God's Battalions: The Case For The Crusades (2009) - Plot & Excerpts
Advance warning: nothing in this book is politically correct. It is biased from the Christian POV. If that turns you off, this book is probably not for you.Having said that, I am neither Christian nor Muslim, and I don't have a dog in this fight... or rather, I didn't think I did until the author's full case was presented.We in the West live in an age where we like to think that we are evolved enough to accept tolerance, and that as a result, everyone else should too. The side effect of this is that we have a great many volumes of revisionist history that, instead of correcting the biases told from one side, it over-corrects and puts the hero hats on the other side. In the process of that, the unfortunate facts that prove both sides were wrong get lost in the shuffle to make amends. The pendulum swings the other direction. Sooner or later, somebody decides they've had enough and wants to swing that pendulum back. Think of this book as counter-revisionist history. It borders on the offensive, and snap judgments will abound.I, on the other hand, like to avoid such snap judgments because I understand that the idea of tolerance, be it political, spiritual, or otherwise, is a relatively modern idea, made more and more popular by the idea of the global village. Don't get me wrong - that's a GOOD thing! But it's an idea that does not apply the bulk of human history. Most cultures in history were either brutal or wiped out as a direct result of pacifist ideology. That's just a generalization, but it's one that carries sufficient weight in any examination of history. After all, every "peaceful" ideology has a military. I'm one of those people who believes that you read several books on history, from several points of view, and if possible, from different ages. Where the Crusades are concerned, I've read the pro-Christian accounts, and I've read the pro-Muslim accounts. I've even read Jewish accounts that outright state both sides were wrong, which is hardly unbiased, but it's hard to discount the arguments. This one is definitely in the pro-Christian / anti-Muslim camp, which I've said. The author basically writes this book because he's sick of people saying that the Christians started the war and stirred up the hornet's nest. I can't really say I blame him because the research is there, and fact-checking confirms it. But the advantage to careful students is that it's possible to take the accounts here, check them yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Counter-revisionist history is as slippery a slope as revisionist history, with the understanding that most people are more suspicious of it by its very nature.There are a great many assumptions that modern "accepted" histories of the Crusades put forth. Chief among them are that the Crusades were the prelude to European Imperial expansion, that the Islamic people were the enlightened ones in the so-called Dark Ages of this time, that the answer to the call of Crusade happened immediately in a sweep of religious fervor, and that the Christians were basically thugs, while the Muslim forces -- especially Saladin -- were the pinnacle of true chivalry. These are revisionist points that have been reinforced by Hollywood and historical fiction novels as much as by history. The same can be said of virtually any point in history. Thing is, every single one of these assumptions is 100% wrong. While many of the modern histories say as much, they gloss over it because the details have modern ramifications that are uncomfortable to consider and have great amounts of potential fallout given the ever-growing concerns of Middle Eastern development in the post-9/11 years. The sad part is that counter-revisionists are the ones that have to speak up and say it, and because that bias comes across, few look at the facts and further embrace the revisionist version. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. What's most interesting about this book is that in spite of the bias, there are no hero hats. Both sides are put under the microscope in such a way that the brutality of both sides becomes clear, and the focus of history starts not with the official beginning of the First Crusade, but with the rise and expansion of Islam in the East, the expansion of Norse/Norman forces in the West, the Reconquest of Spain, and the Muslim sieges in Byzantium. From there, the resources of both sides are listed, the true sources of knowledge and technology are pointed out, an honest accounting of the horrors perpetuated by both sides is there, and the political and spiritual agendas are laid out for examination. It's easy enough to see the bias, but it's also easy to see where the revisionists have covered up some things to make the current version more palatable. For those who have only read the glossier accounts, this book is quite the shocker, not unlike reading about the Mongols, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, or the Ostfront. It's what some would call "Hardcore History."I give a lot of credit to the author for having the spine to write this, and for keeping it as non-belligerent as he did. He could have gone off the rails, but the truth hurts enough, and the very nature of the kid gloves of political correctness proves that the bear wants to be poked and will look for excuses to claim it, regardless of which side that bear is on. History is ugly. Military and religious history is uglier. This book is a wakeup call, and such things tend to jolting. It's not exactly the greatest commentary on humanity, but it's fascinating in a train wreck kind of way.If I had to criticize this book for something other than the bias, it's the simplicity of it. It's a quick book, and as a result it really doesn't get into nuance. That's part of what makes the bias stand out as much as it does, and that's probably the author's intent. This is why I always recommend reading multiple books on a subject like this, so that you can put the facts in place on all sides and see where your own judgments come up. God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark - this book gives some compelling arguments for the reasons for the crusades while remaining very concise in it's descriptions of the events while citing multiple references and historical documents. I really enjoy history and definitely loved the way this book was written which makes it an interesting and informative read. I definitely recommend this book for those who seek to better understand the crusades. That being said this isn't the end all be of source material, it definitely provides other resources worth exploring for more in depth knowledge of the crusades.
What do You think about God's Battalions: The Case For The Crusades (2009)?
Excellent history. It debunked a number of popular myths about the Crusades. Stark writes well.
—aslan9009
Quite a baits view of the case for the crusaders that has some truth with diluted truth!
—theheidss
Loved this book. Stark writes to the point and clear.
—Dusk
