Okay so this was a Facebook post about how we are taught about how horrible the Crusades were in 10th -13th centuries, but the post claims that they were just counter attacks to Islamic Expansion in the 700s to the 1100s. The post claims that Islam attacked Europe 587 times while the Crusades were only 13 attacks. The post also says that the Crusades were only a counter attack to Islamic Aggression in France.
How true is that, and are the Crusades intentionally over-vilified vs Islamic expansion? Or is this post just full of malarkey?
It’s a bunch of malarkey (also, that’s like saying WWII was one big attack). This is a refiguring of history that we’ve seen a lot of in the last 20 years, but it’s not historically accurate (even if the numbers were correct — that’s a big if — the crusaders themselves did not ever cite Islamic aggression in Europe as one of their motivations).
Paul Cobb’s book on the Crusades from an Islamic perspective will give a good perspective on the wars from that angle, as will Matt Gabriele (Virginia Tech) from the European side that serves as a much more accurate understanding of what drove the Crusaders.