[throw73848788]

> than his predecessor, for whom the Crusades were essentially a series of barbarian invasions—the sacking of the refined and cosmopolitan East by the uncouth and venal younger sons of minor French lords

The "barbarian invasion" is quite easy to prove. Crusaders destroyed Byzantine empire. Hell, they even sacked christian cities at Dalmatian coast on the way there.

[pm3003]

He's not saying it's false, but he's referring to the fact that the religious dimension of the Crusades has been occulted by a lot of 20th century historiography as incomprehensible and necessarily false. It was rather presented as an excuse, and the Crusades were even considered by some a precursor to European colonialism, driven by economic gains, overpopulation etc.

This unbalance is the historiographical mistake, as would be (according to the article) the lack of attention for the Baltic or Albigean Crusades, hitherto considered not-much-more-than-local events which were given a religious stamp of approval for various political and financial reasons and thus not "real" crusades.