To use our price comparison to get the cheapest price, please click on the "Find the Cheapest Price" button located above for Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Paperback) by Amin Maalouf (ISBN-10: 0805208984, ISBN-13: 9780805208986).
At this time we have not yet written a review for Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Paperback) by Amin Maalouf (ISBN-10: 0805208984, ISBN-13: 9780805208986). Please continue to keep checking back to this page as we are constantly adding reviews.
Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com
The author has combed the works of contemporary Arab chronicles of the Crusades, eyewitnesses and often participants. He retells their story and offers insights into the historical forces that shape Arab and Islamic consciousness today.
Good read
| Customer Rating:  | Amin Maalouf is a good French-Lebanese writer, and this, a translation from the original French, reads very well.
The occasional reviewer who says that it is one-sided is a bit unfair. It is a history of the Crusades from one point of view, as Maalouf says, and as the title makes clear. In writing the book, he says in the introduction, he has deliberately relied almost exclusively on contemporary Arabic sources. Even so, his account is fairly even-handed in that respect. Sometimes he does write as if he is cheering and jeering at the appropriate places in the story, but all even-handed historians, such as Runciman, make it clear that the Crusaders were on the whole a pretty barbaric bunch. Also although Maalouf describes Crusader-Muslim alliances as "bizarre", he makes it clear that as the Crusader kingdoms become stable, they played a role that often cut across religious lines, and few leaders on either side were consistent allies to their co-religionists, nor consistent enemies to those of another faith.
Also, at the end, after detailing the huge amount that the Europeans learnt in science, technology, art, culture, medicine and so on from the Muslim world, he then considers a few things that the Muslim world even at the time could have learnt from the otherwise less advanced west, if they had wished to.
However, the strength of the book doesn't come from its even-handedness. A good history book can be as biased as the writer wants it to be in tone, so long as it is factually accurate. Maalouf's account substantially agrees with (for example) Runciman's history, but fills it out by explaining the debates, the conflicts and the plans that the Muslims had in response to the invasion.
The single perspective of the narrative would be a weakness if someone were to take this as the last word, or the most complete account of the Crusades. At times it reads almost like Hamlet without the prince, as the driving force of the narrative, necessarily, is the Crusaders themselves. Maalouf's account of them is very thin, especially when it comes to explaining their motivations, the plea for help of the Byzantine emperor, the preaching of Peter the Hermit, the mass hysteria, the hopes and the fantasies and so on. This is not really a weakness of the book, but just something you should bear in mind. Whatever the grounds for your interest in the Crusades, you would need to read an account of how it all came about. Runciman's history is the traditional standard work, and still well regarded, although some newer ones have also earned respect. Maalouf however, will add much vital information that Runciman doesn't cover, however limited Maalouf's book would be considered in itself.
The great strengths of Maalouf's book come when he is explaining the political and social context of the Middle East at the time. His explanation of the divisions between Turkish military commander and Arab civilian, burgher and villager, qadi and officer, Sunni and Shia, Greek and Armenian, Muslim and Jew gives you a deeper understanding of the Crusades than you would have if you only read other sources. He also explains the Assassins in a way that treats them not as an exotic curiosity, but an important social movement.
This book will enrich whatever else you have read about the Crusades. Although many of the original Arabic texts have now been translated, his overview and narrative is based on a wide variety of Arabic sources, and gives a broad understanding of what the Muslims thought of the event, and how they reacted to it.
|
An interesting side
| Customer Rating:  | | A good story that portrayed the Crusades from the eyes of the people who were in defense of their nation. Going to school in America, I heard of the Crusades through European eyes and on History Channel specials (back when they used to show things about history) I seen the unbiased sides from both the Western and Islam nations. This book talks more about the politics involved in the various Islamic nations in the Middle East and the trouble it took just to rouse an army up to face this European invasion. It got a bit stale at times, but quickly got interesting which is why I give it 4 instead of 5 stars. A good read for those who are interested in Islamic history. |
Not as biased as the title suggests.
| Customer Rating: | | The advantage of this history of the Crusades is that the author provides significant insight regarding the historical tensions within the Arab "states" or tribes during the 11th and 12th centuries and how the frequent unwillingness of those often warring factions to help each other fend off the Crusaders, and their general ineptness in doing so, contributed to the horrible successes of the Christian marauders and the massacre of tens of thousands of "non-believers," which included large numbers of Eastern Orthodox Christians. The writing (translation) is somewhat dry, but the story is very interesting. |
Great Historical read from 1st person accounts.
| Customer Rating: | | This was an incredible book. I enjoy reading first hand accounts of history, without the boring academic drudgery. This book is full of the accounts of arabic and middle eastern viewpoints from that time period. It increased my knowledge and respect for the non western inhabitants of outremer. There is one instance where a crusaders wife comes into Saladin's camp and begs him to give her her young daughter back. She had been captured as a non combatant and sold into slavery by Saladins warriors. The mother had lost her husband and the child was the only thing left she had. After hearing her out, Saladin began crying and gave his men silver and told one of his aides to take the woman to the slave market and buy her daughter back! Incredible. |
Unusual Historic Perspective, Written in Suspense
| Customer Rating: | The quality of this book speaks for itself, if it is written from the non-Western perspective of the crusades, but manages to score an average of 4,5 of 5 stars from 74 primarily US reviews prior to mine. Especially as the overall sentiment in these reviews stays virtually the same, pre 9-11, immediately post 9-11, during the Bush Crusades and after them.
The book has been written in 1983 in French, translated into English in 1984 and published in the US in 1985. As such, the book would need an update, not only concerning the Bush Crusades, but also about the information that the wannabe assasin of Pope John Paul II in 1981 wasn't the Muslim Turk Mehmet Ali Agca by himself, but a ploy: The puppet master was in the Soviet polit bureau, via Bulgarian and East German secret service ploys. The author Amin Maalouf was born in Lebanon and migrated to France in 1976, during the Lebanese (religious) civil war. He's an Arab Christian.
The book is not meant to inform on the European political, religious, financial and other motivations for the crusades, but starts with the troops arriving in Muslim territories. Hence, it is also not concerned with the prior Muslim conquest of the previously Christian territories. Which in turn had been European-invaded empires by the Romans and Greek, the Jews before that, then the Egyptians, prior to that the Akan and prior in turn the San (Bushmen). But even they were invading "Neanderthal" territory. So please, to anyone: Don't assume, "you" were there originally... (I left out some Asian invaders.) I hoped to find out anything at all about the Christian Nubian empires (either one or all of Nobadia, Makuria, Alwa), which were left alone till then, but got invaded by the Muslims as revenge for helping the Europeans in one of the crusades. Only Abyssinia (today's Ethiopia) remained exempted from the jihad. Not a word even of their existence. So, here's a message: There's a third perspective, one which is even more difficult to find any information of... (Please leave a comment on any known source.)
The title of the book makes the non-Western perspective clear, however, it isn't entirely correct either. But then again, book titles rarely are as the authors often do not have any control over the titles, changed for commercial reasons by the publishers. The author is Arab - not Muslim -, the main sources are historic Arab historians, yet the perspective is written from non-Arab leaders as well, such as Turks, Kurds, Persians, Egyptians. But also Armenians and other local Christians. In addition, it is not about "the crusades", as that would imply all of them. "Of course", it's only about those, which were directed against the Eastern Muslim territories. Not those against Muslim territories in Iberia, not those against Christian "heretics" such as the Waldensians within Europe, not those against European Jews (which were automatic part of any crusade), not those against European "pagans", such as the original Baltic Prussians, which for political reasons some Germans adopted the name from, and not those crusades, which didn't make it to the desired Muslim destinations, such as the Shepherds Crusades and also not the Children's Crusade, as the few surviving kids who really made it to the destination, were enslaved before they could leave the ships. By reading this book's view, you won't get a feeling of "crusades" either, but of one single 200-year-war, with several reinforcements - not numerically listed - of European troops. Who are called "Franj". Referring to all of them, such as the French, Italians, Germans, English etc. The same as all Muslims are headed under "Arabs" in the English title. Differentiations were made towards the "Rum" (pronounce similar to Roome), the Byzantine Christians and of course all the local minority Christians. The German title, translated into English, is more polemic, but more precise at the same time: "The Holy War of the Barbarians".
Most reviewers point out that the book is NOT polemicly subjective against Westerners in contrast to an adulation of the Muslims. I find it even intriguing that the author refrains from listing the civilizing effect on Europe, the crusades had (and earlier Muslim invasions of Iberia and later ones of Eastern and Central Europe). Before the crusades, Europeans didn't have essential items such as sugar and shoes (instead honey and rag/fur wrappings). Not to mention hygiene, which was lost after the Roman empire. The book does mention medicine and a reviewer criticizes that as arbitrary quoting by the author. However, it is historic fact that the Muslims re-introduced medicine into Europe. For one thing, it was considered heretic in Europe to dissect corpses, making it impossible for "doctors" to know, how humans look like inside. It is often said, the Muslims got sophisticated medicine originally from the Romans and Greeks. Part of it, however, all of them received medicine from ancient Black Egyptians. In fact, the latter were able to diagnose fine bone crackings/fractures, something TODAY'S Westernes (nor anybody else) haven't the faintest idea, how they did that without x-rays. Some reviewers think the mentioned cannibalism of some crusaders has to be reproduced historic Muslim propaganda. Not so. There are Western sources, by the crusaders themselves. As the leaders were not able to prevent the masses - not soldiers - travelling with them to engage in that, as they had no control over them anymore. For an elaboration read the 1957 Western book The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (Galaxy Books). I would like to note that it is amazing how little the author engages in what might be considered biased. For example, he is stating, referring to the last medievil Franj invasion of Egypt: "Never again would the Occidentals attempt to invade the land of the Nile." But in 1798, the Franj returned under Corsican Napoleon. In the 19th century, the UK occupied Egypt, in the 20th century warring resumed, with Israel. Yet, the author isn't using history for tempting more contemporary issues. |
|
