Rating: 
Summary: The Classic Account
Review: Runciman's is the classic account of the Crusades, and one of the finest works of history published in this century. Those reviews who found it dry must have been weaned on Mitchener, Rutherfurd or other such pap, and those who regret the omission of consideration of crackpot conspiracy theories within (some of which had not been written when H.C. was published) will, of course, remain unsatified.
Rating: 
Summary: Very detailed but needs a lot of energy
Review: Runciman's three-volume work on the Crusades have been the book of requirement for anyone with serious devotion to study it. My fair warning is that since the book contains detailed accounts, you'll need a huge amount of energy to go through the thick pages. The language is very monotonous, some people will call it plain 'dry' and resort to it as pure reference only.This is only the first of the three that you'll need to read and the pages get thicker every time. But don't be discouraged because he is probably one of the few historian in this field to correctly balance the accounts (Muslims and Christians). I'll say try your local library first to get the feeling of Runciman's delicate use of words before attempting to acquire all three.
Rating:
Summary: must have it
Review: So you didn't like history either ? After being crammed withuseless dates and uninteresting facts about the decaying kings andkingdoms I never expected to ever pick up a history book again. So imagine my scepticism when somebody said that I "absolutely must" read Runciman's History of the Crusades...a work of history confined to only 3 volumes and enough pages to make any Russian author turn green with envy. And what a story...Runciman covers the 500 years of Middle East history with all the ingredients for a action packed thriller. The history is full of strong characters, mighty kings, impoverished adventurers and deceitful leaders. This is a tale of the clash of culture in its original form the east-west clash has its roots in these volotile times. The best part about these stories is not so much the historical matter of which they are made up but Runciman's presentation of his material. He manages an almost incredible amount of original and later sources without losing sight of his goal: a readable account of these fantastic times. The politics in these pages inspire to further studies of the period. There is nothing today which can mach the intrigue found in these pages and few writers have managed to make history come alive in such a thought provoking mix. What can I say ? I have a large library and since Runciman several historical works but nothing seems to ever reach the heights he attains or the inspiration. He is probably the only writer I feel able to read again and again without become tired in the repetition. Three volumes and 600 years defy explanation, within the covers one meets the greats like Baibers, Baldwin, the great Khan, Saladin and Richard the Lionheart and travels to the mystic scenes of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. How can I say "must read" any plainer without sounding banal ?
Rating: 
Summary: Perspective defines the crusades
Review: Steven R. Runciman is perhaps the definitive historian of the Crusades, but one must ask: what does that mean? Clearly, he is a Western author, filled with the natural biases inherent to his upbringing. Granted, Runciman does perhaps the best job of portraying the Crusades from a truly cosmopolitan, unbiased point of view, but it is important to remember that no one book will give anyone a truly accurate insight into the Crusades. Indeed, Runciman's account is filled with historical "facts", and I would recommend that his book should be read before any other in terms of gleaning a broad understanding of the Crusades, but I would simply advise that reading about the Crusades should be done with a very open mind, in which we are all hesitant to accept ONE work as "reality", and all the others as simply missing the mark. After all, while many readers may consider the First Crusade to have been an "unexpected success" (as notes one reviewer), I challenge any of you to look at the Arab side of the events, and THEN you may define for me your definition of the term "success", for surely losing Jerusalem was not a success for the Turks....
Rating:
Summary: Perspective defines the crusades
Review: Steven R. Runciman is perhaps the definitive historian of the Crusades, but one must ask: what does that mean? Clearly, he is a Western author, filled with the natural biases inherent to his upbringing. Granted, Runciman does perhaps the best job of portraying the Crusades from a truly cosmopolitan, unbiased point of view, but it is important to remember that no one book will give anyone a truly accurate insight into the Crusades. Indeed, Runciman's account is filled with historical "facts", and I would recommend that his book should be read before any other in terms of gleaning a broad understanding of the Crusades, but I would simply advise that reading about the Crusades should be done with a very open mind, in which we are all hesitant to accept ONE work as "reality", and all the others as simply missing the mark. After all, while many readers may consider the First Crusade to have been an "unexpected success" (as notes one reviewer), I challenge any of you to look at the Arab side of the events, and THEN you may define for me your definition of the term "success", for surely losing Jerusalem was not a success for the Turks....
Rating:
Summary: A Masterful Treatment of a Turbulent Era
Review: This book is one of the best I have ever read on this era in Medieval history. Dr. Runciman leaves no stone unturned in presenting an entertaining, yet enlightening narrative of the events which precipitated the First Crusade, the hardships endured by the Franks during these holy wars, and the strategies employed by the Byzantine, Frankish, and Moslem rulers in conquest and counter-conquest in the Levant. One only wishes he had given more glimpses into the lives of the foot-soldiers and natives and the impact of the war, both socially and economically, on them. Notwithstanding, the book is a classic survey of the First Crusade. I am now reading Volume II in the series and find it equally fascinating.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive history of the Crusades
Review: This book, often published as three volumes is the definitive history of the crusades. It is at once a tremendously entertaining and gripping story, and an academically accurate account that stimulates one to further enquiry. His account is so alive it is as if one was reading events unfolding in a newspaper day by day and the destruction of Constantinople was only yesterday.
Runciman tells the story of the West's response to the fall of Jerusalem to the Arabs, and their unexpected success in reconquering it. Throughout the story the Christian west, the Byzantine Empire, and the Arab world are painted with all their good and bad points.
No one comes out of this story without fault, but Runciman points out that there was a tremendous invigoration of western civilization through its contact with the Byzantine and Arab world. The short lived Kingdom of Jerusalem became in a way an experiment in East-West civilization that ultimately was destroyed by the arrival of later crusaders whose enthusiasm for attacking the Arabs (with whom the earlier crusaders had learned to live in relative peace) was not matched by their numbers or competence. Runciman notes that Arab distrust of the West had its roots in this time.
A great introduction to Byzantine, Arabic, or Latin history. See also the work of JJ Norwich on Byzantium and the Normans in Sicily
Rating:
Summary: Gripping Tale of the Rise & Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Review: This second volume of Steven Runciman's three-volume history of the crusades is a masterful piece of scholarship and historiography. If all historians read Runciman's History of the Crusades and learned of his style, there would be fewer complaints from readers that histories are dry, crusty stories. Indeed, Runciman artfully weaves several elements such as the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the zenith of Byzantium and the ascension of the Turkish power in the persons of Zenghi, Nur ed-din and Saladin powerful, gripping narrative that brings the rogues and heroes of the crusades to life. Runciman skillfully explains the court intrigues behind the scenes in the crusader kingdom and fiefdoms, the delicate balance of power between Byzantium and the Frankish east and the Turks and the rivalry between Turkish clans and leaders. This second novel concerns the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, its place in the three-volume set is critical in that Runciman articulates a few of his his theories concerning the lessons learned from the crusades, and they are difficult to refute. Runciman of particular relevance to contemporary foreign policy in that region, Runciman notices that the politically fractious Turks discovered a unifying force in the presence of the alien Franks, which became a focal point in the development of a pan-Turkish/Muslin identity and a nexus for action. Also, Runciman argues that first-generation crusaders acclimated to local political and cultural customs and could have co-existed to some degree with the Turks and Muslims had it not been for the brash crusaders that arrived after the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and viewed the situation in more stark, black-and-white terms. Runciman also holds that the Latins could have made more effective use of Byzantium in formulating policy for the east rather than competing with it in some instances and altogether ignoring it in others. Finally, while Runciman assumes that the triumph of Islam in the crusades was an inevitability (mostly due to the policies chosen by the petty nobles that arrived in the east after the first crusade to aggrandize rather than consolidate crusader power) there were shrewd, far-sighted individuals and more of these distinguished men could have stemmed the tide a bit longer. In other words, qualities such as leadership and "the vision thing" are timeless.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding achievement
Review: This, the third volume in Runciman's three volume history, is an excellent finale. The narrative focuses on the Acre, the last of the Crusader states, but the real treat is in Runciman's analysis of the effects of the Crusades. Well written and excellently researched, this is the definitive history of the Crusades from a European view.
Rating:
Summary: The Worst of Both Worlds
Review: This, with volumes II and III, is the definitive history of the Crusades. Runciman refrained from opinion, but is very clear about the background of the Crusades. From the first century, the Holy Land was in Christian hands, and Christians and Jews dwelt together in relative peace. In the eighth century Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land, but mostly left Christians and Jews alone to live their own lives. But toward the end of the first millenium, Seljuk Turks moved into this area and persecution began. Pilgrimages, which had been conducted from the first century were forbidden, and it was dangerous for Christians to enter the domain of the Turks.
The main story begins with the call of Pope Urban for an army to take back the Holy Land so that pilgrimages might resume. Runciman shows how the pope's vision was not to be implemented. Almost the only armies that responded were Franks from what is today France and Germany. Those Franks had undergone mass baptism several centuries earlier when their king, Clovis, had been converted. Their conversion appears to have been incomplete, and they were not only warlike, but accustomed to raiding their neighbors, looting and killing and destroying the land. On their way to the Holy Land they passed through the Christian country of Byzantium and caused no end of trouble for the Byzantines. When they arrived in the Holy Land, they drove the Muslims out and established several "Christian" kingdoms which endured in an unstable peace until the Muslims grew stronger and reconquered the land and drove out the Frankish princes. As C. S. Lewis remarked, after reading Runciman's account, both sides were a bunch of thugs, except for Saladin.
|
