At the start of each month + Real Crusades History + brings you a review of a book relevant to the crusades or the crusader states. Today we start with an essential background work which we recommend for anyone starting out to learn about the crusades.
This
well-researched book with its profuse bibliography and copious notes is not a
history of the crusades. Nor is it, as some reviewers suggest, an apology for
the crusades. Rather this is an extended essay which refutes a number of common
myths or outdated theories about the crusades and the crusader states. Stark is
not a polemicist, but a professor at Baylor University, who has published
extensively on religion and sociology.
In short, he is a scholar intent on paring away legend and prejudice to
enable academic and popular discourse shaped by fact not fiction. Any serious
scholar of the crusades and the crusader states should start with this book —
and then get on with their actual research unencumbered with false
notions. Even more important, this ought
to be required reading in all classes that touch on the topic of the crusades.
Stark
systematically dissects and destroys the following notions about the crusades
that still dominate public perceptions and debate.
- The idea that the crusaders were aggressors, who fell upon peace-loving and tolerant Muslim states without provocation.
- The equally anachronistic idea that the crusades were an early form of European colonialism.
- The claim that Jerusalem was particularly “holy” to Muslims in the period before the Crusades.
- The thesis that crusaders were primarily motivated by greed.
- The portrayal of crusaders as uncultivated barbarians fighting a “higher” civilization in the Muslim east.
- The assertion that the Christians conducted warfare in ways that were more brutal and cruel than their enemies.
- The myth that the Muslim rulers were more tolerant of other religions — and their own heretics — than Christian rulers.
- The thesis that Western/Latin crusaders fell upon Constantinople without provocation and “destroyed” the city without cause.
- The notion that bitterness over the crusades persisted (despite the Muslim’s complete and utter victory over the Crusader States in the second half of the 13th century) to the present day.
Stark starts by cataloguing
the long list of Muslim conquests against Christian states and peoples from
Syria and North Africa to Armenia, Spain and Southern France, but he also
provides a chilling list of mass murders of Christian monks and pilgrims — each
with dates and numbers: 70 Christian pilgrims executed in Caesura for refusing
to convert to Islam and 60 crucified in Jerusalem in the early eighth century,
the sack and slaughter of the monastery near Bethlehem in the later eighth
century, the destruction of two nearby churches gradually escalating to
multiple attacks on churches, convents and monasteries in and around Jerusalem
including mass rapes in 808 and 813, a new wave of atrocities in 923, the
destruction of an estimated 30,000 (yes, thirty-thousand) Christian churches
including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009. So much for Muslim
“tolerance.”
Stark also brings
considerable evidence that the alleged “superiority” of Muslim/Arab culture was
largely based on accomplishments of Persian, Jewish, Indian and, indeed,
Christian scholars living under Muslim rule.
Thus the alleged mathematical superiority of the Arabs came from the Hindus,
the great libraries and legacy of learning came from the Greeks, Arab medicine
was, Stark argues, “Nestorian Christian” in origin and so on. He then contends
that the Christian west was anything but “backward” and the so-called “Dark
Ages” is a misnomer that says more about the ignorance of historians than the
state of civilization in the period between the fall of Rome and the First
Crusade. Stark points out that the
military technology of the crusaders — from stirrups, horseshoes and crossbows to
the devastatingly effective “Greek Fire” — was markedly superior to the
military technology of their opponents. But it wasn’t just in military matters
that the crusaders were ahead of the Saracens. In the fields of agricultural,
land-transportation and nautical technology, Western technology also significantly
out-stripped that of the Middle East.
Stark is perhaps
at his best in documenting the many times that Muslim victors slaughtered the
garrisons and inhabitants of conquered cities — long before the first crusaders
even set out from Europe. He points out the hyperbole in popular accounts of
the fall of Jerusalem in the First Crusade as well. But he is most effective in
countering the myth of Muslim chivalry is his account of the fall of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem in the second half of the 13th Century, where
time and again the Mamluk leaders broke their word and enslaved or massacred
those to whom they had promised freedom and life. One quote from a primary, Muslim
source about the sack of the great Roman city of Antioch should suffice to make
this point. The source is a letter to the Prince of Antioch (who had not be present
in his city to defend it) by none other than the Muslim Sultan himself. Sultan Baibars
gloated: “You would have seen your Muslim enemy trampling on the place where
you celebrate Mass, cutting the throats of monks, priests and deacons upon the
altars, bringing sudden death to the Patriarchs and slavery to the royal
princes. You would have seen fire running through your palaces, your dead
burned in this world before going down to the fires of the next.” Ah, yes,
Saracen “chivalry” at its best indeed.
The book does
have its weaknesses, of course. Stark is covering far too great a canvas to
provide any analysis or detail. His book
is structured as a rebuttal to unfounded allegations and theses, but for the
most part he does not provide alternative theses. Certainly, he does not describe personalities
and their impact on events except in some rare instances. His explanations of
developments are often facile, and occasionally he falls into outright errors.
(For example, he claims plate armor was so heavy a knight needed a crane to
mount his horse; in reality it was much lighter than chainmail and a knight in
his prime could vault onto his horse without use of a stirrup much less a
crane. ) But the bottom line is that this book does what it sets out to do: it
destroys a whole series of insidious myths that turn the crusades into an
excuse for all subsequent barbarity; it clears the way for a more productive
debate based on fact rather than falsehood.
Dr Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.
She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.
She is the author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction, including a three-part biographical novel of Balian d'Ibelin.
You are just convinced that I don't have enough to read, don't you Professor?
ReplyDeleteOr is it your concern about the quality of my reading materials? LOL