More from Stark's book

The last section of Rodney Stark's book ( How the West Won) focusing on the so-called Dark Ages is titled "Freedom and Capitalism."

He says one of the most important ideas facilitating the rise of the West is the belief in free will because it created a tendency for people not to be resigned to things as they are but rather to attempt to make the situation better. The Greeks and Romans had gods who lacked virtues and did not concern themselves with human misbehavior. However, the Judeo-Christian God is a judge who rewards virtue and punishes sin. This conception of God is incompatible with fatalism, according to Stark. The admonition to "go and sin no more" is absurd if we are captives of our faith. The doctrine of free will called into question the legitimacy of social structures and customs that limited the individual's ability to choose freely.

One result of this belief in free will was the rejection of slavery in Europe. All early empires made extensive use of slave labor. Now, Stark says, some historians will insist that there never was an end to medieval slavery, that there was only a linguistic shift in which the word "slave" was replaced by the word "serf." But there is a big difference. Serfs were not chattel; they had rights in a substantial degree of discretion. It's true that they were not free in the modern sense, but medieval peasants were not slaves. Overcoming slavery, which had essentially disappeared from Europe by the end of the 10th century, gave this area an immense economic advantage over the rest of the world. Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and then banned the enslavement of Christians and the Jews.

Unfortunately, slavery reappeared with a vengeance in the New World. The church responded vigorously with 16th-century Popes issuing a series of angry bulls against New World slavery. But the Popes had no serious temporal power in this era, so their vigorous opposition did little to prevent the rise of slavery again. Stark points out that the theological conclusion that slavery was sinful has been unique to Christianity. Of all the major world faiths, only Judaism and Christianity have devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights.

Stark contrasts this with Islam. There is an insuperable barrier to theological condemnations of slavery because Mohammed himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. The fundamental morality of the institution of slavery was not in doubt, and widespread slavery continues in many Islamic nations today.

How the West Won--Vikings and Crusaders

This blog will cover more about the so-called "Dark Ages" as discussed by Rodney Stark in his important  book How the West Won.

In chapter 5, Stark focuses on the Vikings, who played a key role in the rise of the West. Many historians have held the Vikings in contempt as brutal savages. But this is not true. Many places in Scandinavia had advanced manufacturing communities, merchants traveled a complex network of trade routes extending as far as Persia, they had excellent arms, remarkable ships, and superb navigational skills. The descendents of these early Scandinavians eventually settled in France in an area that became known as Normandy. It was these people who came to England and took over after the battle of Hastings. In 1096 Normans played a leading role in the First Crusade.

Stark then turns his attention to the Crusades to criticize modern mythology which surrounds these events. In 1095 Pope Urban the Second called on the knights of Europe to join in a crusade to free Jerusalem from Muslim rule and make it safe again for Christian pilgrims to visit their holy city. At the end of the 10th century, the caliph of Egypt had prohibited Christian pilgrims, ordered the destruction of all Christian churches in the Holy Land, and demanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (in a cavern in a rock beneath the church that was believed to have been Christ's tomb) be demolished. These desecrations caused a furious response across Europe. Muslims often enforced harsh rules against any overt expressions of Christian faith. Then in 1071 the Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem and often imposed huge ransoms and condoned local attacks on Christian pilgrims. The stories of robbery, extortion, torture, rape, and murder once again aroused anger toward Muslims in the Holy Land.

Stark says there has been a lot of anti-religious nonsense written about the Crusades, including charges that the knights marched east not because of their religious convictions but in pursuit of land and loot. The truth is that the Crusaders made enormous financial sacrifices to go. They knew they probably would not return, as expressed in their wills and letters they left behind. Stark says that very few of them did survive.

Lately charges of alleged brutality of the Crusaders has been trumpeted. Some historians have gone so far as to claim that the Muslims who did battle with the Crusaders were civilized and tolerant victims. But Stark points out that it is absurd to impose modern notions about proper military conduct on medieval armies. One rule of warfare during the time was that if the city surrendered before the attacking forces had stormed over the walls, the residents were supposed to be treated leniently. But when a city forced the attackers to storm the walls and thereby incurred serious casualties, commanders (Muslims as well as Christians) believed they had an obligation to release their troops to murder, loot, and burn as an example to other cities. This was the case in the fall of Jerusalem – the primary instance of a "massacre" that modern critics charge the Crusaders as being guilty of.

Stark argues that many Western histories of the Crusades give little or no attention to the many massacres which Muslims committed. For example, Saladin has been portrayed as a rational and civilized figure in comparison to the barbaric crusaders. But he usually butchered his enemies. In addition, there is a terrible massacre done at the hands of Muslims at Antioch, but this is seldom reported in the many pro-Islamic Western histories of the Crusades. Stark covers this material in more depth very effectively in his book God's Battalions.

Stark ends the chapter by discussing upside-down history. He believes far too many historians have had a strong preference for empires. In contrast, many of them have dismissed the Vikings  and Crusaders as bloodthirsty enemies of civilization.

How the West Won--part 4

First of all, happy birthday, America. This is a good time to be reviewing and summarizing Rodney Stark's historical book called How the West Won. His contention is that we have been sold a pack of lies and misunderstandings by others who had an agenda as they offered their negative view of the rise of the West.

Chapter 4 of his book gets into a new section – what he calls the "Not-so-Dark Ages." He reviews the fall of Rome from the previous chapter and reminds his readers that this event was actually the most beneficial thing that happened for the rise of Western civilization because it unleashed so many substantial and progressive changes. The disunity that came about after the fall of Rome enabled extensive, small-scale social experimentation and unleashed creative competition among hundreds of independent political units, which, in turn, resulted in rapid and profound progress. This certainly applies to today as Obama and his leftist friends want to impose a large, centralized, bureaucratic government on the United States. The result will not be pretty.

Stark says the idea of the "Dark Ages" as given to the years 500-1200 A.D. was a myth made up by 18th-century intellectuals determined to slander Christianity and to celebrate their own wisdom. He lists old as well as modern historians who offered this myth. A few names will probably be familiar –Voltaire, Rousseau, Edward Gibbon, Bertrand Russell, Charles Van Doren, William Manchester. Stark says that, despite these glittering names, serious historians have known for decades that the term "Dark Ages" is a complete fraud.

Good things happened after the fall of the Roman Empire. Towns that arose or survived were centers of trade and manufacturing. It's true that the luxury trade may have declined, but there was far more European trade after the fall. Studies based on skeletons discovered belonging to this time have found that people ate very well, got lots of meat, and grew larger than people had during the days of the Roman Empire. During this time there was a proliferation of European political units, which offered people a chance to move to more desirable ones offering more liberty or opportunity, and it provided for creative competition. Notice again that Stark comes back to the idea of small units being preferable to one large, dominating political body. Are you listening, Obama? Nah . . .

But probably the most important feature Stark points out is what great innovation took place during these supposedly Dark Ages. I won't spend time on each of these, but Stark discusses many areas in which innovation took place – agriculture, wind and water power, transportation, manufacturing and trade, high culture, warfare. So, Stark says, we should get rid of the myth of barbarians swarming into the Roman Empire and destroying civilization. Here's what he has to say: "In terms of some technologies such as metallurgy, the people of the North were well ahead of the Romans. They had cities. They had extensive trade networks. And when their turn came, they launched a post-imperial era of progress."