Rec me a book about the crusades
>>16533828Alexiad
>>16533828runcimanthomas asbridge
>>16533828Anything written by Jonathan Riley-Smith or Christopher Tyerman, both of them have an incredibly exhaustive knowledge on the topic. Jonathan Riley-Smith was regarded as the foremost expert on the crusades in the English speaking worst at least. Peter Frankopan for the Byzantinist perspective on the First Crusade.These are just a couple good authors, but you asked for one book so how about "Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade" from John France. For sure the most in-depth book on the First Crusade that's still on the market.
>>16533960ignore this anon>Jonathan Riley-Smith or Christopher Tyermanthese two seethe about runciman in their introductions which turned me off from them>Peter Frankopanthis guy's book on the silk roads was awful
>>16533966Runciman's work while superbly written, is incredibly outdated and most crusade scholars regard is as shoddily researched with a very clear bias on the topic. It's definitely worth reading, the story telling is amazing, I just wouldn't recommend it as a first read because it's so outdated.
>>16534027>is incredibly outdatedcool meme. This is what historians say to sell their own shit. Notice how people spam the term outdated without explaining why>shoddily researched with a very clear bias on the topic'false. Every writer is biased. Modern historians are no different. This is a joke of an accusation.
>>16534037Well, every generation of crusade scholars bring with them new sets of biases, but the scholarship on the topic has never been as good as it is now. Regarding Runciman, if you want one specific example of the datedness of his work; take for example his treatment of figures like Raynald of Chatillon, who is depicted as a rogue adventurer and somehow blamed for the war with Saladin. This was a war that Saladin was very determined to bring to Jerusalem as soon as possible, regardless of any actions taken by a single noble of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Bernard Hamilton, in his book "Baldwin IV: The Leper King and His Heirs" convincingly argues that Chatillon followed sound strategic principles when, with the consent of Baldwin IV, he launched his raids into the Red Sea in order to undermine the political credibility of Saladin as the protector of Islam's holy sites, and impede the unification of Egypt and Syria.
>>16534160>take for example his treatment of figures like Raynald of Chatillon, who is depicted as a rogue adventurer and somehow blamed for the war with SaladinNot exclusive to Runciman>Bernard Hamilton, in his book "Baldwin IV: The Leper King and His Heirs" convincingly argues that Chatillon followed sound strategic principles when, with the consent of Baldwin IV, he launched his raids into the Red Sea in order to undermine the political credibility of Saladin as the protector of Islam's holy sites, and impede the unification of Egypt and Syria.the fact that you hold the same position doesn't make runciman "outdated"
>>16533828just watch kings and generals vids on em. also flash point history
>>16534378>just watch fake and gay vids on em. also flash pozzed history
