French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was  superior to anything Islam had developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions.  Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'.  Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.   

Back     Printer Friendly Version  

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Review: 'The Crusades' by Johnathan Riley-Smith 2nd edition.

A real appraisal for those interested in facts not Marxist fantasy.

by Ferdinand III

Riley-Smith is one of the most prolific and respected of medieval historians and writers. This is a dense book, over 300 pages in small font. It is a rewarding but difficult read even for someone schooled in the various epochs of Crusading, which spanned some 600 years in Spain, Israel, and the Baltics. In fact it is recommended that you read the book twice, in order to assimilate the large volume of detail and the well sourced arguments Riley-Smith provides.

The uniqueness of the book lies along two axes. First, the author surveys the Crusades from the perspective of different periods, including the medieval Christian, the Romantic, the so-called 'Enlightened thinkers' of the Rational era, the Islamic and the modern-secular. Second, Riley-Smith rejects post-modern attempts at trying to portray the Crusades as a series of enterprises, stretching over vast time and distance, which were immoral, bloody, unnecessary, or some form of colonialism. He also rejects the modern cult that Islamic history is somehow a story of benign preaching, tolerance, and respect for others. Islam was and is, a warring political theology.

So this book will surely disappoint the Politically-Correct cultural Marxist cult. But that is why it should be read and used as a source and handbook. The modern view of the Crusades is one of a Catholic inspired atrocity against peaceful, moderate Muslims. This view emanates from the Enlightenment-Romantic period of 17th and 18th century Europe. It is hard to make a good argument that much in the Enlightenment was either new or rational. But it was successful in demonzing medieval Christian Europe, creating the myth of a 'Dark Age' after the colossal despotism of Rome and the 'classical' world, so venerated in the 17th century as 'perfect' fell, and was only 'rescued' by the supposed explosion in rational thought in the 16th to 18th centuries. All of this is bunk of course. But the Romantic-secular explanation of the Crusades is still with us and informs pop-culture. As Riley-Smith states:

Scott may have been a romantic, but he was also an heir of eighteenth-century intellectual opinion and he represented a school of thought which treated the subject at the same time both romantically and critically. Its disapproval was reinforced by a Protestant conviction that crusading was yet another expression of Catholic bigotry and cruelty. It was not hard for Scott and others to portray crusaders as brave and glamorous but backward and unenlightened, crudely assaulting more sophisticated and civilized Muslims....Under his faux-oriental clothing Scott's Saladin was not so much an eastern figure as a liberal European gentleman, beside whom medieval westerners would always have made a poor showing.”

How accurate. Riley-Smith's critical observation that Scott and his Romantic-Enlightenment friends, who did no primary research, and whose opinions were not based on facts or history but upon a fantasy of viewing the world in which Catholics were monsters and Muslims or non-Catholics virtuous defenders of light and reason, is extremely apposite. Scott's writings and those of his like-minded friends were not only misinformed expressions of a peculiar and quite irrational mind-set, they were also counter-factual emotives of arrogance, disdain and contempt for their own civilization. This psychological impairment would of course mutate into post-modern cultural Marxist thought which is a social and intellectual disease. Sadly however, it is the view of Scott, Voltaire, Gibbon, et al., which dominates our own assessments of the Crusades – at least as they are taught in most of academia, the media and in pop culture.

In the untutored and rather demented world-view of Walter Scott et al., the 400 years of Muslim barbarism against European, Christian and Jewish lands which began in the 636 AD attack on Byzantium, are forgotten and dismissed. A massive swathe of territory stretching from Chaldean-Christian Iraq and Armenia, through the Levant, North Africa and into Spain and southern Italy and southern France were conquered, at the cost of millions of dead, and millions enslaved, by Muslim armies. This historical fact is rarely mentioned in academia, Hollywood or by experts in the lame-stream media. Europe by 1095 was in a death battle with Islam. This was even more true of Byzantium and eastern Christendom who were surrounded by Turkish territory and Jihad.

The potency of the critically romantic approach was demonstrated by the way that it continues to suffuse writing on the crusades, scholarly as well as popular. Indeed the most widely read and prestigious history in English, that published in the 1950s by Sir Steven Runciman, another Lowland Calvinist, was almost what Walter Scott would have written had he been more knowledgeable. In it the crusaders were characterized as courageous and colorful, but at the same time boorish and not very bright, and Scott could himself have written the peroration with which it famously ended.

'There was so much courage and so little honour, so much devotion so little understanding. High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and narrow self-righteousness; and the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost.'”

Runciman is a great historian, but the above passage is of course an embarrassment of stupidity. It seems that the Calvinist inclination to hate all aspects of Catholicism informed Runciman's opinion. The facts, the real history, and the necessity of the Crusades to save Europe from Islam, certainly find no place in such a world view. To be fair to Runciman, he did amend his view of the crusades subsequent to the publication of his historical opus. But the damage was already done.

The Crusading era which lasted into the 17th century, concerned more than just the Holy Land of course. Spain, Italy, and the Baltics were also places where the crusading ideal, or the taking of a cross to prosecute a war against unbelievers including pagans and Muslims, were long areas of Holy War. Riley-Smith covers all epochs of the Crusading area in compressed detail. His fluency in the topic is astounding. It is not an easy read but a most worthwhile education for people interested in an overview of one of Western Europe's most important enterprises.




Article Comments:

Related Articles:


7/22/2023:  Seven Myths of the Crusades (Myths of History: A Hackett Series), Alfred J. Andrea and Andrew Holt

7/1/2023:  Skanderbeg, the unknown Christian Albanian warrior and hero

4/25/2023:  St. Ferdinand III. The greatest of the Crusaders.

4/6/2023:  Alfonso VI and the Christian war to save civilisation in Spain

4/3/2023:  Don Pelayo, Spain and the Muslim Jihad of the 8th century

11/20/2016:  The Crusades in Christian perspective

6/28/2016:  Atheist-Protestant lies about the Crusades - all to further the victimhood status of the Moon cult

5/1/2015:  Belloc and the glory of the Crusades and the liberation of Christians.

4/23/2015:  The Legend of Don Pelayo, by Marian Horvat, Phd.

4/13/2015:  Why the Crusades were necessary. No Islam, no Jihad, no necessity for the Crusades.

3/6/2015:  Witless Westerners, the 'sack of Jerusalem', and Moslem propaganda.

3/4/2015:  The Crusades, Jerusalem and the myth of 'rivers of blood'

2/27/2015:  'Glory of the Crusades', Steve Weidenkopf. Why did they go?

2/25/2015:  'Glory of the Crusades', Steve Weidenkopf Phd [appeal to authority!]

7/17/2014:  The real cause of the Crusades was Islam of course. The moon cult's Jihad.

6/9/2014:  Tyerman and Crusading, in 'The Medieval World' edited by Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson, 2013

7/1/2013:  Ernle Bradford: 'The Great Siege of Malta'.

6/5/2011:  The Monks of War, by Desmond Seward

5/6/2011:  Teutonic Knights: Desmond Seward's 'The Monks of War', 1972, Penguin books.

4/25/2011:  The Albigensian Crusade and Cultural Marxism

4/20/2011:  Thomas Madden, 'The New Concise History of the Crusades', and Sultan Baibars.

4/15/2011:  Thomas J. Madden's, The Concise History of the Crusades, 2005. Part One.

3/17/2011:  Book Review: 'The Crusades', by Michael Paine, Chartwell Books 2006, 137 pages.

1/13/2011:  January 13th 1128, the Pope recognizes the Knights Templar.

1/9/2011:  The Crusades - the necessity of fighting back.

1/8/2011:  Review: 'The Crusades' by Johnathan Riley-Smith 2nd edition.

1/2/2011:  Michael Haag: 'The Templars' - part 2.

12/29/2010:  'The Templars', by Michael Haag

12/4/2010:  Joseph Attard, 'The Knights of Malta'

11/24/2010:  Cavaliero's, the Knights of Malta or 'The Last of the Crusaders' – prosperity and benign governance.

11/23/2010:  Review: Roderick Cavaliero's 'The Last of the Crusaders and the Knights of St. John'

10/27/2010:  A first-hand account: “The [Great] Siege of Malta 1565”, by Francisco Balbi di Correggio

10/13/2010:  The Knights of Malta (1530-1798). Integral to Western development.

10/12/2010:  Hospitallers part 2: The Knights of Cyprus and Rhodes (1309-1522)

10/11/2010:  A brief history of the Hospitallers and the Knights of St. John.

10/10/2010:  David Nicolle, 'Knights of Jerusalem, the Crusading Order of Hospitallers 1100-1565.'

9/17/2010:  Nicholas Kristof and the Lame-Stream media hatred of the Crusades.

9/9/2010:  'Holy Warriors: A Modern History of The Crusades', by Johnathan Phillips

8/3/2010:  Review: 'Making War in the Name of God', Christopher Catherwood

7/29/2010:  1204 and the Crusader 'sack' of Constantinople. A necessity.

7/12/2010:  Roger Crowley: 'Constantinople, The Last Great Siege 1453'

7/3/2010:  Thomas Asbridge: 'The First Crusade'. Simply bloody awful.

6/19/2010:  The beautiful Crusades and saving civilization.

6/18/2010:  Christopher Tyerman, "God's War: A New History of the Crusades" - Read it.

6/17/2010:  Piers Paul Read: 'The Templars'. A great 'Read'.

6/16/2010:  Book Review: 'The Crusades', by Michael Paine, Chartwell Books 2006, 137 pages.

6/3/2010:  Medieval Italy; why did the Christian north succeed where the Orientalized south failed ?

5/11/2010:  Book Review: 'The Crusaders' by Regine Pernoud.

4/19/2010:  Book Review; Regine Pernoud, 'Those terrible Middle Ages'

4/11/2010:  Book Review: “The Templars” by Regine Pernoud, English edition 2009.

4/4/2010:  July 15 1099 – one of the great days in history. Jerusalem retaken.

4/3/2010:  Book Review: Empires of the Sea, by Roger Crowley. [The Final Battle for the Mediterranean]

3/20/2010:  Review: Rodney Stark's 'God's Battalions – The Case for the Crusades'

3/16/2010:  Why the Crusades were a success.

4/24/2009:  Byzantium: The Decline and Fall by John Julius Norwich, 450 pgs, 1996.

3/17/2009:  Common myths about the Seven Crusades which occurred 1095 to 1299