[eleni121]

The latest? From your insistence on labeling the Crusaders as violent to the exclusion of the importance of their goals, it sounds like classic Runciman. Look---In the past 20 years, serious scholars have concluded that the Crusades have been inaccurately labeled as a war of aggression when actually they were defensive in nature. Whatever "latest" you are reading remind yourself that the crusades have been used as a political whipping post since around the enlightenment when the self hatred of the west among the scholarly world emerged.

[ClaireSolt]

All I said is that they killed everyone when they conquered a city. Contrast that with the furor over 50 casualties. As some have said, it is as if we are waging war with one hand behind our backs.

I think your patronizing tone on crusade historiography is laughable. I have written and published on the subject, and I didn't just reproduce pop art from the National Geographic. The most recent book I referred to was 2001, not Runciman, by the way.