First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars [Hardcover]

Geoffrey Regan (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 19, 2003

The word 'Crusades' has traditionally referred to the wars fought after the late eleventh century to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. Reagan argues that they actually began in the seventh century with the conquest by the Persians of the Byzantine Empire. In retaliation, the emperor Heraclius used Christian propaganda to turn the war into the first crusade. Coincidentally, Heraclius's career was unfolding at the same time as that of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. No sooner had Heraclius overthrown the power of Persia and regained the Holy Land, than he lost it to the irresistably strong Arabs. First Crusader is an entertaining and challenging reinterpretation of The Crusades.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Remembered as an exemplar of cold-blooded realpolitik, the Byzantine Empire actually pioneered the combination of military and religious fervor known as holy war, according to this colorful history. Regan, a historian and author of Great Military Blunders, covers some 800 years of Byzantine history, from the founding of Constantinople to the arrival of Western crusaders in the 12th century to take up the war against Islam. He focuses on the 7th century emperor Heraclius, celebrated for his knightly duels against enemy champions, who used religious appeals to build an army of "fanatics, zealots, martyrs and holy warriors" to defeat the Zoroastrian Persian Empire, recapture Jerusalem and recover the True Cross, Christendom's holiest relic. Heraclius's ideal of holy war devolved into "ersatz crusades"-one campaign against the Muslims sought to retrieve a holy towel imprinted with Christ's face-overshadowed by the endless factional intrigue, civil wars and intra-Christian schisms and persecutions that made the Byzantines their own worst enemies, but Regan argues for its lasting historical impact. The Byzantine's innovative fusion of military and religious enthusiasm, he speculates, may have influenced the development of the Muslim jihad that would soon overrun much of the Empire, and became a precedent for the Western Crusades. Regan makes the most of skimpy sources to draw a lucid portrait of the crazed piety, back-stabbing politics, chaotic battles and brutal massacres that characterize this period. Writing in an engaging style without academic jargon, he brings to life a lurid but neglected age that reverberates into our own. Photos.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review

"¿an entertaining and edifying jaunt¿"-Greensboro, NC News and Record

"¿ makes a convincing case that the wars of Heraclitus¿should rank as the first crusade¿"--Smith Hempstone, Washington Times

"Regan argues¿ that the real crusades began centuries before [the]11th century¿"--Wisconsin State Journal

"¿brings to life a lurid but neglected age that reverberates into our own."--Publishers Weekly

"For most people, the crusades involved knights marching across Europe to rescue the Holy Land¿Regan puts this all in a fresh, broader perspective by looking at the Byzantine Empire¿he revises ideas of holy war and brings to life the 17th century emperor Heraclius who rescued the true cross¿" --Clive Foss, University of Massachusetts

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan; 1 edition (April 19, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1403961514
• ISBN-13: 978-1403961518
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.3 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #524,084 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

8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A very accessible book, May 3, 2004

By 

Trevor Thatcher (St. Paul, MN USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars (Hardcover)

Regan's book writes in a style that is easy to understand and even fun to read. This was the first book I read dealing with the Byzantine Empire, it was good enough to warrant a topic switch in my major from Medieval studies, to Byzantine studies. Regan's book makes a clear cut and convincing case for emperor Heraclius of Byzantium, as the First Crusader. Though the book does not contain enough detail for my taste, it was still a captivating and informative read. This should be considered an informative introductory to the study of the Byzantine Empire.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Disapointingly Superficial Look at a Great but Tragic Emperor, June 12, 2011

By 

Stuart McCunn (New Haven, CT) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars (Hardcover)

This book could really have been great. It had the potential. But Regan's books always seem to be a little too populist and not enough factual for me. This book is an entertaining read but that's it. His central premise, that Heraclius was the first crusader, is flawed. Aside from the fact that a crusading movement didn't develop until the 12th Century the Emperor's 'crusades' lack key features of the later wars. They didn't include indulgences and they didn't have pilgrims. While calling it a holy war is closer to the mark a holy war is not a synonym for a crusade. After all jihad and crusade are both holy wars and yet they are completely different. By flat out refusing to distinguish between the term 'holy war' and 'crusade' Regan is demonstrating the complete lack of nuance that I dislike in his works. He actually goes so far as to compare academics who deny the term 'crusade' to the Byzantines to the Catholic church which "assert[ed] its supremacy over Greek Orthodoxy." By making that comparison he rather misses the point. He also avoids the problems inherent in defining what a crusade is and adopts one scholar (Dr. Kolbaba)'s opinion thus avoiding what is still a much debated question. Her definition seems to be Populist in nature which is a popular definition although more evident in non-Academic writings than Academic ones. Not to deride it since there have been several respectable scholars who have argued for it but it is far from being the most common or accepted one. The Populist definition of a crusade requires great popular enthusiasm and eschatological beliefs. Since the Traditionalist and Pluralist definitions exclude the Heraclian campaigns it's obvious why he chose the view he did but it is rather deceptive.

So now to the history. As is to be expected it is rather superficial. Regan never really gets into what Byzantine society was like or how they fought wars. For all its problems Walter Kaegi's book Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium is more detailed in every way. Amongst other things the last 50 pages of this book are devoted to what happened after Heraclius right up to the First Crusade while Kaegi's entire book is devoted to the man. Kaegi also delves a bit into the psychology of the man and the many cruel things which he had to do in order to acquire and maintain his throne. Regan's Heraclius is a saint. As usual he has fallen in love with his subject and is all but oblivious to his faults. A major plus for Regan's book though is the illustrations and photographs. Nineveh is in Iraq which is a country I am unlikely to visit for quite some time so his photos are essential. It is also the only book on Heraclius that is casually readable. Kaegi's book is dense and often well-nigh incomprehensible. This book for all its faults is written in an easy style and is an entertaining read. Those who hunger for more as I often do after reading one of Regan's books can go to Kaegi and try to piece together what he's saying. Despite the generally negative tone of this review the book isn't bad, just disappointing. Anyone looking for a light read that will teach them about an era that is generally ignored should seek out this book. There is depressingly little popular history on the Byzantines and what little there is tends to be summaries of the Empire's history as a whole. Just remember that things weren't as clean and clear-cut as Regan makes out.

12 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Wars of Heraclitus against the Persians, May 16, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars (Hardcover)

REVIEWED BY SMITH HEMPSTONE ...

When it comes to warrior-kings, the Byzantine emperor Heraclitus, who ruled Constantinople from 610 to 641 A.D., was in a league by himself. Few have risen so fast, and achieved so much in such a short time, only to lose all at the end.
Indeed, in "First Crusader: Byzantium's Holy Wars," the British historian Geoffrey Regan makes a convincing case that the wars of Heraclitus against the Sasanian Persians (622-628 A.D.) should rank as the first crusade rather than that from the West called by Pope Urban in 1095. Heraclitus smashed the Persian empire, recovering the flags and standards lost by 100 Byzantine armies over the centuries, regained the lost colonies of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacked a dozen great cities, brought back the True Cross from Persia and rebuilt the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre.
Whether you call the wars of the Christian Byzantines against the fire-worshipping Zoroastrian Persians crusades, or something else, the heroics of Heraclitus, who personally led his troops in battle and fought in single combat the champions of many enemy armies, had the effect of prolonging the life of the Eastern Roman empire for several centuries, delaying the Moslem advance into the Balkans by hundreds of years.
Both his personal life and his military successes combined to weaken Heraclitus toward the end of his reign. His popular first wife, Fabia-Eudokia, died in 612 A.D., leaving the emperor with only one male heir, not nearly enough to guarantee the succession. So Heraclitus married his beautiful and able niece, Martina, daughter of his sister, Maria. Although incestuous unions were not that unusual in those days, they were forbidden. But a significant group of the Byzantine establishment regarded the deaths of four of her disabled children as God's judgement on Martina, blaming her for defeats at the hands of the Moslem Arabs.
When Heraclitus died horribly of "dropsy" (cancer) this was taken as yet another sign of divine displeasure. The fates of Martina and her surviving sons: Martina's tongue was split and she was exiled to Rhodes with her eldest son, who had his nose cut off. Of her three other sons, two had their noses cut off and the youngest was castrated.
Like many another political leader, Heraclitus wanted to have both chariots and wine, and his wars proved ruinously expensive. Syria and Palestine had been regained but were denuded of their populations, their fields lay fallow and returned little revenue. Egypt was about to fall to Mohammed's desert Bedouin breaking out from Arabia.
The Orthodox Church, through the influence of Heraclitus' great friend and supporter, the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, had floated huge loans to pay for the wars. But now, except in distant Egypt, the wars were over and the church wanted its money back.
Heraclitus paid up, but only at the cost of his planned reform of the army and the civil service. Alexandria soon fell to the Moslems and much of Syria followed. By 674 A.D. the Moslem jihad had carried them to the gates of Constantinople. In desperation, the Byzantines fell back on their secret weapon: "Greek fire," a highly flammable mixture of tar, resin, sandarac and powdered sulphur mixed with dolphin and goat fat. It was ignited after passing through a hose and could not be put out with water. The Byzantine garrison of Constantinople used this primitive napalm to great effect against the Arab fleet and the wooden siege machines of the Moslems.
Their effective use of "Greek fire" and the arrival of Bulgar reinforcements and their King Tervel, resulted in over 20,000 Moslems killed. The Arabs abandoned the siege in 718 A.D., and the city was to block the Moslem invasion of Eastern Europe for another 700 years.
The millennium of Christ's death in 1033 A.D. triggered a wave of religious fervor that engulfed all Western Europe. What had been mere acts of faith evolved into a series of crusades whose objective was nothing less than the conquest of the Holy Land and its restoration to Christian rule.
What distinguished the Western crusaders from the earlier pilgrims was that by their acts they earned indulgences from the pope. These guaranteed protection of his family, lands and assets during his absence and granted the remission of sins should the crusader die in battle, with immediate entry into Paradise. In an age of faith, this was of no little consequence.
Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and by the Persians in 614 A.D. The Moslem Arabs had captured it in 638 A.D. In 1099 A.D. it was invested by the Western Crusaders and fell in a bloody massacre. After all the Moslems were dead and most of the Crusaders had sailed back to Europe, just 300 Christian knights and 2,000 infantry remained in the smoking ruins.
While Byzantium remained, it did so only as a shadow of its former days of greatness under Hiraclitus. Christian communities in the Near East could no longer expect help from Constantinople, which was to fall to the Ottoman Turks. As the gap grew greater between Latin Christianity and the Orthodox Church, Islam was rent by the division between Sunni and Shia and defeated in France and Hungary. It was not a time for greatness.