Crusades Through Arab Eyes

Rating:
Summary: Can't read about the crusades without this book
Review: This book, while a novel, gives invaluable insights into what really might have happened during the Crusades. Malouf presents us with the fact that the Crusades were more about money than they were about God. In what is sometimes a gruesome account, he reveals that the crusaders killed not only Muslims but Jews and Christians of the Oriental denominations. Equally interesting is his unwillingness to let Muslims off the hook. He depicts them as fighting amongst themselves, unable to unite and facing the twilight of their great civilization just as the western star began to rise. In sum, for those who think that the Crusades were about a civilized Christian army beating back a barbarian horde, reading this book will offer you the notion that it was a civilized Muslim world sinking into decay whose contact with the Franks unified them to fight against an unprovoked attempt to colonize in the name of God but in reality for gold.

Rating:
Summary: Required Reading for All Citizens of the World
Review: This is really a terrific idea. Before this book, you probably would have needed to be a graduate student in history before you even realized that the Arab point of view of the Crusades had ever even been recorded, let alone preserved. This book strikes a beautiful balance between being a purely popular edition, and being something that people who study stuff like this for a living might read... It's the kind of book that Barbara Tuchman might have been proud to write.

Amin Maalouf specifically disavows any intention to write a "history book" in his preface. His background is in journalism, and sure enough, he shows evidence of a journalist's ear and eye for the great story... for the gripping and/or galvanizing detail... for the telling gesture that provides the key to a character's persona. Furthermore, he makes it plain that he is not out to write a balanced account, any more than Western authors have historically been interested in providing balanced accounts of the Crusades. This really is presented from the Arab point of view... That said, it might be worth balancing your reading of this book with a concurrent reading of a western account, or you might get a little lost. It isn't easy to read a long book with so few familiar points of reference. Admit it -- unless you are a major history buff, you probably don't know much about this period even from the Western point of view! I think especially as Americans, there is a tendency to feel that this period in history is not very relevant to our country's history. After all, the events of this book took place long before nationalism, before (clearly) freedom of religion or of speech, mostly even before the Magna Carta was a glimmer in anyone's eye. It's hard for us Americans to really relate to this period -- our whole country was essentially created in reaction to it! In a funny way, this book fits in well with that feeling of being alienated -- Europeans of the time of the Crusades were every bit as alien to us, in terms of their mindset, as they would have been to the Muslims of that time.

Let me offer a few thoughts. The whole text is sprinkled throughout with Arabic terms, which are helpfully explained in a glossary at the end. The glossary is only 2 or 3 pages long. You should xerox it, and keep the xerox handy while you're reading, or you might go mad from turning back and forth to the end of the book all the time. Also -- there ARE maps in this book. They aren't mentioned in the table of contents, and they're sort of tucked away obscurely, but they are in there. There's a fairly localized map of the eastern shores of the Mediterranean at the very beginning of the book, and a larger-scale map of the Islamic world in general, tucked in at the book's end... Also, don't miss Maalouf's great epilogue, where he tries to place the Crusades in context, in terms of their impact on Europe, and on the Islamic world.

If you like this book, look for Bernard Lewis' "The Political Language of Islam," which helps us understand the background of various specific Arabic terms that we hear every day on the news. Also, anything written by Edward Said will serve you in good stead. In closing, whoever reads this, remember that the Hebrew term "shalom" and the Arabic "Islam" were originally the same, perfectly well-meaning word! Anyway, this book is great. Two thumbs up.

Rating:
Summary: The Crusades Through Arab Eyes
Review: Though I enjoy reading history, the crusades had never generated much interest. With the events of the past six months as background, the intriguing title of Amin Maalouf's book "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" was enough to compel me to read it. This small book doesn't purport to be a thorough history of this period, though it has ten pages of sources. But it is a thoroughly enjoyable read, and one I can recommend for anyone with an interest in that period of history or of the Mid-East in particular.

Though supposedly propelled by religious fervor to reclaim the holy land from the Muslims, the Europeans often exhibited a ferocity and barbarous nature that seemed contrary to the teachings of Christ. Maalouf takes pains to document from Western sources specific actions, such as putting whole populations to the sword and cannibalism. Against this purposeful force, the various Arab powers presented a fragmented and often bewildered front.

The infighting and intrigue within the various Arab kingdoms precluded effective leadership to develop against the foreigners for more than a hundred years. It was fascinating to read about the many alliances between the Westerners and the various Arab leaders as each strived to attain or retain power in their respective areas. I had not realized the "Mongol Scourge" had been pressuring the Arab powers during their struggle with the Westerners.

Toward the end of the book, Maalouf points out how events occurring during this period still reverberate in the Mid East and have significance for the Arab world today that it does not in the West. While the West began to develop, the East began its slide into isolation and suspicion of foreigners and foreign culture. For example, it was fascinating to read about the emergence of the Assassins and the role they played during this period and to note the similarity of their philosophy and actions to some of today's Mid East terrorists.

The one area where the book was disappointing was the pathetic lack of maps. The two maps were appallingly incomplete and as my frustration mounted I tried, sometimes unsuccessfully, to find locations in atlases or on the web. Place names change. I finally printed out copies of maps I found on the net of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt, but I shouldn't have had to.

Rating:
Summary: Good enough within the stated context
Review: Titles count. This is something a history professor I had in college used to point out in his guide to writing papers. It's always pleasing to find that published authors of non-fiction take this point seriously, because it makes it a lot easier to judge their finished product. Take The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, for example. Amin Maalouf has written a history of the Crusades, a topic that pops up a bit in current events these days, but was somewhat more obscure back in 1983 when it was first published. The book is probably more relevant since September 11 than it was before, but relevant and useful are different things, and that's where I have to be careful.

The book does, in fact, do exactly what the title suggests. It is a review of Arab primary sources from that era. The chroniclers on the Arab side of the conflict certainly had plenty to say on the wars taking place in their neighborhood (all of them, actually, not just the crusader wars). Maalouf has reviewed these, quoting them at length in this sweeping history. In that sense, the finished book is a smashing success.

Of course, the obvious question is how accurate a picture this gives us. To make an analogy, if a thirtieth century archaeologist tried to make sense of the second part of the Gulf War only by viewing Al Jazeera newsreels, would he get an accurate picture? The answer, of course, is no. The result would be garbage. The question now, for those of us living today, is how accurate are these primary sources on the Crusades? The answer, unfortunately, is not to be found here. There is some attempt at historical evaluation here. It's good of Maalouf to point out that one account of some battle of Franks against Arabs could not possibly have produced a hundred thousand Arab civilian deaths, because the city it took place in had no more ten thousand people in total. But this brings out an important issue. To Maalouf, this exaggeration is evidence of the savagery of the invaders and the grief of the defenders. To me, this lie shows how these contemporary writers had a terrible disregard for the truth. To inflate a death count to that magnitude is not evidence of despair, it is evidence that that document can't be trusted. If the count is magnified, why not the tone in general? Were there rivers of blood? Or just a few bodies here and there? I don't know, and I won't find out from this book.

Again, titles count. I would have loved to see Maalouf point out that the Crusades were a mere campaign in the war that Islam had been waging against Europe for four hundred years, a war that saw few significant victories by Europe until then (and those few were only defensive up until the Crusades started). But in fairness, that is not the point of the book. By the strictest interpretation of the title, Maalouf has done what he said he would. He recounts the stories told to this day in the Arab world, and with about the same level of critical analysis that goes on as well.

There is a problem of trust to be addressed. I don't want to second-guess Maalouf's intentions here, but I will judge anything he puts into this book. I noticed this problem first, but I'll mention it last. There is a map at the very back of the book, past the index, showing the modern Middle East. It's a fairly large, but not very detailed map, just showing country names and some large cities. It spans a region from Greece to Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to the USSR (recall it was published in 1983). The map is not referenced in the text anywhere. So far so good. But there's a curious omission. One country, which obviously is there by the political boundaries, doesn't seem to be named. I'll give you one guess which one. It also shows Gaza as part of Egypt. I'm not sure about the West Bank, since rivers and borders are drawn with the same line thickness, but I'm guessing it's shown as part of Jordan. This missing country is most curious. What is Maalouf trying to say here? I thought this was a book about events eight hundred years ago. He's entitled to his opinion on current events, however hateful, and he's allowed to place them in this book if he so wishes. But I'm entitled to evaluate this book based on everything between the covers, and if he's going to place cheap shots in out of the way locations, I'm going to notice it and evaluate the trustworthiness of this book accordingly. Maalouf has poisoned his own arguments because he couldn't resist the urge to editorialize. That's fine. I'm glad to know what sort of book I'm reading. And so should the reader.

Rating:
Summary: Staggeringly Well Researched, But Not Complete In Itself
Review: What can one say about a book that has the chief fault of leaving one wanting more? The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (hereafter, "Arab Eyes") is a beautifully composed book that draws almost exclusively from Arabic primary sources to tell the tale of the Western conquest, 1100-1300 AD. Unfortunately, whenever Maalouf isn't talking about military or political intrigue, he seems to loose interest. The book raises many fascinating topics -- the influence of Arab society on the Holy Roman Empire, the rise of a slave class to become the masters of all Islam -- without going into detail on any of them.

The first encounter between Muslim and Crusader is told from the perspective of Kilij Arslan, a seventeen-year-old sultan who would go on to become a legendary name in the struggle of the Islamic people. The "Franj", as the invaders were called, were pouring into his country by the tens of thousands. A skilled military leader, Arslan carefully withdrew his forces into a defensive position, only to be startled by his first glimpse of this "army": ragged, untrained peasants with strips of cloth pinned to their tunics in the shape of the cross. Reluctantly forced into battle, Arslan easily smashed the Crusader legion into bits, considering the matter settled. He had no way of knowing that what he had seen was only the rumor of war, not the war itself.

What may be most surprising to Western readers, such as myself, was that the majority of the Islamic struggle during the Crusader period, 1100-1300 AD, was not against Europeans, but against other Muslim leaders. The "empire" of Islam was sharply divided, and the question of rule was always at issue. In fact, many great Islamic kingdoms actually _joined with the Crusaders_ to gain rivals' territories.

This is one of the many intriguing topics that Maalouf does not deem worth going into. In fact, he saves direct analysis of this for his epilogue, writing:

"Every monarchy was threatened by the death of its monarch, and every transmission of power provoked civil war. Does full responsibility for this lie with the successive invasions, which constantly imperilled the very existence of these states?... Such a complex question cannot be dealt with in this brief epiloue. But let us at least note that in the Arab world the question is still on the agenda."

As noted above, this is just one of many fascinating questions the book raises without answering. Students of Western history may be surprised to learn that the Florentine renaissance may have been the outgrowth of the Syrian renaissance that began with a bloody revolution led by a former slave. That a major Holy Roman Emperor favored Islam in every respect was certainly news to me.

Maalouf's book isn't necessarily a place to find the answers to questions you may have about the evolution of world history during the period of the Crusades. Instead, it's a wonderful jumping off point, a brilliantly-organized work that suggests questions so that you may find their resolution elsewhere. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rating:
Summary: Staggeringly Well Researched, But Not Complete In Itself
Review: What can one say about a book that has the chief fault of leaving one wanting more? The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (hereafter, "Arab Eyes") is a beautifully composed book that draws almost exclusively from Arabic primary sources to tell the tale of the Western conquest, 1100-1300 AD. Unfortunately, whenever Maalouf isn't talking about military or political intrigue, he seems to loose interest. The book raises many fascinating topics -- the influence of Arab society on the Holy Roman Empire, the rise of a slave class to become the masters of all Islam -- without going into detail on any of them.

The first encounter between Muslim and Crusader is told from the perspective of Kilij Arslan, a seventeen-year-old sultan who would go on to become a legendary name in the struggle of the Islamic people. The "Franj", as the invaders were called, were pouring into his country by the tens of thousands. A skilled military leader, Arslan carefully withdrew his forces into a defensive position, only to be startled by his first glimpse of this "army": ragged, untrained peasants with strips of cloth pinned to their tunics in the shape of the cross. Reluctantly forced into battle, Arslan easily smashed the Crusader legion into bits, considering the matter settled. He had no way of knowing that what he had seen was only the rumor of war, not the war itself.

What may be most surprising to Western readers, such as myself, was that the majority of the Islamic struggle during the Crusader period, 1100-1300 AD, was not against Europeans, but against other Muslim leaders. The "empire" of Islam was sharply divided, and the question of rule was always at issue. In fact, many great Islamic kingdoms actually _joined with the Crusaders_ to gain rivals' territories.

This is one of the many intriguing topics that Maalouf does not deem worth going into. In fact, he saves direct analysis of this for his epilogue, writing:

"Every monarchy was threatened by the death of its monarch, and every transmission of power provoked civil war. Does full responsibility for this lie with the successive invasions, which constantly imperilled the very existence of these states?... Such a complex question cannot be dealt with in this brief epiloue. But let us at least note that in the Arab world the question is still on the agenda."

As noted above, this is just one of many fascinating questions the book raises without answering. Students of Western history may be surprised to learn that the Florentine renaissance may have been the outgrowth of the Syrian renaissance that began with a bloody revolution led by a former slave. That a major Holy Roman Emperor favored Islam in every respect was certainly news to me.

Maalouf's book isn't necessarily a place to find the answers to questions you may have about the evolution of world history during the period of the Crusades. Instead, it's a wonderful jumping off point, a brilliantly-organized work that suggests questions so that you may find their resolution elsewhere. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rating:
Summary: A very interesting book
Review: When I picked this book up I figured it would be an all out hate attack against the West and would prop up the East as being saintly. I was surprised though, because it was very little of that at all. In fact, most of the book revolved around the problems between the Arab emirs and sultans. It seems as though there political problems have not changed for hundreds of years, heck, it seems as though they were more screwed up than the Crusaders'.

Obviously there was some bias. Whenever the Crusaders won the Muslims "fought valiantly" and whenever the Muslims won the Crusaders were "crushed." But, do realize that this is an arab's perspective and a fanatic christian would probably do a similar turn.

It doesn't give a real concise history of the crusades because it seems that from the Arab's perspective, there isn't a numbering of crusades, rather, a constant threat of invasion. So, you would have to have a little knowledge of the crusades before reading this book so that one could distinguish between the 1st and 3rd crusade for instance.

I did like how it went into a bit of detail on Reynald de Chatillon, the merciless hater of Muslims who doesn't seem to get a whole lot of mention in any of Western accounts of the Crusades that I have mentioned, but even then there were some discontinuities, for I had though the 3rd crusade was started with his attacking a caravan with one of Saladin's wives, yet Maaloof only makes not of an attack on a caravan.

But, the author is fair and in the final piece, seems a bit reluctant to admit that while the Muslim east expended its energies to relieve the land of the "Franj" it in the same token lost much of what it made it a civilized land, in effect, passing their civilization onto the Franj in exchange, ironically, for the backwardness and religious fanaticism that was used to describe the first Frankish invaders in 1097.

Overall, I recommend this to anyone who has some idea of the crusades and wants a different outlook. Its an easy read, not weighed down by too many facts though for the Western reader, the Arabic names seem to get confusing at times.

Rating:
Summary: The crusades : Proactive self defence poorly executed
Review: When trying to understand the crusades we must distinguish between the geopolitical situation the west was responding to and the resourses and manpower available to it.Western christians at that time wre experiencing a tremendous sensc of loss.The middle east,north Africa, Spain and portions of the Byzantine Empire which had been Christian were how lost to Islam.Also they were experiencing fear and foreboding.Clearly, unless something was done, they were next.
Then, in 1071, the Turks,newly converted to Islam, defeated the Byzantine army and its Papal allies at the battle of Manzikert in Asia Minor.With this defeat of christian forces, there was no credible Christian force between the turks and Rome.With muslim armies in the south of France and the Mediterranean sea being a muslim lake, the fall of all of Europe to Islam seemed only a matter of time.It was then that the Papacy,being the only unifying force in western Europe,called for the defence of christian civilization by striking back at Islam.
Unfortunately,western europe did not possess the resources, material and/or human, to execute such a project in a civilized manner.Still,in the opinion of this reviewer,the crusades were a justifiable responce to previous Islamic aggression.Europeans had a right to defend themselves.It was a noble cause to some extent ignobly executed.Its good to see the crusades through their eyes too.