A wonderful summary of mediaeval feudal structures in a scant 100 pages. It explained so much I'd never really understood. What a pleasure to learn soA wonderful summary of mediaeval feudal structures in a scant 100 pages. It explained so much I'd never really understood. What a pleasure to learn so much in such a short time, so easily....more
Read for the second time in August 2020: I find that this book has become somewhat of a cozy comfort read for me. Having read Tom Holland's MILLENNIUMRead for the second time in August 2020: I find that this book has become somewhat of a cozy comfort read for me. Having read Tom Holland's MILLENNIUM shortly before this one helped me make sense of a lot more of the ways Riley-Smith explains the First Crusade in the context of the Gregorian reform movement.
This time around, a lot more of the nuance of the book (and the movement) became clear to me. Yet I also came away with a much greater appreciation of the fundamental divide within medieval society between churchmen and secular knighthood. I once heard someone claim with a straight face that masculinist aggression "didn’t conflict at all with the cultural form of religion in the middle ages", an idea that anyone who has read this book will greet with howls of derisive laughter. In many ways the central theme in the development of the crusading idea was precisely the conflict between pagan knightly ideals of war, revenge, and vendetta and Christian ideals of poverty, chastity, humility, and love. Riley-Smith's brilliant book follows this conflict through a variety of settings: from the massacres of Jews in the Rhineland (motivated by the knightly concept of vendetta against those who had crucified Christ) to scholarly assessment of the crusade once it was past, in which medieval scholars like Guibert of Nogent explicitly discussed the pagan roots of knighthood and how an attempt was made to reconcile them with church teachings.
Brilliant, provoking, insightful.
--
This was an immensely helpful book, but only if you're already familiar with the history. Riley-Smith doesn't tell the story of the First Crusade, and if you want to know the story (which is stunning), read Thomas Asbridge's THE FIRST CRUSADE: A NEW HISTORY. In this book, Riley-Smith focuses on ancillary questions. Where did the idea of crusading come from? Why did it elicit such an overwhelming popular response? What was the experience of crusading like? What convinced the participants - enduring starvation, homesickness, humiliation, terror, and an unimaginable death toll - that God was on their side? And how did later historians rework the history of the First Crusade into their scheme of providential history?
This book was full of helpful detail for the historical novelist, and I was taking detailed notes throughout. For instance, Riley-Smith spends much time discussing the visions and astronomical phenomena experienced by the crusaders (some certainly spurious; others...well, you never know). But probably the most helpful single concept this book provided was the reason why the call to crusade was answered with such unprecedented enthusiasm.
We're talking about an entire generation of wealthy young men rushing to sell off their possessions and mortgage, sell, or give away their inheritances for the purpose of setting out on a highly uncertain military expedition toward an objective that was hundreds of miles away across enemy territory. Riley-Smith is the man who single-handedly blew up the myth that crusading was a way to relieve Western Europe of surplus younger sons, or to grab new lands in the east. It wasn't land, and it wasn't wealth.
Instead, Riley-Smith argues persuasively that it was because up until the late 1000s, knights were commonly rebuked by the church for their (very real) sins of anger, extortion, violence, and lust. The church's idea of the holy life, on the other hand, usually involved monasticism or something very similar. Crusading struck a chord because for the first time it offered knights and commoners a way to serve God in their ordinary occupation. Even after the crusade, historians like Guibert of Nogent were marvelling that the crusaders were "not only priests nor simply lettered men, but military men, some of them common people. There had been no previous hope that these would bear witness to their faith" (emphasis mine).
The First Crusade was an incredible story, but it began with ordinary people being told they could serve God by doing their job.
Ok, maybe not all that ordinary. There were definitely problems with the idea of crusading. But I think the church could be taking notes here....more
As I continue to study the fascinating 200-year history of the Crusader States, Peter Edbury comes to my aid with this work on the 13th-century noblemAs I continue to study the fascinating 200-year history of the Crusader States, Peter Edbury comes to my aid with this work on the 13th-century nobleman and jurist known to history as John of Jaffa, a member of the famous Ibelin dynasty.
Part 1 of this book outlines the career of the Ibelin clan from its beginning with Barisan (aka Balian the Elder) in the mid-12th century all the way up to the death of John of Jaffa in the later 13th. It pays particular attention to Balian (aka the Younger) of Ibelin, who's most famous for negotiating the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187; to Balian's son John of Ibelin, the Old Lord of Beirut, who's best known for the War of the Lombards, defending Outremer against the power-play of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II; and finally to Balian's grandson and John of Ibelin's nephew John of Jaffa, as the author of a treatise on the political-legal structure of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.
This segment was particularly helpful for its outline of the War of the Lombards and the adept political maneuverings of John of Ibelin (of Beirut), whom I'd hoped from the title that the book was about. Edbury sifts conscientiously through the account of Ibelin-historian/propagandist Philip of Novara, fact-checking and providing helpful guidance on bits of the history that Philip may have omitted from his pro-Ibelin work.
Part 2 is a commentary on a few pages from John of Jaffa's magisterial treatise on the traditional laws and customs of the Latin Kingdom (which wound up remaining influential throughout the lifetime of the Latin Kingdom of Cyprus). This, together with quotations and translations, provides a thoroughly valuable snapshot of some of the military, legal, and ecclesiastical structure of the kingdom. It is not intended to be comprehensive, mostly just highlighting some quirks and idiosyncracies of the kingdom, but for an author keen on knowing Who Was Who in 1187 it was a goldmine.
Alas, like most of the books I've read on the history of the Crusader States, this one definitely falls on the "dry scholarly treatise" side of things. If you're a total Crusader nerd who wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about poulani and Turcopoles, this book will be right up your alley. :P As such, I should say how tremendously grateful I am to the scholars like Peter Edbury who have done such terrific work in books like this. Thank you!...more
A little gem of a book. Meet St Margaret, Queen of Scotland, beloved for centuries as a remarkably kind, charitable, learned, and holy woman - as toldA little gem of a book. Meet St Margaret, Queen of Scotland, beloved for centuries as a remarkably kind, charitable, learned, and holy woman - as told by a bishop who knew and loved her well.
Personally, I also really loved reading this vivid picture of mediaeval times :D...more
This is the second time I've read this book, but this time round I particularly loved it - a wonderful study of just what it means to be a Christian, This is the second time I've read this book, but this time round I particularly loved it - a wonderful study of just what it means to be a Christian, and a woman, and a writer, as demonstrated by one who was an exemplary Christian woman of letters.
Wilson, as always, writes well. Though small, this book functions as many things all at once. A defence of Puritanism. An explanation of truly virtuous and strong womanhood. A discussion of Christian art and culture. A message of hope.
As a Christian, a woman, and a writer, I found this book instructive and encouraging on a multitude of different levels. It was deeply refreshing to the soul, and a wonderful tribute to a woman who may be often spoken of but rarely understood. Five stars, because it was exactly the encouragement and perspective I needed....more
I really enjoyed reading this book - at last, the inside goss on life in the Crusader States during the second half of the thirteenth century. It is aI really enjoyed reading this book - at last, the inside goss on life in the Crusader States during the second half of the thirteenth century. It is a pretty incredible experience to realise partway through reading of the mortal wounding and death of the Grand Master of the Temple during the fighting between the walls of perishing Acre that the person who is telling you about it was there, personally.
Packed with the kind of fascinating detail, commentary, and colour you can only get from an eyewitness, this book is full of fascinating insights. Thanks are due to the translator, Paul F Crawford, who has done a great job of rendering this chronicle into modern English and provided tons of detailed, careful notes....more
This was a wonderful resource--a collection of letters from actual Crusaders. Like no other book, this book has given me a peek inside the minds of thThis was a wonderful resource--a collection of letters from actual Crusaders. Like no other book, this book has given me a peek inside the minds of the Crusaders. Standouts include Stephen of Blois's delightful letters to his wife Adela ("Be it known, my love, that I am enjoying a marvellous journey...I tell you, my love, that five weeks after leaving the oft-mentioned Nicaea we will reach Jerusalem if Antioch does not hold us up") and James of Vitry's overview of the spiritual state of the Holy Land in 1216, with subsequent accounts of his evangelistic outreaches to Franks, Syrians, and Saracens ("Through the grace of God, over the whole winter period I sowed His Word to the citizens of Acre, and a huge part of this corrupt city was converted to the Lord").
There's some pretty raw stuff in here, things that struck me with the harsh realities of life in the Crusader States. Quite a number of the letters to friends back home ache with homesickness as the writer acknowledgest the probability that he will never see his home or friends again. There are the stark descriptions of massacres after battles both victories and defeats, such as what happened at the disastrous defeat of Hattin: "the Lord put His people to the sword." There is the equally moving letter of John of Villiers, Master of the Hospital, describing the fall of Acre in 1291--a bleak tale of stubborn defiance of impossible odds; not just this, but "Today, we too have been mortally wounded by a spear that passed between the watchtowers, which makes the writing of this letter very painful."
A helpful overview of the history of that remarkable Islamic sect known to popular history as the Assassins.
Alas, the secret paradise gardens and the A helpful overview of the history of that remarkable Islamic sect known to popular history as the Assassins.
Alas, the secret paradise gardens and the hashish use is almost certainly apocryphal. But Bernard Lewis promises a true history nearly as interesting, and he does deliver a fascinating story.
I went back and forth on whether to make this my introduction to the history of the Assassins, since a lot of buzz on the street seemed to suggest it was outdated in its conception of the Assassins as forerunners to modern terrorist cells. I decided to read it when the title cropped up in the footnotes of a number of very recent and well-regarded histories of the Crusades, and I'm glad I followed their lead. The greater majority of the book confined itself mostly to history, with a few brief interpretive comments appended in the final chapter. The bulk of THE ASSASSINS is a very helpful précis of the history and exactly what I was looking for....more
THE BACK COVER PROMISED THE KIND OF SWEEPING HISTORICAL ROMANCE SHE LOVED, BUT THE CONTENTS DELIVERED LESS THAN EXCELLENCE.
Ahem. Got to love those chTHE BACK COVER PROMISED THE KIND OF SWEEPING HISTORICAL ROMANCE SHE LOVED, BUT THE CONTENTS DELIVERED LESS THAN EXCELLENCE.
Ahem. Got to love those cheesy Bethany House cover blurbs.
So, I decided to read this for two reasons. One is that I once somewhere acquired a wish to try out some Linda Chaikin. The other is that I am studying the Crusades and hey sure why not let's read a fun historical novel set during that period.
Overall I would not recommend this book. The history is flattened like a pancake, the plot and characterisation are far from believable, and words are misused all over the place (how does one have an "artistic face"? ).
The history is all minced up. For example:
- Lots of things are called by anachronistic modern names. The Eastern Romans are called Byzantines. Hired killers are called Assassins, which is weird because this was the point in history at which western Europeans discovered the historical Assassin sect. Armed pilgrims are called crusaders.
- Did you know that all medieval peasants were superstitious idiots who went to the Holy Land not to liberate it from the Saracens but because they had been promised gold and land? That all Byzantines were cowardly, devious, and effete schemers and liars? That all medieval Jews were saintly and learned? Me either. Not to say there's no truth in any of these things, but I don't believe Anna Comnena either when she says that all Kelts were so greedy they would sell their own mothers for a song. I certainly won't believe Linda Chaikin's equally sweeping generalisations. As for going on Crusade to get rich, that idea has been thoroughly discredited by more recent historians.
- Related, true, Alexius Comnenus was an acquired taste and a supremely agile diplomat, but you do not trash talk him like this. The man was supremely competent, a brilliant general, the veteran of a squillion battles (beginning at age 14). He was also not without great personal piety - if you believe his admittedly biased daughter.
- "I serve no master", says the hero, a knight from a medieval feudalistic society in which everyone was linked by overlapping rights and responsibilities.
So why did I stick with this rather painful book? I wanted to know what Chaikin would say about the Crusades. This was very useful and interesting. As a supercessionist myself, I was surprised by her focus on the Jews and her insistence that true Biblical faith demanded that the Holy Land belong neither to Muslims nor Christians but to the Jews. Don't get me wrong, they've got it now and I wish them all joy of it, but I was amazed that Chaikin would insist that the reason the Crusades were a farce was because the land belonged to the Jews anyway.
In so saying Chaikin completely misses the actual historical belief among the crusaders that the Holy Land belonged not to them nor to Muslims nor to Jews but to CHRIST. That is a belief I can share in so far as that goes, but the medievals put their own twist on things: they believed that he died siezed of the land. That it was his patrimony and that they as faithful liege warriors of Christ had the responsibility to defend it against his enemies. Of course it was their responsibility and not the Jews', for the Jews had rejected Christ and the Christians, not the Jews, were his followers.
So yes, there was an actual legitimate theological underpinning to the aim of the Crusaders, which Chaikin either ignores or is ignorant of.
Nevertheless, while historically ill-informed, I thought this book contained some really great and thought-provoking commentary on the First Crusade. Was it really God's will for those warriors to go on Crusade? Was it not arrogant and deluded of them to claim God's will for their blood-soaked campaign?
Or, given that the Crusades actually succeeded, however precariously, for 200 years, were they so far out in claiming the will of God?
That's the question that's really going to do my head in....more
This short book provides a rather helpful summary of the siege and fall of Acre in 1291. The maps and illustrations are especially useful, though zoomThis short book provides a rather helpful summary of the siege and fall of Acre in 1291. The maps and illustrations are especially useful, though zoomed a little too far out, and I appreciated the few quotes included from primary sources.
That said, the book is definitely written from a pro-Muslim perspective and as a result I am not sure how much of it to trust. For instance, Nicolle attributes Crusader honour of and care for lepers to Muslim influence--when Piers D Mitchell, in a convincingly-argued paper published in Bernard Hamilton's The Leper King and His Heirs, explains that medieval Christendom as a whole saw leprosy almost as a messianic symbol, owing to the Vulgate's wording of Isaiah 53. For another instance, he consistently misspells Amalric of Cyprus's name throughout the book (sometimes as Amalaric, sometimes as Almaric). And his close focus on Mameluke history and warfare at the expense of Christian history and warfare rendered the book of limited usefulness to me. In the end, the best thing I got from this book was a recommendation for a primary source--the anonymous Templar of Tyre....more
In his Preface, Umberto Eco self-deprecatingly tells us that this early monograph was written back in the days when he thought "that a tortured syntaxIn his Preface, Umberto Eco self-deprecatingly tells us that this early monograph was written back in the days when he thought "that a tortured syntax was a respectable symptom of wisdom and maturity." Certainly this slim volume was on the chewy side, and Eco uses a lot of terms (kalokagathia, for example) which I was unfamiliar with.
As a result, I'm not confident I understood more than about three-quarters of what he was saying in this book, but the bits I did understand were terrific. I found that I have picked up a very similar aesthetic to the one developed by the Scholastics. (Eco kept saying, "Of course no one thinks this way about aesthetics anymore" and I kept wanting to jump up and shout, "I do!"). It was fascinating to see how medieval ideas about art and beauty developed over the course of several centuries, and was also a brilliant case study on how very thoroughly the medievals' worldview permeated their culture.
This is the first thing I've ever read by this author, but it's made me more keen to read some of his fiction....more
Spies in Istanbul during WW2! Where do you go wrong with a premise like that? Unfortunately, this detailed and convincing study of the war in the EastSpies in Istanbul during WW2! Where do you go wrong with a premise like that? Unfortunately, this detailed and convincing study of the war in the Eastern European theatre, while informative, was also dry, lacklustre, and hard to get through. Matters pick up slightly in the second half and I was intrigued by some of the real-life spy stories, along with details like the Allied reluctance to help Jewish refugees and the strongly pro-Nazi element in the Arab world, but over all the information was presented in a disjointed and unappealing manner. Recommended only if you have a serious interest in WW2 espionage....more
What would Byzantine history be like if it was written by a sour and snippily self-conscious Victorian governess? Thanks to Anna Comnena, we don't havWhat would Byzantine history be like if it was written by a sour and snippily self-conscious Victorian governess? Thanks to Anna Comnena, we don't have to wonder.
Wow. This book was so helpful. A little dry, especially if you weren't familiar with the time period already, but endlessly fascinating if you are.
ObvWow. This book was so helpful. A little dry, especially if you weren't familiar with the time period already, but endlessly fascinating if you are.
Obviously, this was part of my OUTREMER research, and it solidified a hunch I've had for a while, which is that if you are writing any kind of fiction involving battles, you really need to read something on military history and how warfare was waged in the time period you are using as an inspiration.
Two things that struck me reading this book:
Decentralisation: the author blames the decentralisation of political power among a host of princes and barons for the constant petty war waged in the Middle Ages. His solution, it seems, is a strong centralised government that would have a monopoly on the waging of war and the building of fortifications.
However, there are plenty of other time periods in which government was radically decentralised, and yet a state of constant war did *not* obtain. And as France acknowledges, the reason for this is that in the Middle Ages, war was the province of the same class that waged it for their personal benefit, in a society where control of land was the major source of power. Before the invention of firearms, {which are a) equally effective whether wielded by Hercules or by a weakling; b) able to be used with much less training; and c) nowhere near as expensive as full knightly panoply - even today a firearm is cheaper than even just a horse, let alone three plus attendants and arms} peasants simply couldn't compete on the same level as fully equipped knights, and it was easy for the knightly class to raid, plunder, and otherwise bully the local commoners.
In other words, there was a sharp divide between trained fighters and the rest of the population, which made it possible for the armed class to wage war over the heads of the commoners without fear of revolt or reprisal.
However, take away that gulf, by arming the commoners or disarming the nobles; make the commoner as effective a fighter as the noble, and suddenly the power to wage war or enforce peace is no longer in the hands of a specific class. Result: a small class of nobles can no longer terrorise the countryside at whim. For example, in medieval Venice, there was no great divide between the nobility and the commoners in terms of wealth, plus trade was the major source of wealth and power, not land. This helped keep Venetian politics fairly peaceful.
A second fascination: Mercenaries. I was fascinated by what this book had to say about mercenaries. First, mercenaries were an answer to the problem of badly-trained local militias. Sure, it was always good for lords to be able to call upon vassals with knightly training and able-bodied peasants to defend their own lands, and Alfred made militias work particularly well against the Danes (France identifies spirit and courage as one of the deciding factors of most medieval battles, and Alfred's militias were fighting for their homes). But like anything else, war is something that you can get better at if you practice it regularly. Bodies that fought regularly together (such as the seasoned warriors in the Crusader States, or the First Crusade itself after its grueling experience on the road) became formidable in battle, but mercenary troops could become an excellent and convenient way for kings or city-states to incorporate some seasoned veterans into their ad-hoc armies.
Second, these mercenary troops were often sourced from among the peasantry. I presume that a man might gain some experience in some local war, and then either find himself good at the job or simply in need of the money, and in that case he could hire himself out as a mercenary. It was then one of the few ways a commoner could become a professional soldier, and occasionally it could result in a brilliant career ending in the nobility. This social mobility, France argues, was the main reason why mercenaries were so hated at the time (and not, contrary to what you might think, that they waged war more brutally than the blue-blooded)....more
I know that before I can claim to know anything about the Templars, I have to read Malcolm Barber's THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD. That, however, will have to waI know that before I can claim to know anything about the Templars, I have to read Malcolm Barber's THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD. That, however, will have to wait till I can afford it. In the meantime, I decided to try THE TRAGEDY OF THE TEMPLARS, half supposing it might turn out to be hilariously bad, but hoping I'd glean some worthwhile facts.
I was pleasantly surprised.
The Good
This book is readable! Honestly, I'm thrilled that Barber and Hamilton and Edbury are producing such quality work on the Crusades, but you have to acknowledge they can be stiffish reading. Haag's TRAGEDY OF THE TEMPLARS, on the other hand, combines a formidable level of historical detail with an easy writing style, accessible to a popular audience.
It also contains some brilliant myth-busting on the Crusades generally. Haag spends a good deal of time setting the scene before he introduces his heroes the Templars, and this segment of the book was the one I found most useful. Relying heavily on primary sources from both Christian and Islamic perspectives, Haag outlines the history of the Christian East from Byzantine splendour (during which the Negev was irrigated and farmed) through the centuries of Islamic misrule and persecution (during which Christians retained a solid population majority throughout Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Levant), the first prosperous century of Crusader rule (throughout which Palestine saw a magnificent flowering of art and culture), and the very sad decline under the scorched-earth tactics of Saladin and his Ayyubid and Mameluke successors.
In the meantime, Haag explodes Mohammed's Night Journey from Jerusalem, arguing that the city's significance as the third holiest city of Islam stems in large part from its importance to Christians and only solidified around 1187. He thoroughly debunks Saladin's status as a Muslim hero--before conquering Jerusalem in 1187 he spent most of his time waging war on other Islamic rulers and was seen as an ambitious empire-builder rather than the champion of Islam. He also draws on a wide range of original source documents to demonstrate that the aid of the Eastern Church was a major motivating factor to the organisers and leaders of crusades.
Finally, this book solidly confirmed a number of things I'd gathered from reading other sources. For example, the fact that native Eastern Christians formed the majority of the population of the Near East up until well after the Crusader States fell in 1291. And the fact that the Muslim minorities that did live in the Crusader States were extremely well-treated to the point that they became somewhat of a haven for Shia, Ismaili, and other splinter sects persecuted in larger Sunni Islam. And the consistent disregard Muslim conquerors had for the lands under their possession, to the point that the Christians consistently found land which had been under Islamic rule to be depopulated and ruinous, while Muslims consistently found land which had been under Christian rule to be rich and beautiful beyond compare. In all these things, Haag relies heavily on eyewitness evidence from Muslim chroniclers.
The Bad
That said, there was a lot in this book that I found misleading and/or biased. I gathered from reading the book that Haag is a Catholic and a huge Templar fanboy. Consequently, he thinks the Templars' independence from local church authority structures, and their sole answerability to the Pope, the best thing ever. His pro-Templar bias--and I'd have called myself mildly pro-Templar myself--led to some odd distortions of the history. Every time the Templars scratched their noses it's lauded as some tremendous victory; and so we're left with the impression that they single-handedly won Montgisard made the 3rd Crusade a success saved Outremer from an alliance with the Assassins etc etc.
And a lot of this Templar cheerleading is done at the expense of the local Frankish nobility, who weren't perfect either but are painted as traitors and villains. Raymond III of Tripoli, for instance, is made the villain of Hattin, and he and Balian of Ibelin are depicted as treacherous deserters (and thinking back, I'm wondering if he meant to insinuate that Balian's missing the battle of Cresson was too convenient by half). They're also described as the only two men in the kingdom who refused to acknowledge Guy of Lusignan's rule, which is demonstrably historically false. It's true that one of the nobles did in fact refuse to swear homage to Guy, preferring rather to bequeath his estates to his family and exile himself to Antioch--but this was Balian of Ibelin's elder brother Baldwin, not Balian himself, who swore fealty to Guy and served him faithfully until the death of Guy's wife, Queen Sibylla, invalidated his claim to the throne. Raymond of Tripoli also initially refused to do homage for his principality of Galilee, but Guy's response--to muster an army and attack the principality--bordered on the insane and left Raymond with little choice but to ally himself with Saladin, a treachery for which all the historical evidence is that he died bitterly repentant. One last dig is levelled at Balian for breaking his oath to Saladin in choosing to undertake the defence of Jerusalem, after having travelled to the city, alone and unarmed, to collect his wife and children, under a safe-conduct from Saladin on condition that he only spend one night in the city. The fact is that Balian only consented to stay and defend the city after he was unanimously begged to do so by its people and leaders, and that he sent his apologies to Saladin, who immediately forgave him the breaking of his oath and arranged safe passage for Balian's wife and children to Christian-held Tyre. (Which was one of Saladin's not-unknown chivalrous actions for which I think Haag gives him too little credit).
*annoyed huff*
Finally, Haag tends to gloss over, explain away, excuse, or simply ignore Templar sins. Some of these excuses are reasonable--eg the explanation that the massacre after the 1099 siege of Jerusalem was treated with hyperbole by its chroniclers (who would not have expected anyone to believe tales of the streets flowing with blood up to the horses' knees--a thing more or less physically impossible). Some of the explanations are worth bearing in mind, like the alternative interpretation of the Cresson disaster. Some of the explanations sounded completely specious to me--Templar involvement in the Muslim trade in Christian slaves is something I want to know more about, and not from someone keen to gloss over their faults; while I don't at all consider the slaughter of the Assassin envoys during Amalric's reign remotely excusable, let alone a good thing! I was interested to see what Haag would do to rehabilitate Gerard of Ridefort, the Grand Master whose lunatic advice led directly to the disaster at Hattin and who also nursed a petty grudge against Raymond of Tripoli all the way to the loss of the kingdom. Disappointingly, Haag either omits or skips over these parts as quickly as he can, and then fast-forwards to quote from a foreign chronicler's positive obituary after the Master's somewhat redeeming death in battle.
So, in a lot of ways this was a highly valuable book, from which I learned a huge amount. In other ways, I disagreed with it vehemently, and it left me wondering if I could really trust it at all in the parts where I didn't already know something about the history (like the trial of the Templars and the dissolution of their order in the early 1300s). Some of it opened up some fruitful avenues for further research, some of it confirmed stuff I'd learned from more trustworthy sources...and some of it was offputtingly partisan.
Conclusion? Still one of the best and most accessible books I've so far read on the Crusades, but don't let him convince you Balian of Ibelin was anything less than a hero....more
This book was just SUCH an interesting read, and also immensely helpful in helping me grasp what kind of houses and towns the eastern Franks lived in,This book was just SUCH an interesting read, and also immensely helpful in helping me grasp what kind of houses and towns the eastern Franks lived in, plus what kind of things they would have had in their homes.
The book's only drawback is that it focuses pretty narrowly on *crusader* artefacts as opposed to the material culture of the native Syro-Palestinian peoples at the same time. So, native culture falls largely outside the book's scope except where it influenced or was influenced by Frankish culture. That leaves me with some pretty large gaps in my knowledge.
Otherwise, a completely fascinating read that has been vital to my current WIP!...more
The only conspiracy theories you'll find in this history of the Templars are the ones dissected in the last chapter, which come accompanied by an assoThe only conspiracy theories you'll find in this history of the Templars are the ones dissected in the last chapter, which come accompanied by an assortment of what I believe the kids these days are calling "sick burns". As always, Barber is detailed, careful, and meticulous in recounting and weighing the historical facts: he doesn't just tell you what the primary sources say, he also weighs them up and discusses their biases. This detail and carefulness doesn't make for the most accessible possible reading experience, but I had no trouble nibbling through this at the rate of 20 pages per day.
Like many Crusader historians, Barber assumes that Christianity is by definition a pacifist faith (an assumption that would have struck men from Theodosius and Belisarius to Stonewall Jackson and Alvin York speechless with amazement), but otherwise, I was pleased by his willingness to accept sincerely religious motivations for historical happenings: it's hard to take seriously any medieval historian who doesn't get faith. Chapter 2, on the concept behind the Templars, was the standout of the whole book for me as it outlined St Bernard's influential treatise On the New Knighthood which set the vision for the whole enterprise, as well as going over some early criticisms made by men I respect from William of Tyre to John of Salisbury. (The latter has been a hero of mine ever since I dug him up while researching equity in law school. It was ridiculously exciting to read his opinion of the Templars.)
As detailed and informative as this book was, in some cases I would have preferred some more straightforward answers to my questions. It's only in a footnote, for example, that Barber confirms that the Templars are never known to have made war with the purpose of forced conversions (I basically assumed as much from previous study, because nothing on the historical record suggests this was true, but it would have been nice to know). I would have liked a little more solid detail on the structure and usages of the Order: for instance, how knights were titled ("Brother" not "sir", I assume) and also some information on the status and experience of serving brothers. The second-last chapter, on the dissolution of the Order, gave only an impressionistic summary of the events, instead choosing to focus very closely on ancillary questions such as Philip II's motivations in prosecuting the Order. If I hadn't read a previous account of the trial, I'd have been completely lost.
Finally, a caution: if you haven't read Scott's Ivanhoe or The Talisman, Barber spoils the plots of both of them pretty comprehensively in the last chapter. They're good yarns, so make sure to read 'em first! ;)...more
Oh frabjous day! At last, a well researched, sane, balanced book about the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem... which is also a pleasure to read!
Bartlett'Oh frabjous day! At last, a well researched, sane, balanced book about the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem... which is also a pleasure to read!
Bartlett's DOWNFALL OF THE CRUSADER KINGDOM, I presume, was written to present the true story mangled by Ridley Scott in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. It's well written, comprehensive, and far more accessible than either Malcolm Barber's or Bernard Hamilton's accounts of the same period. Bartlett writes with an eye to the bigger themes, the grandeur of the stories being played out here, rather than slogging through minute details. While details can be helpful (and details there are aplenty), it's sometimes more useful to pull back and see the bigger picture.
On the other hand, while Bartlett gains one's respect for his careful and evenhanded treatment of the different characters and factions involved in the history, his research isn't quite up to date and I would disagree with some of his evaluations. For example, he puts the blame for Saladin's aggression against Jerusalem on Reynald of Chatillon for attacking Muslim caravans. Though time-honoured, this theory fails to take into account the fact that Saladin subscribed to an ideology of jihad and was already preparing to invade the kingdom when Reynald organised his 1187 raid. I don't agree with trucebreaking as a military tactic, but more recent scholars like Bernard Hamilton have argued persuasively that Reynald showed good strategic thinking in his raids, which may have infuriated the Muslim world but certainly didn't provoke them to take any action they wouldn't have taken anyway.
Similarly, Bartlett makes much of the ill effects of the warring nobility on the kingdom's chances, arguing that Baldwin IV's reign saw the nobles becoming too powerful for the kingdom's good. I'm not so convinced. Baldwin IV was able to lead them well enough when his health was up to it, and the major problem seems to have been not that the nobles were too strong but that Guy of Lusignan was too weak and too controversial to lead them.
There were other quibbles I had, but those are the main ones. Overall, this was a splendid introduction to a truly amazing and spectacular period of history. If your previous exposure to the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 had been limited to novels like Welch's KNIGHT CRUSADER or Haggard's THE BRETHREN, or (alas) that Ridley Scott movie, Bartlett's DOWNFALL OF THE CRUSADER KINGDOM is a fantastic way to delve into the history behind....more
Suzannah Rowntree
>
Books:
history
(127)
Loading...
