What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading
"Riley-Smith marshals his case lucidly."--Times Literary Supplement
"Riley-Smith's analysis of the formation of Crusading ideology offers a provocative new interpretation. . . . [His] scholarship is impeccable, and he supports his contentions with
236 pages, Hardcover
Published July 29, 1986
7 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Riley-Smith
43 books47 followersJonathan Simon Christopher Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge, was educated at Eton College and Trinity College Cambridge. He received his BA (1960), MA (1964), PhD (1964) and LittD (2001) from Cambridge.
From 1964–1972 Dr. Riley-Smith taught in the Department of Medieval History at the Unversity of St Andrews, first as assistant lecturer, until 1966, then as lecturer. From 1972 until 1978, he served on the history faculty at the University of Cambridge. He was professor of history at the University of London from 1978 until 1994. Since 1994, Professor Riley-Smith has served on the faculties of history and divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. From 1997 to 1999 he was chair of the faculty of history.
He was a founder member (1980), acting secretary (1980–1982) and president (1987–1995) of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Other positions he has held include Knight of Grace and Devotion, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Officer of Merit, Order Pro Merito Melitens, and Knight of Justice, Most Venerable Order of St John.
From 1964–1972 Dr. Riley-Smith taught in the Department of Medieval History at the Unversity of St Andrews, first as assistant lecturer, until 1966, then as lecturer. From 1972 until 1978, he served on the history faculty at the University of Cambridge. He was professor of history at the University of London from 1978 until 1994. Since 1994, Professor Riley-Smith has served on the faculties of history and divinity at the University of Cambridge. He is a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. From 1997 to 1999 he was chair of the faculty of history.
He was a founder member (1980), acting secretary (1980–1982) and president (1987–1995) of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Other positions he has held include Knight of Grace and Devotion, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Officer of Merit, Order Pro Merito Melitens, and Knight of Justice, Most Venerable Order of St John.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 8, 2020
Read for the second time in August 2020: I find that this book has become somewhat of a cozy comfort read for me. Having read Tom Holland's MILLENNIUM shortly before this one helped me make sense of a lot more of the ways Riley-Smith explains the First Crusade in the context of the Gregorian reform movement.
This time around, a lot more of the nuance of the book (and the movement) became clear to me. Yet I also came away with a much greater appreciation of the fundamental divide within medieval society between churchmen and secular knighthood. I once heard someone claim with a straight face that masculinist aggression "didn’t conflict at all with the cultural form of religion in the middle ages", an idea that anyone who has read this book will greet with howls of derisive laughter. In many ways the central theme in the development of the crusading idea was precisely the conflict between pagan knightly ideals of war, revenge, and vendetta and Christian ideals of poverty, chastity, humility, and love. Riley-Smith's brilliant book follows this conflict through a variety of settings: from the massacres of Jews in the Rhineland (motivated by the knightly concept of vendetta against those who had crucified Christ) to scholarly assessment of the crusade once it was past, in which medieval scholars like Guibert of Nogent explicitly discussed the pagan roots of knighthood and how an attempt was made to reconcile them with church teachings.
Brilliant, provoking, insightful.
--
This was an immensely helpful book, but only if you're already familiar with the history. Riley-Smith doesn't tell the story of the First Crusade, and if you want to know the story (which is stunning), read Thomas Asbridge's THE FIRST CRUSADE: A NEW HISTORY. In this book, Riley-Smith focuses on ancillary questions. Where did the idea of crusading come from? Why did it elicit such an overwhelming popular response? What was the experience of crusading like? What convinced the participants - enduring starvation, homesickness, humiliation, terror, and an unimaginable death toll - that God was on their side? And how did later historians rework the history of the First Crusade into their scheme of providential history?
This book was full of helpful detail for the historical novelist, and I was taking detailed notes throughout. For instance, Riley-Smith spends much time discussing the visions and astronomical phenomena experienced by the crusaders (some certainly spurious; others...well, you never know). But probably the most helpful single concept this book provided was the reason why the call to crusade was answered with such unprecedented enthusiasm.
We're talking about an entire generation of wealthy young men rushing to sell off their possessions and mortgage, sell, or give away their inheritances for the purpose of setting out on a highly uncertain military expedition toward an objective that was hundreds of miles away across enemy territory. Riley-Smith is the man who single-handedly blew up the myth that crusading was a way to relieve Western Europe of surplus younger sons, or to grab new lands in the east. It wasn't land, and it wasn't wealth.
Instead, Riley-Smith argues persuasively that it was because up until the late 1000s, knights were commonly rebuked by the church for their (very real) sins of anger, extortion, violence, and lust. The church's idea of the holy life, on the other hand, usually involved monasticism or something very similar. Crusading struck a chord because for the first time it offered knights and commoners a way to serve God in their ordinary occupation. Even after the crusade, historians like Guibert of Nogent were marvelling that the crusaders were "not only priests nor simply lettered men, but military men, some of them common people. There had been no previous hope that these would bear witness to their faith" (emphasis mine).
The First Crusade was an incredible story, but it began with ordinary people being told they could serve God by doing their job.
Ok, maybe not all that ordinary. There were definitely problems with the idea of crusading. But I think the church could be taking notes here.
This time around, a lot more of the nuance of the book (and the movement) became clear to me. Yet I also came away with a much greater appreciation of the fundamental divide within medieval society between churchmen and secular knighthood. I once heard someone claim with a straight face that masculinist aggression "didn’t conflict at all with the cultural form of religion in the middle ages", an idea that anyone who has read this book will greet with howls of derisive laughter. In many ways the central theme in the development of the crusading idea was precisely the conflict between pagan knightly ideals of war, revenge, and vendetta and Christian ideals of poverty, chastity, humility, and love. Riley-Smith's brilliant book follows this conflict through a variety of settings: from the massacres of Jews in the Rhineland (motivated by the knightly concept of vendetta against those who had crucified Christ) to scholarly assessment of the crusade once it was past, in which medieval scholars like Guibert of Nogent explicitly discussed the pagan roots of knighthood and how an attempt was made to reconcile them with church teachings.
Brilliant, provoking, insightful.
--
This was an immensely helpful book, but only if you're already familiar with the history. Riley-Smith doesn't tell the story of the First Crusade, and if you want to know the story (which is stunning), read Thomas Asbridge's THE FIRST CRUSADE: A NEW HISTORY. In this book, Riley-Smith focuses on ancillary questions. Where did the idea of crusading come from? Why did it elicit such an overwhelming popular response? What was the experience of crusading like? What convinced the participants - enduring starvation, homesickness, humiliation, terror, and an unimaginable death toll - that God was on their side? And how did later historians rework the history of the First Crusade into their scheme of providential history?
This book was full of helpful detail for the historical novelist, and I was taking detailed notes throughout. For instance, Riley-Smith spends much time discussing the visions and astronomical phenomena experienced by the crusaders (some certainly spurious; others...well, you never know). But probably the most helpful single concept this book provided was the reason why the call to crusade was answered with such unprecedented enthusiasm.
We're talking about an entire generation of wealthy young men rushing to sell off their possessions and mortgage, sell, or give away their inheritances for the purpose of setting out on a highly uncertain military expedition toward an objective that was hundreds of miles away across enemy territory. Riley-Smith is the man who single-handedly blew up the myth that crusading was a way to relieve Western Europe of surplus younger sons, or to grab new lands in the east. It wasn't land, and it wasn't wealth.
Instead, Riley-Smith argues persuasively that it was because up until the late 1000s, knights were commonly rebuked by the church for their (very real) sins of anger, extortion, violence, and lust. The church's idea of the holy life, on the other hand, usually involved monasticism or something very similar. Crusading struck a chord because for the first time it offered knights and commoners a way to serve God in their ordinary occupation. Even after the crusade, historians like Guibert of Nogent were marvelling that the crusaders were "not only priests nor simply lettered men, but military men, some of them common people. There had been no previous hope that these would bear witness to their faith" (emphasis mine).
The First Crusade was an incredible story, but it began with ordinary people being told they could serve God by doing their job.
Ok, maybe not all that ordinary. There were definitely problems with the idea of crusading. But I think the church could be taking notes here.
February 12, 2025
An interesting account but more descriptive than analytical. Well-researched but the ridiculously long paragraphs snd clumsy writing style made it difficult to follow. The level of detail suggests it was meant to be introductory and analytical rather than a detailed account of the crusade (which was what I was mostly interested in) but the way names and places were just thrown in with no explanation made me feel like I was expected to know way more than I did. It was still interesting but I am glad it was short.
March 14, 2017
Riley-Smith argues that Urban II’s tour and speeches were designed to elicit a lay knightly response but that most of what he was saying was already part of contemporary church reform discourse. This, especially service to Christ, the emphasis on good works, pilgrimage, and bringing monastic ideals outside of the cloister helped to get the expedition going. After that, however, the “idea” of crusading was mainly shaped by the events of the expedition itself, as the privation and eventual success was viewed as miraculous. The book is oddly Frankish (at the expense of the Germanics and the Italians) and stresses their contributions.
October 31, 2010
I was required to read this for a medieval history class. It was a terribly dull book but I gave it three stars based on how it was written.
This book was assigned to teach us how to effectively process large books/papers in a relatively short period of time and then to be able to distill the book into a concise summary. For that, this book was an excellent text to work with. Riley-Smith presents his position very clearly and constructs the rest of the book in a way that allows to effective reading.
I learned a lot from Riley-Smith, nothing of which had to do with crusading....well I'm sure I did, I just read it so long ago that I don't remember. I do however remember learning to be a more effective non-fic reader and a better writer because of this book. And as an academic, that is invaluable.
This book was assigned to teach us how to effectively process large books/papers in a relatively short period of time and then to be able to distill the book into a concise summary. For that, this book was an excellent text to work with. Riley-Smith presents his position very clearly and constructs the rest of the book in a way that allows to effective reading.
I learned a lot from Riley-Smith, nothing of which had to do with crusading....well I'm sure I did, I just read it so long ago that I don't remember. I do however remember learning to be a more effective non-fic reader and a better writer because of this book. And as an academic, that is invaluable.
April 3, 2021
This is one of the best analytic sources about the First Crusade that I've ever read. There is a mildly narrative structure to it but it is certainly more analytical than narrative. The detailed treatment of the events between 1095 and 1101 in this book is astonishing. Riley-Smith examines different ideological, theological, political, and personal aspects of different crusaders in amazing details and shows the political, financial and ultimately ideological outcomes of this expedition. The research is vast and deep but the amazing thing is how concise the outcome of this huge research end up to be. And also, it is important to mention that this book is a scholarly work but it is so well-written that it could be used by any person with general knowledge about the events of the First Crusade.
June 11, 2009
Scholarly look at the motivations of the crusaders. This is not really a military history, and certainly not a popular one, but does give a good sense of what these people were thinking when they crossed a continent, risking everything, usually returning with nothing -- if they returned at all. Nice antidote to the standard, and false, narrative that the first crusade was an endeavor motivated by greed that resulted in forced conversion on a mass scale of the peaceable people of the east. Not a riveting read by any stretch of the imagination, but very useful.
September 21, 2022
Riley-Smith's The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading is clear, concise, and to the point. His writing sometimes overwhelms when he begins providing myriad examples as evidence for a given point, and certain sentences are a little unclear, but overall it's an easy read that not only discusses the factual realities for the first crusade but also the theological underpinnings (and where those theological underpinnings came into conflict with the ideas of the lay elite). Also a really critical work for redefinition crusade historiography.
March 31, 2010
Mostly narrative, not deeply analytical, and, in empathizing with the crusaders themselves, does not properly contextualize or problematize the actual violence of the First Crusade. Problematic treatment of the slaughter of the Jews in 1096.
July 24, 2018
I really struggled to finish this. Not that it wasn’t informational, but because it was so dull and repetitive.
August 1, 2019
I now have an interest in the causes for the holy war raged by the church and the people who participated in the miracle liberation of Jerusalem in that first crusade. My ideas of why the crusading occurred have changed as a result of the evidence presented in this book.
November 17, 2020
Interesting book, it will kill off most myths about this conflict. The author does a great job of explaining the way it's been misinterpreted by people reading the war through a modern perspective, which doesn't yield (accurate) explanatory power.
February 24, 2021
I am not 100% convinced that they were not motivated by greed. Crusading was expensive and they basically left their families in Europe destitute. I don't think he can completely separate those motives.
Read
December 26, 2019read for grad school
September 28, 2021
A very, very interesting look at the First Crusade, particularly from the perspective of its intellectual history and the motivations of the crusaders themselves. A little dry at times, though.
February 8, 2023
Very interesting, good information, but pretty dense and academic. This book is not a light read.
April 18, 2023
they should add a sixth star
January 4, 2024
xuro que esti ye'l últimu llibru de Medieval que lleo na mio vida.
March 13, 2024
Essential for understanding the Crusades and the motivations behind them.
Read
November 2, 2025A bit overessentialized, but good introduction
December 5, 2019
Boring, repetitive, doesn't spend enough time actually providing great evidence for his hypothesis. Instead keeps giving out a bunch of examples of things happening and people doing things that serves no purpose for the reader to understand what the big picture is. Also, the author focuses too much on the Frankish point of view so it doesn't encapsulate the true origin and reason for the First Crusade.
March 13, 2025
I’m a bit torn about this book. From what I gathered from a professor it is *the* book on the First Crusade when introducing someone to the topic. I definitely agree and I came away with a much stronger grasp of the topic because of this book and I did enjoy it I just am not sure if I enjoyed it enough to give it 5 stars. But this might also be because of the tight turn around I had to finish this book being three days.
Nevertheless would recommend
Nevertheless would recommend
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews