Quote:
Originally Posted by AnemicOak
|
Great post, thanks AO. I purchased the book and am anxious to read it.
Some musings and ramblings . . . .
I have to wonder how "authoritative" this tome really is. I am mostly unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, though. (I wonder, too, who, other than the author and/or publisher, might have made that pronouncement). The book certainly is large--808 pages! But the Crusades lasted about 200 years. I think that it is generally accepted that there were six major ones and numerous minor ones. For a work on this subject to be truly authoritative, it seems to me that it would have to be encyclopedic in breadth (literally and figuratively). Methinks that books with the titles or subtitles saying "authoritative," "definitive,"
et al. often are engaging in more than a little bit of salesmanship.
All of us probably have some pretty strong opinions about the rightness or wrongness of the Crusades. Many Muslims, understandably, see them as wrong (just as many Roman Catholics, understandably, would consider them right). I know that some of their leaders nowadays object to anything other than one of the Crusades being described or called a "crusade." In the U.S., it has become politically incorrect to call anything a "crusade" other than one of the Crusades, in deference to the feelings of Muslims.
Historians who are worth their salt strive to write without any bias, unless it is a work in which they intend to advocate, and will openly admit to advocating, a certain position. But an eminent historian, whom I was reading from one time, stated that it is impossible for historians not to let some of their personal feelings and biases come through in their writings, as much as they might try otherwise. If nothing else, it may come through in things seemingly innocuous as what facts he or she chooses to include or exclude. As I read the book, I will be interested in finding out how much of the author's personal feelings about the Crusades come through. Of course, I will have to watch myself, too, to make sure that I do not see bias, where none exists, because I am expecting to see it!