The First Crusade: A New History

The First Crusade has always fascinated me and I found Thomas Asbridge's book an excellent read. Well researched, it tends to stay away from much of the bias I have seen presented from modern perspectives. Overall, the book was well balanced, though the author found it difficult to believe that a Christian could be both a devout man of faith, dedicate his life to a Holy endeavor, and at the same time seek temporal rewards. In my estimation, the fact that Crusaders sought plunder and reward for their efforts beyond the Eternal reward promised by Pope Urban II, is neither confusing, nor indicative of base motives. Mr. Asbridge treats religious motives and the concept of Miracles with a degree of caution that is perhaps appropriate in a reasoned Historian. However, he in no way denigrates the Crusader's faith in God nor does he dismiss the fact that they readily believed in and depended on God's intervention to reach their goal. He also points out the brutality of both Franks and Muslims in this epic struggle. The author does ascribe a much more benign intent to Muslim Expansionism than I believe is warranted. At one point he states that by the time of the First Crusade, Islam had turned to more reasoned means to get what they wanted. This is unsupported by the facts. Islam's own factious nature had weakened it and the Crusaders were able to exploit that weakness, but this does not signal a change in Islamic Expansionism, nor that the Muslim world no longer looked to the West for future conquests. Christianity and Islam had been at war for hundreds of years and periods of inactivity do not indicate a shift in policy or intent. After all, as Mr. Asbridge indicates, the Byzantine Empire was begging the West for assistance against an implacable enemy. Additionally, the subtitle is, in my estimation, inaccurate. "The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam" is a short-sighted, ill-considered statement. Islam may consider the Crusades a convenient excuse to foment anger and outrage among its adherents, but the Crusades were hardly the genesis of the conflict between these two religions. If a bully takes your lunch money, destroys your property, and threatens you until you finally punch him in the nose, he may well cry, "You see! That's why I don't like you." But your resistance to his intentions cannot be considered the "Roots of the Conflict." Finally, on page 52 Mr. Asbridge speaks of the weapons of the Franks, calling the sword "a heavy, but finely balanced, blunt-tipped bludgeoning tool." Mr. Asbridge is an able historian, a fine author, and a reasoned academic, but to call the marvelous swords carried by the Crusaders "bludgeoning tools," indicates that he is not a student of medieval weapons. Indeed, the majority of the swords from the Wallace Collection Museum in London from two-handed designs to rapiers weigh less than three pounds. Blade geometry, fit, and balance make these weapons far from "bludgeoning tools." I would refer interested readers to the article "What Did Historical Swords Weigh?" by J. Clements of ARMA. Yet these points aside, I was delighted with the book. It was compelling, gentle toward the sensibilities of persons of Faith without showing bias, and covered a wide range of perspective, though it was definitely written from the Frank's point of view. I will eagerly pick up other writings by this author and would recommend this work to anyone interested in the First Crusade. Samuel Schiller Vis Superavi Ignarum!

Thomas Asbridge presents a very readable history of the First Crusade. As the subtitle states one of Asbridge's central themes of the book is to show how the reactions to the First Crusade by Western Europeans, the demonizing of Islam and the exaltation of the successful crusaders, had a very negative impact on interfaith relations. At both the start and end of the book Asbridge highlights the transformation to Christian-Muslim relations as a result of the First Crusade. Throughout the book examples are given to show the fractured Islamic leadership, with centers in both Baghdad and Cairo, and to show the varying ways that crusaders and Muslims interacted in Asia Minor and the Holy Land. Asbridge makes the Islamic internal divisions and power struggle a central reason as to why the First Crusaders were able to be successful. Throughout the book Asbridge provides a detailed account of the crusaders struggles and successes, he is able to transport the reader back to the events and show the human qualities of the crusader council. The military crusade leaders had to hold in tension the desire for penance and forgiveness of sins with the Western views of conquest and plunder. The spiritual piety of a pilgrimage had to be assisted by the military leadership associated with conquest. The council had to constantly weigh their actions against possible future retaliations, and against potential divine judgment. In some instances the leaders made truces and treaties with local Muslim leaders, and they even fought alongside Muslim allies if it was to their benefit. At one point during the crusade a treaty was reached with Cairo and peace established. As the Crusade unfolded inter-religious cooperation occurred more often than outright oppression and persecution. The discovery of the Holy Lance, whether or not it was authentic, reinvigorated the crusaders during a dark hour. With the assurance of God's blessing they were emboldened to attack and were able to defeat the Muslim host that had arrived to besiege them within the walls of Antioch. Some of the crusader actions are seen as contradictory to the modern reader, such as their actions following the brutal massacre and sacking of Jerusalem, when men attended a prayer service in the Holy Sepulcher still covered in blood and clutching their spoils. Asbridge wrote a detailed and lively account of the First Crusade, and through the course of the book showed how Christian-Muslim relations began to deteriorate as time went on. As the memory of the events began to fade from the European's minds their descriptions of the victories became more exaggerated and anti-Islamic. Muslims then began to take offense at the Christian's boldness and their divine mandate ideology for control of Jerusalem. When Muslims united against the Christians the long bitter struggle for the Holy Land began. Westerners harkened back to the success of the First Crusade as a rallying point and as the justification for future crusades.

Despite the controversy surrounding the morality and legacy of the Western Christian Crusades, the fact still remains that these campaigns are among the more remarkable human enterprises of the past millennium. One can draw many conclusions on the impact of the Crusades on Roman Christian relations with Eastern Christianity and Islam, or on the moral atrocities perpetrated in achieving their goals. And yet, the parties themselves involved in the thick of the battle were as often as not as pious as early medieval warriors could be, and carried within themselves for the most part some semblance of a pious and devout purpose that manifested itself in remarkable courage and amazing military execution. Thomas Asbridge takes a wide view of the First Crusade. In his opening chapter he briefly but comprehensively summarizes the many forces at work in the Roman West, from feudal economics to Gregorian reform. As no two historians agree precisely on why the Crusades took place [each Crusade, in fact, seemed to have its own genesis of purpose in some respects], no reader will agree on every point with Asbridge's conclusion that the roots of the First Crusade are, in the final analysis, spiritual ones. At the very least, the Asbridge conjecture is a refreshing change from the "bored, disinherited knight" hypothesis one sees so often. If later Crusades like the Fourth were hampered by a lack of manpower, the First Crusade may have had too many volunteers, at least too many of the wrong sort. Proclaimed in France by Pope Urban II in 1095 as a type of democratic call to penance and conversion, men and women [and even children] of all walks of life felt qualified and compelled to take up the cross, in the common parlance. Eccentric and unpredictable holy men like Peter the Hermit probably accelerated this trend. [By way of contrast, see Jonathan Phillips's "The Fourth Crusade" for a description of how recruiting and tactics evolved with a century of experience.] This Crusade was heavily French, but Asbridge observes that perhaps as many as twenty languages were in use among the forces. No European king took up the cross, but noblemen from many countries did, and it would take time for a leadership triumvirate to emerge. Asbridge places the number of knights and skilled soldiers at the beginning of the campaign at 40,000, with a wider circle of pious souls bringing the mass to close to 100,000, though the author is cautious about numbers throughout the work. Asbridge observes that while the overall goal of the army was the recapture of the Holy City Jerusalem, the psycho-spiritual center of the earth, there were many nuances in play. Aside from the obvious goal of eternal life, other subplots included, ironically, anti-Semitic violence. Add to this the aims of better relations with Orthodox Christianity, submission of Orthodox Christianity, submission of Islam, normalization of relations with Islamic local rulers, new trade arrangements, and in some cases outright land grabbing and plundering. A moving population of this magnitude would quickly defoliate everything in its path, which meant that the first leg of the Crusade from Italy to Constantinople would have to travel along three distinct European routes. The trip through Asia Minor, geographically and politically unfriendly, began the inevitable weeding out process. At Constantinople a wary Emperor Alexius I denied the Crusaders' request to join them, but made vague promises of support later upheld with varying degrees of usefulness. By the Constantinople phase, three leaders had emerged: Raymond of Toulouse, Bohemond of Taranto, and Godfrey of Buillon. Their interplay is key to the narrative as the Crusade proceeded south to capture the strategic Antioch. This ancient and extremely well-fortified city would consume the Crusaders in a year-long siege that nearly wrecked their enterprise. If the hand of God was with this Crusade, its presence was most felt in Antioch, when a far superior Moslem relief army was scattered by daring Crusader tactics and ineptitude of its own leadership. By this point Asbridge observed that the Crusade had lost most of its horses and nearly 80% of its manpower. But the remaining force was a much more efficient, battle-toughened army that reinvented itself during the Antiochene exile in the desert. With Antioch finally captured, Bohemond decided to stay as ruler of the city. This is not quite as crass as it may seem. Bohemond's and Godfrey's disagreement about Antioch seemed to reflect an ongoing philosophical debate as the capture of Jerusalem loomed closer. Bohemond envisioned a lasting Western presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. While he did well for himself in holding Antioch, it is true that Jerusalem did not exist in a vacuum and would require a regional pacification. Godfrey, on the other hand, felt the urgency of taking the Holy City immediately, which he accomplished with a largely Frankish army by a combination of advanced machinery, trickery, and reputation. Word of the Crusaders' savagery had preceded them, and when the defenses of Jerusalem were breeched, the invading army proved beyond any doubt that its reputation was well deserved. Even Asbridge concedes that the atrocities of the Crusaders in Jerusalem were among the worst in recorded history. He does make the point that to the medieval mind the most pious of intentions could live side by side with the savagery of the professional soldier. It is ironic that Pope Urban II died only days before news of the victory reached him. Godfrey is remembered today as the man who scaled the walls, but Bohemond had been correct, too. Jerusalem was as far as this army could go. Only 2100 soldiers were available to withstand a Fatimid counterattack shortly after the capture of Jerusalem, and only 300 remained with Godfrey for the long term occupation. In his concluding remarks, the author observes that, without diminishing the achievements of the Crusaders, the campaign had taken place when the Islamic world was woefully divided. The Crusade, ironically, sparked the drive toward Moslem reunification, a difficult story for a later day.

I had to read this book for a Church History class at Denver Seminary. I had never read anything on the first crusade, or the crusades for that matter, so this was a new area for me. I was very surprised at how enlightening Asbridge's book was. I couldn't put it down. Asbridge set out to shed new light upon the “expeditions inception, explaining what motivated such a multitude of Europeans to join the crusade...and asses the true nature of relations between Christendom and Islam at the time of the crusade and demonstrate how they were transformed by the attack on the Holy Land.” Pope Urban II’s call for a Holy War at Clermont in 1095 gave justification to the dehumanization of the Muslim world and its people. Urban told horrific stories of the persecution and oppression that the Christians were facing, in the holiest and most important city in Christendom, Jerusalem. Pope urban had delivered a speech of sheer importance; it had caught fire through the aristocracy of France and beyond. The people had been promised spiritual benefits as a result of crusading and heeding Urban’s message. The crusaders were promised penance for their sins in exchange for putting their lives on the line, to take back Jerusalem from Islamic rule. Those who heard the Pope’s message at Clermont sprang to action to the tune of tens of thousands of people. Along with lay people, many prominent knights came to the aid of the crusade and took up the cross to fight for Urban. This was all part of Urban’s master plan, having “planted” Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy in the crowd at the council of Clermont. His sermon motivated the crowd for the crusade, giving them and Urban the credibility they needed to gain steam. Soon after Adhemar joined the ranks, many other prominent knights and nobles joined in and took up the cross. Urban persistently preached and continued to gain energy, strength, and most importantly numbers. Joining the ranks of the crusade was not without sacrifice for those who joined; many were driven to financial straits or even the equivalent of bankruptcy. This stretched even as far as the nobles and upper echelon of society that join in the fight. Many were forced to leave family and their livelihood to journey across the world to reclaim the city of Jesus. In the first leg of the journey, the crusaders set out for Byzantium wrought with the passion of Urban’s speech still ringing in their ears. As they made their way towards their first target, the Jews of Europe unknowingly became the first victims of the crusades. The crusaders slaughtered these helpless Jews in cold blood that Asbridge called “one of the blackest, most bloodthirsty episodes in all of medieval history.” The crusaders marched on to Byzantium and only gained strength through oaths with Alexius and the addition of other nobles and knights along the way. The crusaders had amassed a large number of soldiers (somewhere between 60,000-75,000, perhaps with only about 7,500 fully armed and 5,000 infantry ), which led them to their first place of conquest, Nicaea. The crusaders were met with opposition in conquering the city, due to the large army Kiliji Arslan had brought to the gates of Nicaea, as well as the cities massive fortification. The crusaders conquered the city by way of a lake in a surprise attack. The crusaders next task was going to their most difficult, but also the most necessary in their quest for the Holy City: conquer Antioch. This was no small feat as the city was one of the most revered cities in the ancient world having been founded 300 years before the birth of Christ. The battle for Antioch came at a great price for the crusaders; many lives were lost in battle. Due to the length of time it took to conquer the great city, the crusaders were beginning to lose hope. The crusaders had run out of food and endured a very harsh winter in order to gain command of the city, but their endurance was paying off, the strength of the city was waning and the people of Antioch were beginning to prepare for the worst as they began to bury their treasured goods and resources. After Antioch was brought to its knees, the crusaders were one step closer to their goal of reaching Jerusalem. The crusaders however, were then faced with a seemingly bigger problem: factions within the army. Two men, Raymond of Toulouse and Bohemond of Taranto, were at odds for control of Antioch. This power struggle would prove to be Raymond’s down fall in then end. Antioch would come under attack by Kerbogha. The conflict between Raymond and Bohemond was coming to a boiling point, almost leading to the demise of the whole crusade. However, after returning to their spiritual roots, the crusaders defeated Kerbogha and “Now, finally, the road south was open and the Holy City of Jerusalem beckoned.” The road to Jerusalem was not without its own problems; who would lead this conquest with a power struggle between Raymond and Bohemond? These thoughts must have crossed their minds as the crusaders fought battles along the way to their final destination. The Holy City was at hand and the crusaders put forth all their effort in taking back what they thought was rightfully theirs. They sacked Jerusalem on July 15th, 1099 and their barbaric nature quickly turned to worship and devotion. The implications of achieving their goal of reclaiming the Holy City were finally realized. They had lost many along the way, deemed “martyrs” for the sake of Christ in giving their lives on the field of battle. Their deaths and maybe even those whom they conquered, were the necessary stepping stones to gaining penance and remission of sins as well as the ultimate prize: the city of Jesus. Christianity was one of the prominent religions leading up to the time of the first crusade. It is believed that Islam was a violent and oppressive religion, a claim that Asbridge calls “pure propaganda” conjured up by Pope Urban, “If anything, Islam had proved over the preceding centuries to be more tolerant of other religions than Catholic Christendom.” Whether those claims are true or not, we can see the effect that mentality had on the first crusade. The Pope wanted to gain spiritual, as well as political control of Christianity. Sin was rampant and the Church was full of people who were in need of cleansing. Pope Urban used this to motivate people to answer the call of the first crusade. We cannot look past the fact that the city of Jerusalem was under Islamic rule; they too claimed the city to be a holy place of their religion, the very place where Muhammad is said to have ascended into heaven. This presented a problem to the Christians; how could they gain access to sacred places such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher? Pope Urban saw this as his opportunity to call the people to action and write himself into the history books. On the spiritual side, the Pope was offering remission of sins and the opportunity to become a martyr for the sake of Christ and the Empire. In the eyes of the pope, the crusade was morally justified on Augustine’s just war theory, and spiritually as an opportunity to take back the very city of Jesus. Pope Urban painted the Muslims as half-breeds and would have seen it necessary to exterminate them in order to take back what Christendom sees as the Holiest of all cities. Just war would have been a necessary commodity to the Pope during this time. Islam is overrunning the western world, and Urban saw this as a threat to his own rule and to the expansion and life of Christianity. With many nobleman and prominent knights joining the ranks of crusade, this only added fuel to Urban’s fire and call to reclaim the “world” in a sense. The question still remains: how can Christians participate in such a horrific show of their own depravity? Was this “Holy War” justified? In the eyes of Pope Urban and his followers, it was a resounding yes. In the context of Christianity, I believe yes as well, but not to the same degree the crusaders took it too. Augustine had stated that war was just under particular circumstances, namely the defense of people and country. Urban, as well as those who joined in the crusade, took this to a different level. They believed they were completely justified in reclaiming the city God had given them, and ridding it of the vile people who were deemed as sub-human and pollution to the city of their Messiah. The crusade and its participants show us two things: the nature of humanity can be one of pure evil and deep depravity; secondly, the Church and the Christian faith are no different. To the Christians during this time the crusade was more than necessary, it had to be done. How could they stand by and let Islam use them as a doormat only to oppress them for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years? The church was bent on bringing the world under the rule of the one and true God. Through the church’s context, this meant using whatever means were necessary. The church is no perfect entity, but full of fallen people just like the rest of the world. However, this reflects negatively to the rest of world, and still has implications for today. Ask any orthodox Jew their thoughts on the crusades and they become very angry and outspoken towards the Christian faith and anyone associated with it. The crusaders thought they were undeniably justified in purifying the Holy land but did more detriment than good for the sake of Christianity. I had never read anything on the crusades before reading this book. I was surprised to find that they were much different than I had originally thought. One thing that surprised me the most, was what led to the first crusade. I was always under the impression that Christianity was directly facing intense oppression and persecution, which led them to a defense of themselves and Christendom. Asbridge’s book painted a very different picture for me. In my opinion the crusades were only partly justified. These people would have probably felt hostility towards Islam for claiming Jerusalem as a Holy City of their own. The actions they took to reclaim it only did detriment to the image of Christianity. Urban and Christendom painted a picture of the Muslims as half-breeds, horrific examples of human beings, and the very scum of the earth. The crusaders acted as barbarians, brutally imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world in hopes of turning everyone to Christ and in order to rid the world of Muslims. I was shocked as I read of the Jews being murdered, and of those who stood as collateral in reaching the ultimate goal of reclaiming Jerusalem. How could people so devoted to God, treat other human beings with such disdain and disrespect? Abridge did a wonderful job of showing the mentality of the crusaders. I saw how they would have justified their acts and deemed them under divine guidance. This is very strange to me because I do not understand what that’s like, partly because I live in the United States and also because I have never felt God calling me to a “Holy War.” I think what bothers me the most about crusading is the idea that violence and war was used in order for the crusades to be successful. I believe that war is justified in certain circumstances, but I do not believe the crusades were justified in using brutality. Although a lot of bad came out if the crusades, the first crusade has shown me the need for pure devotion to Christianity. How effective would the church be today if we carried the same mentality and passion for reaching the lost world? The crusade should teach us that we as Christians are in the same plight as the rest of the world; in need of grace and the love only God can give.

Excellent history of the first Crusade. Very well researched but also a very compelling read. One of the best historical books I've read in very long time. Couldn't hardly put it down. If you're interested in the Crusades and want a fresh, unbiased take on the first one ,then this is the book for you. Highly recommended! A+++++

The book is well written and the material seems well researched. I bought the book as the result of taking a class where I had to analyze Three historical documents reporting on Pope Urban’s speech at Clermont in 1095. At the time I did not know the difference between Pope Urban and Urban Outfitters. It didn’t take much to know I needed a lot of background material to understand a very complicated era. Unfortunately information about the events that formed the first crusade come from those that were there, not there or those who just made up facts to support their position. As a historian Thomas Asbridge’s status, to take the available info and translate it into a comprehensive book that tells a story of an era that has been poorly and/or falsely portrayed in history. There’s no doubt the principles in this book were not stupid but they were superstitious, gullible, and poorly educated. What they did by today’s standards are totally unacceptable but by the standards of the day were unfortunately commonly accepted. Asbridge does a good job defining the motivations separating greed and bloodthirst from religious fervor. It was also often difficult to follow all the names and places. It would have been nice to have a glossary/dictionary to help pronounce the names and understand the relationships. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone who would be interested in medieval history

The problem is with the sub-title: "The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam." Unfortunately far too many writers, teachers, students and even scholars share this misconception today. The Crusades were not the beginning of a millennia long antagonism between Christianity and Islam. Nor were the Crusades the cause of that hostility. To find the roots of the conflict one must go back another 461 years to the Islamic conquest of Christian Palestine and Syria (beginning in 634 CE). By the time Pope Urban II called upon the nobility of Europe (in 1095 CE) to undertake a Crusade for the liberation of the Holy Land from Muslim domination, Christendom had been continuously on the defensive against Islamic Jihadists for well over four centuries. All the ancient sites of early Christianity from Antioch to Jerusalem to Alexandria had been conquered. All the Christian peoples of the Levant and North Africa as far west as the Iberian Peninsula had been subjugated and reduced to Dhimmitude - a third class status closely resembling the condition of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s. The Sassanian Persian Empire had likewise been overthrown and the ancient Zoroastrian religion all but eradicated. Later the Indian subcontinent would be conquered and the Hindu peoples subjugated and reduced to Dhimmitude. Buddhism was virtually wiped out in India by its Muslim conquerors. It survives today only in Tibet, China, Japan and Southeast Asia. The simple fact is that Islam was by no means a peaceful or tolerant religion. On the contrary, as far as non Muslims were concerned, it was a militant, imperialist and tyrannical faith. The Crusades were the first attempt on the part of Christian Europe since the Battle of Tours in 732 to push back the frontiers of Islamic conquest. The Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire had been at war with Muslim Jihadists in the East almost continuously since 634. Following the disastrous defeat of the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 the Emperor Alexius Komnenus appealed to the West for help in turning back the tide of Islamic conquest. This was the proximate cause of the Pope's call for a Crusade - a far cry from the unprovoked act of Christian aggression against a peaceful Dar al Islam imagined by most contemporary Islamists and their western apologists. The First Crusade was as much a political as a religious war. Coming to the assistance of the beleaguered Byzantine Empire was an act of farsighted and self interested statesmanship. By defeating the Islamic threat in the East the freedom of Western Europe was secured for another four centuries. It was only when the West failed to act - standing indifferently aside while the remnant of the Byzantine Empire was extinguished and its Christian inhabitants reduced to Dhimmitude in 1453 - that the West once again faced the threat of Muslim conquest. The floodgates of Islamic expansion were opened, and by 1529, and again in 1683, the invading Ottoman Turks reached the walls of Vienna - the very door-step of Western Europe. The religious component of the First Crusade was the liberation of the Christian peoples of the Holy Land and the recovery of the sacred sites of Christianity. All wars need a higher purpose - a mission or cause to inspire the armies and win the support of the people. The liberation of the Holy Land was the mission that inspired the Crusading armies and the peoples of Christian Europe. But they also fought in defense of their co-religionists in the Byzantine Empire, and ultimately in defense of European Civilization itself. The Islamic Jihad was pushed back in Anatolia and the Levant and held in check for three hundred years - until the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the East in 1291. At the same time Sicily was recovered and the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) from its Islamic conquerors was begun. These Crusades enabled Christian Europe to live in safety and security for four hundred years - until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. All too often the Crusades are trivialized by contemporary Islamists and "politically correct" western writers who wrench them out of their historic context and portray them as an act of unprovoked western aggression against a peaceful Islam. In fact they were a long overdue response to four hundred years of Islamic aggression against the Christian World.

Why would the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, a man of liberal education, preach an impassioned sermon demanding Holy War from the faithful? Why would anyone struggling for mere existence in late Dark Ages Europe even listen to him? Why would thousands of Christians who, for generations, had never been more than a few miles from home, travel thousands of miles to face certain death? Don't assume anything. Go read this fine book and find out! Asbridge writes with the passion of fine historical fiction, yet his scholarship is flawless. The author's insight into the rationale of the leading warrior princes is particularly facinating. In this age of 21st century jihad where U.S. and NATO troops are still referred to by muslim militants as "Crusaders", this book is required reading.

My favourite book on the first crusade thus far. Very interestingly written, full of facts, but at the same time maintaining pace of gripping narrative. Would love to see more maps and plans (i.e. battles and sieges), but still loved it.

An engrossing account of the travails undergone by Christian Crusaders setting out to reclaim Christendom's Holy Land from the Muslim rulers who had conquered the area in the Seventh century,which brings out conflicting personal ambitions, inhumanities mutually visited upon enemy forces as well as the inhabitants of the areas traversed and contested between the Crusaders and their opponents. The reality of descent from the high religiously inspired moral ground to bitter fights for sheer survival contrasts with the Nietzschian idea of war leading to the emergence of the "Superman"!

Unlike other professorial treatise, this is written in a prose easily followed by the layman.

This book is called 'a new history,' but let's be honest here, the wonderfully named Thomas Asbridge (put an 'of' in between his names and he sounds like an authentic eleventh century chronicler), is not offering anything new, just a well-written synthesis of well-known sources. Judging from his back catalogue - and the relish by which he describes that part of the book - his specialism is Antioch and the siege thereof. His description of the Crusaders investment of the city is the strongest part of the narrative. His conclusions feel a tad tacked on. The idea that the atrocities of the taking of Jerusalem were the start point for the centuries long emnity beyween christianity and islam is a view, but it needs more substantiation. The crusaders suffered atrocities after the first move to Nicea, but this is skated over. However this does not detract from a generally exciting narrative history which - just about - escapes from the mire of the first seventy pages being on concepts of a 'just war' lifted from St Augustine (not the zippiest start to anything.) I'm a little disappointed that Asbridge has chosen to follow this work up with - yawn - a one-volume history of the crusades. That's just what we all need; another one volume history of the crusades. I know, let's write more and more popular history about fewer and fewer topics. Having said that, I'll probably buy it when it gets to paperback so it's cynical publishing one, would-be discerning readers nil. Twas ever thus.....

Product is not as advertised. The copy came without the dust jacket and in worse condition than pictured.