Runciman's three volume History of the Crusades is the single greatest work on the crusades that I have yet encountered. Given its reputation, it's unlikely that its place will ever be usurped. However, this final volume is the weakest in the set. Don't get me wrong; it is an outstanding book, and well worth reading. It has all of the great traits which made the whole series a landmark work; the excellent prose, accurate (and extremely well documented) history, and a sharp wit that makes the reading fun. The Kingdom of Acre, however, adds two things which are, unfortunately, detrimental to the set: bitterness and haste.



Throughout the first two volumes it was clear that Runciman loved Byzantium, and was very much biased in their favor. In this volume, however, it becomes quite glaring and somewhat irksome. Runciman becomes quite bitter toward the crusaders following the Fourth Crusade and the conquest of Constantinople, and his bitterness is extremely transparent. It is understandable that he bemoans the loss of the Byzantine civilization, but his obsession with the Greeks really detracts from the volume, and it colors his account of history. If you read Runciman's account of the Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire of Constantinople, and then read another account, like that of Jonathan Phillips, you will see a vast difference. Runciman does not necessarily report inaccurately, but he is guilty of errors of omission in his attempt to paint the members of the Fourth Crusade as villains, rendering them completely unsympathetic by failing to include information that explains (at least in part) their actions. He comes right out and declares that "there was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade" (109). The fact that this was written a decade after World War II and the holocaust should indicate the magnitude of his love for Byzantium and hatred for the crusaders.



The second major problem is the lack of detail in this volume compared to the previous volumes. Runciman simply does not seem as interested in this period of the crusades, and as a result that this volume is not as interesting to read as the previous volumes. For example, he gives only a single twenty page chapter to the entire Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire of Constantinople. This volume is the same length as the previous volumes, but covers a vast period of time, and so it covers each major event in a very short space. There are some occasions where he discusses things which interest him, and so goes into the same sort of detail he did in the previous volumes, but these are infrequent. The loss of Constantinople and the collapse of Byzantium really seem to have taken the enthusiasm out of him. In most cases the semi-detailed accounts (as opposed the very detailed accounts in the first two volumes) are not bad (and are still quite good), but simply not as good as they might have been. In a few cases, however, the lack of detail leaves you feeling completely lost. The chapter on the Mongols comes to mind. He just begins throwing all sorts of Mongolian names and places around (which are very unfamiliar to a Western ear, and I had no idea where almost any of the locations were), and assumes that you can follow along, but I was completely lost. I got a vague impression that Genghis Kahn rose to power and conquered things, but I didn't have enough details to really understand what was happening.



Finally, Runciman's bitterness led to a very pessimistic summary of the crusades at the end of the volume. He concluded that the entire crusading enterprise was a colossal failure which accomplished nothing, was completely misguided, and was detrimental to everyone involved, especially to Byzantium. While much of this is accurate, he misses a whole aspect of the crusades. Yes, the crusades were hopelessly misguided and corrupted by the quarrels and intrigues of its leaders, but the crusades were also incurably romantic. Runciman's bitterness led him to neglect the good aspects of the crusades; the hope, enthusiasm, piety, and the epic struggle against what they considered to be evil. The evils of the crusades may outweigh the goods, but there were good aspects of the crusades. The romantic aspect of he crusades (which I think is the main reason the crusades continued for so long) is almost entirely ignored by Runciman in this volume.



Despite all of this, The Fall of Acre is a great book. Sure it has some issues, and it could have been better, but that doesn't mean it's not a great book. Runciman's trilogy is still the best account of the crusades out there; you just have to keep in mind the fact that he isn't perfectly objective. But then again, who is?