God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades
It always seems counterintuitive to moderns that warfare and religion can be consistent. Ideally, followers of the prince of peace are to avoid the sword and shield. Clearly, this has not always been the case. Frequently in the crosshairs of critics are the Christian wars against Muslims known as the Crusades, commonly viewed as the birth of European imperialism and the forced spread of Christianity. But what if we've had it all wrong? What if the Crusades were a justifiable response to a strong and determined foe? Stark, a prominent sociologist and author of 27 books on history and religion, has penned a compelling argument that these bloody encounters had less to do with spreading Christianity than with responding to an ever more dangerous enemy—the emerging Islamic empire. There is much to be learned here. Filled with fascinating historical glimpses of monks and Templars, priests and pilgrims, kings and contemplatives, Stark pulls it all together and challenges us to reconsider our view of the Crusades.
- Read Later
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
The Alibgensian Crusade (1209) was neither against the Muslims nor a powerful enemy. It was an expression of Christian arrogance and evil, conducted BY Christians AGAINST Christians.
Was it not in the late 600s that the Muslims invaded Spain and part of Portugal,built their Temple and advanced outward until defeated first in 1035 and much loot was recovered. I could be off a few years but it was in the 1700s when we finally recovered from Catholic rule. This is history not critisim. The Crusaders were the first bankers and protectors of those going to Jerusalem.