What do you think?
Rate this book
Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade
Acclaimed author James Reston, Jr.'s Warriors of God is the rich and engaging account of the Third Crusade (1187-1192), a conflict that would shape world history for centuries and which can still be felt in the Middle East and throughout the world today. James Reston, Jr. offers a gripping narrative of the epic battle that left Jerusalem in Muslim hands until the twentieth century, bringing an objective perspective to the gallantry, greed, and religious fervor that fueled the bloody clash between Christians and Muslims.
As he recounts this rousing story, Reston brings to life the two legendary figures who led their armies against each other. He offers compelling portraits of Saladin, the wise and highly cultured leader who created a united empire, and Richard the Lionheart, the romantic personification of chivalry who emerges here in his full complexity and contradictions. From its riveting scenes of blood-soaked battles to its pageant of fascinating, larger-than-life characters, Warriors of God is essential history, history that helps us understand today's world.
As he recounts this rousing story, Reston brings to life the two legendary figures who led their armies against each other. He offers compelling portraits of Saladin, the wise and highly cultured leader who created a united empire, and Richard the Lionheart, the romantic personification of chivalry who emerges here in his full complexity and contradictions. From its riveting scenes of blood-soaked battles to its pageant of fascinating, larger-than-life characters, Warriors of God is essential history, history that helps us understand today's world.
448 pages, Paperback
First published May 15, 2001
About the author
James Reston Jr.
25 books62 followersJames Reston Jr. was an American journalist, documentarian and author of political and historical fiction and non-fiction. He wrote about the Vietnam war, the Jonestown Massacre, civil rights, the impeachment of Richard Nixon, and the September 11 attacks.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
April 14, 2009
To be perfectly frank, I don't understand why the author even bothered writing this book. Here are my reasons, which really do need to be structured in this way (Otherwise my rant will be an unstructured melee)
1) Richard the Lionheart is a helpless bugger, isn't he? Everything he does he does wrong or for fiendish reasons. On the other hand Saladin is a Saint guided only by justice, fairness and all the rest. He also takes at face value that he was gay, and most remarkably that he had a gay relationship with Phillip Augustus! What utter nonsense! There is no textual evidence for any of that.
2) His 'criticism' of the sources. I don't understand his internal process for critically evaluating the primary sources but I highly doubt he even has one. Basically I think he looks around the chief narrative sources and try's to fit it all in to a chronology and sequence of events he had pre-structured himself, possibly before he even embarked on the evidence gathering period of his work. A great example is Richard at Jaffa, where he emerges from the sea with a crossbow. There is little evidence for that and the one manuscript which does argue that is decidedly pro-Lionheart. Its all part and parcel of Reston dumming down the history, fitting it all in to his pre-conceived plan of how he thinks the third crusade played out, and throwing it together in a vain attempt to link it to modern geopolitical struggles in that part of the globe.
3) The Saladin worship gets very irritating very early in the book. Saladin was no messiah (Even though personally I regard him as a good man and leader, in the context of the times) Reston even attempts to portray him as a liberator of slaves after the taking of Jerusalem, where he points out that Saladin and his brother et all 'did their best' to free as many slaves as they could. What nonsense! Saladin clearly had a policy with slaves - the markets in Damascus for slaves under Saladin plummeted due to the flooding of captured slaves in his reign. Slaves literally lost most of their value under Saladin because he enslaved so many people! And honestly, Reston treats us like imbeciles if he really believes he can convince anyone that Saladin disliked having to enslave anyone. This seems to me to be a critical lack of knowledge in his main protagonist.
4) Reston writes very much from the 'great men' school of history. Frankly, all we hear about is the struggle between Richard and Saladin. There was much more to the Crusade than that. I know its in the title but it is intellectually disingenuous to insist on this.
5) Its not even proper history. Its popular history and Reston isn't even an historian. You'd have to be a monkey to take his word on this on face value. Read some of Riley-Smiths, France's, Runciman's work to get a good perspective on the crusades. Keep well away from this sensationalising tabloidesque poppycrap.
1) Richard the Lionheart is a helpless bugger, isn't he? Everything he does he does wrong or for fiendish reasons. On the other hand Saladin is a Saint guided only by justice, fairness and all the rest. He also takes at face value that he was gay, and most remarkably that he had a gay relationship with Phillip Augustus! What utter nonsense! There is no textual evidence for any of that.
2) His 'criticism' of the sources. I don't understand his internal process for critically evaluating the primary sources but I highly doubt he even has one. Basically I think he looks around the chief narrative sources and try's to fit it all in to a chronology and sequence of events he had pre-structured himself, possibly before he even embarked on the evidence gathering period of his work. A great example is Richard at Jaffa, where he emerges from the sea with a crossbow. There is little evidence for that and the one manuscript which does argue that is decidedly pro-Lionheart. Its all part and parcel of Reston dumming down the history, fitting it all in to his pre-conceived plan of how he thinks the third crusade played out, and throwing it together in a vain attempt to link it to modern geopolitical struggles in that part of the globe.
3) The Saladin worship gets very irritating very early in the book. Saladin was no messiah (Even though personally I regard him as a good man and leader, in the context of the times) Reston even attempts to portray him as a liberator of slaves after the taking of Jerusalem, where he points out that Saladin and his brother et all 'did their best' to free as many slaves as they could. What nonsense! Saladin clearly had a policy with slaves - the markets in Damascus for slaves under Saladin plummeted due to the flooding of captured slaves in his reign. Slaves literally lost most of their value under Saladin because he enslaved so many people! And honestly, Reston treats us like imbeciles if he really believes he can convince anyone that Saladin disliked having to enslave anyone. This seems to me to be a critical lack of knowledge in his main protagonist.
4) Reston writes very much from the 'great men' school of history. Frankly, all we hear about is the struggle between Richard and Saladin. There was much more to the Crusade than that. I know its in the title but it is intellectually disingenuous to insist on this.
5) Its not even proper history. Its popular history and Reston isn't even an historian. You'd have to be a monkey to take his word on this on face value. Read some of Riley-Smiths, France's, Runciman's work to get a good perspective on the crusades. Keep well away from this sensationalising tabloidesque poppycrap.
March 13, 2013
James Reston makes history come alive. This is the third of his books that I've read. Each has held my interest and increased my understanding of its respective period.
What makes his work compelling is Reston's ability to draw character portraits. In this book he helps you to understand the issues from the perspectives of both Richard and Saladin. You understand what each is risking and what the rewards for each might be. Reston clearly likes both these leaders. He enjoys their interplay, their gifts to one another and the total irony of their chivalrous gestures.
There are a lot of decisions for a chronicler of the Third Crusade about what to put in and what to leave out. In each of them, Reston decides for high interest and readability. No battle or strategy is belabored or over-analysed. His portraits of other players have interesting and memorable facts. He sticks to the story, though, and avoids the temptation to sensationalize the dysfunction of Richard's family, using only the material that pertains to the Crusade.
This is a fascinating story. The way it is written keeps your attention. I highly recommend this for general readers of history who are looking for a light, entertaining or introductory overview of the Third Crusade.
What makes his work compelling is Reston's ability to draw character portraits. In this book he helps you to understand the issues from the perspectives of both Richard and Saladin. You understand what each is risking and what the rewards for each might be. Reston clearly likes both these leaders. He enjoys their interplay, their gifts to one another and the total irony of their chivalrous gestures.
There are a lot of decisions for a chronicler of the Third Crusade about what to put in and what to leave out. In each of them, Reston decides for high interest and readability. No battle or strategy is belabored or over-analysed. His portraits of other players have interesting and memorable facts. He sticks to the story, though, and avoids the temptation to sensationalize the dysfunction of Richard's family, using only the material that pertains to the Crusade.
This is a fascinating story. The way it is written keeps your attention. I highly recommend this for general readers of history who are looking for a light, entertaining or introductory overview of the Third Crusade.
January 15, 2011
قرأت هذا الكتاب قبل أكثر من ٥ سنوات، و ما زالت تحضرني الأوقات التي استمتعت فيها بقراءة كل صفحة من صفحاته. فالمؤلف اختار فترة الحرب الصليبية الثالثة لتكون أنموذجا يتناوله في كتابه عن الحروب الصليبية، و ذلك لأن تلك الفترة تحديدا جمعت اسمين عظيمين: صلاح الدين الأيوبي و ريتشارد قلب الأسد. و كم أحسن في كتابه الذي يتميز بروح الإنصاف. فهو عندما يتحدث عن الجانب الإسلامي يتحدث و كأنه واحد منهم، و عندما يتحدث عن الجانب الصليبي يتقمص هويتهم، فيصل القارئ إلى تصور واضح عن منطلقات كلا الطرفين. و هذه هي الميزة الأفضل التي أذكرها في هذا الكتاب الذي بذل المؤلف مجهودا عظيما في تأليفه. و أما الترجمة، فأذكر أنها ترجمة جميلة و ذات لغة سهلة و أسلوب مترابط.
October 16, 2011
A reasonably entertaining popular account of the Third Crusade, focusing on the storied relationship between Saladin and Richard Coeur de Lion, the fodder for so much romantic tales concocted by medieval troubadours. However, Reston seems to be unable to decide whether he wanted to write history or historical fiction, resulting in passages such as this:
“These affections were prophesied by no less a figure than Merlin the magician, who proclaimed that “the eagle of the broken covenant shall rejoice in her third nesting.””
(- 1 star)
He also seems to be inordinately fixated on Richard’s alleged homosexuality (“Richard himself, in all the glory of his masculinity and homosexuality, called the Griffones “effeminate”.”) and his supposed affair with his fellow Crusader/ nemesis Philip II of France. Brief googling reveals that there is no consensus between historians regarding the first allegation, and hardly any evidence to support the latter. To analyze any interaction between Richard and Philip through the angle of this imaginary affair is misleading, as well as annoying.
(- 1 star)
The real history is dramatic enough by itself, involving not just the chivalric exploits of the protagonists, but also epic sieges, storm-tossed voyages and savage assassinations (by the original Assassins, disciples of Hassan-i Sabbah’s murderous Ismailli sect, a fascinating topic by itself) --- but Reston’s questionable assumptions and general lack of credible citations make for a highly suspect read. Why not just make a historical novel out of it and dispense with pesky historical facts altogether?
(- 1 star)
July 21, 2013
Buku ini paling bagus pola pandangnya terhadap perseteruan perang Salib. James Reston Jr. benar2 berusaha berdiri di tengah-tengah dengan mengambil literatur secara adil dari dua belah pihak. Dibandingkan dengan kisah film Kingdom of Heaven buku ini paling jujur memandang seluruh detil kejadian di perang salib ke 3. Menggambarkan bagaimana kedua tokoh sentral antara Salahuddin al ayyubi dan Richard saling belajar dan saling mengkagumi. Yang paling menakjubkan saya dan mungkin dunia belum mengetahui adalah Richard dengan sedikit memaksa adik sepupunya untuk berjodoh dengan Malik Al Adl. Entah apa yang terjadi jika pernikahan itu terjadi. Buku ini adalah buku barat pertama yang benar2 menggambarkan kebaikan Salahuddin dengan detil. Dan mengakui bahwa budaya menulis lebih dulu dipunyai dunia timur dibandingkan barat. Buku ini menarik untuk dibaca karena anda akan punya landasan yang baik untuk toleransi dan persaudaraan dengan belajar dari tragedi terburuk dari sejarah manusia yang sama2 mengatasnamakan Tuhan dan keduanya menyebutnya Allah. Dan hal yang kedua yang saya diajarkan Salahuddin dan Richard berusaha melakukan di akhir hidupnya. Memaafkan...
December 26, 2021
Warriors of God is a well written, fast paced history of the third crusade that is centered on its two great antagonists, Richard I and Saladin. Through the eyes of these leaders, Reston's account admirably details both perspectives of this great struggle. However, while I was very favorably impressed with the author's prose, I did find myself questioning his abilities as a historian.
I have only limited knowledge of the crusades, but have read a fair amount on Richard. Virtually every account of the Lionheart discusses his sexual orientation and the nature of his relationship with Philip Augustus of France. The clear consensus seems to be that no definitive judgement can be made on these points. And yet, Warriors of God unquestionably declares that Richard and Philip were lovers. Reston's one sided treatment of this issue leads me to question where else he may have erred or, at the very least, oversimplified.
I have only limited knowledge of the crusades, but have read a fair amount on Richard. Virtually every account of the Lionheart discusses his sexual orientation and the nature of his relationship with Philip Augustus of France. The clear consensus seems to be that no definitive judgement can be made on these points. And yet, Warriors of God unquestionably declares that Richard and Philip were lovers. Reston's one sided treatment of this issue leads me to question where else he may have erred or, at the very least, oversimplified.
February 18, 2019
What a wonderful breakdown of the Third Crusade. In one corner, you have Saladin, one of the greatest and most honorable leaders in world history. In the other corner, Richard the Lionheart, an unstoppable force - the epitome of bravery and military leadership - who struck fear into the entire Muslim world with a swing of his sword. How the history of the Middle East and Europe would have changed, had Richard stayed true to his cause (practically the only time he didn't live up to his name). Great read!
March 7, 2021
A well written account of the Third Crusade and encounters of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. Written more like an adventure novel, this non-fictional account lays the ground work leading up to the battle of Jerusalem. Then covers the battle and aftermath.
Reston does a great job of being objective, exposing all the greatness and pageantry of these 2 larger than life characters. In the same breath he exposes their flaws and contradictions. The only weakness in the story is Reston's adamant belief that Lionheart was a gay man. I have read a lot on the life of Richard, and although a case could be made, there is no proof. Not that it makes a difference either way. Reston just pushed my buttons a bit on this. The reason being, a reader new to the story of Richard would more than likely take what Reston has said here and believe it. When the fact of the matter is, there is no proof of Richards sexual orientation either way.
Still a stellar read, for those of us who love history and adventure.
Reston does a great job of being objective, exposing all the greatness and pageantry of these 2 larger than life characters. In the same breath he exposes their flaws and contradictions. The only weakness in the story is Reston's adamant belief that Lionheart was a gay man. I have read a lot on the life of Richard, and although a case could be made, there is no proof. Not that it makes a difference either way. Reston just pushed my buttons a bit on this. The reason being, a reader new to the story of Richard would more than likely take what Reston has said here and believe it. When the fact of the matter is, there is no proof of Richards sexual orientation either way.
Still a stellar read, for those of us who love history and adventure.
March 28, 2018
A very informative, revealing and well-researched book. The bibliography begs for much further reading.
I was particularly perplexed with the European multi-level complexity within the zeal for the Crusades. With the worldy greed for the wealth in the holy land, it didn’t take long for one to see that the principal mission of the Crusades (to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim control) vs. lust, greed are in constant conflict: glory or wealth. Adding to this complexity is the need and subsequent fear on the part of the respective European monarchs (who are related to one another) to keep their respective kingdoms, which included maintaining their royal lines within the dictates of that time, and within Christian dictates/favor, at home while simultaneously trying to fulfill the Pope’s principal mission of Crusades. Both the social and Christian dictates did not afford women (save King Richard’s mother) status nor influence at the time – women were a means to an end. Finally, when one observes the interpersonal differences, inclinations of the respective European kings, the rivalries imposed on the respective Crusader armies as socially imposed by their respective rulers (Kings and the Pope), the interpersonal complexities make for an interesting mix, against the backdrop of the principal mission of the Crusades.
Juxaposed within this complicated complexity, is the life and more pious, but not without its own violence, of Saladin, the Muslim ruler. Upon Saladin’s conquering Jerusalem peacefully in 1187, Saladin allowed Christian pilgrims to come into the city and worship as they would (page 88), for both religious and strategic reasons. Given the slaughter afforded to the population of Jerusalem in the First Crusade in 1099, I wonder if the Christians would have been mindful, let alone have considered the same courtesy to anyone different than themselves . However, that consideration brings me back full circle to the pivotal point and mindset of Papal Rome and Europe insofar as to the principal purpose of the Crusades: to liberate Jerusalem from anyone of a different culture and religion beyond its/their brand of Christianity. Further reading in particular, begs why the Christians, and subsequently, the Crusaders have an unclear, yet acute problem with the Jews. Ironically, Christianity comes out the Jewish tradition; what is the pivotal problem (beyond obvious differences) between the Christians and the Jews?
Finally, what struck me about the book, but again, reinforces the former points, is the favorable slant toward Saladin versus what is outlined and displayed as the Crusaders’ greed and intrigue, cloaked in the principal mission of the Crusades. However again, this slant, reinforces the intent and perspective as to what the Crusades meant respectively to Christians and Muslims. I also appreciate the broader definition –which bears further reading- on Jihad (page 137), which provides a crucial difference between Christian and Muslim: Jihad involves the struggle of the Muslim to keep the central goal in the battle for Jerusalem, as it is central to Muslim tradition. However, a Muslim IS to also wage war against “sinful inclinations” i.e., greed, lustful nature etc. These seemed reserved from the Muslim side, bur outright on the Christian/Crusader side, and at all levels.
Where are you (really) in any endeavor you undertake? What really takes precedence, and why?
I was particularly perplexed with the European multi-level complexity within the zeal for the Crusades. With the worldy greed for the wealth in the holy land, it didn’t take long for one to see that the principal mission of the Crusades (to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim control) vs. lust, greed are in constant conflict: glory or wealth. Adding to this complexity is the need and subsequent fear on the part of the respective European monarchs (who are related to one another) to keep their respective kingdoms, which included maintaining their royal lines within the dictates of that time, and within Christian dictates/favor, at home while simultaneously trying to fulfill the Pope’s principal mission of Crusades. Both the social and Christian dictates did not afford women (save King Richard’s mother) status nor influence at the time – women were a means to an end. Finally, when one observes the interpersonal differences, inclinations of the respective European kings, the rivalries imposed on the respective Crusader armies as socially imposed by their respective rulers (Kings and the Pope), the interpersonal complexities make for an interesting mix, against the backdrop of the principal mission of the Crusades.
Juxaposed within this complicated complexity, is the life and more pious, but not without its own violence, of Saladin, the Muslim ruler. Upon Saladin’s conquering Jerusalem peacefully in 1187, Saladin allowed Christian pilgrims to come into the city and worship as they would (page 88), for both religious and strategic reasons. Given the slaughter afforded to the population of Jerusalem in the First Crusade in 1099, I wonder if the Christians would have been mindful, let alone have considered the same courtesy to anyone different than themselves . However, that consideration brings me back full circle to the pivotal point and mindset of Papal Rome and Europe insofar as to the principal purpose of the Crusades: to liberate Jerusalem from anyone of a different culture and religion beyond its/their brand of Christianity. Further reading in particular, begs why the Christians, and subsequently, the Crusaders have an unclear, yet acute problem with the Jews. Ironically, Christianity comes out the Jewish tradition; what is the pivotal problem (beyond obvious differences) between the Christians and the Jews?
Finally, what struck me about the book, but again, reinforces the former points, is the favorable slant toward Saladin versus what is outlined and displayed as the Crusaders’ greed and intrigue, cloaked in the principal mission of the Crusades. However again, this slant, reinforces the intent and perspective as to what the Crusades meant respectively to Christians and Muslims. I also appreciate the broader definition –which bears further reading- on Jihad (page 137), which provides a crucial difference between Christian and Muslim: Jihad involves the struggle of the Muslim to keep the central goal in the battle for Jerusalem, as it is central to Muslim tradition. However, a Muslim IS to also wage war against “sinful inclinations” i.e., greed, lustful nature etc. These seemed reserved from the Muslim side, bur outright on the Christian/Crusader side, and at all levels.
Where are you (really) in any endeavor you undertake? What really takes precedence, and why?
August 1, 2010
مكتوب بلغة سهلة ومغر بالقراءة. حافل بالتفاصيل المدهشة خاصة فيما يتعلق بحياة ريتشارد قلب الأسد.
September 18, 2017
I dragged this book out but not for any fault of the book. But because I have a poor memory for what I read, it's hard to write a fair review if it takes me a while to finish a book. I did enjoy it.
February 7, 2019
A colorful, riveting and well-researched history of the crusade, if somewhat sensationalized.
The style is engaging and Reston does a good job fleshing out Richard as hot-tempered, generous and petty, along with his gift for tactics and his inspired leadership on the battlefield. Saladin comes off as mature and cool-tempered, Richard’s equal as a strategist if not as a warrior. The portraits of Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Philip are also vivid. The coverage of the battles is vivid (if somewhat short) The narrative is compelling, fast-paced and flows well.
Unfortunately, the tone can be a little flip at times; the the historical, cultural and political context could have been developed more; and the treatment of the two sides sometimes seems skewed in Saladin’s favor. There are no footnotes, he seems to accept the sources without question, and Reston uses dialogue that comes off as imagined. Some parts of the book read like a sensational movie script (at one point Reston writes of Richard arriving on shore carrying a sword and crossbow in both hands, even though we only know he used both weapons in one day of battle) He makes odd comparisons to Navy SEALs. Reston also seems to dwell more than necessary on his theories about Richard’s alleged homosexuality, which he seems to treat as established fact at times, and presents in a way that doesn’t always make much sense. Reston condemns Richard’s atrocities in one part of the book, but has nothing to say about those on the other side. For some reason Balian of Ibelin is almost completely ignored. Also at one point he writes that Henry II, Eleanor, and Alais "raged at one another, as we know from the modern play The Lion in Winter," even though that story is fiction. At one point Baldwin V is called Baldwin IV’s son, even though he was a nephew. Reston also seems puzzled by Richard’s decision to avoid a siege of Jerusalem and withdraw to Jaffa; he does not cover Richard’s own rationale that he was too extended from his supply base and that most of his men would go home after a victory rather than remaining behind to occupy the city. Reston also seems to find it absurd that Richard would start a campaign against Cairo, even though so many other crusaders did the same thing after Richard’s. He also seems to portray the war as one of Muslim resistance to foreign invasion, even though Saladin and his main commanders weren’t even from the Holy Land, and not all of the inhabitants were Muslim.
A clear, dramatic, well-written and very readable work, if simplistic.
The style is engaging and Reston does a good job fleshing out Richard as hot-tempered, generous and petty, along with his gift for tactics and his inspired leadership on the battlefield. Saladin comes off as mature and cool-tempered, Richard’s equal as a strategist if not as a warrior. The portraits of Eleanor of Aquitaine and King Philip are also vivid. The coverage of the battles is vivid (if somewhat short) The narrative is compelling, fast-paced and flows well.
Unfortunately, the tone can be a little flip at times; the the historical, cultural and political context could have been developed more; and the treatment of the two sides sometimes seems skewed in Saladin’s favor. There are no footnotes, he seems to accept the sources without question, and Reston uses dialogue that comes off as imagined. Some parts of the book read like a sensational movie script (at one point Reston writes of Richard arriving on shore carrying a sword and crossbow in both hands, even though we only know he used both weapons in one day of battle) He makes odd comparisons to Navy SEALs. Reston also seems to dwell more than necessary on his theories about Richard’s alleged homosexuality, which he seems to treat as established fact at times, and presents in a way that doesn’t always make much sense. Reston condemns Richard’s atrocities in one part of the book, but has nothing to say about those on the other side. For some reason Balian of Ibelin is almost completely ignored. Also at one point he writes that Henry II, Eleanor, and Alais "raged at one another, as we know from the modern play The Lion in Winter," even though that story is fiction. At one point Baldwin V is called Baldwin IV’s son, even though he was a nephew. Reston also seems puzzled by Richard’s decision to avoid a siege of Jerusalem and withdraw to Jaffa; he does not cover Richard’s own rationale that he was too extended from his supply base and that most of his men would go home after a victory rather than remaining behind to occupy the city. Reston also seems to find it absurd that Richard would start a campaign against Cairo, even though so many other crusaders did the same thing after Richard’s. He also seems to portray the war as one of Muslim resistance to foreign invasion, even though Saladin and his main commanders weren’t even from the Holy Land, and not all of the inhabitants were Muslim.
A clear, dramatic, well-written and very readable work, if simplistic.
January 3, 2008
Seperti nonton turnamen catur kelas master.
Banyak strategi, diplomasi, perang fisik, perang mental. Catur improvisasi: pion bisa jadi bidak, kuda bisa jadi menteri, raja jadi ksatria, ratu jadi mentri, etc
Cara bercerita Reston enak banget, deskripstif, kronologis, analogi ayat2nya "masuk" ke kondisi saat itu (dan saat sekarang juga) dan berbunga-bunga. Agak lambat di bagian pertama, masuk ke bagian kedua.. ga bisa stop baca.
Waktu baca bagian perangnya, wah.. kaya lagi liat adegan perang di film Lord of the Rings.. tanpa mahkluk mitos loh.., seru.. bener2 kebayang gerakan2nya.. in slow motion..
Reston ttg Sallahudin, kaya lagi cerita ttg seorang kakak kelas yang cerdik, alim, bijak, mapan, ga berlebihan dan baik hati, disayang guru. Ttg Richard, seperti cowok populer di sekolah, berani, atletis, impulsif abis.. sampe suka ngundang bahaya buat diri sendiri dan romantis..
Ada Philip Agustus, si raja Prancis, yang emosional bgt, keliatan deh dari caranya mimpin Prancis di arena perang, kaya orang lagi pms.
Eleanor.., ibunya Richard, wuih.. feminis yang kuat, yang ngebackup tugas2 Richard di Eropa selama anaknya perang.
Al Malik Al-Adil, jagoan diplomasi, bisa sampe menyentuh si hati singa.
Kaum assasin.., yang terganggu mentalnya, haha
"Beri dia kuda, seorang raja tidak boleh dibiarkan berperang tanpa kuda", kata Sallahuddin sewaktu melihat Richard bertempur di arena dan kehilangan kudanya.
(ksatria dan kebaikan hati)
Banyak strategi, diplomasi, perang fisik, perang mental. Catur improvisasi: pion bisa jadi bidak, kuda bisa jadi menteri, raja jadi ksatria, ratu jadi mentri, etc
Cara bercerita Reston enak banget, deskripstif, kronologis, analogi ayat2nya "masuk" ke kondisi saat itu (dan saat sekarang juga) dan berbunga-bunga. Agak lambat di bagian pertama, masuk ke bagian kedua.. ga bisa stop baca.
Waktu baca bagian perangnya, wah.. kaya lagi liat adegan perang di film Lord of the Rings.. tanpa mahkluk mitos loh.., seru.. bener2 kebayang gerakan2nya.. in slow motion..
Reston ttg Sallahudin, kaya lagi cerita ttg seorang kakak kelas yang cerdik, alim, bijak, mapan, ga berlebihan dan baik hati, disayang guru. Ttg Richard, seperti cowok populer di sekolah, berani, atletis, impulsif abis.. sampe suka ngundang bahaya buat diri sendiri dan romantis..
Ada Philip Agustus, si raja Prancis, yang emosional bgt, keliatan deh dari caranya mimpin Prancis di arena perang, kaya orang lagi pms.
Eleanor.., ibunya Richard, wuih.. feminis yang kuat, yang ngebackup tugas2 Richard di Eropa selama anaknya perang.
Al Malik Al-Adil, jagoan diplomasi, bisa sampe menyentuh si hati singa.
Kaum assasin.., yang terganggu mentalnya, haha
"Beri dia kuda, seorang raja tidak boleh dibiarkan berperang tanpa kuda", kata Sallahuddin sewaktu melihat Richard bertempur di arena dan kehilangan kudanya.
(ksatria dan kebaikan hati)
August 20, 2013
I loved this book for several reasons, one of which is my fascination with crusader history.
That said, this book is what it promises. It focuses specifically on the relationships, experiences, lives, and interactions of Richard coeur de lion and Saladin. It does spend quite a bit of time analyzing the state of Richard's kingdom in Europe, as well as the importance of Eleanor of Aquitaine, but all of this feeds into Richard's character and mythos, and establishes that he was working with a time limit in the Holy Land.
Saladin's internal struggles are also evident, as well as his obligations to the tribal leaders and various groups he leads. Saladin is painted as both a righteous figure, and one facing the brutal truths of what must be done in a war such as this. It is refreshing to see a book which is able to admire the chivalry in both Richard and Saladin, and frankly state the brutality and warfare of which they were apart.
Aside from all the focus on Richard and Philip, and Saladin and the Jihad, there is a fair amount of historical information concerning Frederick Barbarossa, Conrad of Monteferrat, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Rashid ad-Din Sinan, and other significant figures of the age.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will be using it as a springboard to further research on these other persons and events. Eleanor herself seems like a truly powerful and complex ruler.
That said, this book is what it promises. It focuses specifically on the relationships, experiences, lives, and interactions of Richard coeur de lion and Saladin. It does spend quite a bit of time analyzing the state of Richard's kingdom in Europe, as well as the importance of Eleanor of Aquitaine, but all of this feeds into Richard's character and mythos, and establishes that he was working with a time limit in the Holy Land.
Saladin's internal struggles are also evident, as well as his obligations to the tribal leaders and various groups he leads. Saladin is painted as both a righteous figure, and one facing the brutal truths of what must be done in a war such as this. It is refreshing to see a book which is able to admire the chivalry in both Richard and Saladin, and frankly state the brutality and warfare of which they were apart.
Aside from all the focus on Richard and Philip, and Saladin and the Jihad, there is a fair amount of historical information concerning Frederick Barbarossa, Conrad of Monteferrat, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Rashid ad-Din Sinan, and other significant figures of the age.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will be using it as a springboard to further research on these other persons and events. Eleanor herself seems like a truly powerful and complex ruler.
April 8, 2015
This is a very entertaining piece of popular history. As usual for such work, it may be of less interest to the serious and well-informed student of history, but I would recommend it anyway just for the fun it will give you. The author manages to make the events exciting and draw the reader in, but not without the occasional hint of farce. At the same time, by keeping you reading the book brings across just how differently thought was structured in the Middle Ages. Richard's Crusade was ultimately futile and a waste both of life and of an opportunity to rule, including massacres of civilians and prisoners that would be proscribed today, although there was great chivalry between the key players. Saladin comes off better, and it is worth reading more to get a better feel for the man's flaws, but the Crusaders' acts and nature cannot really be whitewashed.
A fascinating and occasionally hilarious snapshot of a very different time.
A fascinating and occasionally hilarious snapshot of a very different time.
July 10, 2010
A solid and engaging history of the ill-fated 3rd Crusade. It's nice that Reston had a bit more from the Islamic side than his later books, where the Christians take center stage. It does bring up the possibility that Rich Coeur de Lion might have been gay, but it isn't brought up as often as other reviewers seem to think it was and really says more about them than the book. More surprising was that he barely spoke any English!
Much of the book reflects somewhat badly on the Crusaders, for obvious reasons. But does show how Richard chills out over time due to his contact with Saladin. There is also plenty of praise from the Muslims about how great a king Richard was, so it's not as one-sided as some would make it seem.
In all I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a basic primer on the 3rd Crusade. Read it or Melek Ric will get you!
Much of the book reflects somewhat badly on the Crusaders, for obvious reasons. But does show how Richard chills out over time due to his contact with Saladin. There is also plenty of praise from the Muslims about how great a king Richard was, so it's not as one-sided as some would make it seem.
In all I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a basic primer on the 3rd Crusade. Read it or Melek Ric will get you!
July 1, 2011
I'm really split about this book. On one hand, it's a very entertaining description of Richard the Lionhearted's adventures during the Third Crusade, and of Saladin's attempts to defend the Middle East. On the other hand, I feel like the author dramatizes the events far too much, to the point where I'm not sure whether I can trust him.
For example he told a fanciful and eye-opening account of Richard's homosexuality and relationship with Philip of France. I later did some independent research and found out that there is absolutely nothing to support this claim, and yet Reston uses their supposed relationship to justify a number of actions of theirs.
It's still an entertaining read, but should be taken with a grain of salt.
For example he told a fanciful and eye-opening account of Richard's homosexuality and relationship with Philip of France. I later did some independent research and found out that there is absolutely nothing to support this claim, and yet Reston uses their supposed relationship to justify a number of actions of theirs.
It's still an entertaining read, but should be taken with a grain of salt.
August 20, 2009
Had I not read Alison Weir's book first, I may not have been quite so turned off by this one, but in contrast to Weir's honest, direct, and balanced historicism, it was clear that Reston had an agenda and his omission of facts (including the fact of Eleanor and his affianced traveling to Italy so he could be married) in order to support that agenda--which boiled down to "Richard was gay, isn't that scandalous, whisper-whisper, nudge-nudge" really turned me off, and made me pretty much unwilling to read anything else by this author.
July 4, 2022
Reston has a way of making history come alive through his engaging portraits of these two adversaries, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin during the 3rd Crusade. The author tries to paint an unbiased picture of both. I wanted to root for Saladin, but he comes across as contemplative, very pious and somewhat reticent to defend his territory. On the other hand, Richard is cruel and self-serving. But he is deserving of his moniker through his gallantry, military skill, and leadership. Although outnumbered by the Arab forces, Richard martials the discipline of his soldiers to repel and eventually conquer most of Israel and Syria
He was put in an impossible situation of fighting to restore Christendom to Holy Land while protecting his patrimony in France and England. The end of the 3rd Crusade reads like a draw, where the two combatants are too tired to throw any more punches.
He was put in an impossible situation of fighting to restore Christendom to Holy Land while protecting his patrimony in France and England. The end of the 3rd Crusade reads like a draw, where the two combatants are too tired to throw any more punches.
June 23, 2017
I highly enjoyed this book. He made history and historical figures come alive. I have learned much about this time period through this book and learned a little more about how the early Christians viewed their world along with learning a little more about Muslims; learned about the eternal struggle for who controls Jerusalem. I was able to learn more about the key figures, the personalities, strengths, and weaknesses and how it affected both the war and the people around them. It is interesting to read how petty jealousy can destroy a lifelong friendship, which in turn starts lies and rumors about the other. It is interesting to read how these rumors and lies are believed by those who are cowards and refuse to find out the truth and blindly follow the jealous coward. This book was easy to read and follow. I look forward to reading more of his books and learning more about Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Philip Augustus, and the many others.
September 27, 2014
The book accompanies both leaders in parallel throughout the period which encompassed the third crusade .
Although having as background the Third Crusade, this book provides a detailed portrayal of two iconic figures in world history. We see that Richard is not the typical Chivalry Knight we're used to seeing from romances and movies and Saladin is not the middle-eastern ruler religiously-blind as the Occident tends to see Arabs.
What I found most interesting it's the reason why Saladin was successful was that he managed to unit usually discordant factions under one goal/banner. something that nowadays lacks in middle-east. On the other hand, the main obstacle for Richard was exactly the inner struggles.
Interesting book which shed some light to me on a topic know only superficially and considering the current events makes us wonder what would happen if someone like Saladin emerged.
Although having as background the Third Crusade, this book provides a detailed portrayal of two iconic figures in world history. We see that Richard is not the typical Chivalry Knight we're used to seeing from romances and movies and Saladin is not the middle-eastern ruler religiously-blind as the Occident tends to see Arabs.
What I found most interesting it's the reason why Saladin was successful was that he managed to unit usually discordant factions under one goal/banner. something that nowadays lacks in middle-east. On the other hand, the main obstacle for Richard was exactly the inner struggles.
Interesting book which shed some light to me on a topic know only superficially and considering the current events makes us wonder what would happen if someone like Saladin emerged.
April 3, 2020
Good primer for the history the two of the most important men of the Third Crusade—Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. It is an interesting read, though perhaps lacking in depth. Still, it manages to pack a lot of historical narration into its pages and, therefore, serves the purpose the author intended. Richard, however, was certainly not the villain Reston portrays, just as Saladin, regardless of the political correctness of our current age, was not the saint portrayed. Both men, the same as any other in history, had their strengths and weaknesses, and unfortunately, it is hard to judge men accurately 800 years after their deaths without living in the world in which they lived. Different standards for different times. There is a reason they both have the legendary status and popularity they enjoy today. Love them or hate them, they were the heroes of their times.
December 13, 2007
My biggest concern about this book is the argument that the author presents Richard the Lionheart as a homosexual and hee and Philip II of France were lovers. What evidence does the author have of this? My concern there is that how people, especially men, express their emotions has changed over the years; what people said then, we might translate as something only two people in love would say. And I question the research this author has done based on the one passage in the book concerning Robin Hood, a subject that I have read a lot about. The author paints Robin Hood as a nobleman; in the early tales, Robin Hood is a yeoman. Robin Hood was elevated in status to a nobleman in the sixteenth century.
November 9, 2010
This book was so good that my husband stole it from me. *Before* I got to finish it. In his double biography of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, balances the reality and romance of these two men during the 3rd Crusade. Although the book is weighted a little heavier on the Richards side (I'd say it's 60% Richard, 40% Saladin), you come away feeling like both men have been explored fairly. Saladin is a formidable opponent, and a better king and diplomat who shows decidedly more compassion than Christian Richard. The author's exploration of Richard's genius as a general, his homosexuality, & of his poor record as an absentee king despite his chivalrous legend, make for fascinating reading.
March 15, 2011
I really enjoyed this book. Reston brings to life a time period with so many lead characters that it is difficult to follow and does so with an artist and novelists touch. The vibrant picture of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin is especially fascinating. Unfortunately, I found myself at times pondering some of the ideas Reston makes throughout the book - his ideology seems to be determinedly liberal and at times one wonders if this is informing some of his perceptions. Still, overall, the work is extremely informative and interesting and I think has great applicability to much in our current world context - especially as it revolves around the clash of cultures (e.g. "West" and "Islam").
July 10, 2013
This is a book that I had been meaning to read for a long time. It did a good job of capturing the personalities and characters of Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin. I now have a better sense of how Richard and his father Henry II fit into British history, and a better chronological sense of British history and the monarchy. The book really did a good job fleshing out the context of Richard and his world and the internecine struggles going on within the monarchy and between Britain and France. I felt like the context of Saladin wasn't presented as fully nor was the broader context of medieval Europe/Middle East.
February 4, 2015
I wavered for a long time between "4" and "3", but I've decided to be generous. "Warriors of God" was a very engaging read. I already had an interest in the subject and timeframe (I'm currently playing Assassins' Creed, after all) and Reston did not disappoint: he kept the tale moving quickly and interestingly. The book is obviously very well-researched, although sometimes Reston makes claims without really backing them up particularly well. Also, there are a few side narratives that didn't really seem to fit with the main topic.
The book provides a great character sketch of both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart, two of the most compelling figures of the age.
The book provides a great character sketch of both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart, two of the most compelling figures of the age.
December 24, 2007
This book is a delightful read; it's full of information written in a flowing and captivating style. James Reston paints a picture of human events and doings and the social workings behind the colossal clash between two legend warriors; Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.
For someone who never read about crusades before, nor of Saladin, Reston managed to give me a good background of the times and a good hold of the story he told.
I recommend this book as both a gateway to crusades and middle east history, it's a very good book.
For someone who never read about crusades before, nor of Saladin, Reston managed to give me a good background of the times and a good hold of the story he told.
I recommend this book as both a gateway to crusades and middle east history, it's a very good book.
Read
August 7, 2012This is a pretty interesting narrative about the 3rd Crusade to retake and recreate the Latin Kingdom in the wake of Saladin's victories. Author suggests that pretty much all the leaders in the Middle Ages, including prelates, were corrupt and quite venal. Author informs that in their youth King Richard the Lion Hearted had a homosexual relationship with King Philip of France. Alas, by the time the two kings lead their armies against Saladin they are estranged and engaged in petty competition for honor and glory.
All in all it was a good read.
All in all it was a good read.
May 16, 2014
Goo to reads the other part of the story ,
conflict that would shape world history for centuries and which can still be felt in the Middle East and throughout the world today. Acclaimed writer James Reston, Jr., offers a gripping narrative of the epic battle that left Jerusalem in Muslim hands until the twentieth century, bringing an objective perspective to the gallantry, greed, and religious fervor that fueled the bloody clash between Christians and Muslims.
its a very grate interesting book, good to recommend to during a long trip.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews