Historians reconsider the Crusades

The Confessing Reader ^ | 9/05/2005 | Confessing Reader

[sionnsar]

I like nothing more than healthy doses of truth that debunk misconstruals hoary with age and falsehoods atavistically - and piously - mouthed.

Fr Joseph Honeycutt recently posted an article by Thomas Madden, Chair of the Department of History at St Louis University, challenging long-held suppositions by taking a look at “The Real History of the Crusades“.

You might also want to take a look at Professor Madden’s article in the June/July issue of First Things, “Crusaders and Historians“, in which he reviews three recent books which take a fresh look at these much-maligned wars of European Christians on the Muslim conquerors of the Holy Land.

[Hebrews 11:6]

It is, unfortunately, not uncommon to be Catholic and anti-Catholic at the same time these days.

Regardless, the mere existence of a fashionable trend does not mean that Johnson is a practitioner of it.

[conservonator]

What makes Dr. or Mr. Johnson's take on the Crusades more accurate than that of the threads subject?

[redgolum]

It wasn't until the mid-eleventh century that the Normans of Italy drove the invaders from Sicily and established a Christian kingdom there again. Spain was under a yoke and had been stopped from going further by Charles Martel (a good French general (gasp)). The Crusades were truly defensive, to reclaim lost kingdoms and relieve the pressure on the Eastern Bulwark of Europe, the Roman Empire of Byzantium.

The Hammer was more than a general. He laid the ground work for what was to be Europe, and blunted one of the spears of Islam.

[redgolum]

Part of the "black Spanish" legend is in that in the New World, many of the early adventurers who "Were conquering in the Name Of God!" would have found their way into a noose in Spain. The early history of the Southwest is filled with examples of conquistadors getting in trouble with the local bishops and priests, and the priests were constantly writing to their overseas superiors about the various idiots running around enslaving and looting the local inhabitants.

The local Christians liked the priests (which is why many tribes overthrew the leaders of the revolt in the 1600's), didn't mind the representatives of the Spanish crown, but hated the looter (often from Spain). That started the black legend.

[dennisw]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer (Paperback - August 1, 2005) Avg. Customer Rating: ()

Usually ships in 24 hours
Available for in-store pickup today

List Price:		$19.95
Buy new:		$13.16
In-store Pickup:		$19.95

 

 

 

[Hebrews 11:6]

What makes Dr. or Mr. Johnson's take on the Crusades more accurate than that of the threads subject?

I never claimed it was "more accurate." The poster made a declarative statement to the effect that there was only one motive for the crusades, and here was my reply in its entirety:

Paul Johnson, in A History of Christianity, would suggest there's more to the story than you indicate.

He then asked for details, which I provided by quoting excerpts from Mr. Johnson's book verbatim. Another poster than characterized Johnson's comments as being obviously "anti-Catholic," to which I responded that there might have been another reason.

Now you question me, and for the third--and, one hopes--final time on this thread, I point out that the truth may be more complex than it appears at first glance. In other words, jumping to conclusions on flimsy evidence sometimes is worth challenging.

[annalex]

What makes Paul Johnson's view (assuming your quotes in 8 are representative) inaccurate is not his anti-Catholicism, on which, I agree, there is room to argue, but their nauseating, banal, 20 century political correctness.

Indulgencies? We've been conditioned to knee-jerk here. A good Catholic, or a good student of the Middle Ages won't. An indulgence is granted even today for certain charitable work. It discredits, or adds "complexity" to the history of the Crusades just as much as the US congress awarding medals to good soldiers.

Migration? Hardly anyone settled in the Jerusalem Kingdom. There may have been a secondary effect of settling the Balkans, already Christian, by some who dropped from the Crusade midway. Like it or not, it is not a motivation but a side effect of the Crusades.

Racial arrogance? Guilty as charged. They did not have affirmative action or busing either.

Ecclesiastical control? Or, as Johnson himself explains, the church needed to channel religious enthusiasm to productive ends. Good for them, that is what an institutional church is for.

If this is all there is to his book, it is useless spin.

[conservonator]

If you don't think Johnson's take is more accurate then why offer it as a source of information? I'm sure there are more than a few works that focus on the crusades from a Muslim perspective, why not offer those as a suggestion that there's probably more to the story?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Keep in mind that Johnson wrote this book in the early 1970s. He was still a liberal then, I think. In any case, the book is deeply flawed. He has written some very fine books, but this is not one of them.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

One more point. In this book, Johnson, though a Catholic, buys into the anti-Catholicism which was common among moderate and liberal Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. So his book actually repeats the typical English Black Legend accusations against Catholic Spain. The section on the Protestant Reformation offers a somewhat vague Erasmian irenicism as the solution: if only both Catholics and Protestants had listened to Erasmus all would have been well--a kind of utopian, New Age Catholicism Lite that actually, in my view would have made things worse and was totally unrealistics (as all utopias are) to begin with. Johnson is a gifted writer and so he made it sound like the real answer, but anyone who is familiar with the era can see through it.

Again, none of this should take away from some truly great books by Johnson--his History of Art, Modern Times etc.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

But he was. We are talking about what he wrote 40 years ago.

I'm all for Catholics being honest about evil actions by Catholics in the past. Johnson simply was not accurate. Madden's work is excellent and Jonathan Riley-Smith and a host of other crusade historians have all made many of the same points. That's where the thread started, with Madden's work, which is excellent. Read it. Forget Johnson's book. It's simply not helpful; I can't imagine that even Johnson would defend it today, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If you don't think Johnson's take is more accurate then why offer it as a source of information?

1. I didn't offer it to you, so what's it to ya?

2. If it is any of your business, consider this: suggesting another source (among many, as you point out) is simply a way to say that there may be more to the story than the poster thinks. It is up to him whether to consult that source, or others, and how to evaluate it. My assessment of its accuracy thus becomes irrelevant; that is, I am only the courier, bringing it to his attention. Upon demand, I went to the trouble of typing out several paragraphs so he could evaluate it preliminarily, with the result that you give me grief for my efforts.

[Hebrews 11:6]

If this is all there is to his book, it is useless spin.

As you wish. This was a minor discussion in his book, which is concerned with two millennia of Christian history.

Another poster later on this thread takes some pains to debunk Johnson's efforts, which perhaps will confirm your skepticism of it.

[annalex]

What is your opinion of The Faith by Brian Moynahan, if any? I liked it.

[Hebrews 11:6]

...Madden's work, which is excellent. Read it. Forget Johnson's book.

I see. Any other instructions?

Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me. As it happens, I am not particularly interested in history, the Crusades nor in Catholicism. So far, I've read two of Johnson's books which have been helpful to me in my own small way. My main interests, and thus the bulk of my time, lie elsewhere.

Best wishes.

[BnBlFlag]

"Conquistadores getting in trouble with the Priests and Bishops"..............These clergymen accompanying the Conquistadors were similiar in form and function to the Commisars of the Red Army. There was no such equivalent with the English/Scottish (Anglo/Celtic)conquerors of North America.

[annalex]

You think that the Commissars were there to restrain the Red Army? You got another think coming.

[redgolum]

These clergymen accompanying the Conquistadors were similiar in form and function to the Commisars of the Red Army. There was no such equivalent with the English/Scottish (Anglo/Celtic)conquerors of North America.

In those expeditions under the official sanction of the crown, probably. However, many times it was band of adventurers that started out alone. There is a reason that the governors of Santa Fe got replaced often, they kept running off looking for gold

[Conservative til I die]

In other words, jumping to conclusions on flimsy evidence sometimes is worth challenging.

Hence, why we Catholics consider it our duty to constantly challenge Protestantism and its innumerable errors.

[Hebrews 11:6]

we Catholics consider it our duty to constantly challenge Protestantism and its innumerable errors.

What a hateful statement! Do you, upon reflection, care to clarify or retract it?