City Travel Guides
Home Page > Go back a page
Books : The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Saqi Essentials)
Rating: 
- Achieved its objective!
As the title clearly indicates, this book is an attempt to depict the experience of the crusades through Arab eyes; in my opinion, it succeeded.
Until I read this title, my two favourite works concerning the crusades were 'The first crusade' by Thomas Asbridge and 'The sword and the scimitar' by Ernle Bradford. This book joins that short list.
One of the many bonuses to this title was that it filled a lot of the gaps in the aftermath of July 1099, such as the attempts by the Fatimids to reconquer Jerusalem, how the crusaders conquered Tripoli, Acre, the impact of the Mongols and the Mamluks on Arab civilisation. You come across interesting characters including Saladin, Zangi, Nur-Al-Din, Baybars, Qutuz, to name a few.
If I have any criticism, it is that some bits of information should not be taken at face value. For instance, the author asserts that Richard the Lionheart had Conrad of Montferrat killed by the Assassins - this is speculation at best.
I really enjoyed reading this and have certainly developed a more informed view of the crusades.
Rating:
- Interesting book
Amin Maalouf is a good French-Lebanese writer, and this, a translation from the original French, reads very well.
The occasional reviewer who says that it is one-sided is a bit unfair. It is a history of the Crusades from one point of view, as Maalouf says, and as the title makes clear. In writing the book, he says in the introduction, he has deliberately relied almost exclusively on contemporary Arabic sources. Even so, his account is fairly even-handed in that respect. Sometimes he does write as if he is cheering and jeering at the appropriate places in the story, but all even-handed historians, such as Runciman, make it clear that the Crusaders were on the whole a pretty barbaric bunch. Also although Maalouf describes Crusader-Muslim alliances as "bizarre", he makes it clear that as the Crusader kingdoms become stable, they played a role that often cut across religious lines, and few leaders on either side were consistent allies to their co-religionists, nor consistent enemies to those of another faith.
Also, at the end, after detailing the huge amount that the Europeans learnt in science, technology, art, culture, medicine and so on from the Muslim world, he then considers a few things that the Muslim world even at the time could have learnt from the otherwise less advanced west, if they had wished to.
However, the strength of the book doesn't come from its even-handedness. A good history book can be as biased as the writer wants it to be in tone, so long as it is factually accurate. Maalouf's account substantially agrees with (for example) Runciman's history, but fills it out by explaining the debates, the conflicts and the plans that the Muslims had in response to the invasion.
The single perspective of the narrative would be a weakness if someone were to take this as the last word, or the most complete account of the Crusades. At times it reads almost like Hamlet without the prince, as the driving force of the narrative, necessarily, is the Crusaders themselves. Maalouf's account of them is very thin, especially when it comes to explaining their motivations, the plea for help of the Byzantine emperor, the preaching of Peter the Hermit, the mass hysteria, the hopes and the fantasies and so on. This is not really a weakness of the book, but just something you should bear in mind. Whatever the grounds for your interest in the Crusades, you would need to read an account of how it all came about. Runciman's history is the standard work, and still well regarded. Maalouf however, will add much vital information that Runciman doesn't cover, however limited Maalouf's book would be considered in itself.
The great strengths of Maalouf's book come when he is explaining the political and social context of the Muslim world at the time. His explanation of the divisions between Turkish military commander and Arab civilian, burgher and villager, qadi and officer, Sunni and Shia gives you a deeper understanding of the Crusades than you would have if you only read other sources. He also explains the Assassins in a way that treats them not as an exotic curiosity, but an important social movement.
This book will enrich whatever else you have read about the Crusades. Although many of the original Arabic texts have now been translated, his overview and narrative is based on a wide variety of Arabic sources, and gives a broad understanding of what the Muslims thought of the event, and how they reacted to it.
Rating:
- Overated pseudo-history
This book highlights the dangers inherent in journalists writing history. The author has a lively style and the book is ceratinly readable (one previous reviewer even fooled into thinking it's a novel!) but it is very poor as history. It lacks objectivity and although presents us with a very interesting account of events from the Arab point of view and is critical of the Muslim states and their inability to work together, displays the author's ignorance (or deliberate lack of interest in) their opponents. Western authors have been writing more balanced views of the religious wars in the middle east for some time as any serious student of mediaeval history is well aware and this books pretensions at presenting 'the other side' is disingenuous. To sum up, it reminded me of a couple of books I read many years ago about events on the Russian front in 1943 and 44, which were written by Russian authors writing under communist rule, - go figure!
Rating:
- Not the best account!
I have to disagree with the other reviewers. The idea of the book is a very good one. We're used to reading about the crusades from the western perspective. Even the most objective account will tend to examine the motivations/ideas of the crusaders rather than the Arabs. So Ma'alouf's book is needed. However, it is, academically speaking, a bit slim. In my opinion this book is NOT well researched; however, even though it does so poorly, it touches on an understudied side of the crusades.
To use a rather odd analogy: if this was a movie I'd tell you to watch it on a plane or on TV but not to buy it!
Rating: - Well researched, Acessible, Intriguing
I'm not much of a history buff. but this book is written in a clear accessible style. Events are detailed and accurate, and the journey through time is eyeopening. Well written, read this book!
- Achieved its objective!As the title clearly indicates, this book is an attempt to depict the experience of the crusades through Arab eyes; in my opinion, it succeeded.
Until I read this title, my two favourite works concerning the crusades were 'The first crusade' by Thomas Asbridge and 'The sword and the scimitar' by Ernle Bradford. This book joins that short list.
One of the many bonuses to this title was that it filled a lot of the gaps in the aftermath of July 1099, such as the attempts by the Fatimids to reconquer Jerusalem, how the crusaders conquered Tripoli, Acre, the impact of the Mongols and the Mamluks on Arab civilisation. You come across interesting characters including Saladin, Zangi, Nur-Al-Din, Baybars, Qutuz, to name a few.
If I have any criticism, it is that some bits of information should not be taken at face value. For instance, the author asserts that Richard the Lionheart had Conrad of Montferrat killed by the Assassins - this is speculation at best.
I really enjoyed reading this and have certainly developed a more informed view of the crusades.
Rating:
- Interesting bookAmin Maalouf is a good French-Lebanese writer, and this, a translation from the original French, reads very well.
The occasional reviewer who says that it is one-sided is a bit unfair. It is a history of the Crusades from one point of view, as Maalouf says, and as the title makes clear. In writing the book, he says in the introduction, he has deliberately relied almost exclusively on contemporary Arabic sources. Even so, his account is fairly even-handed in that respect. Sometimes he does write as if he is cheering and jeering at the appropriate places in the story, but all even-handed historians, such as Runciman, make it clear that the Crusaders were on the whole a pretty barbaric bunch. Also although Maalouf describes Crusader-Muslim alliances as "bizarre", he makes it clear that as the Crusader kingdoms become stable, they played a role that often cut across religious lines, and few leaders on either side were consistent allies to their co-religionists, nor consistent enemies to those of another faith.
Also, at the end, after detailing the huge amount that the Europeans learnt in science, technology, art, culture, medicine and so on from the Muslim world, he then considers a few things that the Muslim world even at the time could have learnt from the otherwise less advanced west, if they had wished to.
However, the strength of the book doesn't come from its even-handedness. A good history book can be as biased as the writer wants it to be in tone, so long as it is factually accurate. Maalouf's account substantially agrees with (for example) Runciman's history, but fills it out by explaining the debates, the conflicts and the plans that the Muslims had in response to the invasion.
The single perspective of the narrative would be a weakness if someone were to take this as the last word, or the most complete account of the Crusades. At times it reads almost like Hamlet without the prince, as the driving force of the narrative, necessarily, is the Crusaders themselves. Maalouf's account of them is very thin, especially when it comes to explaining their motivations, the plea for help of the Byzantine emperor, the preaching of Peter the Hermit, the mass hysteria, the hopes and the fantasies and so on. This is not really a weakness of the book, but just something you should bear in mind. Whatever the grounds for your interest in the Crusades, you would need to read an account of how it all came about. Runciman's history is the standard work, and still well regarded. Maalouf however, will add much vital information that Runciman doesn't cover, however limited Maalouf's book would be considered in itself.
The great strengths of Maalouf's book come when he is explaining the political and social context of the Muslim world at the time. His explanation of the divisions between Turkish military commander and Arab civilian, burgher and villager, qadi and officer, Sunni and Shia gives you a deeper understanding of the Crusades than you would have if you only read other sources. He also explains the Assassins in a way that treats them not as an exotic curiosity, but an important social movement.
This book will enrich whatever else you have read about the Crusades. Although many of the original Arabic texts have now been translated, his overview and narrative is based on a wide variety of Arabic sources, and gives a broad understanding of what the Muslims thought of the event, and how they reacted to it.
Rating:
- Overated pseudo-historyThis book highlights the dangers inherent in journalists writing history. The author has a lively style and the book is ceratinly readable (one previous reviewer even fooled into thinking it's a novel!) but it is very poor as history. It lacks objectivity and although presents us with a very interesting account of events from the Arab point of view and is critical of the Muslim states and their inability to work together, displays the author's ignorance (or deliberate lack of interest in) their opponents. Western authors have been writing more balanced views of the religious wars in the middle east for some time as any serious student of mediaeval history is well aware and this books pretensions at presenting 'the other side' is disingenuous. To sum up, it reminded me of a couple of books I read many years ago about events on the Russian front in 1943 and 44, which were written by Russian authors writing under communist rule, - go figure!
Rating:
- Not the best account!I have to disagree with the other reviewers. The idea of the book is a very good one. We're used to reading about the crusades from the western perspective. Even the most objective account will tend to examine the motivations/ideas of the crusaders rather than the Arabs. So Ma'alouf's book is needed. However, it is, academically speaking, a bit slim. In my opinion this book is NOT well researched; however, even though it does so poorly, it touches on an understudied side of the crusades.
To use a rather odd analogy: if this was a movie I'd tell you to watch it on a plane or on TV but not to buy it!
Rating:
- Well researched, Acessible, IntriguingI'm not much of a history buff. but this book is written in a clear accessible style. Events are detailed and accurate, and the journey through time is eyeopening. Well written, read this book!