What do you think?
Rate this book
Seven Myths of the Crusades
" Seven Myths of the Crusades ' rebuttal of the persistent and multifarious misconceptions associated with topics including the First Crusade, anti-Judaism and the Crusades, the crusader states, the Children's Crusade, the Templars and past and present Islamic-Christian relations proves, once and for all, that real history is far more fascinating than conspiracy theories, pseudo-history and myth-mongering. This book is a powerful witness to the dangers of the misappropriation and misinterpretation of the past and the false parallels so often drawn between the crusades and later historical events ranging from nineteenth-century colonialism to the protest movements of the 1960s to the events of 9/11. This volume's authors have venerable track records in teaching and researching the crusading movement, and anyone curious about the crusades would do well to start here. "
—Jessalynn Bird, Dominican University, co-Editor of Crusade and Christendom
—Jessalynn Bird, Dominican University, co-Editor of Crusade and Christendom
163 pages, Paperback
First published September 5, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 4, 2016
This book exams seven common misconceptions about the crusades and documents both the common and popular misrepresentations of events as well as outlining the consensus of serious historians and their justification for these views. It is a collection of essays by different experts, the book looks at 1) whether the crusaders were offensive or defensive, 2) the extent to which crusaders were religious fanatics or 3) greedy adventurers, 4) the role of antisemitism, 5) the Templar myths, 6) the Children's crusade, and 7) Arab attitudes towards the crusades. The essay on the First Crusade was particularly strong, quoting one modern "documentary" and media article after another that was flat out wrong. The crusaders were hot -- repeat not -- the first time Christianity and Islam clashed. Islam raised the sword against Christianity in 633, captured Christian Jerusalem in 637, and continued to spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain. The Spaniards, Italians and Byzantines were engaged in constant defensive warfare from then on. Byzantium made multiple attempts to recapture Jerusalem and other Christian territories for hundreds of years before they received aid from the Franks in the form of the crusades. The evidence is so overwhelming that it remains mysterious to me how the myth of Christian "aggression" persists. This book is a valuable tool for marshaling the arguments against the bigots who persist in seeing the crusades a "aggressive," or "crimes against humanity." (A 20th century concept alien to the Middle Ages.)
That said, the historians write as historians and they fail to present their arguments in language that is likely to appeal to -- much less be readily quoted or shared on social media by -- the average reader. Which is a pity.
That said, the historians write as historians and they fail to present their arguments in language that is likely to appeal to -- much less be readily quoted or shared on social media by -- the average reader. Which is a pity.
December 8, 2019
excellent
February 3, 2018
This book features seven different authors with academic credentials in medieval history each examining what the compilers consider to be a myth about the crusades. The book is relatively academic in tone and tons of footnotes and recommendations for further reading are provided.
The introduction provides some background and differing definitions of what even constitutes a crusade. It also takes rather pointed shots at some present day media presentations of what the crusades were about. Fans of Terry Jones and Scott Ridley as crusade historians will do well to skip the introduction and indeed a couple of the other chapters.
The seven chapters vary from providing compelling evidence, to citing the lack of evidence for the case being presented as myth, to making a point that I'm not sure matters that much. By way of my very brief two cents worth on each:
1. First Crusade: Unprovoked offense or overdue response. The essay presents what I find a compelling case for overdue response. Most folks of the opposite opinion start telling the story in 1098 conveniently ignoring events in north Africa, the Middle East, and Spain from Mohammed's death until then. And yes, even after 1098, the Muslims fought dirty (by modern standards), too.
2. Origins of the First Crusade: Religious madness? This essay basically says no, focusing on the organization and success of the main body of the crusade and reminding readers that the religious mindset in 11th century western Europe was considerably different than today.
3. Crusades: Cause or consequence of Medieval anti-Judaism? The essay leaned toward consequence as opposed to cause but I must admit I didn't see the significance of the choice. I don't think anyone disagrees that the lot of Jewish people in Medieval western Europe ranged from tolerable to outbursts of outright persecution.
4. Were the crusaders the first proto-colonists? Lots of discussion of what "colonialism" is and the negative connotations it took on in later history as the west colonized Africa and the Americas. As for the crusades the main point made in the essay is that while a small number of individuals did profit materially there's little evidence in the documentation that financial gain was a prime motivating factor for crusading and indeed the resources required to travel to the middle east and maintain oneself plus supporting personnel there was not in general a financially lucrative proposition.
5. The making of the Children's Crusade - I found this essay one of the least interesting. In short it said that there is very little to no evidence for some of the subsequent representations of a great child led crusade. As an aside, most of those representations have the children either stopped by the Mediterranean Sea or captured and sold into slavery trying to cross the Med.
6. Templars and Masons an Origin Myth - This essay comes down against traceability of the origin of Masons back to the Knights Templar. It depends more on lack of evidence of such a relationship but does point out a gap of at least 200 years (and probably more) between the fall of the Templars in the very early 14th century and the first written claims (in the 17th century, though some claim oral traditions in the late 15th century) of masons being descended from them.
7. Does Islam have a 900 year grievance from the crusades? This essay offers an emphatic no. The authors offer that precious little shows up in Islamic history for several hundred years after the crusades. The crusades are then resurrected in 19th and 20th century grievances about European colonialism in the Middle East which persists to the present day.
The introduction provides some background and differing definitions of what even constitutes a crusade. It also takes rather pointed shots at some present day media presentations of what the crusades were about. Fans of Terry Jones and Scott Ridley as crusade historians will do well to skip the introduction and indeed a couple of the other chapters.
The seven chapters vary from providing compelling evidence, to citing the lack of evidence for the case being presented as myth, to making a point that I'm not sure matters that much. By way of my very brief two cents worth on each:
1. First Crusade: Unprovoked offense or overdue response. The essay presents what I find a compelling case for overdue response. Most folks of the opposite opinion start telling the story in 1098 conveniently ignoring events in north Africa, the Middle East, and Spain from Mohammed's death until then. And yes, even after 1098, the Muslims fought dirty (by modern standards), too.
2. Origins of the First Crusade: Religious madness? This essay basically says no, focusing on the organization and success of the main body of the crusade and reminding readers that the religious mindset in 11th century western Europe was considerably different than today.
3. Crusades: Cause or consequence of Medieval anti-Judaism? The essay leaned toward consequence as opposed to cause but I must admit I didn't see the significance of the choice. I don't think anyone disagrees that the lot of Jewish people in Medieval western Europe ranged from tolerable to outbursts of outright persecution.
4. Were the crusaders the first proto-colonists? Lots of discussion of what "colonialism" is and the negative connotations it took on in later history as the west colonized Africa and the Americas. As for the crusades the main point made in the essay is that while a small number of individuals did profit materially there's little evidence in the documentation that financial gain was a prime motivating factor for crusading and indeed the resources required to travel to the middle east and maintain oneself plus supporting personnel there was not in general a financially lucrative proposition.
5. The making of the Children's Crusade - I found this essay one of the least interesting. In short it said that there is very little to no evidence for some of the subsequent representations of a great child led crusade. As an aside, most of those representations have the children either stopped by the Mediterranean Sea or captured and sold into slavery trying to cross the Med.
6. Templars and Masons an Origin Myth - This essay comes down against traceability of the origin of Masons back to the Knights Templar. It depends more on lack of evidence of such a relationship but does point out a gap of at least 200 years (and probably more) between the fall of the Templars in the very early 14th century and the first written claims (in the 17th century, though some claim oral traditions in the late 15th century) of masons being descended from them.
7. Does Islam have a 900 year grievance from the crusades? This essay offers an emphatic no. The authors offer that precious little shows up in Islamic history for several hundred years after the crusades. The crusades are then resurrected in 19th and 20th century grievances about European colonialism in the Middle East which persists to the present day.
July 6, 2021
In "Seven Myths of the Crusades," a group of Crusades experts and academics refute seven popular myths of the 200-year conflict between the East and West during the 12th and 13th centuries. From cultural conspiracy theories revolving around the covert activities of a Templar-Freemason alliance to wide-sweeping academic subjects, Andrea and Holt present well-researched counterpoints with the intention of permanently ending "bad history." Each chapter is written by a different academic who are all infinitely qualified to write on the historical and cultural subjects included in the book.
Perhaps my favorite of the chapters revolves around the theory that the Middle East as it exists now is a direct product of the Crusades, which took place nine hundred years earlier. Mona Hammad and Edward Peters, the authors of the chapter, argue that proponents of the theory typically point to the words of certain Islamic scholars in the aftermath of modern events in the Middle East as revenge for deeds done during the Crusades. Such examples include the 2002 Bali bomber's shouts of "Crusades!" when asked why he committed acts of terrorism or a Sydney Morning Herald editorial that compared the capture of Baghdad to past atrocities committed by Christians during the First Crusade. Hammad and Peters expose these "links" between the past and present by using the most effective method, the words of Muslim scholars during the period. Both found that the War of the Crosses, the name Muslims used to refer to the Crusades, were seen as just another set of conflicts between the pious East and the infidel West. Also important was the idea that the Muslims viewed the Christians, or "Franks," as just another powerful player in the territory. The authors conclude their chapter by blaming Arabic leadership for the popular theory along with Western marxists and leftists. The theory has only survived due to both academia and Islam's hatred of Zionism and their American backers.
The book, although short, was incredibly powerful and generally very readable despite its obvious gearing towards academic types. A common theme within the book revolved around the disservices everyday historians are doing to the topic of the Crusades. According to Holt and Andrea, historians like Jonathan Riley-Smith and Steven Runciman, although entertaining, are guilty of spreading the very myths contained within the book. Anyone interested in the subject can read whatever they wish (obviously), but to possess a good understanding of the conflict, I would personally recommend anything written by Thomas F. Madden, Rodney Stark, or Dan Jones. It is made clear in the introduction that after any substantial amount of reading, one will find himself agreeing with one, or many, of the various schools of thought on the subject. Good luck!
5/5 stars
Perhaps my favorite of the chapters revolves around the theory that the Middle East as it exists now is a direct product of the Crusades, which took place nine hundred years earlier. Mona Hammad and Edward Peters, the authors of the chapter, argue that proponents of the theory typically point to the words of certain Islamic scholars in the aftermath of modern events in the Middle East as revenge for deeds done during the Crusades. Such examples include the 2002 Bali bomber's shouts of "Crusades!" when asked why he committed acts of terrorism or a Sydney Morning Herald editorial that compared the capture of Baghdad to past atrocities committed by Christians during the First Crusade. Hammad and Peters expose these "links" between the past and present by using the most effective method, the words of Muslim scholars during the period. Both found that the War of the Crosses, the name Muslims used to refer to the Crusades, were seen as just another set of conflicts between the pious East and the infidel West. Also important was the idea that the Muslims viewed the Christians, or "Franks," as just another powerful player in the territory. The authors conclude their chapter by blaming Arabic leadership for the popular theory along with Western marxists and leftists. The theory has only survived due to both academia and Islam's hatred of Zionism and their American backers.
The book, although short, was incredibly powerful and generally very readable despite its obvious gearing towards academic types. A common theme within the book revolved around the disservices everyday historians are doing to the topic of the Crusades. According to Holt and Andrea, historians like Jonathan Riley-Smith and Steven Runciman, although entertaining, are guilty of spreading the very myths contained within the book. Anyone interested in the subject can read whatever they wish (obviously), but to possess a good understanding of the conflict, I would personally recommend anything written by Thomas F. Madden, Rodney Stark, or Dan Jones. It is made clear in the introduction that after any substantial amount of reading, one will find himself agreeing with one, or many, of the various schools of thought on the subject. Good luck!
5/5 stars
April 14, 2025
This book is meant to be a book that anyone picks up from Barnes and Noble. I read it for a class, so I already knew a lot about the subject so it was an easy read. However, if you do not already know a lot, they do not provide a lot of needed context. Also, they to much about Terry Jones' documentary without actually explaining why they are talking about it and how it is really problem with non-historians talking about historical events and only referencing one source. It is a good book though.
December 1, 2017
As with any collection of essays by different authors, the quality of the presentation of the seven myths in this book varies. I particularly appreciated the chapters on anti-Judaism in connection with the crusades and the clear exposition of the myth of Masonic origins among the Templars.
May 25, 2021
Very informative book, which gives focus on the historical rather than mythological events which transpired in this complicated period in Western History
January 5, 2017
Well researched. However I felt the authors tried too hard to connect what bands of riffraff that didn't represent the Knights or the true goals of the crusades with antisemitism. Maybe I misunderstood?
Either way this book is a decent starting point. I still prefer Thomas Madden though.
Either way this book is a decent starting point. I still prefer Thomas Madden though.
March 31, 2016
I found this to be a fair and balanced analysis of seven myths about the Crusades, from claims that the Crusades were early forms of colonialism; the Templars; the Children's Crusade, and others. I like how the authors present their analyses fairly and patiently, distinguishing fact from fiction, truth from ideology. Worth reading for anyone interested in the Crusades, the Middle Ages, and contemporary politics.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews