Like a seed of the mustard tree

As to the Crusades, those involved "were not greedy colonists, but marched east for religious motives and at great risk and personal expense. Many knowingly went bankrupt and few of them lived to return." The Crusades were in fact a defensive response to the previous 450 years of Islamic imperialism.

Also, the crusaders made no attempt to impose Christianity on the Muslims, and the various Crusader "war crimes" have been wildly exaggerated. Sure, some massacres took place, but this in an age when such activities were commonplace. Indeed as Stark laments, why do most histories fail to mention the many horrific Muslim atrocities and massacres, such as the massacre of Antioch?

Of course even a great work such as this may have its weak spots. I found a few areas which folks may disagree with, but they do not detract from the overall strength and brilliance of this book. I was for example quite surprised that he took the usual line about Constantine, finding him to be, all in all, bad news for the church.

Stark does not even mention, let alone take into account, the very important 2010 volume Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart. Indeed, that book did as much myth busting on Constantine as the many books by Stark do on other topics. So why its complete exclusion from this discussion?

But all up this is a terrific and much-needed volume. It continues the fine work he has been involved with now for some decades. This volume, like many of his other volumes, deserves a wide and careful reading.