The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in History)

by Thomas F. Madden, Claton Butcher (Narrator)

How have the crusades contributed to Islamist rage and terrorism today? Were the crusades the Christian equivalent of modern jihad? In this sweeping yet pointed history, Thomas F. Madden offers a brilliant and compelling narrative of the crusades and their contemporary relevance.

With a cry of  “God wills it!” medieval knights ushered in a new era in European history. Across the continent a wave of pious enthusiasm led many thousands to leave their homes, families, and friends to march to distant lands in a great struggle for Christ and the redemption of the Holy Land. Yet the crusades were more than simply a holy war. They represent a synthesis of attitudes and values that were uniquely medieval—so medieval, in fact, that the crusading movement is rarely understood today.

Placing all the major crusades within the social, economic, religious, and intellectual environments that gave birth to the movement and nurtured it for centuries, Madden brings the distant medieval world vividly to life. From Palestine and Europe’s farthest reaches, each crusade is recounted in a clear, concise narrative. The author gives special attention as well to the crusades’ effects on the Islamic world and the Christian Byzantine East.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Medieval, Medieval History, Middle East, World History

Audiobook

First published January 25, 1999

About the author

Thomas F. Madden (born 1960) is an American historian, the Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

He is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States. He has frequently appeared in the media, as a consultant for various programs on the History Channel and National Public Radio.

In 2007, he was awarded the Haskins Medal from the Medieval Academy of America, for his book Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice, which was also a "Book of the Month" selection by the BBC History magazine.

Reviews

[Toonvanelst · Rating 5 out of 5]

As one who obtained a master degree in medieval history with a thesis on the fifth crusade, I feel it is my duty to recommend this new concise history of the crusade to everybody who wants to learn more on the crusades.

Comments on the shortness or occasional lack of detail of this marvelous account are not to be taken serious. The author clearly defines that he only wants to tell the bare essentials of crusader history. He wants to sketch the big trends and evolutions in the latin East and the West and comment upon the most important events and their short and long distance results. Thomas F. Madden was succesfull in his outset on every point.

Furthermore, the author takes up his responsability as a historian to dispell the most tenacious misconceptions and popular beliefs on crusader history. This book contains the most recent theories accepted by the current generation of modern crusader historians. But it is not elitist or closed off to a small part of the population that already has a certain knowledge about the crusades. It is accesible to all.

In a time where the crusades are wrongfully applied to justify recent wars and acts of violence, everybody should take the time to get informed properly. The new concise history of the crusades is an excellent, honest and thrustworthy starting point to arm yourself against misuse of the past.

Read it!

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Normally I wouldn't give a short survey of this sort four stars. It is very well written, though not especially eloquent. It is simply a brief overview of the entire crusading era. Individual crusades and even battles that could use book length treatments are covered in a matter of pages. Nonetheless, the author's intentions: 1) to give the reader a full picture of what took place during the various crusades, and perhaps more importantly, 2) to once and for all demolish long-held fantasies about the Crusades and the crusaders, is smashingly accomplished. It is brief but comprehensive, even the bibliography is profoundly educational. It dismantles the Marxist economic-determinist interpretation of the Crusades as unprovoked pre-colonialism by the warmongering and wealth-craving West, perpetrated against the peace-loving East. While Bill Clinton and his ilk point to the Crusades as sowing the seeds of 9/11 (not mentioned in the book), in fact the Crusades were utterly unremembered and unknown in the Muslim world until the last 100 years. Madden reminds readers that the Crusades were launched after Islamic conquest had conquered nearly 75% of Christendom. This book does a superb job of whetting the reader's whistle for more in-depth study of this unbelievably fascinating epoch and clash of civilizations and religions.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Story of the Crusades in Historical Perspective

The “Big Bang” theory of the Crusades claims they were the first round of European colonialism and imperialism, ruthlessly attacking the civilized and peaceful Muslim civilizations of the East, causing them irreparable harm and even being the reason they became radicalized.

The crusades need to be examined in their historical context. The Muslims had conquered the heart of Christianity, including Egypt and Syria as well as the Holy Land. Historian Thomas Madden reminds us that the people of Medieval Europe simply did not think the way we do today, so judging their actions by modern standards is misleading. Christianity was as central to their lives as Islam was for Muslims. Violence was endemic in their society, as it was in the Middle East.

The First Crusade to a Divided East

The First Crusade was declared with intention defending the Byzantine Empire against Muslim attacks. It also had the beneficial effect of giving the armies plaguing Europe something to do other than fight each other. Arab occupied Jerusalem had allowed Christian churches to flourish in order to encourage the pilgrims who were its major source of income. When the Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem, churches were destroyed, clergy murdered, and pilgrims seized. This provided popular motivation for the First Crusade with atrocity stories of the holy places being defiled and pilgrims attacked.

The seeming miracle of the conquest of Jerusalem during the First Crusade was made possible because the conflict between Fatimid Egypt and the Seljuk Turks had divided and weakened the Muslim side. The Fatimids has just retaken Jerusalem a year before the Christian conquest. As with most other campaigns, it was a tale of internal rivalry and conflict on both the Christian and Muslim sides. It seems that the side with the least internal conflict at the time would prevail.

Concise, or a Selective Use of Material?

Madden challenges the conception that the conquest of Jerusalem was an unusually violent affair.

"By the standards of the time, adhered to by both Christians and Muslims, the crusaders would have been justified in putting the entire population of Jerusalem to the sword [for resisting the invaders]. Despite later highly exaggerated reports, however, that is not what happened. It is true that many of the inhabitants, both Muslims and Jews, were killed in the initial fray. Yet many were also allowed to purchase their freedom or were simply expelled from the city. Later stories of the streets of Jerusalem coursing with knee-high rivers of blood were never meant to be taken seriously. Medieval people knew such a thing to be an impossibility. Modern people, unfortunately, often do not."

There is no consideration of the weight of evidence for this firm conclusion. I therefore compared the author’s account with that from the Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir, from Arab Historians of the Crusades. He reports (without suggesting it is unusual or shocking) that the crusaders massacred the population of every city they conquered on the way to Jerusalem during the First Crusade. As for Jerusalem itself, Ibn al-Athir writes:

"The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of David and fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering. The Franks honoured their word, and the group left by night for Ascalon. In the Masjid al-Aqsa the Franks slaughtered more than 70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams and Muslim scholars, devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the Holy Place."

These two accounts are not strictly contradictory, but they leave a very different impression. Madden chose to omit many details of crusader brutality. He does not mention that, according to the Frankish chronicler Radulph of Caen, “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.” It should be kept in mind that the soldiers were starving, and there is no evidence that this horrific event happened more than once.

I get the impression our Roman Catholic author is deliberately understating the brutality of the crusaders, perhaps to compensate for exaggeration elsewhere. But this is more than following the title’s promise to be concise - it amounts to selective use of evidence. Is the burning of the one hundred thousand “impious” books in the library in Tripoli a minor detail to be left out of a “concise” account, or does it tell us something about Catholic thinking at the time he would rather forget? He does correctly point out the behavior of the crusaders was little different from that of the Muslims in the same time period.

Life in the Crusader States

The crusader state in the Middle East lasted for nearly 200 years. During this time it became a normal player in an already fragmented region, engaging in commerce and joining military alliances with neighboring Islamic powers. The Westerners adopted some aspects of the local Arabic culture, although there was little religious interaction between them. A Muslim writer is quoted as saying that although some of the Franks (as they called the westerners) had taken to living like Muslims, there were interesting differences:

"The Franks are without any vestige of a sense of honor and jealousy. If one of them goes along the street with his wife and meets a friend, this man will take the woman's hand and lead here aside to talk, while the husband stands by waiting until she has finished her conversation. If she takes too long about it he leaves her with the other man and goes on his way."

The Fourth Crusade Disaster

The Fourth Crusade is a story of unintended consequences. The city of Venice was contracted to construct a fleet for the crusaders. They also had a trading relationship with Egypt, the target of the crusade, thus there was a conflict of interest. The crusaders turned up in far fewer numbers than expected and could not afford to pay.

The convenient solution was for the crusaders to attack the Croatian (thus Christian) city of Zara, which had rebelled against the Venetians. Then they were enticed by an exiled prince of Constantinople to travel to that city and restore his "rightful" rule, which would supposedly meet little resistance. Of course it did not work out that way, and the crusaders found themselves in a desperate situation. Although greatly outnumbered, the mercenary soldiers of Constantinople had little will to fight, and the crusaders ended up conquering the city of their fellow Christians. Although Constantinople tried to peacefully surrender, he tells us, “The army of Christ fell upon the Queen of Cities with startling ferocity.” The Christians brutally sacked the city, causing it permanent damage from which it never really recovered.

Crusading Against Fellow Christians

Crusading was not confined to the Middle East. The Reconquista campaign to roll back the Muslim occupation of Spain was also considered to be a crusade. Nor were crusades limited to fighting Islam. Pogroms against the Jews occurred in the Rhineland, although he argues they were carried out by those unfit for the real crusade (meaning the lower classes), and were opposed by the church hierarchy (but how hard did they really try?). There was also constant crusading against the pagans in the northeast of Europe. We are told, “In short, they were given a choice: convert or die. Here was a true Christian holy war.” It is interesting that Jews and Muslims in the Middle East did not receive this treatment.

Crusades were also declared against fellow Christians, such as the Albigensians (or Cathars) in southwestern France. The casual way he refers to this as a heresy suggests that he really believes they strayed from the True Mother Church, and deserved what they got. Massacres of entire cities were not enough to finish the job. But he concludes, “Thanks to the work of the Dominican inquisitors, Albigensianism was virtually extinct in Languedoc within a century.” The Dominican Order was created for this purpose.

Turks and Protestants: Fellow Enemies of the Faith

In the 1500’s the Turks became a serious military threat, occupying large parts of Eastern Europe. As a result, in his words, the church “failed to recognize the danger from within”, which was Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. Thus “the Protestants and the Turks had a mutually beneficial, although unintentional, relationship… Without them, Protestantism might conceivably have gone the way of Albigensianism.” The situation at the time was very complex, so this may be overstated. But one gets the impression the failure to slaughter the Protestants might be a matter of regret.

The Legacy of the Crusades

Madden finishes the book with a discussion of the legacy of the Crusades, both in the West and for Muslims. He says:

"It is one of the most remarkable events in history that the Latin West, an internally divided region seemingly on the brink of conquest by a powerful empire, suddenly burst forth with amazing new energy, neutralizing its enemies and expanding across the globe. Amazingly, the specter of advancing Muslim armies, which for centuries had posed such danger, no longer constituted a serious threat. Indeed, as the gaze of Europeans spanned new global horizons, they soon forgot that such a threat had existed at all. The Muslim world was no longer viewed as a dreaded enemy, but simply as one more backward culture. From that perspective the medieval crusades seemed distant and unnecessary - a discarded artifact from the childhood of a civilization."

While he mentions that the “new energy” of the West derived from its science and industry, it is worth noting that occurred because of the Protestant Reformation and the decline in power of his beloved Catholic Church that tried to suppress that very science. The West “won” the crusades by losing the religious reason to fight them in the first place.

A Constructed Long Memory

"It is commonly said that memories in the Middle East are long, that although the crusades may have been forgotten in the West, they were still vividly remembered where they happened. This is false. The simple fact is that the crusades were virtually unknown in the Muslim world even a century ago. The term for the crusades, harb al-salib, was only introduced into the Arab language in the mid-nineteenth century. The first Arabic history of the crusades was not written until 1899."

Although the crusades were of monumental importance to Europeans, to the Muslims they were a minor episode in the many other wars fought against various infidels. The actual impact was trivial compared with the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols, to give just one example. The prominent place of the crusades in Muslim ideology today is a "constructed memory", taught to them by Europeans in the nineteenth century. It may be convenient to blame western imperialism for the decline of the Muslim empire, but the Crusades had little to do with it.

However artificial this constructed memory might be, one must remember that it has been around for over a century now, and is therefore is now an integral part of the Muslim identity. The point of this book is to help us stop feeding this delusion we created.

Not Much Difference Between the Two Sides

After reading this and other works about the Crusades, my conclusion is there was little real difference between the two sides. Crusading is simply the Christian version of jihad. Both sides had moral standards that they usually failed to live up to. Slaughter of civilians was normal and expected, although breaking your word when you made a deal not to slaughter them was considered reprehensible. Both sides were beset by internal rivalry, and spent more time fighting among themselves than against each other.

While there is some selection of evidence to downplay Crusader brutality, it does not really affect the integrity of the work. I recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the impact of the crusades on Western and Islamic history. But read other accounts as well.

[Jeremy]

According to Madden, who wrote this article in Christianity Today, "[T]he Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands." Related post here. Related video here. See 4 myths here. See a review of a related book here.

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was simply amazing! Madden takes you through the almost six centuries of western European history that were influenced by the idea of the Crusades. Furthermore, Madden is able to make the reader appreciate the Crusades through the lenses of the people who lived and were influenced by them.
Throughout the book, Madden is able to show the most vital aspects of the Crusades without being bogged down by the details of every military tactic. Likewise, through the use of excellent maps at every stage of the Crusades Madden is able to give the reader a geographic picture of what the crusading world looked like. Lastly, without classifying the actions of the men in charge of these campaigns Madden is able to show all the ideals that motivated the crusaders, from the most selfish to the truly pious. Since Madden doesn’t make judgment calls on the actions taken by these men, the prose feels as close as one can get to the objective truth that modern journalism aspires to achieve in events of war.
Moreover, what topped Madden’s already fascinating book was his analysis of the perceptions of the Crusades throughout the centuries. First of all, Madden takes the narrative of the Crusades all the way up to the eve of the Protestant Reformation in an attempt to demonstrate how the impact of the crusading mentality affected Europe until Europe no longer considered itself a unified Catholic region. By rounding off the most iconic part of the Middle Ages with the beginnings of the Renaissance Madden is able to put the globe into its appropriate perspective for students who try to understand the changes that started the Renaissance.
Finally, Madden concludes the book with a discussion of the perception of the Crusades from a historical and academic point of view in the last few centuries. This is where the book seems to shine for me; Madden tries to put the Crusades back into a historic perspective while trying to point out all the ways in which the Crusades have been judged by the most convenient narrative of the current political movement. He shows how they were first sanctified as civilizing missions to the barbaric Middle East during the imperialistic decades of the 18th and 19th centuries; he shows how they were demonized as warlike colonial imperialism during the later part of the 20th century.
Likewise, in a magnificent analysis of the Middle Eastern Islamic histories of the Middle Ages, Madden is able to show how the entire concept of the Crusades was foreign to the peoples who westerns think as most deeply affected by them. Madden shows how in the politically diverse region where the Crusades took place, the Muslims saw the Crusades as nothing more than another political power fighting for dominance. Furthermore, Madden shows how the European concept of the Crusades was only shared with the Middle East after the colonial period after WWI. Madden then ends the book by calling the reading to try to understand the Crusades as a historical event through the lens of the societies who have rise to it, not by the societies who sought to characterize them.

[Sandy Salzinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, this was a slog. I would have had more of a tough time if it was more than 225 pages. Not really the author’s fault- his writing is crisp and to the point. There’s just so much information! It was a good introduction to this period of time. I’ve come to the conclusion that reading about specific events in history is probably preferable to histories of large swaths of time. But in retrospect, I certainly learned a lot that I didn’t know before and it is a good launching off point for further research.

[withdrawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Only read this book if you're a student and it's assigned reading.

It was okay but as a 'concise' history I must say that too much was cut out. A great many events but little detail. There is an obvious Christian bias here which meant that much of what was left out was that which may not look good for the Catholic Church. It's sort of a bloodless Crusades. And this is a passionless review. You don't have to 'like' it.

[عبد الله القصير · Rating 2 out of 5]

تاريخ مختصر للحروب الصليبية، كتاب للمؤلف الأمريكي توماس مادن، والذي حسب التعريف بصفحته، الخبير الأمريكي الأول بالحروب الصليبية. لكن خبرته لم تسعفه كثيرا بكتابة تاريخ متوازن للحروب الصليبية، المؤلف لا يخفي ميوله الاعتذارية للأوروبيّين بشنهم الحرب والتي لا إشكال عندي معه لو لم يكتب القصة من وجهة نظر ذات جانب واحد ويغفل بشكل كبير أي جانب آخر. فالمؤلف يرى أن الحروب الصليبية هي ردة فعل على ضغط الفتوحات الإسلامية في القرون الأربعة السابقة وهذا عجيب، فهو لم يبين في أي من المصادر وجد هذا رأي، والأسوأ من رأيه هذا هو إغفاله للمصادر الإسلامية بالكامل، ففي تاريخه تجد أدق التفاصيل عن قادة الصليبيين في مشاكلهم وعذاباتهم وكفاحهم، لتجد نفسك تتفهم قراراتهم إن لم تتعاطف معهم، بينما بالمقابل لا تجد أي ذكر للقادة المسلمين إلا في حالات قليلة جداً والتي يصرخون فيها للجهاد ثم يختفون من سياق القصة.
واضح أن المؤلف لم يحاول أن يكتب تاريخ محايد بقدر ما يريد أن يسقط آراءه الشخصية على حقبة زمنية سابقة.

[Dallas Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book one could finish in a day or two but it was such a good resource for branching out and finding complimentary sources to study while getting a broad introduction to the Crusades.

As a “concise” history goes, I think the author did a perfect job in encapsulating hundreds of years of holy wars within as many pages.

[Daniel Hoffman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview and introduction to the Crusader movement. Christians ought to be familiar with this stuff, as it as it played a huge role in the life of the church in the West for centuries.

[Syd :)]

Helped me tremendously with my coursework 🫶🫶 and honestly was pretty interesting - got through so much content reading this- did not feel bored either.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise but very informative for those with an interest in the crusades...

[Justin Kessler · Rating 4 out of 5]

The New Concise History of the Crusades is a short, detailed introduction into one of the most chaotic and controversial eras in human history, known as the crusades.

Weighing in at just a little over 225 pages of text, Thomas Maddens' book is just what it says it is in the title, its concise. Madden covers all of the major events, including the first crusade all the way to the end of the fifth crusade, with separate chapters dedicated to each crusades aftermath. Accompanying the major crusades Madden focuses on all of the other crusades as well, including the Crusades of St. Louis, the Albigensian Crusade, the Crusades in the Baltic, Varna and the Reconquest of Spain. Madden even delves into the history of the great military orders such as the Templar and Teutonic orders and their fates after the crusades.

Madden takes a very balanced view, and treats both sides equally, citing atrocities on both sides. He does an excellent job at showing just how divided the crusaders were when it came to planning and coordination. But while Madden focuses mostly on the Crusader camp Madden mentions, but never goes into much detail, on just how divided the Muslim camp was as well, fraught with civil strife and internal conflicts. One of the other problems I had with the book was the fact that it doesn't even mention Ma'arra anywhere. Also, events such as the Baltic Crusade and the Reconquest of Spain only get half page summaries, but this may be only due to the concise nature of the book, but the inclusion of more detail would have made this book a great resource.

Among the many interesting points the author strikes upon in the book, a few central themes stood out. One point was when Madden challenged a claim that the middle east has always had a very long memory when it came to the crusades. Madden claims that this is simply wrong, and cites the fact that an Arabic term for the crusades was not created until the late 19th century, and that the first Arabic history of the crusades was only written in 1899, and he goes further to claim that the Muslim world did not "differentiate the crusades from any other wars fought against infidels" (pg 218). Madden also cites the fact that Saladin, one of the Muslims most capable commanders, was largely forgotten until recent times. He concludes that this was simply a constructed memory. Whether this is true or not is highly debatable. Another important point (a point many would consider debatable) that Madden focuses was the fact that many in the crusades (including many knights and commanders) were driven mainly by piety and less by greed. Madden cites many personalities from among the crusades leading men and cited the fact that many gave up much of their wealth and land to go off to a distant land where success and possible payback was never guaranteed.

The book itself is written in a very lively, yet business like fashion with little scholarly argot to withhold any lay-person from diving straight into the text, making this an ideal introductory book for anyone curious about the crusades. The narrative moves along at a steady pace, and is written for the general public to digest. For those wanting to view the same resources Madden used during the creation of this book, there are in-text notations and a select narrative bibliography in the back.

If your looking for a short introduction into the crusades, Maddens work is a great read. But if your looking for more detailed anaylsis, I would look elsewhere.

[Gabriel Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe this book does an excellent job with examining each of the crusades from a practical perspective of evaluating the purpose of each crusade, whether or not each crusade was justified, and how we should reflect on the crusades from our modern perspective. Some of the historical accounts range from miraculous stories of victory to selfish, wicked acts of depravity. I found the book quite dry and difficult to read after the third crusade, but it still serves as helpful resource for someone who has not studied the topic before.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though this is an informative and useful work for an introduction to the subject, the author comes very close to editorializing in favor of the Crusaders. Although one could say that choosing a side is inevitable, this is a subject that one should work hard towards having a "Just the facts, ma'am" approach.

[Jason Young · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thorough, interesting, concise and very well written, just not my favorite subject.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and well-written: clears up many popular misconceptions and gives a good 30k foot view of events spanning several hundred years and three continents.

[Eric Folley · Rating 3 out of 5]

My interest in the Crusades wasn't really an interest in a detailed account of who-battled-who-where-and-how. I was more interested in a longue durée overview, and not so much a listing of particular events.

The final chapter of the book, however, attempts to make up for that, and I found the discussion of how the Crusades were used and abused in Europe and the Middle East (and beyond) in the years since very informative.

What did strike me, though, in all of the event detail, was the overriding political nature of the Crusades. Without the Pope exhortations and the pious mandates for redemption, the Crusades never would have happened at scale, but once they get going they become hopelessly mired in the squabbles of nobles, who form and break alliances at will, sign truces willy-nilly, and in general behave just like you would expect them to behave when campaigning closer to home. This is on both sides - the Islamic world is similarly fractured and distracted.

The tactical agreements between Christian and Muslim rulers during the campaigns drive home this point for me, as does, in a more subtle way, the idolization of Saladin in both Europe and the Middle East later. In the end, this was not a "Clash of Civilizations" as much as a clash of political entities of various stripes all with different agendas but flying the same Crusader flag because that's the means to the end.

[Jagordo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent primer on the crusades — goes into decent detail, but should be seen as a high-level view of the 1045 - 1292 period. Given the emotional views of the crusades (one polarity being veneration of idealistic and courageous heroes, the other being condemnation of the Franks as proto-imperialists), Madden does an excellent job of conceding that both understandings hold water and reveals the good, bad, and ugly of these fascinating wars.

If you have any interest in the crusades and don't know where to start, this is a great place to begin.

[Abu Syed sajib · Rating 3 out of 5]

True to its title, the book is concise. However this concise nature effects the book in both ways.
The description is so precise that the readers will never feel bored. Another interesting fact is the reader will never feel overwhelmed by information as it is provided in a sensible manner.
However due to its concise nature, reader can feel a certain level of biasness of the writer against the Muslims which includes completely wrong information about Saladin hiring assassins to kill Christian leaders. More often than not this concise nature hurt the Muslim side of the story...

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best modern books on the Crusades that you will find. It's rich in information, highly readable, and a great introduction to the topic. It also provides a balanced view of the Crusades, unlike many other recent works which continue the typical anti-Western, anti-Crusader bias that we have come to see from contemporary historians covering the topic.

[Gabe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just as promised, a concise history of the crusades with some thought on what they stand for in the grand scheme of history, including some thoughts on other famous takes written by historians or in pop culture.

[Jeff Roche · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good synopsis of the History of the Crusades.

Amazing summary of the last 2000 years of the Christian world and its interactions with Islamic civilization from the first Jihads in the 7th century that conquered 80 % of the Christian world at the time to the present day.

[Robert Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

This history may be "concise" compared to some, yet it thoroughly covers all of the crusades, and also corrects may common misperceptions, by understanding them in the context of the Middle Ages, rather than projecting modern agendas on them. A fascinating and enlightening read!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent work, covering the major Crusades, their cause and results, including the rise of Islam and the eventual end of the Crusading era. Clear writing and comprehensive coverage of the Crusading period make this volume stand out as one of the best. Highly recommended!

[Jodi Tooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant summary of crusades within the context of the civilizations that mounted them. Excellent summary that begins to characterize how modern society has reinterpreted them for their own uses and propaganda.

[Luke LaCour · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m a nerd for this sort of stuff, but this is probably the most unbiased book I’ve read about the Crusades. Doesn’t dump on the Christians, but it also doesn’t condone some of their actions. Unbiased and very good.

[Gia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hard to read at first, but then it started to feel like the adventures of the crusaders and their poor decisions. I loved the conclusion that we shouldn't try to understand the Crusades through a modern lens.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone wanting great knowledge of the Christian account of the crusades should read this book!

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easy to read and so enlightening, even though depressing. After finishing the bible more hypocrisy of people fighting in the name of religion.