Recommendation of a superb book

[Aragorn1963]

I would like to recommend "Road to Manzikert, Byzantine and Islamic warfare 527-1071" by Brian Todd Carey to people interested in the Middle East. Very informative. In case someone knows another book of similiar quality I would like to hear it.

[matmohair1]

amazing find, seems like a good read
thanks for sharing
here are more suggestions if your interested

Usama Ibn Munqidh - translated by Paul M. Cobb

The Book of Contemplation

Davide Nicole :

Crusader Warfare (Volume I) : Byzantium, Western Europe and the Battle for the Holy Land
Crusader Warfare (Volume II) : Muslims, Mongols and the Struggle against the Crusades

Dimitris Belezos :

Byzantine Armies 325 AD -1453 AD

Thor Johnson, Yli Remo Vallejo & Igor Dzis :

The Crusades

[Aragorn1963]

Thank you, Matmohair1. Ordered some of them.

[AliAlpTegin]

The Crusades Through Arab Eyes - Amin Maalouf

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crusades-T.../dp/0805208984

This book pretty good too

[KOCEMON]

The Crusades Through Arab Eyes - Amin Maalouf

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crusades-T.../dp/0805208984

This book pretty good too

The best one

[Ichon]

For something a bit different in era but very interesting back history to the spread of Islam into Persia, http://www.amazon.com/Gardens-Light-...ref=pd_sim_b_3 The Gardens of Light was a great read and reminds that in the history of men there have been many religions, most now forgotten and the spread of both Christianity and Islam absorbed previous ideas and mixed with them producing sometimes different schools of those religions influenced by previous religious ideas.

I do have to comment that "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" is a good attempt to share a different perspective but still a poor history. Very selective use of sources ignores much of the contemporary criticism of Saladin and other Muslim rulers by writes in their own time while also ignoring the political games that both Crusaders and Muslim rulers waged to local political advantage nearly completely disregarding the idea of some unyielding religious war on either "side" if you can even divide them simplistically into merely 2 sides.

Crusades has so far been written about mostly from modern western perspective but this book seems to seek to refute previous bias too much instead of sharing actual historical Islamic views from a broad brush of sources.

[AliAlpTegin]

^^^^^^

Yup but we need to remember Amin Maalouf not a historian but author he is Christian himself too btw

[Ichon]

^^^^^^

Yup but we need to remember Amin Maalouf not a historian but author he is Christian himself too btw

Nope he is a novelist not a historian but sometimes that is better label for many who call themselves historians as well. At least that allows you to read knowing its not purported to be the truth, just someone's interpretation of historical events in a fictional context.

It's natural to have some bias when you write even (or especially) as a historian but the best historians use a broad array of sources and don't just paraphrase other writes who might not have quoted the sources themselves accurately. Historians who pick 2 sides and spend the entire book explaining a point of view of just 2 perspectives while conveying that is all the viewpoints that existed really fail to elucidate much other than their own conceptions.

I do have to say though that explaining the Crusades is particularly difficult due to the diversity of motivations of both historical agents and the modern historians. So its really unlikely that a single book or author will give you more than a small part of that eras perspective but some are more honest about what they portray than others.

[athanaric]

Nope he is a novelist not a historian but sometimes that is better label for many who call themselves historians as well.

QFT. Reading a lot of books or sources doesn't make one a historian, it's the critical reflection and other methods, i.e. source criticism, that do. An impartial stance can also be very helpful...

[Ichon]

QFT. Reading a lot of books or sources doesn't make one a historian, it's the critical reflection and other methods, i.e. source criticism, that do. An impartial stance can also be very helpful...

Never said anything about reading making anyone a historian. People who call themselves historians and only use a single source aren't really historians wouldn't you agree? Critical reflection is really impossible or quite limited when you have only a single source as you have nothing to compare other than your own ideas which unfortunately is usually about half of what most historians end up including in their books. Doesn't mean they aren't historians but I'm saying I don't think they are very good ones if they operate that way.

[athanaric]

Never said anything about reading making anyone a historian.

Never said you said that i was taking a stab at people who believe this and consequently think of themselves as historians. History is a science just like physics or medical sciences, meaning you don't get far without learning the basic techniques, usually acquired via formal training. For some reason however, it is one of the things that attracts a lot of self-proclaimed "experts" - many of whom are actually journalists, or engineers, or retired officers. At least this Maalouf guy seems like he doesn't pretend to be a historian. Which is more than can be said of many other authors.

[AliAlpTegin]

^^^^^^

Of course i am not saying just read a single book mate but books of Amin Maalouf pretty good for understandin Middle East too btw.