5 comments about Richard and John: Kings at War.

1. While I'm a British history ethusiast, I'm not an expert; nor am I an historian. I'm a researcher, and I base my comments on my reading of about 3/4's of the book as well as my own research.
   
   I slogged through most of the book, and I do mean "slog." Sentences go on for lines and paragraphs run half a page. The writing is pompous, archaic and repetitive.
   
   Speaking of Henry II's son Henry, McLynn writes: "[T]he Young King adored to spend money, but hated its reality.... [H]e was rescued time and again by his father or William Marshal, which simply made him more resentful, since that meant, in his mind, that they were partronisng him or 'giving him laws'." (p.66) Good grief. Where's the editor?
   
   While I could (and did) put up with the writing, I had a lot of trouble with the arrogance. It's one thing to take a traditionalist viewpoint and back it up with source citations. He does, and I have no problem with it. But he also intersperses his own opinion without stating it as such.
   
   As reviewer Jonathan Sumption writes for THE SPECTATOR (14 October 2006), "[T]here are many things about human personality in the Middle Ages that are not knowable. McLynn writes as if he had met Richard and John. That is the problem."
   
   Further, McLynn is often inaccurate with small details. For instance, about Eleanor of Acquitaine, he writes: She "had a dark complexion, black eyes, black hair and was curvaceous with a superb figure that never ran to fat even in old age." For the following sentence about her inheritence, he cites several biographers, including Alison Weir.
   
   One wonders if he read Weir, who states: "No one, however, left a description of Eleanor or even recorded the colour of her hair and eyes." (Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Life, Ballantine Books, 2001, p. 18)
   
   If he gets the small details wrong, how can we trust the bigger picture? As reviewer Murrough O'Brien, who gives the book a mostly positive review, writes for THE INDEPENDENT (22 October 2006), "We've settled down now into the idea that Richard, for all his single-minded militarism, was basically OK, and that John, for all his talents, basically wasn't." That's the thesis in a nutshell ... for 500 pages.



2. I admire "Richard and John: Kings at War." But one suspects that a rush to meet its release date hurried the editing, creating a faustian bargain for this book.
   
   "Richard and John: Kings at War" is encyclopedic. I have read this period widely, but still found a new treasure-trove of facts. And back-stairs whispers. Her contemporary chroniclers gave Eleanor of Aquitaine a bad press. Now, Frank McLynn's diligent research shows the rest of this weird family faring no better. He lets us into secrets, confiding foibles of perhaps the most dysfunctional imperial family since First Century Rome.
   
   Readers will recognize sibling rivalry between brothers of unequal aptitute. To this, add faction-fights between parents playing favorites to influence their sons, while also fighting France, the Church and each other. Fans of the Asian board game "Go" -- objective: seize and control territory -- will understand the Angevins intuitively! Richard is the brother (or classmate) we envied: he captains the teams, gets the girls and is deemed most likely to win. John grits his teeth, struggles and slips into poor moral and practical judgments.
   
   Those who strive to read "Richard and John: Kings at War" from end to end may struggle, too. It's that editing challenge I mentioned.
   
   I dissent from McLynn's description of Eleanor of Aquitaine; and from Alison Weir's opinion, which he quotes, that Eleanor's likeness is unknown. The British set-designer Claude Marks had a deep knowledge of medieval Poitou and Aquitaine. Moving to New York, Marks lectured at the Metropolitan Museum, whose medieval busts of Henry and Eleanor he considered plausible likenesses. In "Pilgrims, Heretics, and Lovers" Marks also cites a contemporary source for Eleanor's eye color. (I confess bias: I commissioned a portrait modeled from that bust of Eleanor. Then a forensic artist working from the same bust projected Eleanor's features into old age for me.)
   
   That aside, in summary, readers familiar with the general story who skim over rough passages will find "Richard and John" informative. Amusing and entertaining, too.
   
   Robert Fripp, author,
   "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine"



3. I enjoyed McLynn's book, which is unashamed in its traditional bias. He is incredibly scrupulous about citing his sources, with a vast array needing practically the last 50 pages of the book to list. I only wish that he had drawn upon a somewhat wider vocabulary to match. After reading this and his 1066 book back to back, I would not be entirely inconsolable if I never came across the words 'uxorious' or 'contumacious' again which he is particularly fond of. Or a state of affairs described as a 'cockpit' of intrigue or tension.
   
   Still. I enjoyed Richard & John a great deal. Though it is clear, throughout the book, that whom he truly relishes writing about is Richard. John is pretty much an afterthought, beyond the fortunate circumstances of living a bit longer after Richard's death, which provides McLynn with the opportunity to take sadistic pleasure in detailing his failures in comparison with Richard's heroic nobility. If the Lionheart had lived a decade longer, this book might as well have been called 'Richard'. Which wouldn't have been bad. Since the book truly soars when Richard takes center stage. There is also fine treatment given to an array of memorable if little known characters, such as William Marshall, who had a rather hilarious affinity for tournaments.



4. Its nice to learn that "King John was not a good man", and that Richard actualy earned his reputation. Well written, exciting as a good detective story, history the way it used to be written and the way it should be written. Besides its fun to see the revisionists revised. A good read as well as good history.



5. I must say that I am very disheartened by some of the other reviews here that chide author McLynn for using big words or for going into excessive detail in Richard and John: Kings at War. For me, McLynn's prose was the highlight of this experience, his colorful and extremely engaging writing made exploring the often confusing and complicated world of medieval European politics and culture.
   
   I'm the kind of reader who likes a challenge, who enjoys coming across words that I need to look up in a dictionary, and relishes the opportunity to immerse myself in a vast, unfamiliar world like that of Richard the Lionheart and the Angevin dynasty. When I come across a word like "uxorious" or "gallimaufry," I don't resent the author for obfuscating his thoughts in the arcane or obscure, I'm thankful to be introduced to new methods of expression.
   
   Richard and John is a challenging read, without a doubt, but McLynn's approach is not condescending to the reader. Quite the contrary, by not dumbing down his text he reveals a level of respect to the reader, and puts his faith in our ability as learned adults to not merely allow the book to wash over us passively, but to actively engage the text, and include ourselves in the rich dialogue he has set-up.
   
   I enthusiastically recommend Richard and John as an excellent and exciting narrative which sheds light on the distant yet in many ways familiar world of medieval Europe and as an example of well-tuned writing that should invigorate readers, not discourage them.

5 comments about The Crusades: A History.

1. This book provides a jump start for knowledge of the Crusades. Riley-Smith covers a wide array of aspects, the only thing I would recommend: a bit of general knowledge prior to reading this book. This knowledge will prevent the first few sections from being dull, as they were in my case. The Crusades are a major part of religious history and the history of the Western world and this book is perfect for learning about them. Riley-Smith seems to present the history with the least bias I've seen on this subject.



2. Jonathan Ridley-Smith's "The Crusades: A History" is a comprehensive but dull look at the history of the Crusades from the 11th century until the last vestiges of the crusading movement died in the 19th century. Smith is a pluralist - he covers all of the Crusades, including those in Spain, Italy, and the Baltic area. Although this history is comprehensive in its coverage, its dry writing made it a difficult read.
   
   Smith fails to bring the Crusades to life in his narrative. I never felt that he showed how a small group of Europeans managed to gain a foothold in the Holy Land and hold it for so many generations, and he never really illustrated life in the Crusader states. Also, his writing presupposes a certain knowledge and understanding of medieval societies and the medieval Church. Many terms and concepts about the medieval world and church are not explained adequately - if at all - and this makes it difficult for the general reader to fully understand this work.
   
   This book is comprehensive and apparently well-researched. It would probably serve as a good resource for someone already familiar with the time period or the Crusades, but it is a difficult read for a general reader.



3. "The Crusades: A History" by Jonathan Riley-Smith is a dull but thorough retelling of the crusades from their inception by Pope Urban II in 1095 to the very last crusading vows made in the early eighteenth century. His narrative is filled with names and places that speed by and unless one has some degree of familiarity with them before reading, they become a blur. Being a reader of historical narratives I expected more about the actual crusades than the events leading up to and surrounding them. I forced myself to keep reading just say I'd read it but there were only a handful of pages where I was able to give my full attention and interest. My suggestion: know some people and places before reading this. You will get no explanations as you go.



4. Granting each of the previous reviewers problems with this book, it still stands as the current best one volume history of the crusades that I have encountered. Furthermore, as crusade history has become a booming industry since 9/11, this book is also published by Continuum in both paperback and hardback with another printing coming later this year. There are some interesting reviews of this book under the Continuum paperback edition listing here on Amazon that the reader may wish to consult. There are no footnotes, almost no white space and the print density is weak. The publisher Yale NB has chosen to turn a larger 392 page hardback into a compact 357 page paperback. I will assume this was done to keep costs down. So being forewarned if you wish to understand the crusades and have some background in the history of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Middle East, go buy this book and read it. If you have no background in the history of the Middle Ages, it might be best to find one of the many excellent one volume considerations of the entire era and read it before this book. You will be rewarded with far greater insight into the author's analysis of the crusades.
   
   As the crusades are a specialist topic within the history of the Middle Ages, the author assumes that you, the reader, are conversant with such issues as the investiture contest and church reform for example. This may cause some confusion for the casual reader. However, there is still much to be learned here regardless of your knowledge of the Middle Ages. Further, Riley-Smith is a "pluralist." And this is a "plural history" in that it includes material on the Baltic, Spanish, Italian political, anti-heretical and other permutations of the crusades as well as those directed at the holy lands and the Muslims. Each chapter within itself provides a reasonable narrative history of the topic under discussion. But to cover the subject fully, various specialized topics are considered at length that chop up the flow of material. The material is generally chronologically arranged but in no sense is this eloquent narrative prose. And yet out of all this, a detailed picture of the crusading movement and Middle Age Christian piety emerge. And, that unique European Middle Age Christian fervor is what drove the crusades and make them explicable in a fashion that is not riddled by conceptual anachronisms.
   
   It is this reader's opinion that only with a plural historical framework can the crusades be considered adequately to be understood as a function of their own time and culture. This Riley-Smith accomplishes with more credibility than any other one volume history of the crusades that I have read so far. And, I have read most of this material. A fascinating short historiographical essay closes the text, and a remarkable and detailed bibliography is provided with extensive helpful commentary from the author. If you have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church, look elsewhere. If you are looking for supposed contemporary relevance in the crusades, other books will provide you with far more of what you want. If you are sure that the crusades were an imperialistic and proto-colonial activity, this book is not for you. If you find the crusades to be the last massive act of European barbarism, read Runciman. In remarkable detail, Christendom's decent into armed intolerance and coercion is explained and illuminated by this work. This is not a happy story, and one wonders what the man from Galilee who said, "Love your enemies...," would think about all this. This book is near mandatory reading for any reader wishing to have more than a passing acquaintance with the history of the crusades.



5. This book covers all the known wars that can be called Crucades. Not only does the author cover the four most widely known crusades to the Holy Land by Western Europe but also some of the lesser known crusades. This book is very informative, well written and compiled with in a time line format. This book is well worth the time needed to read it.
   
   I lent my copy of it out to a student and never got it back so obviously he liked it too!

5 comments about Crusade Against the Grail: The Struggle between the Cathars, the Templars, and the Church of Rome.

1. I give this first English translation of Rahn's book only four stars as opposed to five due to it's beginning, 'Parcifal'. A long, convoluted histriography of English and French noblemen is given that in short, to me, is bordering on the incomprehensible.
   The text moves along, though, to the Cathars at the turn of the thirteenth century in the south of France. The 'pure ones' profess God is Love, and a Spirit, and that the Heaven we long for is beyond the stars. Flesh is separated from Spirit in man, resulting in a radical dualism that did not sit well with the Holy Mother Church. Gnosticism is present in their worldview as they look at the Old Testament God as evil, the one who enclosed the pure souls of men in foul matter. There is too much misery in the world, at the turn of their century to accept an all god Creator, benevolent and all knowing. A little sophistication is required to explain the harsh realities of day to day life. And theirs is the longing. The longing for something 'other', something greater than flesh and blood and ultimately transcendent.
   The Grail, a stone that fell from the sky, presumably this version being it was a jewel stone in the crown of Lucifer when he fell, is destined for the bowels of Mt. Tabor, home of the last Cathar castle in Montseg'ur.
   Troubadors, steeped in Catharism and protectors of their near holy Minnes, are keepers of the oral tradition concerning the Grail. Specifically, Wolfram Von Eschenbach, in his version of Parcifal, is the real deal according to Rahn.
   As in other Grail romances, the stone just appears, and is pre-christian. It's main miraculous power is to fill the serving bowls and goblets with food and wine.
   The crusade spoken of in the title is the Catholic Church, and specifically Pope Innocent III, swearing to stamp out the hideous heresy fulminating in the south of France. Politically, Paris wants a unified France, and is the secular arm to the holy crusade against Catharism.
   Much time is spent revealing the horrible methods of torture and killing in the name of stamping out the heresy. The Church certainly is not depicted as either 'Holy' or as a 'Mother', but rather a vehicle through which corrupt Popes realize their full capacity in obtaining every earthly power possible.
   Heartbreaking.
   Rahn's language, here translated, is lyrical and poetic in it's own right, highly reminiscent to me of Goethe with his Faust at times.
   A very good read for those interested in history, mysticism, esotericism, or Gnosticism.



2. The heretical Cathars of southwestern France regarded the legend of the Holy Grail--not the actual chalice reputed to have captured blood of the crucified Jesus--as symbolism for the survival of the human soul. This belief which conflicted with Roman Catholic teachings about the symbolism of the cross aroused the enmity of the Roman Catholic Church in the early Middle Ages in its determination to be the unrivaled, unquestioned authority in spiritual and even many political matters. The Knights Templar were another group seen by popes and many secular rulers too as potential threats to their power and position. The German author-scholar Rahn of this work originally published in 1933 (this is the first edition in English) sees in early, suppressed versions of the medieval poem "Parzival" references to this Cathar belief along with recountings of its practices. A central topic is the importance of the many caves in the region to this spirituality. This connection between the caves and the spirituality is found in parts of "Parzival"--e. g., "[The hermit] led young Parsifal to the second cave in which an uncovered 'altar' was located." The Cathars also hid in caves to escape the Church's forces and Inquisitors. Rahn made extensive explorations of the region's caves to better appreciate the quality of the Cathar spirituality and its differences from that of the prevailing Catholicism promulgated by the popes and their secular allies. A better study of the Cathar spirituality could not be found. And beyond delving into it uniquely and sympathetically, Rahn uses it like a prism to bring out the religious conflicts of the time.



3. In spite of it's rather winding way of getting to a point, this is a good solid book on the heretical view of the Cathars that the Roman Catholic Church held of it.
   I did have a problem with certain inconsistensies. The chapter on the Cathar doctrine, begins by saying that not one Cathar book was saved from the fires. Then the author begins telling you of their doctrine and beliefs. There is only one place to gather any data from, and that is archelogical findings, or the writings used to condemn them by the Church.
   Other than this, and other misnomers that in the the years since it was written have had new light shed on them, this is a very helpful book.



4. Otto Rahn is remembered for his Nazi sponsorship and the strange circumstances of his demise. Almost certainly he knew that he had to conceal what he discovered from his masters. This landmark book serves -- not to discuss these matters except in a short preface-- but as an informed and readable introduction to the subject; astonishingly it was published way back in 1933 but has taken 75 years for an English translation in the current climate of interest in the subject.This book is authoritative, informative and at times brilliant. Even the title serves to clarify the issue of Church against Grail -- the Grail being pre-Christian in origin. We owe the translator and publishers much thanks.



5. A must have for Cathar, Templar and Crusade students. Covers the era and all aspects of the grail legends. Written by the actual man who inspired Indiana Jones, this book does not dissapoint! Highly recommended!

5 comments about Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World.

1. The saddest part is that pc colleges will probably put this book on their course, and gullible students who know next to nothing about history will walk away believing that the Crusades are the source of all the woe in the Middle East. Most amazing is the tone and adjectives used: when talking about the Muslim conquests which began nearly 500 years BEFORE the Crusades, and which annexed so many formerly Christian lands, including Jeruslamem, her tone is very upbeat, almost as if to say "Allah willed it." When, on the other hand, talking about the Crusades--which were simply a belated response to centuries of Muslim aggression--woe, all is woe! What a massive axe this former nun has to grind!



2. This book should be required reading for everyone - and especially for those who form policy in our government. Her book illustrates how important it is to remember the past to avoid being condemned to repeat it.
   
   Armstrong deftly unravels the knots of Crusade history and draws parallels with current events. Her clear uncluttered writing make her well balnced analyses easy to follow. This book reminds me somewhat of Barbara Tuchman's excellent book A DISTANT MIRROR. The Glossary of Terms is useful, as are the notes for each chapter. The author makes it clear that we all need to strive for triple vision - the viewpoints of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
   
   At first I was disconcerted by her chapters that jumped from several hunderd years ago to the present and then back again, but then I realized this was the only way to link the past and present problems, and she does an expert job.
   
   Armstrong's evaluation of the Crusades, then colonisalism and finally combative foreign policy spares no one in the assigning of blame. It took me a long time to read the 539 pages carefully, but it was worth every minute. I highly recommend.



3. Karen Armstrong's "Holy War" is the first history of the Crusades I've read. (Disclaimer: I'm interested in history, but I'm not an academic.) I learned a lot from "Holy War" but I felt a need for other perspectives about this subject. Naturally I turned to Amazon to see what other reviewers suggest. I found a copy of "The Crusades - A History" by Jonathan Riley-Smith, a recommended author. I cannot believe these two authors are writing about the same subject.
   
   Ms. Armstrong may have certain biases, and she needs a good editor to re-organize the contents of "Holy War". But when she writes about historical characters and events, they come alive. Mr. Riley's descriptions of the same characters and events are as dry and dusty as the arid hills near Hittin (or Hattin) just before the battle of 1187.
   
   I'm still looking for an engaging history of the Crusades to complement Ms. Armstrong's fascinating (if flawed) book.
   
   P.S. In my Anchor Books edition of "Holy War", Vasco Da Gama sailed around Cape Horn(!) to reach India. The relevance of Vasco Da Gama to the Crusades is debatable; his actual route around the Cape of Good Hope is not.



4. Enjoyable reading, concise, and direct. I forgot to mention informative. I have read four other books and each I treasure.



5. Erudition, understanding, compassion for the meak, weak and (deliberately?) misunderstood.Historiography as it should always be.

5 comments about Chronicles of the Crusades (Penguin Classics).

1. The two accounts in _Chronicles of the Crusades_ provide readers with fascinating accounts of the 4th and 7th crusades. Villehardoun's observations of the sack of Constantinople leave some questions regarding whether it was a conspiracy to destroy the city or not; ultimately it is up to the reader to decide... It does, however, provide a window into 12th century warfare and politics.
   
   Joinville's chronicle of the 7th crusade into the Holy Land was similarly fascinating, providing more information about a European's impressions of the Near East and Christian-Islamic conflict than Villehardoun. I much preferred Joinville for this reason. Together, both accounts provide a well-rounded history of the time and place - a tremendously interesting read for professional and armchair historians alike.



2. The one feature that strikes me the most in reading the Chronicles of the Crusades is how terribly unfocused they were. Granted, the fourth and seventh Crusades were latecomers in the grand quest, but one wonders how much thought was really put into what they were doing.
   
   Chronicles is a collection of two contemporary French accounts of the Crusades. The first, by Villehardouin, is entitled The Conquest of Constantinople, and it covers events in the fourth Crusade. It was a well-meaning venture that, while stopped in Venice to obtain transport ships, was sidetracked into attacking the Greek empire based in Constantinople. Villehardouin himself was a knight of some rank during this campaign. His style of writing is crisp and direct, and he refers to himself often in the third person as he relates the sieges, battles, and political machinations that make up the French and Venetian invasion. It's interesting to note how often he justifies their actions as following God's plan, and equally how often he dismisses as vile and un-Christian those actions of the crusaders who had other ideas about how to wage war. Case in point: a group of crusaders met not in Venice but elsewhere (many groups did this) and actually did travel to Syria to fight there. God, according to Villehardouin, cursed their unfaithfulness and caused them to fail. All hinges apparently on the quaint medieval notion that the Eastern Orthodox Church was, by being non-Catholic, also non-Christian. But in any case, off to Constantinople they went and had a grand time getting caught up in political battles left and right and undoubtedly weakening the non-Christian Greek Christians that much more before the Turks eventually came and took over. For storytelling I give Villehardouin high enough marks, but his political analysis needs some work.
   
   The second account is Joinville's The Life of Saint Louis. Joinville is also a highly placed participant and aid to king Louis of France during the seventh Crusade. Unlike Villehardouin they do actually reach Saracen lands and fight there. Joinville is a much more personal account of things, involving actual conversations and a wide selection of individual actions by Joinville and Louis. He is also considerably less dogmatic in his evaluations of God's will, though he is nearly fanatical about the piousness of Louis. But even there he tells us accounts of his disagreements with his king and how they were resolved. Though his goal is clearly hagiography, he does present a much more personal account of their life on in the campaign than Villehardouin's earlier work. Joinville also continues the narrative back to France, with aspects of Louis's reign there given to us.
   
   Both accounts present us with fairly clear and readable accounts of what might be otherwise forgettable events in history. Neither the fourth nor the seventh Crusades have the historical importance of the early ones but thanks to these participants they won't be lost to us, so pick up a copy and take a look at how the Crusaders handled themselves in the quest for honor, glory, piety, and adventure.



3. I had to read this book in my Medieval and Ranasance Class at OSU. This book gives a first person view of what the Crusades were like. My teenage son has read the book several times and used for several research papers in high school.



4. Chronicles of the Crusades is a chronicle of the Crusades from two of the senior participants who took part in two of the Crusades. The book covers the descriptions of the fourth and the seventh crusades as seen through the eyes of Geoffroy De Villehardouin (who took part in the fourth crusade) and Jean De Joinville (who took part in the seventh crusade). The two chronicles were translated for this book by Margaret Shaw. The book was published in 1963 around the time of her death. The two chronicles give us a look into the two crusades as chronicled through the eyes of two important noblemen of their time. This in itself will taint the purity of the chronicle. Chronicles such as these lay out the justifications for the crusades and tend to gloss over the blemishes. These two are no different. They were written to glorify the Crusaders and surely the writers would not put on ink anything that would later detract from their names. These chronicles do an excellent job of showing how the two chroniclers thought and how they wanted these two crusades remembered. When this book is read this should be kept in mind. The average crusader was a mixture of those driven by greed and religious extremists. The crusaders were allowed to plunder the lands they conquered. In today's terms they were allowed to take war trophies, thus stealing from the inhabitants of the land. They were barbaric in their means of taking the land and the raping of women was allowed, if the women were not of the Christian faith. The fourth crusade received condemnation on its behavior when the Christian city of Constantinople was sacked. This was due to the crusaders raping of the women. This of course is not pointed out by Villehardouin. The chroniclers mention a little of the plunder, but do not mention anything else. Though the chroniclers are quick to point out the cruelty of the Saracens. Margaret Shaw refers to these two chronicles as being the most reliable accounts of the crusades written in French. I would have to disagree that these chronicles should be taken as completely accurate. Joinville refers to Prestor John as if he was a person who actually existed, thus showing that his accounts are not strictly cemented in fact. The chronicles give an overview of the crusades and do not go into much detail on the equipment used and the everyday life of the average crusader. This book is a good book to show the chroniclers thoughts and perspectives but if you are trying to get an accurate picture of what happened during these crusades I would look into other books as well. Such books that describe the opposing views as seen from the Muslim side and other books that can give specifics on how the crusaders lived and their equipment could help in understanding these crusades better. I am giving this book 5 stars because it does accurately convey it's title. It does cover the Chronicles of the Crusades.



5. I highly recommend this translation of Joinville and Villehardouin.
   
   The translator has taken care to translate these works into lucid, contemporary language without dumbing down the writing. Her work has paid off, providing a readable and lively edition still suitable for scholarly review.
   
   Whether you are reading these for enjoyment, personal interest, or academic reasons, this translation is a good one.

2 comments about A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom (Pivotal Moments in World History).

1. This book tells the story of the Crusade launched against the Cathars in the 13th century by the Pope who delcared his intention to whipe out slavery. Accused of being Arians or alternatively influences by the Zaroastrians, the Cathars were a people that lived in southern France and were Christians but not adhering to the Pope. The Crusade led to their destruction. Like other books such asA Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians from Their American Homeland, this book examines the notion of genocide and ethnic-cleansing today in a past example of it. THe truth is, however, that these historical episodes are not progentiors of the Holocaust. They are interesting, but mass ethnic-cleansing was a fact of history. The movement of peoples had made them a fact of life. The desturction of the Albignian crusade was not unique. Nevertheless, when one gets around the preaching and theorizing about its impact, this is an interesting subject.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



2. Mark Gregory Pegg has written an excellent history of an episode that is often neglected in crusade polemics- the Albigensian Crusade. "A Most Holy War" was released on January 14, 2008, the 1000th anniversary of the event that precipitated the crusade, the murder of a Papal Legate in Toulouse, France. Pope Innocent III was furious, and became convinced that the whole area was swarming with heretics, and that the Duke of Toulouse, Raimon VI, was protecting them. The only way that the Duke could exonerate himself from this charge was to "expel the followers of heresy from the whole of his dominion." Until then, the Pope said, "all those signed with the cross, the crucesignati, `in the name of the God of peace and love' and with `our promise of remission of sins,' must strenuously `root out perfidious heresy' and purify the land. `Attack the followers of heresy more fearlessly than even the Saracens,' was Innocent III's thundering conclusion, `since heretics are more evil!'" (p. 7)
   
   This obsession with heresy did not happen in a vacuum. Pegg gives a brief background of a new obsession with heresy that started in the 11th century. With a widespread belief in the end of days, there arose an eschatological vision that saw all heretics as linked in time and space. Of course, the concept of heresy hardly arose in the Middle Ages (see "There is No Crime For Those Who Have Christ"), but in the 11th century it took on a new apocalyptic significance.
   
   In the Toulouse area, there was a distinctive Christian sub-culture that, among other things, rejected the bodily resurrection, original sin, and baptismal regeneration. These people were seen as a plague that threatened Christendom, and so there was a moral obligation, according to the Pope and his crusaders, for mass murder. Pegg shows how a fanatical insistence on purity of thought and doctrine led to a turning point in history, that ushered genocide into Western thought. "The most holy war is a story of grand expeditions, heroic sieges, village insurgents, kings trampled to death, children set on fire, heaven and earth remade- it is the epic story of the battle for Christendom." (xiv) Pegg's work is essential for anyone wanting a work on a forgotten crusade, which pitted Christian against Christian.

5 comments about The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in History).

1. Thomas F. Madden's New Concise History of the Crusades is an outstanding brief history of one of the most complex and confusing periods in world history. Though just over 200 pages long, Madden's book covers all of the major crusading movements in the middle east in a brisk, streamlined manner that makes the continuity between the various crusades perfectly clear.
   
   While such brevity would normally impair the effectiveness of a history of something as vast as the Crusades, brevity is actually this book's greatest strength. Madden proves himself the C.S. Lewis of Crusade history, skilfully tackling complex subjects and distilling them into digestible ideas with a mere paragraph or two. He makes abundantly clear what motivated and inspired the Crusaders and just as easily charts the changes wrought in their ideals and goals over the course of two centuries in the Holy Land.
   
   Make no mistake--the bulk of the book details the crusading expeditions to the east. Don't buy this book expecting extensive treatment of the Reconquista or the activities of the Teutonic Knights. Though limited in its scope, this book outlines its subject with perfect clarity and a keen understanding of the medieval mind.
   
   Of exceptional value is Madden's conclusion, in which he dispels the popular belief that the Crusades are the outright cause of modern radical Islamic aggression, pointing out that the post-WWI colonialism of the French and British has much more to do with our current struggles in the middle east than the wars fought by medieval Christendom.
   
   Overall, an outstanding introduction to the Crusades for the beginner and an outstanding review for those already familiar with the period.
   
   Highly recommended.



2. I would take Madden's claims with a large grain of salt. In particular he claims that the image of the Crusades as wars of conquest are a "myth." He argues that they were purely defensive responses to Muslim agression, that they had little or no motive of wealth, and that the crusaders were responding to the Byzantines' pleas for help in recovering their captured lands.
   
   However it's difficult to claim that the Catholic church was "defending itself" by attacking Jerusalem time and time again for 150 years. The real Islamic threat to Catholic lands was all the way on the other end of the Mediterranean, in Spain. And if the crusaders wanted no lands, and wished only to return the lands lost by the Byzantine Empire, then why did they keep the land they took for themselves? Why did Urban himself tell the crusaders to take the wealth of the holy lands and "subject it to yourselves" when he first called for the crusades? The Byzantines didn't see a single acre of land returned from the crusaders' conquests - and in fact the Fourth Crusade destroyed the Empire itself with the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
   
   Madden's book is interesting mainly as an introduction to anti-Islamic apology and revisionist history. The facts of what the crusaders actually did are hard to reconcile with Madden's claims about their motives.



3. I am not going to write too many details because other reviewers have already done a good job in doing so. I am just here to tell you that I have long been a student of history and the Crusades is one of my major areas of intrest. I have read many books on the Crusades and I can honestly write that this is the best book for someone just getting started in studying this fascinating era. Madden is very objective and does an excellent job dispelling many myths about the crusaders. Those who give this book a low rating are most likely people who fall into one of two groups: 1.) People who are hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular or 2.) People of the Islamic faith who cannot accept the fact that the Crusades were defensive military campaigns in response to Islamic desire for world conquest through the sword. I hope this review helps inspire you to buy this easy to read and very accurate account of the Crusades.



4. A great place to begin your study of the crusades. Very accurate and still readable by the new student. The book is relatively short for books on the crusades, only 300 pages - and is an easy read.



5. Last year I found myself needing a quick refresher on the crusades. What I wanted was a modern look not a book from 20-30 years ago. This book fit the bill perfectly,it could have been 50 pages longer where I was very interested in a specific topic but everyone will have a different focus while reading it so maybe it's just fine how it is.Great starter on the middle east or perfect for HS or beginning college students.Easy to read and understand with detailed descriptions of many key events.This book will help you better understand why and where WE are in the middle east today.

5 comments about Mistress of the Art of Death.

1. I loved this book. Read it in 2 days. I loved all the characters- they were likeable and believable. The mystery kept me guessing throughout. Would love more from this author, which I'm going to check out next.



2. My low rating reflects my boredom with earnestness and the main character is totally and only earnest. Others may find the story, setting, writing and characters more to their liking than did I.



3. The was a very good period book for me. I love that time in the old country. I would highly recommend it if you are into that periond. I am looking forward to the next in the series which is already out.



4. I read this book in two days! It's fun, historically accurate, vibrant and has very engaging characters. The story flows quickly, and Ariana Franklin makes you want to hate the villians and root for the heroes and heroines. I highly recommend this book, especially for some engaging, but not pulp-y, summer fiction.



5. AWESOME - i loved this book. i have been reading medivel mysteries for over 50 years, so i do have some experience. i could not put down this book. so many topics: history, religion, medicine. the characters i also loved.
   
   i hope there are many more books in this series.
   
   thanks.
   
   delores

5 comments about God's War: A New History of the Crusades.

1. The review from OP Filmmaker says it best but those thoughts are worth repeating so that the glowing reviews do not mislead. This is not a "history" in the style of most history books. It is an examination of the European social, religious, and political contexts of the crusades. The spotlight is on Europe, not the middle east, and on ideas, not events. What actually happened in the Holy Land is described briefly, in passing (to illustrate some point that Tyerman is making about European events), or not at all. On the other hand, the usually-ignored Albigensian and Baltic crusades are essential to the thesis and are discussed at length.
   
   This is also not a military history. A couple of sieges are describe in some detail but the conduct of war and battle is really not part of the story Tyerman is trying to tell.
   
   That story is enlightening and the book is useful as a companion to some other work - Runciman, for example - that recounts the historical events, or for those already familiar with them. But by presenting this as a "new history" rather than as a specialized work, the publisher has done a disservice to the author and the public. The book will disappoint those who start the struggle through Tyerman's unfortunately tendentious and clumsy prose expecting to be told "what happened" and get instead 900 pages about the background of why it happened.



2. Tyerman's "God's War" is, in a word, a massively thorough work that covers a huge range of time and a huge array of theatres of war. While, unlike some, I would recommend it as a very detail introduction, there are some warnings that go with it.
   
   This book covers the entire gamut of Christian holy wars against a variety of enemies in a variety of geographic locations. Not only does it cover the events that shaped the Crusades, but it also details the evolution of thought and the planning that eventually went into them. The book gives the reader a good insight into the mindset of the grassroots Crusader.
   
   While some may find the number of people and names bewildering, I would rather see this as an advantage to the work. It covers a large movement taht involved a huge number of people. The names will provide the new reader with a launching point to further reading about the people that specifically interest you.
   
   While not an easy book to read, (much due to the sheer physical size of it), "God's War" is truly the definitive study on the subject of the Crusades in all their manifestations. If you only read one book on the subject, make it this one. I really enjoyed it and learnt a lot.



3. God's War is one of the best, and most in depth, histories I have ever read concerning not just the Crusades but also their influence on Medieval Europe. The Crusades were not only a series of wars but also a decisive point for European society on all levels. God's War explains how the Crusades, pushed by the Papacy but also by secular rulers for their own benefit, contributed not just to Islam's current state but also to the Europe we see today.
   
   It should be noted that the Crusades not only targeted Muslims but also pagans in the Baltic as well as "heretics" in Southern France, Eastern Europe, and even the Holy Roman Empire itself. This fact alone cannot be ignored because too often the Crusades are regulated to a mere conflict between Christians and Muslims as if that were the only issue at stake during the centuries they were fought. While not going into quite as much depth as with the main offensives against the Holy Land, God's War gives a short but strong description of these smaller wars for the cross and their end results.
   
   The most important aspect of this book is the social implication that the Crusades placed upon those who were either involved directly or indirectly. While the Crusades had an important impact on the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, and the Baltic, they also had an impact in regions such as France, England, Burgundy, Sicily, the Holy Roman Empire, and other regions that produced many of the Crusaders. The most important area would be in terms of faith itself and how Christianity was seen through both secular and Church rule. Also affected were more domestic issues such as how kings could rule their lands and how the common men and women found their own world being changed through a new dynamic of faith crossed with the sword.
   
   I am not surprised that some will see this work as either too slow in reading or even biased. In the first area, I would have to agree that the reading it slow during some points and perhaps over detailed. In regards to the second, I believe the only real bias is held by those who still see the world in draconian religious world views that perhaps are not too different from the mentality that drove the crusades themselves. A sad fact that is especially being played out in both Christian and Muslims worlds even today and indeed perhaps some of those who are currently alive would fit quite well into the world of the original crusades.



4. The book is very helpful in the historical studies I have engaged. It arrived in excellent condition and in a timely manner.



5. I started this book last week and am only around page 100 but am not sure that I will continue. My problem is that the author is not a very good story teller and frankly last night I found myself rereading a sentence 4 times to understand what it was saying only to realize that it was nonsensical. I'm no brain scientist but I'm fairly adept at reading and I keep coming across such passages that are either so convoluted they confuse or are just poorly written. If I had the energy I would go upstairs to pull such a passage but alas carrying 1,000 pages of dullness does not inspire me.
   
   I'm going to give it another try but I'd like some narrative to engage me.

5 comments about The Crusades Through Arab Eyes.

1. This book explains the crusades as primarily political invasions, without much true spirituality involved for many participants. He shows, interestingly, that many Christians were better treated under Muslim rulers than under the rule of Europeans. You will benefit from seeing how there were good people on all sides of the conflicts, as well as the bad.
   An important part of this book, is the Epilogue. In this summary, a comparison is made of the "Franj-administered" and "Occidental-administered" territories, with emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of rulers and subjects. There is a lot of wisdom in this comparison, and should be studied well by those attempting to envision institution-building in the future. Especially when any act of violence against the western lands or westerners can be portrayed in Arab media simply as vengeance for expeditions in 1191AD. For reviews of similar books, see the resources pages at civilsociety at seedwiki. Thanks.



2. This is a good companion to a serious study of the Crusades. It gives a lot of interesting info on the state of the arab muslim world in the time period, and the effect the invasion of the Franks had on Islamic identity and political cohesion. The parallels to modern times are inescapable, especialy as regards the seemingly absolute inability of the arab muslim world to unite around a single leader for longer than that leaders lifespan, and sometimes not even that long. What it does accomplish is to humanize the inhabitants of the levant during the crusades, abolishing the "richard lionheart"/ chivalrous knights ideal westerners may still carry. Heat, dirt, disease, terror, death, these were the daily companions of the Crusades, and thier gifts to the people of the eastern mediterranean coast.



3. This is a good book and a great read. However, it is often read as a "real" history book, which it is not by a long shot, and probably was not intended as such either - Amin Malouf is a very political author, after all. Malouf has written an elegant text as well worth reading as many other introductory books to the crusades. It is telling, however, that the passage most often quoted from "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", Usama ibn Munquidhs 12th-century negative third-hand commentary on "frankish" medicine, has been cut and pasted by Malouf from its original context, omitting the autobiographer's original first-hand positive assessment of the newcomer's medical arts. That example is hardly the only one it the book that makes it readily apparent that Malouf is not a historian and lacks a lot of in-depth knowledge of the period he describes (or worse, has decided to omit details he does not find support his take on things). I read this book much as I read Malouf's other works of historical fiction, but I would not treat it as a real history book.



4. I ordered this book along with one on the Crusades from the Christian perspective (or the 'Western' perspective) hoping to get each side of the story, so to speak.
   
   In picking up both books I was a bit apprehensive wondering whether or not they would be overly one-sided. For example, I was not looking for a piece of 'slam' journalism justifying the Middle East's current ills on the invasions of Crusaders 1000 years ago. This book is certainly not that. Mr. Maalouf painstakingly takes the stories of the Crusades, written by Arab chroniclers, court attendants of the Sultans, and other historical records written during the Crusades themselves, and gives you the story of the Crusades through Arab eyes.
   
   What I found very refreshing about Mr. Maalouf's writing is that he simply didn't rely on the writings as the end all to tell the story, when it was clear that the contemporaneous writings aren't telling the whole story. At times when accounts don't seem credible, or when two accounts differ substantially (such as over the number of deaths at a battle), Mr. Maalouf looks past the hyperbole and rhetoric that can often accompany such tales and notifies the reader that the conflicts exist, or that agreement over such details has not been reached. He then generally takes the effort to research city populations, and army sizes, etc. to come to a satisfactory answer to the question posed. As you can imagine, there are accounts of "10,000" people slaughtered - when we know, now, that the town probably was not big enough to hold more than a couple thousand. Mr. Maalouf goes out of his way to bring you the truth, and not just the rhetoric of the day.
   
   Another thing I truly enjoyed about this account was that the author went out of his way to put the words and writings of the chroniclers in their proper context, which, as you can imagine, makes a big difference, especially for Westerners who may be unfamiliar with Muslims/Arab tradition and the Middle Eastern makeup of the time. For example, before, during, and after the Crusades, the Middle East was wrought with fighting not just between Muslims and Christians, but also between other Muslims (Shia vs. Sunni, Kurd v. Arab v. Persian v. Turk, etc.), and from with other non-Muslim and non-Christan foes (Arabs v. Mongols). The sultans were battling each other. The different sects were battling each other. The Turks and the Persians were encroaching on Arab lands, as were the Byzantines and the Mongols. The Crusaders were attacking Jerusalem. During some points, some Muslim groups even allied themselves with the Crusaders to fight other Muslim groups. Thus, each chronicler (the Crusades lasted hundreds of years) wrote in a different time with a different attitude towards the peoples and places. Some wrote during relative peace, when Christian and Arab coexisted, while some wrote during all-out war. Some wrote when the tensions between Muslims themselves were high, some when there was relative accord. Some chroniclers wrote during periods of Muslim domination, and some wrote during times where it seemed inevitable the Christians would control the Middle East and Islam would die out. Mr. Maalouf ably ties all of the stories together, explaining the different attitudes among chroniclers.
   
   All in all, an excellent book. It is eye-opening, not because it tells some one-sided story as interpreted by today's Muslims, but because it really gives you an understanding about how the people felt then. It truly does tell the story through their eyes - the Arabs of 1000 years ago.
   
   Oh, and it is a "quick" read. That is, nothing in this book bogs down the reader or requires you to grab other books for explanation.



5. The quality of this book speaks for itself, if it is written from the non-Western perspective of the crusades, but manages to score an average of 4,5 of 5 stars from 74 primarily US reviews prior to mine. Especially as the overall sentiment in these reviews stays virtually the same, pre 9-11, immediately post 9-11, during the Bush Crusades and after them.
   
   The book has been written in 1983 in French, translated into English in 1984 and published in the US in 1985. As such, the book would need an update, not only concerning the Bush Crusades, but also about the information that the wannabe assasin of Pope John Paul II in 1981 wasn't the Muslim Turk Mehmet Ali Agca by himself, but a ploy: The puppet master was in the Soviet polit bureau, via Bulgarian and East German secret service ploys. The author Amin Maalouf was born in Lebanon and migrated to France in 1976, during the Lebanese (religious) civil war. He's an Arab Christian.
   
   The book is not meant to inform on the European political, religious, financial and other motivations for the crusades, but starts with the troops arriving in Muslim territories. Hence, it is also not concerned with the prior Muslim conquest of the previously Christian territories. Which in turn had been European-invaded empires by the Romans and Greek, the Jews before that, then the Egyptians, prior to that the Akan and prior in turn the San (Bushmen). But even they were invading "Neanderthal" territory. So please, to anyone: Don't assume, "you" were there originally... (I left out some Asian invaders.) I hoped to find out anything at all about the Christian Nubian empires (either one or all of Nobadia, Makuria, Alwa), which were left alone till then, but got invaded by the Muslims as revenge for helping the Europeans in one of the crusades. Only Abyssinia (today's Ethiopia) remained exempted from the jihad. Not a word even of their existence. So, here's a message: There's a third perspective, one which is even more difficult to find any information of... (Please leave a comment on any known source.)
   
   The title of the book makes the non-Western perspective clear, however, it isn't entirely correct either. But then again, book titles rarely are as the authors often do not have any control over the titles, changed for commercial reasons by the publishers. The author is Arab - not Muslim -, the main sources are historic Arab historians, yet the perspective is written from non-Arab leaders as well, such as Turks, Kurds, Persians, Egyptians. But also Armenians and other local Christians. In addition, it is not about "the crusades", as that would imply all of them. "Of course", it's only about those, which were directed against the Eastern Muslim territories. Not those against Muslim territories in Iberia, not those against Christian "heretics" such as the Waldensians within Europe, not those against European Jews (which were automatic part of any crusade), not those against European "pagans", such as the original Baltic Prussians, which for political reasons some Germans adopted the name from, and not those crusades, which didn't make it to the desired Muslim destinations, such as the Shepherds Crusades and also not the Children's Crusade, as the few surviving kids who really made it to the destination, were enslaved before they could leave the ships. By reading this book's view, you won't get a feeling of "crusades" either, but of one single 200-year-war, with several reinforcements - not numerically listed - of European troops. Who are called "Franj". Referring to all of them, such as the French, Italians, Germans, English etc. The same as all Muslims are headed under "Arabs" in the English title. Differentiations were made towards the "Rum" (pronounce similar to Roome), the Byzantine Christians and of course all the local minority Christians. The German title, translated into English, is more polemic, but more precise at the same time: "The Holy War of the Barbarians".
   
   Most reviewers point out that the book is NOT polemicly subjective against Westerners in contrast to an adulation of the Muslims. I find it even intriguing that the author refrains from listing the civilizing effect on Europe, the crusades had (and earlier Muslim invasions of Iberia and later ones of Eastern and Central Europe). Before the crusades, Europeans didn't have essential items such as sugar and shoes (instead honey and rag/fur wrappings). Not to mention hygiene, which was lost after the Roman empire. The book does mention medicine and a reviewer criticizes that as arbitrary quoting by the author. However, it is historic fact that the Muslims re-introduced medicine into Europe. For one thing, it was considered heretic in Europe to dissect corpses, making it impossible for "doctors" to know, how humans look like inside. It is often said, the Muslims got sophisticated medicine originally from the Romans and Greeks. Part of it, however, all of them received medicine from ancient Black Egyptians. In fact, the latter were able to diagnose fine bone crackings/fractures, something TODAY'S Westernes (nor anybody else) haven't the faintest idea, how they did that without x-rays. Some reviewers think the mentioned cannibalism of some crusaders has to be reproduced historic Muslim propaganda. Not so. There are Western sources, by the crusaders themselves. As the leaders were not able to prevent the masses - not soldiers - travelling with them to engage in that, as they had no control over them anymore. For an elaboration read the 1957 Western book The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (Galaxy Books). I would like to note that it is amazing how little the author engages in what might be considered biased. For example, he is stating, referring to the last medievil Franj invasion of Egypt: "Never again would the Occidentals attempt to invade the land of the Nile." But in 1798, the Franj returned under Corsican Napoleon. In the 19th century, the UK occupied Egypt, in the 20th century warring resumed, with Israel. Yet, the author isn't using history for tempting more contemporary issues.