Posted: Aug 03, 2010 4:38 am
by TimONeill
U-96 wrote:Those that took on these crusade pilgrimages participated, not with the concept of temporal territories but of the idea of Christendom, motivated by idealism, so no I can't give you evidence they were protecting a territorial area which I now understand is what you're specifically referring to, I think understand your position against Stark better now, thanks.


Okay. But they were defending a territorial area - it just wasn't western Europe. It was the Levant and the holy pilgrimage sites it contained. As I said in my review, if it was western Europe they were worried about, why the hell invade the Levant and take Jerusalem? Why not go to Spain and fight to "defend Europe" there were the Muslims were actually on their doorstep? Stark's thesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

U-96 wrote:
Essentially, the "THEY started it!" thesis argues that far from being an isolated, innovative and unprovoked assault on the world of Islam from Europe, the Crusades were in fact a courageous and entirely justified counter-strike against the terror of Islam by a besieged Christendom. In other words, an Eleventh Century equivalent to Bush's doctrine of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" or "defending the Homeland".

The problem is that this revisionist thesis, like all ideologically-driven attempts at the analysis of history, is every bit as skewed as the ideas it is trying to revise and correct.


I still don't agree with what you wrote here on your blog though, when we understand the medieval mindset and motivations we can understand that what they did was defensive in nature, it's wrong to say this was an "unprovoked assault on the world of Islam", especially considering the expansionist aggression of dynasties like the Seljuk Turks, that effected the Christians important practice of pilgrimage, the threat to fellow Byzantines Christians, and the damage to churches in their holy land.


That was not terribly clearly worded by me. I don't agree with Stark's position, but I don't actually think the Crusades were "an isolated, innovative and unprovoked assault on the world of Islam" either. The point I was trying to make is that he is reacting to one oversimplistic, ideologically driven position by presenting another.

Anyway, cheers


Glad we sorted all that out. Nice discussing things with you.