This book was more history lesson, less story and as such, was difficult to follow. There was no character development as there were simply too many ..Show More »characters. So, to be better, I feel the book should have focused on a few main characters and developed the story line of this piece of history through them.
Narrator did a good job. Editing not always fluid. Hard to keep up with all the characters. The historical figures are moved around in the story but m..Show More »aybe because they are historical it is challenging to give them more depth as characters. But it was fun at times to understand the history as if you are in the midst of the battles.
This value of this book and the series cenerted upon history'' s best knights, Tancred the Great, Godfrey de Boulion, and Bohemund de Hauteville, f..Show More »irst set before me in The Sword and the Cross is in thr detailed account of the first and most successful Crusade, so well remembered among our present allies that we were in effect forbidden to use the very word in our somewhat mishandled victories in Iraq., through the eyes, faith, greed and bravery of some of the best knights of the time. Thr discussion of the training from boyhood in an instution closely paralleling the "agoge' which Spartan youth were obliged to enter at age twelve and exit upon majority a a warrior to carry on his line. The similarities were uncanny and produced warriors that held considerable sway from Normandy, as descendants of Northmen to whom the Frankish king was obliged to cede to them the province named for them. The extent of their influence and power throughout Europe I'd sometimes if not most often forgotten by our Teachers and Professors through apparently overshadowing rrepute given the 'le batard" of Normandy, who could take no part in the first Crusade, William the Conqueror, whose brother was nevertheless in the Holy Land during this first and most effective Crusade.