MYTHS OF THE CRUSADES: Interview with Thomas Madden author of “A Concise History of the Crusades”

The Religion of Conquest ^ | 12/05/10 | Damon

[damonw]

Thomas Madden is chair of the history department at St. Louis University and author of: “A Concise History of the Crusades”, In October 2004 Zenit, the International News Agency, interviewed him. Madden: The following are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.

[kbennkc]

This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context.

I hate it when descriptions of human blood flowing in streets, at some points up to a horse's brisket hitch are taken out of context. With this context stuff Richard could have been called the big pussy cat instead of the Lion Heart.

[I am Richard Brandon]

Myth 3 - I thought that it was pretty well documented that Richard took the inhabitants of Jerusalem out and systematically beheaded them all.

[PIF]

That many were killed is not disputed. Rather the context as reinterpreted by modern people. As the author says:

---

Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.

[skeeter]

Bump for later.

[skeeter]

Bump for later.

[G Larry]

My favorite “ignored fact” is that Muslims attacked Christians for 400 years before Christians decided to retaliate.

[Uncle Miltie]

More concise:

The Crusades were a counterattack.

[Cincinatus]

I'm currently reading Rodney Stark's God's Battalions:

Excellent and highly recommended.

[Sans-Culotte]

Bump for an excellent interview.

[Ramonne]

I read the article and much time is spent in the defense of the Pope. All of them down through the ages.
Other than that angle, it lumps the remainder of the men into one pot, even tho there were struggles in some european countries against the Pope.
I am sure not every crusader who went to war believed in works for salvation. I am sure many believed in faith in Jesus Christ. This is a very slanted catholic article.

[ansel12]

By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days.

That is your defense for the Rape of Nanking? or do you see a difference between bombing losses, versus putting women and children to the bayonet, and the knife?

[damonw]

Hi Cincinatus, You’ll probably like this post allot then. THANKS!!!

BOOK REVIEW and Q&A with Rodney Stark – author of “God’s Battalions: A Case for the Crusades”

http://thereligionofconquest.com/2010/12/03/book-review-and-qa-with-rodney-stark-author-of-god%e2%80%99s-battalions-a-case-for-the-crusades/

[Cincinatus]

Many thanks for the link. Stark has written several good books on the history of Christianity — all well worth the time.

[damonw]

Hi Richard, I’m still learning. Can you provide links to support your claim? THANKS

[damonw]

Hi Ramone, the way I understand it is that the time frame we are talking about there was no protestant church, printing press and English bible at that time. So it is likely that most did not believe in Justification by faith. Don’cha think?

[damonw]

Your Welcome Very Much,, HAVE A BLESSED DAY

[mas cerveza por favor]

do you see a difference between bombing losses, versus putting women and children to the bayonet, and the knife?

If the bombing "losses" are intended or expected, then what is the difference, morally?

[Retain Mike]

I like to say the Crusades were a feeble 86 year interruption to over a millennium of Islamic conquests. We are never informed about the brutality of these operations, but instead you would think four Geneva Conventions that were written at the end of WW II were actually found by unearthing an appendix to the Code of Hammurabi.

[ansel12]

Penetrating deep into an enemy’s homeland to destroy targets and being forced to do it from the air, which results in collateral damage, is bad enough, but once you arrive there and then to slaughter them by hand, individually, is an entirely different thing.

I know that our GIs will bomb, and use artillery, but I don’t think that they will go in, root out the families from their homes and put them all to the sword, once we have taken the city.