The American conservative historian William Urban has referred to the crusades as the first effective use of the pre-emptive strike. For liberal journalists the crusades have been seen (wrongly) as the western Christian search for riches in the Middle East; something always useful when seeking parallels for Halliburton. Mostly it is the arrogance of the crusades that appeal to today's writers; powerful western countries fought for the Holy Land convinced that the way they believed and the way their culture operated was the pinnacle of human achievement.

Each crusade tended to have a quick military victory followed by a prolonged period of losing control over what they had conquered until, eventually, another crusade was necessary. The crusades have never seemed a more relevant comparison for current western folly or bravery, depending on which side you are on. However, as Christopher Tyerman showed yesterday as he spoke at Hay, their metaphorical use is nothing new.

For the British empire they showcased another time when Richard the Lionheart could slay infidels to his heart's content, safe in the knowledge he was doing God's work; a virtuous, undaunted man who protected our Holy Land in a crusade that followed the first just war of penitence announced in 1095 by Pope Urban II. That he also took the time to slaughter as many Jews as he came across during the journey through Europe surely makes him more the hero for right-thinking Christian men.

When the Enlightenment dawned, on the other hand, the crusades served as an example of how perverted Christian devotion can be; Francis Bacon declared in 1620 that the whole 200 years of crusades were "a rendezvous of cracked brains," while David Hume concluded that it was "the most durable monument to human folly".

When people have written on the crusades they have done so with much partiality and entrenched in the modern politics of their day. Perhaps the only other period of history that serves as such a great reflective metaphor for futility or possibility is the first world war.

The question is whether this is fair on history. As was stated at Hay yesterday, the problem is that history, especially history this removed, is from another world with other cultural and political rules, and to make such direct parallels with our own time is as sound as learning about modern Wales from the Mabinogion. As Tyerman said:

"Old answers only serve old questions. We must challenge the facile use of history. That was then, now is now."

Following this clear and direct talk he answered questions. The first one asked if the current situation in the Middle East had any origins in the Crusades. He replied without reflection and without elaboration. "No".

All our blogs from Hay will be collected here. Guardian Books will feature the latest news from Hay, literary blogs and a daily podcast.