The Truth about the Crusades: Historian reviews of "Kingdom of Heaven"

RedState.org ^ | 5/24/2005 | Thomas Woods

[Claud]

The latest I head from the leftist is that Leonardo da Vinci was a homosexual.

LOL...comical. They haven't been as quick to take credit for Nero though, have they?

[LS]

Um, I don't think he specifically looked at it that way, but I do think it was a factor. You can't explain the "Truce of God" and the "Peace of God" (both of which had failed miserably by that time) without it being a factor. Knight violence was CLEARLY an issue on the minds of the Church leaders.

[Sprite518]

LOL! Of course not. I think its funny how the leftist reinvent history in order to validate their beliefs.

[Antoninus]

No non-military personnel, no women save those acompanying relatives, no prelates or laymen without permission. Again, emphatically NOT the language of a call for mass migration, but rather of pilgrimage and religious duty. Again, just to be clear, I really would have to read White's argument rather than responding half blind here. But the idea here (all too typically for modern historians), seems to miss the mark in a fundamental way by overemphasizing economic explanations in places where very different forces were at work (in this case, piety). It's clear to me at least that for Urban, the "overpopulation" argument was not a fundamental aspect of the Crusades but an attempt to head off the Franks' very natural objections to leaving their estates.

Thanks. That's what I was asking for. This is a lot clearer now. I'm sorry you had to make a trip all the way to France to get it. /sarcasm

[Antoninus]

Um, I don't think he specifically looked at it that way, but I do think it was a factor. You can't explain the "Truce of God" and the "Peace of God" (both of which had failed miserably by that time) without it being a factor. Knight violence was CLEARLY an issue on the minds of the Church leaders.

No one's arguing that point. The Popes were very interested in maintaining peace in Christendom. Who can argue that? However, they clearly realized that the force of their moral authority was not enough to suppress the desire to fight among the various knights--the Normans in particular.

It seems obvious to me that Urban II (and his predecessor) saw the Crusades as a way to channel this fighting spirit into a direction that could help protect and defend Christendom, rather than be self-destructive of it. The fact that the call to arms soon after the crumbling of the Byzantine frontier in Western Asia Minor--which had been the Eastern bulwark against the Islamic onslaught--is not coincidental, however. Indeed, the existence of this new and deadly threat is what spurred the Popes to action--not some fanciful modern desire to make Urban II the equivalent of an 11th century head of Planned Parenthood.

[Rodney King]

I didn't know that about the Mongols. Strategically speaking, we need to find a way to set Islam and Asia against each other. Let's let them do battle against each other for a few hundred years while we stay out of it.

[Claud]

Hey no problem. While there, I got everyone to surrender and vote against the EU Constitution. :)

[SONbrad]

As a history buff who can never get enough, I am ashamed to say that I do not have a lot of background on the crusades and that era in general. I have been more involved in the Revolutionary, Civil War, WWI and WWII, and Napoleanic Wars.

Therefore I want to thank all of you for providing me with some VERY interesting reading and different perspectives on this era.

I top my hat to all of you. Thanks!

[LS]

You're welcome. I don't think we disagree at all on the MOST important reason for the Crusades, i.e., Urban's wish to de-Islamize the Holy Lands. Our disagreement is over how much the other factors played a part.

[SONbrad]

Yes, I agree. I found your posts back and forth quite thought-provoking and entertaining. A very informative post in general and the ideas/exchanges speak well of Free Republic. Unlike some of the other exchanges I have seen here.

Thanks again!

[LS]

And I'm the first to confess that I'm an American historian, NOT a specialist in medieval (although I do touch on that in my class, "Technology and the Culture of War.")

Anyway, if you haven't already checked out my new book (which is doing phenomenally well), please do so:

[Deb]

Fear not...his career has minutes to live.

[Claud]

And I'm the first to confess that I'm an American historian, NOT a specialist in medieval (although I do touch on that in my class, "Technology and the Culture of War.")

Hey! I thought I was the first to confess that! LOL

Thanks for the book link though. Couple 'a American historians arguing the Crusades, how pathetic! Except you have a professorship in it and I don't so that's one mark in your favor! :)

[Claud]

A very informative post in general and the ideas/exchanges speak well of Free Republic. Unlike some of the other exchanges I have seen here.

Posting on FR definitely teaches you to go and look stuff up with an open mind rather than trying to win the argument every time.

Glad you enjoyed!

[LS]

But you know better than I how to look up obscure medieval docs on the net :)