Replies

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

Thanks for the informative response. I will check Prof. Runciman out at the Library.

Sort of on the same subject, and relative to Pope Benedict's speech. I recently read the following (courtesy of American Spectator piece) regarding Manuel II Paleologus.

"He [Manuel II] was, foremost, the antepenultimate emperor of the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire. At the time of his reign (1391-1425) the Muslim Turks had their sights set on the empire's capital of Constantinople. In 1399, Manuel traveled to England, France, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon seeking assistance from the various monarchs and courts. His visit was a complete bust. The split between the Greek Orthodox and Roman churches proved too wide. Unless the Greeks agreed to join the Roman Church there would be no troops, no assistance, and the Greeks were not about to surrender their autonomy to Rome, not even to save the empire, their religion and their lives."

If this is true, how significant do you think it was in terms of any sort of realignment of powers, and how would you extrapolate to current events?