Customer Reviews

The Crusaders: The Struggle for the Holy Land

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a wonderful corrective for two sets of people: (1) Those who idealize the Crusades, the crusaders, and the culture which surrounded and informed them; (2) Those who uncritically villify everything that the folks in the first category idealize.
Pernoud presents the Crusades in all their considerable glory and all their considerable shame. For example, an entire chapter is devoted to the character of St. Louis, the "perfect crusader", who so well embodied everything that was good in the crusader mentality. Juxtaposed to that, we hear of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, the "crusader without faith" who broke into the Thirteenth Century like a walking talking preview of the less gentle times to come -- a herald of Machiavelli, Napolean, and LBJ. As an admirer of the Middle Ages, I had always viewed Frederick II was an aberration -- like an intruder from another planet. But no. Pernoud shows (without a soapbox) that it should not be surprising that a Frederick II should arise -- even in the most civilized of centuries.
Pernoud makes these points, as I said, without a soapbox. He writes sober history -- Jack Webb style. And this sober recital of facts is just what ideologues on my side and on the opposite side really need.

This book uses the Crusades and the Crusaders to illustrate how feudal society lived and how feudal man thought. This book is not a narrative of the Crusades proper and does assume the reader has some knowledge of the events.

I found surprising that the culture of "Truce of God" (the restrictions on warfare imposed by the Church and observed by most European combatants) was such an obstacle to raising a Crusading army. Also since the Crusades were not a war of conquest, most Crusaders left when they felt they had fulfilled their vow. For example after the 1st Crusade less than 2500 Crusaders remained in the Holy Land. When you add logistic difficulties, Byzantine treachery, and internal rivalries it is amazing the Crusaders accomplished as much as they did. Most important, though she doesn't gloss over when atrocities were committed, she makes irrefutably evident that, overall, the Crusaders made a positive contribution to life in the region: something you are not likely to read about the Crusades from modern American writers.

Regine Pernoud was a historian unlike any I have read. Her ability to present what it was like to live in medieval society and to think like a medieval person in a manner that a modern reader can relate to is nothing short of wondrous. Her description of places and events is almost poetic. Her historical insight is literally jaw-dropping. If, like me, you imagined that it must have been horrible to live in the Middle Ages this book will give you a different picture.

Her translators also need to be congratulated since they have done a great job transmitting her words of genius.

In The Crusaders: The Struggle For The Holy Land, renowned French archivist and historian Regine Pernoud focuses upon the human aspect by presenting profiles of those who undertook the Crusades ranging from the kings, to the barons, clerks, women, merchants, and paupers. Whether driven by faith, conquest, or greed, their individual and collective perspectives are vividly described, and providing contemporary readers with a detailed and lasting impression of the shock of Christian perspectives created when introduced to the Muslim world. A thoughtful and unforgettable trip through history that virtually puts the reader in this long-ago era, The Crusaders is an ideal introduction for non-specialist general readers.

I bought this book based on the reviews for this and other works, looking for a good introduction to a topic about which I don't know much. Having read it, I'm a little surprised at the high rating it enjoys--not that it's a bad book, actually there's a lot to like about it, but I thought it suffered from a couple of problems that keep me from giving it higher marks. Specifically:

1. I was looking for a book that would tell me what happened--who did what when. This is not that book. It is very tenuously structured according to themes for each chapter: "The Barons," "Women," etc. The main problem with this approach is that Pernoud constantly jumps around from year to year, crusade to crusade, event to event, and for someone like myself without a very solid grasp of the basic chronology, sequence of events, and main players in the drama, it can be quite confusing, or at least leave one with no more than an unorganized mish-mash of vignettes. A secondary problem with this approach is that the material, at least as presented by Pernoud, does not lend itself to this type of categorization. A reader really can't expect to read "The Churchmen" for example and find all the information about religious figures and their activities; in the end, the chapters within the book are also a mish-mash of information.

2. Even without a lot of prior knowledge, it becomes clear from reading Pernoud's book that she is being very selective in the material she presents. In other words, there's a lot she leaves out. A LOT. Again, if this is a topic the reader is already familiar with, this may not be a big mark against, but for a reader like me who comes to this book looking to come away with solid information and understanding it's a huge disappointment. This book really struck me as being the quite personal musings of someone who has long lived with this material and thought about it for many years. It has an informal, almost conversational feel to it. In some ways that's quite nice, but I'm not at a level of familiarity with the Crusades that allows me to fully appreciate this aspect; it's more a source of frustration.

3. The book is unremittingly Eurocentric. That could be OK, but I found it quite limiting and I do not share other reviewers' opinion that she gives a "fair and balanced" picture. I'm not talking about giving the Muslims equal time or coming down hard on the evil imperialist arrogance of the invaders; but while Pernoud does note a couple of the shortcomings of individual characters--and really, given the grand fiasco the Crusades were how could she not--she writes as one totally identified with and uncritical of the idea of reconquering the Holy Land for Christendom. She is quite loquacious when describing the sentiments of King Louis VII (Saint Louis), but comparatively silent on the subject of his competance as a leader or the much more widespread cynicism and greed that inspired the actions of many leading figures.

4. There is only one map in the book and that is basically useless.

Apart from these misgivings, I quite liked the book. It is a quick, easy read, as I said, quite conversational in tone. Pernoud clearly has emotional attachment to some of the material, and she makes these quite clear in the course of the book. So long as the reader is familiar with the topic and able to read between the lines, this is fine--it lends a refreshing air of personal relevance and feeling in a genre of writing that all too often suffers from the stifling effect of academic rigor (mortis).