Submitted by Colin Fergus, Dec 13, 2006 12:04

This review certainly makes me want to read Mr. Tyerman's book, but I think the reviewer is off the mark in dwelling on the negative aspects of the Crusading movement. Of course one has to agree with Runciman that at the end of the day the Crusades were a failure, and that they did, especially of course the Fourth, contribute to the destruction of the Byzantine Empire. One must never forget, however, that the Crusades were a response to aggression. The immediate cause of the First was the defeat, the disastrous (and unnecessary - the Byzantines should have won) defeat of a Byzantine army at Manzikert by Turkish invaders (I think their being Moslem may have been beside the immediate point). The essential cause lay four centuries earlier in the Moslem (I think their being Arabs was almost beside the point) invasion and conquest of Syria and the subsequent conquests of North Africa, Spain, Southern France and Sicily. In a violent age, it is disingenuous to describe anyone as being "bloodthirsty, brutal and fanatical". And I think it at the least unfair to denigrate the motives of all Crusaders - many, I'd like to think most were taking part in what they deeply believed a noble enterprise for a deeply held conviction. After all, one of the greatest Crusaders was a Saint.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.