For some reason, I have a hankering for studying the Crusades. Maybe it's because I'm taking "History of the Crusades" next semester, or because I just spent 20 minutes looking at the imdb forums for
Kingdom of Heaven. Regardless, it's time to find some books to read.
Now, I've read a bit about the Crusades, and the one set that I own and also happen to like is Runciman's trilogy. Apparantly however, Runciman's work isn't respected by some, and so I'm curious about that too. Ah...literary criticism in history...so interesting.
This got me thinking about the notion of "unbiased" writings, but I can't articulate those thoughts at present.
*Disclaimer: I don't like the Crusades...any post on them is going to reflect that. But, I like to think I have a deeper understanding of them, so it's not the simplisitc, "it was Christians ["Catholics" if whoever is speaking is slightly more learned] attacking Muslims," reason for disliking them.