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.