What do you think?
Rate this book
Les croisades
A work staggering in the sheer quantity of material illumined: in the miraculous reconstruction of a time & place dimmed by myth & legend, often distorted by scholarly or religious bias. After a considerate introduction to the curious yet familiar ways of our Western medieval ancestors, Oldenbourg travels rapidly in the 1st Crusade's ranks. Pope Urban II, in order to relieve the position of the Byzantine Empire & possibly drain off some futile feudal wars in the West, set forth a plan which suddenly reconciled the peculiar warlike mystique of the Germanic & Scandinavian barbarians with Christianity's Heavenly Vision. Now their martial code of loyalties & love of war had a religious focus. They would serve the Supreme Lord in ridding pagan defilement. Jerusalem was captured & a remarkable reign by Frankish lords was continued for over 80 years, during which time jealousies, feuds, temperate & intemperate alliances, even concluded with the Turks themselves under the brilliant Saladin, set up a unique climate in which East & West met head on. As an alien virus, invading a civilized & cultured East, the Crusader's tumultuous aggression gave rise to unexpected antibodies. Christian fought Christian, the Byzantine Empire weakened fatally & Islam was united. Gradually the Western princes turned again to their own concerns & the Four Crusades became again the vision. A brilliant book, stirring with a difficult, compassionate, generous humanity.--Kirkus (edited)
1024 pages, Pocket Book
First published January 1, 1965
25 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Zoé Oldenbourg
39 books31 followersZoé Oldenbourg (Russian: Зоя Серге́евна Ольденбург) (March 31, 1916–November 8, 2002) was a Russian-born French historian and novelist who specialized in medieval French history, in particular the Crusades and Cathars.
She was born in Petrograd, Russia into a family of scholars and historians. Her father Sergei was a journalist and historian, her mother Ada Starynkevich was a mathematician, and her grandfather Sergei was the permanent secretary of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg.Her early childhood was spent among the privations of the Russian revolutionary period and the first years of Communism. Her father fled the country and established himself as a journalist in Paris.
With her family, she emigrated to Paris in 1925 at the age of nine and graduated from the Lycée Molière in 1934 with her Baccalauréat diploma. She went on to study at the Sorbonne and then she studied painting at the Académie Ranson. In 1938 she spent a year in England and studied theology. During World War II she supported herself by hand-painting scarves.
She was encouraged by her father to write and she completed her first work, a novel, Argiles et cendres in 1946. Although she wrote her first works in Russian, as an adult she wrote almost exclusively in French.
She married Heinric Idalovici in 1948 and had two children, Olaf and Marie-Agathe.
She combined a genius for scholarship and a deep feeling for the Middle Ages in her historical novels. The World is Not Enough, a vast panorama of the twelfth century immediately put her in the ranks of the foremost historical novelists. Her second, The Cornerstone, won her the Prix Femina and was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection in America. Other works include The Awakened, The Chains of Love, Massacre at Montsegur, Destiny of Fire, Cities of the Flesh, and Catherine the Great, a Literary Guild selection. In The Crusades, Zoe Oldenbourg returned to the Middle Ages she knew and loved so well.
She won the Prix Femina for her 1953 novel La Pierre Angulaire.
She was born in Petrograd, Russia into a family of scholars and historians. Her father Sergei was a journalist and historian, her mother Ada Starynkevich was a mathematician, and her grandfather Sergei was the permanent secretary of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg.Her early childhood was spent among the privations of the Russian revolutionary period and the first years of Communism. Her father fled the country and established himself as a journalist in Paris.
With her family, she emigrated to Paris in 1925 at the age of nine and graduated from the Lycée Molière in 1934 with her Baccalauréat diploma. She went on to study at the Sorbonne and then she studied painting at the Académie Ranson. In 1938 she spent a year in England and studied theology. During World War II she supported herself by hand-painting scarves.
She was encouraged by her father to write and she completed her first work, a novel, Argiles et cendres in 1946. Although she wrote her first works in Russian, as an adult she wrote almost exclusively in French.
She married Heinric Idalovici in 1948 and had two children, Olaf and Marie-Agathe.
She combined a genius for scholarship and a deep feeling for the Middle Ages in her historical novels. The World is Not Enough, a vast panorama of the twelfth century immediately put her in the ranks of the foremost historical novelists. Her second, The Cornerstone, won her the Prix Femina and was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection in America. Other works include The Awakened, The Chains of Love, Massacre at Montsegur, Destiny of Fire, Cities of the Flesh, and Catherine the Great, a Literary Guild selection. In The Crusades, Zoe Oldenbourg returned to the Middle Ages she knew and loved so well.
She won the Prix Femina for her 1953 novel La Pierre Angulaire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
April 6, 2018
Originally published in French (Les Croisades) in 1965, Russian émigré Oldenbourg has presented both casual history readers and earnest scholars with a sprawling epic that beautifully captures the spirit of the movement that so transformed religion and the Middle Ages. A brisk opening, in which she paints a broad picture of the lives and times of the Crusaders, is followed by an introduction to the political and religious climates of the Latin West (Europe) and Byzantium. Then it’s off to the Crusades.
Although never flippant in her treatment of the this historical epoch, Oldenbourg breezes through her subject matter with a light touch that makes the reading enjoyable as well as easily memorable. Her accounts of the why’s, where’s, and how’s of the three first, and most noted, Crusades are lucid and taut, her reconstructed battle scenes both terrifying and enthralling in their barbarism, and her political analyses of all three of the major players - Europe, Byzantium, and Islam - evenhanded to the point of bluntness.
The actual Crusades themselves, especially the Second and Third, aren’t touched in quite the depth I would have liked to have seen. However, Oldenbourg has served perhaps a higher purpose in placing her main focus on the world the First Crusaders created for themselves in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Her insights into what made this fragile, hopelessly integrated society tick are thought-provoking and moving.
Oldenbourg closes with a slightly superfluous handful of chapters, reiterating and reaffirming the social mores of the Frankish states in Syria, but as a whole her massive treatise on the subject is both an extremely enjoyable read and an eye-opening look into a misunderstood time in history.
Although never flippant in her treatment of the this historical epoch, Oldenbourg breezes through her subject matter with a light touch that makes the reading enjoyable as well as easily memorable. Her accounts of the why’s, where’s, and how’s of the three first, and most noted, Crusades are lucid and taut, her reconstructed battle scenes both terrifying and enthralling in their barbarism, and her political analyses of all three of the major players - Europe, Byzantium, and Islam - evenhanded to the point of bluntness.
The actual Crusades themselves, especially the Second and Third, aren’t touched in quite the depth I would have liked to have seen. However, Oldenbourg has served perhaps a higher purpose in placing her main focus on the world the First Crusaders created for themselves in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Her insights into what made this fragile, hopelessly integrated society tick are thought-provoking and moving.
Oldenbourg closes with a slightly superfluous handful of chapters, reiterating and reaffirming the social mores of the Frankish states in Syria, but as a whole her massive treatise on the subject is both an extremely enjoyable read and an eye-opening look into a misunderstood time in history.
March 18, 2016
Oldenbourg was THE expert on the Crusades and the medieval ages, so this is a good book to get a firm foundation on the reason for the Holy Wars. Each separate Crusade is explained along with the opposing side. She does a very good job of showing the political divides among the Islamic leaders, most of whom did not view the battles as jihads, but as opportunities to gain territory from their fellow princes.
She does the same with the Franks, showing how their greed and lust for land damned them from the beginning. Baldwin the Leper King is illuminated here, and the story really picks up with him and Saladin. I don't rate it higher because sometimes she backtracks, and the reader is left wondering which battle she is now discussing. But if you need to understand the why-behind-the-why, this is a good start.
Book Season = Winter (you'll need the extra time)
She does the same with the Franks, showing how their greed and lust for land damned them from the beginning. Baldwin the Leper King is illuminated here, and the story really picks up with him and Saladin. I don't rate it higher because sometimes she backtracks, and the reader is left wondering which battle she is now discussing. But if you need to understand the why-behind-the-why, this is a good start.
Book Season = Winter (you'll need the extra time)
April 21, 2013
Crusades were military missions pronounced by the Papacy. The reconciliation of the teachings of the pacific Jesus with the secular interests of Rome was, of course, a stretch, but the sin of it all was entirely mitigated by indulgences proferred participants by the Pope.
Zoe Oldenbourg has covered some of the Crusades in her fiction, both those directed externally, against Islam, and those directed internally, against supposed Christian heretics such as the Cathars. This non-fiction book is specifically about the Crusades ostensibly directed at gaining, holding and finally regaining Palestine. It is characteristic of the author's genius that she manages to elicit sympathetic understanding both for the rapacious Crusaders and for their victims, the thousands of Moslems, Jews and Orthodox Christians slaughtered.
Zoe Oldenbourg has covered some of the Crusades in her fiction, both those directed externally, against Islam, and those directed internally, against supposed Christian heretics such as the Cathars. This non-fiction book is specifically about the Crusades ostensibly directed at gaining, holding and finally regaining Palestine. It is characteristic of the author's genius that she manages to elicit sympathetic understanding both for the rapacious Crusaders and for their victims, the thousands of Moslems, Jews and Orthodox Christians slaughtered.
December 20, 2012
I was so impressed by the clearness, scholarship and insight displayed in the first chapter that I went back immediately and read it again. There are whole subjects, scholars' lifetimes, in some of her clauses.
Concentrating on the period of the first three Crusades Oldenbourg manages to bring out, or suggest, many of the political, cultural, literary and economic factors giving rise to this movement or which occurred during, and as a result of, the Crusades.
The subject is an immense one: the results of the Germanic invasions; the position of the Papacy; the 'Holy War' and its legacy; the economic effects of overpopulation on a poorly developed agriculture; feudalism; the differences between eastern and western Christianity; heresies and national differences in the east; the history of Constantinople; the rise of the †Turks; the divisions and unity of Islam; relations between the Turks and the Arabs, Christians and Muslims; cultural effects of East on West and vice versa; literary influences in both directions; the legend of the Crusader; subsequent history of 'crusades' such as the Albigensian, the Inquisition and the Conquistadores.
Oldenbourg's book is a social, cultural, political and military history of the period, and covers the history of Turkey, Persia, Iran, Iraq, the Bosphorus, the Balkans, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Arabia, Egypt, Italy, Sicily, Spain and southern Europe. She makes illuminating references to other phenomenon such as colonialism, and is exceptional in that she is able to imaginatively suggest the attitudes, beliefs and limitations of the people she is writing about.
It was a time before machines were widely used. “Man was therefore infinitely closer to physical reality than we can be now. Tools and raw materials had a value and immediacy not easy for us to understand. This direct contact with matter whose laws he knew only empirically made man simultaneously more superstitious than we are today and more skillful and enterprising.”
Life was short (average expectation between 30 and 35 years) and medicine primitive. “Men's helplessness against these scourges is hard for a present day European to understand. In fact, their only defense against epidemics was a terrified and superstitious trust in the divine mercy to be obtained by prayer and sacrifice...”
Oldenbourg is illuminating on the distinction between western and eastern religious feeling, in a way which explains much subsequent Catholic history. She says also that “men thought of themselves first and foremost as religious beings...”
A plethora of suggestive ideas: that popular religion was (and is) largely pagan; that miracles occupied the space in our lives of science. “Even in Latin speaking countries like France and Spain the ruling class was exclusively a warrior caste whose ideals were Germanic in inspiration.”
“In Europe the whole temper of feudal society made the warrior saint and archangel the objects of special devotion, to such an extent that it is not easy to see what distinguishes them from warrior deities.”
The rise of Turkish power threatened both the Western and Arab states, although it itself was Islamic. The Arabs, friendly to Christians, had been accepted politically in their position of power in Syria and the Middle East as well as elsewhere for 400 years. Now the Turks were conquering areas towards the Holy Land, and also areas in the Bosphorus - they posed a direct threat to Byzantium.
At the same time as the Turks were conquering in the east, the Normans, a Scandinavian people, were raiding and occupying territory in the west. After France and England, their objective became Sicily and southern Italy, and then, increasingly, the Balkans and Byzantium itself.
Although the Holy Land was threatened by the rising Turkish power, it had been Islamic for a long time previously.: the Crusades were initially launched to protect Byzantium from the Turks. But the Crusaders included Normans, who were more interested in conquering Byzantium than the Holy Land. And the Great Schism had recently separated the Churches of east and west: instead of reuniting them, the Crusades were to widen the gap between them and exploit their differences.
'Rome' (Byzantium) was inhabited by 'Greeks'. The Crusades began because initially the Emperor Alexius Comnenus had appealed to the Pope for aid in raising western mercenaries for his armies in the war against the Turks.. In return, a number a number of independent, suspicious and quasi-hostile western armies invaded the Emperor's territory seeking to 'free' the Hold Land.
“Alexius saw no reason to fight the Turks simply because they were infidels (he had suffered too much from Christians to share any prejudges of this kind)...”
“the Greeks were trying to use the Latins in order to reconquer their own lost provinces, while the Latins thought the Greeks had a duty to help them in the much more important task of recovering the Holy Places.”
“This exclusive, even excessive, exaltation of physical valour was something the Byzantines could never understand. The people of Western Europe believed implicitly that a man's worth was, first and foremost, measured by his prowess in battle. To the Greeks, courage was certainly an estimable virtue...” but they did not rate it any higher than many 'civilised' virtues.
As in many misunderstandings and differences, people compared different things as though they were the same. The Crusaders ignored their own practical behaviour, which saw them constantly fighting one another, sometimes treacherously, and despising the Church as 'cowardly', and measured their ideal behaviour as knights who had made a sacrifice of material goods to fight for the freedom of Jesus Christ against the overlordship of Islam, against the Byzantines practical behaviour, as heirs to a great empire which was manoeuvring for survival with newer powers who were equally as civilised, in which struggle diplomacy was vital, and alliance at times necessary, and ignored the ideal position of the Empire as the revered heir of the Church in the east and of the Roman Empire. People engage in such false comparisons to emerge the superior, and to justify following their own wishes without considering their opponent. Thus the Crusaders were able to despise and despoil their Greek allies.
“The fundamental difference lay in the co-existence in the Western mind of two quite separate ideas, the warrior and the Christian. Byzantium never seems to have been affected by any such ambivalence: it was too blatantly paradoxical for the logical Greek mind to accept.”
As in many great histories, the observations illuminate not just the events they are describing but the present and many intervening periods. The idea of the glory of war going back to the bloody, glorious and tragic struggle of the Northern gods is very suggestive. This tradition also supports the “all the world is sinful” approach to Christianity, always more enthusiastically taken up by the West than by the East.
Zoe Oldenbourg suggests a connection between the German tribes who destroyed the western Roman Empire in the 4th century and the Crusaders. The feudal nobility, she says were of Germanic or Nordic extraction, unlike the Latin peasantry. They preserved their ideals of love of battle and glorious death despite their conversion to Christianity. The union of these two diverse traditions led to the idea of a holy war, and such wars were waged in Syria in the 12th century. The Germanic tribes, many of whom admired Rome as a great civilising power, conquered it. Later, as admirers of Christianity, they attempted to conquer the Holy Land. In 1204 they conquered Constantinople.
Relics of these ideas can be seen in the Inquisition - the Church Militant - and in the deeds of the Conquistadores. Most recent was the attempt of Hitler to conquer the Jews.
The more one explores a subject the more there is to explore. Oldenbourg's book suggests this complexity.. There are no easy answers, few generalisations. It is both honest and learned, and motivated by a clear and compassionate intelligence.
Concentrating on the period of the first three Crusades Oldenbourg manages to bring out, or suggest, many of the political, cultural, literary and economic factors giving rise to this movement or which occurred during, and as a result of, the Crusades.
The subject is an immense one: the results of the Germanic invasions; the position of the Papacy; the 'Holy War' and its legacy; the economic effects of overpopulation on a poorly developed agriculture; feudalism; the differences between eastern and western Christianity; heresies and national differences in the east; the history of Constantinople; the rise of the †Turks; the divisions and unity of Islam; relations between the Turks and the Arabs, Christians and Muslims; cultural effects of East on West and vice versa; literary influences in both directions; the legend of the Crusader; subsequent history of 'crusades' such as the Albigensian, the Inquisition and the Conquistadores.
Oldenbourg's book is a social, cultural, political and military history of the period, and covers the history of Turkey, Persia, Iran, Iraq, the Bosphorus, the Balkans, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Arabia, Egypt, Italy, Sicily, Spain and southern Europe. She makes illuminating references to other phenomenon such as colonialism, and is exceptional in that she is able to imaginatively suggest the attitudes, beliefs and limitations of the people she is writing about.
It was a time before machines were widely used. “Man was therefore infinitely closer to physical reality than we can be now. Tools and raw materials had a value and immediacy not easy for us to understand. This direct contact with matter whose laws he knew only empirically made man simultaneously more superstitious than we are today and more skillful and enterprising.”
Life was short (average expectation between 30 and 35 years) and medicine primitive. “Men's helplessness against these scourges is hard for a present day European to understand. In fact, their only defense against epidemics was a terrified and superstitious trust in the divine mercy to be obtained by prayer and sacrifice...”
Oldenbourg is illuminating on the distinction between western and eastern religious feeling, in a way which explains much subsequent Catholic history. She says also that “men thought of themselves first and foremost as religious beings...”
A plethora of suggestive ideas: that popular religion was (and is) largely pagan; that miracles occupied the space in our lives of science. “Even in Latin speaking countries like France and Spain the ruling class was exclusively a warrior caste whose ideals were Germanic in inspiration.”
“In Europe the whole temper of feudal society made the warrior saint and archangel the objects of special devotion, to such an extent that it is not easy to see what distinguishes them from warrior deities.”
The rise of Turkish power threatened both the Western and Arab states, although it itself was Islamic. The Arabs, friendly to Christians, had been accepted politically in their position of power in Syria and the Middle East as well as elsewhere for 400 years. Now the Turks were conquering areas towards the Holy Land, and also areas in the Bosphorus - they posed a direct threat to Byzantium.
At the same time as the Turks were conquering in the east, the Normans, a Scandinavian people, were raiding and occupying territory in the west. After France and England, their objective became Sicily and southern Italy, and then, increasingly, the Balkans and Byzantium itself.
Although the Holy Land was threatened by the rising Turkish power, it had been Islamic for a long time previously.: the Crusades were initially launched to protect Byzantium from the Turks. But the Crusaders included Normans, who were more interested in conquering Byzantium than the Holy Land. And the Great Schism had recently separated the Churches of east and west: instead of reuniting them, the Crusades were to widen the gap between them and exploit their differences.
'Rome' (Byzantium) was inhabited by 'Greeks'. The Crusades began because initially the Emperor Alexius Comnenus had appealed to the Pope for aid in raising western mercenaries for his armies in the war against the Turks.. In return, a number a number of independent, suspicious and quasi-hostile western armies invaded the Emperor's territory seeking to 'free' the Hold Land.
“Alexius saw no reason to fight the Turks simply because they were infidels (he had suffered too much from Christians to share any prejudges of this kind)...”
“the Greeks were trying to use the Latins in order to reconquer their own lost provinces, while the Latins thought the Greeks had a duty to help them in the much more important task of recovering the Holy Places.”
“This exclusive, even excessive, exaltation of physical valour was something the Byzantines could never understand. The people of Western Europe believed implicitly that a man's worth was, first and foremost, measured by his prowess in battle. To the Greeks, courage was certainly an estimable virtue...” but they did not rate it any higher than many 'civilised' virtues.
As in many misunderstandings and differences, people compared different things as though they were the same. The Crusaders ignored their own practical behaviour, which saw them constantly fighting one another, sometimes treacherously, and despising the Church as 'cowardly', and measured their ideal behaviour as knights who had made a sacrifice of material goods to fight for the freedom of Jesus Christ against the overlordship of Islam, against the Byzantines practical behaviour, as heirs to a great empire which was manoeuvring for survival with newer powers who were equally as civilised, in which struggle diplomacy was vital, and alliance at times necessary, and ignored the ideal position of the Empire as the revered heir of the Church in the east and of the Roman Empire. People engage in such false comparisons to emerge the superior, and to justify following their own wishes without considering their opponent. Thus the Crusaders were able to despise and despoil their Greek allies.
“The fundamental difference lay in the co-existence in the Western mind of two quite separate ideas, the warrior and the Christian. Byzantium never seems to have been affected by any such ambivalence: it was too blatantly paradoxical for the logical Greek mind to accept.”
As in many great histories, the observations illuminate not just the events they are describing but the present and many intervening periods. The idea of the glory of war going back to the bloody, glorious and tragic struggle of the Northern gods is very suggestive. This tradition also supports the “all the world is sinful” approach to Christianity, always more enthusiastically taken up by the West than by the East.
Zoe Oldenbourg suggests a connection between the German tribes who destroyed the western Roman Empire in the 4th century and the Crusaders. The feudal nobility, she says were of Germanic or Nordic extraction, unlike the Latin peasantry. They preserved their ideals of love of battle and glorious death despite their conversion to Christianity. The union of these two diverse traditions led to the idea of a holy war, and such wars were waged in Syria in the 12th century. The Germanic tribes, many of whom admired Rome as a great civilising power, conquered it. Later, as admirers of Christianity, they attempted to conquer the Holy Land. In 1204 they conquered Constantinople.
Relics of these ideas can be seen in the Inquisition - the Church Militant - and in the deeds of the Conquistadores. Most recent was the attempt of Hitler to conquer the Jews.
The more one explores a subject the more there is to explore. Oldenbourg's book suggests this complexity.. There are no easy answers, few generalisations. It is both honest and learned, and motivated by a clear and compassionate intelligence.
August 19, 2020
Zoe Oldenbourg's The Crusades provides a highly readable chronicle of Christian efforts to conquer the Holy Land between in the 11th and 12th Centuries. Oldenbourg's work is an old-fashioned narrative history, crisply written yet also packed with detail and clever analysis. Although she wrote in 1966 she's relatively even-handed; while the European perspective receives the bulk of attention, she makes no effort to excuse their crimes or to glorify their imperialist impulse, spending less time on the battles than the political infighting between the Byzantines and the various Frankish states as the broader Christian-Muslim conflict (and showing, indeed, that the Muslim states resisting the Crusaders were as riven with division as their opponents), with massacres more common than heroic clashes of arms. For some reason, Oldenbourg stops at the Third Crusade, after the failed effort to recapture Jerusalem from Saladin, which gives the book an incomplete feel despite its hefty length. Regardless, it remains an excellent introduction to the subject.
July 29, 2009
While this book is called 'The Crusades', it only spans the period of the three first "numbered" crusades from 1095 to ca. 1200, or from the capture of Jerusalem by the Christians to the rise of Saladin and it's loss. Oldenbourg's eye is set exclusively on the Holy Land itself, and more specifically on the kingdom of Jerusalem. She does not put the military story on the foremost place. While the mentioning of chevauchees and battles is unavoidable in a crusader history, the bulk of the text is devoted to the relations between Christians and Muslims, but also between the different kinds of indigenious Christians (Armenians, Syrians, etc...), the newly arrived Western crusaders, and the class of poulains (offspring of the Western Crusaders who adopted parts of the culture of the indeginious populace of the Holy Land). This angle, which differs from the more common practice of describing the crusades from a purely European viewpoint, was and still is refreshing. Oldenbourg's 'Les Croisades' is inevitably outdated and heavely based on narrative sources, but still worth of reading, if only to get some understanding of the early crusads from the viewpoint of the Oriental Christians.
May 27, 2019
This outstanding work by now deceased but still highly regarded Middle Eastern Historian Zoe Oldenbourg is a must read for anyone interested in the Crusades, recent Middle Eastern History, or the relationship between Western and Eastern peoples / governments. A Russian-born historian who spent her career as a popular historian and novelist in France, this work of Mrs. Oldenbourg's has been masterfully translated into English from French and still reflects some of the most current and in-depth scholarship on this period. I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in the Crusades, the Middle East, or the Medieval Period outside of Europe.
April 14, 2024
Exceptional. I was particularly intrigued and fascinated with Oldenbourgs description of the cultural differences between the Franks, Seljuks, Syrians etc…
Slightly romanticized at times and thus best if coupled with Thomas Asbridge’s volume.
Slightly romanticized at times and thus best if coupled with Thomas Asbridge’s volume.
December 7, 2014
The book does a decent job taking the reader through the various battles and intrigues of the aristocratic elite of the crusades (European & then the crusader states). It thus serves as a decent overview of the political and military history.
Overall, it's hard not to wish that the author took a more intellectual rather than romantic take to her subject material. The book is riven with unsubstantiated and/or racist claims. For instance,
1) Assuming you made it past all the diseases and violence, aging wasn't a huge deal. Proof: many old men were very vigorous according to historians and some old women were quite beautiful!
2) People were just smarter and more inventive "back in the day"--life hasn't gotten a lot better.
3) Modern-day poor societies are culturally, if not racially, inferior.
4) Many chronicles of the time can be taken at face value. She criticizes some for bias, but many accounts she readily accepts.
Overall, the book would have greatly benefited from more nuance and less romance. There is also a weird break ~2/3 of the way through where she finishes the political history and decides to go on a tour of Frankish society in the crusader states. These threads should have been integrated rather than awkwardly separated.
Overall, it's hard not to wish that the author took a more intellectual rather than romantic take to her subject material. The book is riven with unsubstantiated and/or racist claims. For instance,
1) Assuming you made it past all the diseases and violence, aging wasn't a huge deal. Proof: many old men were very vigorous according to historians and some old women were quite beautiful!
2) People were just smarter and more inventive "back in the day"--life hasn't gotten a lot better.
3) Modern-day poor societies are culturally, if not racially, inferior.
4) Many chronicles of the time can be taken at face value. She criticizes some for bias, but many accounts she readily accepts.
Overall, the book would have greatly benefited from more nuance and less romance. There is also a weird break ~2/3 of the way through where she finishes the political history and decides to go on a tour of Frankish society in the crusader states. These threads should have been integrated rather than awkwardly separated.
June 1, 2011
If you think modern geopolitics, war and religious-imperialist urges are driven by the darkest and strangest of our desires and fears, look no further than the never-ending banal brutality of the 200 years of the Crusades. Oldenbourg adds by addition, which means if you are stunned by your boredom at the continued carnage about 100 years into the brain-twisting logistics and repeated attempts to take back, (lose) and keep (and lose), the various parts of holy land, means you get the point. An ever-shifting alliance(s) between various Christian and Islamic factions and the helpless population at their mercies, makes the modern UN look like a kids birthday balloon party. And if you think that the Crusades were "over" 800 years ago, please look no further than Jerusalem, yesterday. You'll find yourself rooting for the most despicable people that ever rule Christendom, if for no other reason, that you just want it to finally end. And it did, when one Christian army sacked a fading Christian empire. Huh?
May 18, 2010
1/7/2010
So far so good. It is an interesting contrast to read about the Crusades and the Battle of Austerlitz at the same time.
5/18/2010
Well I have 40 pages left to read and I think this is a very non-biased look at a period of time which seems to be not much different than other periods with people fighting and killing each other because they don't believe the same and have differences. I wonder if it will ever end?
So far so good. It is an interesting contrast to read about the Crusades and the Battle of Austerlitz at the same time.
5/18/2010
Well I have 40 pages left to read and I think this is a very non-biased look at a period of time which seems to be not much different than other periods with people fighting and killing each other because they don't believe the same and have differences. I wonder if it will ever end?
August 14, 2008
My favorite book about the crusades. Full of great stories and intrigue.
August 15, 2014
I have this on audio books. I have listened to it repeatedly. Great book.
February 6, 2020
Backed by foreign powers, a small group of Europeans took over Jerusalem and "the Holy Land." The initial burst of religious fervor, however, quickly devolved into just another small state that lasted less than a hundred years. Corruption, incompetence, factionalism and the weight of Moslem demographics arrayed overwhelmed the initial joy of the state's founding and it soon disappeared from the world scene, leaving only memories behind.
As this is a review of "The Crusades," it's pretty clear that the preceding paragraph applies to the 12th century, but there's reason to believe it may apply in the 21st century as well -- as whether Israel's people and leadership will be able to learn from the sorry history of the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem is still up in the air.
On to the book ... I enjoy histories written by novelists (or by historians with a novelistic approach) because the quality of writing matters. It makes it easier to turn the pages and the novelist's broader brush, though occasionally misleading, focuses more on the highlights than the details. That said, Oldenbourg has plenty of details in this enjoyable book, maybe a few too many, but the story she tells of the tragedies and disasters that make up the greater part of the history of the Crusades is not only interesting in and of itself, but has somewhat frightening applications to what's going on in Israel right now.
As with the Crusades, the creation of Israel was driven by European interests, and like the Crusades, the hard truth of demography meant and means those European interests could and cannot create a lasting state without some kind of accommodation with the Moslem majority. Of course, the Crusades were worse off because of the low level of political polish of the medieval Europeans, who made mistake after mistake in their attempts to settle and hold what today contains parts of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. And the Crusades lacked the active support of the in place in the Middle East.
But there might have been a chance for some kind of stability had the Crusaders been led more effectively and been less concerned with plunder and land-grabbing, but the untimely deaths of some potentially creative and forward-thinking leaders made the task even more difficult. Oldenbourg does an excellent job of distilling the essential from the non-essential, and for me at least, revealed a great deal I did not know about the Crusades.
So for those interested in the historical Crusades, this book is well worth reading; for those interested in the 21st century redo, of course, headlines will suffice.
As this is a review of "The Crusades," it's pretty clear that the preceding paragraph applies to the 12th century, but there's reason to believe it may apply in the 21st century as well -- as whether Israel's people and leadership will be able to learn from the sorry history of the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem is still up in the air.
On to the book ... I enjoy histories written by novelists (or by historians with a novelistic approach) because the quality of writing matters. It makes it easier to turn the pages and the novelist's broader brush, though occasionally misleading, focuses more on the highlights than the details. That said, Oldenbourg has plenty of details in this enjoyable book, maybe a few too many, but the story she tells of the tragedies and disasters that make up the greater part of the history of the Crusades is not only interesting in and of itself, but has somewhat frightening applications to what's going on in Israel right now.
As with the Crusades, the creation of Israel was driven by European interests, and like the Crusades, the hard truth of demography meant and means those European interests could and cannot create a lasting state without some kind of accommodation with the Moslem majority. Of course, the Crusades were worse off because of the low level of political polish of the medieval Europeans, who made mistake after mistake in their attempts to settle and hold what today contains parts of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. And the Crusades lacked the active support of the in place in the Middle East.
But there might have been a chance for some kind of stability had the Crusaders been led more effectively and been less concerned with plunder and land-grabbing, but the untimely deaths of some potentially creative and forward-thinking leaders made the task even more difficult. Oldenbourg does an excellent job of distilling the essential from the non-essential, and for me at least, revealed a great deal I did not know about the Crusades.
So for those interested in the historical Crusades, this book is well worth reading; for those interested in the 21st century redo, of course, headlines will suffice.
May 18, 2021
The best history on the Crusades I've read, even if it only covers the first three. The author delves into the culture and customs, the natives and Turks/Moslems, and the Byzantines quite well for a book written so long ago. The prose is excellent, and moves along despite its length.
1) Oldenbourg displays an excellent understanding of the personal and sometimes contradictory motivations of the leaders. There are many pithy and memorable quotes from her as she describes one crusader leader or another, and their strengths and flaws.
2) She understands the fickle, vain, and violent warrior-like nature of the nobles and "Franks" quite well, and makes the reader aware of how Germanic (as in their almost pagan belief systems which had been lightly tempered by Christianity) the nobles who took the cross were.
3) She makes the reader aware of the religious and mystical motivations, while not losing sight of the paradox of a violent crusade which enriched some of the new lords, and mostly left the church out of practical affairs (I find this interesting, as to the leaders feudalism was the natural state despite a religious motivation to conquer and hold Jerusalem. One would have assumed Jerusalem would have become like Rome, but it appears no one even regarded this idea).
4) An understanding of the practical or physical manifestation of Christianity at the time. The leaders actually believed in a physical Christ, a physical true cross, etc.
5) The motivations of the surrounding Moslem actors, leaders and natives are rather well represented, including the Christian Armenians. She posits that the Crusades awakened a sense of Islamic solidarity and jihad. I am not sure if this is true or not, but it is clear at the time the East was far ahead of the West in all but warfare.
6) The Franks hatred of the Byzantines, and how inter religious conflicts can burn hotter than the intra religious conflicts. The Crusades were the nail in the coffin of the Byzantine Empire, and essentially allowed the future conquest of the Ottoman Empire of all of their former lands.
7) The power of these knights. It does not appear to be an exaggeration that one knight equaled at least 10 of the enemy. The Crusaders won multiple battles with like a hundred knights which was remarkable.
In the end, I found this to be the most comprehensive history of this subject, and very well written.
1) Oldenbourg displays an excellent understanding of the personal and sometimes contradictory motivations of the leaders. There are many pithy and memorable quotes from her as she describes one crusader leader or another, and their strengths and flaws.
2) She understands the fickle, vain, and violent warrior-like nature of the nobles and "Franks" quite well, and makes the reader aware of how Germanic (as in their almost pagan belief systems which had been lightly tempered by Christianity) the nobles who took the cross were.
3) She makes the reader aware of the religious and mystical motivations, while not losing sight of the paradox of a violent crusade which enriched some of the new lords, and mostly left the church out of practical affairs (I find this interesting, as to the leaders feudalism was the natural state despite a religious motivation to conquer and hold Jerusalem. One would have assumed Jerusalem would have become like Rome, but it appears no one even regarded this idea).
4) An understanding of the practical or physical manifestation of Christianity at the time. The leaders actually believed in a physical Christ, a physical true cross, etc.
5) The motivations of the surrounding Moslem actors, leaders and natives are rather well represented, including the Christian Armenians. She posits that the Crusades awakened a sense of Islamic solidarity and jihad. I am not sure if this is true or not, but it is clear at the time the East was far ahead of the West in all but warfare.
6) The Franks hatred of the Byzantines, and how inter religious conflicts can burn hotter than the intra religious conflicts. The Crusades were the nail in the coffin of the Byzantine Empire, and essentially allowed the future conquest of the Ottoman Empire of all of their former lands.
7) The power of these knights. It does not appear to be an exaggeration that one knight equaled at least 10 of the enemy. The Crusaders won multiple battles with like a hundred knights which was remarkable.
In the end, I found this to be the most comprehensive history of this subject, and very well written.
August 23, 2025
One of the most important events of the last fifteen hundred years must be the great migrations of central and eastern Asian peoples. First the Turks from central Asia, then the Mongols from farther east. The Mongol migration probably pushed the Turkish migrations. Anyway, the Turkish migration invaded and conquered much of the Byzantine Empire and eventually took most of Anatolia in the eleventh century. Concurrent with this was the Great Schism between the western (Rome) and eastern (Constantinople) Catholic Church in 1054. The Byzantines in Constantinople were greatly distressed losing territory to the Turks since it reduced their influence and wealth. As a result, they asked for help from Rome to push back the Turks in 1095. Rome and the Pope responded by asking European Catholic aristocrats to go to push back the Turks. This was modified to free the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem from Islam that had conquered it hundreds of years previously.
Thus, the Crusades were born. Jerusalem was freed by 1099 but the trip there was long and arduous. Many died or dropped out along the way. Pushing back the Turks was only done when they were in the way of Jerusalem. The Europeans thought the Byzantines were not man enough to fight their own battles and so disrespected them and even fought them. There were many other groups to fight as well. There were many sects of Moslems, there were Armenians, Syrians, Greeks, Italians, etc. All these fought each other and deserved each other. The Crusades turned out to be a power grab by those who went to the Holy Land with little to no support from Europeans. The crusaders and their cities were eventually conquered by the Moslems by 1200 except for a few small holdouts that eventually died on the vine. This book is an excellent narrative of these events. The heat, the thirst, the massacres of which there were many, the greed, and the list goes on. There could have been a little more about the pre-history such as the Council of Clermont and a little better summary of the results. The book ends with a couple chapters on the day-to-day and cultural lives of the people involved which are anti-climactic. Nevertheless, a good book to get caught up on your knowledge of the Crusades and what really happened.
Thus, the Crusades were born. Jerusalem was freed by 1099 but the trip there was long and arduous. Many died or dropped out along the way. Pushing back the Turks was only done when they were in the way of Jerusalem. The Europeans thought the Byzantines were not man enough to fight their own battles and so disrespected them and even fought them. There were many other groups to fight as well. There were many sects of Moslems, there were Armenians, Syrians, Greeks, Italians, etc. All these fought each other and deserved each other. The Crusades turned out to be a power grab by those who went to the Holy Land with little to no support from Europeans. The crusaders and their cities were eventually conquered by the Moslems by 1200 except for a few small holdouts that eventually died on the vine. This book is an excellent narrative of these events. The heat, the thirst, the massacres of which there were many, the greed, and the list goes on. There could have been a little more about the pre-history such as the Council of Clermont and a little better summary of the results. The book ends with a couple chapters on the day-to-day and cultural lives of the people involved which are anti-climactic. Nevertheless, a good book to get caught up on your knowledge of the Crusades and what really happened.
January 31, 2020
Time Machine
For all it’s flaws this book was considered the standard on crusades history for a very long time. And for that it deserves kudos, it really set the standard for engaging the public with crusades history. The strongest part of this work is how Oldenbourg is able to bring these stories and this time to life for us who are very far removed. This is a double edged sword, because as a woman from the 60’s Oldenbourg brings the biases of her own time into motivations which are misplaced in their setting. Though sometimes she just nails it. Chapter 2 is amazing, it should be read by any history person who wants to know anything about what living before the modern age was like.
This was written back in the 1965 so obviously it is somewhat dated, not the most up-to-date scholarship. You see this most in her very enlightenment mid-20th century understanding of Christianity and paganism. She is a bit of a paganaboo and makes claims that we now know not to be the case. Like, combining Norse/Germanic theology and why people would go on crusading. It is an interesting theory, but unfounded.
The ending is also abrupt which caught me off guard.
This is not a bad book. However, if this is your first foray into the history of the crusades I would recommend a much briefer and more up to date history. My personal recommendation would be A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden.
For all it’s flaws this book was considered the standard on crusades history for a very long time. And for that it deserves kudos, it really set the standard for engaging the public with crusades history. The strongest part of this work is how Oldenbourg is able to bring these stories and this time to life for us who are very far removed. This is a double edged sword, because as a woman from the 60’s Oldenbourg brings the biases of her own time into motivations which are misplaced in their setting. Though sometimes she just nails it. Chapter 2 is amazing, it should be read by any history person who wants to know anything about what living before the modern age was like.
This was written back in the 1965 so obviously it is somewhat dated, not the most up-to-date scholarship. You see this most in her very enlightenment mid-20th century understanding of Christianity and paganism. She is a bit of a paganaboo and makes claims that we now know not to be the case. Like, combining Norse/Germanic theology and why people would go on crusading. It is an interesting theory, but unfounded.
The ending is also abrupt which caught me off guard.
This is not a bad book. However, if this is your first foray into the history of the crusades I would recommend a much briefer and more up to date history. My personal recommendation would be A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden.
January 8, 2019
This book gave a great insight on the events of the crusades. It provided an in-depth look to all aspects of the holy wars. The Crusades by Zoe Oldenbourg, is basically the who what when where why of the crusades and is overflowing with interesting information. I dove into the book knowing little to nothing about these wars and came out with an abundance of knowledge on the subject. Not only does it go over the first three crusades, it covers hundreds of years of history (around 11c-13c) to give the reader a deeper understanding of the time period and the religious movement. This book really captured the essence of the crusades and spirit of the medieval christian people.
I enjoyed this book, and this surprised me because normally I don't enjoy history. However, I find medieval times interesting, so I gave this book a read, and I wasn't disappointed. If you enjoy history, war novels, or anything middle aged I'd recommend this book. Although It could get a bit slow and was a long read, so if you're looking for a quick peek of the crusades, this isn't the book for you. Overall, the book was great, and I had a nice time reading it.
I enjoyed this book, and this surprised me because normally I don't enjoy history. However, I find medieval times interesting, so I gave this book a read, and I wasn't disappointed. If you enjoy history, war novels, or anything middle aged I'd recommend this book. Although It could get a bit slow and was a long read, so if you're looking for a quick peek of the crusades, this isn't the book for you. Overall, the book was great, and I had a nice time reading it.
July 30, 2018
Huge detailed tome covering the somewhat over a hundred years from the end of the 11th C to the beginning of the 13th C. The work is well written, but I only give it 3 stars because the subject is so dreadfully sad with murder and torture and display of what a monster humans can be.
February 19, 2020
Una excelente obra que describe con gran detalle las primeras cruzadas y sus impactos tanto para orientales como para los occidentales.
Para Consultar en detalle, a pesar de ser un libro de historia se puede leer como una novela gracias a la pluma magistral de su autora.
Para Consultar en detalle, a pesar de ser un libro de historia se puede leer como una novela gracias a la pluma magistral de su autora.
February 11, 2024
This is a little dated in that today's historians are less likely to make grand statements and pass judgments, but also *so* insightful, and cites such a wide range of intersecting topics and sources, that I didn't even mind that rather brash old-school quality.
September 4, 2024
This book is so much more than the usual crusader story.
It is the history of the Frankish kingdom in the holy land
and a balanced examination of the many individuals involved on both sides of the conflict.
Oldenbourg does an excellent job in this well-written, deeply researched, book.
It is the history of the Frankish kingdom in the holy land
and a balanced examination of the many individuals involved on both sides of the conflict.
Oldenbourg does an excellent job in this well-written, deeply researched, book.
May 18, 2020
Fascinating follow up to The World Is Not Enough.
March 23, 2022
Imprescindible para entender el fenómeno de las cruzadas.
May 14, 2023
Comprehensive work. Well written, simple vocabulary. Not the work of a religious fanatic, unbiased.
April 18, 2025
The research and writing is suburb - but it did need some editing - some repeating along the way.
March 19, 2019
An impressive work on the first three crusades, dating from 1096 to 1200, or from Peter the Hermit's People Crusade until Saladin retakes Jerusalem. From the heavy use of Anna Comnenus writings (daughter of the Comnenus Emperor Alexia) for the first crusade, I assume original source material was scant on the subject matter. In fact, Zoe even points out the general feelings regarding someone recording history. I guess this means Zoe did not have too many scholarly source materials to work with when writing her own work. Point is, I think we should not fault Zoe for her Herodotian approach; all the same, the work is excellent (even though I read the English translation), and compared to other sources I've read on the crusades, in my humble opinion, I would term it to be a rather reliable and factual work. I would definitely recommend it to anyone.
UDPATE - finished this book, bit of an achievement doing so. I liked the book more and more as I read and afterward read one or two other accounts on the first crusade and felt Zoe's work was far superior. Again, would recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the first, second and third crusades (ending with Richard the Lionheart's, and the collapse of the Kingdom of Jerusalem).
UDPATE - finished this book, bit of an achievement doing so. I liked the book more and more as I read and afterward read one or two other accounts on the first crusade and felt Zoe's work was far superior. Again, would recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the first, second and third crusades (ending with Richard the Lionheart's, and the collapse of the Kingdom of Jerusalem).
August 18, 2017
A thorough and wide history of not just the first Three Crusades, but the whole time period from ~1059-~end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
One of the most fascinating aspects of any general history book is how the author chooses to arrange the topics. It is extremely difficult to have a perfectly chronological book. Some jumping around inevitably has to happen. That, obviously along with the scholarly analysis, is what makes all the difference between texts about the same time period.
It was a fairly even handed analysis, not terribly Euro-centric, given the scholarship of when the book was written.
I am very much looking forward to reading Oldenbourg's book on the Albigensian Crusade.
One of the most fascinating aspects of any general history book is how the author chooses to arrange the topics. It is extremely difficult to have a perfectly chronological book. Some jumping around inevitably has to happen. That, obviously along with the scholarly analysis, is what makes all the difference between texts about the same time period.
It was a fairly even handed analysis, not terribly Euro-centric, given the scholarship of when the book was written.
I am very much looking forward to reading Oldenbourg's book on the Albigensian Crusade.
April 18, 2012
I must say, this is a lovely and detailed book as well as insightful and descriptive. However detailed description in this case is a double edged sword. I found it enjoyable, but I believe it could be too monotonous, in my opinion, the content of the book could be wrapped up in 14 hours, but because of the descriptive narrative, it was dragged on for 24 hours. This volume is overall, very enjoyable and accurate as far as the social condition of the 11-13 century Europe and Middle East.
January 7, 2016
I picked this up at a university's book sale on a whim and just left it in the bookshelf unread. Then as I was reading Gibbon, I came to the Crusades and didn't think it went into nearly enough detail so out this came. I thought this was extremely well written (and surely translated) and gave a balanced account of the motivations of all parties involved. I don't know how this is regarded in academia but I would highly recommend this to a general readership.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews