God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

by Rodney Stark

3.91 of 5 stars 3.91 · rating details · 259 ratings · 73 reviews

The truth about the Christian Crusades and Muslim Jihad.

Paperback, 288 pages

Published November 9th 2010 by HarperOne (first published 2009)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 554)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 26, 2010 Mormonhermitmom rated it 3 of 5 stars

I took a lot of history classes in college, so I like a historical, or at least pseudo-historical book. I would probably have to technically call this non-fiction but the author has an obvious bias and doesn't hesitate to let you know what it is. Keep the salt shaker handy, as you'll need a grain or two.

Stark has a beef against certain historians who claim that the Crusades were nothing more than European colonialism forced on Muslim Middle East victims who hadn't done anything to provoke massac...more I took a lot of history classes in college, so I like a historical, or at least pseudo-historical book. I would probably have to technically call this non-fiction but the author has an obvious bias and doesn't hesitate to let you know what it is. Keep the salt shaker handy, as you'll need a grain or two.

Stark has a beef against certain historians who claim that the Crusades were nothing more than European colonialism forced on Muslim Middle East victims who hadn't done anything to provoke massacres and conquest. Stark denies that the Crusaders were after "land and loot" first and foremost, that greed was the basis for thousands of knights to travel to Palestine risking life and fortunes in the process.

Stark does make a logical case to support his claims. Crusaders had to raise large sums of money to pay the pages, attendants, squires, and infantrymen that they commanded. They had to buy supplies to support themselves, some had to hire ships or pay to have them built, some mortgaged their properties to the limit in order to go. I could certainly understand that if they were out for "land and loot" that some of the nobility would risk much for the chance of making a profit. But after the first Crusade, where no one really made much profit at all, there would be no reason to expect a crusade to be worth the financial outlay if only profit was the motive. There were five crusades, roughly, so I have to agree with Stark that "loot" couldn't have been the major motivation.

Stark recounts the history of Islam, showing how conquest was often Muslim caliphs' most effective conversion tool outside Arabia. Those who were allowed to remain Christian/Jewish had to pay a tax and converting to Christianity/Judaism was illegal. Hardly religious freedom, but then the Catholics had their own Inquisition didn't they? Stark also details the Christian pilgrimage movement that brought Christians into contact with Muslims who controlled the Holy Land. Some Muslim rulers taxed the pilgrims and had done with it, others allowed bandits to attack pilgim groups, taking any treasure available and otherwise harassing them. Some Muslim rulers had Christian churches and/or holy sites razed to the ground.

Stark says it was only when the Muslims threatened the Byzantine empire, home of the Greek Orthodox church, and the Byzantine emporer called for help from the Pope in Rome that the Pope decided to recruit knights to go to Jerusalem. He says that the claim that the Muslims were just minding their own business is rubbish.

Stark takes the reader through a brief history of the five crusades and how the effort never really accomplished what the Crusaders hoped: a Holy Land under Christian control and safe passage for pilgrims there. It seems the Byzantine empire only wanted the Crusaders when it would benefit them to have fresh fighting men there, but as soon as it was politically expedient the Byzantines preferred the Crusaders far away from them and good riddance.

Stark seems to think that any claim that extremist Muslim terrorist groups might make that the Crusades are the reason for the animosity they have against the West today, is totally unfounded. Possibly. I think any group whose aim is terrror doesn't need any particular excuse, just as long as there is one. As to the Crusaders themselves, I agree that the potential for profit wasn't the main reason they went. It would be foolish in the extreme to keep fighting a battle for a stretch of land that could only sustain subsistence farming and goats and sheep. A religious motive goes a long way in supporting a lost cause, however, and however one may view such motives, they can be very powerful.

It's hard to say if Stark is really as acrimonious towards Muslims in general. I came away with the feeling that he would feel the present war that the U.S. is fighting with Muslim terror groups in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified. I'm still on the fence about it myself, but that's another topic for another time.

There are descriptions of beheadings, massacres, sieges, and battles that are a bit violent and gory. Older teens could probably handle the grittiness of the combat scenes but parents might want to discuss religion, war, and their own feelings about the purposes of the Crusades. Not easy topics, but perhaps timely and thought provoking. (less)

like 1 like · see review

Sep 07, 2012 Dave rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I recently read this book. It was great! I’ve long had a fascination about the Crusades. Part of my fascination has always been the reason “why”. Why were so many sons of nobility and prominent families willing to travel so far and risk so much for a place that they knew so little about?

In the Rodney Stark’s book “God’s Battalions, the case for the Crusades” this question has finally been answered. Rather than taking the short and convenient response and say that they were greedy or they were ea...more I recently read this book. It was great! I’ve long had a fascination about the Crusades. Part of my fascination has always been the reason “why”. Why were so many sons of nobility and prominent families willing to travel so far and risk so much for a place that they knew so little about?

In the Rodney Stark’s book “God’s Battalions, the case for the Crusades” this question has finally been answered. Rather than taking the short and convenient response and say that they were greedy or they were early examples of colonialism, Stark attempts (and I might say, succeeds) to answer the fundamental question of “Why”.

Another aspect of his book that I particularly found interesting is his description of the Dark Ages and how the “Church” worked in Europe. He says that there were essentially two churches, the Church of Power and the Church of Piety.

When Constantine converted to Christianity all of a sudden the clergy who was modestly sustained by the local members was thrust into positions of power and prestige. Because all of a sudden it was politically popular to be a leader of this new Christian religion. Many of the sons of nobility flocked to become leaders of the church. And of course, they brought their morality with them.

Then of course there were always those who truly believed in what they taught. They were willing to live a monastic acetic life without the comforts sought by others. I found this description of the two churches refreshing and new. It makes so much sense. The Church wasn’t all good nor was it all bad. When we read about the church during the Dark Ages, we often just hear about the abuses of power. But, that isn’t the way that it was, just like that isn’t the way that it is now. There are good people and there are bad people everywhere that you look.

If you are interested in the Crusades, then I’d highly recommend this book for you. However, if you are only kind of interested in the Crusades, then I’d recommend something with more pictures and diagrams than this books has. There are lots of those kinds of books out there.(less)

like · see review

Jul 31, 2012 Dave rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: No one.

This was not so much a case for the crusades as it was "The Crusades get a bad rap". Stark sets about in the early part of the book dismantling the 'mythology' of the muslim side of the argument, and appears not to be interested in hearing any notion of their achievements.

It didn't take me long to realise that the author was in fact, an apologist for the crusades, as in the latter half, he sets about diminishing any responsibility or culpability for the actions of the crusaders in almost all sit...more

like · see review

Oct 07, 2011 Robert rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I found this book to be very informative on a controversial period of European history. Stark explained the events of the crusades in an accessible way while filling in the details that provided a deeper understanding of the people and the times.

The "Case for the Crusades" aspect of the book was not an attempt at exonerating the violent legacy of the Crusades. It was an explanation of context and history that made the crusades a rational response to a genuine threat.

Stark used numerous statistic...more

like · see review

Apr 25, 2011 Mark Johansen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, politics, religion

This book serves two useful purposes:

(1) It is a good short, readable history of the crusades. If you don't know much about the period, it's a good introduction. Stark relates an excellent overview of the history, culture, and military realities of the era. This is pretty straightforward so I'll leave it at that.

(2) The clear goal of this book is to explain the motivations of the crusaders. The "pop culture" understanding of the crusades today is that it was an unprovoked attack on Arabs by Euro...more This book serves two useful purposes:

(1) It is a good short, readable history of the crusades. If you don't know much about the period, it's a good introduction. Stark relates an excellent overview of the history, culture, and military realities of the era. This is pretty straightforward so I'll leave it at that.

(2) The clear goal of this book is to explain the motivations of the crusaders. The "pop culture" understanding of the crusades today is that it was an unprovoked attack on Arabs by Europeans. Depending on who's telling the story, it was either a bunch of Christian religious fanatics who saw it as their pious duty to massacre Muslims out of intolerance, or religion had nothing to do with it and it was all an effort to steal land and exploit it for profit. Or both.

Stark points out that this makes no sense. The immediate cause of the crusades was that Muslims attacked the Christian city of Constantinople, and the people of Constantinople sent out an appeal for help to the rest of Europe. In the longer term, the Muslims had invaded and conquered huge tracts of land that were populated by Christians, and massacred and/or enslaved the inhabitants. (Including north Africa, Syria, and Turkey -- once Christian places -- and Spain and Italy.) By the time of the First Crusade, Europe was finally mustering the strength and resolve to fight back. The war wasn't started by the Christians: it was started by the Muslims. When Muslims complain about the Crusaders invading the Middle East, what they are saying is that when they invade a country, it is grossly immoral and unjust for that country to fight back.

He also explains that the Crusaders could not have been motivated by greed because the Crusades were not a profitable enterprise by any measure. Building an army, transporting it to the Middle East, supplying and maintaining it were hugely expensive. The lands they conquered or tried to conquer were not particularly wealthy. No one got rich from being a Crusader, and quite a few bankrupted themselves and their families. Not to mention that the majority of the Crusaders died in the effort -- at one point Stark says that only 10% of the people who started out in the First Crusade reached Jerusalem. Some number of these turned back and went home, but most died in battle or from the hardships of the campaign, starvation, disease, etc. I suppose someone could reply to Stark that even if the Crusaders didn't get rich, maybe they thought they would. But the Crusades stretched over hundreds of years. Surely if what people were after was money, after they saw that the first few tens of thousands of people had not gotten rich but instead died terrible deaths, enthusiams would have tapered off rapidly.

On the minuses:

(1) There's a lot of discussion of specific places and routes in this book. This army marched along such-and-such a route and a battle was fought in this city and so on. But there are only a few maps and most of these have little detail. I think I have a fairly good knowledge of geography, but I certainly don't know the name and location of every small town in the Middle East in AD 1090.

(2) The book is almost entirely from the Crusader's point of view. I don't mean "pro-Crusader" here, though it is that. I mean, I think it would have been helpful if he had included more discussion of what was going on in the Muslim side. Maybe this is an unfair criticism: maybe that just wasn't the author's purpose or would have made the book longer than he wanted.

(3) At a few points Stark defends the Crusaders with the argument that some action violates our standards today but was accepted at the time. Most notably, he offers this defense for killing the inhabitants of a city after a succesful siege. Personally I don't buy this argument. Even if it's true that "everybody was doing it", that doesn't make it right.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Jan 18, 2010 Elliot rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

Over the past few years, I've grown in my appreciation for the writing of Stark, the sociologist of religion who teaches at Baylor University. He's an entertaining and engaging writer, and he seems to delight in turning conventional wisdom about the history of Christianity on its head. In this book, he takes on historians who argue that the Crusades were fought by greedy and opportunistic knights, that they were unprovoked, and that Muslim culture was superior to medieval European Christianity....more

like 1 like · see review

Nov 18, 2010 Aaron Meyer rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: christian, history

I thought that the book was well done for what it was. This never was to be an extremely indepth historical text but rather a "case for the crusades". Over the years I have heard many who claim (in conversation) that we are to blame for the muslims hating us because of the crusades but I have always considered them off base. The muslims had been expanding and taking over christian lands for centuries and it was this aggression which finally created the need to strike back. This is what Mr. Stark...more

like · see review

Feb 11, 2011 Jonathan B rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

With the subtitle of this book being "The Case for the Crusades," I was expecting for Stark to give some justification for their occurrence or explain why they were a beneficial thing, if not a necessary thing. However, Stark doesn't really try to justify the crusades; rather, he simply tries to explain the crusades honestly and without some common misconceptions. In light of this, the book would probably have a more accurate subtitle in "The Case for Historical Accuracy" than the one it current...more

like · see review

Feb 12, 2011 Benjamin rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you're looking for some good history on the crusades, without all the hate towards Europe, the West, or Christianity, this is a great place to start. Stark lays out the case that the crusades were in many ways a war not unlike so many others, but with a different motivation than many. He argues that Europe was responding to invasion by the Turks & Muslims; that the battle conduct of the crusaders was similar to the norm for the era (not unusually brutal); the Muslims were not somehow more...more

like · see review

Feb 26, 2010 Hunter Baker rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Perhaps a better title would be something like Don’t Allow the Crusades to be Thoughtlessly Added to a Parade of Christian Horribles without Knowing More about It, but I wanted to get your attention.

Rodney Stark’s God’s Batallions is an outstanding book designed to help the educated reader (not only the academic reader) understand the Crusades. You know the routine. You want to talk about Christianity and the village atheist wonders just how you are getting past the horrors of the Crusades and t...more Perhaps a better title would be something like Don’t Allow the Crusades to be Thoughtlessly Added to a Parade of Christian Horribles without Knowing More about It, but I wanted to get your attention.

Rodney Stark’s God’s Batallions is an outstanding book designed to help the educated reader (not only the academic reader) understand the Crusades. You know the routine. You want to talk about Christianity and the village atheist wonders just how you are getting past the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition. This book answers the question with regard to the Crusades. Stark brilliantly explains how the Crusades started, what happened in the course of events, and why they finally ended. All in all, the western church comes off pretty sympathetically. Readers who know Stark find it easy to trust him because he always questions excessive claims and makes sure to back his own assertions up with data.

What becomes clear is that the Crusades failed for three reasons.

First, despite the fact that the westerners regularly decimated their Muslim rivals in combat thanks to superior tactics and technology, they were always on the wrong end of a numbers game. The western armies arrived in the Holy Land already diminished from disease and harrying attacks along the way. They never had large enough armies to begin with. And whenever they secured their objectives, a substantial number of troops and/or nobles would return home leaving ridiculously small numbers to hold on, which amazingly, they did for decades at a time.

Second, Crusading was expensive. Although it has been suggested the Crusades were about wealth, nobles didn’t get rich on them. They borrowed, scraped, and imposed heavy taxes just to be able to afford equipping, paying, and feeding their armies. When they captured an area, the land was not revenue-producing in the same way their European farm land was.

Third, the Byzantines never came through with the help they promised. Crusaders regularly expected help from the Comnenus family of rulers which began the Crusades by appealing to the pope for help. But the help was virtually never forthcoming. Had the Byzantine empire allied itself with the Crusaders, the Holy Land might still be in Christian hands today.

Read for yourself. I found the book highly enjoyable. Rodney Stark has reached the point to which many academics aspire. He writes about things that interest him for a mass audience with the aid of a major publishing company (Harper). And the books come to us rather than sitting staidly in university libraries.(less)

like 6 likes · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Rowan rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Rodney Stark refutes the idea that the Crusades where an early manifestation of European Colonialism, and he more than adequately points out that they were not unprovoked attacks on peace loving Muslims. However wether this amounts to a case for the Crusades is doubtful. But his arguments that the 'Dark Ages' never happened and instead are a Protestant conspiracy is fun (and surely unpalatable for many readers) to contemplate as it departs so dramatically from accepted historical fact.

Although S...more

like · see review

Feb 27, 2013 Matt Niehoff rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: audiobook, history

"The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The Crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed they were serving in God's Battalions."

The conclusion of Stark's book drives home a point I do not disagree with, but the way he goes about getting to this conclusion is unbecoming of a historian.

The first few chapters of this book I enjoyed and found to be ve...more "The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The Crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed they were serving in God's Battalions."

The conclusion of Stark's book drives home a point I do not disagree with, but the way he goes about getting to this conclusion is unbecoming of a historian.

The first few chapters of this book I enjoyed and found to be very interesting. Having studied the Crusades a few years ago, I was looking forward to revisiting some of those studies in a more narrative format. After he dismisses several Arab accounts of the Crusades and the way people have used them, he proceeds to do just the same with Western ones. The hypocrisy with which he broaches this subject had me screaming inside my head in the same vein used in my observation of US politicians. If this were on a news network the Daily Show would be right there with video of him previously condemning the very thing he is exploiting in his sources.

By taking the extreme opposite of the "prevailing" view of the Crusades, that Christians were mindless barbarians in search of wealth (among other things), he dismisses the significance of the slaughter of human beings in name of religion. He does not merely say the Crusades were unprovoked, one gets the sense he thought they were a thoroughly good thing. The apology by Pope John Paul II for the sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade was ridiculed and he misses the entire point of the apology. I believe there is a Christian sentiment of "turn the other cheek?" Regardless of what extreme you take this to, saying you are sorry, even when you do not have to, is not necessarily a bad thing.

I found this book to be promising, but infuriating. In the writing of this I have decided to downgrade from 3, to 2, to 1 star. In reflection of my comments about Stark's work, I will revise this to a 2, because taking an extreme on this just to make it a point would be very hypocritical of me.

(less)

like · see review

Jan 23, 2012 Kevin Bensema rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

The Crusades have been viewed as an absolute evil by modern historians and many churchmen. Rodney Stark writes a very well-cited rebuttal to many of the myths surrounding the Crusades, arguing specifically that the Crusades were religious phenomenon and driven more by faith and family ties than infant colonialism or a need to dispose of surplus sons.

However, this book is based viewed as a polemic, to be taken together with contemporary histories of the Crusades, and not an independent history....more

like · see review

Apr 20, 2010 Gary rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

This was my first Rodney Clark book. I wasn't disappointed at all. As Clark states, the aim of the book was to show that "the Crusades were not unprovoked." And that "they were not the first round of European colonialism," neither were they "conducted for land, loot, or coverts." And finally, the "crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims," and that finally the crusaders "sincerely believed that they served in God's battalions." These points are all roundly examined in...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 01, 2010 Julie Ellis rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The author was very clearly biased towards Christianity, and I think his bias hurts the book overall. However, I do like the fact that he is taking on common assumptions about history. Most, of his citations were from works that were fairly dated, and I feel that hurts his work aas well.

like 1 like · see review

Jun 25, 2012 Abhilash rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I was looking forward to reading a factual, thorough and unbiased account of the crusades when I picked up this book. I obviously made the wrong choice.

If you are going to read this book, be prepared for a remorseless Islam bashing. I got through the first few chapters, thinking that there is better content down the road ahead but it seems that rather than present WHAT actually happened, the author is happy taking low blows at Islam with his biased and one sided interpretation of the events.

If...more

like · see review

Mar 10, 2012 Kent rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: church-history

The book's goal is to demonstrate why modern-thinking about the crusades needs to be significantly modified by the facts. Held up as the poster child for Christianity run amok, exemplifying the (typical, as it's believed) greed and war-mongering of Christians, the crusades in fact had very little to do with greed or even expansionism.

The crusaders responded to the Muslim incursions into the Holy Land, the abuse that pilgrims to the Holy Land were receiving at the hands of Muslims, and to Muslim...more

like · see review

Aug 03, 2011 Karl Rove added it

Shelves: read-in-2011

A short, brash book by a respected Baylor University professor, this volume provides a healthy dose of revisionism about the Crusades. Stark argues they were not an act of colonial imperialism, but instead the rational response of a beleaguered West to centuries of aggressive Islamic expansionism. The core of the Crusades were deeply religious families who mortgaged their lands and depleted their fortunes for the cause of liberating the Holy Lands. And the whole enterprise eventually dwindled an...more

like · see review

Feb 19, 2010 Terence rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Medievalists/religious history buffs

Recommended to Terence by: Library newsletter

Shelves: religion-general, history-general, religion-christianity, history-medieval

I wonder why Rodney Stark wrote this book. He claims there is a “sinister” (p. 4) trend in Crusader studies that characterizes the Muslim world as the innocent and culturally and morally far superior victim of this first manifestation of European colonialism. That “during the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam” (p. 8).

Twenty years ago I was entering the world of Medieval Studies as a UCLA grad student. In fact, the...more

like 9 likes · see review

Jan 13, 2010 Chris Hall rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It's such a joy to find a book that doesn't seek to downplay or denigrate the Christian history of the West and the Middle East. Stark takes us into the reasons of the Crusades by relating the attacks and massacres of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Places. The Crusades and their so-called barbarity are put into the context of the time and the practice of war and diplomacy.

The relationship between the Latin church, the Orthodox church, the Western Kingdoms, the Byzantine empire and the Islamic wo...more

like 2 likes · see review

Mar 19, 2012 Kathy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Stark, professor at Baylor University, contends that the Crusades were not Christian wars of aggression: not European colonialism; not the quest to acquire land, loot, or converts; not barbarian victimization of Muslims... but provoked response to reclaim the city of Jerusalem. Pope Urban called for a Crusade because the emperor of Byzantium had written to him, begging for help. The crusaders believed that they served God as they signed up to participate, at great personal cost.

History books ar...more

like · see review

Mar 20, 2011 L. R. Bouligny Bouligny rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

There is much false information and revisionist history when it comes to the crusades. Most will say that the Christians in Europe were hoping to get rich and oppress the poor, peace-loving Muslims that were merely trying to practice their religion in the Middle East. This falsehood has made it into most books and universities, and is the prevailing thought on the subject. However, "God's Battalions" by Rodney Stark exposes this misunderstanding with meticulous historical evidence, and proves th...more

like · see review

Dec 29, 2009 Mike rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Stark delves into another controversial chapter of Christian history. In this volume about the Crusades he exposes many myths about them which are currently circulated. The first is that the Crusades were mounted by Christians to amass land and wealth. Actually, they were a defensive action against Muslim aggression into Southern France and Constantinople, not a greedy colonial enterprise by European Christians. He demonstrates how many crusaders believed going on these expeditions would make at...more

like 1 like · see review

Jun 09, 2012 Brett Stortroen rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A Refreshing Investigation of the Crusades Era.

Stark's work should be required reading for anyone studying the Crusades or the rise of Islamic Imperialism. Over the last century numerous revisionists have created unfounded myths in their quest of historical appeasement. For fourteen hundred years Islam has attempted to conquer the world. Were the Crusades a response to the threat of Islamic domination? Stark gives overwhelming evidence in the affirmative. For further research of similar subject...more

like · see review

Jun 21, 2011 Vincenzo Aversa rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Meravigliosa ricostruzione storica delle crociate e delle cause che le hanno generate. Seppure a tratti sembri fin troppo filocristiano, Rodney costringe a rileggere con attenzione cause ed effetti che hanno segnato la storia di quel periodo. Infarcito di aneddoti, dicerie, leggende, dettagli storici e commenti dell'epoca, il libro vuole dimostrare che le crociate non furono altro che una risposta alle provocazioni musulmane e che le azioni dei crociati furono motivate da reale sentimento religi...more

like · see review

Jan 28, 2010 Peter Krol rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Stark provides an interpretation of the crusader era that, though consistent with older historians, sounds radically different to a contemporary reader. How many times have we heard: "The Crusades are the proof that Christianity is intolerant and evil"? Popularly, this statement is more often simply asserted than argued for.

Stark demonstrates an alternative thesis. Rather than being unprovoked, the Crusades were the response to centuries of Muslim aggression. Rather than being a demonstration of...more

like 1 like · see review

Aug 05, 2011 Jeremy Hatfield rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It is definitely a refreshing angle on the causes and motivations of the Crusades from the politically-fashionable western-bashing view that is en vogue now. His treatment of events leading up to the First Crusade are excellent. But, unfortunately, once Jerusalem is taken, it seems that the author's interest in the topic slacks off, and the subsequent six crusades he looks at are given rather cursory treatment in comparison. Nonetheless, you will learn some surprising facts about the western pro...more

like · see review

Apr 23, 2010 Paul Dubuc rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

This is a very interesting and readable history of the major campaigns of the Crusades. The book's subtitle, "The Case for the Crusades", is unfortunate I think as the book doesn't really seek to justify them on their own terms. Rather, the author's intent is to dispel some notions about the Crusades that have grown up over the last hundred or so years and have come to characterize them in the popular mindset: These being that the Crusades were unprovoked attacks by Christian barbarians on culti...more

like · see review

May 10, 2013 Eddy Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: arts-and-historical

In God's Battalions, award-winning author Rodney Stark takes on the long-held view that the Crusades were the first round of European colonialism, conducted for land, loot, and converts by barbarian Christians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. To the contrary, Stark argues that the Crusades were the first military response to unwarranted Muslim terrorist aggression.

Stark reviews the history of the seven major Crusades from 1095 to 1291, demonstrating that the Crusades were precipitated by I...more

like · see review

Jan 09, 2012 Rosanne Lortz rated it 4 of 5 stars

One of the most interesting things about studying history is learning the popular version of the story, and then learning that things are not so simple as they seem. In God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, author Rodney Stark debunks many of the popular myths surrounding the Crusades and gives a justification for one of the most poorly reputed military actions in history. This book provides a good balance to the typical view of the Crusades--"Bigoted and land-hungry European Christians b...more

like 2 likes · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 18 19 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (9)

More editions...

Genres

History

54 users

Christian

7 users

Religion

7 users

Non Fiction

6 users

Church > Church History

5 users

Historical Fiction > Medieval

3 users

War > Military

3 users

Politics

3 users

History > World History

2 users

Religion > Christianity

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark grew up in Jamestown, North Dakota, and began his career as a newspaper reporter. Following a tour of duty in the U.S. Army, he received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. He left Berkeley to become Professor of Sociology and of Compa...more

More about Rodney Stark...

Books by Rodney Stark

The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries

The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success

Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome

The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About God's Battalions:...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades
avg rating	preview: God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades Goodreads rating: 3.91 (259 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7942187-god-s-battalions?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347756772l/7942187.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7942187-god-s-battalions?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark[/url]

God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website