"Crusaders and Historians" Topic

"Unfortunately, little of this has reached a general audience—leaving the field to novelists, journalists, or anyone else with a desire to sell books. And make no mistake: The Crusades have always been of interest to readers, and since the attacks of September 11, histories of the Crusades have been in very high demand. For instance, Karen Armstrong—an ex-nun who reissues her book Holy War whenever trouble is brewing in the Middle East—wasted no time adding a new introduction and getting the book back into bookstores within months of the attacks. Innumerable other popular books were quickly cobbled together, mostly cribbed from Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades—a beautifully written book, but one that is now more than fifty years old and thus does not take account of more recent scholarship. Runciman delivers the expected story: The Crusades were a series of brutal wars of intolerance in which the cynical, voracious, superstitious, and gullible waged insensible war against a peaceful, sophisticated Muslim world, crushing the opulent Byzantine Empire in the bargain.

Frustrated with the ways in which the Crusades have been used and distorted, a few historians are now attempting to close the yawning gap between the academy and general readers. Among the new crop of histories are Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History, Jonathan Phillips' The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, and Christopher Tyerman's Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades. All three of these writers are distinguished historians. All three seek to bring the fruits of decades of scholarship to a popular audience. And all three are keenly aware that in the process they are smashing many cherished myths…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

"peaceful, sophisticated Muslim world"

Please. There was nothing peaceful or sophisticated about medieval Islam. Look at it today. Nothing has changed. Christendom, on the other hand, has almost entirely gotten over itself and achieved tolerance for differences, not only in itself, but in non Christian people as well. That is why someone can assert that Islam is a religion of peace. It is transferring intent upon the enemy, which is totally undeserved and dangerous. If that mindset had dominated European thinking while the Ottomans were assaulting through the Balkans, there would be no Christendom to defend today, because it would have been Islamized before the end of the 15th century.

Well you need to swot up on your history GWA

Sophisticated, maybe, peaceful, no. One of the reasons the First Crusade was successful was the fact that the various Moslem states were fighting among themselves.

Interesting.

Good to see some corrections being published to the recent revisionism.

I love Thomas Asbridge's First Crusade. My first recommendation for those looking to learn more about the period.
Not that I'm an expert by any means.

Runciman delivers the expected story: The Crusades were a series of brutal wars of intolerance in which the cynical, voracious, superstitious, and gullible waged insensible war against a peaceful, sophisticated Muslim world, crushing the opulent Byzantine Empire in the bargain.

BTW, anybody who believes that this is Runciman's message has never read his books.

Is any part of the human world "peaceful" ever? No. And the West is no exception.

GWA is pretty much on the button there Old Peculiar. The tradition of Islam was (and in some cases still is) to spread the word with the sword.

BTW, anybody who believes that this is Runciman's message has never read his books.

Well, I could agree, but then we'd both be wrong – and I've certainly read his books as, I know, has Tom Madden

The problem is that Runicman had a message: he cherry picked data to support a subjective and imaginative narrative, which made for inspiring literature, but it's not good history.

Runciman, had he written a three volume history of WW2, would have portrayed the entire multinational fiasco as a tragedy. He would then be accused later of making the Allies look bad. In fact, Runciman's take on the Crusades was neutral as to the protagonists themselves. He did not portray Islam as living in peaceful coexistence until the Franks came along without provocation and started burning down the Middle East. Far from that, the honest historian in Runciman saw the blame on both sides. Being a Christian himself, his greater disappointment was naturally for the deplorable actions of his own ancestors and coreligionists. But he did not remotely move his narrative into apologetics. There was nothing to apologize for. The middle ages were alien territory as we look back. Cause and effect, invasion and counter-invasion, down the centuries, are clearly delineated in the original sources when taken altogether. That task was accomplished by Runciman with amazing facility. I've never read another work of history that I have enjoyed more….

He was certainly emotionally engaged with his subject matter, GWA…

Posters seem to have forgotten it was the Christans who invaded during the Crusades.

Both relgions have a lot to answer for (and a lot to be proud of). Like all large movements spanning centuries there has been a lot of good and bad – biased historians fact pick. (Recent decades in the Balkans have shown not all Christans have yet fully entered the Age of Reason).

General rule: be wary of relgious fanatics of any stripe.

TomT

Everyone was a "fanatic" back then. Or, if you had any humanist leanings, during a period of "enthusiasm" you were smart to keep them to yourself, and play the role of supporter of the cause.

It was rival Muslims doing the invading in the years leading up to the First Crusade. The Crusaders were just the last "ingredient" added to the Middle Eastern "pot". Their first encounter with Crusaders left the Muslims (Seljuk Turks of Anatolia) totally unimpressed and unprepared for what was coming. The main body of the First Crusade wasn't seen as an invasion so much as it was an incursion by a migrating horde. Emissaries were sent to it after the siege of Antioch began. Both Turks and Fatimids were eager to make use of this new element that had intruded itself into local politics. And the Muslims were only impressed by two things: the ragged, even poverty-stricken appearance of the horde as a whole, and the religious fanaticism of their policies. In brief, the "Franks" scared the crap out of everybody. Their appearance was off-putting, and so time and again the Muslims would leave the talks with the leaders and prepare for war: a war that they were confident that they could not lose. And each time they lost, badly.

There was a momentum in the First Crusade that could not be denied. Only after the Frankish states were a fact, did the local Muslims start to realize that a "holy war" was upon them. It would take a holy war to eradicate the Franks. It only took the Muslims most of two hundred years to complete that eradication.

Meanwhile, into that mixture entered the Khwarezmian horde, fleeing the Mongols; these were approached in similar fashion by both Franks and Muslims for an alliance. The horde never joined the Franks, but did side with the highest bidder on the disparate Muslim "side" until finally defeated, dispersed, and the survivors hired into the Mameluk army of Egypt. Then the Mongols arrived. Here was a serious battle of diplomacy, to convert the pagans to Islam or Christianity. Christianity lost out.

I fail to see how any of this, in detail, can be held up as somehow making the Crusaders the "invaders", since in their minds they were returning to Christian territory to throw the infidels out.

There were no Muslims until the seventh century. All of those lands, and the Iberian peninsula, were Christian lands before they were invaded in fact by the Muslims. Christianity predates Islam by over half a millennium.

So "invaded" is a misnomer. "Reconquista" is far closer to the truth. But that won't bring peace today. And the final wisdom, "be wary of religious fanatics of any stripe", is the only one that will work for all sides….

Christendom, on the other hand, has almost entirely gotten over itself and achieved tolerance for differences, not only in itself, but in non Christian people as well.

As a former seminarian, I strongly disagree with that statement.

There are some Christians who practice those values. I know because I lived and worked with some of them. They were and are amazing people. They're living the ideals of the first century in the 21st.

Unfortunately much of modern Christianity has merely become an excuse for some truly terrible behavior.

We go to church on Sunday, perhaps even tithe or do some volunteer work once or twice a year, and then in our public lives we treat natural resources and people as property to be ruthlessly and fully exploited no matter the cost…to OTHER people. We do so content in the belief that merely professing our faith is enough and that we can treat others and creation as shabbily as we want.

And when it comes to matters of society we're eager to condemn certain behaviors when such behaviors have no value to ourselves. But if asked to apply our Christian values to behaviors which might be inconvenient or financially costly we hurrumph and mutter about it being complicated and "nobody's perfect" and "God forgives". "Now let me pollute this neighborhood to maintain margins, force my employees to work off the clock, and leave the poor and sick to the tender mercies of the free market". We do these things while on our third marriage and condemning gays or trans folk.

Thus we end up with the Prosperity Gospels and we Christians enthusiastically doing business with rapacious dictators while treating our fellow humans as mere resources to be exploited rather than children of God.

As Max Von Sydow said in Hannah and Her Sisters, "If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." :-)

But, we don't do religious wars anymore. Nor "Christian" politics. We largely do not pursue State religion. Religion has been relegated to "personal religion". Any State religion is largely ceremonial and traditional, not actual. It has little of any life. People mostly do not get worked up over religion at all.

The same cannot be said for the fanatics blowing up 12 year-old boys at wedding parties….

GWA, in what country are you located? Your comment is consistent with my understanding of the situation in western and northern Europe.

Here in the U.S our public officials routinely mix their power with their "faith", at least when it doesn't cost them or their key constituents and donors anything (e.g. you can be faithful and divorced multiple times while denying gays/trans a marriage license…it's easy to oppress minority groups and impossible to condemn voting majorities that engage in equally irreligious behavior). It's even expected and applauded by many citizens on matters ranging from healthcare to, yes, even war.

The religious motivations that drove the crusades are indeed alive and well today. The means may differ but the motivation and use of power remains. Currently, in Georgia, USA, a local government is using its power to deny a mosque building permits. In the middle ages they might have simply taken their wealth by force and exiled them. Today, they use paperwork! :-D And anti-Islamic religious violence remains an issue.

As Tom noted, beware religious fanatics of all stripes and here in the US we're overstocked on such folks.

I also believe that you should take people for their word on such matters. When folks openly declare that they take their marching orders from the Christian faith and then engage in horrific public policy decisions, you have to accept that. In which case my quote from Max stands.

"They shall know you by your acts" and the acts of many who call themselves Christian are truly terrifying (e.g. backing Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, massive trading with Communist China, etc.). When Christians believe that you should be able to "stand your ground" and kill another human for simply feeling "threatened" by the other person in a public space, one must wonder what it means to be a Christian. I mean really, the other guy doesn't even have to inflict violence by, say, slapping your cheek and you still get to pump him full of lead according to modern Christians.

Keeping this on the military tract, my wife's family came to America after being on the losing side of the French wars of religion. Her uncle wasn't happy to say the least that she was to marry a former Catholic seminarian!

That's why I love history (I have a personal link to 17th century warfare! Woohoo!). The stories are better than fiction and more compelling because they actually happened. And our propensity for hypocrisy makes the stories all the more interesting.

…beware religious fanatics of all stripes and here in the US we're overstocked on such folks.

Oops, my entire response was in my mind on the Bluey Fezzy. Apologies. I forgot that I was on the Medieval Discussion board. *roll eyes* No response is possible here….

There is something fundamentally wrong with assuming that some people are more important (and/or deserve special treatment)than the rest of us simply because they believe in magic.

Apologies

Same GWA. No worries. :-)

@ugly: you're not going to get a response out of me on that one either. The Bluey Fezzy is under populated. Why not try taking these tangential and interesting topics there? I am a regular, daily denizen of the Bluey Fezzy….