In the flower of my anger, I became the angel of vengeance and struck him down. I put the mark of Cain on his brow, so that men might know him as a murderer, and left his body to be devoured by carrion-eaters.After bringing down the conspiracy against the Emperor, Demetrios Askiates is sent as an agent of the Empire with the First Crusade. And when a Norman knight is brutally murdered in the crusader camp, the unveiler of mysteries has to call on his old skills again while the Army of Light faces judgment before the walls of Antioch…Knights of the Cross was a disappointing book that ended in a rather positive surprise. Until quite near to the end, I was sure this was a two-star read. Now that I've actually finished the book, I'm leaning towards four stars, but since it was not as entertaining as the first book, I'll stick with the middle ground.Like the first book, it was a bit too simple. There were few characters (some of the characters in the first book that were even present in the historical battles for Antioch have been removed), the plot was straightforward, and much of the book was shaped in a negative fashion by the author not managing to give focus to the actual murder mystery. One could claim that having the Siege of Antioch as a backdrop makes it difficult to divert the focus onto something else, but he did a good job of that in The Mosaic of Shadows, where the surrounding events were no less spectacular.Fortunately, this book had two huge strengths. The first of those was Harper’s characterisation of Adhemar of Le Puy. To those unfamiliar with the name, the Bishop Adhemar was the first man to swear the oath at the Council of Clermont and became the first crusader in history. Because of this piety, he was also appointed by the Pope as the formal and spiritual leader of the First Crusade. Adhemar is not a figure who has interested me much before, but he was by far the greatest character in this book. And arguably the only one with real depth.The second strength is the ending. I correctly guessed the identity of the culprit (and it was pretty obvious, in my eyes), but I was still surprised. Explaining why would entail spoilers, but in any case, I greatly enjoyed both the surprise and the ending as a whole.I suppose this book does suffer from second book syndrome. These books, though well-written, have an entertainment value that’s higher than their actual quality, and this one was definitely a bit less interesting than the first one. But it still was enjoyable, and it made me look forward to reading the last book in the trilogy, which has one of the best titles I have ever heard in historical fiction.I’ll leave off the review with the end passage, which was probably the best part of the book:As I turned to go back, I glanced over my shoulder. The mountains were little more than purple shadows against the deepening sky, and the valleys between had vanished. The course of the Orontes was hidden, and darkness covered the road beside it.The road we had fought so long to clear.The road to Jerusalem.
Set during the siege of Antioch in the First Crusade (1098 AD). While the Army of God faces starvation and deprivation, first outside the walls of Antioch, then inside while besieged by a Turk army, a Greek scribe is given the task of solving the murder of a Frankish knight. During his investigation, he uncovers a heretic cult which worships the false god Mithra, a critical clue he must use to solve his case. While the story is good, the book has no heat. I really didn't make much of a connection to any of the main characters.
Do You like book Knights Of The Cross (2006)?
I'm not really sure why I read this one. I barely liked the first one in the series, but this one was even worse. I really like historical mystery novels, but this one was bor_ing with a capital B. The main character is full of himself (for no good reason) and the only parts of the plot that are interesting are the actual historical events. At least the first one in the series had somewhat of a mystery (who's trying to kill the emperor?) even if the answer and indeed most of the novel is cliche. But the so-called mystery in Knights of the Cross is not only dull, it's annoying. Who cares who did the murder? Who cares about the boring suspects? If you really like historical mystery you might try the first in the series, but I would avoid this one for sure.
—Sarah Messick-Milone
