Asbridge’s book was in many ways a welcome contrast to The Crusades by Henry Treece.

Two books. Same title. Same subject matter. Big difference.

Thomas Asbridge has the audacity to subtitle his book “The [! sic ] Authoritative History…”. I have read a few books about the Crusades in the last 60+ years, including Steven Runciman’s 3 volume A History Of The Crusades (published 1951-1954), but none of them were as comprehensive or, for that matter, fair-minded, as Asbridge’s. So as far as I can tell, his apparent hubris is justified.

In contrast, Henry Treece’s The Crusades (1962) is terse, witty, opinionated, dated, a little racist, and full of sweeping generalizations, but still fun to read.

Nowhere do the two books contrast more than in their treatment of Saladin, the sultan who did more than anyone else to drive the Christians out of the Holy Land. Asbridge treats Saladin as one of several Muslim leaders who successfully opposed the crusaders. To Asbridge, Saladin is a complex character who may or may not have been deeply religious, but in any event he was an opportunist who could use the religiousness of his followers to his advantage. On the other hand, Treece writes about Saladin the way Trump would write (if he could write) about Putin— all starry-eyed and hero-worshiping.

In any event, the crusades were a multifaceted phenomenon that took place over a period of two centuries. Our memory of that history has reverberations even today. Asbridge concludes by warning against our use of crusading language and tropes. That language can be a potent, alarming, and dangerous and and has been used to describe an "unbroken line of hatred and discord connecting the medieval contest for control of the Holy Land to today's struggles in the Near and Middle East.” To avoid being manipulated for political ends, read Asbridge’s thorough and dispassionate account of that complex series of events.

(JAB) ( )

This book manages to tie nearly 300 years of history into a cohesive, engaging, authoritative book that is simultaneously informative and a pleasure to read. The author weaves a coherent narrative around numerous actors without creating confusion. I was sad to finish the book. The only critique is that it did not cover the People's Crusade. ( )

It was a pretty dry read I admit, but it seemed well researched, putting 200 years of history in one book isn't easy, there was too many things to cover and it managed very well, it was dry yeah but not redundant.

The book tells the story from the Muslim and Christian POV, changing it up every few chapters, this is good since it gives such a wide view of what happened and doesn't demonize any side but since it tries to tell 200 years and from both sides I did feel that some parts were kind of glossed over, of course you can't help that, the book is already 680 pages long and probably could have been 10 times that with enough detail.

It's a good overview, not good if you are especially interested in one side or one crusade, but for the general idea or an introduction is great. ( )

For over a thousand years inter-religious strife has been focused on the city of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Jerusalem is a holy place for the three Abrahamic religions and therefore is a jewel fought over. Conquered by Islamic forces in the 7th century, Christian pilgrims were still able to access the holy places but by the 11th century the papacy felt that Jerusalem should be rules by Christians. Thus began two centuries of warfare for possession of the Holy Land involving the elite of the European nobility and a succession of Muslim rulers.

This is a superb book, meticulously researched and full of detail. What is really important about this book is the fact that it offers a balanced view of the times. Most books focus solely on the 'Franks' but Asbridge also considers the muslim situation in depth, neither side was truly focused and both were riven by issues related to leadership. This aspect gives a depth to the history which is refreshing. Asbridge also expands the view to consider the hijacking of the word 'crusade' in modern times. This is a definitive history of a relatively short but violent series of encounters. ( )

One of the most believable volumes on the subject I have read. Mr. Asbridge paints a believable picture and allows the reader to deduce the situation and make their own judgment. ( )