Jerusalem

by Cecelia Holland

Set in the Holy Land in 1187 A.D., Cecelia Holland’s historical novel masterfully explores the conspiracies and political manoeuvers leading up to the Third Crusade. Following a stunning victory at the Battle of Ramleh, Norman Templar Rannulf Fitzwilliam must negotiate a truce with the enemy and determine the order of succession to the throne of Baudouin, the young Christian king dying of leprosy. However, Rannulf’s instincts are for battle, not diplomacy. Temptation and betrayal await him around every corner. The question is not whether he can survive on the battlefield, but whether he can survive the politics and protocol of the royal court.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Medieval, Historical, Middle East, War, 12th Century

330 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Pen name used by Elizabeth Eliot Carter.

Cecelia Holland is one of the world's most highly acclaimed and respected historical novelists, ranked by many alongside other giants in that field such as Mary Renault and Larry McMurtry. Over the span of her thirty year career, she's written almost thirty historical novels, including The Firedrake, Rakessy, Two Ravens, Ghost on the Steppe, Death of Attila, Hammer For Princes, The King's Road, Pillar of the Sky, The Lords of Vaumartin, Pacific Street, Sea Beggars, The Earl, The King in Winter, The Belt of Gold, The Serpent Dreamer, The High City, Kings of the North, and a series of fantasy novels, including The Soul Thief, The Witches Kitchen, The Serpent Dreamer, and Varanger. She also wrote the well-known science fiction novel Floating Worlds, which was nominated for a Locus Award in 1975. Her most recent book is a new fantasy novel, Dragon Heart.

Reviews

[Fonch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if I'll get time, because I'm leaving work a little sooner. Because I need change by tomorrow, because my parents leave and my parents have told me, to move the money forward. So I'm going to go to a second-hand bookstore and see what I can find.
I must admit, I had high expectations regarding this book, and the truth is that I was a little disappointed, as I expected much more from this book. I think, with the rich material, which I had, I think the author has wasted it. This in the hands of Mika Waltari https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or Louis de Wohl https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... but despite some undoubted hits by the author Cecilia Holland, which I will already comment on. I can't approve this novel. Although only nine novels have been read, I must admit that it is not the worst novel of the year. Nor was the subject simple. It's a subject I love, as I've already said in my critique of Pablo Martín Prieto's"History of Crusades," but except for a few small triumphs, and only one masterpiece"The Brotherhood" by Henry Rider Haggard. I still can't find the masterpiece of the Crusades https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... There was as I said partial hits. I think of the first novels in Jan Guillou's Templar trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/series/5173... especially the second. Although in fantastic code I really liked"The Knights of the Vera Cruz" by David Camus (son of the famous Albert Camus) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... (in the wake of the knights of the Vera Cruz, we will speak again of Reinaldo de Chatillon, when we talk about Guile the fictional son, who awards Cecilia Holland to Reinaldo de Chatillon). Alfred Duggan's novel about Bohemund of Tarento https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... was also passable
There are novels that deal with the end of the Templars, which I liked a lot like"Non Nobis" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... of the heterodox Hanney Alders. But Alders may have been partly responsible for the gender starting to displease me because it began to be linked to gnosticism. The subject of romance with the Magdalena. An alternative Christianity to the official. Juan Manuel de Prada in his wonderful novel"Black bird, black swan" would call it as literature or novels written by the Witch Alférez https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... From that line came spawns, like the trilogy of Nicholas Wilcox's false pilgrims https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2.... A little better was "Iacobus" by Matilde Asensi https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... But if I read it now I would lose a lot. With all that book he was heavily influenced by Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... it was not proper a novel of crusades, but medieval, but the prodigious characterization of villains such as Brian de Bois Gilbert, or Grand Master Lucas Beaumanoir. Yet he painted them so honorable, that people preferred them to the protagonists. Yet he painted them so honorable, that people preferred them to the protagonists. In fact, it influenced Walter Scott, despite being Tory, in today's vision of the crusades by left-wing materialist historiography, and secularist rights. Scott did not seek to discredit Christianity, but if he sought greater tolerance towards Jews through characters like Rebecca of York, and Isaac of York (this succeeded), and also performed it with her minor work (for me a failure, bad novel, and expendable film adaptation "The Talisman"). https://www.goodreads.com/series/1421... where the figure of noble and magnanimous Saladin, almost like a Western knight fit into the Western reader. So much so that he led Kaiser Wilhelm II to pay homage to him https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... This led to the West denigrating its culture, and plawing over others. In some cases, I think it's fair. In fact until the 14th century Islam was culturally and scientifically superior to Christianity. But I would like you to look at Islam in such a critical spirit, as has been done with Christianity. I don't think I'd stand the analysis. While a religion has been mitified, and it has been (very unfairly) made a religion of peace and progress. The other has been regarded as a religion of bigotry, barbarism, and ignorance. In fact, after Vatican II, this speech has been drafted in the Church, although my friend Manuel Alfonseca corrected me, saying, that no forgiveness be spoofed for the crusades, but for the methods used in them https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and the same goes for the Inquisition. Of course, as a Catholic he accepted the provisions of the Popes, but I am certainly soured by this Perdonistic tendency, while the other religions seem proud of themselves. In fact, In fact, I am closer to the earlier times of the Second Vatican Council, when it was considered, that the Crusades were a glorious thing. I've explained it before. In fact, before the nefarious '60s. Hollywood, which was wonderfully well guarded by the Hays Code in which the Catholic Church participated. For him the word crusader was something, which represented Christianity, and that embodied honor, and good. Something, that the recent anti-Christian relativism, which G.K. Chesterton masterfully denounced in his wonderful "The Flying Inn" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... . Hilaire Belloc himself in his wonderful "History of the Crusades" of obligatory reading, although only lasts until the third. ExplainHow could they have earned it? For G.K. Chesterton, the work of the Middle Ages was incomplete by the loss of the Holy Land https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... What we do not realize is that crusades are now used as a weapon against the Church. But the truth is that taking advantage of the weakening of the Byzantines, and an alliance between the monophisite heretics and the Muslims. These were seized with these lands by force, taking advantage, that neither Persiannor nor Byzantinehad recovered, and that Emperor Heraklio was ill. One of the principles was violated, which was not to attack religions in the book. Here we put in the post of a friend, of the Muslim attacks perpetrated against Christians https://www.outono.net/elentir/2016/0... We see, how Christians are already attacked in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. When the first crusade starts. Arab power had declined, and Islam was embodied by the Selkitk Turks, who in the 11th century replaced the Gaznabi, and after Manzikert had left the Byzantines in a delicate situation. Not only that a Caliph desecrated the VeraCruz, and Christians were abused. Emperor Alejo Comneno called for troops, and generously Pope Urban II summoned the crusade. Faced with the popular enthusiasm of Christianity. It is true that the slaughties of the Jews, but it is also true that the clergy and the Pope protected them and declared forced conversions illegal. Regarding Byzantium, there is much talk of distrust, and such prestigious people as Steven Runciman https://www.goodreads.com/series/1342... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... demonizes the crusades, because of the grim fourth crusade. But the Byzantines among which I am must admit, that it is true, that the Byzantine empire is weakened, but it is also true, that while there was a dominion of The Latin Christians the Muslims did not attack Byzantium, because they needed to destroy the Crusader kingdoms first. Therefore, Byzantium lived longer thanks to the existence of the Cross kingdom. This was understood by Emperor Manuel who was smart, hence the alliance with Latin Christians. Clearly, if one did well, the other would also do well. For this reason the year 1291 was bad for Byzantium, which endured another hundred years thanks to Tamerlan Kahn. On this issue read the book, which will presumably be chosen by Catholic Book Club "Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" by Rodney Stark, especially its chapter dedicated to the crusades https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... said which despite having bored the Goodreads user with history, explaining my opinion, on the subject. Let's talk about Cecelia Holland's book. I must admit, Holland's book is courageously politically incorrect in this regard. Because it does not present a beneficial, cultured, pure Islam. In fact one of the things that I liked about this novel is the image that is offered of Saladin, perhaps more in line with reality. Far from being the tolerant monarch, and the walking knight, who popularized Scott. He shows it as a Machiavellian character, and ladino. Willing to any infamy to wipe out the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Sometimes it is a bit cruel Holland, because it densdenial slew of Saladin's physical flaws, although it was already a cincuentón, when the Holy Land falls. We don't know if he was bald like Humty Dumpty (I still like the portrait, offered by Henry Rider Haggard of Saladin more). Saladin prepares a strapping to our heroes in Damascus. Also interesting is the portrait he offers us of Raimundo VI of Tolosa. That certainly far from painting it, as painted by certain secular historiographic treatises, such as the tolerant Christian, who incorporates the best of peaceful, and superior Islam. Holland shows us this here, as if he were a 21st-century relativistic politician (a Lord Ivywood. I give the name of a fictional politician, so as not to hurt the sensibility of any voter of progressive tendencies, mentioning one of their leaders). Here a different vision is offered, as a man who denies his culture, and sold to Saladin. In fact, the Christian side is also not idyllic, showing the blackest vision of Reinaldo de Chatillon, neither does Guy Lusignan stand well, although there is something better than the cruel Guy de Lusignan of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I think it is excessive to give William de Riddefort the role of villain. Chances are it's a Chatillon Reinaldo comparsa. I like how the other crusaders Jocelyn, Courtenay, Humphrey of Thoron, the Ibelin brothers, are described, although they do not go out as well as in the kingdom of Heaven. The character I liked the most, and on that we agree is Baldwin IV the leper king. In fact, it's him dying, and the novel sinking. If so far, the little, I've talked about the novel, I've done it to match its strengths. The first ruling I see in Sibyl, which goes from being an unloved, ambitious pendon, and a Paris Hilton-style girl to practically being the model queen, and skilled strategist. In fact, he almost got to oppose Guy de Lusignan. Which we know was not true, because he followed Guy de Lusignan to his golden banishment in Cyprus, and was always in love with him. In fact, you have to rehabilitate Guy from the fame of useless metepatas that all give him. It is true, that it was he, who made Hattin's mistake, but also begins the reconquest of the Latin Kingdom, without the help of King Richard (although he finished it). In addition to Richard in the face of the position of Philip II Augustus, he supports his candidacy as King of Jerusalem, in the face of the option of Conrado de Montferrato. Not succeeding either option, and more so when Conrado de Montferrato is killed by those in the Assassins' sect. Now I'm going to be a lot more critical. One of the things, which has caught my eye the most. It's how misspelled, it is, or is very mistranslated into Spanish. It is quite possible that the publisher Martínez Roca did not have good translators, because it is not the first time that i have happened with a book edited by them. The way of narrating is very colloquial, and very current. The characters do not speak, and do not behave like 12th-century characters, but as 20th-century characters. Neither are the fictional characters, who carry the weight of the action, but while this character is not as odious, as David Steadman of the "Notice from Berlin" if he is unsympathetic. We refer to The Templar Rannulf Fitzwilliam, nor do I believe the conflicts with William of Riddeford who is the true villain of the novel (in fact he described him much better Jan Guillou). The conversion is not very believable, and then and here you can see what G.K. Chesterton says in his account "The Golden Curse" it is noticeable that this novel is not history, and that it drinks from the economic and moral mentality of the twentieth century, abusing presentism. He's not the only fictional character I haven't liked, he also sees his postmodernity in Germán Montaya's characters, Stephen L'Aigle (I almost find it a heavy joke to be called Mouse, just like the mythical Philip Gaston of "Lady Hawk" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...) and Saladin's nephew (that love triangle has disliked me greatly). Battle descriptions are only regular. Regarding Guile the son of Reinaldo de Chatillón. He's been killed here, because since the protagonist Rannulf Fitzwilliam can't kill Reinaldo de Chatillon (David Camus dared) they've put him in, for that. Nor is the romance between Rannulf and Sibyl credible. Besides, how quickly people lose faith. It's too nihilistic a novel. It all remains a matter of honor, and of stubbornness, where there is no true religiosity. Also the end sticks. That Holland puts you in brings nothing, I think, that it would have been better to finish it with Hattin. Here she has dominated the writer of romance novels more than the novelist of historical novels. Anyway, I'm going to have to keep waiting to read the decisive novel of the crusades. I hope, that they can offer me the definitive novel of the crusades https://www.goodreads.com/series/1644... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://

[Taddow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This the best historic fiction account of the Crusades during the reign of the Knights Templar. Excellant Read!!

[Bryn Hammond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frustrating, in that if it had shaken off its conventionalities a little more…
Still, an emotional experience I’m lucky to have once a year with a book. Rannulf was an extraordinary character although he might sound like your well-known anti-hero. He made me reminisce of Clemence Housman’s Aglovale, who is a quiet cult (Life of Aglovale de Galis: just because very few have read him, doesn’t mean he isn’t a cult. Right?). His nickname’s Saint; few look past his lack of social graces; he struggles with his God. His love for the leper king’s sister Sibylla comes out in violent urges – it’s unhealthy, but he’s ultra-Templar, he’s refused to look a woman, which isn’t healthy either. He reminded me of Grettir too – The Saga of Grettir the Strong – ah outsiders – though not a criminal, too often. Like Grettir and Aglovale, those few who know him love him – which includes King Baldwin, the leper, who was the other most intimately-drawn and moving person in this book for me. I like my Leper King truly heroic and noble; Saint thought so too.

I postponed this because of reviews that say there’s nobody to like, it’s nasty, dreary. In a way I understand, since I can’t for the life of me read her Mongol book: I like nobody and I’m dispirited by the entire affair. But here, I found she paid attention to the idealism of a fair number of these folk, even with her trademark realism.

The dirty characters were a trifle too dirty, I admit: this includes Raymond of Tripoli, Reynald of Chatillon, Salah al-Din, each of whom I’d like to see done with more levels.

Sibylla became interesting as she progressed, which I guess is the point. She did avoid several character-traps for historical princesses. – I felt this novel had a real power, a novelist’s vision, you know? and just wanted it to throw off the ropes a bit more.

Least swallowable were those moments when Salah al-Din succumbs to Templar mystique: those Templars just have the psychological knuckle on him; and Rannulf outwits him, too clever by half for a Saracen. Get over yourselves, guys, I wanted to tell the Temple. Still, there was a scene where a Muslim had religious feelings, amidst the religious experience of Christians – it stuck out as unusual, in Crusader fiction in general. The other tormented interpersonal contact is between the faiths, a nephew of Salah al-Din and a Templar knight.

In memory of Rannulf, for whom I wept, and not at Hattin either: five stars.

[Matthew Jackson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a nut for a good medieval historical novel, but I couldn't put this book down. It's such a vivid representation of such a bloody and tragic time, that time being the final years of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What made it more interesting was that Holland did not simply make this book about God, but about the struggle to find God. Many of the principal characters are not sure in their faith, or what they're fighting for, and it actually feels genuine, which is due to the great writing. I've already requested more of Holland's books, and if they live up to this quality, I'd be willing to say she's one of the most underrated novelists I've encountered. The only reason this one doesn't get five stars is that the build-up to the ending didn't seem well-executed. The middle of the third act drug a little bit for me, and then the climax just seemed to spring up without any real drama. Other than that, a bloody brilliant book.

[Helena Schrader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Holland clearly is an experienced writer with considerable competence. She can construct a good scene, build up suspense and her characters are nuanced and complex, yet this book utterly failed to captivate me.

In part it was the constant, minor inaccuracies that nagged me like flies. No, it’s not terribly important that Felx isn’t a German name (Felix is) and “Deutschlander” isn’t a word — in any language. No, it’s not important that Nablus belonged to Maria Comnena not Agnes de Courtney, or that Baldwin d’Ibelin wasn’t Balian's younger, landless brother, but the first born and Baron of Ramla and Mirabelle, one of the richest baronies in the Kingdom. But it rubbed me the wrong way that the author of a book titled “Jerusalem” had obviously never been there. If she had, she would know the Temple Mount is not the highest point in the city and that the David Gate faces west not east, among other things. It also set my teeth on edge to have 12th century knights portrayed as earring-wearing dandies with feathers in their caps, while the court scenes read like Versailles in the age of Louis XIV rather than like barons of a Kingdom conquered and held for a hundred years by cagy, clever and astonishingly successful fighting men.

To be sure, Holland wrote her novel before the excellent histories of the period by Bernard Hamilton and Malcolm Barber were released, so she must be forgiven for her inaccurate portrayal of Baldwin IV’s leprosy. And, of course, she is within her rights as a novelist to completely ignore the claims to the throne of the subsequent Queen of Jerusalem, Isabella, and to make Tripoli a coward on the Litani (although historically he captured Saladin’s nephew), but as a historian the gratuitous changes to the historical record that do not move the plot forward just seem sloppy. Why have Balian d’Ibelin taken captive at both the Litani and Hattin when he was captured at neither? Why refer to Farrukh Shah as Saladin’s brother when he was his nephew?

For readers with no particular interest in accurate history, these errors might seem unimportant, yet it was not just the eclectic mixture of historical fact and sheer fancy that ultimately made me dislike this book: it was the lack of positive characters. Holland’s characters may be complex but only in their layers of unsavoriness. I am repelled by male protagonists for whom “love” manifests itself as the desire to rape, and by female leads that fling themselves at men they hardly know and beg to be debauched. In this book there are no heroes one can really care about: all the Christian lords are either effeminate cowards or brutal barbarians, and even Saladin is portrayed as a vengeful tyrant. There is no nobility or even good honest kindness and affection in this book, and so it left a sour taste in my mouth: it seemed like an insult to Jerusalem.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for any fan of Crusade-era historical fiction. The beginning alone can be read over and over and you'll find something new and wonderful about it every time. Incredible description, dark, gritty characters. A brave ending, even though it made me sad -- can't say more without giving it away. I've re-read a couple of times and I think it's her best work next to Great Maria.

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

This read was action packed but did not engage me to an embedded level. The battles were vicious. Templars are "true believers" like Rangers, or Seals, but with far more ritual and religious onus attached. It's an incredible level of male bonding and at times makes for superlative execution of plans and entire progressions. But that level of "true believer" think, even to stories of sainthood etc.! Well, to me, it's just not my cuppa.

The times and the placements are described to a more than talented level. The story has as many sides as a Greek or Italian 13th or 14th century city-state cabal and fight. But this earlier period and that particular level of nobility culture in the Mideast? So much of it, as here with the Queen of Jerusalem, it seems I don't connect to the depth of characterizations. Because so many of the human contacts are so highly unequal.

But- in the end? An interesting and pivotal story, yet told with far less investment to an emotional grip most often found within Holland's books of other later or European placements.

This book helped me understand the continual flux of battle and invasion that encompasses the history of Sicily for more than an millennia, as I'm also reading that category recently. Although this is completely the Mideast placements and much less Mediterranean, some of the same culture clashes consistently occur. But these earlier seem to have much less advanced weaponry- and more tribal structural bases. Religion being only a single focus and property of other structural factors of power and economic forms.

This is not one of those books (in entirety) that you can't put down. Although the first 1/3rd hit that level and had high action. At certain points and within time frame changes it seemed to plod within palace talk. The two main characters? I didn't "like" either one. But I did learn their perceptions and their focus for goals. Holland is an exceptional writer. This is not my favorite period for her. 3.5 star, but I could not round it up.

[Patricia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ridley Scott should have used this book for the basis of his movie Kingdom of Heaven, a story about the Christian Crusade to save Jerusalem from the Moslem army Saladin. Cecelia Holland's novel has a much more coherent plot than the one used by Scott. Her main character, the tough, gritty Ranulf Fitzwilliam, a Templar, is quite believable as the dark-haired, dark-eyed, man of steel. As a fanatical warrior/monk he wants no truck with women. In their presence he keeps his eyes on the ground and a growl in his voice. But in the course of events he reluctantly finds himself falling in love with the young Queen Sybilla. This unexpected romance blooms against the terrible reality of war.

Holland writes so well. She knows the intircacies of the historical period of which she writes. Her characters are diverse and well developed. And best of all she knows how to tell a darn good story.

[Ozymandias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Plot: 10 (engrossing and constantly shifting)
Characters: 10 (complex and memorable)
Accuracy: 9 (some simplification of events but accurate mental landscapes)

I really did love this book. A tale of crusaders, Templars no less, and the last days of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, that doesn't insert a lot of modern day notions into it. These are two warrior civilizations absolutely drunk on God, and with no conflicting notions of secular humanism to provide them with identity and self-worth outside religion. Tolerance was not a virtue but a sin. It was always going to be bloody. And yet, thanks to her fine storytelling, you can see what made it so appealing. Frustrating as it may be, religion had such a hold on every aspect of life in medieval Europe that the only outlet for idealism was through God and the Church. If you were someone who wanted to better the world, you didn't join a protest group or a political campaign, you joined the church and became a monk. Or donated funds to them to give alms for the poor. The Knights Templar (at this stage) were idealists. Fanatics, but idealists. A Crusade was the ultimate opportunity to give your life for a higher calling. Indeed, the only people in the book who aren't fanatics are amoral scumbags. There was no alternative to Christ.

The lead character, Rannulf, is by most definitions a fanatic. He follows strictly his vows, cares for nothing but the war, and is curt to the point of arrogance. Yet there's a kind of redemptive quality in his obsession. He was quite the bastard before he joined the order, a rapist and a murderer a hundred times over. And then he found God and dedicated his life to atoning for his sins. Again, the Middle Ages didn't have a 'just be nice to people and try and give back to the community in a meaningful way' option. If your soul was in peril you turned to the church. Anything else was doing less than nothing. And for a man of action with drive and no patience for talking the Knights Templar were perfect. As a former villain he has a lot of questions for God, and as another character points out he's simply abandoned all free will in favor of strict obedience to his vows. His relation to the outside world is... complicated.

Rannulf's a great character, but there are lots of other great characters as well. Stephen's a personal favorite. A gay man stuck figuring out how he fits in as a new recruit and where his duty ends. And he's in love with one of the sultan's nephews no less. Oy! I loved Holland's depiction of what it meant being gay in the middle ages. It wasn't actually quite as hard as people might think. Sodomy was certainly a sin, but it wasn't one of the big ones the way it's become now. Generally, screaming maniacs raging against it are only found when it starts to become socially accepted. Most people in the novel upon finding out are either openly indifferent or no more than mildly outraged. The advantage of having everything be a sin, I suppose, is that a practicing homosexual was not really worse than an adulterer. At any rate, it's still difficult for Stephen (though there's a nice loophole that Templar vows only forbid intercourse with women), but the novel never starts to turn him into a stock gay man or take away any of his manliness. He's a Knight Templar and he's good at it. And he's gay. There's not really a contradiction.

Baldwin's (I prefer the anglicized name) another great character. The famous leper king of the Holy Land who despite all his disadvantages managed to rule well for all his short life. He comes across as an able king, and a noble and tragic young man. Though I'm not sure his symptoms should be quite so pronounced when we first meet him. The decade or so that the book covers seems a lot shorter in story terms. His sister Sibylla's another interesting one. Unlike Baldwin who's usually treated pretty well (see his turn as a saint-king in Kingdom of Heaven) his sister's open to a lot of different interpretations. She can be portrayed as an airheaded bimbo in thrall to her equally vacuous pretty-boy husband, a shortsighted schemer, a noble yet cornered prisoner, a malicious but failed power player, etc. Failure has many sons but success is sterile. This Sibylla seems like a combination of all these, and it's hard to get a sense of who she is. She's hopelessly idealistic (a lasting peace with the Saracens was never an open possibility while Christians held Jerusalem) but also quite pragmatic in key areas (such as marriage to a simpleton who won't get in her way) and cunning in others (her work at figuring out the proper things for royalty to say). And tragically, her efforts to be more assertive and rule all come about from watching her brother and his success against all odds. She knows she's right, because he knew he was right, and that gets difficult when she's not as aware of the way the world works as he was.

Other minor characters stand out too. Gerald de Rideford is a particularly nasty example, as is Reynald de Châtillon. Gerald's basically the main villain; the Templar officer Rannulf often has to obey but who wants him dead and is more in love with power than possessed of the sense to wield it. Reynald's just a mad lord (with a beautiful castle I can heartily recommend visiting). The other famous crusader lords are there as well: Raymond of Tripoli, Joscelin de Courtenay, Balian of Ibelin, etc. All have distinct if not overly developed personalities. I must confess, I have a tendency to visualize these guys as the actors who played them in Kingdom of Heaven. Brendan Gleeson's Reynald fits remarkably well with the character here, but for the rest it's a bit of a rough match. Though I did nod in agreement when Sibylla commented on Balian of Ibelin's fine ass. Yes, I can definitely envision Orlando Bloom there.

Not to say that all the characters were perfect. I disliked a few of them. Saladin most strikingly (and most surprisingly). It makes sense that with Templar leads the characters would take a dim view of the sultan, but his POV scenes present him too as just yet another bigoted fanatic. And I use that term here (in a book of fanatics) to mean a man who refuses to recognize worth or value in a man simply because of his religion. Which is very odd to me. Holland's Saladin is a useful corrective, admittedly, to those overly hagiographical depictions of him in vogue these days (the man was ruthless in his pursuit of power and could be breathtakingly cruel to those he despised), but this is still the man who managed to win the respect of countless Christian historians and balladists for his chivalry, despite what should have been the unbridgeable obstacle of his demon worship (as they saw it). Again, part of this is POV (the Templars were his most hated foes and could expect no quarter), but a scene near the end where he expresses nothing but disdain for his Christian opponents just seemed too much. This is a man who set an abnormally low ransom for the residents of beaten Jerusalem and then took great delight in releasing many further inhabitants without ransom anyway. Who commanded his catapults to avoid the sleeping quarters of a newly married couple in the castle he was besieging. This was a man who delighted in exaggerated displays of generosity, even to his Christian opponents. You don't have to cover up his willingness to be cruel to display that. If this had been a revisionist view I'd understand, but it's really more like ignoring his general depiction entirely in favor of a fairly dull oriental despot. A disappointing and wasted opportunity, even if he has to remain fairly peripheral for the plot.

The interesting thing for me is how you start off the novel disliking these characters. I've found that generally first impressions in a story tend to stick since novelists want to get across who these people are as quickly as possible and therefore introduce them at their most themselves. Rare indeed is the novel that starts a POV character off as an asshole but then slowly turns you to their side (as opposed to having a redemption arc that you can feel brewing from page one). Rannulf is introduced as an arrogant ass, and he remains an arrogant ass throughout. But he's still a likeable one with some idealized notions at heart and a desire to be a better man. Stephen comes across as a pompous noble who thinks he's too good for everything, but he comes around and adapts well. Indeed, I wonder if some of the characters I disliked (Saladin in particular) might have grown on me if we'd spent more time on them. Alas.

Point is: an excellent novel. It really puts you in the middle of the world and lets you experience it as they would have done. A++

[Carol · Rating 3 out of 5]

This novel is about Templars in the Holy Land between 1185 and 1187. Baudouin IV (the Leper), King of Jerusalem, and his sister Sybilla, who briefly ruled after his death, are also major character. The Templars themselves are very complex men. They are portrayed as having a surprising amount of internal moral conflicts. Almost every single character in the book is driven by or to something. Most of them are driven by the need for power. The Templars Stephen and Rannulf, however, are driven to give up their lives in the service of God. Although their desire for this stems as much from a desire to lay down their psychological and spiritual burdens as much as to serve God. They have a certain world-weariness and a need for both the religious faith and the disciplined order that being Templars brings to their lives. These are not saintly paladins, but earthly (and earthy) men. They are thus more interesting.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps Ms. Holland's most famous work this novel deals with the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Second Crusade. I consider myself fairly well versed in this time period and I was impressed with the historical accuracy of the events. It does have some fairly glaring and pointless fabrications. I am not sure what was the reason the author placed an unconventional relationship within the storyline involving a Temple Knight and one of Saladin's lieutenants. Who knew the Knight's Templar had there own Don't Ask - Don't Tell policy? While this strains credibility, for the most part, the characters were excellent. Ms. Holland drew an excellent and sympathetic portrait of Baldwin the Leper. The relationship between himself and his sister Sybilla is particularly endearing. This author is far more popular in England than here in America but I am intrigued to find more of her books. She seems to have written on a very wide range of topics in historical fiction.

[Margareth8537 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone with some knowledge of the Crusades knows a lot about what will happen in this book. The political infighting that went on amongst the Christians in the Holy Land. Saladin was the least of their problems!
This book, with the concentration on King Baudouin (The Leper king), and his sister Sybilla, deals with a part that seems to be less written about, and I was surprised how long he managed to rule.
The Templar characters are nicely drawn, and their way of life portrayed in an interesting manner. Again, the difference between those who obeyed, however wrong they felt a decision, and those who had joined the order for political advantage, is brought out well.

[kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is historical fiction at its best. Cecelia Holland has a remarkable talent for making different times and places come alive. The characters were well-developed, nuanced, and memorable. I really enjoyed her take on the Crusades: she gave us both sides and she gave us flawed people who often doubted their beliefs. I knew the ending was coming about halfway through the book, but not in a way that detracted from my enjoyment of the story. While the action was less about the battles and more about interpersonal conflicts, I enjoyed the balance.

Highly recommended.

[Shiloh Peacemaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

All I can say is AWESOME!!!!

[Michael Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Holland is one of the very best historical novelists writing in English, and has been for fifty years now. She and I are of an age and I’ve been a fan of hers since the beginning. She wrote Firedrake as an undergrad and got it published her first year out of school, and I bought it within a few months. I now own all of her books, mostly in First Editions, some of them signed. Her style is so tight it’s nearly telegraphic; it has been said that if Hemingway had written historical novels, this is what they would look like. Her subject matter has been very far-ranging, from the Norman invasion of England and the Mongol incursion into Europe, to the building of the transcontinental railroad, bud she returns again and again to various aspects of medieval Europe. I think this is one her best, but perhaps that’s because I have a long, deep interest in the dynastic Crusader kingdoms of Outremer.

The story is set in the last decade of the European presence in Palestine and the surrounding Islamic states and it’s framed by two key engagements between the Frankish aristocracy and the Knights of the Temple on one side and the vast armies of Saladin, Sultan of Damascus, on the other -- the Battle of Ramleh, in 1177, when a greatly outnumbered Templar force unexpectedly defeated the Muslim army, and the catastrophic Battle of Hattin, in 1187, in which the last of the Frankish armies, as well as the Templars, were crushed and which was shortly followed by the siege and fall of Jerusalem and the re-conquest of all the remaining crusader kingdoms by Saladin.

The historical figures are all here: Baudouin, the seventeen-year-old King of Jerusalem, who is dying slowly and unpleasantly of leprosy but who still impresses everyone with his leonine courage; the King’s younger sister, Sybilla, who will eventually succeed him on the throne; the Counts of Tripoli and Kerak and Edessa, who held most of the power and were constantly in conflict with each other. But Holland’s method has always been to invent a minor figure through whose eyes we can watch events unfold, and that person is Rannulph Fitzwilliam, a Norman knight from a minor family and notably lacking in social graces, but who is probably the best fighter in the kingdom. He’s also fluent in Arabic and acts as chief of intelligence regarding the Saracens. After thirteen years in the Jerusalem Temple, he understands Saladin and his generals very well indeed. But Rannulph is also a conflicted personality and he and Gerard de Ridford, the overweening Marshal of the Temple who eventually becomes its Master, become deadly enemies.

Holland has long since mastered the art of painting characters and their internal psychologies in terms which are historically accurate and yet comprehensible to readers of our time. Her battle scenes are gripping, but they’re really only the icing on the cake because most of the story has to do political maneuvering and the clash of personal ambitions. In addition to enjoying the adventure, the reader has a good chance of coming away with a much-increased understanding of just what the crusading presence in the Near East was all about.

[Marlene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holland is a master at the historical novel and here there's not a foot placed wrong.

The story takes place in the waning days of King Baudouin IV and ends with the disaster at the Horns of Hattin. Holland puts a tale in motion that examines the great personalities of that time and place. The Master of the Temple of Jerusalem, Gerard de Ridford whose stubborn outsized ego leads his Templar army into a slaughter; the gifted but doomed young King Baudouin, stricken with leprosy, his sister, Princess Sybilla, who succeeds to the throne along with her feeble and ineffectual husband Guy de Lusignan. Threaded through it all are two fictional Templar knights; Rannulf, a surly Norman struggling to maintain his monkish vows against the blackness in his heart and a secret passion for Sybilla, and Stephen, the handsome and elegant French knight known as Mouse who carries on an illicit affair with a Saracen prince, nephew to the Sultan Saladin.

The complexities and secret maneuverings among the Franks and even between the Muslims and Christians are all laid bare. Even when peace might be bought, the power-hungry players angle for war and more war just to secure a place of glory for themselves. It's at once enthralling and heartbreaking.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

For many years, Cecelia Holland was one of my favorite authors. And then, I found other genres that I liked as much as historical fiction. One of the issues with being an omnivore, is that there are a lot of books out there. I have a hard time just reading one.

As I remembered, Holland's books were interesting and historically accurate. That has not changed. This was a fascinating book, with more information about the Crusades than I ever thought I wanted. But this is the other thing I remembered about Holland's books. They have always made me want to know more.

I am glad to have rediscovered Holland and I hope to read more.

[Jennifer Sigman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this one. The characters are actually human, and not just their titles. There is also a wonderfully done cross-religion male love affair that was never cloying or degrading, just painfully real. I will definitely have to look for more of her writings.

[Tlaloc · Rating 3 out of 5]

What else is there to say that is not in the book description, except that the main character is, considering the length of the book and my expectations, unusually nuanced. Worth a read.

[Robin Mcneely · Rating 5 out of 5]

fascinating. probably mostly, sadly, true.

[ErinAlise · Rating 5 out of 5]

When he was young, Rannulf Fitzwilliam committed all sorts of crimes against others and himself. As atonement for his sins he took a vow of chastity and joined the Knights of the Temple. Now a seasoned Templar in the year 1187, he is use to the chaos and uncertainty that war involves. Especially now as Jerusalem is under constant danger, their young King Baudouin suffers from leprosy with no living heir but his little sister the princess and the sultan Saladin waits just across the desert with a large army. The history is played out through Rannulf’s eyes as he must navigate in his new role as council to the King, fight the never ending battles with the enemy and resist the temptation to love another who can never be his, the princess of Jerusalem.
I actually read this around 10 years ago but unfortunately couldn’t recall the story enough so figured it was time to revisit. Rannulf is the kind of character a reader can truly fall for, he is brave, honest and loyal to the core not just to his King but also to his brothers in war. The Knights of the Templar were definitely a force to reckon with and the history behind their victories is the stuff of legends. I also enjoyed the author’s portrayal of King Baudouin and his relationship with his sister Sybilla. Even though the odds were very much against him, he was a great leader and respected his sister when women were never given any power. Amazing book and highly recommend you give it a read!

[riley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ughhh I hate rating books, I much prefer writing reviews, but I do get lazy. I’m stuck between a three and a four for this one.

Some bits of this book I didn’t love, mostly that a lot of the characters still felt a bit unknown and unknowable by the end—but where others lacked that characterization, others shone. I was really upset when Baudoin IV died and almost considered not finishing the book because I didn’t care much about the rest of the characters. However, I’m glad I didn’t do that and stuck around til the end, because that’s when the rest of the characters really came into their own. I think my favorite part towards the end was reading the relationship that had developed between the Templars—particularly between Rannulf and Stephen—which it was nice to see grow over the 400 pages of the book. Their friendship and brotherhood was certainly one of the stronger aspects of the book.

I guess in general, the parts that I found the most captivating and interesting were not the parts of the story that Holland wanted to focus on. There seemed to be a disconnect between wanting to tell the history and wanting to tell the story of her chosen characters. The intricacies of their personal stories were overrun by the more general history that was being told. It made the book less captivating at times; the characters weren’t given much room to breathe, being suffocated by the narrative. If I just wanted to read about the collapse of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem in the 12th century, I would have just read a history book on the Crusades.

Overall a good read, but not my favorite. It could have been longer but only would have been worth it if she took those extra pages to really delve into her characters. They were all interesting and I liked them and their journeys, I just wish I got more.

[Ed Mestre · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this book thinking it would be an entertaining 2 1/2 – 3 star book at best. A rousing adventure like “Ivanhoe” and others from my youth. But it slowly grew a bit more complex including some adult themes, such as a gay love affair between a young Templar and a Saracen prince. The writing wasn’t super great, but it did excel with the inner conflicts of many of the characters and the battle scenes are some of the best I’ve read. Dusty, dirty and thirsty chaos as both sides believe they’re striking against heretics. Rannulf, an antihero Templar they call Saint, is perhaps the most conflicted. Lust vs Love, vows vs his gut, renunciation of his faith and its ultimate resurrection. The politics and ambitions of the Christians often gets in the way of the Crusader’s mission. As one character states about all these clashes “…there will be nothing left for Saladin to conquer.” The final battle is a heartbreaker for both man and beast, bringing to mind Thermopylae or the Alamo. Go tell the Spartans…

[Ann-Margret Pizzini · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the fourth time I've read Jerusalem. It's a well written historical novel with great character development. I am a Templar fanatic and the main Templar Knight Rannulf Fitzwilliam expresses all of the complexities I imagine a knight of piety would embody. Through everything he is a man driven by and bound to his oath to God. Only through sacrifice are we ever truly free. Deus lo volt! God wills it!

[Nigel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ultimately rather grim tale about the human folly, greed and stupidity that leads to the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Religious fanatcism, political backstabbing, a profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of the conflict, a lot of wasted lives. Marvelous battle scenes. Two doomed love stories. A figure of towering nobility brought low by a terrible disease. Secret rites. Toxic masculinity by the ton. Not uplifting, but savagely effective.

[Darnoc Leadburger · Rating 3 out of 5]

On one hand, the book didn't hold my attention all that well and seemed kind of aimless... In fact, that's my biggest critique, it felt sort of aimless.

Why 3 stars then? Because the characters are very obviously well crafted and this book did surprise me several times. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I was more into historical fiction, but it is what it is.

[robert schratz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I normally really enjoy Holland’s books bc they usually jump right into the story and are not loaded with unnecessary details; however I thought Jerusalem was just the opposite. The characters were interesting, but I felt the story did grab my interest as much. I did struggle getting through the first few chapters, but was glad I made the commitment to finish.

[Mimi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had the incredible opportunity to go to Jerusalem last spring as well as having read Sharon Kay Penman’s incredible book, Land Beyond the Sea that tells this same story. I might have been a bit lost at first if I didn’t understand the history and characters, but this was a good telling of the story of the fall of the Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem. It was the perfect airplane read.

[sarg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jerusalem by Cecelia Holland
Set in 1100AD Jerusalem and the knights Templar defense of the city state from the Saracen king Suleman . Other more knowledgeable readers say that it’s true to history of the crusades and its era. Good read gave it 4 stars

[Drpsychorat · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well written and exciting historical novel about the Templers and the defense of Jerusalem. Excellent battle scenes & a touch of romance. Will definitely read some more of Holland’s historical novels.