reasie's review against another edition
4.0
Very engaging for a non-fiction work. I was surprised to see it was first printed back in the 50s! Runciman presents the crusaders with unabashed bias and humor, presenting a world rather like the field of a real-time strategy game - and no one wants to live in that!
Biggest take-away: if some French knights want to cross your lands for any reason, say "yeah no." and have a big army to back that up. Bloodthirsty bastards, the lot of them! But we knew that. ;)
My one complaint is that a few times it would have been really handy to have a map in the book.
Biggest take-away: if some French knights want to cross your lands for any reason, say "yeah no." and have a big army to back that up. Bloodthirsty bastards, the lot of them! But we knew that. ;)
My one complaint is that a few times it would have been really handy to have a map in the book.
sonofthunder's review against another edition
4.0
I have been wanting to read a history on the Crusades for a while now. We hear about the Crusades from time to time, and everyone has their one or two sentence summary of what they were or why they were terrible (I hear little praising the Crusades, in this day and age!). The Crusades has often been used as a convenient shorthand for condemning Christianity as a whole. See, this is what true dedication to religion leads us. See, Christianity is just as barbaric as other religions that Christians preach against. See, Christians have no moral high ground to stand on whatsoever. And so I thought it helpful to read a history of these Crusades and try and understand what they were. Why did they start? What happened? I picked this history to read (this is only volume 1 of 3!), understanding that it was written back in the middle of the 20th century and so there would be the potential of bias (but really, isn't that true of any book?) and I would need to closely read this to try and understand if what is in this history is truly accurate. Of course, this is the only work on the Crusades I've read, so I cannot adequately judge if this is tome is a quality historical work or not, but this is one of the definitive works on the Crusades and from my reading thus far, it seems a most fair and even-handed treatment of the Crusades. The author rarely editorializes. He seems to mostly just try and tell what happened and give reasoned hypotheses when he can. While he writes from a Western perspective, he does what he can to color in the side of the various peoples that the Crusaders displace. And now? I have a much better idea of the Crusades than I did when I started, which is really all I wanted! This tale is told well, in a narrative style that, while not entirely gripping, still pulls one along and is never boring. So what's the deal with the Crusades? Well, this so-called review is already far too long and of little enough substance already, but honestly? Read the book and discover for yourself. I found it a most refreshing description of the events leading up to the crusades, describing the conditions in the lands both West and East...describing the political intricacies of the Western kingdoms, the Byzantine Empire, and the various Muslim dominions. The First Crusade began for many reasons...one could discuss the feudal dynamics and land hunger of the western powers...or one could discuss the pressures upon the Byzantine Empire under the rule of Alexius I and how he used every means at his disposal to keep his empire afloat in the middle of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape...or one could even talk about the dynamics in the Muslim world and the relatively static nature of some of these kingdoms compared to the influx and influence of the new power on the scene, the Turks...or one could talk about the relationship between the Western Christian Church and the Eastern...and how while there was not yet schism, the relationship between the two was not always a healthy one...and clouds were on the horizon. And yes, religion was something that was very present in the narrative thread of the day. Now we may talk about religion as being something that is a private matter between one's self and one's god. But then? Religion was something that was seen as necessarily intertwined with the rule of the state. So this tale of the Crusades? It is indeed messy. There were atrocities. There were horrors. There was selfishness and heroics and cowardice and betrayals and greed and brutality. Just like with almost all history, this tale is not black and white. And I think that's why I enjoyed reading this book so much. I now know much more about the early history of the Crusades and understand why they took place. Highly recommended. On to Volume II.
nemra's review against another edition
4.0
finally finished the masterful account of the First Crusade. phew!
More...