Blog Archives
Book review: “Crusaders” by Dan Jones
Dan Jones. Crusaders: The Epic History of the Wars for the Holy Lands. Viking, 2019.
I have read several books on the Crusades, but this is the best I’ve read so far. Dan Jones has written numerous books on the Europeans in the Middle Ages, so this is his area of expertise. His work is thoroughly researched, but he also writes in an engaging style, opening most chapters with vignettes about colorful personalities, and he peppers the book with fascinating quotes and interesting details.
The title Crusaders (instead of “Crusades”) is deliberate, because, as Jones explains in his preface, he focuses on the personalities like Richard the Lionheart, telling stories of the combatants (mostly Christian, but he also gives coverage to prominent Muslim warriors, including a chapter on Saladin). Yet he tells the story in chronological order, which helps the reader to follow the facts.
With so much blood and horrendous violence, Jones could easily depict the Crusaders as pure evil, but as a good historian he leaves it to the reader to make moral judgments, even reminding the reader at times that as bad as the violence was, it was normal for all sides at that time in history. He simply tells the facts and quotes the sources that describe the characters, whether evil or holy, or, as many were, a mixture of both. The book truly helps the reader understand the reasons why the Crusades happened as they did by helping the reader understand life in the Middle Ages. Until I read this book, I didn’t fully understand why the Fourth Crusaders plundered Constantinople instead of invading Muslim territory, but now I understand the economic motivations of the Venetians.
The old adages about history repeating itself and not learning lessons from history are evident in these stories. One example is the defeat of the Fifth Crusade on the Nile River because they didn’t consider the geography of when the Nile would flood and stop their advance. Another example was how Emperor Frederick II was able to gain more by negotiation than the previous Crusaders had gained by war, because he spoke Arabic and was able to gain their trust.
Jones explains that the Crusades included the “Reconquista,” the seven hundred years of battles for Spain to retake the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims, which finally ended in 1492. Thus, instead of seeing the Crusades as a total failure, since the Crusaders were expelled from the Holy Land after the fall of Acre in 1291, he sees the battle for Spain as a success for the crusaders. He even cities numerous occasions when crusaders on their way to the Holy Land would stop off in Spain and help them win a battle, then sail on for Jerusalem. The author explains how, even as Europe lost interest in raising large international armies to fight Muslims in the Holy Land, the crusading spirit continued and degenerated into hunting down heretics in southern France, fighting pagan tribes in the Balkans, and even papal battles against Christian rulers who refused to submit to the pope.
I wish that Jones had explained more of the results of the Crusades. He does allude to how it gave power to the pope, and he ends the book by explaining the anti-Christian bitterness that remains among Muslims in the Middle East. He could have said more about how it affected Muslim treatment of Christian minorities in the Middle East, and how the contact opened doors of economic, cultural, and intellectual trade between East and West, even helping bring Arabic numerals and Aristotle’s philosophy to the West.
Sadly, Jones points out that the Crusades never fully ended, as Osama bin Laden referred to President George W. Bush as “the Chief Crusader… under the banner of the cross.” As ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said, “the battle of Islam and its people against the crusaders and their followers is a long battle.”
Why Christians are deeply offended by President Obama’s remarks
Yesterday, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. You can read the text of his speech here.
In that speech, he said many good things. He spoke out against terrorist attacks from Paris to Pakistan “by those who profess… to stand up for Islam,” and especially the “brutal, vicious death cult” ISIS, which he calls ISIL. He also spoke up for Iran to release Pastor Saeed Abedini, and he praised the release of Christian missionary Kenneth Bae from North Korea. Unfortunately, when he got to the subject of Nigeria, he only referred to “the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria.” By mentioning Muslims first and Christians second, he played down the reality that it is an Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, that is wreaking havoc all over northern Nigeria, and that the killings in Nigeria are overwhelmingly done by Muslims, killing Christians and sometimes killing other Muslims, as well.
However, I was especially troubled by the way he focused on violence done in the name of Christ to imply that Christians were really no better than Muslims. Twice he mentioned violence done “in the name of Christ”– once in reference to the Crusades and the Inquisition, and then again in reference to slavery and Jim Crow. He said, “There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith.” To sum it up, President Obama clearly implied that Christians are really no different from Muslims, because all religions have people who distort their faith.
So why do I find this so offensive?
1) To have a fair discussion of any religion, we should judge that religion by it’s true followers, not blame it for it’s misguided followers. President Obama, by his own words, appears to agree. So let’s look at the founders of Islam and Christianity. Muhammad was a man of the sword, who sought an earthly kingdom. He wrote in the Qur’an, “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day… until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued” (Sura 9). Through countless sayings attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, he left them a heritage of permanent war against the “infidels.” In a short time after his life, Muslims conquered the Middle East, Northern Africa, and eventually conquered parts of southern and eastern Europe, forcing non-Muslims into second-class status under their rule. In contrast, Jesus was a man of peace, who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, a symbol of peace, and allowed His life to be sacrificed to forgive sins. He said, “Put away your sword” (Matthew 26:52), and “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). In a short time after His life, Christians spread their peaceful message all over the Roman empire, without fighting any wars, at all.
2) To have a fair discussion, we should look at things in balance. It is a fact that the followers of Muhammad, be they misguided or not, sought to conquer the territory of the known world, and nearly succeeded. It is also a fact that the misguided Crusaders sought only to conquer the Holy Land. (See the map below.) The Crusades and other wrongs done by people in the name of Christ are inexcusable, but they are not the norm of the Christian faith, nor can they compare with what was done in the name of Muhammad.
3) To have a fair discussion, we should not blame people today for what their ancestors have done in the past. When I meet a Japanese person today, I do not hold him personally responsible for the attack at Pearl Harbor, which happened less than a century ago. Obama wants to blame Christians for the Crusades that happened ten centuries ago, but does he see roving bands of fundamentalist Christians beheading people, flying planes into buildings, and conquering vast sections of territory today in the name of Jesus? No? Does he see anybody doing anything today in the name of Muhammad? Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said it well: “The medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please look out for the radical Islamic threat today.”
Bob Rogers 