What do you think?
Rate this book
Chronicles of the Crusades
Two famous, firsthand accounts of the holy war in the Middle Ages translated by Margaret R. B. Shaw
Originally composed in Old French, the two chronicles brought together here offer some of the most vivid and reliable accounts of the Crusades from a Western perspective. Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople , distinguished by its simplicity and lucidity, recounts the controversial Fourth Crusade, which descended into an all-out attack on the E astern Christians of Byzantium. In Life of Saint Louis , Joinville draws on his close attachment to King Louis IX of France to recall his campaigning in the Holy Land. Together these narratives comprise a fascinating window on events that, for all their remoteness, offer startling similarities to our own age.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
Originally composed in Old French, the two chronicles brought together here offer some of the most vivid and reliable accounts of the Crusades from a Western perspective. Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople , distinguished by its simplicity and lucidity, recounts the controversial Fourth Crusade, which descended into an all-out attack on the E astern Christians of Byzantium. In Life of Saint Louis , Joinville draws on his close attachment to King Louis IX of France to recall his campaigning in the Holy Land. Together these narratives comprise a fascinating window on events that, for all their remoteness, offer startling similarities to our own age.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
368 pages, Paperback
First published August 30, 1212
About the author
Jean de Joinville
47 books9 followersJean de Joinville (c. May 1, 1224 – 24 December 1317) was one of the great chroniclers of medieval France. He is most famous for writing Life of St. Louis, a biography of Louis IX of France that chronicled the Seventh Crusade.
He is the grandfather of Sir Geoffroi De Charny, distaff side.
He is the grandfather of Sir Geoffroi De Charny, distaff side.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
Read
September 3, 2019Joinville's life of St Louis is a moving tribute to the friendship of these two men. Written to be submitted as evidence for the proposed canonisation of the recently deceased king Joinville writes about their experiences together on crusade.
We see the gathering of the soldiers and the supply dumps readied in preparation. We sit at the council of war and listen to the deliberations of the nobles. We experience battle, defeat and imprisonment, then pranks and life in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and repeatedly the relationship between Louis and Joinville and feel the affection that he had for his monarch. It is an account that is down to Earth and tender, reading it the past seems close enough to touch.
The translation is coupled with Villehardouin's memoir of the Fourth Crusade which saw crusading forces seize and sack Constantinople, in part due to their poor maths skills . A remarkable story in any age.
We see the gathering of the soldiers and the supply dumps readied in preparation. We sit at the council of war and listen to the deliberations of the nobles. We experience battle, defeat and imprisonment, then pranks and life in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and repeatedly the relationship between Louis and Joinville and feel the affection that he had for his monarch. It is an account that is down to Earth and tender, reading it the past seems close enough to touch.
The translation is coupled with Villehardouin's memoir of the Fourth Crusade which saw crusading forces seize and sack Constantinople, in part due to their poor maths skills . A remarkable story in any age.
August 13, 2012
Villehardouin's accounting of the Fourth Crusade falls solidly into the category of truth-is-way-crazier-than-fiction stories. The Fourth Crusade is absolutely nuts, filled with unexpected detours, lost princes, and shifting alliances. If you don't know the story, it's definitely worth reading (I'm honestly kinda shocked that no one has bothered to make a movie out of it yet). Villehardouin's account of it is clear if somewhat detatched - you'll get a nice overview of what happened, but most of the main players of the story remain somewhat distant and flat. The latter half of the tale - what happens after (spoilers!) the crusaders take over and burn down most of Constantinople - is also a bit confusing for readers new to the history, filled with lots of names and places that really warrant a better map than the one provided in the Penguin edition. If you're new to the Fourth Crusade, I'd recommend reading Villehardouin's account along with a modern historical analysis of what's going on, just to fill in the details, provide additional context, and make yourself aware of some of Villehardouin's biases. Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice is a good one.
I'm more partial to Joinville's account of Louis IX, even if Louis's crusade was not quite as wacky. If Villehardouin is the professional war correspondent, Joinville is the guy who can't wait to tell you all about his amazing adventures he had over in the East, from getting captured by Saracens to hearing all kinds of crazy stories about Tartars, Bedouins, and the Old Man in the Mountain. Joinville doesn't have Villehardouin's narrative clarity (he jumps all over the place and his battle scenes can be hard to follow) but he more than makes up for it in warmth and a curious eye for detail. It's most apparent any time Joinville talks about his relationship with King Louis, which has an empathy and reality to it that lots of medieval chronicle sources lack. There's this one scene where Joinville is worried that the king is mad at him for standing up to him in a council meeting and he leans through the grating of a window , only to have the king come up behind him and thank him for his honesty. There's another where Joinville mentions that when he first set out in crusade he was afraid to turn around, fearing that affection for his 'lovely castle' and children would overcome his vow to head east. There are quite a few where Louis chastises Joinville for not being quite pious enough, or Joinville tells Louis that he'll stay in his service for an extra year, but only if the king promises to stop getting mad when he asks for stuff. Joinville and Louis both pop off the page in a way that medieval people often don't in these sorts of biographies, which tended to put higher value on aligning with traditional accounts in saints' lives than with depicting flawed human beings. It makes for a hugely fascinating account , even when it's a bit garbled in terms of its narrative.
One note on the Penguin edition: the translation reads well, but could definitely have benefited from extra notes and extra maps.
I'm more partial to Joinville's account of Louis IX, even if Louis's crusade was not quite as wacky. If Villehardouin is the professional war correspondent, Joinville is the guy who can't wait to tell you all about his amazing adventures he had over in the East, from getting captured by Saracens to hearing all kinds of crazy stories about Tartars, Bedouins, and the Old Man in the Mountain. Joinville doesn't have Villehardouin's narrative clarity (he jumps all over the place and his battle scenes can be hard to follow) but he more than makes up for it in warmth and a curious eye for detail. It's most apparent any time Joinville talks about his relationship with King Louis, which has an empathy and reality to it that lots of medieval chronicle sources lack. There's this one scene where Joinville is worried that the king is mad at him for standing up to him in a council meeting and he leans through the grating of a window , only to have the king come up behind him and thank him for his honesty. There's another where Joinville mentions that when he first set out in crusade he was afraid to turn around, fearing that affection for his 'lovely castle' and children would overcome his vow to head east. There are quite a few where Louis chastises Joinville for not being quite pious enough, or Joinville tells Louis that he'll stay in his service for an extra year, but only if the king promises to stop getting mad when he asks for stuff. Joinville and Louis both pop off the page in a way that medieval people often don't in these sorts of biographies, which tended to put higher value on aligning with traditional accounts in saints' lives than with depicting flawed human beings. It makes for a hugely fascinating account , even when it's a bit garbled in terms of its narrative.
One note on the Penguin edition: the translation reads well, but could definitely have benefited from extra notes and extra maps.
April 11, 2015
Going on a crusade never seemed like a very good idea to me, and reading these firsthand accounts of the 4th and 7th crusades reinforced my opinion.
In Villehardouin's account of the 4th crusade, not very much real crusading gets done. The French fleet gets caught up the politics of Constantinople, and as certain of the clergy point out, Christian fighting Christian was not really the point of crusading. When Constaninople falls, the French divvy up the various territories, and most of the new rulers prove so venal that insurgencies break out immediately. Some things don't change.
Jean de Joinville was a young nobleman greatly enamored of the pious and only slightly older King Louis when he joined the 7th Crusade. He wrote his Life of Saint Louis when he was in his 80' as part of the successful effort to promote Louis's canonization. Joinville works from both an excellent memory and a solid piece of earlier French scholarship. His first hand account is harrowing and unrelenting in its depiction of the sufferings the French troops endured. HIs battle descriptions are exciting, detailed, and never stint on the gruesome realities of the physical damage done by medieval weaponry. An early French victory is undone by disease that decimates their forces. They are captured and begin a series of negotiations with the Saracens that are seldom worth the parchment they are written on, Changing rule within the Saracen forces consistently invalidates any previous agreement.
Joinville's laudatory descriptions of Louis's piety can be tedious, and occasional details of that piety will, I hope, strike modern readers as grotesque. Louis came down very hard on taking the Lord's name in vain. One man who commits such a sacrilege is buried up to his chin in pig guts. Another has his lips burned off. Joinville does not report this as excessive behavior. Through Joinville's history, I came to understand how serious the taking of oaths was among the reputable, devout Christians. You word was your bond. Turks and Saracens, for the most part, lied all the time and considered much Christian behavior bizarre.
If restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule was the goal of these Crusades, nothing much gets accomplished here. When Louis returns to France and starts ruling properly, he does, in this account, prove to be an admirable king. He goes after the corruption that comes from selling political office to the highest bidder, and he stands up to the Church on the question of their often politically motivated excommunications.
For some reason as a old, ailing man he determines to go on yet another crusade. To depart for the heathen east, he has to be physically carried to the ships He can no longer ride or horse or even stand the jogging of a carriage ride. He dies of intestinal flu in Tunis.
I love reading source material, but this has made me curious to read a more modern scholarly history of the Crusades. Recommendations welcome.
In Villehardouin's account of the 4th crusade, not very much real crusading gets done. The French fleet gets caught up the politics of Constantinople, and as certain of the clergy point out, Christian fighting Christian was not really the point of crusading. When Constaninople falls, the French divvy up the various territories, and most of the new rulers prove so venal that insurgencies break out immediately. Some things don't change.
Jean de Joinville was a young nobleman greatly enamored of the pious and only slightly older King Louis when he joined the 7th Crusade. He wrote his Life of Saint Louis when he was in his 80' as part of the successful effort to promote Louis's canonization. Joinville works from both an excellent memory and a solid piece of earlier French scholarship. His first hand account is harrowing and unrelenting in its depiction of the sufferings the French troops endured. HIs battle descriptions are exciting, detailed, and never stint on the gruesome realities of the physical damage done by medieval weaponry. An early French victory is undone by disease that decimates their forces. They are captured and begin a series of negotiations with the Saracens that are seldom worth the parchment they are written on, Changing rule within the Saracen forces consistently invalidates any previous agreement.
Joinville's laudatory descriptions of Louis's piety can be tedious, and occasional details of that piety will, I hope, strike modern readers as grotesque. Louis came down very hard on taking the Lord's name in vain. One man who commits such a sacrilege is buried up to his chin in pig guts. Another has his lips burned off. Joinville does not report this as excessive behavior. Through Joinville's history, I came to understand how serious the taking of oaths was among the reputable, devout Christians. You word was your bond. Turks and Saracens, for the most part, lied all the time and considered much Christian behavior bizarre.
If restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule was the goal of these Crusades, nothing much gets accomplished here. When Louis returns to France and starts ruling properly, he does, in this account, prove to be an admirable king. He goes after the corruption that comes from selling political office to the highest bidder, and he stands up to the Church on the question of their often politically motivated excommunications.
For some reason as a old, ailing man he determines to go on yet another crusade. To depart for the heathen east, he has to be physically carried to the ships He can no longer ride or horse or even stand the jogging of a carriage ride. He dies of intestinal flu in Tunis.
I love reading source material, but this has made me curious to read a more modern scholarly history of the Crusades. Recommendations welcome.
October 7, 2011
I much preferred Joinville's warmly human account to Villehardouin's war-correspondent style. Though I can see how he would not be everyone's cup of tea - he wanders off the thread of his story at times and there is some repetition. Those interested in the details of military maneuvers and diplomatic wrangling would most likely prefer Villehardouin.
I developed a soft spot for Joinville reading the book's introduction - the translator writes that both accounts were most likely dictated as reading or writing was not considered necessary to a knight's education. It is not known if Villehardouin could write, but "three short documents in a childish scrawl, with the statement 'this was written by me'.. attest Joinville's pride in a rare achievement."
Joinville is interested in everything - there is a lovely description of a fossil. He is clearly devoted to Louis IX, the king who would later be canonised, but is not afraid to disagree with him at times. He disapproves of the king's emotional neglect of his wife and children.(Sadly, the queen can never take comfort in the platitude "he's no saint but...") Joinville also convinces the king to prolong his stay instead of returning to France as he is worried about those who will be left behind, unable to afford to get back to France. There is a touching scene where Joinville leans with his arms through a grating, anxiously waiting for the king to make a decision. Examples given to emphasise the king's piety may seem a bit odd to modern sensibilities - a man who murders three robbers in a vigilante attack is given a place in the king's retinue (he's a good shot..) while someone caught swearing is subjected to facial mutilation. Much as this is a hagiography, the king comes across as a bit of a ninny - he is rather easily influenced, and finally fatally conned into going off on a last crusade by his brother(Joinville wisely stayed home for that one).
I developed a soft spot for Joinville reading the book's introduction - the translator writes that both accounts were most likely dictated as reading or writing was not considered necessary to a knight's education. It is not known if Villehardouin could write, but "three short documents in a childish scrawl, with the statement 'this was written by me'.. attest Joinville's pride in a rare achievement."
Joinville is interested in everything - there is a lovely description of a fossil. He is clearly devoted to Louis IX, the king who would later be canonised, but is not afraid to disagree with him at times. He disapproves of the king's emotional neglect of his wife and children.(Sadly, the queen can never take comfort in the platitude "he's no saint but...") Joinville also convinces the king to prolong his stay instead of returning to France as he is worried about those who will be left behind, unable to afford to get back to France. There is a touching scene where Joinville leans with his arms through a grating, anxiously waiting for the king to make a decision. Examples given to emphasise the king's piety may seem a bit odd to modern sensibilities - a man who murders three robbers in a vigilante attack is given a place in the king's retinue (he's a good shot..) while someone caught swearing is subjected to facial mutilation. Much as this is a hagiography, the king comes across as a bit of a ninny - he is rather easily influenced, and finally fatally conned into going off on a last crusade by his brother(Joinville wisely stayed home for that one).
April 6, 2015
The crusades (1096-1291) were religious, political, military and civilisational event that has changed the relations between the West (Europe) and the East for ever. And that change was irreversible. The consequences of the crusades are still felt today. However, all was not bad. The European civilisation got richer and better by the acquisitions brought back from the East by the crusaders.
This volume includes two first-hand accounts of the crusades. Geoffroy de Villehardouin gives the account of the fourth crusade. Villehardouin, an experienced politician (marshal in the county of Champagne) and diplomat (envoy to and negotiator with the doge of Venice), describes the course of the crusade in a way that Fernand Braudel would call it "l'histoire evenementielle". Although he admits that the goal of the fourth crusade was not achieved (the crusaders attacked, conquered and sacked two Christian cities-Zara/Zadar and Constantinople), he is pretty much black and white narrator. The Greeks (the Greek population or the Orthodox Christians) are always represented as bad,disloyal, horrific... while the crusaders (with few exceptions, grudgingly admitted by Villehardouin) are their total opposite. Villehardouin also isn't prone to showing emotions-he does give in only in few cases, like when he is awed by the beauty of Constantinople.
Jean de Joinville is much better at expressing his feelings. His lively and vivid description of saint Louis IX, the seventh crusade (which achieved a little more than nothing), the anecdotes he recounts, gives the reader the feeling of being in a company of an old friend. Although Joinville does sound at moments like a real chatterbox, he never goes too far, he is never vulgar or disrespectful. There is a strong religious component present in the both chronicles. But there is difference. While Villehardouin does give God his place, he is first and foremost politician. Joinville on the other hand, could well be a cleric giving the description of the crusade. This is, of course, the sign of the age when both narrators wrote their accounts (or better yet, had them written).
All things considered, this book is a must for every one who wants to improve her/his knowledge of the crusades, of the medieval mentalities and, in general, of the time long gone...
This volume includes two first-hand accounts of the crusades. Geoffroy de Villehardouin gives the account of the fourth crusade. Villehardouin, an experienced politician (marshal in the county of Champagne) and diplomat (envoy to and negotiator with the doge of Venice), describes the course of the crusade in a way that Fernand Braudel would call it "l'histoire evenementielle". Although he admits that the goal of the fourth crusade was not achieved (the crusaders attacked, conquered and sacked two Christian cities-Zara/Zadar and Constantinople), he is pretty much black and white narrator. The Greeks (the Greek population or the Orthodox Christians) are always represented as bad,disloyal, horrific... while the crusaders (with few exceptions, grudgingly admitted by Villehardouin) are their total opposite. Villehardouin also isn't prone to showing emotions-he does give in only in few cases, like when he is awed by the beauty of Constantinople.
Jean de Joinville is much better at expressing his feelings. His lively and vivid description of saint Louis IX, the seventh crusade (which achieved a little more than nothing), the anecdotes he recounts, gives the reader the feeling of being in a company of an old friend. Although Joinville does sound at moments like a real chatterbox, he never goes too far, he is never vulgar or disrespectful. There is a strong religious component present in the both chronicles. But there is difference. While Villehardouin does give God his place, he is first and foremost politician. Joinville on the other hand, could well be a cleric giving the description of the crusade. This is, of course, the sign of the age when both narrators wrote their accounts (or better yet, had them written).
All things considered, this book is a must for every one who wants to improve her/his knowledge of the crusades, of the medieval mentalities and, in general, of the time long gone...
September 30, 2012
This is a rare book which offers us two contemporay accounts of the crusades through the eyes of participants -- and not just monkly croniclers but fighting men.
Although the two accounts are by different authors (Geoffroy de Villehardouin for the Fourth Crusade and Jean de Joinville for the Seventh), they both offer stark, unromanticized and often critical reports. These men are describing military campaigns not creating romaticized works of art. They are both soldiers and statesmen, intimates of the leaders of the respective campaigns, offering an analysis of events rather than poets trying to inspire. The clear, unembellished style is in part attributable to an outstanding modern translation of the medeival French by M.R.B. Shaw, but the descriptions of appalling conditions, fear, brutality, and betrayal are all the work of the original authors.
To be sure, Joinville's stated intention is to pay tribute to his beloved late King and to justify King Louis' reputation for saintliness. Joinville's handling of Louis is, in this sense, unabashedly biased. But this in no way detracts from the authenticity of his account of the Seventh Crusade. On the contrary, Joinville's Louis can only shine if he shows how very dark the surroundings were. I was particularly struck by Joinville's willingness to admit and describe his own fears, uncertainties and mistakes.
These accounts are also invaluable to historians because the narrators explain events in terms they consider self-evident -- but which are often alien to us, reminding us of the great differences in social attitudes between then and now. Thus while human emotions, motives and behaviour is strikingly similar to today, other aspects of society are strikingly different. Likewise, details like how horses were loaded on ships or how provisions were pre-positioned and stored for the king of France are described lucidly, providing the novelist and historian with very valuable details of medeival military operations.
In short, I highly recommend these accounts -- just don't expect them to be tales of brave knights and fair ladies. These are the accounts of real men about real wars.
Although the two accounts are by different authors (Geoffroy de Villehardouin for the Fourth Crusade and Jean de Joinville for the Seventh), they both offer stark, unromanticized and often critical reports. These men are describing military campaigns not creating romaticized works of art. They are both soldiers and statesmen, intimates of the leaders of the respective campaigns, offering an analysis of events rather than poets trying to inspire. The clear, unembellished style is in part attributable to an outstanding modern translation of the medeival French by M.R.B. Shaw, but the descriptions of appalling conditions, fear, brutality, and betrayal are all the work of the original authors.
To be sure, Joinville's stated intention is to pay tribute to his beloved late King and to justify King Louis' reputation for saintliness. Joinville's handling of Louis is, in this sense, unabashedly biased. But this in no way detracts from the authenticity of his account of the Seventh Crusade. On the contrary, Joinville's Louis can only shine if he shows how very dark the surroundings were. I was particularly struck by Joinville's willingness to admit and describe his own fears, uncertainties and mistakes.
These accounts are also invaluable to historians because the narrators explain events in terms they consider self-evident -- but which are often alien to us, reminding us of the great differences in social attitudes between then and now. Thus while human emotions, motives and behaviour is strikingly similar to today, other aspects of society are strikingly different. Likewise, details like how horses were loaded on ships or how provisions were pre-positioned and stored for the king of France are described lucidly, providing the novelist and historian with very valuable details of medeival military operations.
In short, I highly recommend these accounts -- just don't expect them to be tales of brave knights and fair ladies. These are the accounts of real men about real wars.
July 30, 2017
This edition brings together two eye-witness texts about the Crusades—Geoffroi de Villehardouin's account of the Fourth Crusade, and Jean de Joinville's of the Seventh Crusade some fifty years later. A solid translation, though it's much easier to warm to Joinville than it is to Villehardouin—the latter may have a far better sense of how to structure a narrative, but Joinville seems to have understood people better. There are some wonderful vignettes here, full of character, even if they mostly served to convince me that Louis IX really was a bit of a prig.
April 8, 2016
I think I might have a new favourite primary source historian in John de Joinville. What a duck.
Obviously, I loved this book. Full review now available at Vintage Novels!
I must tell you here of some amusing tricks the Comte d'Eu played on us. I had made a sort of house for myself in which my knights and I used to eat, sitting so as to get the light from the door, which, as it happened, faced the Comte d'Eu's quarters. The count, who was a very ingenious fellow, had rigged up a miniature ballistic machine with which he could throw stones into my tent. He would watch us as we were having our meal, adjust his machine to suit the length of our table, and then let fly at us, breaking our pots and glasses.
Obviously, I loved this book. Full review now available at Vintage Novels!
September 11, 2020
Having recently read an account of relics in the wake of the 4th Crusade, and seeing this book, already in my collection, cited as a primary source, that pretty much sign-posted this book as the next medieval text for me to read.
This book, as published, collects two medieval texts, from Villehardoin and Joinville, chronicling their views of the events of the Fourth and Seven Crusades respectively. I was very tempted, having finished Villehardoin's account, to put the book down, as I was primarily interested in his account of the Fourth Crusade. However a quick flick through Joinville's chronicle revealed the chapter headed 'The Old Man of the Mountain' and that was enough for me to read his account as well, having quite the interest in the Assassins.
These are two very different accounts of two very different Crusades, one wildly more successful than the other, and yet disasterous with very long reaching monumental consequences as well.
Villehardoin's account is quite a straight-forward military account of the snafu that was the Fourth Crusade, and the perils of unexpectedly running the diminished empire of Constantinople, not at all the stated goal of the Fourth Crusade, but, hey, war, am I right?
Joinville's account, on the other hand, seemed more personal than Villehardoins, even though it was essentially a fluff piece for his then lord King Louis, and their disasterous expedition to Egypt. Joinville recounts an encounter along the way (having reached Outremer after their military misadventures in Egypt), with envoys from The Old Man himself, as well as hearing what he reports as a serious account of Prester John, that glorious old piece of medieval propaganda. But also he recounts the day to day events of kings on the road, smattered with details of money transactions, crazy royal relations, how to prepare a boat for sailing with horses on board, and the odd reference which would have seemed commonplace (to the rich at any rate), at the time, but serve to ground this account in a time well and truly lost to us, putting us more in the moment than a dry history of the time ever could. So for those observations alone, as well as mention of The Old Man and Prester John, I thought it was well worth the push to read Joinville's account, and shed a bit of light on the later Crusades, of which I know very little.
A worthy primary source for armchair medievalists.
This book, as published, collects two medieval texts, from Villehardoin and Joinville, chronicling their views of the events of the Fourth and Seven Crusades respectively. I was very tempted, having finished Villehardoin's account, to put the book down, as I was primarily interested in his account of the Fourth Crusade. However a quick flick through Joinville's chronicle revealed the chapter headed 'The Old Man of the Mountain' and that was enough for me to read his account as well, having quite the interest in the Assassins.
These are two very different accounts of two very different Crusades, one wildly more successful than the other, and yet disasterous with very long reaching monumental consequences as well.
Villehardoin's account is quite a straight-forward military account of the snafu that was the Fourth Crusade, and the perils of unexpectedly running the diminished empire of Constantinople, not at all the stated goal of the Fourth Crusade, but, hey, war, am I right?
Joinville's account, on the other hand, seemed more personal than Villehardoins, even though it was essentially a fluff piece for his then lord King Louis, and their disasterous expedition to Egypt. Joinville recounts an encounter along the way (having reached Outremer after their military misadventures in Egypt), with envoys from The Old Man himself, as well as hearing what he reports as a serious account of Prester John, that glorious old piece of medieval propaganda. But also he recounts the day to day events of kings on the road, smattered with details of money transactions, crazy royal relations, how to prepare a boat for sailing with horses on board, and the odd reference which would have seemed commonplace (to the rich at any rate), at the time, but serve to ground this account in a time well and truly lost to us, putting us more in the moment than a dry history of the time ever could. So for those observations alone, as well as mention of The Old Man and Prester John, I thought it was well worth the push to read Joinville's account, and shed a bit of light on the later Crusades, of which I know very little.
A worthy primary source for armchair medievalists.
March 31, 2019
Much odder and bizarre than most contemporaneous histories from the distant past. It seems and feels very untrustworthy. Certainly not as good as something like Bernal Diaz's Conquest of New Spain.
August 15, 2013
An outstanding compilation of two books written by laymen-men who fought in the crusades (the 4th and 7th). I learned so much from these accounts including: battle in the medieval times, culture, war machines, that lances were used in battle not just for sport, about Louis IX's life and how he led the 7th crusade. Egyptian culture, battle strategies, and much about the ancient Muslims and especially the Bedouins. Fascinating. I highly recommend this for history buffs and scholars.
June 2, 2019
This is another book I got while in College. It is a combination of two accounts, Geoffrey of Villehardouin's record of the Fourth Crusade and John of Joinville's record of the Sixth Crusade. It is unusual among my books for being primary sources. I will go into each one individually.
Geoffrey of Villehardouin's record of the Fourth Crusade.
The presentation here is interesting. There is no introduction written by Geoffrey of Villehardouin so his purpose in doing so can be debated. Personally, I think it is a morality tale.
The crusaders are presented as heroes and others, such as the Venetians building their boats, are enthusiastic about helping them. The economic angle is glossed over. He lays much blame on those that "go to other ports" instead of joining this particular crusader army. To leave it is a sin and punishment is swift and karmic.
He loves his hyperbole. The fleets and fortresses are all described as the best ever and everyone greets everyone else with great honor. Those who leave the main crusade army are the worst ever because there was never a more noble enterprise than this one here.
When I first learned of the Fourth Crusade and how it ended up attacking Constantinople instead of its target in Egypt, I was shocked. I thought "aren't all these guys supposed to be allies? Why are they attacking each other?" It puzzled me for years. This book, both its introduction by Caroline Smith and the account itself provides the answers. They are, basically, "No" and "because they have long-standing trust issues". Just because they practiced the same religion (I know, the Great Schism had already taken place), could speak one or more shared languages and had a common enemy did not make them friends.
John of Joinville's record of the Sixth Crusade
First thing, it's not really about the Sixth Crusade. It's actually about King Louis IX a.k.a. Saint Louis and why he deserved this special distinction. It takes some time for him to get to the crusade itself. The first section is about the king's virtues, such as his frugality and means of administering justice.
It is indeed a contrast with Geoffrey of Villehardouin's record. There is no hyperbole. While he praises King Louis he also criticizes some of his actions, mainly the tactical ones. It feels more like a personal account.
Being first person historical accounts, I'm not sure how to rate them.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Chronicles of the Crusade" a +
Geoffrey of Villehardouin's record of the Fourth Crusade.
The presentation here is interesting. There is no introduction written by Geoffrey of Villehardouin so his purpose in doing so can be debated. Personally, I think it is a morality tale.
The crusaders are presented as heroes and others, such as the Venetians building their boats, are enthusiastic about helping them. The economic angle is glossed over. He lays much blame on those that "go to other ports" instead of joining this particular crusader army. To leave it is a sin and punishment is swift and karmic.
He loves his hyperbole. The fleets and fortresses are all described as the best ever and everyone greets everyone else with great honor. Those who leave the main crusade army are the worst ever because there was never a more noble enterprise than this one here.
When I first learned of the Fourth Crusade and how it ended up attacking Constantinople instead of its target in Egypt, I was shocked. I thought "aren't all these guys supposed to be allies? Why are they attacking each other?" It puzzled me for years. This book, both its introduction by Caroline Smith and the account itself provides the answers. They are, basically, "No" and "because they have long-standing trust issues". Just because they practiced the same religion (I know, the Great Schism had already taken place), could speak one or more shared languages and had a common enemy did not make them friends.
John of Joinville's record of the Sixth Crusade
First thing, it's not really about the Sixth Crusade. It's actually about King Louis IX a.k.a. Saint Louis and why he deserved this special distinction. It takes some time for him to get to the crusade itself. The first section is about the king's virtues, such as his frugality and means of administering justice.
It is indeed a contrast with Geoffrey of Villehardouin's record. There is no hyperbole. While he praises King Louis he also criticizes some of his actions, mainly the tactical ones. It feels more like a personal account.
Being first person historical accounts, I'm not sure how to rate them.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Chronicles of the Crusade" a +
June 4, 2019
I read the two works of Joinville and Villehardouin in their French versions.
Two outstanding 'must reads' for the sake of reality history recorded by eyewitnesses.
Two outstanding 'must reads' for the sake of reality history recorded by eyewitnesses.
October 29, 2023
if i never have to read crusades literature again i will be happy
March 19, 2022
Bk gibi tercüme
November 25, 2023
The Crusades have never been of major interest to me. I don't see them as a particularly nice or complementing aspect of Christian history, but I also think they are over-simplified and misunderstood by those who wish to use these warring escapades to condemn Christianity. I really didn't know, going in, what angle this book was going to come at the Crusades from, but I wasn't all that surprised that it turned out to be wholly in favour of them, and in favour of the actions, by and large, of the major players fighting for the Franks.
These chronicles consist of two allegedly true accounts by men who took part in their respective crusades. Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople starts off on pretty shaky ground. He takes a leaf out of Moses' book, and delights in listing (to the point of absurdity) insanely difficult and numerous names - this time French, rather than Hebrew, which is my opinion is much worse. So often, I just didn't bother even trying to vocalise these orally or in my head. Whenever I saw them, I just read them as a jumble of gibberish in a French accent. Never have I appreciated the blessedly easy "Jean" so much, though even then I used to think it was pronounced "Jeene" until I saw Les Miserables and was put right. I am Jeene val Jeene ... (I always preferred Japanese to French in high school. The latter was too difficult for me).
Villehardouin also has an annoying way of writing. Among other things, he employs hyperbole to an extent that is itself of hyperbolic proportions. Everything is the BIGGEST, the FINEST, the BEST you've ever seen! The palace in So'n'soville? Best, most marvellous thing thine eyes have ever laid upon! Knight A, who died in the service of the Lord? The most gallant of knights, indeed the finest in all of Christendom! Knight B, who used to wield the sword of glory until he ate some funny mushrooms? The finest and most gallant knight to have ever been born. Knight C, who drowned crossing a shallow puddle of water- why, he was but the fiercest, most formidable of the King's men.
Yeah, see mate, if just about everyone who didn't abandon and go to Syria was the most gallant and noble, then really none of them were. Not everything needs to be the biggest and the best; you just come off sounding like Donald Trump.
Granted, I did enjoy the second half of the first story more. I enjoyed looking at the appendix maps and tracking the course of each army as they played tit for tat with beautiful ancient cities, looting and destroying them by way of thanks afterwards. But nothing was of great satisfaction, in my opinion, to a modern reader. Even one who, in theory, wants to get behind the notion of brave Christian soldiers liberating the Holy Land from infidel desecrators (... in truth, I do not think, by and large, the case against the "Saracens" - Muslims - was nearly as strong as the Church made it out to be at the time).
The second narrative, The Life of Saint Louis, was a little better. A proud and shameless hagiography in the purest sense, it does nevertheless contain some quite exciting tales of battle, betrayal, negotiation, and foolhardiness. The religiosity of Joinville, the second writer, was less awkwardly militaristic and more genuine also.
Essentially, while this book offers an interesting glimpse into certain periods of what jointly is known as the Crusades, I personally found it a little tedious, sometimes good but sometimes lame. There were also many parts that were unintentionally hilarious, such as these hardened, war-weathered warriors constantly breaking into fits of weeping, tearing their beards out in anguish, and constantly changing allegiances like a bunch of teenage girls.
These chronicles consist of two allegedly true accounts by men who took part in their respective crusades. Villehardouin's Conquest of Constantinople starts off on pretty shaky ground. He takes a leaf out of Moses' book, and delights in listing (to the point of absurdity) insanely difficult and numerous names - this time French, rather than Hebrew, which is my opinion is much worse. So often, I just didn't bother even trying to vocalise these orally or in my head. Whenever I saw them, I just read them as a jumble of gibberish in a French accent. Never have I appreciated the blessedly easy "Jean" so much, though even then I used to think it was pronounced "Jeene" until I saw Les Miserables and was put right. I am Jeene val Jeene ... (I always preferred Japanese to French in high school. The latter was too difficult for me).
Villehardouin also has an annoying way of writing. Among other things, he employs hyperbole to an extent that is itself of hyperbolic proportions. Everything is the BIGGEST, the FINEST, the BEST you've ever seen! The palace in So'n'soville? Best, most marvellous thing thine eyes have ever laid upon! Knight A, who died in the service of the Lord? The most gallant of knights, indeed the finest in all of Christendom! Knight B, who used to wield the sword of glory until he ate some funny mushrooms? The finest and most gallant knight to have ever been born. Knight C, who drowned crossing a shallow puddle of water- why, he was but the fiercest, most formidable of the King's men.
Yeah, see mate, if just about everyone who didn't abandon and go to Syria was the most gallant and noble, then really none of them were. Not everything needs to be the biggest and the best; you just come off sounding like Donald Trump.
Granted, I did enjoy the second half of the first story more. I enjoyed looking at the appendix maps and tracking the course of each army as they played tit for tat with beautiful ancient cities, looting and destroying them by way of thanks afterwards. But nothing was of great satisfaction, in my opinion, to a modern reader. Even one who, in theory, wants to get behind the notion of brave Christian soldiers liberating the Holy Land from infidel desecrators (... in truth, I do not think, by and large, the case against the "Saracens" - Muslims - was nearly as strong as the Church made it out to be at the time).
The second narrative, The Life of Saint Louis, was a little better. A proud and shameless hagiography in the purest sense, it does nevertheless contain some quite exciting tales of battle, betrayal, negotiation, and foolhardiness. The religiosity of Joinville, the second writer, was less awkwardly militaristic and more genuine also.
Essentially, while this book offers an interesting glimpse into certain periods of what jointly is known as the Crusades, I personally found it a little tedious, sometimes good but sometimes lame. There were also many parts that were unintentionally hilarious, such as these hardened, war-weathered warriors constantly breaking into fits of weeping, tearing their beards out in anguish, and constantly changing allegiances like a bunch of teenage girls.
March 24, 2022
Histoire de Saint-Louis, a chronicle in French prose, providing a supreme account of the Seventh Crusade (1248–54). A member of the lesser nobility of Champagne, Joinville first attended the court of Louis IX at Saumur (1241), probably as a squire. The young Joinville took the Crusader’s cross at the same time as the king (1244) and set out with him (August 1248) on his expedition to Egypt, from where the Crusaders planned to attack Syria. Captured with the entire army, Louis and Joinville were ransomed, and Joinville became friends with Louis during the king’s subsequent stay at Acre. They returned to France in 1254.
Geoffrey of Villehardouin, French soldier, chronicler, marshal of Champagne, and one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade (1201–04), which he described in his Conquest of Constantinople. He was the first serious writer of an original prose history in Old French. Although he was only one of the lesser nobility, Villehardouin was from the start accepted as one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade. In 1205 his consummate generalship saved the Frankish army from destruction at the hands of the Bulgars outside Adrianople (modern Edirne, Turkey) and led them without loss through hostile country to safety in Constantinople.
Geoffrey of Villehardouin, French soldier, chronicler, marshal of Champagne, and one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade (1201–04), which he described in his Conquest of Constantinople. He was the first serious writer of an original prose history in Old French. Although he was only one of the lesser nobility, Villehardouin was from the start accepted as one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade. In 1205 his consummate generalship saved the Frankish army from destruction at the hands of the Bulgars outside Adrianople (modern Edirne, Turkey) and led them without loss through hostile country to safety in Constantinople.
March 17, 2016
Joinville has such raw material as this:
A blow from one of the enemy’s swords landed in the middle of Erard de Sevirey’s face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: ‘Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need.’ Just as I had uttered this prayer Erard de Sevirey said to me: ‘My lord, if you think that neither I nor my heirs will incur reproach for it, I will go and fetch you help from the Comte d’Anjou, whom I see in the fields over there.’ I said to him, ‘My dear man, it seems to me you would win great honour for yourself if you went for help to save our lives; your own, by the way, is also in great danger.’ (I spoke truly, for he died of his wound).
Part of a firsthand account of a terrible piece of fighting, in which French knights perform valorously with, say, a nose dangling over their lips. This is real. This is very real indeed, and a messy excursion to the Holy Land where much is experienced, mistakes and accidents, captivity, a little bit of triumph, and it’s told day by day. Joinville is wonderful.
Villehardouin was far duller – nothing like this on-the-ground intimate view.
A blow from one of the enemy’s swords landed in the middle of Erard de Sevirey’s face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: ‘Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need.’ Just as I had uttered this prayer Erard de Sevirey said to me: ‘My lord, if you think that neither I nor my heirs will incur reproach for it, I will go and fetch you help from the Comte d’Anjou, whom I see in the fields over there.’ I said to him, ‘My dear man, it seems to me you would win great honour for yourself if you went for help to save our lives; your own, by the way, is also in great danger.’ (I spoke truly, for he died of his wound).
Part of a firsthand account of a terrible piece of fighting, in which French knights perform valorously with, say, a nose dangling over their lips. This is real. This is very real indeed, and a messy excursion to the Holy Land where much is experienced, mistakes and accidents, captivity, a little bit of triumph, and it’s told day by day. Joinville is wonderful.
Villehardouin was far duller – nothing like this on-the-ground intimate view.
February 16, 2010
The Fourth Crusade was a shambles. The Crusaders (Geoffrey de Villhardouin consistently calls then "pilgrims") set out to recapture the Holy Land from the Turks, but finished up killing other Christians in Zara, Hungary, and by sacking Constantinople. Villhardouin portrays the whole thing as a glorious and heroic enterprise, but it's relatively easy to find Byzantine sources that portray the sacking of Constantinople as anything but heroic. Pope Innocent III, who initiated the campaign, was significantly annoyed with the Crusaders, whom he viewed as responsible for making the breach between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches permanent. Altogether, a sad account.
The book also contains an account of the crusade undertaken by King (Saint) Louis, which almost succeeded, but for his brother's idiotic cavalry charge.
This is an old translation, written about the beginning of the twentieth century, and the language is stilted and archaic, as was the fashion for translations of medieval works back then. COnsequently, I found it unnecessarily difficult to read.
The book also contains an account of the crusade undertaken by King (Saint) Louis, which almost succeeded, but for his brother's idiotic cavalry charge.
This is an old translation, written about the beginning of the twentieth century, and the language is stilted and archaic, as was the fashion for translations of medieval works back then. COnsequently, I found it unnecessarily difficult to read.
April 13, 2016
Originally I skimmed through this book almost a decade ago in preparation for my Senior History Oral Exam and only focused on the overall theme questions listed in my study guide at the time. However this past week while actually reading Chronicles of the Crusades and found thanks to the excellent translation, a easy read and very informative on its subject matters. Of the two chroniclers, I found Jean de Joinville the easier to read because of his style of writing. Most likely the spread and evolution of romantic literature influenced Joinville's style of being more down-to-earth and slightly easier to read when compared to Geoffrey of Villehardouin, who was more matter-of-fact and somewhat "stiff." However, just because Geoffrey's style is a little "stiffer" doesn't mean it's not easy to read nor informative about the establish and early years of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. If you're interested about first-hand accounts of the Crusades, specifically the 4th and 7th, this is the book for you.
May 8, 2020
Not a wonderful book, but definitely interesting to read first-hand accounts of the Crusades. It's depressing when you see how all the talk about freeing Jerusalem from the infidel was really just about killing people and taking their land, without being super fussy about whether those people were Christian or not. Anyone who thinks that the Crusades were something noble to be admired should read this book and get a different perspective.
July 11, 2007
Hollywood movies be damned; it doesn't get any closer to being there during a crusade then this book of collected journals from the 4th, 6th and 7th crusades. The blood, sweat, rank stench of death, the smell and taste of salt water as they sail towards the holy land... it's here, in every word, every sentence.
Read
February 5, 2017I just couldn't get into this.
It was interesting and all but the writing was just so slow and boring and ahhhhh!
It was interesting and all but the writing was just so slow and boring and ahhhhh!
April 7, 2024
The Chronicles of the Crusades contains two primary sources from the later crusades, but in different styles. The first part of the book covers the 4th crusade that ended with the Crusaders sacking Constantinople and taking over the Byzantine Empire, and then covered the events afterwards. The second book covers King Philip’s crusade.
Both of the books read and feel very different, so I am going to treat them separately. The Conquest of Constantinople was written by a French Noble and is a retelling of the events, but it lacks the personal touch that most memoirs need to feel interesting. This story could have been written by an author in the modern age, for the only time you can even imagine the writer was at Constantinople when it was sacked is when he says how the leaders felt, and in some cases the speeches they made.
The work is shorter than the other one, but for me at least felt considerably longer and more drawn out. He manages to use 100 pages to cover events that could have been described just as well in half the space, and most of the chronicle feels like filler instead of interesting antidotes that memoirs usually contain, and the reason that they are usually more interesting than regular history books. I would give the Conquest of Constantinople 2/5 stars, and if the second part was not better this book would have been disappointing.
The second part, the Life of Saint Louis, is considerably better than the previous part. This one is an eyewitness’s story of Luis’s two crusades, and contains the personal interest and emotion that the previous one lacked. The author must have had a much better memory, for he can actually retell specific events and experiences in an interesting way that captivates readers, making them feel in the time of the author.
This work is longer than the first, but reads much quicker and smoother than the other one. The author makes much better work of his pages, and left me wishing that he had written more. The best part in my opinion was him describing a Muslim ambush, and how his men had to hold a small house of from the attackers. That one segment is more interesting than the entirety of the Conquest of Constantinople. I give the Life of Saint Louis 4/5 stars.
With this in mind, my final grade for the book is just in between my two grades of the specific works. The edition also contains a valuable further reading section as well as maps and an introduction to the history of the time period, to provide background to readers. My final grade in the book is a 3/5, but I would still recommend this book to enjoyers of history.
Both of the books read and feel very different, so I am going to treat them separately. The Conquest of Constantinople was written by a French Noble and is a retelling of the events, but it lacks the personal touch that most memoirs need to feel interesting. This story could have been written by an author in the modern age, for the only time you can even imagine the writer was at Constantinople when it was sacked is when he says how the leaders felt, and in some cases the speeches they made.
The work is shorter than the other one, but for me at least felt considerably longer and more drawn out. He manages to use 100 pages to cover events that could have been described just as well in half the space, and most of the chronicle feels like filler instead of interesting antidotes that memoirs usually contain, and the reason that they are usually more interesting than regular history books. I would give the Conquest of Constantinople 2/5 stars, and if the second part was not better this book would have been disappointing.
The second part, the Life of Saint Louis, is considerably better than the previous part. This one is an eyewitness’s story of Luis’s two crusades, and contains the personal interest and emotion that the previous one lacked. The author must have had a much better memory, for he can actually retell specific events and experiences in an interesting way that captivates readers, making them feel in the time of the author.
This work is longer than the first, but reads much quicker and smoother than the other one. The author makes much better work of his pages, and left me wishing that he had written more. The best part in my opinion was him describing a Muslim ambush, and how his men had to hold a small house of from the attackers. That one segment is more interesting than the entirety of the Conquest of Constantinople. I give the Life of Saint Louis 4/5 stars.
With this in mind, my final grade for the book is just in between my two grades of the specific works. The edition also contains a valuable further reading section as well as maps and an introduction to the history of the time period, to provide background to readers. My final grade in the book is a 3/5, but I would still recommend this book to enjoyers of history.
August 14, 2023
This book is split into two first-hand accounts of the Fourth and Seventh Crusades, neither which was exactly a stellar success for the forces of Christendom.
My first thought on Villehardouin’s account was “Jeeze, what Crusade were YOU on?” This French nobleman thought that the Venetians were the best, despite the fact that they squeezed the crusaders for a fortune and then essentially derailed the Fourth Crusade for their own ends – notably, this crusade never actually fought any Muslims at all (nor went to the Holy Lands); crusaders helped the Venetians conquer the city of Zara (in Europe) and later get involved in the Byzantine succession that ended up with the them besieging (TWICE!) and sacking Constantinople. Even writing about these events decades later, he seemed unaware of what a shitshow the Crusade was and that the only ones to really benefit from it were the Venetians. After getting all the way through his account, it seems that the author was a “typical” French knight and evaluated people solely on bravery (at that time the Venetian sailors and marines were tough bastards) and willingness to stick to their oaths (technically, the Venetians fulfilled every contract they made with the crusaders). Any problems with the direction and results of the Fourth Crusade, Villehardouin laid squarely at the feet of the knights and nobles who violated their agreements and constantly broke away to do their own thing.
The second account is Joinville’s “Life of Saint Louis,” and only the middle section deals with the 7th Crusade. The author is more concerned with anecdotes that demonstrate what a holy man King Louis IX was. As a result, his writings are more personal (he WAS actually friends with the king) and include less of a “big picture” than does Villehardouin’s. The parts about the Crusade does include a lot of action and personal details, so in some ways, it’s a more exciting read.
The translation is solid, making no effort to sound “archaic” but also avoiding using modern slang (I HATE that, especially when a few decades have elapsed since the translation). The sentence construction does seem a little odd – not technically ungrammatical but unusual. I assume this is an attempt to stay closer to the original text. The second account is closer to “plain English” so I am guessing that was the case. 3.5 stars.
My first thought on Villehardouin’s account was “Jeeze, what Crusade were YOU on?” This French nobleman thought that the Venetians were the best, despite the fact that they squeezed the crusaders for a fortune and then essentially derailed the Fourth Crusade for their own ends – notably, this crusade never actually fought any Muslims at all (nor went to the Holy Lands); crusaders helped the Venetians conquer the city of Zara (in Europe) and later get involved in the Byzantine succession that ended up with the them besieging (TWICE!) and sacking Constantinople. Even writing about these events decades later, he seemed unaware of what a shitshow the Crusade was and that the only ones to really benefit from it were the Venetians. After getting all the way through his account, it seems that the author was a “typical” French knight and evaluated people solely on bravery (at that time the Venetian sailors and marines were tough bastards) and willingness to stick to their oaths (technically, the Venetians fulfilled every contract they made with the crusaders). Any problems with the direction and results of the Fourth Crusade, Villehardouin laid squarely at the feet of the knights and nobles who violated their agreements and constantly broke away to do their own thing.
The second account is Joinville’s “Life of Saint Louis,” and only the middle section deals with the 7th Crusade. The author is more concerned with anecdotes that demonstrate what a holy man King Louis IX was. As a result, his writings are more personal (he WAS actually friends with the king) and include less of a “big picture” than does Villehardouin’s. The parts about the Crusade does include a lot of action and personal details, so in some ways, it’s a more exciting read.
The translation is solid, making no effort to sound “archaic” but also avoiding using modern slang (I HATE that, especially when a few decades have elapsed since the translation). The sentence construction does seem a little odd – not technically ungrammatical but unusual. I assume this is an attempt to stay closer to the original text. The second account is closer to “plain English” so I am guessing that was the case. 3.5 stars.
December 12, 2021
Without question, both of these texts are important to the history of European literature and as historical documents. In spite of this, both are terrible resources for actually learning about the Crusades. Though Villehardouin provides a thrilling and engaging narrative, full of valorous knights and dastardly villains, his distortions and omissions seem egregious in hindsight. For example, the conquest of Zara is presented as a noble venture, the restoration of stolen property to the magnanimous Venetians. It is no wonder the Pope threatened to excommunicate the "Crusaders" - in reality they were sacking their allies and co-religionists in order to pay off a debt. After finishing this book and doing more research, I was surprised to discover the Fourth Crusade resulted in the partitioning of the whole Byzantine Empire, a fact Villehardouin hardly touches on!
My praise for the entertainment value of Villehardouin does not extend to Joinville. Reading his Life of Saint Louis, one feels more likely to learn about Louis IX defecating (mentioned more than once) than the motivations and repercussions for the Seventh or Eighth Crusades. Its intimate (read: incredibly mundane) nature ensures its anthropological and literary significance. The text is probably useful for examining formulas of regal praise, or how a medieval ruler administers their realm, or what tactics the clergy used for maintaining secular influence. But it's also horribly boring, highly repetitive, and far too myopic to teach you much of the wider history involved. Joinville was supposedly 85 when he wrote his chronicle and it shows. Imagine walking into a retirement home and asking the oldest person in there to recount the Korean War for you. Such is the style of story you would get.
These primary sources should be supplementary texts for accessing the history of the Crusades. At least Villehardouin is pretty wild.
My praise for the entertainment value of Villehardouin does not extend to Joinville. Reading his Life of Saint Louis, one feels more likely to learn about Louis IX defecating (mentioned more than once) than the motivations and repercussions for the Seventh or Eighth Crusades. Its intimate (read: incredibly mundane) nature ensures its anthropological and literary significance. The text is probably useful for examining formulas of regal praise, or how a medieval ruler administers their realm, or what tactics the clergy used for maintaining secular influence. But it's also horribly boring, highly repetitive, and far too myopic to teach you much of the wider history involved. Joinville was supposedly 85 when he wrote his chronicle and it shows. Imagine walking into a retirement home and asking the oldest person in there to recount the Korean War for you. Such is the style of story you would get.
These primary sources should be supplementary texts for accessing the history of the Crusades. At least Villehardouin is pretty wild.
August 20, 2023
This book is simultaneously one of the most interesting and the most boring books that I have ever read.
I was super excited to read this book for a Graduate School class on Ancient and Medieval Church History. A Primary Source from the Crusades, how interesting! And while much of the content is certainly exhilarating, since the two works that make up this book are essentially journals, there is a lot of banality and boring to slog through between the juicy stuff.
I will say, this book gave me a perspective on the 4th Crusade (AKA the *bad one*) that I have never heard in any of my years of learning Catholic history. The Westerners were certainly not blameless in the events that transpired, but the neither was the East.
As for the Biography of St. Louis, I will confess that I did not make it through to the end. But the chunk that I did read gave much food for thought on the way that Christianity was completely intertwined with the lives of the soldiers.
I was super excited to read this book for a Graduate School class on Ancient and Medieval Church History. A Primary Source from the Crusades, how interesting! And while much of the content is certainly exhilarating, since the two works that make up this book are essentially journals, there is a lot of banality and boring to slog through between the juicy stuff.
I will say, this book gave me a perspective on the 4th Crusade (AKA the *bad one*) that I have never heard in any of my years of learning Catholic history. The Westerners were certainly not blameless in the events that transpired, but the neither was the East.
As for the Biography of St. Louis, I will confess that I did not make it through to the end. But the chunk that I did read gave much food for thought on the way that Christianity was completely intertwined with the lives of the soldiers.
August 6, 2017
This book consists of accounts of two crusades [the 4th and 7th]. The first half of the book written about the 4th crusade by Geoffrey De Villehardouin, I found to be engaging and educational. I enjoyed reading it and would rate it a 4.5.
The second part of the book written by Jean de Joinville about the life of King Louis IX and the 7th crusade I did not enjoy at all. I found it repeated itself repeatedly and then proceeded to relay the same information in a slightly different manner. In addition, as a narrative it wandered aimlessly which made it very difficult to understand where events occurred, what order they occurred in and what the motivations were for the people involved. 1.5 for an average of 3.
The second part of the book written by Jean de Joinville about the life of King Louis IX and the 7th crusade I did not enjoy at all. I found it repeated itself repeatedly and then proceeded to relay the same information in a slightly different manner. In addition, as a narrative it wandered aimlessly which made it very difficult to understand where events occurred, what order they occurred in and what the motivations were for the people involved. 1.5 for an average of 3.
December 27, 2020
Suriye yolculuğu olarak planlanıp maddi yokluktan ve oportünüstlikten ötürü rotası İstanbul’a dönen 4.Haçlı Sefer içerisindeki en önemli aktörlerden Villehardouin ağzından Latin İmparatorluğun en bunalımlı doğuş günlerini genel hatlarıyla okumak güzeldi. Çevirisi oldukça doyurucu. Ancak döneme dair bilgi edinmek adına okunmak için uygun değil, tarihi çizgiye göre çoğunlukla doğru gibi gözükse de yazan nedeniyle fazlasıyla tek taraflı bir eser, belli noktalarda yanlış bir bakış açısı verme ihtimali var.
December 11, 2021
This are two amazing first-accounts from the Fourth and Seventh Crusade. Villehardouin tells the story of the first expedition which wrongly enters into conflict with other Christian states, and has all the time marvellous excuses and accusitions against those who goes directly to the Holy Land to fight. It ends in the shortlived Latin Empire, which is a rather amusing, but tragic story how the Latins try to keep what they have conquered.
Joinville tells the story about the Seventh Crusade, but mostly about Louis the Pious which really seems to be a most Christian king.
Both chronicles really are a window to a bygone age, to attitudes, and views which without these we can not understand this times, and the decisions of their leaders.
Joinville tells the story about the Seventh Crusade, but mostly about Louis the Pious which really seems to be a most Christian king.
Both chronicles really are a window to a bygone age, to attitudes, and views which without these we can not understand this times, and the decisions of their leaders.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews