts. A considerable number of paved Roman roads remained in use for centuries after the Romans left in 410 AD. Some are still used. Systematic construction of paved highways in the UK did not resume until the early 18th century.Stark teaches sociology at Baylor University in Texas. He does not appear to have done any original research just synthesized the work of other historians. The book is surprisingly pro-Crusader given that most historians these days seem to view the Crusades negatively. You wonder if he’s cherry picking facts to fit his narrative. However, most of his views on Islamic aggression do make sense.

Well written book. I like the opinionated take on the crusades, and love how well it referenced the evidence used to support that opinion.I think everyone gets sick of reading heavily opinionated historical pieces masquerading as purely factual and unbiased. This books presentation was refreshingly different in that regard.What’s more, as someone who likes to piece historical events together through a couple different perspectives, it is nice to get a good look at the Christian perspective, when so many sources seem to lean Muslim. Really helps round out the picture a bit.

La obra intelectual de Stark es excelente. Pero en esta edición de reprint de Amazon, no de la editorial original, el papel es de pésima calidad y la impresión también es muy mala. Resulta muy difícil leer el libro.

Nada melhor que um historiador sério buscando a verdade sobre as cruzadas, período alvo de tantas mentiras criadas para atacar a Igreja e o ocidente.

Absolutely fundamental reading.Rodney Stark is masterful in writing history that is non partisan and simply accurate historically.He puts the lie to modernist revisionist “history” concerning the Crusades.It becomes abundantly clear through this work that is simply stuffed full of original references that the Crusades were far from what secularists have been saying for a century or so.The bravery, piousness and incredible fortitude of the Catholic Crusaders, when faced with overwhelming odds, constant betrayal by the Eastern Church and warring Saracens is probably without parallel in human history.If you care about the truth of history then read this book. I have read thousands on many subjects and this one is definitely in the top ten I have ever read.

nice book to explore an history chapter not always well described and explained

This is the first book by Rodney Stark that I have read. Amazon's marketing put this one up as a Recommendation while I was browsing and I decided to check it out.I was quite impressed with this book. After reading this one, I'm now reading another Rodney Stark book, The Triumph of Christianity. So far, I like that one as well; I'll put up a review of it when I'm finished it.Stark's basic argument is that the Crusades were a defensive reaction by Europeans against expansionist military aggression by Middle Eastern Muslims, and not, as asserted by many modern scholars and writers, an colonialist, aggressive, exploitative action by warlike European Christians against peaceful Middle Eastern Muslims.Stark makes this primary point persuasively and well. A few of his other assertions are less well documented and open to debate; he argues, for example, that Islamic science and technology were all copied from the ancient Greeks, Romans, Jews and pre-Islamic civilizations (a lot of it certainly was; a wealth of Greek and Roman material came back to Europeans through Arabic copies of Greek and Latin originals) and that the scientific and technological advances made in Muslim societies were largely made by subject Christians, Jews and other dhimmis. He doesn't make a solid case for that last position.But on the question of whether the Crusades were a European defensive reaction instead of an example of European aggression, Stark's argument in favour of a defensive reaction is solid and persuasive.Unlike many academics, Stark also writes well. His prose is clear, matter of fact and goes directly to the point he is making. Stark is apparently a professor of sociology, an academic discipline not exactly renowned for clarity of thought. Most sociologists write in turgid, boring, jargon filled, bloated and often pointless prose. (I admit a bias here. I took two sociology courses in university and that convinced me that sociology was a pointless waste of time, energy and resources. I might have thought differently with Stark as a professor.) Rodny Stark, unlike most of his fellow sociologists, writes very well.He also documents most of his arguments very well. The bibliography in this book is an excellent source of material for further research.Overall, a very good book which makes a solid case for the Crusades being a European defensive action against an expansionist and militant Islam. I have no problem in recommending this book to anyone interested in this period of history.