Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade

I find the criticisms of this book based upon purported bias and/or lack of footnoting amusing. First, on bias, all Westerners should acknowledge that we've been programmed to view virtually all Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, or at least "terror-symps" (Remember "commie-symps"?).I did not find bias on Reston's part. Instead, his view merely echos the open-minded view of other, arguably more serious historians, such as Lord Kinross, whose "The Ottoman Centuries" chronicles the rise in the mid 15th C. and the collapse in the early 20th C. of a fabulous civilization. Indeed, the outstanding (perhaps only because of its contrast to current Western stereotypes) feature of the Ottoman civilization was its tolerance, yes, my friends, tolerance, for Jews, Christians and "infidels" of all stripes and spots.Footnotes? Has it ever occurred to these folks to do some independent reading? I claim no scholarship whatsoever on the Crusades, but I was surprised and curious enough about the scale of the reported slaughter in Jerusalem during the first Crusade to read the chapter on the topic in a 1966 translation of Zoe Oldenbourg's "The Crusade". (Yes, she is French, but this was long before "Freedom Fries" became a call to politi-culinary conquest.)Under the "fair use" doctrine, I offer the following, all from Chapter III, pp. 137-142 of the English translation by Anne Carter for Pantheon Books, and under the sub-title "The Great Massacre":"The massacre perpetrated by the Crusaders in Jerusalem has long been reckoned among the greatest crimes of history. There is no lack of psychological explanations for it, and all historians, those who favor the Crusades and those who do not, rightly blame the state of almost morbid excitement which gripped a rabble made fanatical by the preaching of the holy war....Tancred is know to have promised their lives to several hundred Arab soldiers who had taken refuge of the roof of the al-Aqsa mosque, and he did not conceal his fury when he learned that the prisoners protected by his banner had been slaughtered."During the days of July 15 and 16 'soldiers of Christ' were masters of the Holy City. They scoured streets and alleys, gardens and courtyards, breaking down doors of houses and mosques and killing, killing all who fell in their path, no longer the soldiers, who had been killed first, but civilians, men, women, children, and old people."The Jews, or as many of them as the building would hold, were shut up in the synagogue, which was then set of fire. The entire Jewish community of Jerusalem perished in the flames. Ibn al-Athir also records that the Crusaders' rage was particularly directed against imams and ulemas, that they profaned mosques and destroyed Moslem holy books. What is certain is that these manifestations of fanaticism were only one aspect of the murderous rage which took hold of the army on that day, because it is a fact that women and children were massacred without mercy...."Exactly how many we shall never know, because the figures given the medieval chroniclers are vague and certainly exaggerated. Ibn al-Athir (and Abu'l Feda) mention seventy thousand killed in the mosque of al-Aqsa alone (according to other versions this includes the sector of the city surrounding the mosque). But it is a known fact that there were fewer than seventy thousand inhabitants in the whole city at the time of the siege. If we can subtract the number driven out before the siege began, there can not have been more than fifty thousand in July 1099, not including the garrison, which probably numbered some two to three thousand men. Even so, a number of the people are known to have succeeded in escaping, and making their way out of the city, as there was a whole suburb in Damascus founded by survivors from the siege of Jerusalem."It is clear, however, from both Latin and Moslem historians that the population was more or less completely exterminated. This means that between July 15 and 16, 1099, the Crusaders who, according to the estimates of modern historians, numbered at most ten thousand, killed nearly forty thousand people, the great majority of whom were unarmed civilians. ..."William, [Archbishop] of Tyre, writing ninety years afterward, describes the scene: 'The city offered a spectacle of such a slaughter of enemies, such a profusion of bloodshed, that the vitors themselves could not help but be struck with horror and disgust.' .... But contemporary historians of the event make no mention of any feelings of remorse on the part of the Crusaders when they saw the monstrous deeds they had committed. On the contrary, Albert of Aix (himself a churchman) stresses the joy of the victors at the magnitude of their victory and makes no attempt to condemn or even to exonerate the authors of the massacre. God had triumphed. The streets of the Holy City were literally running with blood, and neither the Anonymi nor Raymond of Aguilers appears to have paused to reflect that this was the blood of innocent people...."In fact, the only word of regret or blame connected with the whole affair is the anger of Tancred, and this is simply the anger of a soldier who, having promised other soldiers their lives, has to suffer the indignity of having his work broken for him....Raymond of Saint-Giles did succeed in protecting his captives -- the governor of the city with a number of his officers and a contingent of mamelukes and Arabs...But because he had been the only one who took prisoners, he was immediately accused of treachery by the Crusaders from the North."On the evening of that terrible July 15, while the massacre was still raging in the city, the barons went all together to the Chruch of the Holy Sepulcher....William of Tyre again, on the basis of earlier witnesses, gives a deeply moving description of the religious fervor of these barons on reaching the end of their pilgrimage...."Two hundred yards outside the holy Sepulcher, men were still murdering others blindly and savagely, wading in blood and trampling on corpses, on thousands upon thousand of corpses belonging to people whos skins, it was true, were somehwat darker that their own and who did not dress like Christians.....The massacre of the population of Jerusalem filled the entire Moslem world with horror."YOU WANTED FOOTNOTES? YOU GOT EM.

I really enjoyed this book. Others have called this work "popular" history, with varying degrees of condescension. I suppose it is, in that it is somewhat briefly told, but the author really has an eye for both telling detail and drama which makes for very exciting reading. I think that Reston is more interested in telling great true stories than in setting down a detailed, authoritive work for posterity. He writes the kind of history I find fascinating and is always a pleasure to read.Author, Reston, does a great job in doing exactly what he sets out to do: present the reader with a duel biography of two iconic figures through the prism of the Third Crusade. By the end of the book, I felt much enlightened about Richard the First (whom I knew slightly), and Saladin, the great Muslim warrior (whom I knew not at all).Reston presents Richard the Lionhearted as hot-tempered, capable of both grand gesture and petty slight (as well as moments of sadistic cruelty), a brilliant military tactician and planner; but most importantly ennobled by something special that shone through in crisis - a kind of natural, inspired leadership - a true warrior king. Some of the best passages in the book are descriptions of Richard in battle, brandishing his crossbow and sword. I would leave it to a Muslim emir, speaking about Richard after the battle of Jaffa, to sum up the English King's nearly supernatural powers on the battlefield: "In every deed at arms he is without rival, first to advance, last to retreat. We did our best to seize him, but in vain, for no one can escape his sword. His attack is dreadful. To engage with him is fatal. His deeds are not human." The mere presence of Richard's banner approaching a battlefield often broke the enemy's confidence and spirit.The real treat of the book for me was learning about Saladin. The portrait Reston paints of this great Sultan is one of a mature man, not given to uncontrolled bouts of temper, but instead always careful, controlled, and patient. Saladin was the great unifier of the then splintered Muslim world and achieved some of the greatest of all their victories. He was not up to Richard's mark on the battlefield, but he was certainly an equal to Richard as a strategist. Unlike Richard, Saladin was often generous in victory and was, if truth be told, more naturally chivalrous and kind than his English counterpart (or for that matter any other character in the history of the Crusades, Christian or Muslim).One of my favorite tidbits from the book is the moment when, after the battle of Jaffa, Richard fell into a near delirium from his battlefield efforts and a fever brought on by the corrupt decay of the corpses. Richard requested by messenger from Saladin some ice and peaches, of which he was very fond. Saladin, never one to refuse the request of so great a warrior (he had watched Richard during Jaffa with awe from a nearby hilltop) granted the request immediately, sending the rare treats over by currier. Of all the characters, both Christian and Muslim, that marked the Crusades, only Richard I would have requested and expected such a gift, secure that he deserved it, and only Saladin, so generous and understanding of spirit, would have granted it.This book really captures two great men, very different, both pre-eminent icons for two cultures. I highly recommend it. -Mykal Banta

Arrived for Christmas very happy

Excellent record of Third Crusade. Well researched.

Good book.

what a book! superbly written mr reston writes it as if your there ive read books on this subject before but even though i am not an expert find this book addictive the best thing about the book is that both sides are given equal acclaim a must for people to understand both sides of this piece of history

If I've chosen to comment on two books about Richard I, Frank McLynn's RICHARD AND JOHN (2007) and James Reston's WARRIORS OF GOD (2001), it's due to their contrasted opinion concerning his sexuality. Reston claims that Richard was gay (and even, at the end of one paragraph, has him and the French king Philip Augustus riding ''off into the sunset.'') while McLynn labels such nonsense as ''a persistent canard.'' The only position possible certainty lies with Gillingham and his RICHARD (1978) in which he states that such talk is ''a highly coloured assertion which cannot be substantiated.'' Medieval men did share the same bed (as is incontestably the case with Richard and Philip), perhaps, however, as virtuously as Abe Lincoln did with his friend Joshua Speed. (Although it's true, too, that philip, years younger than Richard, lithe and pretty, would have been the perfect bottom to the handsome, viral Englishman.) Richard knew no fear. Seeing him in acts of valor, at the head of his men, Saladin proclaimed him to be a courageous fool, a foolishness that killed him: During the seizure of a castle he took an arrow while showing off to his men. He had the inhabitants of the castle murdered, all except for the boy who had shot him, whom he freed, according to Reston, with a bourse of 100 shillings. McLynn claims that the boy may have been, later, inhumanly tortured and then flayed alive. A secondary player, Sinan, is the head of a hashish cult called the Assassins, an organization capable of doing, in real life, what the godfather had done, in film fiction with the horse's head. Both Richard and Saladin were so terrified of him that they did everything in their power to placate the old man.Two wonderful books, well written, covering complicated people and complicated times with the clarity of a mountain stream.