What's a good book on the history of the Crusades?
>>8160724
Why do Muslim invaders have less of a right to the Holy Land than Roman invaders?
>>8160739
Why do Jewish people have more of a right to the holy lands than early neolithic farmers?
>>8160724
There's two important facts that a lot of people seem to conveniently avoid for some reason. The only reason the crusades ended in an arguable stalemate or marginal Christian victory is because the Mongols absolutely fucked the Abbasids. Also the only reason Turks (who for the notice, participated to a very minimal extent in crusading) became powerful is because the Byzantines were fucked by the crusades as well as Venitan assholes
>>8160755
>>8160739
Abraham had the right to the land by the promise of God, but now, Christians have the right to the land by Jesus.
>Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
>And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
>>8160777
Don't make me *tip*
>reading for the plot
>>8160724
DEUS FUCKING VULT
The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalouf
Crusaders Did Literally Nothing Wrong - Rodney Stark
Runciman's History of the Crusades is a classic literary read, but very dated and verboten for academic purposes,
Jonathan Riley-Smith's Short History of the Crusades is a nice intro and still a standard. Riley-Smith's other short books (What Were the Crusades?) cover the theoretical disputes over the Crusades, which are worth looking into.
Christopher Tyerman's new book God's War is a comprehensive cinderblock that is good for reference but not particularly great in any other respect. Tyerman also has a book on theoretical disputes (The Debate over the Crusades, http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1153), also short-ish and worth a skim.
Either one of these authors will point out the great classics of the field, like Erdmann. But because the theoretical disputes are so deep, it's difficult to read or recommend these authors without putting them into their context in the dispute. There are two major opposing stances on the nature of the crusades, and their uniqueness and centrality to European history.
http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr01.pdf
Erik Christiansen (Northern Crusades) and William Urban (Teutonic Knights, specific books on different Northern Crusades) are the standard English-language authors on the Northern Crusades, but the latter especially is getting a little dated. Most research on the Northern Crusades is understandably written in Central and East-Central European languages, and badly riven into nationalist historiographical camps. It used to be pretty blatant, with the Germans claiming the Teutonic Knights were civilizing cool dudes, and the Poles writing FUCK GERMANY for 600 straight pages, but now it has just gone under the surface of polite academic rigour.
>>8161146
Still, fuck Germany. The whole "Teutonic Knights State" affair was backstabbing Poland (takeover of Gdańsk) just to flee from secular power persecutions Knights Templar style.
>>8160739
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FUCKING WHITE MALES
ALLAHU AKBAR BY ALI (ANELE)
>>8160724
Burn The Koran
>>8161146
>Christopher Tyerman's new book God's War
Great book, fun read, looks awesome on a shelf
>>8161146
You may be long gone from the thread, but I want to say thanks for the great response. I have Runciman on my shelf (still unread), and stumbled on Erdmann in earlier threads about crusades, but otherwise what you posted is totally new to me.
Cheers!
