In this book, Timo Kirschberger seeks to offer an original perspective on what he believes to be a wrongly ignored aspect in the formation and history of two states created in the wake of the First Crusade, the principality of Antioch and the kingdom of Jerusalem: the ethno-genetic, self-identifying processes of their inhabitants. He argues that western settlers, rather than perpetuating the designation ‘Frank’, which historians such as Alan Murray have proposed became a coverall term for the Latin peoples in Outremer, crafted their own mythomoteurs, or group myths. Through the writing of origines gentium narratives, ‘Antiochene’ and ‘Jerusalemite’ identity groups were created, linked not to an earlier European ethnicity, but to their new nations.

The book is divided into seven chapters. The first provides useful descriptions of the existing historiography of ethno-genesis and group formation in the Latin East and the wider Middle Ages, while the second offers an overview of Kirschberger's three source types: ‘Antiochene’ sources (the Gesta francorum, Peter Tudebode's Historia, Ralph of Caen's Gesta Tancredi and Walter the Chancellor's Bella Antiochena), ‘Jerusalemite’ sources (Fulcher of Chartres's Historia, the Historia Nicaena vel Antiochena and William of Tyre's Chronicon), and ‘other’ sources (the Benedictine re-workings of the Gesta by Baldric of Borgeuil, Robert the Monk and Guibert of Nogent, the Historiae of Albert of Aachen and Raymond of Aguilers, and other western narratives). Chapter iii then examines the prominence of the Franci term in sources for the Latin East. It is noted that ‘Frankish’ identity was replaced by a more complicated double-layered identity, whereby ‘Antiochenes’ and ‘Jerusalemites’, while identifying primarily with their new homes, also recognised that they formed part of a wider ‘Latin’ whole in Outremer. Chapter iv discusses the imagery deployed for ‘foreign’ or ‘enemy’ peoples – Muslims and Byzantine Greeks – who helped to shape these identities by creating an ‘other’ against whom these new ethnic groups could unite. Chapter v examines the prologues of the chosen sources. It is presented that these served the purpose of encapsulating the formation myths of the newly formed ‘Antiochene’ and ‘Jerusalemite’ gentes. Chapter vi explores the texts’ treatment of events during the First Crusade, as well as their later memorialisation, to further support the case that they were constructing new, separate identities. It is argued that ‘Jerusalemite’ sources emphasise the common purpose and unity of the venture across social and ethnic boundaries, and the overall centrality of Jerusalem, while the ‘Antiochene’ sources promote the value of Antioch, as well as the individual roles played by Norman leaders, such as Bohemond of Taranto and Tancred of Hauteville. Finally, chapter vii explores the ways in which these two polities sought to legitimise their existence in the face of different opposing factors. In the case of Jerusalem, the religious disquiet about a secular ruler in Christ's kingdom was combatted not by ignoring parallels with Jesus, rather by courting them, with the True Cross relic acting as the symbol for an ‘ethno-religious cult’ which embodied the mythomoteur. For Antioch, Latin legitimacy was demonstrated, in the face of Byzantine claims to dominion, by a pronounced Grecophobia, as well as the advertisement of the city's ties to early Christianity through St Peter.

However, while I am in support of the argument that the Crusader States should be recognised as individual entities that could pursue separate political aims and goals, and there are some interesting conclusions, elements of Kirschberger's approach raise questions. Most prominent is an over-reliance on the provenance of the early crusade sources as a basis for key arguments. In recent years, modern understanding of the inter-connectivity of the narratives of the First Crusade and the early years of Latin settlement has been revolutionised. This means one can quickly find the sands shifting beneath one's feet. In this context, it is a shame that Kirschberger appears not to have seen Marcus Bull's 2012 contribution (Crusades xi) in the debate regarding the links between the Gesta francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia, which convincingly demonstrates that the Gesta is the earlier source and not one crafted – as Kirschberger suggests – as part of Bohemond's European preaching campaign of 1106. Similarly, no mention is made of Susan Edgington's 2014 refutation (Crusades xiii) of the theory that Bartolf of Nangis lived in Jerusalem, which hampers the author's belief that this source acts as a ‘significant testimony to the early history of the Latin Kingdom’ (pp. 67–8). This weakens the definitions offered for ‘Antiochene’ and ‘Jerusalemite’ sources, and I am not convinced that the Gesta francorum and Peter Tudebode should be classified as ‘Antiochene’, just as Bartolf of Nangis is not ‘Jerusalemite’. Such classifications threaten to overlook the western contexts and influences on these narratives. Additionally, although mention is made of non-textual sources, in general not enough is made of charter, numismatic, sigillographic material and architectural evidence, all of which could have added important context. For example, the notion that ‘Antiochene’ legitimacy was sought through anti-Greek rhetoric and an identification with St Peter, is somewhat challenged by the fact that Antioch's coinage continued to carry Greek inscriptions – alongside images of SS Peter and Paul – even during the reign of Roger of Salerno (d. 1119). It is also a surprise that, in examining the links between the term Franci and its earlier Carolingian roots, no use was made of Matthew Gabriele's 2011 monograph on this, nor Bull's updated 2013 article (Haskins Society Journal xxv) on the northern French construction of the First Crusade.

Kirschberger's book nevertheless provokes thought and asks historians to question more carefully how medieval peoples and authors perceived and constructed their identities. It also serves to show that the history of the Latin East has not yet been definitively told – as the author himself notes in his conclusion. It is to be hoped that Kirschberger will consider having this monograph translated, or seek to publish translated elements of his work in research articles, to allow his ideas to reach a wider Anglophone audience.