God's Battalions

Using a variety of sources, Stark makes a politically incorrect, but strong, case that the Crusades were a defensive war intended to retake lands that had been Christian until the Moslems conquered them. David Drummond gives a splendid reading of Stark's work, which has one overall message: Everything we've been taught about the Crusades is wrong. Drummond's voice has a light touch as he describes events that take place over several centuries: wars, intrigue, religious disputes, and the slow transformation of formerly Christian lands under Moslem rule. While his vocal touch may be light, his disciplined delivery is strong, clear, and consistently controlled. M.T.F. (c) AudioFile 2010, Portland, Maine

August 10, 2009
It always seems counterintuitive to moderns that warfare and religion can be consistent. Ideally, followers of the prince of peace are to avoid the sword and shield. Clearly, this has not always been the case. Frequently in the crosshairs of critics are the Christian wars against Muslims known as the Crusades, commonly viewed as the birth of European imperialism and the forced spread of Christianity. But what if we've had it all wrong? What if the Crusades were a justifiable response to a strong and determined foe? Stark, a prominent sociologist and author of 27 books on history and religion, has penned a compelling argument that these bloody encounters had less to do with spreading Christianity than with responding to an ever more dangerous enemy—the emerging Islamic empire. There is much to be learned here. Filled with fascinating historical glimpses of monks and Templars, priests and pilgrims, kings and contemplatives, Stark pulls it all together and challenges us to reconsider our view of the Crusades.