The History Book Club discussion

Regulo wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK, I am back on the episode trail. I am continuing the journey (smile)
Here is:
Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 2 of 10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Y74840..."

Yes, I felt the same way when viewing the old city as it is today. I would like to visit it as well. I doubt anybody knows the extent of what truly happened. I think though at least we understand the "when".

Bentley

Hi Bently,
Somehow, I look at this historical story on the crusade, and I try to relate as to what is happening in the middle east, Iraq, and Afghanistan today. Its very ironic as I think about this because of my involvement as a soldier in this area. Especially with all the European and U.S. Forces and other Global Forces surging more troops in that region. I recently saw a CNN NEWS report on TV where it was showing on a map of Iraq & Afghanistan the country flags involved and where they were Concentrated and Consolidated their efforts to fight the war on terrorism. Its like a story that never ends in that part of the world! Interesting!

Regulo,

I was thinking the very same thing...crusades, jihads...all old terms rooted in unpleasantness.

Without the media, without the attention, without the oil...I wonder what actually would happen in this region over time. Everyone always thinks that they will be the one to fix things. And of course the sands of time show what has happened to these best of intentions.

Interesting is a word to use to sum it up. Scary too.

Here is a Crusades encyclopedia:

http://crusades.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

The saga continues with the History Channel presentation:

First, a hospital for the preservation of eyesight exists by the same name today.

The Order of Saint John Today:

http://www.saintjohn.org/

Now we come to the part about the Knights Hospitaller and the Knights Templar.

Before the Muslims seized Jerusalem the first time; the Christian popes had built a hospital there (The Hospital of St. John).

Everything was going well until the Muslims destroyed over 3000 buildings in Jerusalem as well as the hospital.

Centuries past and then one of the Muslim captors and rulers decided to allow the Christians and pope to rebuild the hospital.

The years went by and when the Crusaders came to Jerusalem to liberate the Christians and take back their holy city, they wanted to also protect those who were going to travel to and from the Holy Land itself.

A group of Crusaders decided to not only take care of those who were sick in the hospital; but they took a vow of chastity, poverty and obedience and became that monastic/quasi military group which would not only take care of folks when they were ill at the hospital; but would also make sure that those who were going to and from the Holy Land would be kept safe.

And that is how the Knights Hospitaller came into being. They also had many forts and garrisons at this time; but one of their major garrisons and headquarters was Krak des Chevaliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak_des...

Here is the write-up from wikepedia on this group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_...

The other military/monastic order were the Knights Templar.

This group also provided protection and was disbanded only when King Philip IV of France tried to get out of paying his debts and had them arrested and tried. It was a terrible scandal for the church and for Pope Clement V; some of the knights were put to death. They were tortured into making these horrible confessions. Quite the scandal and quite horrific for the knights themselves and the church.

Here is a write-up on the Knight Templar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_...

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493...

Some of their garrisons included Castle Pilgrim.

We also come to the Turk Zengui who seized Edessa (now Urfa); when he took over he slaughtered most of the inhabitants and the Latin archbishop. He allowed some of the Christians to live; but he only managed this takeover when he knew the Crusader leader Joscelin was gone with his entire army assisting someone else. Zengui was praised in his community despite the slaughter and this emboldened others. However he was always feared. And he was murdered in his sleep by one of his supporters. His sons took over. Zengui had been the founder of the eponymous Zengid dynasty. In Mosul he was succeeded by his eldest son Saif ad-Din Ghazi I and in Aleppo he was succeeded by his second son Nur ad-Din.

According to the next episode, Zengui had always admired Edessa and just wanted to wait his chance to take it!

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 3 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCQ8mQ...

A Second Crusade is formed with the beseige of Edessa.

The Second Crusade was announced by Pope Eugene III, and was the first of the crusades to be led by European kings, namely Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, with help from a number of other important European nobles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_C...

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 4 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csUG1o...

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 5 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1LMPP...

Louis and Eleanor escaped death and went back home. Nur ad-Din had designs on uniting the seized cities which he did. Damascus had been friendly to the Crusaders; but then became afraid. They were happy when they sided with Nur ad-Din...but Zengui's son now also had designs on Egypt. There is also some heavy editing in part 5. His plan was to surround the Crusaders; he had already taken control of Syria and now Egypt was the prize. What is interesting is this seizing and ravaging was just not against the Crusaders or the Christians...they fought each other. Egypt was the stronghold of the Shias and wanted to be independent and wanted to resist Nur-ad Din.

There was allegedly a massacre of some Shias so Egypt asked for some help; so Saladin was sent in. Everyone seemed to respect Saladin; but for those Egyptians and other Muslims who got in his way; they all seemed to die with regularity.

Saladin controlled eventually Egypt and as much territory as his mentor Nur-ad-Din. Nur-ad Din wanted to punish Saladin for his treason. But mysteriously Nur-ad-Din died just before he could do that.

According to the History Channel, Nur-ad-Din's young son As-Salih Ismail al-Malik was not a push over and would not let Saladin come into the city after his father's death; he even hired some hitman. They were not successful but kept Saladin at bay...however when Nur ad -Din's son was 19 years old he died under mysterious circumstances (probably killed by Saladin). Saladin thus took over both areas.

Saladin had fought and bullied his Muslim neighbors into submission and now had a stranglehold on the Crusaders. One can see this is the beginning of the end since with Louis's failure; they were finding it more difficult to bring in more Crusaders.

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 6 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZj24y...

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 7 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF-wNN...

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Second Crusade:

Constantinople, New Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180) was irritated by the Second Crusade. Emperor Manuel I Comnenus had a peaceful relationship with the Turkish sultan of Rum. Emperor Manuel knew that the westerners had no intensions of returning captured territoies to his empire. Rumors that Manuel I was purposefully attempting to weaken the Second Crusade to crushed by his friends The Turkish.

Conrad III and his German army arrives before Louis VII from France on September 1147.

Conrad III and german army cross into the Turkish sultan Rum. Conrad III arrives at Nicaea. He decides to continue his journey to Antioch across central Anatolia same path first Crusade took.

Conrads III army meets Turkish army in the battle of Dorylaeum. They are surrounded by Turkish Infantry. Carnage was horrible entire German army was killed. A few of Conrads men survive and return back to Nicaea.

They wait for the Louis VII and French Army. Louis VII linksup with Conrad at Nicaea, and develops a new plan of attack to move forward to Antioch.

Louis VII, plan was a contract for a fleet Byzantine vessels to transport his army safely to Antioch. Louis army is too large to all be transported by fleet.

He sends his Infantry army by foot to cross the Central Anatolia, Turkish army kills entire French Infantry, massacared at Laodicea.

Only a hand ful survived and reaching Antioch to meet their King Louis VII from France.

book source:

A Second Crusade to recapture Edessa was not possible due to the Conrads German army and Louis VII French army somwhat destroyed and with less men.

Their plan is to attack Damascus. On July 21, 1148, the siege of Damuscus began. The battle lasted four days they were not able to recapture Damacus.

The second crusade was a disaster. Not only did it fail to recapture Edessa, but by blundering attempt to take Damascus, it strengthened the christans greatest enemy, Nur ed-Din ruler of Aleppo.

book source:

And now comes Crusades 3 - it was about getting Jerusalem back. The elderly Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa left Germany with 100,000 troops; but he met with an accident; so Richard I was left in charge.

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 8 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_esQ3...

Richard did well and took Acre; however Saladin would not pay the ranson and the hostages were killed.

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 9 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au3ROp...

Richard continued to do well and was a true military leader; if he had had more men; it is highly likely he would have been able to liberate Jerusalem. He maintained the coastal towns and made a truce so that Christian visitors could go to Jerusalem. Saladin dies and Richard the Lionhearted returns to Europe.

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 10 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKJBXJ...

The End (smile)

The moral of the story (according to the History Channel) is that any time there is any kind of invasion in this part of the world; this area of the world sees it as another crusade and they feel that they have to circle the wagons to defeat it. There was a collision of two civilizations, each fighting for the holy land, each believing that God was on their side. It redefined the relationships between Muslims and Christians forever. The collision of these two ideas (crusade and jihad) over a 1000 years ago still casts its shadows.

Regulo wrote: "The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Second Crusade:

Constantinople, New Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180) was irritated by the Second Crusade. Emperor Manuel I Comnenus had a peaceful rel..."

Regulo wrote: "The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Second Crusade:

Constantinople, New Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180) was irritated by the Second Crusade. Emperor Manuel I Comnenus had a peaceful rel..."

Interesting story which was not shown in the History Channel spark notes version (smile). It sounds like Louis's attempt was even more dismal than I thought.

Regulo wrote: "A Second Crusade to recapture Edessa was not possible due to the Conrads German army and Louis VII French army somwhat destroyed and with less men.

Their plan is to attack Damascus. On July 21,..."

Very true. I wondered at some of their decisions. It almost was like...well..we are here now..and this is close...so let us try here first.

An incredible ending for the Third Crusade! I was amazed as to how Saladin was able to reunite the muslims to fight Richard I, The LionHeart from France.

Amazing how Saladin's harassing tactics and techniques used against Richards I, soldiers to break the ranks during their formations while continued marching forward to Jaffa. Saladin wanted his men to break ranks to lure them into a trap-battle and to at least kill a few of the Christan crusaders.

Richards christin soldiers were disciplined moving in formations and would not break ranks even as they were under attack by Saladins muslims. I can only amagine the sacrafice of the christan soldiers discipline while moving during intense battle formations.

Richard knew that supply lines from Jaffa in trying to reach Jerusalem would be difficult to obtain. Richard knew that once he captured Jerusalem supply lines from Jaffa to Jerusalem would be impossible.

Richards other option was to take Ascalon instead of Jerusalem for tactical reasons. This would disrupt communications between Saladin's Syrian and Egyptian Kingdoms, plus harming his ability to bring reinforcements and supplies for his muslims fighters.

Interesting to know that Saladin could not and did not have the man power to attack or defend or recover both Ascalon and Jerusalem from the christins.

Richard suggested another plan and that was to attack Egyp instead of Jerusalem.

Richard knew that since Jerusalem could never be secured until Saladin's power was broken.

The above plans were not executed due to council disagreements, disputes with the barons.

I beleive that Richards plans would of worked and would have been a success. If he would of only stayed longer in the holy land and not returned back to europe to take care of family kingdom disputes between his other brother in France.

This was a great story- I enjoyed learning of it.

The End: The Forth Crusade begins!

Yes...I am glad you enjoyed it Regulo...if Richard had stayed I think things may have been quite a bit different with Saladin out of the way. And if he had more troops to begin with and the other German emperor had not drowned at the beginning. Saladin's men did not want to make the sacrifice of being away from their towns and families indefinately. That is where Richard would have ultimately been the victor for awhile. A shame really.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi folks,

Just to start this new section off I can recommend a few good books that I have read covering this period of history:


definitely recommend Asbridge & Philips - Runciman is a must - I found Tyreman's book overly long.

Another author who has a number of books covering the Crusades to the Holy Land is W.B. Bartlett. Some of his books include:

by W.B. Bartlett

by W.B. Bartlett

by W.B. Bartlett

by W. B. Bartlett

This is one of my favorite topics - although I am not as knowledgeable as any of you.
I found many of the lectures from The Teaching Company in my local library - I am so happy about this discovery. I listened to the lectures on The Era of the Crusades by Kenneth Harl. They were very good - I highly recommend them if you get a chance.

The Era of the Crusades by Kenneth W. Harl

Please add links.

Normally we add book covers and author's links like Aussie Rick did.

thanks for the book recommendations Rick.

Bernie wrote: "thanks for the book recommendations Rick. "

Hi Bernie, my pleasure, I haven't read any of his books yet but have the first two in my library and have just found the last two and have ordered copies. They seem to get decent reviews at Amazon.co.uk so hopefully they are decent accounts. My two recent favourite books on this subject have been:

by Thomas Asbridge

and

by Jonathan Phillips

If you haven't read these books already I can heartily and confidently recommend them as decent popular accounts of the Crusades.

For those interested this book below is a new release in the US that may interest some readers:

by Rodney Stark

Publishers Weekly:
"It always seems counterintuitive to moderns that warfare and religion can be consistent. Ideally, followers of the prince of peace are to avoid the sword and shield. Clearly, this has not always been the case. Frequently in the crosshairs of critics are the Christian wars against Muslims known as the Crusades, commonly viewed as the birth of European imperialism and the forced spread of Christianity. But what if we've had it all wrong? What if the Crusades were a justifiable response to a strong and determined foe? Stark, a prominent sociologist and author of 27 books on history and religion, has penned a compelling argument that these bloody encounters had less to do with spreading Christianity than with responding to an ever more dangerous enemy—the emerging Islamic empire. There is much to be learned here. Filled with fascinating historical glimpses of monks and Templars, priests and pilgrims, kings and contemplatives, Stark pulls it all together and challenges us to reconsider our view of the Crusades."

Hey Aussie Rick, Thanks for the book recommendation on "Gods Battalion" this really sounds like a book that would interest me. Thats another book on my read list. I'm sure it gives a different perspective view!

Hi Regulo,

Its been getting some very good reviews around the place but alas I have not seen a copy myself! I have just finished ordering the last two volumes from W.B. Bartlett's series of books on the Crusades so that will give me four books to read on the subject!

I just completed reading the "Fourth Crusade" from the book: The New Concise History of The Crusades.

It's Amazing how three young Lords named Thibaut, Louis and Baldwin were able to organize their armies to begin the Fourth Crusade.

By early 1200 a council of barons met in Soission to discuss a timetable and goals of the new crusade.

Their plans were to contract 500 vessels from a maritime port to travel by sea to reach the holy land of Jerusalem to transport an army of 33,500.

The Republic of Venice agreed to supply the crusaders with one years provisions to transport their armies.

Unfortunately the crusaders were not able to keep their plans and promise due to money payments owed to the Republic of Venice and being diverted on attacking a city called Zara, and again crusaders being diverted on attacking the great Byzantine Empire the city of Constantinoples.

The Queen of cities, Constantinoples had become poor, dilapidated, and largely abandon.

The Forth Crusade was a disappointment to the people of the crusader states and to reconquer Jerusalem. The crusaders completely deviated and lost focus, lost control from their plans.

I'm amazed as to how lack of money, logistical support, poor planning can totally ruin an armys plans for success!

Beginning to read: The Fifth Crusade.

Please...Any other comments on the Forth Crusade discussion welcome!


Thomas F. Madden

Regulo wrote: "I just completed reading the "Fourth Crusade" from the book: The New Concise History of The Crusades.

It's Amazing how three young Lords named Thibaut, Louis and Baldwin were able to organize th..."

Hi Regulo, The one thing that amazed me about the Fourth Crusade was that for all their good intentions of the Crusaders, the campaign was conducted against the economic/trade competitors of the Venetian empire, mainly Christians! The sack of Constantinople was a tragedy. Could you argue that it fatally weakened the Byzantine Empire so when Ottoman forces, under the leadership of Mehmet II arrived in 1453 it was a forgone conclusion that it would fall?

Please make sure Regulo to add the book cover and author's link so everyone can take advantage of the book you are referring to:


Thomas F. Madden

Hi Bently, thank you for the reminder. I went ahead and posted the book on the discussion. I guess that would help for other readers to know what book I'm reading and talking about. It's an interesting book to read with a lots of fascinating information on the crusades. Especially for someone who is interested in learning about the crusades!
Thomas F. Madden

Thank you for your original post..it was most welcome...the request that I made was to always also post the book cover and the author's link because goodreads has this phenomenal software which populates a bunch of fields for easy cross reference for our group members. If you look to the right of the message boxes; once you have added your links...there is a list of all of the books mentioned on The Crusades thread and all of the authors. It is a terrific way to be able to print out all of the books cited and/or all of the authors on the thread.

If you click on any book mentioned and other topics...you will see also the links to the other threads anywhere in this book club where the group membership also has a discussion going on about either the book and/or the author.

This is a terrific feature so I remind folks to always post the covers and the author's link.

The book that you posted is an excellent example of a book and author which we would want to have linked. I am glad that you are enjoying it and now with the links, all members can find out more about this "terrific" selection.

I just completed reading the "Fifth Crusade" from the book: The New Concise History of The Crusades.

What an incredible ending on this one journey Frederick II, who was the orphan son of Emperor Henry VI. Amazing how Frederick II was the heir to two kingdoms: Sicily, Norman and the German Empire, and now Jerusalem.

Frederick II made a political deal with Al-Kamil on a ten year truce between the kingdom of jerusalem and the muslims. Al-Kamil would give to Frederick II Jerusalem, Nazareth and a strip of the land connecting the Holy sites to the coast.

The deal was for muslims to remain there, retain there homes and possessions. They would have their own city officals, administer their own seperate justice system and religious interests. The al-Aqsa Mosque Dome, Rock, Templ Mount would remain in Muslim hands for the next ten years.

Frederick accepted the deal. Not many back in the Holy Roman Empire were happy of this deal that Frederick II had made! Frederick II was excommunicated from the Holy Rome Empire due to this deal. Back in Rome Gregory IX and his army were now working on weakening Fredericks II lands in the south.

On March 17, 1229, Frederick and his men entered the Holy City. No fight no blood was spilled during this deal.

Both Christains and Muslims felt betrayed by their leaders.

Christians and Muslims alike considered this reprehensible.

The Holiest of cities had become a secular state.

I guess World leaders at times do not make good decisions that people like!

Thomas F. Madden

Beginning to Read: The Crusades Of St. Louis - 1248-1250

Regulo wrote: "I just completed reading the "Fifth Crusade" from the book: The New Concise History of The Crusades.

What an incredible ending on this one journey Frederick II, who was the orphan son of Emperor..."

I think throughout history its been a case that politics and religion are never a good mix and very few world leaders have ever been able to obtain a durable peace or settlement when both politics and religion are involved.

I just completed reading the continued "First Crusade of St. Louis IX" from France: The year is June 4,1249 and Saint Louis IX from France has arrived on beachhead in Damiett, Egypt with his army. The Egyptian Army battles the Louis Army and not a able to stop Louis Army from moving into the city of Damiett.

Saint Louis IX had researched and studied prior battles lost by the prior crusades. He was being very careful not to do the same mistakes from the Fifth Crusades battles.

On February 7, 1250, St. Louis plan was to take the city of Mansurah. In order to do this he had to first attack an Egyptian strong encampment prior to the city of Mansurah.

A Robert of Artois was tasked by St. Louis to make the attack on the strong encampment. The Egyptians were caught by surprise. As Robert captured the encampment, Robert gave orders to his warrior to continue forward in attacking the city of Mansurah.

This was a foolish mistake, knights could not fight in effectively in the tight and winding streets of the city. The results were disastrous to the knights, they were out numbered and entire force was killed and destroyed to include Robert.

St. Louis lacked sufficient numbers to take the city of Mansurah.

On February 28,1250 the new Sultan, Egyptian Tu-Sader-Shah, ordered Egyptian Galleys to move thru the Nile and catching St. Louis Army by surprise. The crusaders found themselves in precisely the same predicament that had destroyed the Fifth Crusade.

Turan-Shah immediately ordered the massacre of the poor and the Christian Army. The crusade was over, it was time to go home.

St. Louis was held hostage and Turan-Shah demanded a payment of 800,00 bezants to Turan-Shah. If paid he would release St. Louis and other noble knights.

On May 6, 1250 Damietta was once again surrendered to the Muslims. On May 8, 1250 the French paid to Turan-Shah 400,000 bezants.

On 1254 St. Louis sailed back to France.

Again it seems that the failure during this crusade was due to tactical and leadership.

I begin to read the: Continued Crusades of St. Louis and the Mongols.

Please...Any comments on this discussion is welcomed!

Why was Louis IX, so well remembered in Europe given his repeated crusading failures?

Thomas F. Madden

I guess one could say that he went and tried and did not lack courage. It was a big sacrifice I am sure for any king to make the effort that he did.

He was very kind to the poor, a patron of the arts, very pious and religious and ruled during a Golden Age in Europe. There is also so much folklore about Louis that one wonders what is truth and what is fiction.

His religious zeal is well known and he did build the very beautiful and magnificent Sainte-Chapelle.

Regulo, Bentley, Rick and all the other participants, I don't know about you, but what fascinates me the most about the Crusades - or any other war with a more or less religious "justification" - is that how on earth people can be persuaded to kill others, just because some book - or better humans citing parts of the book as they see fit - tell their followers what is right and wrong.
If ever these people would have wanted to call themselves true Christians, why didn't they try to stay closer to what we think Jesus tried to tell us???????
Christianity, humanity and so many other basic principles of our human existence all got lost there.
Why do we need to persuade others that ours is the only way when in front of our eyes we see that there is so much we can learn from each other. I think there is nothing more frightening than the blindness caused by the human interpretation of religion.

André wrote: "Regulo, Bentley, Rick and all the other participants, I don't know about you, but what fascinates me the most about the Crusades - or any other war with a more or less religious "justification" - i..."

Hi Andre, I tend to agree with you, just look at the results of the Fourth Crusade or the 'Crusade' against the Cathars in France, and more recently the conflict in Ireland.

Most of the worst things ever done to human beings by other human beings were, are, and surely will be done by people absolutely certain that they are right and therefore good, and anyone disagreeing with them is wrong and therefore evil - the basis is usually religious and/or political, but I suppose it could be anything - the kind of thinking parodied by Swift in Gulliver's Travels with the war between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudians over which end people should open on their boiled eggs, or Dr. Seuss with the Butter Battle Book. It's so important to stay humble and always ready to consider that one might be mistaken -

It would be comical if it didn't lead to so much heartbreak and devastation.

The way I think of it is that people create religions because they want to achieve spirituality and hope their religions will teach them how, but then they get so focused on the means that they forget the intended ends - if spirituality is the wine, religion is the bottle intended to hold the wine, but wine can be found in a lot of containers besides bottles, and a lot of bottles have other things in them and not wine.

James wrote: "Most of the worst things ever done to human beings by other human beings were, are, and surely will be done by people absolutely certain that they are right and therefore good, and anyone disagreei..."

Hi James, that's a great response and so very true. What you have said really made me sit back and think a little about events in history and in our own time and how relevant it all is, thanks for the valuable input.

Yes, it's hard to picture anyone burning people at the stake in the name of agnosticism.

I have been tossing up whether to order a copy of this book but since I enjoyed the author's book on the Fourth Crusade I think I will end up ordering a copy:

by Jonathan Phillips
Publishers blurb;
"Holy war: Christianity versus Islam. Brutality, greed, honour, chivalry, the clink of chain mail, the clatter of hooves, and the call of the muezzin. Such are the stock ingredients of the Crusades. But to what extent do the stereotypes fit with the reality? In his remarkable new book, Jonathan Phillips explores this conflict of ideas, beliefs and cultures and shows both the contradictions and the diversity of holy war: friendships and alliances between Christians and Muslims; triumphs of diplomacy rather than the sword; the launch of crusades against Christians, and calls for jihads against Muslims. Phillips draws on contemporary writings - on chronicles, songs, sermons, travel diaries, letters, financial accounts and peace treaties - to throw a brilliant new lights on people and events we thought we knew well: the bloody conquest of Jerusalem in the First Crusade; the titanic struggle between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin; the breathtaking naivety of the Children's Crusade; and the ruthless suppression of the Knight's Templar. Less familiar but no less central are the stories of the intimidating and astute politician, Queen Melisende of Jerusalem; the fiery preacher, Al-Sulami; the Arab-speaking excommunicate and Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II. Over time the Crusades were directed against a variety of opponents: not only Muslims in the Middle East but against Cathar heretics, political enemies of the papacy, the Mongols, pagan tribes of northern Europe, and the Ottoman Turks. Although the notion of fighting for one's faith fell into disrepute in the Enlightenment, in a final chapter Jonathan Phillips traces the crusading impulse up to the present day - to George W. Bush's characterization of the war on terrorism as a crusade. Vivid, original and illuminating, "Holy Warriors" provides an unparalleled account of one of the great cultural, political and religious movements in world history."

Another new title due out in early 2010 by a respected author covering the Crusades is:

by Thomas Asbridge
Publishers blurb:
"In the eleventh century, a vast Christian army, summoned to holy war by the pope, rampaged through the Muslim world of the eastern Mediterranean, seizing possession of Jerusalem, a city revered by both faiths. Over the two hundred years that followed this First Crusade, Islam and the West fought for dominion of the Holy Land, clashing in a succession of chillingly brutal wars, both firm in the belief that they were at God's work. For the first time, this book tells the story of this epic struggle from the perspective of both Christians and Muslims, reconstructing the experiences and attitudes of those on either side of the conflict. Mixing pulsing narrative and piercing insight, it exposes the full horror, passion and barbaric grandeur of the crusading era. One of the world's foremost authorities on the subject, Thomas Asbridge offers a vivid and penetrating history of the crusades, setting a new standard for modern scholarship. Drawing upon painstaking original research and an intimate knowledge of the Near East, he uncovers what drove Muslims and Christians alike to embrace the ideals of jihad and crusade, revealing how these holy wars reshaped the medieval world and why they continue to echo in human memory to this day."

Some reviews for "Holy Warriors" by Jonathan Phillips:

Original, engaging, fast-paced, this is history at its best. Phillips lays bare the complex history of the period, both past and its long-term consequences. Poets, knights, politicians, schemers, queens, celebrated and forgotten, all are brought to life in this wonderful A - Z of the Crusades. - Kate Mosse

Holy Warriors is not only very readable, its skilful and detailed use of source material serves as a showcase of what is being done in this, the most intensively studied area of medieval historiography. - Robert Irwin, Literary Review

He [Phillips:] has a real gift for highlighting the picturesque and for bringing the past alive... with its crisp management, accessible style and deft characterisation, this book stakes a strong claim to be the most appealing narrative account of the Crusades for a general audience. - BBC History Magazine

A superb book, one written with an elegant blend of clarity and zest. Its author demonstrates his mastery of all the relevant scholarship, from the oldest to the most recent, but he may be most successful in his ability to capture the spirit of the various crusades through word portraits of some of their most memorable human characters. Readers will find it difficult to put this gripping book down. - William Chester Jordan, Dayton-Stockton Professor of History, Princeton University

Bentley wrote: "I guess one could say that he went and tried and did not lack courage. It was a big sacrifice I am sure for any king to make the effort that he did.

He was very kind to the poor, a patron of th..."

Hi Bently,
I'd have to agree with you on Sant Louis IX. He was a well respected individual. Louis authority was vast.

His power flowed not from raw might, but from what ancient romans called (auctoritas), the authority that one obtains through experience, fame, glory, and moral uprightness. Europe saw Louis as the epitome of chivalric and christain virtue.

No one dared to contradict him, for they were certain that his interest were solely for the good of the Holy Land.

André wrote: "Regulo, Bentley, Rick and all the other participants, I don't know about you, but what fascinates me the most about the Crusades - or any other war with a more or less religious "justification" - i..."

André wrote: "Regulo, Bentley, Rick and all the other participants, I don't know about you, but what fascinates me the most about the Crusades - or any other war with a more or less religious "justification" - i..."

Hi Andre, You have an interesting thought! I agree with you, although unless your parents and you are living and raised as a child on certain beliefs and religion. It would be very difficult for you to maybe change your religion beliefs, especially in times of war and lost of families due to the war. You mght have a different perspective view!

James wrote: "Most of the worst things ever done to human beings by other human beings were, are, and surely will be done by people absolutely certain that they are right and therefore good, and anyone disagreei..."

Hi James, Very well said, I agree with you. Sometimes in times of hardship and in times of battle you have nobody else to turn to, but religion and in the hope of faith, that you and others will survive thru the battle. Therefore some believe in some type of religion and spirituality due to an experience and by praying, it has helped them make it thru their fears or troubles.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I have been tossing up whether to order a copy of this book but since I enjoyed the author's book on the Fourth Crusade I think I will end up ordering a copy:

[bookcover:Holy Warriors A Modern ..."

Rick, This sounds like a good read!

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "
Another new title due out in early 2010 by a respected author covering the Crusades is:

by Thomas Asbridge
Publisher..."

Hi Rick, This book also seems to be an interesting book to read!

I just completed reading about the Mongols during the Crusades. On 1255-Mongols-Asisatic people largest empire-conquers China-FarEast- storm thru the heart of Muslim World. They conquer Persia-Mesopotannia- Anatolia- Syria Aleppo- Damacus. And now they want Jerusalem-Egypt. The leader was Jenjhnize Khan.

Jenjhnize Khan dies in 1260. The Mamluk Sultan, Kutuz, attacks the Mongols and defeats the Mongols. Lead by a General Baybars a Hipchak Turk. The battle if Ayn-Jalut in Sept 1260. Egypt is now the center stage in the islamic world. They kept control of Syria.

It is amazing how the mongols were able to conquer so much.

Thomas F. Madden

I just completed reading about the Mamluk Conquest!
The Mamluk conquest -began removing the Christain presents in Palestine. In 1263 Mamluk - raided Galilee and destroyed the cathedral of Nazareth. In 1266 they took Templar Fortress of Safad, lead by General Baybars. Muslims are in control now!

What an amazing return of the muslims!

Thomas F. Madden