|
I highly recommend this translation of Joinville and Villehardouin. The translator has taken care to translate these works into lucid, contemporary language without dumbing down the writing. Her work has paid off, providing a readable and lively edition still suitable for scholarly review. Whether you are reading these for enjoyment, personal interest, or academic reasons, this translation is a good one.
The two chronicles were translated for this book by Margaret Shaw. Though the chroniclers are quick to point out the cruelty of the Saracens. These chronicles do an excellent job of showing how the two chroniclers thought and how they wanted these two crusades remembered. This in itself will taint the purity of the chronicle. The fourth crusade received condemnation on its behavior when the Christian city of Constantinople was sacked.
They were written to glorify the Crusaders and surely the writers would not put on ink anything that would later detract from their names. The book was published in 1963 around the time of her death. Chronicles such as these lay out the justifications for the crusades and tend to gloss over the blemishes. Joinville refers to Prestor John as if he was a person who actually existed, thus showing that his accounts are not strictly cemented in fact. The book covers the descriptions of the fourth and the seventh crusades as seen through the eyes of Geoffroy De Villehardouin (who took part in the fourth crusade) and Jean De Joinville (who took part in the seventh crusade).
Margaret Shaw refers to these two chronicles as being the most reliable accounts of the crusades written in French. This was due to the crusaders raping of the women. They were barbaric in their means of taking the land and the raping of women was allowed, if the women were not of the Christian faith. These two are no different.
When this book is read this should be kept in mind. This book is a good book to show the chroniclers thoughts and perspectives but if you are trying to get an accurate picture of what happened during these crusades I would look into other books as well. Chronicles of the Crusades is a chronicle of the Crusades from two of the senior participants who took part in two of the Crusades. This of course is not pointed out by Villehardouin. The chroniclers mention a little of the plunder, but do not mention anything else. I would have to disagree that these chronicles should be taken as completely accurate. The crusaders were allowed to plunder the lands they conquered. Such books that describe the opposing views as seen from the Muslim side and other books that can give specifics on how the crusaders lived and their equipment could help in understanding these crusades better.
The two chronicles give us a look into the two crusades as chronicled through the eyes of two important noblemen of their time. I am giving this book 5 stars because it does accurately convey it's title. The average crusader was a mixture of those driven by greed and religious extremists. In today's terms they were allowed to take war trophies, thus stealing from the inhabitants of the land. The chronicles give an overview of the crusades and do not go into much detail on the equipment used and the everyday life of the average crusader. It does cover the Chronicles of the Crusades.
I had to read this book in my Medieval and Ranasance Class at OSU. This book gives a first person view of what the Crusades were like. My teenage son has read the book several times and used for several research papers in high school.
The two accounts in _Chronicles of the Crusades_ provide readers with fascinating accounts of the 4th and 7th crusades. Joinville's chronicle of the 7th crusade into the Holy Land was similarly fascinating, providing more information about a European's impressions of the Near East and Christian-Islamic conflict than Villehardoun. Villehardoun's observations of the sack of Constantinople leave some questions regarding whether it was a conspiracy to destroy the city or not; ultimately it is up to the reader to decide. It does, however, provide a window into 12th century warfare and politics. I much preferred Joinville for this reason. Together, both accounts provide a well-rounded history of the time and place - a tremendously interesting read for professional and armchair historians alike.
The integrity of Louis is apparent as well as the mistakes made by the crusaders (Joinville rarely places direct blame of any failure on Louis, noting instead Louis's brother and his failures). accident.Joinville gives an equally appreciable account of a crusade, this time a failed attempt in Egypt by Saint Louis.
Villehardouin proves insightful in what he does not say. These are both excellent accounts of the crusades.
There are other books wholly committed to this argument of conspiracy vs. A small army of crusaders faces unbelievable odds in Constantinople and yet somehow they conquer and hold this territory.
It brings up the question of whether the conquest was an accident or a conspiracy, and a reader can answer that question through careful reading. Joinville is an author that gives a huge amount of information.
This is a well introduced book and is not difficult to read in my opinion.
|
