Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence

Written by Karen Armstrong

Narrated by Karen Armstrong

From the renowned and best-selling author of A History of God, a sweeping exploration of religion and the history of human violence.

For the first time, religious self-identification is on the decline in American. Some analysts have cited as cause a post-9/11perception: that faith in general is a source of aggression, intolerance, and divisiveness—something bad for society. But how accurate is that view? With deep learning and sympathetic understanding, Karen Armstrong sets out to discover the truth about religion and violence in each of the world’s great traditions, taking us on an astonishing journey from prehistoric times to the present.

While many historians have looked at violence in connection with particular religious manifestations (jihad in Islam or Christianity’s Crusades), Armstrong looks at each faith—not only Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Judaism—in its totality over time. As she describes, each arose in an agrarian society with plenty powerful landowners brutalizing peasants while also warring among themselves over land, then the only real source of wealth. In this world, religion was not the discrete and personal matter it would become for us but rather something that permeated all aspects of society. And so it was that agrarian aggression, and the warrior ethos it begot, became bound up with observances of the sacred.

In each tradition, however, a counterbalance to the warrior code also developed. Around sages, prophets, and mystics there grew up communities protesting the injustice and bloodshed endemic to agrarian society, the violence to which religion had become heir. And so by the time the great confessional faiths came of age, all understood themselves as ultimately devoted to peace, equality, and reconciliation, whatever the acts of violence perpetrated in their name.

Industrialization and modernity have ushered in an epoch of spectacular and unexampled violence, although, as Armstrong explains, relatively little of it can be ascribed directly to religion. Nevertheless, she shows us how and in what measure religions, in their relative maturity, came to absorb modern belligerence—and what hope there might be for peace among believers of different creeds in our time.

At a moment of rising geopolitical chaos, the imperative of mutual understanding between nations and faith communities has never been more urgent, the dangers of action based on misunderstanding never greater. Informed by Armstrong’s sweeping erudition and personal commitment to the promotion of compassion, Fields of Blood makes vividly clear that religion is not the problem.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Penguin Random House Audio Publishing Group
• Release date: Oct 28, 2014
• ISBN: 9780553399301

Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong was born in Worcestershire. After becoming a nun in the 1960s, she left her order and lectured in literature at London University before becoming a full time writer, broadcaster and international adviser on religious and political affairs. She has addressed US Congress, the UN and Canadian parliament on Islam and fundamentalism. Among her other books is the bestselling ‘History of God’.

Reviews for Fields of Blood

[JUAN PEDRO PABLO · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Karen Armstrong is a writer who has dedicated her efforts to removing prejudices, false opinions, and misconceptions about the history of religions; she has specialized specifically in that subject. In this book, she tries to explain that the idea or concept of religion, and the various religions, does not relate to violence. If there was violence in the past between religions, it was due to the intersection of political, economic, territorial, familial disputes, and sometimes, just sometimes, the desire for dominance, oppression, and, why not say it, from fundamentalist factions. Karen Armstrong, with her natural narrative style and in-depth documentation, helps us see and understand the historical events that converged and why certain outcomes occurred, with examples from all religions throughout history. A recommended book that is enjoyable and rewarding to read. (Translated from Spanish)

[rivkat_2 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Armstrong wants to argue that religion isn’t inherently violent. Half of the argument works, but half descends into “no true Scotsman” territory wherein every religious justification for violence is followed by her reminding us that other people in the same faith tradition rejected violence. Sure, but does religion make violence more likely? Armstrong argues that, for much of human history, religion couldn’t be separated from the state, and it was the state (or even the tribe) that made war. As religion was separated from the state, she argued, it became harder for universalist claims about the equal dignity of persons to push back against nationalism, so national and ethnic hatreds did much more damage than religious hatreds. The Nazis, she suggests, waged ethnic war rather than religious war—though she doesn’t actually spend much time on German religion.

[erwinkennythomas · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Karen Armstrong’s Fields of Blood will have a reader ask the question, “Is violence endemic to human nature?” From mankind’s early beginnings there was a great struggle for survival. When our ancestors were hunter-gathers they had to hunt and kill their prey. These humans lived through violent periods in the Paleolithic and Neolithic age. Later Mediterranean peoples continued to experience struggles during the Constantine’s empire, Crusaders, Spanish Inquisition, Wars of Religion, Thirty Years’ War, and Reformation.
In the 17th and 18th century religion was rejected in the West. During the Age of Enlightenment John Locke propounded the belief of the separation of Church and State, but this period saw the rise of scientific and cultural racism. In Europe and America the suppression of the indigenous populations and African slave trade for economic profit flourished. And Germans, who were world-leading secular thinkers, gave rise to death camps under Hitler that exterminated millions of Jews.
Secularism was marked by Western imperialism, and an imbalance of power. But what became of Asoka’s concept of peace, India’s ahimsa – non-violence, China’s Golden Rule, and Jesus Christ’s teachings to love your neighbor as yourself? In India there were renouncers, European monks took to monasteries, and Confucian and Taoist’s ideals, but still violence was prominent.
In the 20th century violence continued to rage in the Middle East. Historical observers point to many reasons, but one of Islam’s tenets is that of peace. Still there was 9/11, the Israeli-Arab conflicts, jihads, and the horrendous effects of the Jews Six-Day-War. Yet people were witnessing the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the rise kookism of the Israeli secular right, and fundamentalism in America. It appears that with the rise of more nations with nuclear weapons humankind’s future has become more problematic.

[marcusbastos-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Violence, State and Religion
Based on a careful appreciation of the origin and development of religious beliefs, Karen Armstrong makes the argument that religion is not inherently violent. Neither, she points out, the separation of religion and state contributes to an era of peace. Violence, she argues, springs from the desire of tribes and states to accumulate wealth (lands, goods and money). Religious beliefs, history shows, counterbalance these aspirations and provides an alternative meaning to human life, giving direction to human endeavors. In this book, Karen Armstrong gives special attention to the development of religion in the west, mostly to the interactions of christianity and europeans states. The story is fluent and well researched.

[tgpistole · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I was not able to finish it before it was due back at the library but sections I read were excellent. I will get on the waiting list to get a chance to finish this book. Karen Armstrong is a gem in the area of religion and history.

[nmele_4 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Armstrong makes a nuanced case in her argument that religion is not inherently violent and not responsible, or not solely responsible, for the bloodshed attributed to it by militant atheists. I am afraid she will not convince anyone convinced that religions are the root of all violence, but her history of the major faith traditions is enlightening and cumulatively supports her contention that wars start for complex reasons and that warriors usually seek religious justification for their violence.

[rajivc_18 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is an extremely well written and well researched book.
What I like about the book, is that she does not appear to 'take sides'. The argument for the nexus between politics and religion is well thought through, and she does manage to make the argument that much of the history of violence is not due to religion alone, but due to politics and the desire for political and economic power.

However, when I have read some of the accounts of Portuguese travellers, and some of the Arabian travellers to India, plus some of the stuff written on the Crusades, I then find the line to be blurred, as the religious fervour that accompanied many of these conquering travellers to Asia, America etc cannot be due to greed and power alone.

It is indeed strange, because religions preach tolerance and love for fellow beings. Yet, it becomes a question of 'My God' versus 'Your God', and I would have only wished that this question was answered better. If it can be at all, that is.

[kaulsu · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Wow, what a tome. I underlined a great deal, much too much to rewrite here. The first half of the book filled in specific blanks in my knowledge, which will be true for many, I'm sure. I found it interesting, but it wasn't a page turner.

The second half I found very interesting. I had shadow knowledge of much of it, but had never really paid close attention to it. I found Armstrong's argument cohesive and believable...except. Except, can one really make a case that the 9/11 bombers weren't religiously motivated (given that they were not following orthodox Islam) when they used prayer to get them through security?

It seemed to me that much of the book proved the case that religious "leaders" we're not advocating, or promoting, violence for true religious reasons, but that the volunteers embraced the supposed devotional battle-cry.

Definitely was a book worth my while. I began the book after attending a book promotional talk given by Armstrong in Washington, DC.

[zonnywhoop · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Information overload: Karen Armstrong jam-packs this book with so many places, names and terminology it makes it almost unreadable and one of the most boring and laborious tasks I have undertaken recently. At the same time it is a fascinating subject and she certainly has done her homework, it just feels like this should be a 12-week course not a history book.

[auntmarge64 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

When I began reading this book I started asking people if they thought religion causes violence. Invariably I received some version of this response: "Duh!......" So it was intriguing to have Armstrong begin her book by declaring the problem not quite so simple and proceed to give a long, interesting and surprising history of how religion and violence have been intertwined, although not always in a strictly causative manner. In short, what I think Armstrong is claiming that because throughout most of our known history there has been no separation between the secular and the spiritual, even theoretically, that therefore our communal identity (which included the political and religious) was the cause of conflict, not religion as a separate entity. Equally to blame for the beginning of organized violence was the agrarian revolution, c9000-8500 BCE, and civilization, with its need to support and control larger populations. Armstrong also examines the dilemma religions have faced pretty much as soon as they developed: "... if a ruling elite adopted an ethical tradition, such as Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, the aristocratic clergy usually adapted their theology so that it could support the structural violence of the state."

The scholarship is far-reaching and not quickly digested, but it is fascinating. Folded into the narrative are numerous digressions which add to the conclusion that the book's question requires a much broader range of scholarship than might be obvious. And there are some very interesting facts and events to read about, among them:

The first Crusaders, "psychotic" as they massacred thousands of Muslims and Jews, then celebrating their actions in Christian ceremonies.

The siege of Béziers in 1209 by the abbot of Citeaux in an effort to wipe out the Cathari, a popular Christian sect dedicated to poverty, chastity and nonviolence. When asked by his troops how to tell the heretics from the orthodox he had them kill everyone, leaving it to God to "know his own".

John Locke's introduction into the Western philosophical canon of "the myth of religious violence", as he pushed to separate religion and politics.

The Puritans leader John Cotton, exhorting his followers on the "principle of nature" which gave "vacant" land to those who would use it, and justified unprovoked attacks on the natives as "a special Commission from God to take their land", and the Puritans' highly selective use of bellicose Old Testament excerpts rather than the pacifist teaching of Jesus as they killed their native neighbors.

Early Virginia, where it was assumed that "all citizens should have the same faith and that it was the duty of any government to enforce religious observance".

The election of 1800, in which Jefferson was accused of being a Muslim! (Doesn't that sound familiar?)

Calvin's non-literal interpretation of parts of the Bible, including Genesis, and fundamentalism's turn to Biblical literalism and denial of science as a recoil from modern life, especially after WWI.

The introduction of papal infallibility - in 1870!

The change in Israelite belief towards monotheism - but not until 6th century BCE.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say this is one fascinating book and sure to interest anyone with curiosity about the religion/violence connection.

[annbury_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This book addresses an assumption widely held in the West today, that religion is the cause much if not most of the strife in the world , and has indeed been so throughout history. I have tended to share that view. A quick survey of history, from the Crusades through the Wars of Religion right up to Islamic State, certainly seems to provide evidence. Ms. Armstrong, however, picks apart the apparent causality through a extensive survey of the history of warfare, in tandem with a review of what various holy texts have said about war. After reading her book, I was at least 75% convinced that I had been wrong: that religion like violence are parts of being human that often overlap, but that religion does not cause violence.

The book proceeds forward through time from the Neolithic to today, and as it does one of Ms. Armstrong's key points emerges. It is only for the past two hundred years or so, and only in the West, that religion has been separated from the state, to become a private matter for the individual conscience. Through most of history, the state and religion of been interlinked, and religion has been essentially public, evinced in rituals that were at the heart of social relations. Protestantism introduced the idea of religion as a personal, non-mediated choice, and in time the Enlightenment enshrined tolerance and the separation of church and state. But this is very recent: through most of history, religion and politics and social relations and warfare have been inextricably linked. Ms. Armstrong also points out that secularization has not ended warfare -- far from it. The 20th century saw the most horrible and destructive wars in history without much religious involvement. Indeed, these wars were characterized by the replacement of religion by the quasi-religion of the nation state.

Her survey of religious texts shows clearly that no major faith is unequivocally violent, or non-violent. In parts of the New Testament, Jesus calls upon us to turn the other cheek. In others, he brings not peace but a sword. The Koran has sections that praise peace and tolerance, and others that call for war on unbelievers. Rather, religion becomes a motive for war when other forces are pushi in the same direction; when that happens, a justifying text is always available.

Finally, Ms. Armstrong's analysis argues convincingly that the linkage of violence and religion in recent years, particularly in the Middle East, reflects in large part wrenching social and political change. Moreover, with a very few exceptions, that change did not emerge from within countries or societies, it was imposed upon them by colonial powers. This has contributed to a perceived link between modernity and Western imperialism, which in turn contributed to a turn to what was presented as traditional faith as part of a rejection of the West and all its works. When combined with a powerful sense of grievance, this has led to frightening results.. She is not attempting to justify Islamic violence, but she does argue that it can be understood.

This book did not engross me quite so much as some of Ms. Armstrong's earlier works, particularly "The Case For God". Some of the earlier part of the history section drags a bit. Also, there are instances where I think religion was more of a motivating force than she assumes, particularly the European Wars of Religion.

Overall, however, "Fields of Blood" has many virtues. It is commendably readable given the weightiness of its topic. It is carefully researched and documented. And, most important, it is a convincing argument against an assumption that could become very dangerous. If we in the West decide that religion -- or one religion -- is the main reason for violence aimed against us, we could take action against people solely because of their religion.

[sheiladeeth_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Subtitled Religion and the History of Violence, Fields of Blood is a well-researched, weighty tome, dark with the world’s dark history, and honest in its analysis of church and state.

The author’s research reveals a historical past where faith was part of a community’s self-expression, and where conquering nations didn’t, in fact, fight because of faith, or destroy the faiths of those they ruled. Secular power-grabs resulted in wars, and faith, at the service of state, emphasized the fight for God’s purity, uniting peoples under the state's command. But in time of peace, those same religions upheld the value of neighbors' lives under God as a mitigating factor to the danger of state brutality. Secular powers fight wars. But in peace it's often religion that demands fair treatment be offered to enemies and strangers. In the end, while state may indeed be separated from faith in our Western world, state without faith might prove far more dangerous than any scape-goated religion, its unbridled force becoming the most dangerous enemy.

Fields of Blood is a long slow read, filled with intriguing facts, convincing arguments, and thought-provoking analysis. Details from the past lead up to modern war and terrorism, with every argument backed up by well-researched statistics. There are some seriously interesting surprises presented, offering truths not often told when they don’t fit the plot. And the world’s history of violence proves not to be the same as its history of religion. But this book tells both, offers food and facts for thought, and is highly recommended.

Disclosure: Blogging for Books provided this book to me for free in exchange for an honest review.

[jaylia3 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Does religion cause war?


Like several Karen Armstrong books I’ve read, Fields of Blood is so rich with information and ideas that it has years worth of material to reflect on and discuss. Even reading slowly and carefully it felt like I was just skimming its surface, but that was still enough to make me question some of my thinking patterns. For years Armstrong has heard people from all walks of life confidently making the broad mostly unexamined pronouncement that religion has been the cause of all major wars in history--I have been guilty of similar shortcut thinking myself--so she wrote Fields of Blood to address that claim with a fascinating, wide-reaching, and detailed world history of culture, politics, violence, and religion from the prehistoric pre-agrarian era to the post-9/11 present day.

The central themes of the entire 400+ page book are well summarized in its nine page Afterword, but the particulars of history in the earlier sections are what makes this book so interesting. One of the main ideas Armstrong makes a case for, as best as I can do justice to it, is that religion isn’t the cause of violence, the same religious texts can inspire very different actions, and it’s societal stratification and expansion brought about by the development of agriculture and then industrialization that began the cycle of subjugation and violence as we understand it today. Among the book’s many other interesting points to ponder, whether or not you end up agreeing with Armstrong, are that most people don’t make the claim that WWI or WWII--two of history’s largest wars--were caused by religion, that before the French Revolution there was no separation of church or religion and state so separating out religion as the cause of war is problematic, and that belief systems, even secular belief systems, can play a role in stemming violence and preserving the best aspects of our humanity.

I read an advanced review copy of this book supplied by the publisher. The review opinions are mine.