The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #140

by Christopher Tyerman

With flair and originality, Christopher Tyerman presents a clear and lively discussion of the Crusades, bringing together issues of colonialism, cultural exchange, economic exploitation, and the relationship between past and present. He considers the effects of the Crusades on ordinary life in Western Europe, and the parts played by ordinary men and women in the conflict, and explores the term "Crusade" for contemporary political ends. Whether the Crusades are regarded as the most romantic of Christian expeditions, or the last of the barbarian invasions, they have fascinated generations ever since, and their legacy of ideas and imagery has resonated through the centuries, inspiring Hollywood movies and great works of literature. In this book, Tyerman skillfully weaves together one of the most extraordinary and vivid episodes in world history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Medieval History, Medieval, War, Christianity

184 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Christopher Tyerman is professor of the history of the crusades at Oxford University and a fellow of Hertford College. His books include God’s War, The Debate on the Crusades, and How to Plan a Crusade. He lives in Oxford.

Reviews

[Holly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Something bothered me about this book from the moment I started reading it, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was until I watched an episode of Yes, Prime Minister. Then it hit me: the author writes the way Sir Humphrey Appleby talks.

The author seems to believe that you should never use a two-syllable word where a five-syllable one will do, never use a common five-syllable word where an obscure five-syllable word is available, never write a short sentence where you could write a paragraph, and never speak plainly where you could obfuscate.

Here's an example:

"This cultural intimacy, a feature of the whole of the early Middle Ages, took on greater significance in the development of holy war as the apparatus of civil authority devolved downwards nearer to the human and material resources on which all power depended as public authority was usurped by private lordships." (p 74)

Or:

"The ideology of crusading may thus appear casuistic in its interpretation of Scripture, if not downright mendacious." (p 66)

Remarkably, the author does still manage to say something about the Crusades. Of course, actually finding out what he's trying to say does require reading the book as if it's come from Humphrey Appleby, but ironically, that actually made it clearer to me.

Stylistic problems aside, this book it not an introduction to the Crusades. (Unless you think several chapters of dates followed by slightly peevish academic commentary on existing theories - theories that are not explained in the book - counts as an introduction to a topic. If you do, please don't become a teacher.) If you don't know much about the Crusades and want to learn more, this is NOT the book for you. I only wish I could recommend a better one.

[Darwin8u · Rating 3 out of 5]

VSI#140
I don’t know if the subject matter was beyond the scale of VSI, or the author just struggled to give a 30,000 ft review of the Crusades without losing the thread, but I was hoping for a lot more from this short survey. It was dry, choppy, and seemed like a couple Crusades essays stitched together than a unified introduction. There were some interesting parts and I liked the author's refusal to pander to the myths or blame or excuse the crusades for more or less than realistic. A big missed opportunity.

[Isabella Roh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, this had very useful information.
In a number of points, the author's word choice and phrasing very much seemed to indicate a certain level of contempt for the people living during this era who participated in or were affected by the crusades, and that felt a little odd. It's not that one must approve of every era one researches, but the contempt and cynicism in his tone did feel bizarre. I suppose I didn't expect the author to do my judging for me in an introductory text.

[Peter Fox · Rating 1 out of 5]

For an introduction to a topic, this book is very tricky. The author obviously knows about the subject, but his writing style is so dry that you begin a sentence only to get to the end having almost lost the will to live.

There is a lot of history to be covered and this book, even as an introduction doesn't really do any more than scratch the surface.

There's a good book knocking about introducing the Crusades, but this isn't it.

[Michael Huang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crusade is not even a word in the Middle Ages. Today it’s applied to any vigorous good cause. But if you inspect the history, the real crusades are hardly for good causes.

Historians agree on 5 numbered ones. The 1st crusade is the best remembered. It was politically motivated by Alexius I of Byzantium who after usurping the throne wanted something to shore up his domestic position. Death of a Turkish sultan offered the chance. This crusade is the most successful one and created a number of principalities (e.g., kingdom of Jerusalem) together known as outremer. The 2nd was defeated by Turkish forces in Asia Minor. After that, gradual erosion of control of outremer led to Saladin getting Jerusalem. The massive response was the 3rd crusade, but it only led to a treaty that allows pilgrimage. The 4th was aimless because of money issues. The crusaders had to help Venice fight its rivals; participate in civil war of Byzantium and sacking Constantinople when the promise of money can not be kept. The 5th exploited rivalry of Egypt and Syria and briefly restored Jerusalem to the Franks. But it quickly disintegrated and Jerusalem was lost to Muslim control in 1244. That control lasted until 1917. Outside the numbered ones, there were the Children’s crusade, Shepards’ crusade; crusade against Albigensians, or Hussites, the Baltics etc. Some are clearly land grab under a religious excuse. There is no abrupt end to crusading.

In terms of effects: there is no political benefit to the individual warriors. They are driven by religious fervor, not territorial interest in Levant. Most expect to return home after the wars. The crusades consolidated Christian rule in Europe, weakened Byzantium, thus allowed Ottoman control of Balkans, but this perhaps protected the Balkans from a potentially even worse ruler in the Mongols.

To justify war given the charity principle, Christian theoreticians have to interpret the charity as only applying to individuals not public authority such as Muslim states. They first tied Christian acceptance of war to the responsibility of citizens of the Roman Empire. When the empire collapsed, the theory is modified again to be some independent principle. If the Pope wants an army, the apologists would write about the warriors would fight “for their salvation and the common good”. Crusades reflect central human concern of belief and identity.

Starting a war requires intense logistics (as the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine reminded all news audience). The crusades start with preachers going into town with props and visual aids to create enthusiasm and hatred of enemy. Churches will help with local recruitment. Finance will come from individual as well as institutional sources (first kings, then papacy, later military orders endowed with landed property). Participants often include younger sons of aristocracy lacking prospects at home. When logistics fail the war is lost (exhibit 1: the 4th crusade).

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

The subject matter is interesting but the delivery was very dry and not all that accessible for a newcomer.

[Alice Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

very helpful

[Aaron · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely disappointing.

[Robert Corzine · Rating 4 out of 5]

You have to drive on past the first chapters which seem horribly bad for a book that professes to be an introduction to the Crusades. What OUP ought to have done is to retitle the book once they got the manuscript. Tyerman in fact wrote The Idea of Crusading: A Very Short Introduction. There are great insights here, mostly correcting erroneous ideas about the crusades, the crusaders, their opponents, and the kingdoms they created and sustained for almost 200 years. Sadly, he inserts his own share of nonsense in Chapter 5 "Holy War" that allows him, among other things, to expand his field and stray far from the topic of the crusades.

You should definitely read this book. But only AFTER you're pretty familiar with the history of the crusades. You will NOT find that in this book. Instead, it is mostly a high level discussion of various historians' disputes about crusading and later uses of the idea and imagery of the crusades. On the other hand, this is a brilliant way to decide whether you want to commit to Tyerman's very erudite 1040 page book on the Crusades.

[Martin Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very level headed intro to the Crusades. The section on the intellectual basis of holy war dating back to the Roman period was super interesting!

[Mark Gannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting- and the title was correct- it was a short introduction. This is an achievement in and of itself, considering the geographical and historical expanse of the Crusades. But, this isn't a book for the average reader. The book reads like it was written for academics. As a previous reviewer noted "The author seems to believe that you should never use a two-syllable word where a five-syllable one will do, never use a common five-syllable word where an obscure five-syllable word is available, never write a short sentence where you could write a paragraph, and never speak plainly where you could obfuscate."

Overall, three stars.

[Sam Goodings · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is sort of a hard book to review. On the one hand, it is a clinically written and informative book around the topic of the Crusades, it’s written by a highly respected authority on the subject and it’s short. And that’s kind of what it’s supposed to be. So it should get 5 stars.

However, when I picked it up I was expecting an accessible and enjoyable book that would give me (a complete ignoramus) a basic understanding of the Crusades – and this is not that book. For one, it reads like an academic essay and it was a grind to get through. It’s really delivered chalk and talk with no levity or deviation of tone.

Secondly, where as I (now) appreciate that the Crusades are a more widely ranging topic than Richard the Lionheart and all that, I think it’s fair to say that for myself and the unwashed masses, that’s what we think of when we talk about the Crusades and that’s the main thing we were expecting to learn about – but most of the book is the author discussing the various social stigmas of the Crusades and their lasting influence. It's also so clouded with a multitude of dates and names that all span hundreds of years it makes it very challenging to take much in.

There is also the odd feeling that the author is constantly on the defensive, as if afraid that a rival academic might call him on any missed detail. For example, to my remembrance, he pauses mid-sentence at least twice to explain the meaning of Latin words or phrases and break down their etymology. It doesn’t seem necessary to do that in the first place, secondly makes the book even drier than it already is and thirdly (and perhaps worst) gives you an impression of someone showing off.

In short the book didn’t feel fit for purpose to me.

I just looked though a few other reviews on here and one by ‘Holly’ on May 13th 2017 says it better than ever I could.

Overall this is a good book if you’re studying this topic or are already familiar with the Crusades but it’s not great if you are new to the subject.

[Taylor Church · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a little tricky to love. The crusades were so long and complex on so many different levels that a brief overview of the events seems impossible. It's like reading a small book about the history of Asia. One sort of has to have some prior knowledge going into it, but still it's a lot of information to take in when you feel like further explanation is required. With that being said I did learn some things, and though the book is extremely academic, it is well written. I just wouldn't suggest it for someone who doesn't have at least a basic knowledge of Islam, Christianity, Medieval history, Catholicism, the Papacy, and much more.

[Christopher Litsinger · Rating 1 out of 5]

This may have been too short of an introduction- it made me appreciate the balance struck with "a short history of world war one". It read more like a study guide or cliffs notes than a book. During the section where he covers the events, he avoided any commentary; there was no narrative to grab on to to understand the events. When he gets to the commentary, it was hard to connect with the now forgotten events. Probably the restrictions of the book format rather than the authors fault, but I feel like I need to find another book about the crusades so I can actually learn something.

[Stephen Heiner · Rating 4 out of 5]

video book review: https://youtu.be/IYeUgKS6JF8

One of the reviewers below said that you should read this book, but only after you've got a general familiarity of the Crusades. I would agree, and add to that that the author's ignorance about the teaching of Christianity about war in general vitiates the first quarter of the book, which is a great disappointment, as I've come to rely on the VSI series as a fairly balanced survey of a topic.

Where Tyerman shines is in the latter half of the book, where he chides moderns for having the inability to see what crusading was in its time period, unencumbered by the (often erroneous) use of "crusades" in the politicking of today. He also dispels the lies that Ridley Scott puts forth in Kingdom of Heaven, of bloodthirsty and immoral "crusaders" slitting throats every chance they had.

So, if you already have a working history of the entire crusading period, likely picked up in a book or five, and you are willing to roll your eyes through sections like these:

"thus war, inherently sinful" (p. 69)

and

"the oxymoronic nature of Christian holy war" (p. 81)

you can stand to gain some useful knowledge from the text, as well as from the bibliography assembled at the end.

"The Crusades were not solely wars against Islam in Palestine. They were not chiefly conducted by land-hungry younger sons, nor were they part of some early attempt to impose western economic hegemony on the world. More fundamentally, they did not represent an aberration from Christian teaching." (p. 3)

"Western Europe was held together by a military aristocracy whose power rested on control of local resources by force and inheritance as much as by civil law. The availability of large numbers of arms bearers, nobles and their retinues, with sufficient funds or patronage to undertake such an expedition, was matched by an awareness of the sinfulness of their customary activities and a desire for penance. For them, holy violence was familiar and Jerusalem possessed overwhelming numinous resonance." (p. 19)

"Preachers began to think of taking the cross as a form of conversion, a complete amendment of spiritual life similar, if less permanent, to becoming a monk." (p. 92)

"On return to the Adriatic further raiding carried off booty and relics. Modern disapproval misses the essence. The Italian trading cities' contributions to crusading of men, blood, treasure, and materials were second to none. Crusading enthusiasm did not stop at the gates of commercial ports, nor did the desire for profit or, at least, an avoidance of loss contradict the spirituality as well as the material risks inherent in taking the cross, any more than did a knight's desire to fight to earn salvation and to survive. While elements of duty, fear, devotion, repentance, excitement, adventure, material profit, and escapism feature in the sources as contributory spurs to action, one overwhelming urge, with secular and spiritual dimensions, may have been what could inadequately be described as status — with church, peers, neighbors, relatives, God. The most typical trophies of this status were relics which the returning crusader bestowed on local churches, further enhancing both social reputation and godly credit; the lure of the unique richness of treasure houses of Christian relics at Constantinople acted as a spur to its destruction in 1204. The discredit afforded those who failed to fulfill their vows, or those who deserted or refused to enlist, alone reflected the continuing social admiration that clung to veterans of the cross." (p. 106)

"Outremer formed part of no secular or ecclesiastical western empire except as provinces of the Latin Church...No reigning Frankish monarch of Jerusalem ever visited western Europe." (p. 110)

"Outremer's distinctive characteristic of a garrison society did not guard vital sea lanes, trade routes, markets, or sources of raw materials but what many regarded as a huge religious relic, 'Christ's heritage.'" (p. 111)

"After the initial stage of conquest, Muslim resistance to Frankish rule, in the absence of political leadership, which had fled, rarely reached beyond the level of localized banditry. The new rulers' and settlers' enjoyment of resources did not entail systematic persecution of other faith communities." (p. 115)

"In market courts at the port of Acre, jurors were drawn from both Latin and Syrian Christians and witnesses were permitted to swear oaths on their holy books — Christians on the Gospels, Jews and Samaritans on the Torah, and Muslims on the Koran — 'because,' the Jerusalem law insisted, 'be they Syrians or Greeks or Jews or Samaritans or Nestorians or Saracens, they are also men like the Franks.' The Hospitallers, who ran the great hospital in Jerusalem that could accommodate hundreds of patients at a time, agreed. They treated anyone regardless of race or religion. Only lepers were excluded, for obvious reasons." (p. 115)

(regarding the use of the word "crusade" in modern politics) "The connection with spiritually redemptive holy warfare had become drained of much meaning. Any conflict promoted as transcending territorial or other material aims could attract the crusade epithet, increasingly a lazy synonym for ideological conflict or, worse, a sloppy but highly charged metaphor for political conflicts between protagonists from contrasting cultures and faiths." (p. 139)

"The Near Eastern radical or terrorist who rails against 'western' neo-crusaders is operating in exactly the same conceptual and academic tradition as those in the west who continue to insinuate the language of the crusade into their approach to the problems of the region...The Re-entry of the Crusades into the politics of the Near East is baleful and intellectually bogus." (p. 139)

[Dave Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Boring

[Kenneth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Simply not a very good author, I’m afraid. The material isn’t presented in an absorbing fashion.

[Arabesque · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rating: 2/5 stars

If this book is meant to be an introduction for complete novices to the Crusades, then I think it should be judged an abject failure. It's a pity because I can tell from the content that the author knows what he is talking about and he has tried to cover common topics of academic debate and refute commonly held stereotypes about this period over the course of the text. It just shows us the importance of good rhetoric among academics I guess, because the way it is written, this book is a chore to go through. I wanted to learn about the Crusades and found myself tossing the book aside in frustration at times.

Others have pointed out that the author chooses to use complicated words to express himself. This is true. But he also fails to get the point across anyway. Consider this sentence:

yet, for all their importance, in the expansion of Latin Christendom across its frontiers, the grammar and syntax remained resolutely secular.

Surely , there is a less onerous way to phrase that? Here's another one:

More scrupulous observers cavilled at such meretricious rhetoric, yet the imagery persisted even when the idealism had drowned in Flanders mud

I swear, I am fluent in English, and I cringed at that line. Who is this written for? And what, dear God, is it trying to say? There are many other points where the author hammers home the exact same point in three or four different sentences. And yet at the end, if you asked me what I had just read, I would pull up a blank.

Word choices and sentence construction aside, the author has also done a poor job in arranging the information. Of the 7 chapters in the book, only the last one ("The Holy Lands") seems likely to remain in my mind. And that is because it finally started discussing what life was like for people during the crusades. Don't get me wrong, I want to learn about how the crusades were funded, what the political machinations of aristocracies had to do with the course of the events and so on. But maybe save that till the end of the book?

Another problem is that the author jumps through time too much. I regularly noticed him mention events happening in 1100 and then skip over a 100 years to describe some other event in the same paragraph, to explain the same point. I found it really hard to grasp a sense of scale of when different things happened because of this.

The one thing the author very successfully does in this book is let the reader know how contentious the portrayal of these events are both in academia and in popular culture. I now know that there are different schools of thought concerning this study, and that they have their own biases. I know that people don't even agree on how many crusades there were! I understand that Crusades could have a decidedly secular character even as armies marched under a cross using funds provided by the Vatican to defend, conquer or convert Holy Lands. I understand that the creation of Frankish Outremer is not the same as the creation of colonies in the Modern era, despite sharing similar characteristics. I also got to know that crusades could even be used against Christians deemed to be heretics.

There are genuinely good parts in the book: The part of the book where the author talked about the militarization of Christianity and the rise of an industry geared towards foreign military expeditions is very interesting! The part on the crusades in Balkan states forcing the Christianization of pagan people was also well-written (partially because it is brief).

One final thing I appreciated is that the author takes the time to note which school of thought the different sources he lists in his bibliography belong to. This means readers can choose where next to direct their study.

But again, what a slog it is to go through this book. I knew going in that the author had a tough task laid out. In explaining events spanning centuries with vastly different people, he would have to explain so many things that historians take for granted, but amateurs know nothing about. Even the concept of the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages may need to be dispelled. There is nothing easy about this. But I did not foresee him writing such a muddled, obscure and pedantic tract. I think a much better format for the book could have been if he posed it as a series of short question-answer sections. This way he could explore individual details while allowing the reader to know beforehand what is being discussed and choose whether or not they wish to read it.

The way it is written, I think it is a fit choice for the reading comprehension section of some SAT or GRE test.

Tl;Dr: Unnecessarily difficult and long book that could kill your nascent interest in the field before it even got truly started. There is quite likely a better introduction to the crusades out there.

[N · Rating 2 out of 5]

Notes
First, unification of Syria under Zengi of Aleppo and son Nur al-Din. Then unification of Syria with Egypt under Kurdish mercenary commander turned sultan, Saladin who secures the three inland muslim capitals of Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul, and only then turns his armies on the Franks. Decks war with language of jihad, but then suppresses heritical Fatimid Caliphate in 1171. Internal maintenance of empire is the main concern, so partition of Palestine with Franks is pragmatic.

Third Crusade by Richard takes back Jaffa, Acre from Saladin, gets treaty allowing pilgrims free access to Jerusalem

Saladin’s successors the Ayyubids successfully resist Christian attacks, but the role of Mamluks in defending Egypt in 1250 seal their succession.

Fourth Crusade by Innocent II has no kings, only nobles who must fund their campaign through Venetian doge Enrico Dandolo. Unable to pay, so Enrico agrees moratorium on debt if crusaders capture for him the Dalmatian port of Zara from fellow crusader Emeric of Hungary. Then, crusaders dragged into politics of Alexius IV, son of deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II, siege Constantinople driving out Alexius III.

Greeks are alienated, Alexius V deposes and murders the 2 emperors, so crusaders breach the city and partition the kingdom. Byzantium now a latin state under Baldwin of Flanders. Venetians have moved from commercial to territorial imperialism.

Capture of Byzantium no accident, many popes annoyed by Greek failure to contribute to the 3 crusades before.

Fifth Crusade 1213-29 reflects the instituionalization of crusading, semi-permanent evangelization. Bull Quia Maior launches - remission of sins, indulgence for money or fighting. Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 authorizes universal clerical taxation. This time, bulk of recruits from Germany, C.Europe, Italy and Britain rather than France.

Focus on Egypt - siege of Damietta. Moves south to Cairo, cut off by floods, surrenders. Frederick II in 1229 exploits rivalries between Egypt/Syria to settle treaty with sultan of Egypt restoring Jerusalem to the Franks. City open to all, Haram al-Sharif the Temple Mount still under Islamic religious authority (similar to arrangement in 1967). Khwarazmian raiders and Turkish freebooters under pay by sultan of Egypt take back in 1244, remains under Muslim rule till 1917.

Mamluks replace heirs of Saladin in Egypt 1250s, professional caste of Turk slave warriors. Franks ally with Mongols, but Mongols beaten by Mamluks. Final loss of Christian outposts in Syria and Palestine in 1291. Antioch in 1268. Tripoli 1289. Acre 1291. All ports levelled.

Louis IX captures Damietta 1249. Assault on interior disintegrates through disease, fatigue. Louis captured, gives back Damietta and msasive ransom.

Innocent III declares war against Cathar heretics (Albigensians) 1208, goes from cauterizing heresy to brutal land seizure - offers Holy Land indulgences to northern French barons. Used similarly against Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and French Hugueonots. Causes the Thirty Years War with Hohenstaufen Frederick II that ends with papal nominee Charles of Anjou as ruler of Sicily and Naples.

Failure of crusades to end the Great Papal Schaism (1378-1417) led to abandonment of this form of holy war.

First Lateran Council 1123 extends privileges of expedition to Jerusalem to fighting the Muslims in Spain. Crusades against Moors in 1147. Muslim fundamentalist Almohads from N.Africa attack Iberia, provoking more crusades. Spanish Reconquista - Balearics and Valencia by James I of Aragon. Cordova, Seville to Ferdinand III of Castile pens Moors in emirate of Granada until 1492.

Medieval world map shows Jerusalem at center, navel of the world (East to the bottom).

[Leon McNair · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction


While the book is informative it is by intention supposed to be an introduction. However, it is not as easy a read as one would hope for in an introduction.
Christopher Tyerman starts this book by deconstructing the popular myths and misconceptions that is often seen in public platforms on topics about the Crusades. The breakdown includes heavy misrepresentations, such as the term itself habitually used to portray an expansive army throughout years of holy wars with a 'universal' means of conquest. When one mentions "the Crusades", it will usually conjure up this misleading idea of them. Christopher Tyerman also provides a chronological summary of events starting from c.400AD to 2003-4, ending with the Iraqi war. He also mentions the wars in other plains, namely Spain & Portugal (Iberian Peninsula), France, Italy, and the Balkans. The Iberian Peninsula's Reconquista war is mentioned for being the longest war in history, as a desperate attempt to regain the Christian lands that were lost to Muslim invaders from Carthage. The Crusades/Jihad fused Christians and Muslims in a messy, desperate struggle of various holy wars across many Continents that lasted over a millennium, and is still present in some minds.

"On the face of it, few mentalities... could be less accessible to modern observers in the Western cultural tradition than this. Yet no aspect of Christian medieval history enjoys clearer modern recognition than the Crusades, nor has been more subject to egregious distortion. Most of what passes in public as knowledge of the Crusades is misleading or false. The Crusades were not solely wars against Islam in Palestine. They were not chiefly conducted by land-hungry younger sons, nor were they part of some early attempt to impose Western economic hegemony on the World. More fundamentally, they did not represent an aberration from Christian teaching." p.2-3

[Pete · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Crusades : A Very Short Introduction (2004) by Christopher Tyerman describes the strange tale of the various Crusades to the Holy Lands and into the Baltic States from 1095. Tyerman is a Professor at Oxford.

There are chapters defining the Crusades, discussing the crusades in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Crusades in the West, the impact of The Crusades, Holy War, The Business of the Cross, Holy Lands and one the summarises and discusses the Crusades and views of them in the modern world.

The Crusades are fascinating but even a light overview involves lots of engaging and understanding with history of the era. This doesn’t really fit in a Very Short Introduction so the question of what to include and exclude becomes very difficult. Tyerman wrote a book in 2006 that is ~1000 pages and it appears that he must have written this book while writing that one and trying to cram in as much as possible. The book then doesn’t quite work. It’s a little too dense and not particularly well organised.

It’s really interesting to ponder why people went on The Crusades, how it was possible economically, how the weakness of Islam at the time also made it possible after Islam’s initial rapid expansion, why the focus wasn’t on pushing the Moors out of Spain and many other issues. This book does give you some insights into this but not in a particularly coherent way.

The Crusades is worth a read if you want more than a wikipedia page but less than a 1000 page tome, but it’s not a particularly good Very Short Introduction.

[Edoardo Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s not easy to cram four hundred years of military, religious and political endeavour into less than 50,000 words but Christopher Tyerman does stirling work. In particular, he works hard to disabuse the reader of many of the false ideas about the Crusades that have become common currency: that they were a land grab by European nobility, that they should be viewed through contemporary political lenses and that the Crusaders were uniquely barbaric.

The main problem with writing about the Crusades is that Steven Runciman casts a long shadow. His books became the source of almost all popular views of the Crusades and it’s only now that his legacy is slowly being unpicked.

Tyerman acknowledges that he is not the writer that Steven Runciman was, but he sets out to gently correct many of the myths that Runciman promulgated about the Crusades. Unfortunately, Runciman was a writer with an eye for the telling detail and no compunction about employing these details to bolster his own rhetoric. Tyerman is nowhere near his equal as a writer, but he is a much better historian.

So read this book for a more staid, but more truthful, account of the Crusades.

[Colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

For those expecting a concise, easy-to-follow introduction on The Crusades look elsewhere. The title, originally published as Fighting for Christendom, is a departure from the usual format of a Very Short Introduction. The prose is florid and academic, a collection of essays with no central narrative as such. Rather Tyerman seeks to dispel myths and rhetoric about the Crusades both in our time and in history. On this, he defines what is a crusade, what it means to go on crusade, how crusaders thought about themselves and their mission. Broader geopolitical themes are covered, the involvement of the papacy, monarchies of Western Europe, the role of the Italian merchant republics and the Byzantines. The chapter Holy War, contrasting religiosity of the Latin Christian church with Islamic faith, provided context for why Christians of this era became so militant. At times the nuance is lost in muddy waters, the overuse of complex sentence structures and unusual word selection distract from Tyerman's core message.Yet for those who don't mind occasional trips to visit our friends the dictionary and thesaurus, there is intellectual stimulation to be had.

[Matthew B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose it is inevitable that any overview of the crusades written in the last fifty years will take up a lot of space discussing later conflicts between European and Middle-Eastern states and how these conflicts are always likened to crusades and sometimes (Christopher Tyerman would firmly say erroneously) supposed to be distant after-effects of the crusades. But aiming for contemporary relevance will make anything quickly seem dated, and I didn't have to check the copyright page and see that The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction was published in 2004 to know that it was written in the early days of the Iraq War. Not that it is bad as a general introduction to the history of the crusades (though discussion of the political situation was a little skimpy, as compared with discussion of cultural background), but it was clearly addressed to readers in a political/historical situation which has transformed considerably even in the fourteen years since the book was written.

[Lucas Sipe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really compact book (140 pages) on idea/ development of Crusading but not so much the history of Crusades (like persons/ dates although they are there). The author is always quick to distinguish between what we think of the Crusades versus what they were. His chapter on Holy War was very interesting and actually pretty eye opening (had long been a part of Christianity) and his refusal to equate it with Islam. There is stuff on historiography and trends in scholarship but really focuses on what Crusading is and how the West went about doing it. It ends with him bashing those lazy enough to draw simple conclusions to Modern problems in the Middle East via the Crusades. Written in 2004, it's obviously in the immediate post 9-11 era, so I wonder how scholarship has changed since then. Overall, a decent account of a very controversial topic that eliminates common misconceptions.

[Mehmet Dönmez · Rating 2 out of 5]

disappointing... not in the sense that it insists on spreading the political message for the modern conflict (irrespective that this message is "politically corect") but also in the sense that it does not elaborate on the religious and political motivation for this historical phenomena - at least to the extend I expect. The attempt to cover all aspects in terms of different geographic conflicts (such ad Iberian peninsula and the Baltic region) is appreciated but is not my personel area of concern.
last but not the least - the way book is written, phrases, idioms, all vivid subjectives was -again- challenging for me but I reckon this is my bad.

[Alex Linschoten · Rating 4 out of 5]

A summary of the Crusades, debates among historians and some of its contemporary inheritance
Tyerman contends that the crusades were 'complex' in their motivation on the side of the Franks. He doesn't offer much room for contemporary effects, dismissing attempts to make links to present-day conflicts.
Tyerman does a good job not getting *too* bogged down in the details of what happened when and where. A certain amount of that needs to happen in any book of its kind. For 140+ pages, though, this is a good overview of debates, main milestones and consequences of the Crusades.

[Steve Mitchell · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first sentence of the suggested further reading is this: “Historically, the study of the Crusades has usually been marked by prejudice, bias , and judgementalism.”
This book takes a very Christian and European centred point of view throughout. Although I learned some new facts about the Crusades, I’m not sure that I’m actually any the wiser for it. I might have done better skipping this and going straight to the books recommended for further reading

[Ali Rehman · Rating 2 out of 5]

If anyone wants to know about crusades, I do not think this book serves the purpose. The book although is concise to the point but its writing style does not make it an easy to understand book. I might be wrong about the book as it is my first attempt to read such an important topic of our history in a very short introduction format. Fingers crossed for the rest of the books in the series which I have already purchased.

[Greg Hovanesian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book takes an unapologetically critical look at the Crusades. While it is fair throughout, it does not shy from showing just how ugly and wrong-headed most of these 'crusades' were. Most importantly, this book shows how the crusades never really ended, and in so many ways are continuing today. This is an important book for anyone interested in how history continues to affect our current world.