What do you think?
Rate this book
What Were the Crusades?
Few attempts had been made to define 'the crusade' before this book was first published in 1977. Since then, a number of historians have built on Jonathan Riley-Smith's original conclusions. Now in its fourth edition, this classic starting point for the study of the crusading movement has been updated to take into account the latest developments in the field. What Were the Crusades?
128 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1977
7 people are currently reading
211 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Riley-Smith
43 books49 followersJonathan Simon Christopher Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge, was educated at Eton College and Trinity College Cambridge. He received his BA (1960), MA (1964), PhD (1964) and LittD (2001) from Cambridge.
From 1964–1972 Dr. Riley-Smith taught in the Department of Medieval History at the Unversity of St Andrews, first as assistant lecturer, until 1966, then as lecturer. From 1972 until 1978, he served on the history faculty at the University of Cambridge. He was professor of history at the University of London from 1978 until 1994. Since 1994, Professor Riley-Smith has served on the faculties of history and divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. From 1997 to 1999 he was chair of the faculty of history.
He was a founder member (1980), acting secretary (1980–1982) and president (1987–1995) of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Other positions he has held include Knight of Grace and Devotion, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Officer of Merit, Order Pro Merito Melitens, and Knight of Justice, Most Venerable Order of St John.
From 1964–1972 Dr. Riley-Smith taught in the Department of Medieval History at the Unversity of St Andrews, first as assistant lecturer, until 1966, then as lecturer. From 1972 until 1978, he served on the history faculty at the University of Cambridge. He was professor of history at the University of London from 1978 until 1994. Since 1994, Professor Riley-Smith has served on the faculties of history and divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. From 1997 to 1999 he was chair of the faculty of history.
He was a founder member (1980), acting secretary (1980–1982) and president (1987–1995) of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Other positions he has held include Knight of Grace and Devotion, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Officer of Merit, Order Pro Merito Melitens, and Knight of Justice, Most Venerable Order of St John.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
Read
November 11, 2015There are two things that I particularly dislike about this book. First the insistence that students shouldn't read primary source material and secondly the title. Irritable that I am, a more accurate title for the view advanced in this book might be 'What someone employed by the Papal Court circa 1200 might have considered the Crusades to be'.
On the other hand the book provides the kind of neat, simple definition that enables generations of students to write neat, simple essays . Quite how the crusades were perceived by participants, secular supporters, and victims is another issue entirely.
But if you do have an essay on the subject to be handed in shortly or are yearning to know what definition of a crusade that a notary at the court of Innocent III may well have agreed with then this is the book for you.
On the other hand the book provides the kind of neat, simple definition that enables generations of students to write neat, simple essays . Quite how the crusades were perceived by participants, secular supporters, and victims is another issue entirely.
But if you do have an essay on the subject to be handed in shortly or are yearning to know what definition of a crusade that a notary at the court of Innocent III may well have agreed with then this is the book for you.
December 28, 2021
Es interesante ver cómo la Iglesia engañaba y tergiversaba su religión para hacer creer a sus soldados creyentes que estaban luchando por una causa justa, por Dios; en vez de estar luchando por su continuidad de poder y hegemonía.
December 6, 2013
OK. Short.
July 12, 2017
In What Were the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith attempts to answer his rhetorical question by arguing they were religious military expeditions. He argues further that the crusaders were not, as had been claimed, culturally inferior to their opponents. Nor were the crusades “generated as much by economic forces as by ideological forces.” [p xv]. By this expansion he fails to make his case, as the career of the rapacious Charles of Anjou or the stupefying Emperor Frederick II show.
The Crusades directly or indirectly aimed to restore Jerusalem to Christendom – with the assurance that the campaign would be arduously strategic. Much in the way Rome swiped into the Punic War by first attacking a far-away dependent ally of Carthage as prelude to attacking that city, a crusade could well justify itself by attacking any Islamic-held region. Charles of Anjou, brother of the saintly Louis IX of France, used just such logic to sell his brother on attacking Egypt. Not only would Islamic Egypt feel the wrath of Charles, but so would the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor, Michael VIII. The result was the deadly battle at Mansourah, where in 1250 Louis lost his brother Robert of Artois and a good deal of his army. Charles was able to use auspices of crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire set up in Constantinople at the Fourth Crusade – he married off his daughter to the dispossessed Latin Emperor, Baldwin II, in 1267. Political intrigue from the crafty Michael VIII combined with Aragon to unseat Charles in the Sicilian Vespers. Riley-Smith notes this turn in the outlook of regional goals after 1291 were twofold: “the recovery of Jerusalem and the defence [sic] of the remaining Latin settlements in Greece and the Greek islands, especially against the piratical activities of the Turks.” The crusading movement became mercantilist; Rome directed a war against Mediterranean piracy once again much as it had under Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
The efforts tended to have some overt or tangential link to the deposed Lusignan dynasty of Cyprus, one of the many claimants to the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Yet that kingdom was a composite behemoth, a French head on a Levantine body: “political, legal and social dominance of a relatively privileged minority to that of the vast majority.”The Mediterranean was still a popular sea route for many crusaders, so control of the trade routes became a strategic consideration for the purpose of recovery of Jerusalem. Was it not in the incorporation charter of the Knights Templar to protect the pilgrim trail to Jerusalem? That was overland, but the logic easily could be extended to cover all routes.
Riley-Smith makes much of his case – that the Crusades were primarily religious military excursions – on the pious motivation of the crusaders, many of whom took vows. He uses the example of the family of Montlhéry, which was related to a great many houses of Europe at the time of the First Crusade. The head of the family, Guy I de Montlhéry (d. 1095), saw two sons, two sons-in-law, six grandsons (one of whom was King Baldwin II of Jerusalem himself), a great-grandson and husband of a great-granddaughter all take the cross. Yet for all these families of piety, there are also balances of cool calculation: Venice used the Fourth Crusade to humble heretical Constantinople in 1204. Pope Innocent III and King Waldemar II of Denmark later had crusade considerations hamper the discussions with Philip II Augustus of France, whose second marriage was to Waldemar’s sister. Philip’s repudiation of her led to excommunication, which in turn would hamper his participation in any crusade. And as terms for crusader armies helping Byzantium against the common Turkish enemy, the Crusaders forced upon Emperor Michael VIII a Union of Eastern and Western Churches at Lyons in 1274. His son Andronikos II repudiated the union as soon as Michael died in 1282, and Michael VIII was denied Christian Orthodox burial because of his agreed Union with Rome.
Frederick II, that Emperor so well-versed in Epicureanism, Greek and Islamic knowledge, and openness of thought, had his own crusade, arguably the most successful. He negotiated a deal in 1227 with the Sultan of Egypt for Christians to enjoy free passage to Jerusalem, and he did so while under excommunication from Pope Gregory IX. Frederick was king of Jerusalem in right of his wife. The Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller condemned him for this, and Riley-Smith in previous editions termed the end of the Crusades at the end of the last of the knightly military Orders, the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, in 1798 on Malta. Now he is not so sure; nor is Europe. For “The nineteenth-century rhetoric was taken literally by the Muslims. The idea that the West, having lost the first round in the crusades, had with imperialism embarked upon another was first expressed by the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II in the 1890s. And the riposte came soon: the scholarly Pope Benedict XVI quoted the 1391 letter of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II concerning the forced conversions practiced by Islam.
The Crusades directly or indirectly aimed to restore Jerusalem to Christendom – with the assurance that the campaign would be arduously strategic. Much in the way Rome swiped into the Punic War by first attacking a far-away dependent ally of Carthage as prelude to attacking that city, a crusade could well justify itself by attacking any Islamic-held region. Charles of Anjou, brother of the saintly Louis IX of France, used just such logic to sell his brother on attacking Egypt. Not only would Islamic Egypt feel the wrath of Charles, but so would the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor, Michael VIII. The result was the deadly battle at Mansourah, where in 1250 Louis lost his brother Robert of Artois and a good deal of his army. Charles was able to use auspices of crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire set up in Constantinople at the Fourth Crusade – he married off his daughter to the dispossessed Latin Emperor, Baldwin II, in 1267. Political intrigue from the crafty Michael VIII combined with Aragon to unseat Charles in the Sicilian Vespers. Riley-Smith notes this turn in the outlook of regional goals after 1291 were twofold: “the recovery of Jerusalem and the defence [sic] of the remaining Latin settlements in Greece and the Greek islands, especially against the piratical activities of the Turks.” The crusading movement became mercantilist; Rome directed a war against Mediterranean piracy once again much as it had under Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
The efforts tended to have some overt or tangential link to the deposed Lusignan dynasty of Cyprus, one of the many claimants to the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Yet that kingdom was a composite behemoth, a French head on a Levantine body: “political, legal and social dominance of a relatively privileged minority to that of the vast majority.”The Mediterranean was still a popular sea route for many crusaders, so control of the trade routes became a strategic consideration for the purpose of recovery of Jerusalem. Was it not in the incorporation charter of the Knights Templar to protect the pilgrim trail to Jerusalem? That was overland, but the logic easily could be extended to cover all routes.
Riley-Smith makes much of his case – that the Crusades were primarily religious military excursions – on the pious motivation of the crusaders, many of whom took vows. He uses the example of the family of Montlhéry, which was related to a great many houses of Europe at the time of the First Crusade. The head of the family, Guy I de Montlhéry (d. 1095), saw two sons, two sons-in-law, six grandsons (one of whom was King Baldwin II of Jerusalem himself), a great-grandson and husband of a great-granddaughter all take the cross. Yet for all these families of piety, there are also balances of cool calculation: Venice used the Fourth Crusade to humble heretical Constantinople in 1204. Pope Innocent III and King Waldemar II of Denmark later had crusade considerations hamper the discussions with Philip II Augustus of France, whose second marriage was to Waldemar’s sister. Philip’s repudiation of her led to excommunication, which in turn would hamper his participation in any crusade. And as terms for crusader armies helping Byzantium against the common Turkish enemy, the Crusaders forced upon Emperor Michael VIII a Union of Eastern and Western Churches at Lyons in 1274. His son Andronikos II repudiated the union as soon as Michael died in 1282, and Michael VIII was denied Christian Orthodox burial because of his agreed Union with Rome.
Frederick II, that Emperor so well-versed in Epicureanism, Greek and Islamic knowledge, and openness of thought, had his own crusade, arguably the most successful. He negotiated a deal in 1227 with the Sultan of Egypt for Christians to enjoy free passage to Jerusalem, and he did so while under excommunication from Pope Gregory IX. Frederick was king of Jerusalem in right of his wife. The Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller condemned him for this, and Riley-Smith in previous editions termed the end of the Crusades at the end of the last of the knightly military Orders, the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, in 1798 on Malta. Now he is not so sure; nor is Europe. For “The nineteenth-century rhetoric was taken literally by the Muslims. The idea that the West, having lost the first round in the crusades, had with imperialism embarked upon another was first expressed by the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II in the 1890s. And the riposte came soon: the scholarly Pope Benedict XVI quoted the 1391 letter of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II concerning the forced conversions practiced by Islam.
April 11, 2021
What Were The Crusades?
A good book to pair with this reading might be - The Debate On The Crusades, Christopher Tyerman
The author's style of writing is very invitingly easy to read; there are no unnecessary overly-complicated words; a vastly expansive area of interest is neatly detailed; and the link between Church, crusader, crusade, and a holy war, are all presented succinctly in this book.
What were the views by historians of the Crusades in the 19th Century? Do these views still hold up, after the events bringing about the cataclysmic necessity to fight in World War I & II for today's freedom? What even were the Crusades? Jonathan Riley-Smith defines what constituted a crusade, and how and why they started at a desperate time of retaliation for the recovery of Christian territories in Christendom.
A good book to pair with this reading might be - The Debate On The Crusades, Christopher Tyerman
The author's style of writing is very invitingly easy to read; there are no unnecessary overly-complicated words; a vastly expansive area of interest is neatly detailed; and the link between Church, crusader, crusade, and a holy war, are all presented succinctly in this book.
What were the views by historians of the Crusades in the 19th Century? Do these views still hold up, after the events bringing about the cataclysmic necessity to fight in World War I & II for today's freedom? What even were the Crusades? Jonathan Riley-Smith defines what constituted a crusade, and how and why they started at a desperate time of retaliation for the recovery of Christian territories in Christendom.
August 21, 2019
Avanzad con certeza, caballeros, y partid sin temer a los enemigos de la cruz de Cristo, seguros de que ni la muerte ni la vida os pueden separar del amor de Dios que se encuentra en Jesucristo. ¡Cuán gloriosos son los que regresan victoriosos del campo de batalla! ¡Cuán felices son quienes mueren como mártires en la batalla! Regocijaos, valientes atletas, si sobrevivís y vencéis con el Señor; pero regocijaos y glorificaos aún más si morís y os unís al Señor. Porque vuestra vida es plena y vuestra victoria es gloriosa. Pero la muerte es más fértil y gloriosa. Porque si aquellos que mueren en la gloria del Señor son bendecidos, ¡aún lo son más quienes mueren por él!
March 14, 2017
Scholarly, yet accessible, this answers the how, what, when, where, who, and why. Includes chronology, bibliography, and index.
1095 Pope Urban to approximately 1570, yet activity all the way up to 1798
1095 Pope Urban to approximately 1570, yet activity all the way up to 1798
August 6, 2022
Muchos conceptos nuevos e interesantes. Me falta mucho conocimiento de esa etapa. El libro es ameno, conciso. Es breve, cosa meritoria teniendo en cuenta el tiempo que abarcan las cruzadas.
No deberíamos tener tan olvidada nuestra propia historia.
No deberíamos tener tan olvidada nuestra propia historia.
May 17, 2025
Definitely an academic piece but still extremely engaging.
Internally this is definitely more than a 3 star due to my own interest, but for general reading as a mostly fiction enjoyer I gotta put it there.
Internally this is definitely more than a 3 star due to my own interest, but for general reading as a mostly fiction enjoyer I gotta put it there.
May 5, 2024
Decent summary. Seems to be pulled from various lectures. Very light on details but it's a short read.
December 30, 2020
Excelente aproximación erudita al fenómeno de la cruzadas.
Muy breve pero muy académica. Realmente recomendable.
Muy breve pero muy académica. Realmente recomendable.
February 5, 2011
Jonathan Riley-Smith’s book What Were the Crusades? provides a very brief glimpse into the world of the Crusades. He gives a general definition from period sources as to what contemporaries thought crusades were. Participants were called to “take the cross,” answer a legitimate call made by the Pope, told to go either abroad or remain closer to home to fight a “just war” against the enemies of Christendom. Participants knew they would be granted special privileges in return for their devout service.
Riley-Smith’s whole book stems from this definition. In the next chapter he defined a just cause and summarized “just war” in the medieval mindset. He then stated that the Pope was the only authority who could declare a crusade; God’s representative on earth alone had the power to declare holy war. The fourth chapter gives a basic outline of what type of people tended to go on crusades, and the final chapter breezed through the topic of the difficulty in dating the crusades.
Riley-Smith did give some examples of crusader ideology. Unlike John France who couldn’t explain why crusaders went, Riley-Smith does provide reasons, primarily religious in nature. The concepts of the indulgence and absolution of sin through taking the cross was explained in enough detail for those unfamiliar with the concept to be able to understand it. The different levels of vows and varying durations of vows were clearly detailed and differentiated. This book dealt fully with the Western European’s view of crusades, and did not take the Muslim perspective into account; though given the books shortness of length this is understandable.
The chapters that involved papal authority and guidance were solid. Riley-Smith showed the difficulties popes and their representatives had to face in raising armies and financing them. The section dealing with the uncontrollability of a crusader army once unleashed, for example during the Fourth Crusade, show the challenges of trying to be the spiritual leader of an exhibition while being thousands of miles away really doesn’t work out well.
While Riley-Smith’s book does provide some very general overview material on the crusades, I thought that the book was too superficial and generic. It is an introduction, and perhaps to someone with absolutely no knowledge of the crusades it could be beneficial. This book barely scratched the surface of crusading history. Riley-Smith’s book focused on the ideological underpinnings to the crusade mindset, which are necessary to understanding the crusades; but I think parts of the book could have had a stronger presentation.
Riley-Smith’s whole book stems from this definition. In the next chapter he defined a just cause and summarized “just war” in the medieval mindset. He then stated that the Pope was the only authority who could declare a crusade; God’s representative on earth alone had the power to declare holy war. The fourth chapter gives a basic outline of what type of people tended to go on crusades, and the final chapter breezed through the topic of the difficulty in dating the crusades.
Riley-Smith did give some examples of crusader ideology. Unlike John France who couldn’t explain why crusaders went, Riley-Smith does provide reasons, primarily religious in nature. The concepts of the indulgence and absolution of sin through taking the cross was explained in enough detail for those unfamiliar with the concept to be able to understand it. The different levels of vows and varying durations of vows were clearly detailed and differentiated. This book dealt fully with the Western European’s view of crusades, and did not take the Muslim perspective into account; though given the books shortness of length this is understandable.
The chapters that involved papal authority and guidance were solid. Riley-Smith showed the difficulties popes and their representatives had to face in raising armies and financing them. The section dealing with the uncontrollability of a crusader army once unleashed, for example during the Fourth Crusade, show the challenges of trying to be the spiritual leader of an exhibition while being thousands of miles away really doesn’t work out well.
While Riley-Smith’s book does provide some very general overview material on the crusades, I thought that the book was too superficial and generic. It is an introduction, and perhaps to someone with absolutely no knowledge of the crusades it could be beneficial. This book barely scratched the surface of crusading history. Riley-Smith’s book focused on the ideological underpinnings to the crusade mindset, which are necessary to understanding the crusades; but I think parts of the book could have had a stronger presentation.
September 6, 2015
This is a well-written, short book that answers the question posed by its title. Its author obvioulsy possesses a wide and deep understanding of the Crusades, which can make for sentences packed with names and cities that are not exactly common knowledge. But that's OK: Riley-Smith lays out his answer in five clearly-marked and subdivided chapters; these concern just what consituted a Crusade and how they were justified, how the authority to launch them moved from the Pope to the local clergy, how indulgences work, and who took up the Cross (as crusading was called).
Riley-Smith also assumes that dismissing the Crusaders as looters afects our understanding of them. He states that the "moral repugnance" and "disapproval of what were considered to be typical manifestations of Catholic bigotry and zealotry" will not help anyone understand the Crusades:
This is as direct as he gets to a mission statement, but this atitude informs his overall portrayal of the Crusades. In his chapter "Who Were the Crusaders?" he argues that the simple motive of booty does not explain away the complexities of the times. "The last thing most sensible crusaders would have expected," he argues, "was material gain."
Riley-Smith also assumes that dismissing the Crusaders as looters afects our understanding of them. He states that the "moral repugnance" and "disapproval of what were considered to be typical manifestations of Catholic bigotry and zealotry" will not help anyone understand the Crusades:
"These attitudes," he states at the opening, "leading to images of crusades and crusaders which were caricatures, are still with us, deforming academic as well as popular history. I have always believed that objectivity and empathy demand that we abandon them, because otherwise we will never understand a movement which touched the lives of the ancestors of everyone of European descent."
This is as direct as he gets to a mission statement, but this atitude informs his overall portrayal of the Crusades. In his chapter "Who Were the Crusaders?" he argues that the simple motive of booty does not explain away the complexities of the times. "The last thing most sensible crusaders would have expected," he argues, "was material gain."
July 17, 2014
This was good. I wanted a quick "refresher" on the Crusades, and this was just right. The author's stated goal is to define the term "crusade," and so, appropriately, he focuses on issues such as the motivations and mindset(s) of the participants; the division and uses of power among the various religious and sacred authorities; and the ways in which Christian theology and Church doctrine supported and restrained (or didn't restrain) the Crusades. He puts a strong emphasis on the penitential aspect of the Crusades -- the idea that many who went on or supported the Crusades were motivated by the promise of indulgences -- and also on that of Holy War (defined as the defense of or reclamation of areas which had at some point been Christian, and the suppression of heretics). I'm currently also reading Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, and Riley-Smith's focus on religious motivations is a nice change from Tuchman's endless insistence that sheer blood-thirstiness was the only real motivator in this period. The author does his best to explain the ideas behind the Crusades, often supported by excerpts from papal letters, sermons, etc., without spending time passing judgment on views which he acknowledges few now would consider valid.
January 18, 2008
This book IS available in a sharp looking 100 page softcover from Ignatius Press. Its the 3rd edition with new intro since its original publication in 1977. Dr. Riley-Smith, full professor at Cambridge, is THE leading authority on the Crusades.
This book is a workout for the non-specialist. Its obstensibly an exercise in definition: Few ever bother to define what exactly is a 'Crusade' and what isn't -- he shows the different schools of thought on this question and renders his own judgment. In the process he gives an historic overview, a highly sophisticated commentary on the crusade ideal (and ways the actual practice fell short), and much more. One of the best succinct definitions of the Christian Just War theory I've ever seen (as well as Holy War theories that have fallen out of favor).
If this leaves you wnating more, check out Riley-Smith's masterful The Crusades: A Short History (Yale). Also see the special issue on the Crusades by Christain history magazine form a few years ago (back issues available from Christianity Today Institute online). It is richly illustrated and includes a masterful interview with Riley-Smith among other things for a few dollars.
This book is a workout for the non-specialist. Its obstensibly an exercise in definition: Few ever bother to define what exactly is a 'Crusade' and what isn't -- he shows the different schools of thought on this question and renders his own judgment. In the process he gives an historic overview, a highly sophisticated commentary on the crusade ideal (and ways the actual practice fell short), and much more. One of the best succinct definitions of the Christian Just War theory I've ever seen (as well as Holy War theories that have fallen out of favor).
If this leaves you wnating more, check out Riley-Smith's masterful The Crusades: A Short History (Yale). Also see the special issue on the Crusades by Christain history magazine form a few years ago (back issues available from Christianity Today Institute online). It is richly illustrated and includes a masterful interview with Riley-Smith among other things for a few dollars.
March 12, 2011
After numerous aborted attempts to get through an introductory book on this extraordinarily important topic in Western history, What Were the Crusades? turned out to be the primer I was looking for.
Whereas other supposed introductions are weighed down with extensive surveys of specific battles and unintelligible names, Riley-Smith instead focuses on the trends in people, thought, and actions which characterized the crusades. He gets down to basics and tries to identify generalizations about a complex series of military campaigns over hundreds of years. In doing so, he reveals the profound effect the crusades had on early medieval Europe.
For those who think history should be about memorization, there are more than enough textbooks filled with dates and names of the crusades. But for those, like myself, who think history is about understanding the past and how it has lead to the world we inhabit today, What Were the Crusades? should be their first stop on any exploration of this topic.
Whereas other supposed introductions are weighed down with extensive surveys of specific battles and unintelligible names, Riley-Smith instead focuses on the trends in people, thought, and actions which characterized the crusades. He gets down to basics and tries to identify generalizations about a complex series of military campaigns over hundreds of years. In doing so, he reveals the profound effect the crusades had on early medieval Europe.
For those who think history should be about memorization, there are more than enough textbooks filled with dates and names of the crusades. But for those, like myself, who think history is about understanding the past and how it has lead to the world we inhabit today, What Were the Crusades? should be their first stop on any exploration of this topic.
March 13, 2025
I believe that this book is a really good resource for understanding the basic principles of what a crusade is and some of the major issues surrounding it. I mostly just left this book a little confused and a little bored. I will admit this is probably because I’m not a medievalist nor particularly interested in the medieval period. I found this book somewhat hard to follow at points as Riley-Smith kinda ping pongs around the crusading period both chronologically and geographically which for someone not particularly knowledgeable is a bit confusing. Definitely a good resource on the period however just not for me
Read
November 22, 2016I read this book for my college class about the crusades and I found it very informational and helped set up our talk about what we thought the crusaders were. It was interesting to read about Riley-Smith's view on what the crusades were and he also shared some other views on the crusades. As well as some of what historians think about the crusade and the number of different opions one can find on this topic.
June 22, 2012
Awell written small book that concentrates on the religious reasons given by the different Crusades to justify war against one of the main commandments of God. It explains too the Crusades that had been launched in Spain, Germany and Byzantium.
July 1, 2013
A fast and accurate overview of the facts related to the Crusades. The timeline is particularly useful.
November 16, 2013
Excellent, brief intro to crusade history themes and major figures.
March 11, 2015
Informative, read for a class. Pretty biased since it only focuses on the crusader's penitential aspect, but oh well...that's history for you.
February 26, 2016
Very informative. I don't have time to read a 900 page book. Quality material. Fast read.
April 23, 2017
Heavy author opinion, hard to hear the history.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews