<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Look at the Third Crusade
Review: Geoffrey Regan, who is primarily a military historian, takes a foray into the Third Crusade, which involved the conflict between the great Muslim general Saladin, and Angevin monarch King Richard I. The Third Crusade occurred after Saladin crushed most of the Christian army at Hattin in 1187, and then conquered Jerusalem after a century of Christian domination. In this well written book, Regan examines the two dynamic personalities that were Saladin and Richard. Regan's prose is rigorous and extremely clear. In fact, his clarity is probably the best thing about this book, as many books on this topic tend to bog the reader down in endless names and other minutiae.Regan begins his book by examining the rise of Richard to the throne of the powerful Angevin empire, which consisted of England and large chunks of France. Regan adequately details the power struggles amongst Richard's father, Henry II, his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and his brothers John and Geoffrey. For those not in the know about this time in history, this family makes the Torrance family from The Shining look like Ozzie and Harriet. Everyone in the family intrigues against the others, and Henry even went so far as to make his wife a virtual prisoner for years due to her role in trying to put Richard on the throne at the expense of Henry. Richard fights several battles with his brothers, all in an attempt to jockey for power. Regan explains that Henry was very stingy with his office as king, and although he gave his sons land and titles, he tried as hard as he could to keep them from getting any real power. In this dysfunctional environment, we see how Richard's character was shaped. Although Richard is now synonymous with the English throne, he was actually French and spent most of his time in Aquitaine, where he fell under the spell of his mother and what Regan calls a "feminist culture" that flourished in Aquitaine during this period. We also see how Richard inherited his father's terrible temper. This temper would cause Richard to make many rash decisions when he went on crusade as king. Richard did seem to have an ability to pick and keep able advisors and officials, and when he became king he shrewdly forced officials to place monetary bids in an effort to keep their positions. This not only allowed Richard to place his own people in high offices, but also gave him a sizeable revenue which later helped him finance his crusade, which was to be one of the best organized in the entire history of crusading. Regan gives us the same detailed treatment of the rise of Saladin. Saladin arose due to his abilities as a capable general under the ruler Nur al-Din, who ruled Syria and was fighting a vigorous campaign against the Christian settlements of Palestine as well as trying to bring Egypt back under his control. Saladin went to Egypt and launched successful military campaigns. They were so successful that Nur al-Din felt threatened and an uneasy period of back and forth diplomacy followed. When al-Din suddenly died, Saladin made his move, marching into Syria and conquering and bargaining his way to power. When Saladin finally succeeded, he had managed to reunite Syria with Egypt, and Saladin proceeded with a jihad, or holy war, against the Christian settlements in Palestine. Regan is careful to emphasis that this concept of jihad was the sole goal of Saladin, and that it shaped all of his decisions and policies. Saladin had great early successes against the Christians at Hattin and Jerusalem. Regan points out that after these battles, Saladin made some errors that probably resulted in the continued existence of the Christians in Palestine. One of Saladin's biggest errors was failing to move swiftly against the Christians that fled to Acre, and he worried incessantly about the German crusaders under Frederick Barbarossa. The German crusade fell apart, and Saladin's worries cost him dearly. Regan gives an excellent account of Richard's march along the coast, and the ensuing battle of Arsuf, where the Christians dealt Saladin a devastating defeat. At the battle of Jaffa, Richard was so feared by the Muslims that when Richard rode in front of the entire Muslim battle line, not one Muslim would meet his challenge for a duel. Regan points out that this is one of the most amazing incidents in the entire history of military affairs during the crusade, or even during the medieval period. This is a good book, and Regan is to be commended for his detailed research and excellent prose. He does make a controversial statement about Richard's massacre of Muslims after the siege of Acre, in which Regan says that this mass murder showed "moral courage". While these killings were hardly moral, it probably was necessary in the context of the times, a fact that Regan does point out. For anyone interested in crusading history, check this one out.
Rating: 
Summary: A fair study
Review: I thought this book did a great job of presenting both sides and giving a fair apraisal of the leaders, Richard I and Saladin, of each side in the Third Crusade. Whereas the author does not gloss over the faults of each man, niether does he downplay the strengths of each man. In short, this is a great comparative biography that provides both education and entertainment in an easily accessable format. the author has done a great job of bringing the subject matter to life.
Rating:
Summary: A fair study
Review: I thought this book did a great job of presenting both sides and giving a fair apraisal of the leaders, Richard I and Saladin, of each side in the Third Crusade. Whereas the author does not gloss over the faults of each man, niether does he downplay the strengths of each man. In short, this is a great comparative biography that provides both education and entertainment in an easily accessable format. the author has done a great job of bringing the subject matter to life.
Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking.... a window on the past.
Review: Regan does a fantastic job of bringing the historical characters of the period to life. He is not biased to either side and does a good job of presenting the facts. Although he tries to enter into the minds of his subjects, his efforts enrich rather than detract from the narrative. Regan's talents as a writer are obvious. He thrusts the reader deep into the conflict and leaves him to suffer in suspense as each battle is fought out. I am an Egyptian reader and for once I have found a 'Western' book that ignores the fanaticism and shallowness of our deeply troubled age. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the crusades, medieval warfare or history in general.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Comparisons
Review: This book gives a good overview of two of the most famous leaders in medieval history. It starts comparing them in many aspects like their childhood, how did they reach power and what they did with the power when they got it. It covers the great strategies that each used in battles. In a particular chapter you feel that the two leaders were playing chess with each other.
History readers might be more demanding from this book, but for somebody who is just interested in history and wants to know more about these two leaders, this book is more than satisfactory.
Rating:
Summary: Good Comparisons
Review: This book gives a good overview of two of the most famous leaders in medieval history. It starts comparing them in many aspects like their childhood, how did they reach power and what they did with the power when they got it. It covers the great strategies that each used in battles. In a particular chapter you feel that the two leaders were playing chess with each other.
History readers might be more demanding from this book, but for somebody who is just interested in history and wants to know more about these two leaders, this book is more than satisfactory.
Rating:
Summary: Lionhearts review
Review: This is indeed a very interesting book, not just for people interested in Richard I and Saladin, but also for people interested in medievil warfare. Richard and Saladin may never have met in person, but this book helps you understand that they felt each others presence, and they were both loved by their people and feared by their enemies. It puts to rest all the rumors. Richard I was and still is, the greatest king of England.
Rating:
Summary: NOT REALLY ENOUGH HERE OF ANYTHING
Review: Whether you like your narrative history insightful and intellectual or exciting and anecdotal you will not find enough to get your teeth into here. Sad because the title of the book holds out so much promise. Regan is a good, solid military historian, and other of his works attest to this, but this volume lacks a real analysis of the line up of battle and how both sides reckoned on fighting and winning on tactical and strategic levels. Sieges seem to magically "happen" in an era where sieges were engineering marvels requiring money, technical innovation and access to certain resources to build siege engines. We are told very little of the knights, how they funded themselves and what made them endure privations to fight for these two men, Richard and Saladin. But one thing that clearly emerges in the book is that although the author is enanoured with both Richard and Saladin by his own description there is little to find really honourable in Richard. He was petulant, immature and prone to fits of rage which, although no doubt making him a formidable opponent, do not a military genuis make. Also the record needs to be put straight on his killing of the inhabitants of Acre. The rules of warfare and the right of enemies who surrender to another were well known and developed in all societies and butressed with theological justifications even in the 12th Cen. One surrendering arms to an enemy gives over their protection to the other in return for laying down arms. For Richard to kill these innocents was nothing but cold-blooded murder for which he should be rightly vilified. There was no "moral courage" --- to quote Regan -- in any of Richard's actions at Acre. Regan I think is clutching at straws in an attempt to revive his personal hero. Saladin comes across in almost an "Orientalist" image --- enlightened barbarian with learning, intelligence and compassion and moral judgement. So be it. Perhaps Saladin was, or perhaps we do not have access to enough Arabic documents which state otherwise. The campaign in Outremer is also short-lived as is the campaigning in Rhodes against the wily King Isacc. The complicated political machinations and the role of the military orders is largely ignored. The one good thing about the book is that it deals with historical fact and does not appeal to fringe non-intellectual themes (read: The first crusade was an attempt to restore the blood-line of Christ?!). This is a serious work, unfortunately it did not grab me like most other works on this period. A noble effort but not on my top-ten of books read this year.
Rating: 
Summary: FAR FROM THE DEFINITIVE STUDY
Review: Whether you like your narrative history insightful and intellectual or exciting and anecdotal you will not find enough to get your teeth into here. Sad because the title of the book holds out so much promise. Regan is a good, solid military historian, and other of his works attest to this, but this volume lacks a real analysis of the line up of battle and how both sides reckoned on fighting and winning on tactical and strategic levels. Sieges seem to magically "happen" in an era where sieges were engineering marvels requiring money, technical innovation and access to certain resources to build siege engines. We are told very little of the knights, how they funded themselves and what made them endure privations to fight for these two men, Richard and Saladin. But one thing that clearly emerges in the book is that although the author is enanoured with both Richard and Saladin by his own description there is little to find really honourable in Richard. He was petulant, immature and prone to fits of rage which, although no doubt making him a formidable opponent, do not a military genuis make. Also the record needs to be put straight on his killing of the inhabitants of Acre. The rules of warfare and the right of enemies who surrender to another were well known and developed in all societies and butressed with theological justifications even in the 12th Cen. One surrendering arms to an enemy gives over their protection to the other in return for laying down arms. For Richard to kill these innocents was nothing but cold-blooded murder for which he should be rightly vilified. There was no "moral courage" --- to quote Regan -- in any of Richard's actions at Acre. Regan I think is clutching at straws in an attempt to revive his personal hero. Saladin comes across in almost an "Orientalist" image --- enlightened barbarian with learning, intelligence and compassion and moral judgement. So be it. Perhaps Saladin was, or perhaps we do not have access to enough Arabic documents which state otherwise. The campaign in Outremer is also short-lived as is the campaigning in Rhodes against the wily King Isacc. The complicated political machinations and the role of the military orders is largely ignored. The one good thing about the book is that it deals with historical fact and does not appeal to fringe non-intellectual themes (read: The first crusade was an attempt to restore the blood-line of Christ?!). This is a serious work, unfortunately it did not grab me like most other works on this period. A noble effort but not on my top-ten of books read this year.
<< 1 >>
| 
