Yes, it’s true. I’m a professional historian of the Crusades. I have written several books and train Ph.D.s on the subject. I have to admit that, given that I am not much into wargames, I would not have tried this game were it not for the theme. I’m glad I did. My opponent was my nine-year-old daughter, who became enthralled with the game. She now asks to play it all the time. She knew nothing at all about the Crusades before we started playing, but throughout the first game she kept asking about various characters (she played the Crusaders) and what really happened. So, aside from being just plain fun, this game is pretty educational.

Rather than give a synopsis of rules, etc., I want to approach this review from the perspective of a Crusade historian. (For this review I am using version 1.3 of the rules.) First off, a game with the level of abstraction of a block game is never going to be a completely faithful reproduction of its subject. That said, however, I was constantly amazed at how this seemed to recreate the factors that were really at work at the time. For example, the Saracens are powerful so long as they can keep the emirs alive, but if they are eliminated, then they are just drawing low quality Turks, Arabs, and Kurds every turn. This nicely mirrors the fact that Saladin’s emirs were willing to support his jihad so long as it was both successful and reasonably short. Time was always his enemy.

The purpose of the early game is to reproduce the lopsided situation in the region just before and immediately after the Battle of Hattin. It does this very well. In the games that I have played (always as the Saracen) I have been able to defend my current position and, without too much trouble, have the Christians on the run. It is never clear precisely when the Crusaders from Europe will arrive, so I need to take that into account as well. This is exactly the situation as it occurred in history. The Saracen must move quickly to secure his position before the kings of Europe arrive.

I was amazed during my first game of this how closely it recreated actual historical events. It is a coincidence – at least in part – but amazing nonetheless. As the Saracen I quickly captured Jerusalem and then moved on to Acre, which I took after a short siege. Tripoli almost fell to me, but was saved by the arrival of some pilgrims from Sicily. In reality, it was Conrad of Montferrat that saved Tripoli, but the Normans from Sicily did play an important part in the early crusade.

With not much more than Tripoli and Antioch, the Christians held on until the first of the Crusaders arrived. Frederick Barbarossa arrived first, but ran into a buzzsaw with my forces besieging Antioch. This did not really happen, but I thought it was a nice parallel to the disintegration of German forces after Frederick’s drowning in the Saleph. The English and French forces arrived shortly thereafter and my daughter (who knew nothing of the real events) decided to lay siege to Acre. My attempts to break the siege were ineffective and the city finally fell to her. I should have known!

She then went south and hesitated, trying to decide whether to attack Jerusalem or Egypt – just as Richard and his men did. Finally, she headed to Egypt and captured it. In reality, that did not happen, but it was what Richard wanted to do. Perhaps it was good that he did not, for she quickly found herself surrounded by my forces and lost Egypt. I won, four to three principal towns – just like the real events.

Things didn’t go so close to the historical events in the other games we’ve played, which is good, since it would be rather boring otherwise. But we have always had a great time. She asks to play the game frequently and it even caused her to ask to read one of my books on the Crusades. I’m not sure if she is really reading it, but it is sitting next to her bed, so that’s something. She does, though, frequently ask historical questions during the game.

A game like this should first and foremost be fun – and it is. It should secondly be true to its subject, and it is – at least to a point. I would suggest only one change in light of history, although I’m not sure how it would be implemented. In CR Jerusalem is just one of the seven principal towns. In reality, though, it was the reason why anything else in the region mattered. The Christians were there for the sole reason of securing and defending Jerusalem and the other holy sites. It was the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 that led three kings to take the cross. The fall of Acre or Tripoli would not have had that sort of impact. Despite restoring most of the coast, Richard considered his crusade to be a failure, really unfinished because he had failed to capture Jerusalem. I wonder if there isn’t some way to have this dynamic, which was so central to the crusades, represented in the game.

Overall, though, I enjoy this game very much. It faithfully reproduces many factors that were at work at the time. And it does so within the framework of a fun experience. That’s no small thing.

Thomas F. Madden