Crusader Castles and Modern Histories [Paperback]

Ronnie Ellenblum (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 19, 2009 | ISBN-10: 052112364X | ISBN-13: 978-0521123648 | Edition: 1

For the last 150 years the historiography of the Crusades has been dominated by nationalist and colonialist discourses in Europe and the Levant. These modern histories have interpreted the Crusades in terms of dichotomous camps, Frankish and Muslim. In this revisionist study, Ronnie Ellenblum presents an interpretation of Crusader historiography that instead defines military and architectural relations between the Franks, local Christians, Muslims and Turks in terms of continuous dialogue and mutual influence. Through close analysis of siege tactics, defensive strategies and the structure and distribution of Crusader castles, Ellenblum relates patterns of crusader settlement to their environment and demonstrates the influence of opposing cultures on tactics and fortifications. He argues that fortifications were often built according to economic and geographic considerations rather than for strategic reasons or to protect illusory 'frontiers', and that Crusader castles are the most evident expression of a cultural dialogue between east and west.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"This is a highly important study...I earnestly recommend this book for its splendid survey of the historiography, its provocative questioning of accepted 'truths' about Frankish fortresses and its incisive and convincing re-interpretation of the history of the crusader castle in the twelve century."
Jonathan Phillips, The Journal of Military History

"While his archaeological arguments could stand alone, Ellenblum's presentation of them together with the historiography was a risk worth taking. His academic prose is difficult, but readers will be rewarded, and in the process, simplisitic views of the Crusades will be banished."
-Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly

"In this thought-provoking study, Ronnie Ellenblum sets out to challenge current approaches to the study of Crusader castles, which he sees as hamstrung by out-dated nationalist and colonialist ways of thinking. He argues that their architectural development should be understood more in terms of a continuing military dialogue between East and West than of architectural borrowings, and that their geographical distribution may be better explained in terms of Frankish settlement than of a desire to defend frontiers."
-Denys Pringle, H-France

"A short review like this cannot do justice to the depth of this book, which picks up in masterly fashion where his last book left off. Ellenblum's arguments put forward in the "crusader castles" portion of the book will have to be engaged by all historians of the Latin East. He has given us a new way to approach not just the building of crusader fortifications but the complex dynamics that cause them to be built in the first place."
Thomas F. Madden, Speculum- A Journal of Medieval Studies

Book Description

This revisionist study unpacks the modern historiography of the Crusades, historically influenced by nationalist and colonialist discourses, and challenges current debates over the provenance of Crusader military architecture. It argues that Crusader castles should instead be regarded as the most evident visual expression of a cultural dialogue between east and west.

Product Details

• Paperback: 376 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (November 19, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 052112364X
• ISBN-13: 978-0521123648
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,669,030 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars A new take on the architecture of the crusades, January 10, 2012

By 

Actinograph - See all my reviews

This review is from: Crusader Castles and Modern Histories (Paperback)

Ronnie Ellenblum's Crusader Castles and Modern Histories revises interpretations of Frankish settlement in the Near East during the crusading period, taking as its starting point a historiographical analysis which aims to explain current crusader settlement scholarship as a product of two modern phenomena: nationalism and colonialism. These two hallmarks of modernity have pushed even current scholars towards overly static portrayals of the crusader lordships: where nationalism causes scholars to view borders as rigid and all-encompassing, Ellenblum views borders as a hazier meeting place of influences flowing radially from settlement centers; where colonialism causes scholars to sweepingly surmise that encounters between Franks and local inhabitants of the Near East were either highly productive or highly destructive, Ellenblum narrows his focus to castle development and seeks a productive cultural dialogue between cultures at destructive war. By reevaluating borders, recategorizing settlement types, and attempting to periodize the dynamics of military strength and the more nebulous sense of security, Ellenblum traces the history of crusader castles, building up to the highly-fortified and emblematic "concentric castles." Concentric castles become the products of a military dialogue between warring Franks and Muslims in the Near East, rather than mere imports from Europe or copies of eastern edifices. Moreover, all castles' roles were more textured than providing defense alone, and they fit into a broader settlement pattern based on settlement size and services.

The rather lengthy historiographical backdrop, which spans the first third of the book, is relevant but also invites the reader to question Ellenblum's own circumstances and their impact on his work. By and large, the section provides a series of viewpoints rooted in nationalism and colonialism which Ellenblum later dismantles through his own interpretations of both textual and archaeological evidence. Ellenblum believes that nationalism and colonialism are responsible for stagnation in scholarship on the Latin East because they encourage thinking in dichotomies, especially when it comes to issues of warfare. However, even if warfare between two groups is--on a most general level--accurately characterized by a dichotomy, there exist countless facets of warfare, such as the construction of castles and siege engines, that are better explained historically as a series of technological responses stemming from each party's desire for superiority.

Such a series of responses is Ellenblum's "dialogue," and indeed he believes that crusader castles "should be regarded also as the most evident visual expression of the cultural dialogue between East and West." Oddly enough, after having harshly dismissed the "clash of civilizations" theory in the previous paragraph, he cannot resist the dramatic effect of yoking "East and West." Indeed, one must question the extent of his abandonment of dichotomies in analyzing castle developments, since Ellenblum bases the military strategies which occasion developments upon rather monolithic pictures of Franks and Muslims. Although Ellenblum permits each group's military capabilities to change over time, they remain simply Franks or Muslims, receiving little additional differentiation. And although Ellenblum's model--based on Frankish and Muslim military trends--may hold, his reputation as a combatant against the oversimplified dichotomies which he criticizes suffers.

But there is a more important lack of self-awareness which casts some cloudiness on a major piece of Ellenblum's evidence. Since he considers the link to be misleading, he discusses with implicit contempt Michaud, in the 1830s, drawing a parallel between the French invasion of Algeria and the "French" crusaders invading the Holy Land. Yet Ellenblum then states that he himself understands the highly subjective and relative nature of fear based on his residence in modern Israel, drawing a parallel between himself and the crusaders and assuming that he can understand their emotions. Again, Ellenblum seems to miss that he is engaging in the same behavior which he criticizes (or perhaps he considers his experiences to be more applicable to the Latin East than Michaud's), but here his personal experience in the modern world seems to drive his argument more than the overwhelming historical evidence does. He challenges the common assumption that Franks lived in a state of general insecurity; using documented instances of battle, he divides the era between 1099 and 1187 into three periods, with the second period (1115-1167) being one of "relative security." This key period stands behind much of his argument: he uses this safer period to suggest that castles were often not built as defensive structures, and this explains why during this period they were often constructed well-within the Kingdom of Jerusalem's territory and why they were nowhere near as well-fortified as the concentric castles which came after 1167. However, this analysis relies only on documented battles and ignores the incessant petty warfare which other scholars have portrayed as highly significant. Most of all, as Ellenblum admits, drawing a firm conclusion on so subjective an issue is impossible. Yet he builds upon a weak conclusion, likely made stronger for him thanks to a rear-projection of his own experience, and hopes that a marginally relevant discussion of modern public opinion polls on fear might induce the reader to forget the actual nature of his evidence.

On the other hand, at least Ellenblum admits that scholarship is highly susceptible to personal experience--both implicitly in his skillful treatment of historiography and explicitly in his acknowledgments, in which he mentions his residence in warring Jerusalem as an influence. The book certainly manifests his yearning to expose some form of creative interaction between peoples who generally interact destructively. Most significantly, however, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories does in fact manage to move beyond the shadow of dead-end, anachronistic, nationalistic debates over possession of architectural forms and instead presents a plausible, well-supported model of castle development which should prove highly influential in its field.