History used to be full of battlefields, instead of being a battlefield itself, as the discipline has now become. The past, and the accounts of it, are continuously reassessed as new information becomes available, but the inclination now is to .
By Vikas Datta History used to be full of battlefields, instead of being a battlefield itself, as the discipline has now become. The past, and the accounts of it, are continuously reassessed as new information becomes available, but the inclination now is to cherry-pick certain aspects, present/see them as per predilections, and ignore inconvenient facts. The Crusades are an apt example — we tend to see them as a prime instance of religious conflict, ignoring the fact that while faith was, indeed, a key driver, territorial and other ambitions were also present. The Christian and Muslim rulers, who fought each other so fervently, also happened to fight battles together against common enemies with as much gusto. As Amin Maalouf tells in his “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes” (1986), there was at least one example in this over two-century conflict where a Christian army and a Muslim force jointly took the field — against another Christian-Muslim combine. Histor