reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/15/85)
"The Dream and the Tomb" is Robert Payne's last book, a history of the
Crusades. Payne was a well-known popular historian; the cover of "The
Dream and the Tomb" is covered with extremely complementary blurbs from
major papers, including a quote from "The New York Times" to the effect
that no man alive can write more beautiful prose than Payne. Ability of
this caliber isn't in evidence in "The Dream and the Tomb", but it's a
fine history of an interesting period, and well worth reading.
As best I can make out, there are two levels of misconceptions about the
Crusades. People who know absolutely nothing about them have a vague
notion that Europeans of the Middle Ages went off to the Holy Lands and
smote the heathen. Perhaps they've seen a Hollywood version of the Crusades,
and at any rate they figure that the good guys (ie, the Christians) probably
won. The other, somewhat more informed, level contains those who took
history in high school and college and got to hear the standard spiel about
how influential the Crusades were in European history. (When high school
teachers get down to specifics on the cultural effects of the Crusades,
however, they're likely to mumble something about introducing figs, dates, and
spices to Europe.) As far as the Crusades themselves go, people in this group
remember that the Crusades basically failed, and take from this the impression
that they were an unmitigated disaster.
Payne's book is particularly valuable in that it makes clear just how
successful the Crusades really were, for a time, and why they eventually
failed. After the First Crusade, Christian Crusaders controlled all of the
land now held by Israel, plus most of Lebanon, bits of Syria, and a substantial
chunk of Turkey. They held all of the important cities and towns of the
Scriptures. They were in possession of formidable castles and had men and
means sufficient to put up a strong defense. They held onto all this for almost
100 years. It took the Saracens nearly two hundred years to finally dislodge
the Crusaders from the Middle East. In at least a dozen battles, outnumbered
Crusader armies routed vast hosts of Saracens.
Moreover, the Crusaders did at least as much to defeat themselves as the
Saracens did. Quarrels between Crusader lords were ubiquitous, and
frequently occurred at the worst possible moments. Many Crusader lords
would treacherously, and worse, stupidly, ally with the Moslims against
other Crusaders. In far too many cases, their strategy and tactics were
criminally stupid. Some Crusaders were little more than bandits and needlessly
provoked the Saracens. Payne also makes clear the constant cruelty of the
period. Hardly an important figure strides across the pages without ordering
a massacre of helpless captives or the murder of an inconvenient rival.
(Saladin, commonly viewed as a chivalrous sort, did his share of slaughering
of innocents, and that other paragon of the chivalric ideal, Richard the Lion
Hearted, did more than his share.) The history of the Crusades is not
especially glorious or uplifting, but it is fascinating.
Payne has a good grasp of the Crusaders and the Saracens, their strengths and
weaknesses. Obviously, the story is told from a European standpoint, but
Payne has some sympathy for Moslim viewpoints, as well. He makes the
disastrous battle of the Horns of Hattin crystal clear, for instance, fully
explaining why the Christians pursued their idiotic course and how the
Saracens took advantage of it. Payne never loses site of the fundamental
differences between the Crusader's outlook on life and our modern views.
Much of the Crusades is inexplicable when looked at through modern mores,
but makes perfect sense in the context of the 12th century.
Payne's book is extremely complete. All the Crusades, from the catastrophic
peasant's Crusade, through the successful First, the ineffectual Second,
the famous but indecisive Third (the one with Richard the Lion Hearted, a
most interesting man), the shameful Fourth (the Crusaders sacked Byzantium,
then went home), and the steady winding down of efforts in the Fifth through
Eighth. There is also a detour for the tragic Children's Crusade, constant
reminders of the state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and a final surprising
coda: after the Saracens had booted the Crusaders out of the Holy Land,
leaving them no closer than Cyprus, an army largely composed of Mongols
and Armenian Christians, with a handful of Crusaders, decisively defeated
the forces of Islam. The extremely generous Mongol leader then *gave*
the Crusaders *everything* that they'd lost, Jerusalem, Acre, the whole
works. Unfortunately for the Crusaders, Europe had no stomach for Middle
Eastern adventures any more, and the 5000 or so remaining Crusaders
couldn't possible hold this land, so they evacuated it after six months,
the Mongols' attention being drawn elsewhere and the Saracens returning.
Payne fits all this into 400 pages. Some of it is a bit rapid. One can
skim over a paragraph and miss the death of a highly influential king,
suddenly finding oneself at the next monarch's coronation. Payne has a
talent for giving rapid, memorable sketches of important figures, but
there are still a few too many to absorb. The book's greatest flaw is
that Payne doesn't offer a strong enough unifying view of the ultimate
importance of it all. On the whole, though, "The Dream and the Tomb"
is a very entertaining and highly informative work. I recommend it
to anyone with any interest in the period.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher