Crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter da_nolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

da_nolo

Guest
could anyone tell me of more books and websites and etc. that could describe true events occurring during the crusades, why the crusades started/fought, and (of course) Church involvement?
 
I am currently reading God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. I have read a few books on the Crusades, and many of them seem quite hostile to the Catholic faith. I always got the impression that the hostility of the authors to the Church seemed to get in the way of their ability to report events in an even-handed manner. God’s Battalions is written from a more balanced perspective. I’ve really enjoyed it thus far, and do recommend it.
 
The Templars: The Secret History Revealed by Barbara Frale

Description from Amazon.com:

“Templar historian Barbara Frale happened to be studying a document at the Vatican Secret Archives when she suddenly realized that it was none other than the long-lost transcript. It revealed that Pope Clement V had absolved the order of all charges of heresy.”

She is a historian at the Vatican Secret Archives. I just started reading this book.
 
I read the Battle of Lepanto recently. It only covers some of the background history though. This was a major battle in Malta. a good read
 
I very much enjoyed reading Hilaire Belloc’s The Crusades: The World’s Debate.

It was first published in 1937, and is carried by TAN books. In fact, I ordered it through the CAF website.
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
I very much enjoyed reading Hilaire Belloc’s The Crusades: The World’s Debate.

It was first published in 1937, and is carried by TAN books. In fact, I ordered it through the CAF website.
Click to expand...
I don’t wish to be contentious, but Hillaire Belloc is not a good source for the history of the Crusades, he was a romantic writer and poet, not a historian.

For example, his oft quoted phrase (I first read it here at CAF) Had the Crusaders captured Damascus, the Islamic World would have been cut in two and "bled to death of the wound". Which is a very stupid thing for him to have written and is a completely misleading history for us to learn.
 
Hesychios said:
I don’t wish to be contentious, but Hillaire Belloc is not a good source for the history of the Crusades, he was a romantic writer and poet, not a historian.

For example, his oft quoted phrase (I first read it here at CAF) Had the Crusaders captured Damascus, the Islamic World would have been cut in two and "bled to death of the wound". Which is a very stupid thing for him to have written and is a completely misleading history for us to learn.
Click to expand...
I don’t wish to be contentious, either, but prehaps he was right. We won’t ever know, will we?
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
I don’t wish to be contentious, either, but prehaps he was right. We won’t ever know, will we?
Click to expand...
Well now, this is off topic, but you suggested that he might be right.

Damascus was already an ally of the Crusader state. It was already between the other hostile powers and divided them as surely as if it had been controlled by Christians. There was no “bleeding to death” of the Islamic world by any means. Damascus served as a buffer which protected that front of the narrow but lengthy kingdom of Jerusalem and relieved the crusaders of a considerable burden (which is why they pledged to support and defend it).

So then, the Crusade was called to retake Edessa from the Turks, but for some strange reason they attacked their only ally in the region, the Arab (not Turkish) state of Damascus, which until then would have been happy to see the Turks get their butts kicked.

This attack caused Damascus to switch sides and in very real terms submit to the Turkish dominated Muslim world, effectively uniting them for the first time since the First Crusade. The ultimate result was a continual threat on this now long exposed front and the eventual breakup and collapse of the kingdom of Jerusalem.

I repeat with emphasis, Hillaire Belloc was a very stupid -]historian/-] author to have written what he did, which is why the secular articles on him report it as a gently humorous example of how thoroughly biased he was in his writing. Young relatively uninformed people are likely to read his work and not know he did not know what the heck he was talking about much of the time.

He should have stuck to poetry.
 
Hesychios said:
Well now, this is off topic, but you suggested that he might be right.

Damascus was already an ally of the Crusader state. It was already between the other hostile powers and divided them as surely as if it had been controlled by Christians. There was no “bleeding to death” of the Islamic world by any means. Damascus served as a buffer which protected that front of the narrow but lengthy kingdom of Jerusalem and relieved the crusaders of a considerable burden (which is why they pledged to support and defend it).

So then, the Crusade was called to retake Edessa from the Turks, but for some strange reason they attacked their only ally in the region, the Arab (not Turkish) state of Damascus, which until then would have been happy to see the Turks get their butts kicked.

This attack caused Damascus to switch sides and in very real terms submit to the Turkish dominated Muslim world, effectively uniting them for the first time since the First Crusade. The ultimate result was a continual threat on this now long exposed front and the eventual breakup and collapse of the kingdom of Jerusalem.

I repeat with emphasis, Hillaire Belloc was a very stupid -]historian/-] author to have written what he did, which is why the secular articles on him report it as a gently humorous example of how thoroughly biased he was in his writing. Young relatively uninformed people are likely to read his work and not know he did not know what the heck he was talking about much of the time.

He should have stuck to poetry.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I will keep this in mind as I read further, and will also be checking out other sources on the Crusades. I don’t think this was off-topic, as the OP was looking for information on the Crusades. I find I have problems with other authors of “history” on other topics, so I do not mind being challenged on what I am reading. My goal is to find the truth in any situation!🙂
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
I very much enjoyed reading Hilaire Belloc’s The Crusades: The World’s Debate.

It was first published in 1937, and is carried by TAN books. In fact, I ordered it through the CAF website.
Click to expand...
I’ve also heard good things about Thomas Madden’s works on the Crusades, though I haven’t read them myself, some of his articles were good to read and are online.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top