Customer Reviews

A History of the Crusades Vol. I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Volume 1)

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

So you didn't like history either ? After being crammed withuseless dates and uninteresting facts about the decaying kings andkingdoms I never expected to ever pick up a history book again. So imagine my scepticism when somebody said that I "absolutely must" read Runciman's History of the Crusades...a work of history confined to only 3 volumes and enough pages to make any Russian author turn green with envy. And what a story...Runciman covers the 500 years of Middle East history with all the ingredients for a action packed thriller. The history is full of strong characters, mighty kings, impoverished adventurers and deceitful leaders. This is a tale of the clash of culture in its original form the east-west clash has its roots in these volotile times. The best part about these stories is not so much the historical matter of which they are made up but Runciman's presentation of his material. He manages an almost incredible amount of original and later sources without losing sight of his goal: a readable account of these fantastic times. The politics in these pages inspire to further studies of the period. There is nothing today which can mach the intrigue found in these pages and few writers have managed to make history come alive in such a thought provoking mix. What can I say ? I have a large library and since Runciman several historical works but nothing seems to ever reach the heights he attains or the inspiration. He is probably the only writer I feel able to read again and again without become tired in the repetition. Three volumes and 600 years defy explanation, within the covers one meets the greats like Baibers, Baldwin, the great Khan, Saladin and Richard the Lionheart and travels to the mystic scenes of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. How can I say "must read" any plainer without sounding banal ?

Western Europe in the middle ages is often depicted as a static and insular social system--and, to be sure, certain aspects of medieval history support that impression. But the events described in this fine book challenge such portrayals, showing a Western Europe in the eleventh century that was intimately involved in the eastern Mediterranean. Runciman traces this interaction back to the Roman Empire, beginning his book with a charmingly concise yet informative history of Christian society in the East. We see how alert the West was to events in Asia Minor and the Levant: I was struck by how, a thousand years ago, tourism was such an important industry. Constantinople functioned almost as a modern-day theme park--with relics, art and architecture being the big-budget attractions--and as a crucial transportation hub along the pilgrimage route. The breakdown of this tourist industry due to local political instability--and its importance to the West--is what proximally prompted the Crusades. And in the Crusades themselves is reflected the dynamic nature of medieval political history; in particular we see the restless aspirations of the powerful Norman warlords (especially their somewhat disenfranchised younger sons) played out as a key military motor of the Crusades. Reading the background Runciman gives to the Normans (Christianized descendants of the Vikings), and the Seldjuks (Islamized descendants of Turkish nomads), I could not help but notice a certain loose symmetry to their stories, and it didn't seem so odd that they would meet at the interface of the two great Mediterranean faiths. There is much that I found eye-opening in the narrative: from the murderous anti-Jewish pogroms in Western Europe that the Crusaders used as warm-up exercises, to the pathetic lawlessness of their course through Hungary and Byzantium, to the Monty-Pythonesque absurdities of the "medieval mind" (e.g., the throng of German peasants led to the Crusades by "a goose that had been inspired by God"). As an aside, while this may seem to be a very male-oriented subject, in fact a female is probably the most important personality in Runciman's work: it relies most heavily on the account of Anna Comnena, the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius. Runciman repeatedly makes a passionate case for accepting her chronicle as the most trustworthy of the contemporary accounts, and uses it extensively in his reconstruction.

Sir Steven Runciman's monumental study has held its appeal for over 50 years. These books have two main merits beyond the author's literary gifts. As a Byzantinist, he situates the Crusades in both European and Middle Eastern contexts, giving due attention to Muslim Arabs and Turks, Greeks, Armenians and other Eastern Christians, and he uses Eastern sources quite well. Most other histories simply treat the crusading era as an episode in Europe's development. Runciman's richly rewarding narrative combines storytelling with analysis of historical controversies. It is not a complete tale of all medieval Crusades, since he omits wars against Muslim Spain, Eastern Slavs, Christian heretics, and crusading episodes after the fall of Acre in 1291. But this "limited" focus on the eastern Mediterranean makes the work tighter and more coherent; later historians like J. Riley-Smith and K. Setton retain much of Runciman's analytical framework. Volumes 2 and 3 on the Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Acre are also superb, but they seem less novel after the unprecedented events of the First Crusade. The most intriguing alternatives on the Crusades present non-Christian views, e.g. A. Maalouf, "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" and F. Gabrieli, "Arab Historians of the Crusades." A. Oz, "Crusade" is heartrending fiction about First Crusaders' zest for massacring Jews en route to the Holy Land.

Steven Runciman's three-volume history of the Crusades (originally published in the early 1950s) is widely recognized as one of the greatest works of history written in the English language in the twentieth century. As such, it is indispensable reading for any serious student of the crusading period or the Middle Ages in general, as well as those with a broad interest in military history or the Middle East.

The remarkable thing about Runciman's work is that it is just as satisfying to the lay reader as it is to the scholar. Casual readers could be frightened by the prospect of reading a three volume history and instead turn to one of the "introductions" available on the subject by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Hans Eberhard Meyer or Thomas Madden. Believe me, you'll find reading Runciman much easier and more enjoyable than those books, which may be more concise but are also excruciatingly dull.

In the introduction to Volume I Runciman clearly lays out his intentions: "I believe that the supreme duty of the historian is to write history, that is to say, to attempt to record in one sweeping sequence the great events and movements that have swayed the destinies of man." Runciman is true to his goal. Modern scholars may disagree with some of his assertions, but no one can argue that he fell short in writing a captivating history of a crucial epoch in world civilization.

A couple of points on Runciman's style and conclusions bear mentioning. First, he places strong emphasis on the importance of individuals and their ability to sway the course of great events. (This is also a main reason why his work is so much more interesting than other books on the subject.) In his narrative of the First Crusade no figures loom larger than the papal legate Adhemar, Bishop of Le Puy, and the crusading prince from Italian Normandy, Bohemond.

Runciman suggests that Adhemar was the Crusade's indispensable man. The only individual with the talent, will and integrity to manage the polyglot crusading armies to fulfill the desires of Pope Urban II: cooperation with Byzantium and its emperor Alexius Comnenus and adherence to the fundamentally spiritual and penitential mission of retaking Jerusalem from the Moslems. His death from typhoid after the siege of Antioch in 1098 is described as a critical turning point in the history of the Crusades as it deprived the movement of the one individual with the authority to unite and control the warrior princes that swept into the Levant on their ostensibly holy mission. To make matters worse, Adhemar's replacement as papal legate - Daimbert of Pisa - proved to be just as ambitious, self-interested and manipulative as the competing princes, a fact that did much to promote the infighting and land-grabbing that led to the competing Christian states in Outremer.

Bohemond - arguably the greatest crusading general ever, not just of the First Crusades but the entire crusading period out to the thirteenth century - is portrayed by Runciman as something of an antagonist to Adhemar and the whole noble cause of the crusade as preached by Urban at the Council of Clermont and beyond. He is written as the embodiment of the rapacious westerner seeking a rich principality in the East under the cloak of Christian piety.

Second, from the perspective of military history, Runciman argues that the issues of logistics and sea control were critical to the success of the whole campaign. Time and again the crusading armies were nearly destroyed not by marauding bands of Turks or Arabs (although they did pose a threat) but rather by a lack of water and food or from sheer exhaustion during the 1,300 km march across Anatolia to the Holy Lands. On several occasions the crusaders were saved by the timely arrival of a Genoese or Venetian fleet bearing desperately needed supplies - including basic items such as nails and hammers to build the siege engines so critical in taking Jerusalem - and the challenge of capturing and maintaining control of a safe harbor on the Levantine coast as an entrepot for the Christian vessels. (For more on the military aspects of the First Crusade, John France's "Victory in the East" is fantastic.)

In closing, if you're looking to read only one book on the Crusades, Runicman's magisterial history should be your choice. Don't let the size of the work intimidate you. It is history at its finest and the extra time (and money) it will take to read his three volumes will be well worth it.

Runciman's three-volume work on the Crusades have been the book of requirement for anyone with serious devotion to study it. My fair warning is that since the book contains detailed accounts, you'll need a huge amount of energy to go through the thick pages. The language is very monotonous, some people will call it plain 'dry' and resort to it as pure reference only.

This is only the first of the three that you'll need to read and the pages get thicker every time. But don't be discouraged because he is probably one of the few historian in this field to correctly balance the accounts (Muslims and Christians).

I'll say try your local library first to get the feeling of Runciman's delicate use of words before attempting to acquire all three.

Runciman was a genius. A brilliant writer in English, whose grand ambitions never lead him astray from the most meticulous separation of fact from speculation, he was also an extraordinary polyglot. He read not only the Latin, Old French and Greek among the contemporary accounts of the Crusades, but the Arabic, Syriac, Persian, Hebrew, Gergian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Norse and Mongolian as well, not to mention modern secondary works in many more languages still. (My man had a BIG BRAIN.) If he shows any favoritism at all among the warring factions of the Crusades, then it is towards the Byzantine Greeks, although what looks like favoritism to me may only be due to my own ignorance. Even if I'm right about his favoring the Greeks, Runciman is still by far the most impartial historian of the Crusades known to me. He's certainly the only one who took the trouble and had the talent to read all the sources in the original. (Most people who've read widely in more than one language can probably appreciate how much tends to be lost in translation, not to mention how much is never translated at all.) As if his reading weren't enough, he often walked through the cities and over the battlefields which he describes in his works, in order to discover things which no one had yet written.

Runciman makes sweeping judgements and expresses strong opinions, although these are often decently hidden between the lines of his polite Cambridge prose. But all of his judgements and opinions have the support of the most solid scholarship.

I recommend the three-volume 'History of the Crusades'. The book 'The First Crusade' is an abridgement of the first volume, without footnotes or appendices or bibliography. In addition to the the three-volume history, I also have a copy of the abridgement 'The First Crusade', but it's the illustrated hardcover edition, ISBN 0521232554. I got it just for the pictures, many in color. The three volumes of the 'History of the Crusades' have a few black-and-white illustrations, and the paperback edition of 'The First Crusade' has no illustrations.

This, with volumes II and III, is the definitive history of the Crusades. Runciman refrained from opinion, but is very clear about the background of the Crusades. From the first century, the Holy Land was in Christian hands, and Christians and Jews dwelt together in relative peace. In the eighth century Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land, but mostly left Christians and Jews alone to live their own lives. But toward the end of the first millenium, Seljuk Turks moved into this area and persecution began. Pilgrimages, which had been conducted from the first century were forbidden, and it was dangerous for Christians to enter the domain of the Turks.
The main story begins with the call of Pope Urban for an army to take back the Holy Land so that pilgrimages might resume. Runciman shows how the pope's vision was not to be implemented. Almost the only armies that responded were Franks from what is today France and Germany. Those Franks had undergone mass baptism several centuries earlier when their king, Clovis, had been converted. Their conversion appears to have been incomplete, and they were not only warlike, but accustomed to raiding their neighbors, looting and killing and destroying the land. On their way to the Holy Land they passed through the Christian country of Byzantium and caused no end of trouble for the Byzantines. When they arrived in the Holy Land, they drove the Muslims out and established several "Christian" kingdoms which endured in an unstable peace until the Muslims grew stronger and reconquered the land and drove out the Frankish princes. As C. S. Lewis remarked, after reading Runciman's account, both sides were a bunch of thugs, except for Saladin.

Runciman's "A History of the Crusades" might very well seem daunting at first glance. Three volumes devoted to a well known but little understood series of events spanning several hundred years may seem like it will take a lot of note taking just to get through. Rest Assured this is certainly not the case. Keeping the narrative lively and and maintaing a fast pace these books read very quickly. Keeping in Mind that the period covered in these volumes stretches over about 500 years three volumes of medium size still is just a scratch on the surface of the Crusades. Following the copious footnotes the reader will easily understand that there is plenty of more material that could be explored if desired.

All that being said this set provides a very succinct account of the Crusades and also answers the question of "what caused the Crusades. Runciman's answers to this question are Sundry but they are all worth exploring. Using the first 100 pages or so the author explores the Muslims and The Byzantines in their geographical and theological conflicts. The author does a good job to paint the Muslims not as "bad guys" but in fact very humane in some instances. But the situation ultimately sees the Muslim empires reaching their zenith by the middle of the 10th century and Byzantium though still temporally strong, is the weaker player in the East. In the west by this time Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula has caused great concern and it isnt long before French Knights are pouring over the pyrnees to fight back. Here, Europeans get their first taste of "holy war". As fervent as the fighters are over religious matters far more realistic matters like the need for new lands for the nobility as generations of nobles have carved ancestral estates. Primogeniture is coming into play and overall the desire for more land may be equal to the true desire to ransom captive holy cities. When Urban II calls for crusade in Le Puy he is astounded at the enthusiasm of his audience. Not long thereafter (1097) Peter the Hermit humbly leads the first "crusade" which is ultimately a failure.

The history goes on and on but never loses its intensity with the taking of Antioch as the high point of the work. It is an amazing desctiption of the tension between the franks and normans that is frought with near defeats. This is the first of a fantastic set of books that I recomend to all interested individuals but is probably best suited to post high-schoolers. I further recommend background on Muslim history, Byzantium and Western Middle Ages history as it is also valuable to getting the most out of this book. If interested in any particular portion of the history the author gives great acedemic footnotes that can lead the reader further in their quest for understanding.

- Ted Murena

I've read other books that only touch on the Crusades, so I was hoping to fill the gaps in my knowledge. This book was great! It's informative and well written in a clear and easy style. I recommend this book for anyone who would like a thoughtful account of the Crusades based on information we have from the period.

Sure it's outdated in places, it's not as accurate as the works of specialists in each of the areas Runciman engages, and it's very biased in favor of the Byzantines, but it's still the best detailed history of the crusades out there. Runciman's history is epic in scope, accurate in the details, and is extremely well written. It is extraordinarily rare to find such an seamless blend of scholarly history with popular prose, and Runciman pulls it off better than I've ever seen elsewhere. Runciman has clearly reviewed all the relevant primary sources (in an incredible amount of languages), and does an excellent job of citing sources for the accounts and claims he gives in his history.

If you just want a short introduction to the crusades, look elsewhere. This history is about 1500 pages total, which is what separates it from the rest of the crusades histories out there. You won't find an account this detailed anywhere else (outside of extremely outdated sources over a century old), and Runciman possesses the all important ability to discern which facts deserve to be included or excluded from historical accounts. He doesn't simply pad his book with irrelevant historical facts, but ties everything together into a coherent whole. When one compares his history to the six volume history of the crusades produced by a collaboration of American scholars at the same time Runciman was producing his, this coherence is the defining difference.

I have very few complaints about this first volume of his set; it is nothing short of a masterpiece. However, it is unfortunate that he cites so few secondary sources, and interacts so little with the ideas of other crusades scholars. His partiality toward the Byzantines is also readily apparent in this volume, though it does not become glaring until the final volume of the set (probably because that's when he covers the Fourth Crusade).

In short, if you are going to read only one account of the crusades, this is the one. Runciman is an eminent scholar writing an account accessible to non-specialists. It is both accurate and entertaining. It is a testament to its greatness that it is still widely used over fifty years after its production, in spite of a wealth of other resources on the crusades being published since then. I heartily recommend it.