The author is a good historian and writer, however, this book is not for someone who does not know much about the Crusades. Better to read an “elementary” level book first and familiarize yourself with the events and people surrounding this period in history prior to picking this one up.

3-stars: a perfectly good book, but didn't really "ring my bell"

Very well written, crisp clean sentences, well organised. A huge subject that has helped form both the western and the Islamic worlds. A very good 'first book' on the First Crusade.

Somehow this book did not really grab me, but maybe that's just me.

One thing: this is the First Crusade only. According to the author, all subsequent six crusades were only echos and more flippant repeats of the (eventual) failure of this, the first crusade.

A long book but fascinating and detailed in its scope. Certainly some bias in its insights but it doesn't disrupt the value.

This book concentrated on the first crusade. I enjoyed the fact that the scope was limited; however, it dealt a lot with military strategy which I found boring. Also, the repetition of the importance of conquering Damascus was a bit tiresome. Finally there was a bit of racism when Belloc talked of the failure of the first crusade being due in part to the admixture of French blood with Oriental blood. The last chapter did talk about the cohesiveness of Islam in 1937 because of its unity in belief, whereas Europe had lost the faith. His contention was that Islam was a threat in the future because of this and that our current (1937) superiority in arms was ephemeral.

None

Hilaire Belloc is never an easy read but pressing through is always well worth the challenge. In this book, he gives fascinating historical background re: the political landscape of Medieval Europe and how it affected the success and failure of the Crusades. He details how feudal Europe hampered the participants in truly organizing the Crusade against Islamic control over the Holy Land ... our current understanding of nations and nation states have nothing in common with feudal Europe and its many feudal lords, each with their own serfs loyal to them ... the concept of a nation with a standing army was not yet thought of or desired, thus making it difficult to organize under a common military strategist.
The strength of feudal Europe was in their common faith and thus their common goal. This is what held them together, in spite of the many factions that vied for control and power during the Crusades. In spite of the Crusaders' lack of truly cohesive leadership, Islam was even more fractured and subject to the arbitrary rise and fall of powerful viziers who held power until they were toppled by another more cunning or deceptive and more powerful.
The initial Crusade was the most successful Crusade, and in spite of incredible hardships suffered due to the crusaders' unfamiliarity of the land and people, they were successful in regaining control of Jerusalem and setting up a monarchy that held that area for almost 50 years. Belloc explains how the establishing of what was a monarchy of sorts, was the key to holding the Holy Land. Lack of a consistent supply of men and arms made it difficult to continue to maintain control over the land ... the great body of the crusaders came and fought and then trickled back home and although reinforcements kept arriving, it was not enough to form a very stable hold on the land. In the end, Islam finally organized under powerful vizier warriors, the greatest was Saladin, and regained control of the Holy Land.
Belloc's account of the final defeat of the Crusaders fighting against Islam was heartbreaking.
In his final analysis, in commenting on the Europe of modern day, Belloc stated, "The West has returned, and one might say that the work of Saladin was plainly undone." Having said that, he warns, "...recent domination of western Europeans... over Mohamedan lands, is due to causes mainly material and therefore ephemeral. One must always look to ... spiritual causes for the understanding of human movements and political change. ... in the major thing of all, Religion, we have fallen back and Islam has in the main preserved its soul. Modern Europe and particularly Western Europe has progressively lost its religion, and especially that united religious doctrine permeating the whole community, which unity gives spiritual strength to that community. ... Islam has not suffered this spiritual decline. ... We are divided in the face of a Mohammedan world ... divided by separate independent national rivalries, by the warring interests of possessors and dispossessed - and that division cannot be remedied because the cement which once held our civilisation together, the Christian cement, has crumbled." This book by Belloc was written in 1937 and he very presciently predicts the future rise of Islam and says, "Nor does it seem probable that at the end of such a change, especially if the process be prolonged, Islam will be the loser."
In light of current events, with militant Islam on the move, this prediction seems especially prophetic !

Belloc excels in writing what for him was apparently a chore of a book. Fortunately, it is not so for the reader. Having read extensively on the Crusades, I have to admit that Belloc's perspective was novel; I learned plenty and chewed upon much more.

His writing style is really fun: engaging, vivid, & epic. The book only goes from the rallying of the First Crusade to Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem, beyond that Belloc doesn’t consider anything else a “real” Crusade since they come up short of recovering the Holy Sepulcher. Unexpectedly I found the best parts to be the “brass tacks” of getting into the medieval Westerner mind, the machinations of Feudalism, estimation of army sizes, tactical constraints & decisions, military superiority of the mounted Western knight, & the construction of castles in that Age. Under such a feudal system it is remarkable the First Crusade even cohesively got to Jerusalem, let alone held it for a century. But there was never enough manpower to defend it, because they were too far away from the Western European homeland, & under feudalism kings could only be stirred to send reinforcements if something bad happened. It also boggles the mind the fractions of these armies that actually made it to the Holy Land compared to what had set out from France/Rhineland. Byzantium was also much too coy that it’s incredibly annoying & verging on cowardly, given how much direct stake they had in the land & how much centralized defense they could have brought had they actually helped. Then there is no way a review of this book cannot mention how much Belloc harped about how they should have taken Damascus, which based on the great geography lesson of the 3 Roads would have been key, but also it was potentially never actually doable (especially for feudal lords with religious motivations & personal ambitions). His claim that if the Crusaders held Damascus they could have divided the Muslim world in half permanently I find dubious. And then his claims about the Western blood being diluted with Eastern Armenian blood leading to a decline of the Jerusalem Kingdom’s Royal Family, I found eventually off putting. I don’t think he was just talking about a chivalric/warrior/relentless “Gallic” spirit or mentality or cultural character compared to a more luxurious/political-intrigue Middle Eastern proclivity (which I could perhaps accept), but he was saying the actual superiority of one blood (race) over another based off only their royalty. Besides in regards to producing heirs (which rates did decline in the Holy Land), I think a 1937 Christian should have found the actual “blood” of royals to be irrelevant in governance of a kingdom (vs cultural character, which is important). Then interestingly, lots of his thoughts on the character of the main leaders are significantly different than other Crusade sources I’ve read, particularly on Count Raymond of Toulouse; clearly more arguments about them were proposed post this book. Overall I thought the rallying of the armies/leaders & their march across Europe & Asia Minor was the most fun part cuz it was epically legendary & larger than life, quite an adventure story, & the politics weren’t yet too hamstringing. Well-sized book given the topic too. 

If you want to read a book on the Crusades that reads like a superior novel with intrigue, deception, adventure, treason, spirituality, war, politics, religion, then this is the book for you. But this work isn't fiction, it's fact. And it's written the way all historical books should be written - with passion. None of this scientific, soulless rigidity with footnotes on every single page. This historical book is a real page turner.

Rather dry and analytical without much of the discussion of sources. Most praise for the book seems to come from the last two chapters where Belloc discusses the charism and impact of the crusades. The epilogue discusses the state of Islam and would definitely be worth reading on its own. I hope to read The Great Heresies for more of his discussion in that department.

A real, truthful look at the Crusades

A real, truthful look at the Crusades, their importance then and now, why they failed, and prophetic in the return of the Mohammedan menace to Europe and the West.

An excellent over all history of the economic, political and cultural ramifications of the Crusading movement to include the Baltics and Spain. I would prefer more military implications but it was interesting to learn how much Western culture is beholden to the Levant -- particularly modern day Syria -- and the impact the Crusades had on medicine, ancient history and mathematics.