Byzantium and the Crusades

by Jonathan Harris

This new edition of Byzantium and the Crusades provides a fully-revised and updated version of Jonathan Harris's landmark text in the field of Byzantine and crusader history.

The book offers a chronological exploration of Byzantium and the outlook of its rulers during the time of the Crusades. It argues that one of the main keys to Byzantine interaction with Western Europe, the Crusades and the crusader states can be found in the nature of the Byzantine Empire and the ideology which underpinned it, rather than in any generalised hostility between the peoples.

Taking recent scholarship into account, this new edition includes an updated notes section and bibliography, as well as significant new additions to the text:

- New material on the role of religious differences after 1100
- A detailed discussion of economic, social and religious changes that took place in 12th-century Byzantine relations with the west
- In-depth coverage of Byzantium and the Crusades during the 13th century
- New maps, illustrations, genealogical tables and a timeline of key dates

Byzantium and the Crusades is an important contribution to the historiography by a major scholar in the field that should be read by anyone interested in Byzantine and crusader history.

Genres: History, Medieval, Nonfiction, Greece, Islam, Middle East, Medieval History

270 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2003

About the author

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name.

Reviews

[Mircea Petcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

În sensul acceptat astăzi, "războiul sfânt" este violență promovată și aprobată de autoritatea religioasă care promite participanților o răsplată spirituală. În anii 960, împăratul bizantin Nicefor al II-lea a cerut ca oștenii căzuți în luptă să fie declarați martiri și răsplătiți prin intrarea în rai. Patriarhul Constantinopolului l-a refuzat ferm. Războiul sfânt era străin de tradițiile politice, militare și religioase bizantine.

Politica externă bizantină urmărea două scopuri: securitatea statului și recunoașterea împăratului bizantin drept conducător roman al tuturor creștinilor. Pentru atingerea acestor țeluri, împăratul și administrația civilă aveau la dispoziție o diversitate de mijloace, de la oferirea de daruri și onoruri la folosirea forței armate (prin recrutarea de mercenari, îndeseobi).

Solicitarea de ajutor adresată de împăratul Alexie I papalității, la sfârșitul secolului XI, a declanșat un fenomen pe care bizantinii nu l-au prevăzut și nu l-au putut controla: cruciada. Securitatea statului risca să fie menținută cu prețul pierderii pretenției de universalitate a împăratului bizantin.
Punctul culminant al relațiilor bizantino-cruciate a fost atins odată cu cruciada din 1204 (a IV-a), când cruciații au cucerit Constantinopolul, și implicit securitatea imperiului a fost compromisă.

Recomand

[Ioana · Rating 5 out of 5]

4,8✨
Foarte bună și foarte bine documentată.
Detaliată și numai bună pentru licența mea. 🤣 Se folosește de multe surse atât istorice, primare, cât și secundare. E o cercetare foarte calitativă și interesantă,cu argumente și concluzii relevante. Utilă pentru cei care caută să aprofundeze acest subiect și să afle multe detalii despre politica internă și externă, relațiile cu cruciații, occidentalii, papalitatea.Aduce în discuție și câteva aspecte legate de civilizația musulmană. Pune în oglindă Occidentul și Orientul, Bizanțul, comparându-le și evidențiind diferențele. Normal că pune accentul foarte mult pe Bizanț.Sunt prezente și aspecte culturale, religioase, obiceiurile de la curte,armata și strategia bizantină, etc.
Totuși este greoaie și stufoasă ca informație.Recomand!!

[Daniel Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have never read a book like this before. The author took a topic - Byzantium and the Crusades - which most authors interpret through the lens of wars, battles, general, armaments, and other military affairs. While wars and the confrontations do play a role, this author primarily examines the topic through the lens of ideology and foreign policy.

The thesis is that the traditional Byzantine ideology - the emperor as autocrat of a Christian oikoumene - and the traditional Byzantine method of dealing with foreign threats - honors, bribes, gifts, and manipulation and ambiguity - fell flat when dealing with Latin Crusaders and the papacy after the Gregorian Reforms. The author uses both Western and Eastern texts to explore how various parties perceived the same events differently, and the role of ideology in the relationship between the East and the West.

"By being seen to put their own empire before the struggle for Jerusalem, and by using any method to achieve their goals, the rulers of Byzantium appeared to be betraying the cause of the crusade and colluding with the infidel. That perception prompted Crusade leaders first to demand Byzantine money to supply their armies, then to attack and occupy Byzantine territory when it was not forthcoming" (p. 184)

[José Luís Fernandes · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work is clearly a reference on its field and I advice you to read Lucas' review (I'll try to refer some aspects that he didn't refer or reinforce some others. Harris' argument is very well argued and I think his main conclusions regarding the role of the Crusades on the medieval Roman Empire as well as about interactions between Romans and "Latins" are right. I loved his conclusion that the actions of the crusaders in 1204 were caused by the western view that the heretic and schismatic "Greeks" had to contribute towards crusading efforts and his analyzis of Roman foreign policy as well as of the "Latinokratia", yet I think the initial picture of the consequences for the Romans of the Crusades was very favourable because the First Crusade allowed Rome to retake as much of Asia Minor as Alexios I could, although I acknowledge the situation with Bohemond I was very dangerous.

Regardless of how much I might diverge slightly from Harris regarding this issue, the grade was a bit lowered both because the second edition didn't have any editing work (it's full of typing mistakes with "i" and "l" letters, which is shameful for such a scholarly work, although it isn't the fault of Jonathan Harris) and I think the concept of "translatio imperii" advocated by the author (not only by him, but he surely defended it on this book while analyzing Roman political ideology) is in my view artificial and should have been better fundamented.

[Anatolikon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is, without a doubt, the standard easily accessible work on Byzantium and the Crusades. Sure, Ralph-Johannes Lilie's 'Byzantium and the Crusader States' may be more detailed, but it also a little more dated, and the $200 price tag will scare off all but the most serious students.

Harris seeks to present a history of the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the crusaders, all the while keeping in the back of his mind the question of the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople. He starts off by outlining the two main theories behind the devastation in 1204. The first is a classical "clash of civilizations" theory that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as Byzantium and the West had become increasingly involved with each over the past several centuries, and there was little trouble. The second is that the Fourth Crusade was just a series of unpredictable events. Although one of the main Latin sources for Fourth Crusade, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, is keen to have us believe just that, Harris makes a convincing argument for the ultimate failure of Byzantine foreign policy. He argues that although it was well-suited for dealing with un-sophisticated "barbarian" peoples and the Muslims, it was not able to adapt to a rapidly growing and advancing Christian West. He outlines the century before the crusades and places Byzantium in its proper context, and elaborates a little on the Byzantine impetus behind the beginning of the crusades. He then goes on to briefly sum up the relations between the crusaders and the Komnenoi, carefully pulling out the relevant details behind Ioannes II Komnenos' aggressive policies towards the crusader states and Manuel's generous policies, as well as the disastrous and poorly-planned events surrounding the reign of Andronikos, and how actions from that point on led to animosity between the crusaders and the Byzantines. Through all of this, Harris draws a magisterial overview of Byzantine foreign policy, including both its strengths and weaknesses, how and why the Byzantines conceived it, and how it worked in reality.

This book is a great history of the relationship between the Byzantine Empire, rge crusader states, and the West, and offers some fresh ideas regarding the eventual derailment of the Fourth Crusade. It reads like popular history, but is informative and innovative, and there is no reason for a student of Byzantium or the crusades to not have read this book.

[Mick Maye · Rating 4 out of 5]

The taking of Constantinople by the Crusaders is probably the lowest point of greed and avarice. This story is well written and enjoyable. The book flows well and was a pleasure to read.

[Альберто Лорэдо · Rating 5 out of 5]

Formidable book which explores the intricacy of the Byzantine empire with the crusades and how the policies of the empire impacted its reputation on the West.

Well researched and really well written, it flows till the end seamlessly.

[Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

OUTSTANDING! (Yes I had to say that in caps!). Easy, accessible and enjoyable read – which is particularly important when reading about the various complexities and nuances of the Byzantine world. Harris gives a brilliant investigation into the ideology behind Byzantine Emperors view of conquest, war and foreign policy in general. He shows how this allowed the Empire to survive and how it eventually caused a clash with the West that resulted in the Fourth Crusade.

Cannot recommend enough.

[Ryan Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very solid contribution to Crusade studies. It is not just a retelling of the crusades that includes more discussion of Byzantium; it really does focus on the Byzantine response to the crusading movement.

Harris makes a convincing argument that Byzantium was ultimately undone (and conquered by crusaders in 1204) because it tried to maintain its traditional ideology and approach to foreign affairs--defending its territories and insisting on its position as the head of all Christendom--against the ideology of the reform papacy, which challenged its place at the head of Christendom. When the Byzantines appeared to Westerners as more concerned to maintain its own empire rather than support the crusading mission of the west (which was focused on Jerusalem and the Holy Land), it became a target of the crusades themselves, fully justified because of its insistence on religious practices which marked them as heretics or schismatics.

[Parker Richards · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an able and intriguing text that ably sheds light upon Byzantine strategic and diplomatic thinking. I enjoyed it, and found it to fit well within the context of other histories I've read of the Crusaders and the Ottomans. Harris manages his finite task — a focus on Byzantine interactions with the Crusaders, particularly emphasizing diplomatic history — adroitly.

[Djordje Macuzic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dodatak na istoriju kako crusaders tako I Byzanta

[Carlo · Rating 3 out of 5]

sacáime de la universidá, por Dios.

[Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

good history book about the byzantine empire and their role in the crusades.

[Zachary Moore]

An interesting and well-written investigation of diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the crusader states. Harris' analysis, which pins most Byzantine actions to the desire to maintain and advance their ideological world-view, is reminiscent of many treatments of relations between the Chinese empire and its northern neighbors and frames an interesting question as to the role of political ideology in the formation of policy. I personally tend to think that Harris and other writers with similar theses place too much explanatory power on political ideology and seem to conclude that this ideology is formed without much input from the political reality that surrounds them. I feel that the ideology adapted by ruling state establishments tends to be much more fluid and based on the realities of the existing world order around them and that Harris' treatment assumes too much power to the ruling ideology of the Byzantine establishment.

[Paul Pellicci · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Roman empire in exile.. The Greeks didn't think so. The empire of the Emperor Constatine was well and alive in Constantanople. Along with the Roman Empire, the Christian Church as well, but did anyone tell the pope?
Thus was the friction between east and west. The pope had some influence over western Europe, but not in the east. Constantanople's Emperor expected the whole Christian world to bow to it's athority. What a story.

[Joe Scipione · Rating 4 out of 5]

This offers a different perspective on the motivations of the diversion of the 4th Crusade from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Some Crusade historians have been critical of Harris' argument regarding the fourth Crusade but I think he does a good job proving his argument.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

More readable than Byzantium and the Crusader States.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

The writing isn't spectacular, but the book did a good job of filling in some gaps ignored in other books, and his explanation of the motives behind the Fourth Crusade were well-informed.

[John Hively · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great real, and difficult to put down. The book is about the diplomatic and political interactions between the Byzantine Empire and the Crusaders of the West.