God’s Battalions: The case for the Crusades
Rodney Stark (HarperCollins, 2009)
At first glance the subtitle of this most recent book by Rodney Stark is rather provocative, perhaps even distasteful. No doubt this is intentional – both on the part of the author and the publisher. “The case for the Crusades”? It raises the question: is Stark seriously trying to argue that the Crusades were a good thing? Is it possible to justify them in any way?
Rodney Stark carries a little of the mischievous in his blood. The distinguished historian and sociologist of religion likes nothing more than to dismantle myths and misconceptions about the way Christianity has developed and influenced the world through the centuries. His most well-known book, The Rise of Christianity, set the tone, charting some surprising revelations about the growth of the early Christian movement.
In this latest effort, Stark steps fairly and squarely on politically incorrect territory. Given the events of the last few decades, and the last 9 years in particular, to suggest that the Crusades were anything less than a horrendous and shameful episode on the part of the “Christian” West, is likely to incur the wrath of not just Islam, but most Europeans as well.
However, let’s be clear about Stark’s intentions. He is not attempting to ethically justify the Crusades. A moral judgement on the rights and wrongs of the medieval battle over the Holy Land is not even part of his brief.
Instead, he seeks to set the Crusades in their historical context, setting his sights on what he considers to be the considerable myth-making (revisionist history) that has occurred regarding both the reasons for and the manner of the Crusades.
Chief among the myths are:
- The Crusades were an unprovoked aggression against the Muslim world
- The Muslim world was a peace-loving, sophisticated and technologically advanced culture while the Christian West was backward and barbarian, still immersed in the so-called “Dark Ages”.
- A primary motive for the Crusaders was the expectation of land, wealth and converts.
- The Muslim world harboured deep bitterness for many centuries over the Crusades and this finally boiled over in the wave of anti Christian West violence of the last few years.
On the contrary, according to Stark,
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.[1]
The rise of Islam
In chapter one, Stark begins charting the history of Islam’s dramatic rise. Within just eighty years of the Prophet’s death in 632, the “Muslim empire had displaced Christians from most of the Middle East, all of North Africa, Cyprus, and most of Spain.” And the aggressive expansion did not stop there. If it hadn’t been for the Frankish leader, Charles Martel, all of Gaul (modern day France) would have also been overrun by the Arab invaders. Additionally, by the start of the ninth century, Muslim rule stretched well up the Italian peninsula.
Challenging the commonly held justification that Arabs had to expand due to economic necessities, fuelled by a population expansion, Stark instead contends that the Arab world attacked their neighbours because they finally had the power to do so. Decades of fighting between Persia and Byzantium had left these two powers exhausted and vulnerable, while the growing Arab unity promoted by Muhammad had given them the capacity to strike at their neighbours and to capture enormous land and booty. And the spread of Islam was clearly a powerful mandate, adding weighty moral force to these expansionist ambitions.
How did Christians and Jews fare under their new Muslim masters?
Initially, conquered peoples were ruled by a small Arab elite, who imposed significant limitations on their freedom. Stark rubbishes claims that “in contrast to Christian brutality against Jews and heretics, Islam showed remarkable tolerance for conquered people, treated them with respect, and allowed them to pursue their faiths without interference.” The reality, he suggests, was very different.
It is true, technically, that the Qur’an forbids forced conversions. However, that recedes to an empty legalism given that many subject peoples were “free to choose” conversion as an alternative to death or enslavement.[2]
At best, Christians and Jews were “tolerated”, as long as they did not pray or read the scriptures aloud – even in their own homes, attempt to evangelize (conversion and attempts to convert being punishable by death), or seek to build churches or synagogues. However, often conditions were far worse than this, resulting in indiscriminate slaughter. Stark documents a number of such examples. According to him, Muslim persecution of Christians and Jews was ongoing and severe.
Interestingly, he also points out that the first Muslim massacre of Jews was in fact ordered by Muhammad in Medina, where he “…had all the local adult Jewish males (about seven hundred of them) beheaded after forcing them to dig their own graves.” [3]
However, Stark’s objective here is not to condemn the brutality of Muslim rulers while painting Christians and Jews out to be blameless victims. He is really just pleading for some balance and fairness in historical assessments. In his own words:
This is not to say that Muslims were more brutal or less tolerant than were Christians or Jews, for it was a brutal and intolerant age. It is to say that efforts to portray Muslims as enlightened supporters of multiculturalism are at best ignorant.[4]
Of course, like most forced conversions and military conquests, it was a very long time before the conquered areas were truly Muslim in anything but name. According to Stark,
The reality was that very small Muslim elites long ruled over non-Muslim (mostly Christian) populations…This runs contrary to the widespread belief that Muslim conquests were quickly followed by mass conversions to Islam.[5]
In fact, Stark contends that according to the data available,[6] it took 200 years for 50 percent of Iranians to consider themselves Muslim, and even longer in Syria, Egypt and North Africa. This is quite remarkable given such repressive rule. Large Christian and Jewish populations did not just give up on their faith easily through rapid mass conversions, as has often been speculated.
Resistance from Christendom
In chapter two Stark considers the attempts by both Christian West and East to resist further expansion and reclaim lost territory. He goes into further detail regarding Martel’s repelling of Muslim invaders who had advanced to within 150 miles of Paris by 732. The gradual, centuries-long reconquest of Spain began around forty years later. And the also extended re-occupation of Italy and Sicily started some time after.
Western “Ignorance” versus Eastern “Culture”
Stark then moves on to challenge the belief that Muslim culture was superior to European. He suggests that:
To the extent that Arab elites acquired a sophisticated culture, they learned it from their subject peoples…the Judeo-Christian-Greek culture of Byzantium, the remarkable learning of heretical Christian groups such as the Copts and the Nestorians, extensive knowledge from Zoroastrian Persia, and the great mathematical achievements of the Hindus…[7]
This knowledge and technology, according to Stark, continued to be driven and sustained by these non-Muslim populations under Arab rule, even if much of it was incorporated into the Arabic language and culture. He uses example after example to back up his claims and it makes convincing reading. However, in doing so Stark does not deny that Muslim culture produced some outstanding intellectuals and scientists of its own.
Central to Stark’s thesis is the debunking of the claims, begun by Voltaire, Rousseau and Gibbon in the eighteenth century, that after the fall of Rome, Europe regressed into cultural and technological backwardness and barbarity (known as the Dark Ages).
What sparked the First Crusade?
In chapter four the author considers the issues that sparked the call in 1095 by Pope Urban II for a crusade to the Holy Land.
When Jerusalem was captured by a Muslim army in 638, the caliph (Muslim leader) initially called for tolerance toward resident Christians, though he demanded expulsion of Jews. However, this forbearance quickly degenerated into harsh treatment of non-Muslims. Stark catalogues some of the many acts of persecution and slaughter in the centuries and decades leading up to the First Crusade, challenging the claims of Muslim religious tolerance.
Nevertheless, waves of Christian pilgrims journeyed to the Holy Land and were often welcomed. Their presence brought money into the economy and they could be taxed. (Little has changed over the centuries – think of our growing tourism industry!) Much of the growth in such travel to Palestine resulted from the medieval church practice of atoning for one’s sins by embarking on a pilgrimage.
In the decades leading up to the First Crusade, Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims became more frequent and bloody. However, worse was to follow. In the middle of the eleventh century the Seljuk Turks (who were Sunni Muslims) seized control of Christian Armenia, slaughtering the men, raping the women and carting the children into slavery. They didn’t stop there, but also moved against Cappadocian Caesarea and then down into Palestine, where they attacked the Egyptian Shiite Muslim rulers. In the midst of this, Christian pilgrims were once again massacred, with just a few survivors finding their way back to Europe.
Pope Urban II’s appeal to Christians in Europe to rally in support of Eastern Christianity (Byzantium) and liberate the Holy Land, was a response then, to decades and centuries of aggression and violence against Christian pilgrims.
His call to take arms was argued on the basis of protecting both the sacred sites of the Holy Land and the safety of pilgrims. And it was also an active response to supporting Byzantium (the Christian Eastern empire) in regaining some of their land from the Turks.
The Pope promised that knights who responded would have their sins washed away by taking part in the crusade. This was a strong motivating factor for many. In addition, the liberation of the Holy Land from the enemy was seen as a “noble and holy mission” and it was this that ultimately, Stark contends, became the primary motivation for knights and kings to risk so much and respond in such numbers.
This is not to suggest that there was no opposition to the crusades. Stark notes that, “Just as it has today, the Church in medieval times had many profound reservations about violence, and especially about killing.”[8] There were even some theologians who “condemned the doctrine that crusading earned forgiveness for sins and was the moral equivalent of taking monastic vows.”[9] However, ultimately, the attitude of many of Europe’s “best and brightest” was that there were compelling reasons to risk one’s future by venturing to Palestine. Such sentiments are captured well in Burgundy’s Stephen 1 of Neublans’ words:
“Considering how many are my sins and the love, clemency and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because when he was rich he became poor for our sake, I have determined to repay him in some measure for everything he has given me freely, although I am unworthy. And so I have decided to go to Jerusalem, where God was seen as man and spoke with men and to adore the place where his feet trod.”[10]
Chronicling the Crusades
In the second half of his book, Stark chronicles the various crusades. In doing so he highlights the huge cost that Western knights, aristocrats and monarchs paid in embarking on the crusades to initially re-capture and then the two centuries-long struggle to defend the Holy Land. Only those with considerable financial resources could undertake such a campaign.
And he continues to dispute the revisionist history which paints the crusaders as perpetrators of unspeakable acts of aggression and the Muslim forces as relative paragons of virtue. For example, Stark spends some pages examining the common claim that Saladin, the powerful Muslim military leader of the twelfth century, was a “rational and civilized figure in juxtaposition to credulous barbaric crusaders.”[11] Incident by incident, Stark rips such views to shreds, using primary sources to lay bare the utter ruthlessness, deception and brutality of Saladin and his forces.
According to Stark, the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade is another example of the way the crusaders have been unfairly lambasted. In fact, this event in 1203 is “…often used as the “…primary ‘proof’ that the Crusades were a shameful episode in the greedy history of the West.”[12]
It has even led to an apology by Pope John Paul II to the Greek Orthodox Church in 2001, regarding the sacking, about which Stark writes:
Nothing here [in the Pope’s speech] about the prior sacks of the city by Byzantines themselves during political coups…Nor is there a word to acknowledge the centuries of Orthodox brutalities against Latin Christians: in 1182 the emperor incited mobs to attack all Western residents of Constantinople during which ‘thousands including women, children and the aged, were massacred’ – many more deaths than are thought to have occurred during the city’s sack by the crusaders. Not a word about the instances of Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the first three Crusades and that cost tens of thousands of crusaders their lives. Surely it is not surprising that these many acts of betrayal built up substantial animosity toward Byzantium. Then in 1204 those who had journeyed east as members of the Fourth Crusade also were deceived by a Byzantine emperor who, after the crusaders helped restore him to the throne, broke his glittering promises and launched fire ships against the crusader fleet. Meanwhile, the Latin residents of Constantinople fled the city in fear of their lives – recalling the massacre of 1182 – and took refuge in the crusader camp. This left the crusaders “without food or money,” stranded on a hostile shore. That’s when they attacked Constantinople.[13]
As for the ultimate abandonment of the Holy Land after two centuries of struggle, Stark contends that the physical forces and financial resources required to maintain control of city outposts such a long way from Europe and against such significant forces, were overwhelming. Eventually, both the will and capacity to defend had to run dry, particularly when European monarchs began to impose taxes on their subjects in order to keep funding such crusades.
Conclusion
How should we evaluate Stark’s historical “case for the Crusades”? Overall, it appears to be a well-reasoned, researched and plausible attempt to reframe the crusades and set them in their historical context. Stark presents a compelling case and his use of primary and secondary sources is impressive. However, a little caveat – while I suspect he’s painted a much more accurate picture than many before him, ultimately I don’t have the skills or knowledge to determine if Stark is overstating his case a little. Maybe some of my historian friends could help here?!
But what about assessing the case for the Crusades from a moral perspective? As I noted earlier, Stark stays away from any prognostications about the rights or wrongs of the whole crusading enterprise. He simply examines the truth from an historical and sociological angle.
However, as Christians we can’t help but evaluate the Crusades against what we understand of the gospel. Of course, in this regard there are no grounds for justification. So in a word, while the response to take arms was very understandable, it was deeply misguided and regrettable.
In fact, the biggest scandal of the Crusades is that a faith that was founded on principles of peace and the repudiation of violence, sought to right the wrongs through an armed struggle. And this was not just approved by the leaders of the Church, but actively promoted and advanced by them.
In contrast, while there are many peace-loving Muslims in the world, Islam has never made such claims. For as Mateen Elass puts it, “While there is certainly room for debate over how well throughout history Christians and Muslims have followed the teaching of their respective leaders, there is no doubt over the contrasting visions of Jesus and Muhammad as to how the kingdom of God should be advanced on earth.”[14]
Like all generations, Christians in the medieval West were captive to their own culture and worldview. In a world where chivalry and taking arms was simply viewed as part of life, the call to fight with the sword for one’s beliefs was assumed acceptable, even integral.
Such a massive blindspot seems inexplicable to us, particularly when we consider the life of Jesus. And yet, we are wise to resist damning them for such a misread of Scripture. If such pietistic and wise leaders as Bernard of Clairvaux got it so wrong, what makes us think that we too won’t be found by succeeding generations of Christians to have also had our own blindspots?
This is all very sobering stuff. It should lead us to reflect humbly and honestly on our own stumbling attempts to be faithful to Jesus. For as the Apostle Paul notes, we all “see through a glass dimly”. Or, in the words of Peterson’s The Message:
We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. [Thankfully]…it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! (1 Corinthians 13:12-13)
[1] Page 248.
[2] Page 28.
[3] This touches on an ongoing debate as to what degree Muhammad as the founder of Islam promoted the use of violence.
[4] Page 29.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Stark relies heavily here on Richard Bulliet’s analysis of extensive biographical dictionaries that Muslims produced of more than a million people over several centuries.
[7] Page 57.
[8] Page 117.
[9] Page 240.
[10] Page 118.
[11] Quoting Tyerman (2006).
[12] Page 211.
[13] Page 212.
[14] Dr Elass was raised by a Syrian Muslim father and an American mother. He converted to Christianity at age 20.
Comments
2 Responses to “God’s Battalions: The case for the Crusades”
Leave a Reply
“Maybe some of my historian friends could help here?!”
Glad to help. While Stark *seems* to make a reasonable historical case and his writing certainly makes his thesis sound plausible, it’s actually riddled with errors, omissions and weak arguments and is, ultimately, fatally flawed. For detailed analysis see my review here:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/gods-battalions-case-for-crusades-by.html
Hi Wayne. I thought this was an interesting take too.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8689