Rating: 
Summary: Triple vision or triple distortion?
Review: This is an extremely disappointing book from the author of the excellent History of God. Her goals are very ambitious but are unfortunately not met by a long shot. A barrage of carefully chosen historical facts and factoids is used to construct what is purported to be an impartial approach, described by the author as "triple vision". In practice, the author's triple vision is a very biased view of history. The level of bias is so overwhelming that one is forced to doubt the good faith of the author. Given all this, the fact that the author was awarded the 1999 Muslim Public Affairs Council Media Award doesn't really come as a surprise.
Rating: 
Summary: What about the Muslims?
Review: This is more a rating and review of several of Ms Armstrong's books. Ms Armstrong writes revisionist or biased history in a lot of her books. I agree with a previous reviewer, Ms Armstrong never, in any of her books, truly presents the horrific deeds of the Muslims. Glossed over, or merely mentioned in most of her books are the murders of Muslim leaders by other leaders, the capturing of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims, then making them not only slaves, but soldiers in their army, as with the Jannissaries.
The Muslim invasion of Europe is presented as a glorious event of all-embracing love and toleration for non-Muslims, without mentioning how they built their society in Spain. Had it not been for Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours the Muslims would have spread Islam by the bloody sword all over Europe. I wonder how many innocent Christians and Jews Ms Armstrong would estimate might have died had the Muslims won at Tours and proceeded spreading the Muslim gospel throughout Europe? Ms. Armstrong does mention the murder of Muslim leaders and descendants of Muslim leaders in the "wars" for leadership, but she never treats it with the same venom she uses when she "bites" the Christians in her attacks on them. It has become fashionable for many so-called intellectuals and authors to chastise Christianity. If space would allow I'd list a few books for Ms Armstrong to read about the good that Christianity, including the Catholic Church, has done throughout history. Maybe she, and others, can start with "Under the Influence" and "Christianity on Trial", both available here. After the First Crusade there wasn't much more than a pretext of being Christian anyway. The reasons for going on the Crusades were anything but pious. I wonder if it ever ocurred to Ms Armstrong that the Muslims had no more right in the Holy Land than did the Christians. It wasn't their land either. I do not condone the actions of the Crusaders in the Holy Land or the sacking of Constantinople, or the cannibalism practiced by some crusaders. I'm aware of all that. However, the Christians had every reason to be alarmed that their holy sites were being taken over by Muslims. So did the Jews. There were no innocent Muslim invaders. Did this ever occur to her or the rest of the Muslim apologists? I know many Muslims and like them very much. There are many good things about Islam, and there are many good Muslims. In fact, many of the Muslims I know are embarrassed by much of what the Muslim leaders have done, today and throughout history. If they can be honest, why can't Ms Armstrong? Ms. Armstrong's book are easy reading, mostly good history, and very interesting. I just wish she would tell it like it is with all parties concerned.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Drivel
Review: This must be the single worst book on midieval history I have ever read. I read the book, then started again, taking notes on the mistakes and false assumptions the author made. By the time I was on the ninth page, I already had 3 pages of notes. She does not know who Abraham was, makes false assumptions about Moses, completely derides and mocks the Judeo-Christian religions, and praises and raves the merits of Jihadist Islam. I can't stand historians, even poor ones, who attempt to re-interpete history to fit a personal bias. This would have been an excellent book, if it had been written by someone else.
Rating:
Summary: Absolute Drivel
Review: This must be the single worst book on midieval history I have ever read. I read the book, then started again, taking notes on the mistakes and false assumptions the author made. By the time I was on the ninth page, I already had 3 pages of notes. She does not know who Abraham was, makes false assumptions about Moses, completely derides and mocks the Judeo-Christian religions, and praises and raves the merits of Jihadist Islam. I can't stand historians, even poor ones, who attempt to re-interpete history to fit a personal bias. This would have been an excellent book, if it had been written by someone else.
Rating:
Summary: Awful, uneducating, really, really biased....
Review: Update: 6/03. I have been unable to finish this work-- a first for me since "The Golden Bowl" was inflicted on me as an undergraduate. Omissions, biases, and unsupported assertions just make this book unreadable. I had picked this up in the hopes of understanding the Middle east during the period of the crusades, but this just isn't the work I had heard it was. Another reviewer mentioned that Ms. Armstrong's later works are better-- I certainly hope so. I hope to be able to finish this book, but I will not be able to believe *anything* I read in it. Ms. Armstrong makes vast, unsupported statements (such as saying the Babylonia Exile is the Jewish version of original sin & then addressing that statement with one further sentence that does not bear it out; or the even more antagonistic statement that the conqueror Cyprus was viewed as "the Annointed One of God" by Jews because he allowed exiled peoples to return to their land, with NO supporting statements or cites to back it up). I am singularly unimpressed with the "scholarship" I have seen in these few pages. She states in her glossary that "goyim" is Hebrew (it isn't, its Yiddish, Hebrew term is "ger"-- there is a HUGE difference) and keeps using the term when discussing pre-Diaspora situations, which is extremely inappropriate. She swings from explaining the Exodus as "mythological" while accepting Joshua's military campaigns as historic fact. She also makes no attempt to use any of the numerous Hebrew to English translations available at the time of the original writing-- using the translations from the Greek-Latin-English, again, just doesn't cut it & isn't accurate. To top it off, she unmasks her 'objective' viewpoint by her statements that Jews were on a campaign of world domination (again, during the time of Judges & Prophets) without anything to back that up. Can't wait to see how the rest turns out.... 6/24-- Ok, I've managed to get through a bit more, but this isn't getting any better. Still biased, and the interspersion of 20th century history in the middle of the actual Crusade period was a really bad idea. A real editor would've cut that RIGHT out. Very disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Awful
Review: Very biased...really not what I expected...I think I expected even-handed prose. Not a "blame the West" type book. Would not recommend this to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Most impressive
Review: Very impressive and incisive review of the religeous conflicts.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT???
Review: What on earth is she talking about? There seems to be no real focus in this book. She jumps around more then a hyperactive three year old. She also seems to have a complete bias against the christians.(Bad experiance as a nun perhaps?) All I have to say if it was not required matterial for school I would never have picked it up.
Rating:
Summary: antisemitic
Review: What was used for research?
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? or a copy of Julius Stuermer's "Voelkischer Beobachter"? Just one example of many: Glossary, page 593
Messiah (Hebrew: anointed one.) The Messiah foretold by the prophets was expected to deliver the Jewish people from their suffering and oppression at the hands of the Gentiles. He would also ensure the final triumph of the chosen people, establish them gloriously in Jerusalem and vanquish their foes. All the Gentile nations would be forced to pay tribute to the Jewish people and a golden age of cosmic peace and harmony would begin.
Rating:
Summary: Not terribly illuminating; far too 'anodyne' on Islam
Review: While I am hardly an expert in this field, I attempt to read books of this (general, popular historical) nature, and so I can boast some modest familiarity with the genre. This book, however, does not live up to its hype. It is overlong, poorly written, and Armstrong relies on too few sources. Most damningly, it is also marred -- in my opinion -- by a profoundly pro-Muslim bias. Not enough is made of the fact that both the Crusades and the 'Re-Conquest' by the Spanish were a response to the militaristic spread of Islam. Furthermore, on a more specific note, Armstrong leaps from the early modern period to 1967 with very little -- in fact, nearly none -- discussion of the huge intervening period. It is, overall, a shame that a professional historian with a reputation, such as Karen Armstrong enjoys, should need to bend over backwards to allay fears of anti-Muslim prejudice. One almost feels like recommending David Pryce-Jones' infamous (yet compelling) "The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs" to counter Armstrong's politically correct pieties. Either that or the splendidly written works of Bernard Lewis.
| 
