Excellent history of the Second Crusade. Offers an entirely updated appraisal of the German expedition to the East.
The Second Crusade was an enormousExcellent history of the Second Crusade. Offers an entirely updated appraisal of the German expedition to the East.
The Second Crusade was an enormous undertaking, taken up by the kings of both Germany and France. The professed goal was the reconquest of Edessa, a first Crusader State which fell to the Muslims. Each monarch led his own army across Europe to Byzantium, and into Asia. The crusade almost came to nothing, when first the German and shortly thereafter the French army were severely mauled by Turkmen forces, and some large parts entirely annihilated. In the end, the crusaders managed to reach Jerusalem but were unable to inflict any kind of blow on the Muslims. This has been explained by historians of the nineteenth century as a result of Conrads weak and vacillating personality.
Roche takes an entirely new approach to evaluating the Second Crusade; most modern scholars have accepted the nineteenth century depictions of both the events of the crusade and the actions of Conrad himself. By going back to the three foremost primary sources (John Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates from the Byzantine perspective and Odo of Deuil from the French perspective), he gives us an entirely new evaluation. He does this by looking at the sources with a critical eye. He establishes their biases, and with those in mind paints us a different picture of events. For instances, John Kinnamos has a severe bias against anything western, equating all non-Greeks with barbarians. The reason for writing his work is to shift attention away form (then) recent military defeats by the Byzantine emperor by shining a light on his successful management of the German attack on Constantinople. This supposed attack was a chimaera, a trope of the Byzantine worldview. It is in Johns interest to portray the Germans in general and Conrad in particular as aggressive oafs, and the Byzantine emperor as a shrewd general. Niketas Choniates (re)wrote his work after the fall of Constantinople in 1204, and attempted to explain the fall by painting a picture of Byzantine iniquity in regards to the sincere and faithful crusaders. Odo of Deuil was a propagandist – in the service of abbot Sugar – for the narrative of the sacred link between the House of Capet and St. Denis. His work was intended to be part of Sugers larger work. He was at pains to describe the failure of the undertaking, without linking it in some way to the failing of the French and their leader. To circumvent that, he blames the Germans and Byzantines. Next to the critical appraisal of the main primary sources comes the evidence of other, more remote sources. Quite a number of German writers have parts of witness-reports, and of course the monarch’s letters give us some insights. An essential part of the reappraisal is the close association between Conrad and Manuel Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor. Apparently co-operation between the Byzantines and the Germans went much further than was previously assumed. And what I found very inventive was Roches use of theoretical model to roughly calculate the needs of the army in the way of provisions, and the economy of the Byzantine hinterland. This sets us in the path of “an army marches on its stomach”, and gives us the final piece of the puzzle. This model serves very well to explain the difficulty of acquiring foodstuffs on the way, and how much could be carried as baggage – and at what extra cost in fodder.
Good narrative “report” on the Boer War, giving plenty of context for the decisions that were taken and why. Main strength comes from following three Good narrative “report” on the Boer War, giving plenty of context for the decisions that were taken and why. Main strength comes from following three central characters throughout the conflict, and their personal exploits during the period. The account is well-written, in a fluent style, though sometimes chronology is a bit confusing....more
Very strong account of the First World War from the perspective of the Central Powers. Emphasis is on what the effects of the war were on the populatiVery strong account of the First World War from the perspective of the Central Powers. Emphasis is on what the effects of the war were on the population, and how decisions by leadership affected those populations. The decisionmaking process is also examined, with powerful argumentation about intent and reasons given why intentions did not pan out (or did not pan out as wished). Most impressive parts, for me, are the tragedy that the different nations goaded themselves and eachother into going to war (pre-emptive or not) and when Watson details the precursors of the Nazi horrors which were to follow. Arbitrary and callous deportation of peoples and ruthless extraction of resources (including human) from conquered territories stand out most of all. Assignation of guilt is kept reasonable, with Watson clearly pointing out the kind of actions which were against the law of the time (international law was still in its infancy), and comparing the relative “righteousness” of the Allies’ and Central Powers’ actions. Watson holds to a line of morality, but does not overdo it, nor does he become preachy, which are strong points in his favour. Another point in his favour is the way he keeps bringing the central themes to the fore, be it starvation and attrition or focal points of the leadership’s strategies. ...more
Abandoned this book at the halfway point. Too dreary, and author's droning on about numbers doesn't help. Author thrashes colleagues for wishful thinkAbandoned this book at the halfway point. Too dreary, and author's droning on about numbers doesn't help. Author thrashes colleagues for wishful thinking or ignorance, yet equally bases his own argument on assumption and surprisingly narrow reading of sources. ...more
This book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of mThis book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of misnomer though; The Roman Empire and the Army from 180 to approximately 500 would perhaps be more correct. That’s not strange, as Goldsworthy has made a career out of writing about the Roman army.
In this book Goldsworthy tries to give his view on what is known as the fall of the Roman Empire (most history-books will mention the year 476 when the last Western Roman emperor was deposed and no new emperor proclaimed, which is adequate enough as an artificial divide), a subject which has gotten a lot of attention in the last decades. Goldsworthy devotes quite a lot of time to discussing popular theories, usually setting out those theories in one or two paragraphs and then moving on to argue for or, more commonly, against them.
In actual fact Goldsworthy gives a narrative from the period of Marcus Aurelius to the first half of the sixth century. Larger themes are the relationship of the Roman superpower (a theme that comes back time and again) with the rest of the world, and the problems faced by the Roman emperors and their administration. It’s very interesting to see how Goldsworthy tends to adjudicate the current trends in academia. As always his style is very fluent, and he knows how to make an argument without coming across as tedious or over bearing, even if he does manage to keep coming back to certain themes and theories, in the case of other people’s theories more often than not to show why exactlythey are to be disregarded.
Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader. He’s up to speed with academia, but his narrative is designed to appeal to anyone interested in the period.
I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great....more
I feel this book is both good and pleasant to read. I know something of the subject, but I'm certainly no authority, so I was occasionally surprised bI feel this book is both good and pleasant to read. I know something of the subject, but I'm certainly no authority, so I was occasionally surprised by turns of events. This account views the American War from the British perspective, which is what the title on goodreads says, but oddly my copy does not. Anyway, the book gives a picture of British divisions, lack of governmental focus (hampered by the distance, the multitude of concerns facing it and chronic shortage of resources and troops) and American conviction. It also manages to give a balanced view of both sides, the focus of course on the British. Recommended....more
This book is officially about the Leper King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, but you could perhaps better call it a political history of the Kingdom of JeruThis book is officially about the Leper King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, but you could perhaps better call it a political history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the face of the Muslim threat of re-conquest. The author gives an overview and interpretation of the events from ca. 1165-1190, outlining major political motives and strategies. You could almost say that Baldwin comes second to the greater narrative, but that doesn’t detract from the strength of this work. It’s a great case study for Medieval politics, and truly fascination description of a kingdom under external threat suffering from internal turmoil.
Baldwin IV was King of Jerusalem from 1174 until his death in 1184. His affliction with leprosy was suspected when he was about 10, by William of Tyre (who was his tutor), who gave a moving description of the incident in A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea: apparently Baldwin and the other boys were playing a game where they would take turns pinching each other’s arms, and William was surprised to note that Baldwin appeared to feel no pain in his left arm. Doctors consulted (some of the best Arab doctors, appointed by the king) noted that the indications were likely for leprosy, even though a formal diagnosis was impossible until years later, when lesions would start to appear.
However, this is a scholarly work, so Hamilton starts with a description of the sources. He discusses both William of Tyre and the Eracles, the principal sources for this period, at length. Those readers who are not particularly interested in motivations of Medieval chroniclers or separate editions of surviving manuscripts are free to skip this part. For our understanding of the sources, it’s important to note that, for instance, William of Tyre was chancellor of the kingdom, but he took sides in the internal struggle for control. He is a very knowledgeable source, but he sometimes veils certain descriptions when he can’t be too open for the good of the kingdom, and he uses the method of “damning with faint praise” and outright neglect for those he holds responsible for frustrating his career. Throughout the book, Hamilton also uses Muslims sources (mainly Ibn al-Athir, Imad ad-Din and Baha ad-Din) and the occasional Byzantine and Orthodox source, giving (in my view) the most complete picture of events in this period we are ever likely to get.
The second part of the book is about the growing power of the most prominent Muslim rulers facing the Crusader Kingdom, Nur ad-Din and Saladin, and the efforts of both Baldwin III and Amalric (Baldwin IV’s uncle and father, respectively). A notable aspect here is the alliance of the Crusader kingdom with Byzantium; both Baldwin III and Amalric (though Amalric had to divorce the mother of Baldwin IV and Sybilla) took Byzantine wives, and Baldwin even went to Constantinople to discuss the alliance. This alliance was primarily centered on the conquest of Egypt, seen by Amalric as the basis of Saladins power and the heart of the threat against the kingdom. Here also the underlying problem of the kingdom, too few military resources and division amongst the upper nobility, became apparent. When great lords from the West came to the kingdom for their private crusades, they were both enticed by the semi-independent rulers of Antioch and Tripoli to further their ends, and thwarted by the leading nobles who did not want to see them stay on and gain power at their cost; this included territory to be won in Egypt, thereby severely damaging Amalric’s prospects for a successful conquest and ultimately damaging the kingdom’s chances of survival.
The third part starts with Baldwin IV’s ascension, and the division of power in the kingdom. Hamilton notes that there are two primary factions at court, Raymond of Tripoli (William’s patron) and the Ibelins on one side, and Baldwin’s mother Agnes of Courtenay with her family (and Reynald of Chatillon) on the other. At first Raymond of Tripoli was regent during Baldwin’s minority, and he apparently did well, but not entirely to Baldwin’s satisfaction as Baldwin changed tack after reaching the age of majority. Most prominently Raymond sought appeasement with Saladin, whereas Baldwin saw more in the line of constant aggression against Saladin, which was advocated by Reynald of Chatillon. Reynald received a bad press by William of Tyre, and also Sir Steven Runciman, but Hamilton gives us another picture of the man. His line of aggression towards Saladin was a continuation of Amalric’s policies, and intended to deny Saladin the peace he required to expand his conquests in Syria. Their position that Saladin would eventually attack the Crusader kingdom no matter what seems justified. Against that, Raymond or Tripoli twice tried to seize power in the kingdom, and after Baldwin’s death made a private truce with Saladin which Hamilton considers an act of treason. Ironically, William of Tyre, and also Runciman, favour Raymond of Tripoli as the wisest head and the best choice for the regency, and the Ibelins as the best men of the kingdom. Hamilton’s closer reading of the sources suggests otherwise. It is argued that Sybilla of Jerusalem was married to Guy of Lusignan to prevent Raymond and his allies marrying her off to one of the Ibelins, which also puts a very different perspective on the disastrous campaign of Hattin in 1187 (where Guy was isolated and unable to trust many of his most important barons). This division between the highest nobility is what cost the kingdom its best chances to turn the tide, starting with the Second Crusade, and following that up with the failed attempts to annex Egypt and strike at Saladin when he was still relatively weak.
Hamilton continues his narrative with the short reign of Baldwin V and subsequently Guy of Lusignan, though he treats these only briefly. As an appendix there is an article from a medical journal about Baldwin’s leprosy, which argues why lepromatous leprosy (the most severe kind) was the kind that Baldwin contracted. Throughout the book there will be re-evaluations of the sources, and explanations on why Hamilton chose the interpretations that he did.
Also, because you can’t make this up, according to Wikipedia the return address on a package bomb sent by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was Reynald Krak, a reference to Reynald of Chatillon....more
Very good history of "the Agincourt War", and Henry V. Barker is not distracted by the wider perpectives and keeps a tight focus of events as they relVery good history of "the Agincourt War", and Henry V. Barker is not distracted by the wider perpectives and keeps a tight focus of events as they relate to Agincourt, which is helpful because it keeps things clear and to the point. She gives a strong description of motivations (on both sides) and how those translate to the events as we know them. The key element of French royal paralysis due to a mad king, and uncertain dauphin and the rival factions of Burgundy and Orléans is adequately brought to light to help explain the French perspective. Barker is aided by several eye-witness reports (the anonymous terrified chaplain stands out) and a strong grasp of secondary sources and general literature on the subject. Her good overal perspective and attention to detail, both personal, political and financial - a real plus - combine to make this both a very readable and useful account of the subject. Highly recommended....more
Loading...
