"Osprey's Second Crusade - I Regret Buying This" Topic

I bought this book a few weeks ago and just had a chance to finish it. It gives a decent account of the campaign, but a lousy account of the siege of Damascus. If there isn't much known about a battle/campaign, don't try and write a book on it! It adds nothing new to what I already knew.

The biggest problem is that the author is infused with political correctness to the point he's prsenting modern propoganda as historical fact.

He refers to the Islamic campaigns as 'counter-crusades'. this leaves the impression that the Muslim states were peacefully sitting around when a bunch of crusaders showed up and started taking their lands, forcing them to mount 'counter crusades' to retake what was theirs. This ignores the fact that the Crusades were called when Byzantium called for help after losing significant parts of her empire to invading Muslims!

If this seems a bit harsh here is the caption to the first photograph in the text of the book: "It took many years for the idea of 'counter-crusading' to take root, and Islamic civilization retained its peaceful character, especially amongst the Arab elites, as illustrated in this 11th or 12th century wooden door panel from the Fatamid palace in Cairo." It's peaceful character? no civilization had a 'peaceful character' at this time. The Muslim had just spent the last 500 years expanding militarily through the middle east and wouldn't stop until they reached Vienna in another couple of hundred years.

I have to say this book is a waste of money and I doubt I'll be buying anything else the author writes.

Osprey's had a problem with it in recent years…some of the titles Mir Bahmanyar had some similar pontificating, though it was less blatant than this. Osprey seems to be making an effort to fix it, however.

Might as well just move this to the Blue Fez now; it ain't gonna git no better…

Without having read the book, I'll accept your view. That said, how did the European Crusaders help the Byzantine Empire regain their losses of the prior few decades by invading Jerusalem? Or Damascus?

The prime threat to Byzantine were the Turks, not the Arabs of Jerusalem and Damascus (or Bagdad or Egypt).

The Arabs of the time were certainly not peaceful states, but trying to claim that the Europeans were only reacting to events of 300 years earlier seems kind of silly (that is when the 'Holy Land' fell to Arab forces…without much fighting at that). The Byzantines had been losing since the 8th century, but their most recent loss in 1071 which lost parts of what is now Turkey had nothing to do with the targets of the Crusaders who went to conquer the Holy Land.

I'd suggest that the book must be very short on historical facts and details if it does not explain how the Europeans got suckered into the Crusade and then redirected once the Byzantine Empire wanted them out of their terrorities.

Dan

"Suckered" isn't exactly accurate either.

Alexis asked the pope, Urban, to raise knights to fight WITH the Byzantine army, so that Anatolia could be regained and the Turkish advance reversed: this would have applied right over to Syria, including Edessa and Antioch. The "pilgrims" accepted that these were "Roman" provinces; and except for Bohemund and Baldiwn stealing them to hold as independent principalities, they would have been governed by "princes" either appointed, or agreed to, by the emperor.

Early on, it was seen by Alexis that the popularity of the crusade was founded on the twin motivations of avarice and piety: the pilgrims were truly devout in their desire to liberate the Holy Land. This was because for a generation, European pilgrims had been increasingly harrassed, violated, despoiled and even killed by Muslims along the pilgrim route to Jerusalem. These depredations served as modern reminders of all that Islam had done to Christianity in the past. Alexis could only use what he got the best he could manage; that is, he had to accept that the pilgrims were not going to serve as paid mercenaries of the Romans.

The "counter crusade" was nothing of the sort: but rather "Jihad", holy war, as always. It was just that Islam was so divided against itself, that the arrival of a cohesive invader caught them unprepared, and it took most of the 12th century to change back into "united against the infidel" mode.

It sounds like the author is a genuine Islamophile (understandable if he is Muslim, who knows?). Anyway, history should never be "started" at the date where "our side" looks justifed and the other side as all bad guys….

"Without having read the book, I'll accept your view. That said, how did the European Crusaders help the Byzantine Empire regain their losses of the prior few decades by invading Jerusalem? Or Damascus?'

--It didn't, but it did throw the Islamic states off balance for a century or so and may have prolonged the life of the Byzantine Empire. And, it's beside the point, the Crusaders came when the Byzantines called for help, they didn't do what Alexis wanted, but that's why they came. The point is that the author paints it as if history started in 1099 when the Crusaders showed up in the middle east and ignores everything leading up to that point, hence the argument of 'counter crusade'.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that some of their authors aren't historians or researchers, but rather just have an interest in the period or what not. Part of it is from the fact that they don't do any original research for their books, like a historian would do – they use the most popular or longest lasting works on the subject as references and write up their understanding of what they read. More like a junior term paper than a graduate thesis. In that sense, Ospreys convey the basic facts but don't really explore or expose new territory.

I'd agree with Sundance's view in that many of the Osprey's are written at a low level (for their audience).

Dan

The author is David Nicolle who is well know for his pro-islamic bias.

What I dont understand is why we are dividing them up by Christian and Moslem. Why not by nationality or race. We have Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Franks, Germans, and a whole bunch of others and all with different agendas and goals. We could go by kingdoms, Empires and Sultanetes. What I am saying is just by describing it as Moslem vs Christian is just completely wrong.

Open up Ruinciman's history at random, and see what he describes.
I did it once, and came across three different Turk factions, three different Western Christian states, Byzantines, Jews, Egyptian Shia and several others I can't recall. All thought God was on their side.

That's why I'm careful to use terms like 'Arabs' and 'Turks', and seperate the political, social and military movements from religious ones.

Same restricted mindsets operate today for most people (as in the past and I have no doubt in the future). Easier to paint one color with a large brush, than to accept that historical subjects are complicated and difficult to understand clearly. Everyone has a gored ox and one must work hard to grasp the facts (as best as one can).

Dan

"All thought God was on their side."

And then there were those who were just out for themselves, and for whom God did not enter the equation.

Allen

True. I was being too generous to some.
But th exercise is still valid. Open a page at random…

Yes, it was Runciman who opened my eyes to the complexity of the crusades as history; and the good and bad waged by any side. I can't think of a single example of a "side" that was fully justifed in their agenda….

Allen quoted:

""All thought God was on their side.""

Napoleon is said to ventured that God took the side of the strongest battalions.

As the old saying goes: "The race is not always to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet". :)

Respects,

And yet Europe, as well as Byzantium was being attacked by muslims. They may have been Turks, or Arabs or anything else, but they were bound together under Islam, and still are.

I find it more than a little hypocritical that Muslims decry the "colonial" influence of Europeans, when Islam has been colonizing lands across the globe for some 13 centuries.

Condottiere,

You can dress the debate up in any clothes you like, but the core truth is that it has always been Islam against everyone else, and . Their Jihad has been an order of magnitude greater than anything the West has ever been accused of, including the worst actions by Crusaders.

Folks are entitled to their own opinions. They are NOT entitled to their own facts.

You are looking for depth in an Osprey?

Not that I've anything against them, it's just that I expect a little overall insight but only as a primer

You know I have read that Osprey and I have to disagree with the initial post.

A good read? Yes. Informative about the different political factions both Chistian and Islamic – hell yes – including the fall of Damascus a few years after the crusade – to a rival Moslem faction.

I'll also disagree that the book shows either side as peaceful. On the contrary, it shows that there were numerous campaigns by the various factions (both Christian and Moslem) against each other before and after the Second Crusade.

As far as the book starting at 1099 well yes it does pick up the narrative from the Osprey First Crusade book written by (you guessed it) David Nicolle.

In my opinion, the book is well written and accurate. I personally thought it was unbiased and portrayed both sides well. So I'd say it was worth buying just to get a good political background even if the Second Crusade itself was rather brief.

Guy

I'm not sufficiently informed to make any general comment as to the depth of research in Osprey books, but my friend and regular wargame opponent Dr Nic Grguric based his elite title'The Mycenaeans' on his honours thesis.

Condottiere, you may not agree but Nicolle is renowned for being pro Islam and anti Christian in his writing. I'm not saying that is indeed the case in reality, just that it is his reputation.

Browse his reviews on Amazon and you'll see what I mean.

And those reviews on Amazon who keep are made by Bleeped texts anbd scum, barring the ones who take the time to critique the book based on its own merits. I've read their Amazon.com forum posts and short openly calling Muslims – or Moslem, as they get a kick out of the pronunciation meaning another word – bunch of sand Bleeped texts and subhuman apes, they attack them via subtle methods. Provided you're polite there, you can call certain groups anything you want…

I've read Nicolle's scholarly works and there isn't a hint of anti-Christian pro-Muslim bias in it. How can there be, as they're discussions about equipment and tech.

I make no comments on whether David Nicolle is pro Moslem and anti Christian, nevertheless the perception is there, "perception" being the key word. The original poster doesn't seem like a Islamophobe to me but I haven't reviewed all his postings, having neither the time nor the inclination.

Anyone who relies on Amazon.com "reviews" is as ignorant as those who write them.
I will grant that they might be one step up from Youtube commentary, but certainly not two.

The thing about amazon.com reviews is that they are nothing but one blowhard's opinion, and are in no way professionally written or solicited. I should know, as I have written a few.

As for "bias", let's get real. There is NO work of history ever written that does not have any bias in it. They are written by human beings. They are biased. QED

I am not sure whether I should make some pop corn, or go and fetch a fez.

That said, what does this topic have to do with the Ancients period?

Griefbringer

Islam started "IN" the ancients period, perhaps?

I knew when Bill excised the CACA and Religion boards and established his moratorium on such discussion on wargaming threads, that this would happen: it is impossible to have any MEANINGFUL dialogue about history without tying it to the present: and RELIGION plays an enormous (arguably the biggest) factor in creating wars of aggression.

TK, get your Blue Fez membership and take the blatant religious angst and prejudice there. Start a thread and I'll be happy to join you….

Islam started "IN" the ancients period, perhaps?

Islam started in the early 7th century, which I would personally consider no longer a part of the ancient period, but as being in the early medieval period.

Then again, we don't really have any official TMP time limits for the periods.

Griefbringer

Dan Cyr wrote: "Same restricted mindsets operate today for most people (as in the past and I have no doubt in the future). Easier to paint one color with a large brush, than to accept that historical subjects are complicated and difficult to understand clearly. Everyone has a gored ox and one must work hard to grasp the facts (as best as one can)."

I agree totally. the period is very complex and fascinating. I'm certainly not saying the Crusaders were a bunch of saints and the muslims were all evil eaters of children. What I have a problem with is Nicolle writing the opposite, ""It took many years for the idea of 'counter-crusading' to take root, and Islamic civilization retained its peaceful character, especially amongst the Arab elites,…"

Condottiere wrote: "Okay I'll bite, what do you mean by "the Muslim" or is this a typo? Are you incapable of differentiating between Seljuks, Egyptians and Ottomans?"

Actually it should have read Muslims. And it was exactly what I meant. There is no doubt that the explosion from the Arabian peninsula that eventually encompassed the 'caliphate' which stretched from Spain to Indonisia was fired by religious fervor. As it spread out and slowed down various factions emerged within that religion, but it was the driving force in the expansion. Again, I'm not saying they were evil or anything like that, however it cannot be denied that they had a common trait, Islam.

Hi

Oddly, I buy Osprey's for the pretty pictures.

I did lay out a campaign once in the late 70s set in 635 with the idea of resolving the battles with figs. Needed, I figured, at least a dozen enthusiastic players to adequately hint at the various factions.

From then to now, never got a NIBBLE. I suppose these days I could do it as a PBM.

I wont comment on the BS involving good and bad religion and spin on the facts. Hie the hence to the blue fez!

Rocky

Let's call it a fez time, shall we?

Griefbringer

Condottiere, I was speaking in general about Ospreys, not knowing who the particular author of this one was. And professional historians have their biases too. That's why there are dozens of works on the same subject that all say different things about it.

ospreys have basically become a wargamer and modellers "Penthouse" the pictures are nice, but in the large, the depth of knowledge is shallow and opinionated!

If you after Crusader info buy Runciman, he is worth the bucks!

I think those of you who accuse Nicolle, ought at the very least, get off your behinds and read the sources he has read. When I studied the crusades at Uni (under Graham Loud) it was clear that a)though there was a muslim world many of its component kingdoms had much malice towards one another and b)Islams enduring appeal among its believers cannot be explained by brute force.

Remember (for example) that the Ottoman empire was fractured internally by jealousies and cultural rivalries – Persians despise Arabs, Turks look down on North Africans. Life and history is not so simple.

Give yourselves a break…the question you should be asking is 'Nicolle challenges my deeply held beliefs, I ought to read what he has read and see if it changes my mind'

The only losers in any discussion are the ignorant.

I put my reply over on this thread on TBF. thebluefez.com/msg.mv?id=1987 Come on over, and we can discuss….

One element that is often lacking in these discussions is that in the 11-12th century Chrisian/Islamic relationship Islam was the superior party in military, cultural and religious terms (today it's reversed.) That is, the Christian West was both deeply influenced by and had an inferiority complex towards the Islamic kingdoms from Spain to Mesopotamia that stems from centuries of defeat. Thus, the whole idea of Crusade in the Christian West must be seen as an adaptation of jihad that had undergirded the Islamic rise starting in the 7th century. That is, the Crusades are the true counter-crusade to centuries of Islamic jihad. So Nicolle's use of counter-crusade to describe the Islamic world's response to the Crusades is disingenuous at best. Even the notion of Christians making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem must be understood in terms of the Hajj.

Condottiere, how did you quote me, when that is from TBF and you don't go there? Is this evidence of Bill's editing tool having a one hour lagtime -- the poster sees his edits right away, but the viewer still sees the unedited original post until the editing window closes? Just curious….

May I ask, have you read any of Dr. Nicolle's works? Having read most of his Ospreys and scholarly articles and books, it's wrong to label him as an Islamophile, Islamic apologist and etc….

I have a number of his Osprey titles. Until this thread accused him of being a PC Islam "fanboy" (whatever), I hadn't noticed any egregious slanting in his writing in favor of Islam versus Christianity. But the quoted passages in this thread certainly paint him that way. That is all I am addressing….

Then again, we don't really have any official TMP time limits for the periods.

Ancient [up to 500 A.D.]
Medieval [500 to 1400]
Renaissance [1400-1700]

TMP link

Fair Enough.

I think that historically Islam wasn't anymore especially bloody then other extra-systemic conquerors. It always seems so because of the fact that they overthrew stable systems, with fairly ritualized rules of war (like in post-Gupta India). Whenever a extra-systemic power enters a previously stable system, the dislocations are severe. That is what happened when the Huns came, that is what happened when the Goths etc came, that is what happened when the Spanish reached America, and that is what happened when the Mongols came. To single out Islam can only be either a indicator of historical blindness, or in the name of more "political" goals. So if Dr.Nicolle is being PC, so be it. Extreme actions require extreme reactions.

Ancient [up to 500 A.D.]
Medieval [500 to 1400]
Renaissance [1400-1700]

Great, I had not spotted that before!

Now, can we have these definitions shown in more places, eg. in the names of the ancient/medieval/renaissance boards?

Griefbringer

Is this topic fatally holed below the water line? There were over 60 comments yesterday, now down to 50.
Hmmm…

I think that mr. Editor utilised his big stick in the mean while.

How many people ended up in the canine garden this time?

Griefbringer

Let's take a looksee:

Nope, nobody on this thread is in the hoosgow. Bill's current policy seems to be extensive use of the SNIP and DELETE, rather than tossing accounts into the Dawghaus….

find it more than a little hypocritical that Muslims decry the "colonial" influence of Europeans, when Islam has been colonizing lands across the globe for some 13 centuries.

Do you consider "colonization" to be a synonym for "conquest?"

Lets not forget that the ara that was Syria, Palestine,bEgypt, Algeria, Tunisia , Libya, all Christian at one point and the Chrisianbstates had been on the butt end of a kicking for 500 years when the Crusades started. That isn't intended to justify aggression, but to ut n int context. In this period land and piwer were there for whoever grabbed and held them.
And the didpstinction between conquest and colonisation is that conquest is beating them and taking over their territory.nColonisation is when you pkant your own people there. The most successful colonisation is wgen the original inhabitants are cleansed and left with little ability to revolt. The problem that the Crusaders had was that they won territory , but did not bring over enough colonists to hold it. This was because they were capable of taking over a territory an putting in an aristocracy, but not of systematically settling the land.

The Crusades were Europe's response to muslim aggression. Period.

People can (and do) rationalize other points all up and down the scale, but had islam not been forceably spread outside of the Middle East, it's unlikely that the Crusades, as we know them, would have taken place.

"Oddly, I buy Osprey's for the pretty pictures"

Me too, I don't bother with the text in most of them. it's padding IMO.

As to the Crusades, everyone was at each throats before and after, the Franks were an interesting but brief interruption to business as usual.

Islam is no more aggressive than christianity, and there were a multitude of other reasons for the crusades.

Thats a moot point Young Guard. Plenty of Christian States have actively spread their religion by warfare, yet there is a contradiction between such wars and the central Christian message . The founder of Christianity was a pacifist, the founder of Islam a successful general.
There is a reasonable argument that Christianity becomes much more martial after it (specifically the Byzantine Empire of Heraclius) suffers massive losses to the Muslims.

I agree with your points mate but aggression is agression, does it matter so much if one figure is peaceful and the other a commander?

Christianity has done its fair share of wiping out other religions in more aggressive stance than reactionary. They've even taken the sword to their own people. I think it's difficult to label one religion more aggressive than the other

ISIS doesn't help my argument but too be fair that is a groups understanding of Islam and not Muslims as a whole…