Replies

What you write is almost in direct opposition to what Paul Johnson writes, unless I'm misunderstanding you. He certainly isn't infallible, but it seems he doesn't agree with you, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to give him the nod here. I don't mean any disrespect by that, by any means though, so I hope you don't take offense. I can't actually do the research myself. I can't access the information sources he can, and my own experience with the Church is one that comports more easily with his explication of events than yours.

Again, I don't mean to imply that you are not smart or capable or anything of the kind.

No offense taken :) This is something I am very interested in, and have been studying for quite a while. Actually, I love to talk history, and my dear bride is often the brunt of my meanding ramblings so it is good (for her at least) to have someone else to talk about it with.

Many historians, such as Sir Steven Runciman (Oxford professor who specializes in the period), point out rather clearly that the main part of the Crusader armies didn't stick around after the end of the war. Runciman wrote a great group of books on the Crusades (a bit dry for popular use, but very good), and presents why the colonization theory isn't quite accurate. Most people viewed the crusade as a holy duty. Many did it as a penitential rite, with the understanding that the likelihood of surviving was slim. Those who made it through often wanted to go home to their families and try to recover from the cost of the pilgrimage. A great many noble houses were wiped out from it.

That isn't to say that there was no real money grubbing guys out there. The story of the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is filled with robber barons playing both sides, double crosses, deception, and looting of each other, ending in a last stand from a leper king with a jealous in law seeking to usurp him.

Now, Paul Johnson is probably just repeating what mid 20th century scholars, who have an agenda against Western culture, have said. That the Crusades were an outlet for the lesser sons of royalty and nobility. Now some of that happened, but for the most part it was the higher nobles and royals themselves who went on crusade, and left their brothers (and sometimes sisters) at home to manage the estates. Those who didn't have adults to turn the management of the lands over to, often put them (or mortgaged them) to the local bishops or monasteries. Which is partially how the Roman Catholic Church got so much land in Europe. Also, realize Paul Johnson is a self described liberal (in the British sense), and that can be seen in his books (I assume your are reading A History of Christianity correct?). He actually does a decent job of being objective, but you can pick up his world view.

More on Mr. Johnson here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(journalist)

Article about "Myths of the Crusades" (not sure who the group is, but I think we have FReepers from there.

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/western_civilization/madden_interview.htm