Customer Reviews

Warriors of God

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Mr. Reston has produced an entertaining book about the Third
Crusade. Indeed, I stopped all other activities in my busy schedule to
finish the book.

Until I read this book, I had encountered very little about the
Crusades. Last year I read Karen Armstrong's "Islam," in which a few
paragraphs address the subject. So, to this point, most of my knowledge
comes from "Warriors of God."

There were a few things that struck me as odd about the book. First, no
footnotes. The book is full of odd and marvelous stories, and I wanted
to look up their sources. However, without the footnotes I could not do
that. Reston does provide a list of primary and secondary sources, but
it's unfortunate that he didn't give us more detail in footnotes.

Second, I was struck by his sympathies with the Muslims and relative
disdain for the Christians. I have no idea if his judgments are accurate
or not, but I did find it odd that his description of Saladin was so
deferential. This may be my westerner's view of things getting in the
way, but it's what I experienced when reading the book.

Finally, I couldn't tell what was true and what was not. Periodically
Reston would judiciously point out that a certain scribe might be
inflating figures or portraying his master in too favorable a light. But
then Reston doesn't use the same critical thinking, for example, about
the blood flowing in the streets of Jerusalem during the First
Crusade. It seemed to me that it would have helped if Reston had
supported that bit of lore with a not pointing out how it could be true
-- by some calculations in geometry -- that the Crusaders were literally
wading in the blood of their victims.

Despite my puzzlement, I heartily recommend Mr. Reston's book. It brings
the Third Crusade to life, the way a good novel would, but it still
retains authority as a historical account of the events of that time.

Reston's work serves as a perfect example of poor scholarship. The fact that this work was not intended by the author to be a scholarly study does not excuse its lack of historical basis. As other reviewers have written, Reston attributes thoughts and motivations to his "characters" without any shred of historical evidence. In effect, much of this work is nothing more than historical fiction. It almost appears as if Reston quickly read over the primary sources along witha few secondary sources and simply filled in the blanks with his own ideas. Also, as in keeping with the worst of modern popular history, Reston simplifies the 3rd Crusade by portraying all Western European Crusaders as barbaric, evil, greedy, and intolerant while Saladin and other Muslims are civilized, goodhearted, generous, and tolerant. Such distinctions sometimes make for good sales in a politcally-correct market, but they don't do anything to advance any type of historical learning amongst the public. One of Reston's most unforgivable errors is his treatment of Richard the Lionheart's sexuality. Numerous times, he libels Richard (and Philip Augustus) by calling him a homosexual. The FACT is that there is ZERO historical evidence for this claim, and no serious historian believes it. The charge is based on one line referring to Richard and Philip sharing a bed together -- a common medieval metaphor used to describe the closeness of a political bond not personal sexual relations.

This work will give the reader a decent general history of the 3rd Crusade, but those not familiar with the era may have a difficult time separating Reston's facts from his fictions. I advise readers to go in a different direction. Unfortunately, a good work on the 3rd Crusade alone surprisingly doesn't exist. Geoffrey Regan's "Lionhearts", while not perfect, is a superior work to Reston's. "Lionhearts" is a dual biography of both Richard and Saladin and covers the 3rd Crusade in the last half of the book. John Gillingham, arguably the world's foremost Richard I scholar, has written a great biography, "Richard I". The 3rd Crusade is covered well in the book. Most general histories of the crusades cover the 3rd Crusade more accurately than Reston. See works by Payne, Madden, Riley-Smith, etc. One warning: An earlier reviewer stated that Runciman's 3-volume History of the Crusades is an unbiased source that lets the reader decide for himself. While Runciman's work is indeed very valuable (I like it for a number of reasons), it's certainly not unbiased. Runciman has a clear pro-Byzantine bias and openly criticizes the motivations and actions of the Crusaders. In fact, he calls the Crusades "a long line of intolerance" and "a sin agaist the Holy Ghost" -- hardly the statements of a historian that leaves moral conclusions to the reader.

This is it. Reston has taken an important piece of history and its main characters, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, and brought them to life. With clarity and detail, we are taken into 12th Century Middle East and European politics surrounding Jerusalem. At the same time we also learn new facts exposing a critical component of the conflicts gripping the same region today. The Third Crusade was sparked by the actions of Chatillon, Price of Kerak, a European stronghold in the Middle East. Despite a peace treaty, Chatillon attacked a camel train belonging to Saladin. When the European King of Jerusalem demand Chatillon make restitution, Chatillon replied: "Just as he is the lord of his land, I am the lord of my land. I have no truce with the Arabs." As Reston writes, "Chatillon's treachery had elevated Saladin prestige throughout his empire and made his cause righteous...A chain reaction began." Change a few words and this could be written about the conflict in the Middle East during the last year.

From this starting point the book just gets better with an understanding that only an experienced historian can develop and a storytelling that only a gifted writer can produce. Reston has proved himself both. This is a worthy companion to his earlier books, Galileo, A Life and The Last Apocalypse.

I've known generally about Richard I, Saladin, and the Third Crusade for years, and thought this book would fill in the gaps by focusing on this extraordinary adventure and its two legendary protagonists. Up to a point, it was informative, although Mr. Reston's flip and jazzy tone began to jar upon me fairly early on. I suppose he's trying to make history "interesting" - but this period is, without having to be stylistically cute.

What really bothers me about this book is that it purports to tell both sides of the story - the Crusaders who thought they were "saving" the Holy Land, the Muslims who believed equally passionately that they must defend it - and manages, instead, to portray this marvelously complicated piece of history as a black-and-white case of good vs. evil. And quite clearly, the European Crusaders are the bad guys, Saladin and the Arabs the good guys. That's a valid point of view - heaven knows, there are (sadly) a lot of books which try this simplistic approach the other way around - but this book is attempting to present itself as history. In any history, when the author's own private feelings and agenda are so clearly displayed that the facts become twisted, you haven't got history - you've got an editorial. I not only cannot recommend this book, I'm really irritated with it and with those that don't see that Reston is not being objective one little bit.

To illustrate the point, let me contrast some descriptive words and phrases Mr. Reston uses repeatedly to describe the two sides. I got fascinated at what he was doing and started jotting them down mid-way through the book.

Europeans: Strutted, boasted, ferocious, dispute, confused, greedily, besotted, inept, hypocritical, homosexual, cunning, squabbles about money, preposterous greed, stubborness, slaughtered, vainglory, whining, atrocious, bruality.

Arabs: Devout, generosity, serenely, calm, purity of motives, peaceful, bravery, vigilance, estimable, distinguished, courageously, stouthearted, dignity, pride, valor, magnificence.

PUH-LEEZE. I personally find it horrible to read about what passed for Christianity during the Crusades. I've always thought Saladin was a remarkable and fascinating leader and never much cared for Richard Lion Heart. But to turn Richard I into nothing more than a blustering, brutal homosexual braggart (Reston dwells on his supposed sexuality as established fact again and again) while Saladin's behavior is ever learned, tolerant and serene, just insults my intelligence. Life is never that simple and history is never that two-dimensional.

Read this book for the facts of the Crusade and for its many fascinating quotations from the Koran, and try to ignore the agenda - but it isn't easy.

A good read. There are some things that the reader should be aware of.

First, the author is correct. Saladin was a great man. That is a point too little stressed in traditional teachings of the Crusade.

Second. There are other issues that helped "spark" the Crusade. For example, while the takeover of Jerusalem was without bloodshed in 638, it occurred as a result of military force, or what used to called in Arab Conquest. But the city still contained one of the holiest shrines for Christendom, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Finally, after many years of Muslem tolerance representing the high point of medieval rule, a new ruler's actions showed a "lack of sensitivity." Caliph Hakim ordered the Church's destruction in 1009. In an age of religious ideology, this certainly was not the smartest of actions.

In sum, a good book but one needs to remember that both sides showed the complete range of human emotions, both good and bad....

Reston's narrative is, for lack of a better word, "juicy." Perhaps too juicy. He colors personalities and nationalities with broad strokes.

For instance, while at times citing sources which he admits to be biased, such as the English view of the French attitude during the Crusade, he isn't adverse to applying adjectives as if they were factual, such as "whiny" to the French crusaders who had to leave the comforts of Acre. Perhaps they were whiny, and speculation serves well enough in this instance -- but source material would be helpful.

And, at times, Reston quotes historical figures verbatim, sometimes entire paragraphs -- which means there must be a source for the quotes, but Reston doesn't provide them.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, but I was uncomfortably aware that, with its lack of source material and Reston's proclivity to add adjectives, I probably wasn't getting as complete a picture as I wanted. The book is categorized as "History," but without the academic -- if boring -- authority behind it, it may well be categorized under "Historical Fictional Nonfiction." Reston probably needed a more historically informed editor.

Some of the other reviews posted here are extremely critical of the use of sources by the author. As a history graduate student, I know the importance and weight held by the use of good sources.

However, I did not read 'Warriors of God' as part of any class I took, I read it because I was interested in the topic and wanted a good read. The Crusades are a fascinating topic with a host of characters that are equally as engaging, and the Third Crusade detailed in this work is no exception.

Vivid descriptions of Saladin, Richard III, Eleanor of Aquitaine, King Philip of France, the siege of Acre, the taking of Jerusalem, as well as the Crusader castles and Islamic cities that dotted the Middle Eastern landscape in the 11th and 12th centuries, are fascinating. I couldn't care less what sources Mr. Reston used; I don't feel that flipping back and fourth in a book checking sources is necessary or fun when reading for entertainment.

My one complaint for "Warriors of God" is that it could have used a little editorial "sprucing up"...occasionally there are sentences in there that aren't really sentences, or the language becomes murky and hard to understand. Other than that, though, I thought the book did read like a novel, and I mean that in a complimentary sense.

If you happen to be a stickler for sources or are looking for cold hard facts on the Crusades, then perhaps this isn't the book for you. But if you're looking to be entertained and are interested in the time period, I highly recommend this book, regardless of it's sources.

Reston weaves a spectacular tapestry of the Third Crusade by following the heroics (and frailties) of Richard Lionheart and the great Muslim Sultan Saladin. While describing the campaign and his protagonists in detail so realistic that the reader almost feels like he is a participant, the suthor also provides the background of the politics and intrigue of 12th century Europe with its heroes and villains. The storis of Eleanor of Aquitaine would have made this a fascinating book by themselves, but intermingled with the other characters and adventures, the story reads almost like fiction. Reston is a formidable researcher and writes in a clear and flowing style that brings both the period and the individuals to life. I didn't learn a lot of new facts, but the texture provided gave ne a much clearer picture and greater appreciation of this epic period.

James Reston recalls a terrible, yet not unexpected blemish on Christianity's past with vivid writing, excellent portrayls of the players, the politics and the battles that led up to the Western Europe's first, and not last, self-serving conquest in the name of God and Christ.

Warriors of God shows the folly of man that has been created by Judeo-Christian religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) over a region supposedly holy to all. The Unbelievers (as Richard the Lion Hearted and his troops called the Arab armies) against the Infidels (as Saladin and his soliders referred to the Christian knights) is intriguing series of battles and machinations with much in-fighting amongst the Christian Knights, as they battled for the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the latter years of the 12th Century. The facts alone are compelling enough, but Reston brings to the front lines in a most engaging way informing us on such interesting bits of information as Richard's homosexuality, the etymology of the word "assassin" and the desires of Saladin to unite the Arab kingdom from Cairo to Damascus.

It's well worth read, considering all the source material is 900 years old and the actual details of the battles must have come from propaganda spewing minstrels at the time.

This is essentially not history; it is a melodrama based, more or less loosely, on the Third Crusade. Its Saladin and Richard are the characters a novelist would have them be -- tailored to fit his plot line, thinking the thoughts he wants them to think, driven by the desires and emotions he wants them to have. Any relationship between these shallow, crudely-drawn characters and the real thing is not only accidental but unimportant. The point of the book is to teach the reader that there were good guys and bad guys and that we (the West) were the bad guys, while throwing in sex and violence in the bargain. And so it presents a simplified, technicolor version that leaves out the historical doubts, factual uncertainties, and other shades of grey that make for good history but bad B movies.

Who were the good guys and who the bad? Read Runciman's books (his Volume 3 covers the Third Crusade) -- they present history and let you decide for yourself.