What do you think?
Rate this book
الحرب المقدسة: الحملات الصليبية وأثرها على العالم اليوم
Karen Armstrong, bestselling author of A History of God, skillfully narrates this history of the Crusades with a view toward their profound and continuing influence.
In 1095 Pope Urban II summoned Christian warriors to take up the cross and reconquer the Holy Land. Thus began the holy wars that would focus the power of Europe against a common enemy and become the stuff of romantic legend. In reality the Crusades were a series of rabidly savage conflicts in the name of piety. And, as Armstrong demonstrates in this fascinating book, their legacy of religious violence continues today in the Middle East, where the age-old conflict of Christians, Jews, and Muslims persists.
In 1095 Pope Urban II summoned Christian warriors to take up the cross and reconquer the Holy Land. Thus began the holy wars that would focus the power of Europe against a common enemy and become the stuff of romantic legend. In reality the Crusades were a series of rabidly savage conflicts in the name of piety. And, as Armstrong demonstrates in this fascinating book, their legacy of religious violence continues today in the Middle East, where the age-old conflict of Christians, Jews, and Muslims persists.
709 pages
First published January 1, 1988
159 people are currently reading
2702 people want to read
About the author
Karen Armstrong
114 books3,414 followersKaren Armstrong is a British author and commentator of Irish Catholic descent known for her books on comparative religion. A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith. She attended St Anne's College, Oxford, while in the convent and graduated in English. She left the convent in 1969. Her work focuses on commonalities of the major religions, such as the importance of compassion and the Golden Rule.
Armstrong received the US$100,000 TED Prize in February 2008. She used that occasion to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year.
Armstrong received the US$100,000 TED Prize in February 2008. She used that occasion to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews
April 3, 2012
Armstrong displays little knowledge or concern about the intricacies of a complex series of medieval wars - if the Crusades can even be considered wars in today's sense. Instead, she crafted a book that confirms the modern view of crazy religious warriors driven by fear, hate and ignorance. Maybe I am simplifying Armstong too much, so I will cite specific problems with this book. First, the role of the Byzantines are their recent losses to the Turks are barely explained and the Battle of Manzikert is not even mentioned. Also, she seems uncomfortable with the idea of the Crusades as a response to two centuries of Arab conquests because the Islsmic expansion had largely ceased for over a century before the Crusades. However, she later argues that the Crusades deeply impacted the Middle East and continue to affect the Wests' relation with the Islamic world. One can't have it both ways. The Islamic conquests cannot become a distant, irrelevant memory in two centuries while the Crusades coninue to reverberate after eight hundred years. Furthermore, she speculates that non-Muslims were probably "grateful" to be conquered by the Arabs. Whatever she's doing, it is not history, it's political (or politically correct). Read Runciman, Asbridge, Tyreman and Madden. Each one has a slightly different view of causation and motivation, without oversimplification.
In her favor, she is a talented writer and can be quite readable when not taken alongside historians who focus on the Crusades.
In her favor, she is a talented writer and can be quite readable when not taken alongside historians who focus on the Crusades.
January 10, 2008
While Armstrong openly admits that she is not to be studied as she is a mere armchair historian who actually studied religion and literature, she makes a point of making multiple judgments and predictions without bringing up sufficient supporting evidence. Reading what little I did was pure torture and I doubt I could ever finish this book!
December 18, 2023
Finally finished. 2 Stars Let me say a few good things before I get to how I really feel. She does a great job at explaining how the Crusaders managed to survive and win; or how they screwed up and lost. Her account of Saladin was really interesting and not what you might imagine. When she stays away from her biased views of the three religions, she writes an informative account of life in medieval Europe and the Mideast. Some fascinating characters and periods where the two sides, Muslims and Christians, found ways to live together in peace. Those parts of the book are really worth the read.
But the good is outweighed by the slanted views on Islam (good) and Judaism - Christianity (bad). I can’t say it any better than Michelle: When reading any book about historical events I always hope that the author will remain objective, I was disappointed this time. Part-way through it became obvious that Armstrong was another "white man-Westerners-Christians-Jews are bad, Easterners-Islamists-Arabs are mostly blameless and only reacting or responding to the prejudiced European heavy-handed colonialistic ways..... Sigh..... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Additionally, you will come to know that Judaism and Christianity are inherently violent while Islam is just peace. That Islam only fights defensive wars, all that territory captured across the Mideast, Africa, Spain, Eastern Europe was only a defensive war to protect Islam. No intent to spread the faith and convert or rule the infidels.
According to Armstrong, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived peacefully in a wonderful world prior to the Crusades. The evil Crusaders brought discord to a happy place. Of course, no one would say that the massacres and terrible actions of the Crusaders were justified. But she justifies all Islamic massacres and cruel episodes with “the Crusaders made me do it”. Any land conquered by Islam is forever Muslim, nothing can overcome that fact in her eyes. She sees Crusades everywhere. The new Model Army of Cromwell is a Crusade. The Puritan emigration to America is a Crusade. “Here a Crusade, there a Crusade, everywhere a Crusade…” Did you know there was no anti-Semitism in the Mideast until 1948 and the establishment of Israel. I’m sure the Jews killed in the 1921 and 1929 riots would be relieved to know it wasn’t anti-Semitism that motivated their killers. And her view is the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a salutary event because the Jews were just too confident and needed comeuppance.
So read this with a careful eye. She veers toward a polemic, not history. The thesis that the Crusades were the events overwhelmingly affecting the modern world is weak. What about the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and eastern Europe. That shut the gate on the West’s trade with India and the Orient. This motivated a search for new routes, resulting in the discovery of America and the route around the Cape of Good Hope, two events that reverberate larger, IMHO. The Islamic world was no longer center of the world.
But the good is outweighed by the slanted views on Islam (good) and Judaism - Christianity (bad). I can’t say it any better than Michelle: When reading any book about historical events I always hope that the author will remain objective, I was disappointed this time. Part-way through it became obvious that Armstrong was another "white man-Westerners-Christians-Jews are bad, Easterners-Islamists-Arabs are mostly blameless and only reacting or responding to the prejudiced European heavy-handed colonialistic ways..... Sigh..... https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Additionally, you will come to know that Judaism and Christianity are inherently violent while Islam is just peace. That Islam only fights defensive wars, all that territory captured across the Mideast, Africa, Spain, Eastern Europe was only a defensive war to protect Islam. No intent to spread the faith and convert or rule the infidels.
According to Armstrong, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived peacefully in a wonderful world prior to the Crusades. The evil Crusaders brought discord to a happy place. Of course, no one would say that the massacres and terrible actions of the Crusaders were justified. But she justifies all Islamic massacres and cruel episodes with “the Crusaders made me do it”. Any land conquered by Islam is forever Muslim, nothing can overcome that fact in her eyes. She sees Crusades everywhere. The new Model Army of Cromwell is a Crusade. The Puritan emigration to America is a Crusade. “Here a Crusade, there a Crusade, everywhere a Crusade…” Did you know there was no anti-Semitism in the Mideast until 1948 and the establishment of Israel. I’m sure the Jews killed in the 1921 and 1929 riots would be relieved to know it wasn’t anti-Semitism that motivated their killers. And her view is the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a salutary event because the Jews were just too confident and needed comeuppance.
So read this with a careful eye. She veers toward a polemic, not history. The thesis that the Crusades were the events overwhelmingly affecting the modern world is weak. What about the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and eastern Europe. That shut the gate on the West’s trade with India and the Orient. This motivated a search for new routes, resulting in the discovery of America and the route around the Cape of Good Hope, two events that reverberate larger, IMHO. The Islamic world was no longer center of the world.
December 16, 2007
From Library Journal
Recent historians have convincingly demonstrated that 13th-century European governments institutionalized three forms of irrational bigotry that have tragically affected the modern world: anti-Semitism, anti-homosexuality, and anti-Islam. This important book, which brings the perspective of a student of theology and literature who also knows traditional political history, sees the medieval Crusades as the root of current Middle East conflicts. Such a view substantiates the historical interpretation. The book attempts a "triple vision" of the concept of crusade or holy war for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, tracing the religious origins of conflict among the three peoples to their differing interpretations of scripture, the secular origins to 19th-century nationalism and imperialism. The result is an erudite, balanced, and lucidly written study which shows that false images, ridiculous perceptions, and absurd demons have haunted all three peoples. A mine of useful information on Muslim-Western perceptions of each other, this book for the general reader can be beneficially read by scholars and Middle Eastern experts.
-Bennett D. Hill, Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C.
Recent historians have convincingly demonstrated that 13th-century European governments institutionalized three forms of irrational bigotry that have tragically affected the modern world: anti-Semitism, anti-homosexuality, and anti-Islam. This important book, which brings the perspective of a student of theology and literature who also knows traditional political history, sees the medieval Crusades as the root of current Middle East conflicts. Such a view substantiates the historical interpretation. The book attempts a "triple vision" of the concept of crusade or holy war for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, tracing the religious origins of conflict among the three peoples to their differing interpretations of scripture, the secular origins to 19th-century nationalism and imperialism. The result is an erudite, balanced, and lucidly written study which shows that false images, ridiculous perceptions, and absurd demons have haunted all three peoples. A mine of useful information on Muslim-Western perceptions of each other, this book for the general reader can be beneficially read by scholars and Middle Eastern experts.
-Bennett D. Hill, Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C.
February 23, 2007
I cannot help but agree with much of what Armstrong theorizes and would recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding of the historical roots of some of the modern conflicts in this area. In the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, European Christendom was stumbling and Muslim power was at its impressive height: Christian insecurity and fear of the East (exemplified by the slaughter of European Jews and distrust of Byzantine Christians), more than anything, prompted the Crusades. The effect of the Crusades on the Muslim AND Arab mentality was a pulling in and isolationist movement throughout the Muslim world that broke down the power, wealth, learning, acceptance, and openmindedness that had so characterized the empire while the Dark Ages (illiteracy, disease, hunger, etc.) were ravaging Europe. Armstrong explores little-understood and long-held insecurities on both the West and the Middle East's parts toward each other in the face of today's conflicts.
December 25, 2014
If it’s true that there’s never objectivity in the telling of history, then perhaps the primary goal in the reading of it is to gain an insight into different viewpoints in the pursuit of empathy. If it’s also true that we all participate in history in the sense that it shapes our present then this pursuit of empathy becomes even more important when deep-rooted religious narratives are involved that all insist on their mutually exclusive interpretations of divine intervention. Further, when times of intense religious conflict arise, as during the Crusades, and as during our own time, new myths are fused with the old ones – even the foundational ones – to create ever more impenetrable narratives of division.
As a self-declared “independent monotheist”, Armstrong is uniquely suited for the telling of this history. She describes her ecumenical perspective as “triple vision”, which is the departure point for all of her work. This triple vision is none other than a non-dualistic outlook based on the transcendent unity that it as the heart of all three monotheisms. In this book, she takes us through the events and personalities that comprise the history of Mid-East conflict from Richard the Lionheart and Saladin to Sharon and Arafat. Through all of this storytelling, Armstrong has a predominant theme: the myths of religion touch the deepest reality, the deepest truth, the only truth, but these truths have a transcendent reality that becomes dangerous and deadly when forced into only one form or interpretation. This insistence of only one interpretation takes away the transcendent beauty and allows for its opposite to manifest in the form of control, power, manipulation and underlying agendas on every side.
It is because of the particular respect I have for a writer like Armstrong that allowed a book like this to have such an impact. I found myself being placed behind the eyes of the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem, but also behind the eyes of the Zionists of the 1800s and seeing both as humans with particular narratives, particular histories, particular beliefs. Simply put, she’s a master at giving equal time to all sides. She’s almost obsessive about it. To Armstrong, humanity is not only central to religious truth, but absolutely critical for peace in the Mid-East: “One does not make peace except with enemies and one does not make peace with enemies who are despised or who are conceived of as inhuman monsters.” (142-143).
As a self-declared “independent monotheist”, Armstrong is uniquely suited for the telling of this history. She describes her ecumenical perspective as “triple vision”, which is the departure point for all of her work. This triple vision is none other than a non-dualistic outlook based on the transcendent unity that it as the heart of all three monotheisms. In this book, she takes us through the events and personalities that comprise the history of Mid-East conflict from Richard the Lionheart and Saladin to Sharon and Arafat. Through all of this storytelling, Armstrong has a predominant theme: the myths of religion touch the deepest reality, the deepest truth, the only truth, but these truths have a transcendent reality that becomes dangerous and deadly when forced into only one form or interpretation. This insistence of only one interpretation takes away the transcendent beauty and allows for its opposite to manifest in the form of control, power, manipulation and underlying agendas on every side.
It is because of the particular respect I have for a writer like Armstrong that allowed a book like this to have such an impact. I found myself being placed behind the eyes of the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem, but also behind the eyes of the Zionists of the 1800s and seeing both as humans with particular narratives, particular histories, particular beliefs. Simply put, she’s a master at giving equal time to all sides. She’s almost obsessive about it. To Armstrong, humanity is not only central to religious truth, but absolutely critical for peace in the Mid-East: “One does not make peace except with enemies and one does not make peace with enemies who are despised or who are conceived of as inhuman monsters.” (142-143).
May 27, 2016
من أفضل الكتب التي قرأتها عن الحروب الصليبية. كارين ارمسترونغ كاتبة مبدعة ومن الطراز الرفيع. الكتاب كما يُبين عنوانه، فهو يحكي علاقة الحروب الصليبية بواقعنا الان بفلسطين المحتلة. المؤلفة تحكي هذه القصة من مصادر عربية وغربية ويهودية. فصول الكتاب تنقسم إلى قسمين الأول يحكي تاريخ الحروب الصليبية والثاني يحكي الاحتلال الصهيوني في الوقت الحاضر. بينما الفصل الأخير يربط تاريخيا بين هذين القسمين، فهو تاريخ للأفكار الصليبية من نهاية الحروب الصليبية إلى وقتنا الحاضر، مرورًا بالاستعمار ووعد بلفور ونشأة الصهيونية الصليبية.
المؤلفة بطول الكتاب تدعو إلى التعايش بين الديانات الثلاث بالأرض المقدسة، وهي تحذر من حروب دينية مقدسة بين المسلمين واليهود على طول الكتاب، لكنها لم تناقش عدالة المطاليب سواء لليهود أو المسلمين. جل ما يهمها هو الوصول لحل يستطيع الجميع من خلاله بالعيش بسلام. أيضًا المؤلفة تحمل العالم الغربي المسؤولية العظمى بكل المشاكل التي حصلت من وقت الحروب الصليبية إلى الآن، واعتقد انها هنا تحاملت نوعًا ما. حتى عند قراءتي لتعليقات بعض القرّاء الغربيين لكتابها رأيتهم يعطون
تقييم متدني للكتاب لهذا السبب.
عمومًا لم يقتل جمال هذا الكتاب إلا سوء تغليف دار الكتاب العربي، بطول الكتاب وأنا متخوف من أن يتمزع.
المؤلفة بطول الكتاب تدعو إلى التعايش بين الديانات الثلاث بالأرض المقدسة، وهي تحذر من حروب دينية مقدسة بين المسلمين واليهود على طول الكتاب، لكنها لم تناقش عدالة المطاليب سواء لليهود أو المسلمين. جل ما يهمها هو الوصول لحل يستطيع الجميع من خلاله بالعيش بسلام. أيضًا المؤلفة تحمل العالم الغربي المسؤولية العظمى بكل المشاكل التي حصلت من وقت الحروب الصليبية إلى الآن، واعتقد انها هنا تحاملت نوعًا ما. حتى عند قراءتي لتعليقات بعض القرّاء الغربيين لكتابها رأيتهم يعطون
تقييم متدني للكتاب لهذا السبب.
عمومًا لم يقتل جمال هذا الكتاب إلا سوء تغليف دار الكتاب العربي، بطول الكتاب وأنا متخوف من أن يتمزع.
January 16, 2010
Of little historical merit - Ms Armstrong is a religious relativist whose opinions cloud her feeble powers of objectivity
July 19, 2015
I came to this book with an idea of the crusades that pivoted on good king Arthur as told by a Disney fox version of Robin Hood. I found the book hugely enlightening and it has helped me along my journey to better understanding just how complex our history is and how little I should trust what I was told as a child (or adult really).
Without any second references, I finished the book suspicious that the author is promoting a sense of western guilt in the undercurrent of good history story telling. I liked the multi pronged approach to story telling. I liked thinking I was getting into the heads of each side. I learned a lot. But I came away feeling like the conclusion is that the middle east would be a wonderful place if not for those pesky crusaders. The authors tries to argue that religious zeal played a new and game changing part in the conflict, and mostly had me convinced. Having digested the book a little, I think this a little more tenuous. As another reviewer noted, the Muslim army had relatively recently swept around the Mediterranean and threatened all of the western way. And others did the same before and since. That popes where now pulling the strings seems inconsequential.
Dispute the above. I will recommend this read to anyone. the extent of Christian extremism at the time is my main take away from this book. And how religious zeal lead a few to make such disastrous decisions that lead to so many deaths, often without even finding an enemy.
The book is not a quick read, some of it is laborious, but then some of it flows quite well. By the end, I could not put it down.
Without any second references, I finished the book suspicious that the author is promoting a sense of western guilt in the undercurrent of good history story telling. I liked the multi pronged approach to story telling. I liked thinking I was getting into the heads of each side. I learned a lot. But I came away feeling like the conclusion is that the middle east would be a wonderful place if not for those pesky crusaders. The authors tries to argue that religious zeal played a new and game changing part in the conflict, and mostly had me convinced. Having digested the book a little, I think this a little more tenuous. As another reviewer noted, the Muslim army had relatively recently swept around the Mediterranean and threatened all of the western way. And others did the same before and since. That popes where now pulling the strings seems inconsequential.
Dispute the above. I will recommend this read to anyone. the extent of Christian extremism at the time is my main take away from this book. And how religious zeal lead a few to make such disastrous decisions that lead to so many deaths, often without even finding an enemy.
The book is not a quick read, some of it is laborious, but then some of it flows quite well. By the end, I could not put it down.
December 3, 2024
Karen Armstrong's central theme is a "triple vision" of history, seen through the perspectives of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. She uses this to weave a compelling and vivid account of the medieval crusades and the modern Middle East conflict. As you'd expect from a former nun, the author can come off like a finger-wagging scold. One would hardly suppose that a woman would appreciate martial values, and she has a "coexist" mindset, as well as a tendency to deviate from her primary subject.
As far as the triple vision thesis goes, Armstrong gives particularly short shrift to the Christians. A typical liberal, she heaps most of the criticism on her own people. The Jews, oddly enough, are treated fairly objectively. They're described as perennial victims, but acknowledged to have committed many sins themselves. The Muslims are handled with kid gloves, and frankly I'm surprised the author did not convert to Islam. In general though the book gives a wealth of historical information, written in a highly readable fashion.
As far as the triple vision thesis goes, Armstrong gives particularly short shrift to the Christians. A typical liberal, she heaps most of the criticism on her own people. The Jews, oddly enough, are treated fairly objectively. They're described as perennial victims, but acknowledged to have committed many sins themselves. The Muslims are handled with kid gloves, and frankly I'm surprised the author did not convert to Islam. In general though the book gives a wealth of historical information, written in a highly readable fashion.
October 5, 2010
Begun in May 2010 and still reading. Former nun and believer, Armstrong brings very new information in the history of Xity, Xian theology, Roman Catholicism and its history, Islam and its history, Judiasm and its history. She writes respectfully and critically about each religion. She shows how each of these developments have been "read back into" Old Testament and New Testaments canons; and, in an oversimplification, how each of these feeds into the current post 9-ll period. I think I am taking so long reading it because it leads me off into other books and articles, google searches, etc., that are related. A problem I have is if a history is written from a "Christian" point of view, one has to try to figure out what that history includes if one doesn't take that "Christian" point of view. A simple example is what one takes from the use of B.C./A.D. and BCE/CE. This is a very complex book but Armstrong presents her thinking very clearly.
January 6, 2008
Fantastic look at the Crusades and all the major players. Though it's a substantial read and can be confusing, particularly for those unfamiliar with the structure and meaning of Arabic names, this book is well worth the effort. Though Armstrong rarely explicitly says it, there are many parallels between the Christian European reaction of the Crusades (religious extremism by anyone's definition!) to the "occupation" of Jerusalem, and the current conflict going on around the world. This book will present a new prism through which to see the news every night. I would recommend tackling Armstrong's book on Islam prior to reading this for those with no background in the Middle East or Islam. It's a much shorter book and a fast read.
June 12, 2008
I knew very little about the Islamic beliefs or beginnings before reading this book - I'm impressed. Although Karen can get a bit tedious (repetitious at best) she provides a wealth of I believe unbiased information. I'll have to admit though that I forced myself to finish the last 150 pages, but I'm not a quitter and always afraid I might miss something important. I think she could have said all she needed to say in probably 400 words or less and it would have been more interesting.
October 31, 2011
This book seemed like an opportunity for Ms. Armstrong to vent her spleen against her former Catholic faith. The Christian Crusaders get a significantly fairer presentation in Maalouf's _The Crusades through Arab Eyes_ than they do here.
Read
June 23, 2023Do I recommend it? No.
Why?
Karen has three books that she is trying to write, each succeeding in their own individual ambitions but not reflecting a coherency of style or aim that a reader might hope for. The first book is the first few chapters which is a quite capable summation of religious development of the abrahamic religions up to the time of the crusades. The second is the story of the first two crusades. The third is a very minute examination of the origin of Israel and the conflict between Arabs and Jews and the involvement of the west. I would actually also say there's a fourth half of a book which is the rest of the 6 pope-called crusades which are dealt with more out of obligation than interest, it feels. By scope of treatment alone with the subject matter these are different books. By the end of the "book" it is clear that the one still most interesting to Karen is the founding and development of Israel which, you might notice, is not the title of or intended subject of the book.
If this were three different books I might recommend some or all of them and I definitely would recommend chapters of the book, but I can't help but feel that there are better books on the Crusades out there.
Why?
Karen has three books that she is trying to write, each succeeding in their own individual ambitions but not reflecting a coherency of style or aim that a reader might hope for. The first book is the first few chapters which is a quite capable summation of religious development of the abrahamic religions up to the time of the crusades. The second is the story of the first two crusades. The third is a very minute examination of the origin of Israel and the conflict between Arabs and Jews and the involvement of the west. I would actually also say there's a fourth half of a book which is the rest of the 6 pope-called crusades which are dealt with more out of obligation than interest, it feels. By scope of treatment alone with the subject matter these are different books. By the end of the "book" it is clear that the one still most interesting to Karen is the founding and development of Israel which, you might notice, is not the title of or intended subject of the book.
If this were three different books I might recommend some or all of them and I definitely would recommend chapters of the book, but I can't help but feel that there are better books on the Crusades out there.
April 15, 2009
I loved the first part of this book. It is, like all of her books, very well written. I knew very little about the Middle Ages and the Crusades, and the early chapters on those topics are excellent. This is a very ambitious book, though, and it fails to achieve some of its goals. That said, it is still very much worth reading. However, the author tries to find the roots of today's Middle Eastern conflict in the Crusades. To some extent, it is surprising how true this is, but even given that, she stretches current reality to make her point. She also takes a far more negative view of Christianity than she does of Islam. The villain of the Middle Ages for her is Christianity, and the frequent villain of today is Israel. The sections on the modern world simply don't hold up as well as the older ones. And one frightening thought that I had was that, as I know an awful lot more about the current situation in the Middle East than I do about the Crusades, is she equally unreliable on both periods, but I just catch her more on the one I know better? I'm not saying this is a book rife with factual errors, but questions of interpretation are sometimes one-sided (ie, seldom entirely wrong, but often incomplete). For example--she makes the bold claim three times that there is NO theological difference between Shi'ite Islam and Sunni Islam. That's not what I have read in other places, and I guess I'll just have to read more.
Another example, more modern--her criticism of Palestinian terrorism is quite perfunctory. She accurately lays out how Jewish militants took part in terrorism before and after the founding, and how even today, settlers engage in terrorist acts against Palestinians with relative impunity, but barely mentions extraordinary acts of brutality by the other side.
The joy of this book is the way the Crusades come alive, in all their passion and prejudice, greed and idiocy. I particularly liked the section when the Mongols invaded the Holy Land and Palestine became the intersection point between Christian Europe, Islam, and the Mongols...it was almost like some Risk games I remember from childhood.
Another example, more modern--her criticism of Palestinian terrorism is quite perfunctory. She accurately lays out how Jewish militants took part in terrorism before and after the founding, and how even today, settlers engage in terrorist acts against Palestinians with relative impunity, but barely mentions extraordinary acts of brutality by the other side.
The joy of this book is the way the Crusades come alive, in all their passion and prejudice, greed and idiocy. I particularly liked the section when the Mongols invaded the Holy Land and Palestine became the intersection point between Christian Europe, Islam, and the Mongols...it was almost like some Risk games I remember from childhood.
July 26, 2011
Although I'm a big fan of her The History of God, this earlier work was not as impressive. Armstrong correctly identifies the tendency to holy war in certain strands of Judaism and Christianity but doesn't see this point in Islam until the post WWII era in which case she blames the West and the establishment of Israel. She denies Islam the ability to take responsibility and in that way she is patronizing. Her more lenient take on Islam stems from her taking Mohammad's words at face value. However, this is inconsistent since she would then have to take Jesus' words at face value and thus it too would be a religion of peace. She fails to judge Islam in its more mature institutionalized and solidified form. Thus Pope Urban II is compared morally to Mohammend, more accurately he should be compared to the corrupted bloated immans who cooperated with the Ottoman Turks or the earlier Abbasids and Umayyad regimes. In any situation where a group deem themselves to hold an exclusivity to truth, holy war is a possible. More interesting is the tantalizing few times she draws out the connection between holy war and a desire for the end of times; an occurrence that occurs in all three variants of monotheism. An other irritants -- her support for the "beauty of the Koran" thesis. The beauty of the Koran is often cited as proof of its truthfulness but analogous to this in English would allow us to promote Shakespeare as a prophet. Finally, positing motivation to historical actors is difficult and even more difficult is ascribing motivation to entire movements and cultures. As a religious scholar she naturally favors spiritual-type explanations but she shouldn't neglect reasons of power, curiosity, and greed. Despite my criticism its still worth a read. As I'm currently reading Armstrong's History of Islam I can report she becomes more critical.
March 10, 2019
This book deserves a longer, more thoughtful review than I have time for this morning, but this will have to do for now.
I love her attempt to create "triple vision", an understanding of the point of view of the Jews, Christians and Muslims concerning the Middle East. That was more than I had bargained for when I picked up the book. In much of the text, Islam seems to get the benefit of the doubt more than the other two.
The book was written in about 1989, and much has happened since then, but it gives a great basis for understanding later events.
She alternates chapters on the Crusades themselves with chapters on the development of the modern Middle East, focusing on British Zionism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
I wasn't aware of the extent to which the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was supported by, even created by, non-Jews, at least partly out of their own prejudices.
I found the chapters on the Crusades better written, clearer, more engaging, and perhaps less sordid (despite the many intrigues and atrocities). The modern chapters seem to assume a working knowledge of important modern figures that not everyone will have. They also read, in places, more like a thesis than a book. I would guess they were written first, and her skill as a writer grew over time.
It is a dense book, and it took me over three months to finish, reading several other books in the meantime.
As with anything this political, I would assume that there are contrasting opinions, which I haven't yet looked for. But I suspect my own opinions would align largely with Armstrong's, as I am always searching to understand how others see things.
Recommended.
I love her attempt to create "triple vision", an understanding of the point of view of the Jews, Christians and Muslims concerning the Middle East. That was more than I had bargained for when I picked up the book. In much of the text, Islam seems to get the benefit of the doubt more than the other two.
The book was written in about 1989, and much has happened since then, but it gives a great basis for understanding later events.
She alternates chapters on the Crusades themselves with chapters on the development of the modern Middle East, focusing on British Zionism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
I wasn't aware of the extent to which the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was supported by, even created by, non-Jews, at least partly out of their own prejudices.
I found the chapters on the Crusades better written, clearer, more engaging, and perhaps less sordid (despite the many intrigues and atrocities). The modern chapters seem to assume a working knowledge of important modern figures that not everyone will have. They also read, in places, more like a thesis than a book. I would guess they were written first, and her skill as a writer grew over time.
It is a dense book, and it took me over three months to finish, reading several other books in the meantime.
As with anything this political, I would assume that there are contrasting opinions, which I haven't yet looked for. But I suspect my own opinions would align largely with Armstrong's, as I am always searching to understand how others see things.
Recommended.
December 29, 2021
أفضل كتاب قرأته بخصوص الحملات الصليبية أفضل بكثير مما كتبه أمين معلوف، الكتاب يأخذ سرد مغاير حيث يرصد المناخ الثقافي الأوروبي و الشرق أوسطي آنذاك منذ بداية القرن العاشر إلي بداية الحملات الصليبية و فيه وصف لكل حملة من حيث القائمين عليه و النزعة الدينية التي كانت متغلبة في أوروبا وقتها، تكمن أهمية الحملات الصليبية في أنها أعطت لأوروبا متنفس لاستغلال فائض القيمة الذي أحدثه الثورة الزراعية حينها لممارسة أول دور امبريالي حقيقي، و فيه التشكيلة الهوية التاريخية الجمعية للأوروبين من خلال صنع عدو مشترك لجميع الأوروبين سواء كان هذا العدو العربي ( المسلم السراسني ) أو اليهودي ( المتآمر علي المسيح )، اتسمت الحملات الصليبية بتنوع مثير من خلال الدوافع و إن اتفقت علي هدف واحد و هو طرد العرب و اليهود من الأراضي المقدسة و التعجيل بخروج مسيح آخر الزمان، اتسمت الحملة الصليبية الثانية و الثالثة التي تصدي لها صلاح الدين ببعد سياس�� و جيو استراتيجي آخر و بداية العلاقة المتزنة القائمة علي التنافس و العقلانية بين العرب و الفرنجة، و قد حول الفرنجة غضبهم من فشل الحملات الصليبية علي بيزنطة عاصمة المسيحيين الشرقيين نظرًا لاعتبارات تاريخية منها أن بيزنطة كانت تعتبر أرقي بمراحل من أوروبا الغربية و كون اعتبارهم مجدفين في حق المسيحية الحقة.
الكتاب أيضا عقد مقارنة عن مفهوم الحرب المقدسة منذ الحملات الصليبية و مقارنته بيما يحدث الآن من الكيان المحتل الصهيوني في فلسطين، و عن مقاربة السادات و مناحم بيجين التي حاولت تشبيهها بقماربة فريدريك الثاني و الملك الكامل، أو صلاح الدين و ريتشارد قلب الأسد، و شتان الفارق.
الكتاب أيضا عقد مقارنة عن مفهوم الحرب المقدسة منذ الحملات الصليبية و مقارنته بيما يحدث الآن من الكيان المحتل الصهيوني في فلسطين، و عن مقاربة السادات و مناحم بيجين التي حاولت تشبيهها بقماربة فريدريك الثاني و الملك الكامل، أو صلاح الدين و ريتشارد قلب الأسد، و شتان الفارق.
June 2, 2017
Armstrong writes a history of the so-called "Holy War" between European Christianity and Middle Eastern Islam. The author provides a run-up to the Middle Ages, covering the initial millennium of Christianity and the half-millennium of Islam, after which she delves into the era of the Crusades, 1096-1194; she later picks up the story and covers up to the present. She looks at the 1967 "Six Day War" between Israel and a Middle Eastern consortium of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization, leaving off in 1981. Her stated thesis: "[T]here is a strong connection between the medieval Crusades in the Holy Land and the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East today" [373]. This seems a false premise; the fundamental issue, as I perceive it, is a spiritual battle (or, if you are not spiritually inclined, a religious war). As Dr. Armstrong freely confesses her agnostic belief, she opts for the "religious war" basis. Admittedly, a non-spiritual person cannot fairly investigate spiritual issues, so I cannot fault her for the perceived shortcoming. As such, the book did not live up to my expectations, so this likely negatively influenced my rating. I gave it two stars as a public act of Christian charity.
September 17, 2015
If you're a history lover like me, this book is fantastic. Karen Armstrong does a fabulous job delving deep into detail about how the Christian Franks of the west, having emerged from the dark ages adamant on fostering a new Christian identity, became inextricably involved with the flourishing Muslim and Byzantine empires of the east and its Jewish inhabitants centered around the holy city of Jerusalem.
An interesting case is made about the misunderstandings many of us in the contemporary age, notably in the west, harbor about the religion of Islam, and how these antagonisms derived from the need to make manifest a new Christian identity. The contemporary age is discussed as well, from the Iranian Revolution, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, and even right-wing politics in Israel from Begin and the Likud to the more reactionary religious fanatics. Armstrong does a swell job at suggesting that our Crusading past resounds heavily today underneath many of the critical problems in the Middle East today. Great read.
An interesting case is made about the misunderstandings many of us in the contemporary age, notably in the west, harbor about the religion of Islam, and how these antagonisms derived from the need to make manifest a new Christian identity. The contemporary age is discussed as well, from the Iranian Revolution, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, and even right-wing politics in Israel from Begin and the Likud to the more reactionary religious fanatics. Armstrong does a swell job at suggesting that our Crusading past resounds heavily today underneath many of the critical problems in the Middle East today. Great read.
February 25, 2011
A fantastic book! I have read and loved Karen Armstrong for decades and have read nearly all of her books. As the title indicates, Armstrong's book is not merely about the crusades, but fleshes out all three of the major monotheistic religions from infancy to contemporary times. The crusades fall in the middle of this time frame and truly have much to say about what ails the world in the present day. Written originally in 1988, I would absolutely LOVE to read what Armstrong may have to add about the past two decades - and in some ways I have through her other works such as The Battle For God (another fantastic book!). The way she weaves the reader through the ages, and the changes in religious beliefs and prejudices, is utterly fascinating and many, many Americans, Jews, and especially Christians, could benefit from her insights and scholarship.
October 5, 2008
Pembahasan secara gamlang oleh pengarang, dilihat dari 3 sisi keyakinan, Yahudi, Nasrani dan Islam, serta dampak-dampak yang timbul akibat perang sampai sekarang mengenai The Promised Land dan Palestina.
Kronologis perang salib itu sendiri menyeluruh secara lengkap dan peristiwa-peristiwa penting yang memicu terjadinya slogan "perang salib" dan pihak mana saja yang terlibat salam perang salib itu.
Juga menceritakan mental-mental yang berkecamuk dalam fikiran 3 keyakinan agama samawi ini, serta oktum-oknum yang selalu memanfaatkan perselisihan ini.
Secara global, buku ini membuat kita mengerti tentang perang suci yang menurut keyakinan 3 agama samawi ini.
Kronologis perang salib itu sendiri menyeluruh secara lengkap dan peristiwa-peristiwa penting yang memicu terjadinya slogan "perang salib" dan pihak mana saja yang terlibat salam perang salib itu.
Juga menceritakan mental-mental yang berkecamuk dalam fikiran 3 keyakinan agama samawi ini, serta oktum-oknum yang selalu memanfaatkan perselisihan ini.
Secara global, buku ini membuat kita mengerti tentang perang suci yang menurut keyakinan 3 agama samawi ini.
September 25, 2009
I recently undertook my own long, difficult Crusade: Reading this book. I finally finished this thing, and while parts of it were definitely dry, overall it's a pretty impressive achievement. For hard-liners of history, there's plenty to object to: her reliance on secondary sources, her brief treatment of knights and their importance to the idea of Crusading, and her almost complete lack of geographical explanation. That said, the book is hugely ambitious and it shows Armstrong to be a fine scholar and interpreter of religious texts through hundreds of years of history.
November 1, 2010
One of the more difficult, dense and informative of ARmstrong's books and I chose to read it at the wrong point so it languished and dragged and I h ad still more difficulty givein the gaps in time I spent with the book thus losing the thread and foundering along. Still, I learned SO much and have so much to think over having encountered this book. As always, a learning experience presented well and easily accessible if one is willing to invest the time.
April 16, 2009
Incredibly informative, and incredibly horrifying. Helluva slow read, though, so only 3 stars. Her opinions seemed biased toward the muslim side of things, which was fine - seemed to stick to the basic facts, regardless. Gives good insight into the past and current christian, jewish and muslim struggles for religious supremacy, and the fighting over israel. Then it makes you want to run screaming from anything having to do with religion.
January 26, 2009
If all scholars wrote as well as Karen Armstrong, the world of letters would be a better place. Karen Armstrong is non-dogmatic and tolerant. She doesn't suffer from the "My Religion Is Better Than Yours So I'm Afraid I Have To Kill You" syndrome. A MUST for any one who wants to understand why no one gets along in the Middle East!
February 17, 2016
This book inspired me to learn more about comparative religion, and learn more about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity and what inspired conflict in todays world. I want to learn about the early roots of the Three Great Religions, and this was as good a book as ever to start.
August 27, 2015
It might not be accurate, but it is an honest effort to understand the history of violence.
The books does help the reader understand the path forward to a peaceful coexistence.
The books does help the reader understand the path forward to a peaceful coexistence.
March 2, 2021
The analogy bw the 2 time frames was spot on
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews