The Case for the Crusades
Mem. Ed. $17.49
Pub. Ed. $24.99
You pay $1.00
In his famous speech at Claremont on October 27, 1095, Pope Urban II graphically detailed the torture, rape and murder of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and the defilement of churches and holy places committed by the Turks. He then asked followers of Christ to become “soldiers of the living God” and go to war; the next year a Christian army set out for Jerusalem and the First Crusade was underway. Yet according to Rodney Stark, most scholars now seem to regard the Crusades as nothing more than the case of an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalizing, looting and colonizing a tolerant and peaceful Islam. Stark takes issue with virtually every aspect of what he calls this “prevailing wisdom” in God’s Battalions.
Stark begins his history of the Crusades not with the pope’s speech at Claremont, but with the rise of Islam and the onset of the Muslim invasions of Christendom in the seventh century, when Islamic armies swept over the larger portion of what was then Christian territory, including the Middle East, Egypt and all of North Africa, Spain, southern Italy and numerous Mediterranean islands including Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta and Sardinia. And having thus ruthlessly conquered, Stark maintains that the Muslims were also brutal and intolerant rulers. Christian retaliation was inevitable.
Having thus set the stage, Stark gives a detailed history of the First Crusade, following the Christian army though the sieges of Nicaea and Antioch in 1097 to the siege and conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. He tells the history of the Crusaders’ kingdoms subsequently established by the First Crusade and the history of the four Crusades that followed. And he describes the founding of the two knightly religious orders of military monks—the Templars and the Hospitallers—dedicated to defending the Holy Land.
Throughout God’s Battalions, Stark attempts to debunk claims of Muslim technological and cultural superiority to Christendom. He also rejects the notion that the Dark Ages in Europe were in fact dark, arguing that during that time Europe actually began the technological leap forward that would put it far ahead of the rest of the world. Little wonder, Stark argues, that the Crusaders were able to march more than twenty-five hundred miles, defeat an enemy that vastly outnumbered them and continue to do so as long as Europe was prepared to support the fight.
Ultimately this provocative reassessment of the Crusades asserts that the Crusades were precipitated—perhaps even justified—by centuries of Islamic aggression and atrocities, and that the Crusaders themselves were not barbarians who victimized cultivated Muslims in search of land, loot and converts, but men of faith who “sincerely believed they served in God’s battalions.”
Hardcover: 288 pages
Publisher: Harper Collins Publishers ( October 13, 2009 )
Item #: 35-5416
ISBN: 9780061582615
Product Dimensions: 6.0 x 9.0 x 0.68 inches
Product Weight: 14.0 ounces

This book is well referenced and as such difficult for PC types to refute without their using ad hominem comments. Stark presents a stark (bad pun) view of how the Crusades were a response to, not a cause of, Islamic warfare and other violence. As with the best of history books, it has the reader applying its lessons to the world of today.
Reviewer: Edward P
To begin with, Stark is a sociologist not an historian. His take on his subject and his methodology are going to be different from the start. Having studied the Crusades since college and keeping abreast of current scholarship I have to take exception to many of his propositions. The book has a fatal flaw at the very beginning. His view of the crusades is limited to the Holy Land with out any serious reference to Spain or the Baltic Crusades let alone movements like the Albigensian Crusade. This allows him to make statements that a fuller picture would discredit. Modern scholarship overcame that problem decades ago. He also fails to incorporate the wider history of medieval Europe into his story. This is a major omission. There is little interaction with the problem of the Crusades' impact on Eastern Christianity. This is equally as important as relations with Islam. His attack on modern scholarship is a straw man. He presents the most extreme opposite view of crusade studies as possible in order to make his own views appear moderate and even handed. Anyone who has read modern studies of the crusdaes can immediately see this fact at work. Actually, based on his other works, it is apparent that Stark has anointed himself as the modern apologist for Christianity. As any student of apologetics knows, the apologist must paint his opponent in the darkest colors possible to more easily defend his own position. Stark is not attacking PC history. He is creating his own new PC version acceptable to those who want to believe certain ideas and perspectives that history has denied them in the past. Yet Stark is doing a service to historigraphy. His unbalanced views will force better historians to correct his errors and save the crusades from the new PC version.
Reviewer: John V
An excellent book. Finally someone brave enough to throw aside the PC nonsense. While the Christians were by no means perfect, and often slaughtered just as badly as did the Muslims (ie: the Jews of the Rhineland & Jerusalem itself), it is about time that the myth of Muslim cultural superiority and total innocence in provoking the crusades is exploded. A fast-paced, easy, enjoyable read.
Reviewer: Victoria
This book is strongly recommended to anyone who wishes to know what really happened before and during the "Crusades". Christianity was not the 'villain' in any of this, but rather the 'victim' as they did their utmost to follow in Christ's footsteps. Until enough atrocities were committed to force a response, even though it was more of a haphazard response, rather than an all out war. People do not realize that this 'war' is still ongoing today. I abhor 'political correctness' as it weakens our resolve and takes us down the wrong path. Read the book and make up your own mind. I remember hearing about this in school at some point, but of course, now, it isn't correct.
Reviewer: Philip
I strongly recommend God’s Battalions to anyone interested in current affairs or history. In this timely and important book Rodney Stark cogently and persuasively makes “The Case for the Crusades” as his subtitle states. He begins with some galling indications of the current popular and apologetic misunderstanding of the Crusades today. Then he proceeds to tell the whole story from the perspective of the Crusaders.
Stark reminds the reader of the basic fact that Christians were in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria long before the Muslims. The Arabs, united under banner of Islam entered with great violence and they imposed oppressive rule. They did not stop their invasion into Christian territory until they conquered North Africa, Spain, and were finally
beaten in southern France. This is all familiar history, but somehow ignored by critics of the Crusaders.
Stark reminds the reader of some less familiar history as well. For example, the Arabs attacked Sicily and the Italian mainland. The story of who stopped them there makes fascinating history. The Arabs also attacked
Constantinople twice without success. This is often forgotten since their expansionist Muslim successors, the Turks ultimately captured that great Roman and Christian city.
After demonstrating that aggressive Islamic expansion Christian territories triggered Islamic-Christian warfare, the author shatters many of the myths of the Crusades one by one with historical fact. For example:
-The Christians were more brutal than the Muslims.
-Islamic culture brought technological advancement to the Middle East.
-The Crusades were primarily motivated by economic expansion.
-Famed Muslim Saladin demonstrated a more enlightened leadership than his European counterparts.
Stark lays out the historical facts that the cynical critics selectively ignore. He makes his case persuasively.
Reviewer: Mike M