Saladin : The Politics of the Holy War (Canto original series)

Rating:
Summary: Fantastically solid work undermined by shoddy publishing.
Review: I picked up this book a while ago and only got around to reading it recently. It is an extremely serious piece of scholarship, well-researched and thoroughly documented; this is no glossed-over wannabe history treatise.

I could detail its strengths and weaknesses but I believe the previous reader has provided a fairly thorough analysis. It is no easy read and is made, in my opinion, made tortuously difficult by two unnecessary things: (1) The publisher's stubborn insistence on not providing comprehensible maps that illustrate the campaigns being discussed throughout the book and (2) the disregard of the difficulty that Arab names pose for most Western readers.

I hope first that there will be future editions of this book for it is a very worthy effort and, I think, probably the final say on the topic for years to come. Secondly, I hope those editions will be more user-friendly -- including clear maps (showing rivers, marshes, mountain ranges, deserts, combatant positions, itineraries, etc., etc.) throughout the chapters, providing an Appendix detailing who the different players are, family trees for the major players and, perhaps, more sprinklings through the text as to who people are.

Rating:
Summary: Saladin or Richard?
Review: In Malcomb Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson's "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War", the fact that Saladin was one of the greatest-known figures of the Middle Ages is proved very easily. This is true, various events proving it. An example of one was his attempt to unify the Muslims. In addition to that, he was a great military leader and at the same time a wonderful politician. The authors make great use of the many documents and letters collected of the Arabs. The sources are used very often and are quoted from. I think the Arabic sources were one of the greatest features of this book, even though they may have been confusing at times. Saladin is often compared with Richard the Lionhearted, an equally powerful ruler from the Christian lands. Was Saladin stronger than he was just because he held Jerusalem against him?

After the Turkish invasions, the Arabs were unorganized and didn't have a common goal or leader. Saladin unified them and was able to achieve a common goal, the Jihad, equivalent to a Christian Crusade. The goal was to gain control of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was important to them because it was their third holiest city, after Makkah and Medina. Saladin's leadership ability lies in the battlefield as in politics.

In order to restore order to the Muslims, Saladin had to be very persuasive. He used politics in order to swing people to his side and also to develop a stronger army. Saladin was able to conquer those that did not follow, a tactic that the Persian Empire also used.

One of the greatest features of this book was the various references to actual historical documents. One of my favorite ones was an excerpt from a letter that Saladin wrote to his father after witnessing his first battlefield, "This letter contains the first good news given to the master of the prey seized by his cub, who stood in his father's place and struck with his sword." (Page 250) This letter showed the significance of Saladin's first battle, he is coming to leadership. It is as if Saladin is now replacing his father, assuming a role of leadership.

It is inevitable that Saladin would be compared to Richard the Lionhearted of England, since he was Saladin's greatest opponent. Personally, I don't think that Saladin was as strong a ruler as Richard. Richard traveled to Jerusalem (maybe its only a rumor, but it is said that he only came within sight of the city); this is amazing because he was able to penetrate all of the defenses along the way. Saladin had a number of advantages: he had the element of surprise, he could ambush Saladin's troops as he wished among their journey; and Saladin was also fighting a home battle - he knew the land in which he was fighting and so he could take advantage of the locations for his troops to assemble (From reading about Saladin, had the situation been reversed with Richard defending against Saladin, I don't think that Saladin would be so successful). Saladin seemed to be more of a defender than an attacker.

One of the criticisms that I have of this book is reading. This book is more suitable for a senior in high school, rather than a freshman. I often found it very difficult to follow. The text seemed a little strange, there were many Arabic words and names and accent marks throughout almost every page of the book. This problem is very trivial when compared with the overall knowledge gained from reading in context. In summary, "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War" is a very tough read meant and for students who have enough time to read it in full context.

There wasn't enough politics of the Holy War, or Jihad. I don't think that the author spent time upon the wheeling and dealing that Saladin had to do in order to achieve unity in the Muslim army and assume a leadership position. Instead, there were too many details on every battle. Text could have been used explaining other points.

In conclusion, "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War" is a read only advised for skilled students who have the time as well as the determination to thoroughly read this book in context. Only at that point will he or she be able to fully understand the significance of Saladin's life as a military leader and politician.

Rating:
Summary: Saladin or Richard?
Review: In Malcomb Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson's "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War", the fact that Saladin was one of the greatest-known figures of the Middle Ages is proved very easily. This is true, various events proving it. An example of one was his attempt to unify the Muslims. In addition to that, he was a great military leader and at the same time a wonderful politician. The authors make great use of the many documents and letters collected of the Arabs. The sources are used very often and are quoted from. I think the Arabic sources were one of the greatest features of this book, even though they may have been confusing at times. Saladin is often compared with Richard the Lionhearted, an equally powerful ruler from the Christian lands. Was Saladin stronger than he was just because he held Jerusalem against him?

After the Turkish invasions, the Arabs were unorganized and didn't have a common goal or leader. Saladin unified them and was able to achieve a common goal, the Jihad, equivalent to a Christian Crusade. The goal was to gain control of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was important to them because it was their third holiest city, after Makkah and Medina. Saladin's leadership ability lies in the battlefield as in politics.

In order to restore order to the Muslims, Saladin had to be very persuasive. He used politics in order to swing people to his side and also to develop a stronger army. Saladin was able to conquer those that did not follow, a tactic that the Persian Empire also used.

One of the greatest features of this book was the various references to actual historical documents. One of my favorite ones was an excerpt from a letter that Saladin wrote to his father after witnessing his first battlefield, "This letter contains the first good news given to the master of the prey seized by his cub, who stood in his father's place and struck with his sword." (Page 250) This letter showed the significance of Saladin's first battle, he is coming to leadership. It is as if Saladin is now replacing his father, assuming a role of leadership.

It is inevitable that Saladin would be compared to Richard the Lionhearted of England, since he was Saladin's greatest opponent. Personally, I don't think that Saladin was as strong a ruler as Richard. Richard traveled to Jerusalem (maybe its only a rumor, but it is said that he only came within sight of the city); this is amazing because he was able to penetrate all of the defenses along the way. Saladin had a number of advantages: he had the element of surprise, he could ambush Saladin's troops as he wished among their journey; and Saladin was also fighting a home battle - he knew the land in which he was fighting and so he could take advantage of the locations for his troops to assemble (From reading about Saladin, had the situation been reversed with Richard defending against Saladin, I don't think that Saladin would be so successful). Saladin seemed to be more of a defender than an attacker.

One of the criticisms that I have of this book is reading. This book is more suitable for a senior in high school, rather than a freshman. I often found it very difficult to follow. The text seemed a little strange, there were many Arabic words and names and accent marks throughout almost every page of the book. This problem is very trivial when compared with the overall knowledge gained from reading in context. In summary, "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War" is a very tough read meant and for students who have enough time to read it in full context.

There wasn't enough politics of the Holy War, or Jihad. I don't think that the author spent time upon the wheeling and dealing that Saladin had to do in order to achieve unity in the Muslim army and assume a leadership position. Instead, there were too many details on every battle. Text could have been used explaining other points.

In conclusion, "Saladin: Politics of the Holy War" is a read only advised for skilled students who have the time as well as the determination to thoroughly read this book in context. Only at that point will he or she be able to fully understand the significance of Saladin's life as a military leader and politician.

Rating:
Summary: GOOD DETAILS BUT A FUZZY BIG PICTURE
Review: This is a somewhat difficult book to work through, one that at times adapts a very scholastic tone. As an Anglo-American I found all of the Arab placenames and surnames a bit challenging, but that was expected. So I am certainly not criticizing the book on that count; you should just be aware that if you don't have extensive previous knowledge of the Arab world, this book will demand more concentration and time of you than most biographies. Now three points of criticism: First, I would like to see more background information as to the history of the crusades, and how Jerusalem and other territories in the Holy Land came to be under European rule. Even a few paragraphs would have been appreciated. Second, the writing style is a bit dull. I don't expect prose worthy of Thomas Wolfe from a biographer, but in some sections I felt like I was reading a doctoral thesis. Third, Lyons and Jackson wait until the very end to comment at length on the qualities and motivations of Saladin, and on his importance in the grand scheme of things. I think that such commentary should be injected more than they are throughout the book, as critical events unfold. And then the final analysis should wrap up on themes already developed. The greatest strength of this book is that it is written truly from an Arab perspective. The European viewpoint is represented, but I always felt like I was observing from within Egypt, or Syria, or Palestine. I did not feel like an envoy from the Vatican - on the outside looking in. This is an accomplishment for the authors. What I found most interesting about Saladin's life was the paradox he faced: to consolidate power within the Arab world he needed the legitimacy of being a true believer, fighting the infidels in the holy war. However, to effectively fight the Europeans he needed soldiers from throughout the Arab world. So you see him in the book alternating his attention between his external battles and his internal ones. Lyons and Jackson do a good job in providing the details of these struggles - the dates, the places, the people, the numbers. But somehow they don't effectively convey the big picture; they don't explain the significance of the events as they unfold. The authors might argue that it is best for the reader to decipher that for his or herself. But I think the best historical books offer an opinion, with which the reader is then free to agree, or disagree.