The First Crusade: A New History

by Thomas Asbridge

'A nuanced and sophisticated analysis... Exhilarating' Sunday Telegraph Nine hundred years ago, one of the most controversial episodes in Christian history was initiated. The Pope stated that, in spite of the apparently pacifist message of the New Testament, God actually wanted European knights to wage a fierce and bloody war against Islam and recapture Jerusalem. Thus was the First Crusade born. Focusing on the characters that drove this extraordinary campaign, this fascinating period of history is recreated through awe-inspiring and often barbaric tales of bold adventure while at the same time providing significant insights into early medieval society, morality and mentality. The First Crusade marked a watershed in relations between Islam and the West, a conflict that set these two world religions on a course towards deep-seated animosity and enduring enmity. The chilling reverberations of this earth-shattering clash still echo in the world today.'[Asbridge] balances persuasive analysis with a flair for conveying with dramatic power the crusaders' plight' Financial Times  

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Medieval History, Medieval, Middle East, Christianity

449 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2004

About the author

Thomas Asbridge is an internationally renowned expert on the history of the Middle Ages and author of the critically acclaimed books The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land and The First Crusade: A New History. His latest publication is The Greatest Knight: The Remarkable Life of William Marshal, the Power Behind Five English Thrones.

Thomas studied for a BA in Ancient and Medieval History at Cardiff University, and then gained his PhD in Medieval History at Royal Holloway, University of London. His is now Reader in Medieval History at Queen Mary, University of London and Founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam & the West.

Reviews

[Suzannah Rowntree · Rating 4 out of 5]

***5 years of rigorous crusader studies later***

Yeah nah IDK what I was thinking in my former review. I was wrong and spoke from ignorance. Asbridge's book is great. He presents a much more nuanced and accurate picture than I was able to grasp the first time I read the story, depicting crusader motivations as a complex and historically accurate blend of faith, ambition, and greed (the latter clearly stated to be a response to the dreadful privations suffered on the expedition). Where he debates the claims of eyewitnesses (mostly Anna Comnena), it's based on solid evidence including from other eyewitnesses. I still have minor areas of disagreement with Asbridge and find his narrative to be slightly hyperbolised in places, but after 5 years of near constant study including reading many of the important works of scholarship this book is based on (eg France' VICTORY IN THE EAST and Riley-Smith's FIRST CRUSADE AND THE IDEA OF CRUSADING), I'm now in a position to appreciate the formidable scholarship and academic clout this book has. It's truly uncommon to find a work on the crusades that marries the latest academic developments with popular readability. Highly recommended.

--

Thomas Asbridge's history of the First Crusade is an odd mixture of informative and unhelpful. His work constructing a cohesive narrative from hundreds of primary sources and welding it into accessible, gripping prose is to be commended.

Ultimately, however, my distrust of the author's viewpoint made it difficult to trust anything he said. This began with Asbridge's peculiar characterisation of Christianity as a pacifist religion and his insistence that the Crusades were impelled by no particular Muslim threat (completely ignoring the battle of Manzikert, and the fact that Europe 's best defence against Islam, the eastern Roman empire, was known to be steadily losing ground to the Turks).

Asbridge loses further credibility with me for the sheer number of times in which he claims "Although eyewitness accounts tell us that X or Y happened, the truth is actually quite different." I'm grateful for a healthy amount of skepticism, and I'm sure many of Asbridge's alternate interpretations of events are valuable. However, many of these assertions seemed forced, especially in the face of substantial eyewitness insistence to the contrary.

This leads to my major gripe with this book, which is Asbridge's unwillingness to accept any other explanations for the Crusader princes' disputes other than cold ambition. He focuses primarily on Raymond of Toulouse, apparently determined to convince us that Raymond was as blatantly power-hungry as, say, Bohemond. This is possible on the facts, but it is also more than possible that Raymond's insistence on ceding Antioch to the Byzantines stemmed from a fear of offending heaven by breaking covenant with the emperor. But to Asbridge's modern mind, such fear can only be outward, a mask for politicking and ambition. Similarly, he implies that Duke Godfrey only held back from claiming kingship of Jerusalem, taking the title of Defender of the Holy Sepulchre, because that was the only condition under which he could get lordship of the city. Does he imagine that to a medieval mind, the argument that it would be ridiculous for any mere man to claim Christ's capital might have no weight at all?

Asbridge's First Crusade is first and foremost a tale of political ambition and rivalry, in which faith plays very little part. Accordingly, I find it very difficult to trust his version of events as being any less partisan than any of the primary sources he dissects. Nevertheless, this book was a gripping and impassioned retelling of the history, thoroughly enjoyable, enriched by the author's personal familiarity with the landscape in which it took place.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read Sir Steven Runciman's three volume History of the Crusades, I approached Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade: A New History with some trepidation. I needn't have: It was an excellent, well organized, and well researched work that was well written in the bargain.

The First Crusade was the only one that could be said to have succeeded. Their goal was to rescue Jerusalem, the scene of Christ's crucifixion and burial, from the Turks. This they accomplished, and they and their followers in the next two centuries set up a series of "Crusader Kingdoms" that managed to last ... for a while anyhow.

Interestingly, very few of the survivors managed to return to Europe in triumph. Far more returned impoverished and shorn of much of the power they enjoyed before they left for the Holy Land. They were, for the most part, brave men -- though not immune from a taste for treachery, greed, and envy -- and they succeeded where the later Crusades failed.

But then, that was all before the Turks found a leader in the Kurd Saladin.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Now this is what I want in an introductory survey of a historical period! Asbridge writes in a compelling manner, giving a wealth of context and information about the First Crusade while also maintaining an eminently readable style of prose. It was nigh impossible for me to put down.

Growing up in a culturally Christian Western country, I of course have a cursory knowledge of The Crusades simply via growing up here, but I desired to learn more about how on earth this happened, and how did it succeed. The First Crusade: A New History answered nearly all of the questions that I had prior to reading, and has lit a desire in me to look at further reading, especially about the subsequent Crusades. I was totally unaware of how pragmatic the leaders could be, including dealing with Muslim leaders when it suited them, and still more about the deep fracturing in Islam between the Sunni and Shi’a sects (forgive me if that is not the right word). Had the Islamic world been unified, I cannot see how the Crusaders could have succeeded. This also makes me want to read further about Islam at this time.

There are so many compelling characters such as Pope Urban II who called the Crusade itself, the Byzantine Emperor Alexeis who exhibited deft diplomacy, but also a considerable amount of double dealing. Bohemond the Norman who was able to maintain his control of Antioch and Tancred, his nephew, becoming a legend due to his exploits. There are so many more like Raymond of Toulouse and the peasant leader Peter the Hermit, but I would be writing forever should I continue.

All in all, I’m extremely satisfied and heartily recommend this book to anybody who wishes to learn about the Crusades, or even Medieval life in general. If I was forced to criticise anything, some of the battle minutiae drags on, but many other books are far worse for it than this. 4.7/5

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a general review of the history of the First Crusade, which was the expedition sent from Western Europe under the auspices of the Church of Rome, to capture and reclaim Jerusalem from her Muslim rulers. The flow of the narrative works rather well. Not too much time is spent on particularities of battles, but rather a broad picture is given so that the reader experiences the major points of contention in each skirmish, and the effects and aftereffects on the Crusading armies.

Likewise, with an obviously huge cast, the author focuses in on a handful of Crusader princes, the Byzantine Emperor, and the Pope. We learn a bit about each man, but are not drowned in historical minutiae. The author makes great pains to stress that the original intent of the Crusades was indeed a holy one, but through hardship and exposure to new lands and the enticement of power, many of the Crusaders subjugated their religious fervor into the expropriation of power.

Primarily, this books is about the Westerners, with some digression to the Byzantine Emperor and his court. The opposing Muslims war lords, however, are not fully explored. I think this does a great disservice to the book, and although the Muslims are not caricatures, they are not fully human, either. Their frame of mind is not explored, nor much of the history of how Islam became the dominant religious force in the area, nor much about how the various Islamic states, and their shifting alliances, came to be

Additionally, the author grazes over the differences between Latin and Greek Christians. At the time of the First Crusade, in 1098, the Great Schism was less than fifty years in the past. Instead of pointing merely to the increase in papal authority and ambition, and the rather minute differences in liturgical and spiritual life, a more thorough discussion about the Schism and political, as well as the theological, ramifications of it would have been helpful, particularly as the Crusaders left behind a few Latin bishops and patriarchs in place of the indigenous Greek/Byzantine ones. The concluding chapter rightly notes that the Crusade became a benchmark in later Christian/Islamic relations, but it was for Latin and Greek Christians, as well.

Thankfully, this is not a hagiography of the Crusaders, and we are not spared the atrocities committed by the Crusaders in the name of their God. They were definitely a bloody bunch, with no problems massacring the elderly, women, children, and infants in the cities they overran. The bloodbath committed in Jerusalem is particularly revolting. Although the Muslim treatment of people they conquered is not mentioned, in warfare, both sides were brutal and savage, as it seems to be the way war was waged in those times.

Worth checking into if you'd like a brief history of the First Crusade. The book is actually just 339 pages, the rest being a glossary, footnotes, and selected bibliography.

[Helen Callaghan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading The First Crusade is a bit like watching a horror movie - starving Crusaders eat the rotting bodies of their enemies at Marrat al-Nu'man, scheme in Macchiavellian fashion against one another, experience fantastical visions and find +5 Holy Lances buried under church floors, shoot their enemies' heads into cities by catapult, die of injuries sustained enduring trial by fire. Entire ships of new recruits appear - 1500 Danes, for instance - and within days they have died of plague, to a man. It's all a lot like the movie version of The Lord of the Rings, except it's much, much harder to tell the good guys from the orcs.

The book begins with an analysis of why over 100,000 people would, over two years, suddenly drop everything and go haring off across the world to storm a city they had never seen - and even more miraculously, keep at it in spite of disease, starvation, and constant peril of death or enslavement. Lots of work has previously suggested that Crusading fever was little more than a cynical attempt by younger sons and disenfranchised knights to engage in looting and land-grabbing. And of course this is true in part. But Asbridge argues that it is also true that as many entrenched and secure nobles and heads of families also took up the cross.

As to why, he makes a convincing case that "an authentically spiritual age" with its Christian message of pacifism, ascetism, and self-sacrifice was absolutely at odds with the vicious and violent realpolitik of medieval Europe. To survive and thrive, the knightly class could only engage in behaviour calculated to lead to damnation. The extremely controlling behaviour over sex, religious observances, and every single facet of life meant that this fear of Hell was something shared by the whole population, from the kings downwards. By synthesising warfare and religion into the concept of Holy War, the Church offered the spiritually haunted population a means of reconciling the opposing poles of their existence.

Not even the Pope could have foreseen how explosive this formulation would prove to be to people living in the constant shadow of damnation and under threat of an imminent apocalypse. Certainly the Greeks and Muslims didn't, and a sense of their shock and horror comes vividly alive.

If I had a criticism, it would be that I would have liked to have seen more material from the Muslim side and their strategic decisions - sources something beyond "HOLY CRAP THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS!" as translated from medieval Arabic. Judging from the extract of his latest which I read late last year, he's way ahead of me on this score, so looking forward to starting on that soon.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is just incredible, but to me at least completely understandable. A siege mentality helps. The Latin princes had one object in mind, which was the conquest of Jerusalem. Nothing else mattered. They set out without any real preparation, their eyes fixed on that one goal, travelled across the known world making it up as they went along and against all the odds attained their objective, though it was always a case of touch and go.

The personalities that drove this venture put our petty considerations to shame. They squabbled about the division of spoils before they even knew the outcome of any battle, and the whole thing reads like a cross between a Boy’s Own story and some Pythonesque escapade. You never know whether to laugh or cry. But you can’t argue with the fact that these brutal, grasping bastards were driven also by a vision that shaped their endeavours and sanctified their aims, in their own eyes at least.
The Battle of Antioch for me says it all. Initially the First Crusaders were worn out and starving in their siege of this entrance to Palestine, although they eventually prevailed, only to find the tables turned almost immediately. Once they’d taken over the city the Abbesid relief force from Egypt put them to siege in their turn and they were forced to make a quick counter-attack and win the day; a miracle, in fact.

I’ll write more on this later. I love these guys. You can crap on about the status quo but they broke it, because they knew the goal. It was a geographical location. Nothing is written, if you know where to go and if you are invited in.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

A call by Pope Urban II and thousands of Europeans, Franks for the most part, pack up and head of to Jerusalem. I still find it amazing to read about the Crusaders. It all started when Alexius I Comnenus asked for Western Europe’s assistance against the rising threat of Turkish expansion. The Byzantines expected fund and manpower to fill the empire’s coffers and legions. The empire needed both after the disastrous battle of Manzikert. What they got instead was an independent army heading their way. And that army would not fight for the empire but for its own holdings. Bohemund, Raymond, Tancred, and many other Frankish and Norman adventurers were there to make their own mark. It took the crusader army over three years to reach Jerusalem. Nicea, Antioch, Edessa, and many other cities and counties had to fall on the way. Finally Jerusalem was taken and sacked sadistically. This book described the areas that other texts tend to gloss over. Discussion on massacres of Jews during the travels has been covered in many other books but not as extensively. The author also described how the crusader army transformed into a veteran army after three years of constant battles and siege warfare. Although outnumbered, the crusader veterans were a crack army that trounced many superior foes. After Jerusalem fell, this army easily destroyed a Fatimid relief army. The other subject I found very enlightening was the numerous dissensions over territories, cities taken, and plunder. The crusader army was not a unified command under one general but a composite force under many nobles each with their own ambitions and jealousies. One can only imagine if things were different. The army had not massacred thousands. The army was united under a single leader....hopefully an ethical one. The crusaders had remained under Byzantine control. A few good questions. An excellent book for an exciting era.

[Mauro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Texto ágil, bom para fixar algumas datas e alguns personagens. No que diz respeito à motivação da Cruzada, não traz muita novidade: Urbano II teria razões estritamente políticas, de reunificação da Igreja e o teria manipulado a nobreza da época, prometendo que a participação na jornada traria a remissão dos pecados.

Do ponto de vista fático, pouco há a discutir – a pesquisa parece bem feita e completa (muito embora pareça um pouco reduzida a importância da batalha de Manziquerta como casus belli; do pedido de Aleixo I Comneno, para proteção de Constantinopla e das brutalidades, esporádicas que fossem, cometidas contra cristãos peregrinos). Mas há um tanto de opinativo no texto – e muito embora o autor alerte, mais de uma vez, que não se pode olhar os fatos daquela época com a concepção moral de hoje, é justamente isso que ele, no fim, acaba fazendo.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear, balanced and comprehensive narrative history of the First Crusade.

The book is well-researched and fast-paced. Asbridge argues that the Crusaders took so long to reach Jerusalem after the victory at Antioch due to personal ambitions and divisions. He also looks at what it meant to be a crusader and their varying beliefs and motives, as well as the medieval world of the Crusades. The author also looks at how the idea of the crusade developed, the impact of that the popes had, how the Byzantines pursued their aims, and how relations between the Europeans and the Byzantines soured after Antioch. Asbridge argues that the crusaders were less motivated by a hatred of Islam than by a desire to die in battle and reach heaven. His account of the winter at Antioch is particularly vivid.

The book is not really a military history, and some readers may not be satisfied by Asbridge’s discussion of strategy, tactics, or weaponry. He also writes that the Islamic and Christian worlds were generally at peace before 1095, even though the Byzantine Empire and Latin princes in the Holy Land seem to be exceptions to this. Some of the early chapters also seem a bit convoluted.

A broad, accessible and well-written work.

[J · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're looking for a good book about the 1st Crusade, I do not recommend this book. The author, Thomas Asbridge, taints the book with his woke opinions of the crusading movement. His attitude is reflected by how he refers to the crusade as a 'holy' war and paints the crusaders as the aggressors against a mostly peaceful muslim foe. He glosses over the fact that the Crusade was a legitimate holy war of reconquest of Christian lands. He also fails to mention the background of the bloody advances of Islam against the Christian West especially in the 8th and 9th centuries, e.g., the sack of Rome in 846. In some parts of the book, especially the second half where the author just presents the facts of the crusade such as the battles and feats of courage of the crusaders, the book becomes more interesting.

[Joshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

From it's humble beginnings as the call to arms for a few hundred knights to venture East in support of Byzantium to the eventual odyssey of almost hundred thousand men across the known world it became, this book gives an excellent overview on this truly astonishing undertaking.

It deals with why it happened, what the individual motivations for the pilgrims were and how it was conducted, the leadership, the logistics, the journey and the difficulties and of course the crimes committed.

It's a marvelous window into a time whose customs and ideals seem so alien to us nowadays

Really good book, 100% recommended

[Iryna K · Rating 3 out of 5]

Дещо зануднувата (принаймні для таких як я, хто не дуже любить детальні описи битв), але загалом детальна і пізнавана книжка про передумови, хід і наслідки Першого хрестового походу з явним ухилом у військову історію. Ви не дізнаєтеся, що їли, як спали і чим займалися хрестоносці різних соціальних та етнічних груп за ці три роки, але натомість зрозумієте, кудою рухалися війська і як саме завойовували те чи інше місто.
Я любителька першого підходу до історії, тому ставлю трієчку, але це радше "не моя чашка чаю", а не через якісь недоліки самої книжки.

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Asbridge writes in a style that not only makes his work palatable to those wary of history books, but also combines a compelling narrative style with excellent scholarship. One barely notices they're learning from an incredibly well-informed historian as they plow through the book. He also provides a fantastic list of primary and secondary sources for those interested in delving deeper into the first crusade. Asbridge also points to evidence that is contrary to several traditional beliefs about the crusade and its participants, earning its moniker "A New History."

The only criticism I have of the book is that the ending seems anti-climatic. The fall and initial defense of Jerusalem is covered in a couple of short chapters (especially compared to the siege of Antioch). Granted, Asbridge sees the latter as the pivotal point in the crusade, but the story just sort of falls off at the end. I would like to see Asbridge do the other crusades as well.

[Mark Blackham · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant book and even a fun read. Asbridge knows his stuff and writes in beautiful prose. But, like most books on the subject, it is a little eurocentric. One of his major themes is to emphasize the intelligence and cunning of the knights, a view that is debatable. Nonetheless, he offers considerable insight into the lives of Crusaders. While there can be little doubt the Crusaders were good warriors, I feel Asbridge under-rates the contribution of the Byzantines to the war effort. They supplied vital intelligence on the lay of the land, the fighting habits of Turks, guides and advisors, as well as war machines and materials (including Greek fire). Still, this is one of the best on the subject.

[Stuart Chambers · Rating 5 out of 5]

To appreciate that allot of history is simply ‘myth-history’ you need to read about how the man who unleashed the First Crusade (Pope Urban 11) used propaganda to portray Muslims as brutal oppressors when in reality Islam had showed more tolerance to other religions than Catholic Christendom in the preceding centuries. During the years 1000 to 1300 CE Catholic Europe and Islam went from being occasional combatants to completely entrenched opponents and the chilling reverberations of this seismic shift still echo in the world today … Everybody should read this book!!!

[Nathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is history as facts and figures, dusty dates and dismal dead people. The subtitle leads one to expect even the smallest reference made to present-day relations between Christianity and Islam, but they are nowhere to be found.Trudging through this book gave me only a general idea of the facts, not because the record is incomplete, but because I couldn't exactly tell one engagement from the next or one king from the next. Boring.

[Aleks · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It reads like one of Roger Crowley's books. It tracks the first crusade from its beginning to its end; it tells the story from the point of view of its leaders and influential figures.

As someone with an interest in the crusades but limited knowledge in this field, this book was satisfying. I learned a lot and was also entertained. The author supports his findings with a lot of primary and secondary information. He also does a great job of driving home his theory over and over which is the crusaders' motivation of greed and piety. He presents the leading figures as complicated people. They feel no guilt; they want to save their souls but have no problem with butchering innocent people, plundering conquered lands, and claiming conquered lands to increase their own influence. It seems obvious that their desire to save their souls is compromised by their barbaric acts yet from the telling of Thomas Asbridge, none of the characters feel the same.

This is most obvious once the crusaders conquer Jerusalem. After a day of plundering and butchering, the crusaders go to pray at Christianity's holiest sites while covered in blood. Meanwhile, a little before the fall of Jerusalem, Tancred, one of the figures constantly seeking to increase his own influence by conquering, visits Jerusalem at night and overlooks the city from a hill; he says that he could die right there and be in peace. This type of complexity is so rarely seen in fictional characters; authors try to capture this uniqueness and often fail. The characters are layered and interesting.

The author does a good job of supporting his vision with facts. His vision is completely clear and has convinced me. His use of maps throughout the book is helpful and so is the glossary + list of characters. The story trudges along slowly at the beginning but I suspect it is not the author's fault and more likely my own; I read a fictional novel right before this book and the change of pace required me to adjust. Once I settled in, the story seemed to glide. I would absolutely recommend this book to fans of history and will be reading Thomas Asbridge's books in the future.

[Dylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Asbridge remains the best history or non-fiction writer I've ever had the pleasure of reading. I first came across his work in his recount of the entire crusader period (to this day my favorite non-fic work despite my general blaze toward the middle ages) and this just reinforces my opinion from then of his quality. He brings together a scholarly level of information with a writing style that's both easily digestible of the information to all knowledge levels and immensely entertaining. I wish I could write more words on it but it's just so good that all I can do is recommend it.

[Sunethra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such an unexpectedly fun, grisly, gripping and nuanced read.

The author transports you to medieval Europe and the Levant in vivid technicolor detail.

I never expected to be fascinated by medieval warfare. In the hands of the masterful and scholarly Asbridge I couldn't help but be intrigued and blitz read my way through this.

[Erik B.K.K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Asbridge is my favorite author on the Crusades. The First Crusade is dynamical and very well-written. The only things that would have improved it are pictures.

[Mark Durrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enthralling and honest depiction of the First Crusade.

[Norik Pallaska · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent 3.5 for this one. Nothing particularly wrong with it, maybe the rating was on the lower side because I already knew the main events of the First Crusade, and by and large this is a narrative retelling of the story. Here and there it attempts and largely succeeds in making original points about this or that fact, which shows the first signs it elevating it to a scholarly work, but these are not done thoroughly enough for them to be memorable.

Asbridge is a great writer though, and the book flows with a precision and clarity that is hard to find in pop history books. All the major events of the crusade are explain and given due diligence, and some of the background reasons for certain interactions or relationships are also given. The story described here is one of insurmountable odds, great luck, religious zeal but also terrible deeds and asinine avarice; the excitement derived from such a remarkable war is given plain to see, which is something I appreciate.

If I had to choose a best section, I’d probably say the first two chapters: these explain the background to the crusade and the entire idea of Christian religious war in a way that few books on the period do. The linking of the Gregorian Reforms and how the concept of papal supremacy links to tge crusading movement was something I didn’t know very much about, so the inclusion of these bits really supported the originality of the books.

In general, an excellent starting book for the topic: the authors remarkable enthusiasm for the topic is easy to see, which makes the stunning events of the shine in a fantastic light.

[Erika · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is going to be a curious review for me. I want to begin by saying: I have not finished reading this book. There are good reasons for this.

The first is: I’m not too big on history. I need a lot of context for my historical facts otherwise, try as hard as I might I forget everything I hear or read. That’s not say I don’t like history--I like it quite a bit--I just need to get it in small doses. The second is: Thomas Asbridge’s The First Crusade: A New History is not particularly dry or boring, it’s actually really fascinating and easier for me to read than a textbook (of the historical variety); it puts things in context. Historical figures are put into roles as characters, given motives and backstories, there are maps, illustrations, and full color photo panels of medieval artwork and modern day buildings that were once pivotal during the Crusades. It’s not quite an historical fiction novel, but I’m invested in the text anyway.

If this were a historical fiction novel I can promise you I’d be finished by now. Since it isn’t, I think I’ll continue reading it as I have been: in small doses when I get the chance and not all in one go. I really want to understand the facts and research Asbridge has worked so hard to put together. Plowing through this would be unfair to the history and do an injustice to why I wanted to read it in the first place: to learn.

There is a glossary and a chronology in the back of the book; for the die-hard historical fan there is even a bibliography and end notes to support Asbridge’s book and encourage further reading. My favorite so far is the chronology. It sort of sums up without explanation the very main points of Asbridge’s text along the timeline of the Crusades. The dates orient a reader who may be lost or not quite sure on some events, even after having finished. Once a section is completely read, you can go back to the chronology and see then all of the context and background that went into, for example, “The Council of Piacenza” (p. 342). In short: you can feel that you’ve learned something and walk away with a studious understanding of certain events and dates.

Even though I’m reading this book from a more curious background when it comes to history, I’d still recommend it to readers interested in a real academic approach to the Crusades. All readers will appreciate the sincerity and depth of Asbridge’s narrative and feel at ease with his accessible prose and intelligent, articulate writing. I’m enjoying it a lot, despite reading it in bits and pieces. I’d like to think I’m not losing any momentum, but it’s such a wonderful read it would be hard to put down and never pick it up again.

With that in mind, yes, I will eventually finish. Asbridge’s book is exciting and he does an excellent job infusing anticipation into his text and in turn, the reader will become anxious for more. The photos and illustrations are compelling and do help root the historical events to places and things we can see and perhaps one day, visit. I’ve found The First Crusade: A New History to be fascinating and will continue to read it. I suggest if you’re interested at all in the Crusades, you give Asbridge a chance!

Thanks to Simon & Schuster UK for my review copy. :)

[Abigail Hartman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Asbridge's "The First Crusade" hovers around a two- or three-star rating for me. He does of course have a particular interpretation of the crusaders' motives - that they were driven not so much by a desire to defend Christendom against the Muslim advance, but by their own (selfish?) desire to purify their souls from the guilt of unjust bloodshed. I don't have much of a problem with this reading; I feel there were many motives that impelled men to go on crusade, and Asbridge's is probably a legitimate, even if it is not necessarily the only viable, theory. He also attempts to empathize with this motivation, to put himself in the crusaders' shoes and not pass judgment. Unfortunately, there are a number of things that get in the way of such attempts.

One is the presence of behavior on the part of the crusaders which, I believe, is or should be incompatible with any of their more pious motives: however you slice it, there was a great deal of self-serving on the part of the Frankish princes, and I continue to fail to see how any historian can look at the 1099 massacre in Jerusalem and not feel some qualms about the crusading ideal. (In that regard, I suppose a disclaimer is called for: however much I may try to understand the crusaders' motives, I find very little to admire in the Crusades. I believe they were driven by a wrong theology and were antithetical to both the mission of the Church and the idea of Christian life. I guess I'm a bit of a Runciman.) With all of these things before him (and he does discuss the Franks' failings at nearly every turn), Asbridge seems to dither between dramatizing the horrible, monstrous, selfish actions of the crusaders, and trying to make sense of them and fit together aspects (like piety and greed) that it would be better to leave disparate.

His struggle is only made worse by another element of the book that made me groan: Asbridge's overly-dramatic style. The First Crusade was a "titanic" expedition that made Europe and the Middle East "avowed and entrenched opponents, and the chilling reverberations of this seismic shift still echo in the world today" (2). The whole book is like this; everything seems to demand an adjective. On the one hand, this may make the book more accessible for a wider audience. On the other, it is a little bit ridiculous, and sometimes even requires that Asbridge back-pedal on some of his claims. Most significantly, while he hints early on (and the added subtitle of my edition declares) that the First Crusade constitutes "the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam," in his conclusion he has to temper that by saying that in fact the First Crusade could easily have been just a passing war. Later events - sometimes much later - were much more influential in hardening the lines of conflict. A nice dramatic subtitle like this may attract more curious readers, but it doesn't seem to help dispel myths and present a clear picture of the First Crusade.

All that aside, "The First Crusade" does have good information under its melodramatic style and offers not only a readable overview for just about anyone, but a reasonable interpretation of the motives behind the events. It should simply be taken with a grain of salt, and perhaps some other historians' interpretations as well.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Cuộc Thập tự chinh thứ nhất đã xác nhận sự ủng hộ của Chúa đối với khái niệm bạo lực được thánh hóa”

Mình là một người vô thần nhưng mình rất thích tìm hiểu về các tôn giáo và vô tình có môi trường để tìm hiểu về hai tôn giáo lớn nhất về quy mô khi phía ngoại mình theo Phật Giáo còn gia đình mình thì sống ngay giữa xóm đạo Chúa nổi tiếng ở Biên Hòa suốt gần 15 năm. Từ bé, mình cũng đã nghe giai thoại về các cuộc Thập tự chinh rồi mặc dù lúc ấy có hiểu gì đâu, sau này thì tìm hiểu kỹ hơn nhưng sẽ mang tính tổng quát qua 9 cuộc Thập tự chinh được công nhận nhiều hơn là đi vào chi tiết. Cuốn sách “Cuộc Thập tự chinh thú nhất” này giống như một chiếc kính lúp giúp mình soi kỹ hơn vào mảnh ghép đầu tiên của lý tưởng nổi tiếng và đầy tranh cãi này. Cuốn sách cũng sẽ phù hợp với những ai mới bắt đầu tìm hiểu về Thập tự chinh.

Đầu tiên phải dành lời khen cho khả năng diễn đạt và chắp nối các sự kiện của tác giả rất lôi cuốn mà có những thời điểm mình đọc không muốn dừng lại mà thiết nghĩ nếu có đại diễn nào làm thành phim mà truyền tải được thì sẽ thật sự là một bộ phim rất hay. Tác giả dành vừa đủ thời gian để không chỉ nhắc đến mà còn mô tả hoàn cảnh tiểu sử của các nhân vật chủ chốt rất cụ thể giúp độc giả nắm được tinh thân nhận vật lịch sử. Khoa đánh giá cao điểm này vì khi Khoa đọc tài liệu về các cuộc Thập tự chinh thì phần mà Khoa thấy rối nhất chính là nhớ tên nhân vật và tránh nhầm lẫn họ với nhau.

Về nội dung, tác giả đã giữ được tính khách quan cho các dữ kiện khi ông luôn dẫn chứng rõ những sự kiện có bằng chứng ghi chép và đồng thời cũng dẫn theo các huyền thoại hay giả thuyết chưa được chứng minh và luôn nhắc nhở độc giả về điều đó. Xuyên suốt cuốn sách, ông liên tục nhắc nhở chúng ta về bối cảnh lịch sử của thời Trung Cổ để tránh việc phán xét dựa trên những chuẩn mực của thời hiện đại vào các sự kiện lịch sử, cuốn sách không bị thần thánh hóa một phe hay đả kích phe còn lại. Bên cạnh đó thì việc chia sẻ thêm về các địa danh nổi tiếng giữa xưa và nay khiến câu chuyện cũng thêm phần màu sắc thú vị mà bạn có thể tìm hiểu thêm để cảm nhận.

Cũng giống như bất kỳ một thành tựu vĩ đại hay một thảm họa to lớn, lý tưởng Thập tự chinh không phải được tạo ra trong một cái búng tay mà là kết quả của từng bước nhỏ dã diễn ra trước khi chúng ta thật sự đặt tên cho nó rồi. Lý tưởng sơ khởi ban đầu trong chương trình cải cách của giáo hoàng Gregory VII là một quân đội riêng phục vụ cho Giáo hội trong thời đại thường được biết đến với cái tên Đêm trường Trung Cổ.

Vào thế kỷ XI, giai đoạn Tây Âu đắm chìm trong súng đạo, mê tín và bạo lực, nơi mà “ranh giới phân chia giữa cõi tâm linh của Giáo hội và thế giới trần tục của các vị Vua, Lãnh Chúa” đã bị xóa mờ một cách nhem nhuốc. Lúc bấy giờ, giáo hoànng Leo IX, Alexander II và cả Gregory VII cũng đã phát động những cuộc Thập tự chinh đầu tiên. Thế nhưng, phải đến khi người kế nhiệm – giáo hoàng Urban II – phát động vào năm 1095 nhằm mục đích tiếp viện cho những người anh em Kito Giáo Phương Đông của họ và tái chiếm thánh địa Jerusalem thì cuộc chiến mới bắt đầu thật sự. “Đây không phải là cuộc chiến đầu tiên giữa Kitô Hữu và Islam Giáo nhưng chính cuộc xung đột này đã đặt hai tôn giáo trở thành hai thế lực thù địch suốt một thời gian dài và 9 cuộc Thập tự chinh đẫm máu trong hơn 300 năm kế tiếp.

Vào thế kỷ XI, các cường quốc Islam Giáo tổ chức các cuộc kháng chiến nội bộ thay vì các cuộc kháng chiến chống lại cộng đồng Kitô giáo. Do đó lúc bấy giờ, Thập tự quân chỉ đối mặt với một kẻ thù thiếu sức chiến đấu và thiếu sự thống nhất về tầm nhìn. Trong chuyến đi này họ cũng đã thành lập nên nhà nước Thập Tự Chinh đầu tiên ở vùng cận Đông - Hạt Edessa do Baldwin đứng đầu và cũng chính ông được trao vương miện trở thành vị vua La tinh đầu tiên của Jerusalem vào năm 1100. Đây chính là một tiền đồn của vương quốc Kitô Giáo phương Tây trong trái tim của Islam Giáo và sẽ tồn tại trong gần hai thế kỷ tiếp theo.

Ngoài ra thì tác giả cũng điểm qua cho chúng ta sơ nét về lịch sử Kito Giáo, sự va chạm giữa các đế quốc lớn lúc bấy giờ kéo dài từ Đông sang Tây, lịch sử Islam Giáo cũng như những mâu thuẫn tồn đọng trong chính nội bộ tôn giáo này – điều làm nên khu vực bất ổn chính trị nhất thế giới cho đến tận ngày nay. Bên cạnh đó, chúng ta cũng sẽ thấy vai trò của các Thánh tích trên bàn cờ chính trị bấy giờ cũng như một trong những sản phẩm phụ mang tính thảm họa của cuộc Thập tự chinh này chính là đợt diệt chủng Holocaust đầu tiên nhắm vào người Do Thái cũng sẽ được làm rõ trong cuốn sách này.

Việc tóm tắt sơ bộ sẽ không thể nào thể hiện được sự gay cấn, cuốn hút của cuốn sách này mà chỉ có tự độc giả trải nghiệm mà cảm nhận. Hãy cẩn thận, nó cũng rất máu me và tàn bạo đấy nhé.

=====================
- “Chúa không muốn Giáo Hoàng đích thân sử dụng thanh kiếm của riêng ông ta nhưng Chúa vẫn thực sự mong đợi ông chỉ đạo một vũ khí hữu hình, đó là giáo dân có vũ trang, để bảo vệ cộng đồng Kitô Giáo” - phúng dụ của John xứ Mantua.
- Trong suy nghĩ của những Thập tự quân, sự tôn sùng tôn giáo, cuộc chiến tranh man rợ và sự thèm khát lợi ích vật chất không phải là những trải nghiệm loại trừ lẫn nhau, mà tất cả có thể cùng tồn tại gắn kết với nhau cùng trong một khoảng thời gian và không gian.
- Cuộc Thập Tự Chinh thứ nhất thu hút sự quan tâm chung của mọi thế hệ trong xã hội loài người: Kiềm chế sự thèm khát bẩm sinh đối với bạo lực của con người cũng như mong muốn phân định liệu chiến tranh là Thiện hay ác.
- Ở châu Âu Thế kỷ 11, sinh tử, tình yêu, giận dữ và cái chết của con người bị chi phối bởi giáo điều Kitô Giáo. Nền tảng của hệ thống niềm tin này là nỗi sợ hãi. Tinh thần thời Trung Cổ đã bị khuấy đảo bởi một nỗi lo lắng bao trùm mới: Tội Lỗi.
Thánh chiến là một cuộc chiến tranh mà Chúa tích cực ủng hộ thậm chí yêu cầu phải thực hiện bởi nó có thể mang lại lợi ích tinh thần cho những người tham gia. - Khái niệm bạo lực được thánh hóa.
- Vô số thế hệ của lịch sử loài người, các bộ lạc, thành phố, quốc gia, các dân tộc đã tìm cách phân định bản sắc riêng của họ bằng cách so sánh bản thân với các nước láng giềng và kẻ thù. Giáo hoàng đã khiến cho Châu Âu Latinh coi Islam Giáo là một giống loài tách biệt.
- Đối với một người quan sát hiện đại, ý tưởng chiến đấu để thanh tẩy linh hồn của một người có vẻ ngớ ngẩn và phi lý nhưng nó có cơ sở vững chắc trong thực tế thời Trung cổ. Cuộc viễn chinh như một hình thức đền tội vượt bậc và mới lạ - một hành trình gian nan, vô cùng kinh hoàng để có thể loại bỏ mọi Tội Lỗi.
- Cuộc đấu tranh của họ không phải do lòng nhiệt tình trung thành với giáo hội, cũng không phải bởi một khao khát nghiêm túc nhằm bảo vệ quân vương quốc Kitô giáo; mà vì những nhu cầu riêng tư và tuyệt đối tư lợi của mình. Đó là để vượt qua nỗi sợ hãi tuyệt vọng của họ về sự nguyền rủa và để xuất hiện sau khi được thanh tẩy tại cánh cổng thiên đàng.

[Evan Leach · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating depiction of the First Crusade. I'm a bit surprised at how few ratings/reviews this book has generated; this is not an academic analysis of the theological differences between Christianity and Islam (as the title implies), but a visceral description of the original crusade. That doesn't mean the history is anything but top-notch - Asbridge has done his homework - but he's also a very strong writer and does a great job describing a truly historic event.

While the later crusades were all pretty much debacles to a greater or lesser degree, the first was a tremendous success (at least initially...and from the European perspective). This was the crusade that actually succeeded in capturing the Holy Land...but only after overcoming almost impossible odds. The First Crusade featured a number of memorable characters and some truly incredible events, from the battle at Antioch to the siege of Jerusalem and much more.

I'm not an expert on this subject, and haven't read any other books on the First Crusade, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better single volume presentation than Asbridge's impressive work in this book. 4 stars, recommended!

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is excellent, written in a simple, easily accessable way and I recommend it to anyone even vaguely interested in the Crusades.

All of the Crusades were bloody affairs with terrible atrosities committed on both sides. The mentallity of Medieval Christians from the lowest peasant to the highest Lord is illustrated in surprising detail and there are plenty of pictures both of medieval imagery and photos of Jerusalem and Crusader forts

My only critisim is that the book can at times heavily criticise the Christians of the period and not the Muslims. Although it was the Christians who instigated the Crusades it was partly in response to crimes that had been committed by Muslims against Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem.

The author does also have a habit of stating his own opinions as solid fact when often there is no way of proving his views one way or another.

Still despite this it is a book that is well worth reading and can teach alot.

[Leif · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview.

A "general" history of an event so widely written about in such varying degrees of scholarship, Asbridge's "new" (2004) book will no doubt rankle many familiar with Crusader lore. I found his easy writing and lack of academic pretentions to be a big plus. It is said he overlooks certain things, minimizes and maximizes others...so, your average history book.

Keep in mind, the scholarship is there but it is not as evident as other histories and that in itself can make it seem like you are just reading somebody's ideas on the Crusade rather than actual, verifiable history.

One should note that at the time of this writing, a LARGE amount of citations from the Wikipedia entry on the First Crusade are taken from this book. Do with that intelligence what you will.

[Mark Fulham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took a LONG time with this, 4 years to be exact. I actually took a break as it didn’t grip me early on. In hindsight it was well written I simply wasn’t in the mood for that type of book. Especially one with such a slow start given the nature of its content - the political movement behind starting the crusade

In the end I enjoyed it a lot. I’m by no means an expert on the topic now but feel confident in my understanding of it. This book does a great job of boiling down a huge piece of history. To me whatever your opinions on the Crusade, the Crusaders themselves or their methods there is no denying the feat they accomplished is pretty astounding.

[Asher · Rating 1 out of 5]

Overall, it was a reasonably easy book to read as an introduction to the crusades. Were I took issue with it, is that the author laces elements of the book with his subjective opinions of pro-islamic/anti-christian rhetoric, and somehow manages to contradict himself on enough occasions that I almost felt as though there were two people writing this book. At the conclusion of reading it, I thought of it almost as an attempt at historic fiction, by an author I couldn't trust.