The First Crusade: A New History

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.

Comprehensive content

A readable account of the First Crusade. Other reviewers have explained the synopsis and contents of the book. I will add that I found this to be a readable, easy-to-understand account of the First Crusade. The horrors of Medieval war are made clear, as well as the motivation of the crusaders and why they succeeded, often against impossible odds. Some of the problems were of their own self-doing. I found the beginning of the book particularly useful, such as explaining the concept of a 'Just War', the right of conquest and just how real hell and sin were to the medieval mind. The maps are clear and concise and the photographs are in colour and add to the experience of reading the book. Recommended.

if you are interested in reading about the first crusade weather your a student of history or just someone with passing interest then i can't recommend this book enoughthe style of writing is excellent and never do you feel like he is swaying off point. with vivid detail and engrossing descriptions the book is a pure joy to read and you really can't put it down i finished it in about 5 days and i will definitely be reading it again

This is one of those books that make you love history.Asbridge tells a captivating story giving out all the details that a true historian should put into the narrative, but without the boring parts.The book is as gripping as a novel from the first to the last page, and in every page you can appreciate the thorough research, the lack of speculation, the objectivity of facts presentation.At the end of the book, you have a full image of what happened, with the documented, objective facts clearly distincted from the legends that have surrounded this epic for centuries.Highly recommended.

An excellent, readable summary of turbulent times which still have impact after almost 1000 years

Mr Albridge takes as his starting point for both the Crusades and the idea of Holy War, the preaching of Urban 2 at Clermont. No effort is made to trace the rise of Islam from 634 to 1095, nor to examine the Islamic concept of Jihad, which literally identifies as Holy War. I have no doubt that the Crusades were brutal, I read enough around the topic and period to be very aware of just how nasty, brutal and short life was then. But by ignoring the root cause of Christian Crusading Mr Asbridge does history a disservice, but that seems fairly standard in today’s academic climate.

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.....

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

An engrossing account of the travails undergoneby Christian Crusaders setting out to reclaimChristendom's Holy Land from the Muslimrulers who had conquered the area in theSeventh century,which brings out conflictingpersonal ambitions, inhumanities mutually visited upon enemy forces as well as the inhabitants ofthe areas traversed and contested between theCrusaders 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 tothe emergence of the "Superman"!

This is a wonderful book. The author, Thomas Asbridge, has written a taut, clear account of a time in history that, at least for me, has always seemed terribly murky and shrouded in fable.The main strength of the book is its strong, direct, linear flow. The reader follows the First Crusade from its birth in Clermont and Pope Urban's preaching tour across France; to the Crusade's bloody finale and the Christian army's rampage through Jerusalem. Asbridge is, plain and simply, a good writer, and his vivid language bring the time and place to remarkable light. He has a good writer's eye for drama and the telling detail, and he brings in amazing writings from Crusade participants to flesh out the telling. Characters and events really came to life in my mind's eye while reading, whole landscapes and battles, so that I found myself setting the books aside more than once, simply to let the movie play for a moment. All in all, a great reading experience.As the book progressed, I really came to visualize the Crusading armies marching from Western Europe across the known world, slowly transforming itself through the crucible of starvation, decease, horrific battles, and hardship. They had begun as an unorganized, splintered assortment of rabble and soldier, princes and false prophets, numbering perhaps 100,000 souls, barely able to mount a cohesive attack. By the time they had reached Lebanon, the army had hardened down to a pack of fast moving, ruthless veterans, sending terror through the Muslim world. Muslim cities, hearing of their barbarity, began begging for peace, throwing riches at them, usually to no avail.Finally, this efficient juggernaut simply stormed against the heavily fortified Holy City of Jerusalem, taking it quickly and horribly despite overwhelming odds against them, then tore through the city like starved wolves, killing everything (including children and women). The image of the victorious crusaders, coming to fall in tearful prayer at the Holy Sepulchre, their faces and clothes still drenched in blood, is one of the most perfect in the book - at once capturing the strange amalgamation of genuine religious fervor and blood-curdling terror that marked the times. The author also poses many new ideas about the Crusades as well (such as his view of the effect of the religious relic, the Holy Lance, which the author feels had much less importance than is traditionally thought), which make this book good for both history novice and expert alike.The author does a good job of viewing the times in a fair light. The magnificent achievement of the crusading armies is not understated. After reading what the soldiers and knights of this crusade went through, it is easier to understand why they truly considered many of their victories "miracles" and sure evidence of God's hand. The author does not overlook the grimmer realities of the First Crusade either, which can be summed up in this simple sentence near the end of the book: "In bitter revelation, these eastern Christians soon discovered that they had in fact been better off under Muslim rule than they were in a 'liberated' Jerusalem."You will be glad you read this book.

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 SchillerVis Superavi Ignarum!

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.