The Tragedy of the Templars: The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States

by Michael Haag

From Michael Haag, bestselling author of The The History and the Myth , comes The Tragedy of the Templars , an exciting new look at the rise of Templar power and the saga of their destruction.
 
Founded on Christmas Day 1119 in Jerusalem, the Knights Templar was a religious order dedicated to defending the Holy Land and its Christian pilgrims in the decades after the First Crusade. Legendary for their bravery and dedication, the Templars became one of the wealthiest and most powerful bodies of the medieval world—and the chief defenders of Christian society against growing Muslim forces.
 
In The Tragedy of the The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States , Haag masterfully details the conflicts and betrayals that sent this faction of powerful knights spiraling from domination to condemnation.
 
This stirring and thoroughly researched work of historical investigation includes maps and full-color photographs of important cultural sites, many of which doubled as battlefields during the Crusades.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Historical, Medieval, Middle East, Ebooks

448 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Michael Haag, who lived in London, was a writer, historian and biographer. He wrote widely on the Egyptian, Classical and Medieval worlds; and on the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Reviews

[Suzannah Rowntree · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know that before I can claim to know anything about the Templars, I have to read Malcolm Barber's THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD. That, however, will have to wait till I can afford it. In the meantime, I decided to try THE TRAGEDY OF THE TEMPLARS, half supposing it might turn out to be hilariously bad, but hoping I'd glean some worthwhile facts.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The Good

This book is readable! Honestly, I'm thrilled that Barber and Hamilton and Edbury are producing such quality work on the Crusades, but you have to acknowledge they can be stiffish reading. Haag's TRAGEDY OF THE TEMPLARS, on the other hand, combines a formidable level of historical detail with an easy writing style, accessible to a popular audience.

It also contains some brilliant myth-busting on the Crusades generally. Haag spends a good deal of time setting the scene before he introduces his heroes the Templars, and this segment of the book was the one I found most useful. Relying heavily on primary sources from both Christian and Islamic perspectives, Haag outlines the history of the Christian East from Byzantine splendour (during which the Negev was irrigated and farmed) through the centuries of Islamic misrule and persecution (during which Christians retained a solid population majority throughout Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Levant), the first prosperous century of Crusader rule (throughout which Palestine saw a magnificent flowering of art and culture), and the very sad decline under the scorched-earth tactics of Saladin and his Ayyubid and Mameluke successors.

In the meantime, Haag explodes Mohammed's Night Journey from Jerusalem, arguing that the city's significance as the third holiest city of Islam stems in large part from its importance to Christians and only solidified around 1187. He thoroughly debunks Saladin's status as a Muslim hero--before conquering Jerusalem in 1187 he spent most of his time waging war on other Islamic rulers and was seen as an ambitious empire-builder rather than the champion of Islam. He also draws on a wide range of original source documents to demonstrate that the aid of the Eastern Church was a major motivating factor to the organisers and leaders of crusades.

Finally, this book solidly confirmed a number of things I'd gathered from reading other sources. For example, the fact that native Eastern Christians formed the majority of the population of the Near East up until well after the Crusader States fell in 1291. And the fact that the Muslim minorities that did live in the Crusader States were extremely well-treated to the point that they became somewhat of a haven for Shia, Ismaili, and other splinter sects persecuted in larger Sunni Islam. And the consistent disregard Muslim conquerors had for the lands under their possession, to the point that the Christians consistently found land which had been under Islamic rule to be depopulated and ruinous, while Muslims consistently found land which had been under Christian rule to be rich and beautiful beyond compare. In all these things, Haag relies heavily on eyewitness evidence from Muslim chroniclers.

The Bad

That said, there was a lot in this book that I found misleading and/or biased. I gathered from reading the book that Haag is a Catholic and a huge Templar fanboy. Consequently, he thinks the Templars' independence from local church authority structures, and their sole answerability to the Pope, the best thing ever. His pro-Templar bias--and I'd have called myself mildly pro-Templar myself--led to some odd distortions of the history. Every time the Templars scratched their noses it's lauded as some tremendous victory; and so we're left with the impression that they single-handedly won Montgisard made the 3rd Crusade a success saved Outremer from an alliance with the Assassins etc etc.

And a lot of this Templar cheerleading is done at the expense of the local Frankish nobility, who weren't perfect either but are painted as traitors and villains. Raymond III of Tripoli, for instance, is made the villain of Hattin, and he and Balian of Ibelin are depicted as treacherous deserters (and thinking back, I'm wondering if he meant to insinuate that Balian's missing the battle of Cresson was too convenient by half). They're also described as the only two men in the kingdom who refused to acknowledge Guy of Lusignan's rule, which is demonstrably historically false. It's true that one of the nobles did in fact refuse to swear homage to Guy, preferring rather to bequeath his estates to his family and exile himself to Antioch--but this was Balian of Ibelin's elder brother Baldwin, not Balian himself, who swore fealty to Guy and served him faithfully until the death of Guy's wife, Queen Sibylla, invalidated his claim to the throne. Raymond of Tripoli also initially refused to do homage for his principality of Galilee, but Guy's response--to muster an army and attack the principality--bordered on the insane and left Raymond with little choice but to ally himself with Saladin, a treachery for which all the historical evidence is that he died bitterly repentant. One last dig is levelled at Balian for breaking his oath to Saladin in choosing to undertake the defence of Jerusalem, after having travelled to the city, alone and unarmed, to collect his wife and children, under a safe-conduct from Saladin on condition that he only spend one night in the city. The fact is that Balian only consented to stay and defend the city after he was unanimously begged to do so by its people and leaders, and that he sent his apologies to Saladin, who immediately forgave him the breaking of his oath and arranged safe passage for Balian's wife and children to Christian-held Tyre. (Which was one of Saladin's not-unknown chivalrous actions for which I think Haag gives him too little credit).

*annoyed huff*

Finally, Haag tends to gloss over, explain away, excuse, or simply ignore Templar sins. Some of these excuses are reasonable--eg the explanation that the massacre after the 1099 siege of Jerusalem was treated with hyperbole by its chroniclers (who would not have expected anyone to believe tales of the streets flowing with blood up to the horses' knees--a thing more or less physically impossible). Some of the explanations are worth bearing in mind, like the alternative interpretation of the Cresson disaster. Some of the explanations sounded completely specious to me--Templar involvement in the Muslim trade in Christian slaves is something I want to know more about, and not from someone keen to gloss over their faults; while I don't at all consider the slaughter of the Assassin envoys during Amalric's reign remotely excusable, let alone a good thing! I was interested to see what Haag would do to rehabilitate Gerard of Ridefort, the Grand Master whose lunatic advice led directly to the disaster at Hattin and who also nursed a petty grudge against Raymond of Tripoli all the way to the loss of the kingdom. Disappointingly, Haag either omits or skips over these parts as quickly as he can, and then fast-forwards to quote from a foreign chronicler's positive obituary after the Master's somewhat redeeming death in battle.

So, in a lot of ways this was a highly valuable book, from which I learned a huge amount. In other ways, I disagreed with it vehemently, and it left me wondering if I could really trust it at all in the parts where I didn't already know something about the history (like the trial of the Templars and the dissolution of their order in the early 1300s). Some of it opened up some fruitful avenues for further research, some of it confirmed stuff I'd learned from more trustworthy sources...and some of it was offputtingly partisan.

Conclusion? Still one of the best and most accessible books I've so far read on the Crusades, but don't let him convince you Balian of Ibelin was anything less than a hero.

[Tome · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good info, good pace, fun narrative.

This book, however, was written by a man with the biggest Templar-boner I ever could have imagined.

[J J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a primer on crusades, the story of the templars is just woven within the narrative. I learned a lot reading it, the order of the templars and their role in the holy land is something I was always aware off, but it was nice to get a more detailed account.

Some reviewers seem to be annoyed that the author is pro- Templar. I think that all of his arguments are backed by reliable sources, and it is refreshing to read an author who is not ashamed to admire a badass order of warrior monks.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Michael Haag's book should really be called by it's subtitle: The Rise and Fall of the Crusader States, since this is more a potted history of Outremer (as those states in the Holy Land were called) than a detailed history of the Templars. The Templars flit in and out of the story and only really become the focus in the final couple of chapters after the Holy Land has been lost to the Mamelukes.

So, what we have is a history of the Holy Land from the initial incursions by Islamic invaders soon after the death of Mohammed, right through the Crusades to the final fall of Acre and the devastation of the area by the Mamelukes. What is noticeable is that this is a land soaked in blood, all of it due to religion. The various Islamic dynasties that impose their will on the mainly Christian and Jewish population of Egypt and Palestine over the centuries are invaders, religious fanatics for the most part, who treat non-Muslim peoples as the lowest of the low.

Haag's contention is that, far from Christian Crusaders invading Islamic states, they were coming to the aid of the majority Christian population. In today's climate this is probably a controversial statement but it seems that Haag has done his research. The Byzantine Empire called on the Pope to help save Christianity in the East and so the Crusades began. Yes there were ulterior motives on the part of the participants (land, power, kingships), but the overwhelming purpose was to protect the Christian population. Outremer was a multi-cultural society. The crusaders spoke English, French, Arabic, Greek. By contrast the Muslim overlords made no effort to learn other languages.

Haag writes well and this is an easy to read popular history of the Crusader states. It is a tale of devastation on a vast scale through religious dogma, tens of thousands slaughtered, cities razed to the ground, people sold into slavery and all because of differing views on God.

What come out most is that Religion of all stripes has been an excuse for slaughter on an industrial scale. Hopefully humanity can move into a more enlightened age where such dogma is left far behind.

It's an interesting read, but there are better books on the Templars out there if that's your thing.

[Gareth · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title and subtitle of this book should be switched- Tragedy of the Templars : The rise and fall of the crusader states is a little misleading, as the book is mostly about the latter. The final downfall of the Templars is dealt with in detail in the final couple of chapters, prior to that they really only play a walk-on role in what is actually a potted history of the Crusades, and a reasonably good one at that. Michael Haag writes in an engaging style, bringing to life the historical characters from the chronicles. The problem is a lack of balance - Crusaders good, Muslims bad pretty much sums it up, and the author pursues this stereotype with some venom. Muslim atrocities are covered in some detail, Outremer is apparently a utopian state where all creeds are tolerated ( one wonders where the blueprint for that came from given the brutality suffered by the Cathars and the Templars themselves). All-in-all we get a myopic, muslim-bashing view of the period (although I don't doubt that the Seljuks and the Mamelukes did have a bit of a harsh edge. Add to that, my pet hate comes to the fore in yet another historian quoting as fact casualty numbers as reported by the chroniclers. There are better books on the Crusades to be found elsewhere.

[Connor]

Let me preface this review by saying that I love nonfict fiction, and this book definitely gave me my fix. Now the only question I have about this title is why is is it a tragedy, because the way the book presents the information is pretty part for the course. Now this book does have a huge Templar bias, and most of the book is dedicated to proving that the Templars were the best thing to ever happen to Israel. Now the Templars did do some pretty cool things like they invented modern day banking system. The "tragedy" that ends up befalling them is that the French king is in debt and he goes to rob all of the Templars banks, but to get away with it he tortures the Templars and makes things confess to heresy by saying that they denounced god and spit on the cross during their initiation ceremony., this is most likely not true because they have the root word temple in their name, and actively made pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Overall I think the concepts of the book are good but it can draw on for a little to long.

[Sebastian Figueroa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started a bit slow as it is dense with historical names, cities, etc. However, it picked up after the third chapter and gave an insightful historical analysis of the Templars and everyone they encountered in their history such as the Sunni warrior Saladin. It's rather interesting the level of unrest that has plagued the areas covered in the book such as Syria, Jerusalem, Turkey, Egypt, which still continues to this day. All-in-all, if you are interested in Templar history it's not a bad book to read, just be patient with the first few chapters.

[Nick Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wide ranging and thorough study of not only the Templars and crusaders but also of the growth and schisms within Islam which goes some way to explaining much about the global situation in 2017. I don’t know enough about the subject matter to tell whether there is any great bias or wilful misinterpretation of the facts but generally it feels a balanced account.

Well worth reading.

[Jose · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is neither elegantly written nor academically detached but it does provide a very interesting reversal to the usual narrative about the Crusades that dominates the media and school curriculum. The story we normally get is very influenced by the work of one Steven Runciman. In it, the Crusaders were a bunch fanatical loot seekers. More recently, the common idea is that of religious zealots invading peaceful Muslim villages of the Middle East. The book tries (an succeeds to a great degree) to set the record straight and make some interesting observations in the process.

Its main point is, in fact, the violent expansion of Islam and the several waves of invasion over former Christian territories was the spark that forced the henceforth fragments and kingdoms of the "West" to reorganize and defend themselves or summon the aid of allies. I put "West" in quotes because this is another myth created by the Islamic jihadists.

The book doesn't start with the Templars but it invites the reader to travel several centuries back To the times of the dismemberment of the Roman Empire and the time when Arab Egypt, Nubia, Anatolia, Damascus and Byzantium were essentially Christian societies. Christianity didn't initially grow through force. On the contrary, in the face of stiff persecution -remember the lions?- it
only became the Empire's religion three centuries after its birth and eventually spread on its own appeal. At its core, its message is one of peaceful coexistence despite massive transgressions by secular and religious authorities that would indicate otherwise. The time of forced conversions
was not yet arrived. Cities like Ephesus, Tarsus, Damascus, Bethlehem and Jerusalem figure prominently in Christian history for obvious reasons.

Then, in the 700's, Islam shows up with quite a different aspiration. The unification of all peoples under its banner -provided the existence of a slave underclass and hierarchies of course . They incorporate the safeguard of "jihad", or justified war, against infidels. the Muslim Arabs started a conquering expansion into Egypt, Palestine, Syria and further eventually reaching the doors of Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Empire. Their conquest involved the Arab overlords forcing the local populations into servitude or slavery. This conquests did not stop the Muslim rulers from constantly disputing with each other. As they expanded, the Arabs were bound to meet resistance, more often than not form peoples that subscribed to other brands of Islam (Sunni, Shiia) , tribes and caliphates that were not cooperative, or Turks and mongols that had converted but were still considered inferior, etc.. Nothing too surprising here as this was the general state of the world everywhere and it sadly still is. The worse off were the Jews and Christians labelled "dhimmis" and forced to wear distinctive clothes, not allowed to repair or build new churches in the best of cases and generally disposed off as slaves in their own land. That did not stop the Muslim rulers to constantly dispute with each other.

The main concept to grasp however is that the Crusaders were not invading but defending the region and the many pilgrims that still visited the holy sites from unrelenting warfare and despoil. By the year 1000, new forces keep entering the fray as they themselves were displaced from central Asia. Several waves of invasion become increasingly powerful.

The Seljuk Turks made a dazzling appearance in 1060 when they started threatening the borders of the Byzantine empire. They had been converted to a Sunni brand of Islam and conquered Persia from the Abbasids. They were also aiming for Egypt's Fatimid Dinasty which they considered heretical because the Fatimids were Shia. This was one of those instances of Muslims fighting Muslims just like Christians fought each other over secular interests using religious propaganda.
The 1071 battle of Manzikert in which the emperor Romanus, was captured, marks the key event that places the capital of the empire in direct opposition to the invading armies.

An unknown author of the period writes:

"Almost the whole world, on land and sea, occupied by the impious barbarians, has been destroyed and has become empty of population, for all Christians have been slain by them and all houses and settlements with their churches have been devastated by them in the whole East, completely crushed and reduced to nothing" (quoted on page 76)

The Crusaders would take still a quarter of a century to come defend these territories. In the meantime, the area would be infested with marauding bands of Bedouins harassing pilgrims trying to make their way to Jerusalem. This pilgrimage had become so dangerous that it was the protection of caravans that would prompt the establishment of the Templars after many appeals were made to kings and lords of the Western lands for a military/religious order to be created. The Hospitallers, a different order whose aim was more centred around charity sees the light also during this time. Jerusalem is settled as a kingdom and other areas become teh group of counties and territories we call "Outremer" from the French word "beyond the sea". The financing of these orders is explained in the book as it became of the utmost importance and eventually proved to be the downfall of the Templar order . In effect, the Templars became a banking system which accrued enormous wealth by providing aid to different secular powers.

Another very interesting idea is that the Islamic invasions had also reached the Iberian Peninsula and many Mediterranean lands and islands. Some incursions even threatened Rome. The process of "Reconquista", that is, the expulsion of Islamic invaders from the Iberian Peninsula, and other repelling wars, were in essence also a similar process of Crusade. The author reminds us that the holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina had never been threatened by Western powers. He also reminds us that this idea of the "West" was basically an Islamic invention since the so-called West was neither an homogeneous nor a fully formed group of nationalities at the time. For the invaders, it was just the name of what hadn't been absorbed into the Islamic fold. The book provides some maps that are clear enough . Most people living in Spain today would consider the Reconquista a war of liberation. The author proposes that the Crusades should be looked at from the same prism despite the fact that they eventually failed to hold off the invaders.

The author then goes into some detail explaining the roots of all the different Crusades from the disastrously disorganized first one with oddities like Peter the Hermit and his band of doomed souls to the better known ones Second and Third against Saladin. Saladin deserves a special chapter. A kurdish-born Muslim leader, he practically swept all his opponents in the region. He also placed his family in the important governing posts and settled the idea of Jerusalem as an Islamic city by fleshing out legends like that of Mohammed actually ascending to Heaven from there. He also inaugurated the ill-conceived tactic of burning any cities or fields just to make them less palatable as targets to his enemies. The use of assigning religious meaning to sites and relics was as widespread in Christianity as it was in Islam, iconoclasm notwithstanding. These are the times of Richard Lionheart and his brilliant military genius, the Mamelukes, a ruthless warrior class who eventually took over Saladin's legacy, the Mongols and most of the mythology and mind-boggling tragedy of the time. Saladin conquests of Acre, Damascus and Jerusalem were so devastating that even 400 years later these former splendid cities were still in ruins as invaders were keen to raze towns
The subsequent Crusades are also interesting but a pattern begins to emerge in which the religious mission of the initial expeditions gets lost into the maze of secular interest that accompany the birth of nationhoods in Europe. The commercial interests of cities like Genoa and the French kings undermine the effort of re-conquest at every step. For the first time the Templars are reluctantly recruited by Venice to invade other Christian realms opposed to Venice's interests (Zara). Meanwhile, the brisk slave business between Genoa and Egypt is greatly dissolving the appetite for war. By the 1300's, Outremer is practically over and the once wealthy region settles into the wasteland that future explorers would still wonder about centuries afterwards. As for the Templars, Phillip the IV of France has them declared heretics by the pro-French pope Clemet and burnes Jacques de Molay the Grand master at the stake , thus ending one of the most fascinating organizations in History.

My conclusions have no quarrel with religious or political issues but with the really hopeless nature of humanity under any sign. Reading about the sweeping death and destruction inflicted -not in the name of religion but using it as an excuse for much more prosaic goals...moreover, realizing about how all this suffering was received with glee, with utter joy, as a symbol of "purification" by fanatics of all sorts, well, nothing new under the sun indeed but still, what a waste. For every true and consequential believer there are thousands of blind followers of some leader or another spewing propaganda disguised as faith disguising a power grab that cares nothing for the collateral damage. Nothing changes. Only this planet won't last.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historians often face a conundrum when it comes to providing context for their books.  On the one hand, with too little context the historian is relying on the background knowledge of the reader to fill in the inevitable gaps that explain the motivations of the people involved.  On the other hand, though, with too much context the author appears to be fluffing up a topic that does not merit a book-length treatment with a lot of extraneous information.  It is hard for a writer to find that balance point that provides enough context to make sense of a given historical period or event but not too much that the author appears to waste the time of the reader.  This author manages to find that balance in talking about the Templars in a subtle way, both by providing context of the period before the creation of the Templars as an institution and also by providing context of what was going on while the Templars were trying to protect/recover the the Outremer from occasional Muslim acts of aggression at key parts when various dynasties ruling over Egypt and Syria were trying to establish their legitimacy through jihad.

This book is a fairly lengthy one at more than 350 pages, seven parts, and 25 chapters.  The book begins with a series of maps on the Mediterranean at the eve of the Crusades, the Crusader states, as well as Crusader Jerusalem.  After that the book begins with a prologue and then contains six chapters that discuss the Middle East before the Crusades (I), such as the Christian world (1), Arab conquests (2), Palestine under the Umayyads and Arab tribes (3), the Abbasids and the decline of the Arabs (4), the Byzantine Crusades of the 10th century (5), and the Muslim wars and the destruction of Palestine (6).  After this the author discusses the Turkish invasion and the provocation of the first crusade (II), with chapters on the Turkish invasion (7), the call for crusade (8), and the First Crusade (9).  This leads to a discussion of the founding of the Templars and the Crusader states (III), with chapters on the origins of the Templars (10), the outremer (11), Zengi's jihad against Edessa (12), and the failure of the second crusade (13).  After that the author discusses the Templars and the defense of the Outremer (IV), including chapters looking at the perspective of Jerusalem (14), the defense of the kingdom of Jerusalem (15), and templar wealth (16).  Another three chapters look at Saladin and his relationship with the Templars (V), including tolerance and intolerance (17), Saladin's jihad (18), and the fall of Jerusalem (19).  A discussion of the Kingdom of Acre follows (VI), with a look at recovery (20), the Mamelukes (21), and the fall of Acre (22).  Finally, the aftermath of the end of the Crusades (VII) leads to a look at lost souls (23), the trial of the Templars (24), and their destruction as an order (25), after which the book ends with notes, a bibliography, and an index.

Ultimately, the tragedy of the Templars is not too hard to understand.  While Europe enjoyed a qualitative superiority over their often-divided Muslim opponents, they simply lacked the demographics to be able to sustain their efforts at holding on to the Outremer in the face of Muslim quantitative superiority given their own internal divides and their multiple simultaneous efforts in Iberia, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans as well as in the Middle East.  Once the Kingdom of Jerusalem was out of reach for the Europeans, the Templar success as financiers made them vulnerable as a target for always impecunious European monarchs like the French, who then resorted to trumped up charges to try to steal the wealth of the Templars for state-building exercises.  The tragedy of the Templars is that there were not enough of them to defend Christian interests in the Middle East against the Muslims, or strong enough to overthrow the Muslim states and replace them with better ones, but that they were too wealthy to be allowed to preserve their institutional wealth by greedy and corrupt monarchs like French's king Philip the Fair.  Such a tragedy is not hard to understand in contemporary times as institutions often pursue interests contrary to the states where they operate, and is a lesson to contemporary history students to ponder.

[Suzanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book if you are interested in early Mideast history. Most of the book is about the various slaughters back and forth among various religious sects (Cathars, Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Mamelucks, Mongols etcetcetc) from first century to 14th c. (Sunnis and Shias slaughtered each other back then, too; and moreso than either slaughtered Christians.) It is more history book than Templar book. I thought the Templars played very little role overall. I was also surprised to find they were not the oversized figures modern tales have made them. I felt rather sorry for them. And a bit disappointed.

But the history is captivating, if exhausting. I learned some things I did not know, like how prevalent Christianity was throughout the area for hundreds of years after Christ, despite the Apostasy, and the role of the French throughout. Also more on the interplay among the various secular and religious govts -- kings and popes and pretenders, all after treasure -- and how fast Mankind unlearned all that had gone before in his lust for his own power and wealth. Sound familiar?

The book chronicles the constant wars and utter destruction and, literal, slaughters of peoples. These cretins destroyed everything in sight, animal, vegetable, mineral, women, babies, churches, mosques, cathedrals, fields and fortifications. It was ungodly and it was stupid! Wanton destruction in the name of purification. Purification for these idiots also involved lots of rape and pillaging and enslaving survivors -- no respect, no respectibility, just wanton devastation. (I did not realize how prevalent slavery has been for thousands of years! No wonder it seems hard to eradicate by a barely civilized human species! Sorry, I think the book has warped my opinions.)

Anyway, it was worth reading though clearly 368 pages of death and devastation of what had been a beautiful and plenteous land has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Again, my apologies. But it does maybe explain some things about modern times....

[Fran · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book which has been lingering on my shelves for a few years, until I finally turned to it a few weeks ago.
It is really rather good, an enjoyable and vivid read which succeeds in virtually taking you there to those far off times, the Crusades, bearing in mind that history is all about interpretation, bias and down right propaganda. That the Templars suffered from a bad press in the early fourteenth century is a classic understatement. And it seems entirely plausible that most, if not all, charges levelled against the Templars were 'trumped' up, or warped interpretations of actual ceremonies of an order which, as a matter of routine, exposed itself to ultimate danger from its enemies in the then middle east.
The real interpretation of history is hardly ever black and white; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The truth probably does lie in the fact that without Outremer and a true base of their own (unlike the longer surviving Hospitallers in Rhodes), the Templars' raison d'etre had virtually disappeared. Add to this the fact that they were fabulously wealthy in other ways, through their creative banking institutions and extensive land holdings all over Europe, and a huge cross hair can be put over their continued existence by avaricious monarchs, such as King Phillip.
As for all the other modern 'conspiracy' regarding this order, its 'proto' status of other 'orders' and whether they were really heretics or not, it is hard for anyone to say considering the passage of time and the distortion of truth. However, what can be said is that confessions gained through torture, in any circumstance or time period, can never be regarded as truly genuine. Nevertheless, such practices continue right up to the present time.

[Galen Hall · Rating 4 out of 5]

First off, if you're looking for an in-depth history of the Templars, this is not the book for you. As long as you keep that in mind, you'll find this an interesting read.

The first half of the book is basically a brief overview of the Crusades which makes sense seeing as how the Templars were founded in Jerusalem after it came under Crusader control. From there, the connection between the Templars and the Latin territories in the Holy Land ("Outremer" if you want to sound cultured) is explained in decent but not overwhelming detail. You'll see how the connection between the Templars and the Holy Land led to the tragedy mentioned in the title once the Latin territories fell. Again, if you're looking for a probing account into the minutiae of how and why the Templars ended as they did, you will be disappointed. That said, if you want a starting point for learning about the Crusades or the Templars, you could do worse than this book.

One other thing: I would like to commend the author for portraying the Crusades not as a barbaric invasion of peaceful Muslim lands (which they were not though the customs of the age did lead to plenty of barbaric actions by both sides from a modern viewpoint) but rather as an attempt to free predominantly Christian lands that were invaded and conquered by the armies of Islam. As with any conflict, there were bad people who did bad things on both sides but the modern conception of the Crusades is colored by revisionist history and it was nice to see that this book doesn't toe that particular party line.

[Mark Lawry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today people look back at the Crusader States as an insane idea that was obviously going to be an inevitable failure. They did last a couple 100 years. Had a few things gone differently they very well may have made it. Had the Christians not left their food, water (in July), and defensive walls to get crushed at the Battle of Hattin the map would have looked very different. Had Richard the Lionheart remained in theater one more year he would have been on the ground to react to the death of Saladin in 1193. Perhaps the States would have gone on the offensive. Had the 4th Crusade stuck to the plan and hit Egypt instead of sacking Constantinople.....800 years later and we're still all shaking our heads. No seriously! You morons did what? Had any of this been different the Christians would have been in better shape when the Mongols showed up. The Mongols would have been conquering Christians instead of Muslims. This would have meant the Mongols would have found themselves becoming Christians instead of Muslims.

[Meydan01 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This has to be one of the most hideously biased book I've ever read. I mean any book about anything related to Middle East will be biased but this is just God awful. At times it appeared I was reading a sermon from a priest during the Dark ages. Literally in the beginning the author pretends that the Christians inherited logic, Science, and culture straight from the Greeks ignoring the dogmas of Christianity. According to dear author, the women became free after Christianity as the Greek/Roman world considered them second class citizens. Whaaat?
And then apparently the Christians of Middle East inherited all the science, philosophy, medicine, and wordly knowledge from the Greeks who in author's words were the source of all knowledge in the beginning of time,, the author is not aware or ignores many ideas predate even the Greeks and Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Chinese civilizations engaged in many sciences before the Greeks.
Once again, I feel like it is a book written by a crusader and written with a very narrow mindedness. My humble 2cents.

[Nick Carraway LLC · Rating 3 out of 5]

1) ''Urban's visit to Cluny and its priories along the way to Compostela brought him among people who well understood that the reconquest of the East was a second front in the struggle to restore the Mediterranean to its Christian roots and to the unity that it had enjoyed before the Muslim conquests. Since Piacenza, Urban had matured his plan for a campaign for the defence and recovery of the Christian East; his visit to Cluny and its priories was to gain support, for Urban's aim was to rouse every church and monastery to his great venture and have his message broadcast from every pulpit, so that all of Western Christendom should reverberate with his call. The full weight of Christianity would be brought to bear, but neither Christianity nor the West was the cause of the crusades. As the historian Paul Chevveden has written, 'Scholars have been asking themselves, 'What devotional religious climate or religious innovation caused the emergence of the Crusades?' when they should have been asking, 'What ongoing conflict intensified to the point where it received the highest and most expansive religious warrant?' [...] The prolonged struggle between Islam and Christianity in the Mediterannean world, rather than the religion of the Latin West, is the central issue and must be the real focus of inquiry.'''

2) [From Fulcher of Chartres ~1100] ''We who were Occidentals now have been made Orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank is now a Galilaean, or an inhabitant of Palestine. One who was a citizen of Rheims or of Chartres now has been made a citizen of Tyre or of Antioch. We have already forgotten the places of our birth; already they have become unknown to many of us, or, at least, are unmentioned. Some already possess here homes and servants which they have received through inheritance. Some have taken wives not merely of their own people, but Syrians, or Armenians, or even Saracens who have received the grace of baptism. Some have with them father-in-law, or daughter-in-law, or son-in-law, or stepson, or stepfather. There are here, too, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. One cultivates vines, another the fields. The one and the other use mutually the speech and the idioms of the different languages. Different languages, now made common, become known to both races, and faith unites those whose forefathers were strangers. As it is written, 'The lion and the ox shall eat straw together'. Those who were strangers are now natives; and he who was a sojourner now has become a resident.''

3) ''The Grail was invented in the late twelfth century by Chrétien de Troyes: no mention of a Grail had ever been made before. Curiously, there was nothing explicitly religious about Chrétien's Grail; he did not write about it as the cup or chalice at the Last Supper. For that matter he did not describe it as a cup or a chalice at all, but rather as a serving dish, which is the usual and original meaning of the Old French word graal. But there is something wonderful about the Grail's first appearance in the pages of Chrétien's story at the beginning of a rich man's feast, and all the more wonderful and strange because Chrétien never finished his story. This is how it makes its first appearance on the page. 'Then two other squires entered holding in their hands candelabra of pure gold, crafted with enamel inlays. The young men carrying the candelabra were extremely handsome. In each of the candelabra there were at least ten candles burning. A maiden accompanying the two young men was carrying a grail with her two hands; she was beautiful, noble, and richly attired. After she had entered the hall carrying the grail the room was so brightly illumined that the candles lost their brilliance like the stars and the moon when the sun rises.'''

4) ''But although Saladin knew Arabic, his language of command was Turkish. His army, like those of Zengi and Nur al-Din, included Kurds but was overwhelmingly Turkish; his personal bodyguard was an elite corps of Turkish Mameluke slave soldiers. On occasion he used mercenaries of other ethnic groups, and these sometimes included Arab Bedouins, but that was the extent of local recruitment. As The Cambridge History of Islam explains, Saladin's army 'was as alien as the Turkish, Berber, Sudanese and other forces of his predecessors. Himself a Kurd, he established a regime and an army of the Turkish type, along the lines laid down by the Seljuks and atabegs in the East.' In capturing Egypt, and in all his wars against the Muslims of Syria and the Franks of Outremer, Saladin was not a liberator; like the Seljuks and like Zengi and Nur al-Din, he was an alien leading an alien army of conquest and occupation.''

5) ''Apart from the effect this massacre of the Latins had on Western opinion of Byzantium, it also drove the Italian city-states, especially Genoa and Venice, to seek new markets in the East, and from this time they developed a busy trade with Egypt, so that 'Egypt was at once the most dangerous enemy of the Crusaders and the source of the richest profits to the Christian commercial republics of the Mediterranean.'''

6) ''Even four centuries after the Franks were driven from this coast, the devastation wrought by the Mamelukes was still apparent. In 1697 the English traveller Henry Maundrell recorded the 'many ruins of castles and houses, which testify that this country, however it be neglected at present, was once in the hands of a people that knew how to value it, and thought it worth the defending.'''

[Glen · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Tragedy of the Templars by Micheal Hagg

In this publication 25 chapters over 433 pages, not including maps and pictures.

A very informative work relating to the Holy Crusades and the role of the Templars. Well written, chronologically ordered and interestingly illustrated.

On a personal note I might suggest that the title does not give the book its best emphasis, Haag has obviously well researched this work, however it feels more about the Crusades that the Templars, although their rise and demise runs with this.

Excellent.

[Eric Pecile · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent narrative of the history of the Knights Templar. Haag's narrative begins in the Holy Land prior to the crusades and culminates with the execution of the last Knights by Philip IV. It is a very broad overview and does not offer much critical evaluation of historical events or the sources, around which there is a rich set of controversies and problems that would have greatly enhanced the book.

[Stephen Watts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. It opened my eyes to the origins of and initial conflicts between Muslims and Christians. The full story of the Templars is presented in this book and, I'll just say, "tragedy" is a euphemism. The horrific betrayal after what they underwent on behalf of their church and monarchs is portrayed in heartbreaking clarity.

[Noah Karpiak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Haag observes the rise of the Templars but also explores the content of the crusades. The narrative explores the complexity of the crusades looking for the true motivation and context of the actors and their driving forces.

[steven souder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great history !!

Knowing a lot more about the Templars paints a different picture and now I can see the similarities to the Mason's. Basically small groups loyal to their Grand Master. scs

[Kay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, concise history of the Templar Knights. Well-written and flows very smoothly.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well done breakdown of Templar history. This book avoids much of the conspiracy junk that surrounds the Templars, and focuses on history and fact.

[Priti Panda]

otcff
devvde .o.

[chelsea reads · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too hard to follow. There was so many quotes and not enough actual writing. Just skip to the bibliography instead and read everything that's there, saves having to read this one.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mr. Haag writes well and has obviously done his homework. He also is quite biased in favor of Christianity and in opposition to Islam. The pictures and maps were helpful.

[Mariel McClendon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has a lot of historical information. There are various names to remember and timeline varies some.

[Jason Kotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent overview of the time period from a high level. Every chapter probably could have been its own separate book, there is so much information.

[Shirley Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gives the context for the Templars.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Stars for me
About the Crusades, the Franks against the Muslim's, fighting over Jerusalem and other towns over religion