Useful as a collated collection of primary sources; mostly not very exciting as reading material (Usama ibn Munqidh aside). I fear I didn't quite read the thing cover to cover, but I'm sure I'll dip back into bits of it in the future.

The translations are readable. Gabrieli's editorial attitude and scholarship are very 1950s, though. He freely and casually talks about the Crusades as being between "Christians" and "Muslims" without qualification, or between the "Latin Empire" and the "Muslim Empire;" he casually describes the Crusades as featuring "theological and racial hatred," and the Crusader States as an "artificial empire;" but he also speaks of land being "saved" or "reclaimed," is passively suspicious of modern Muslims, and generally identifies, as an Italian, with the Franks, often describing Muslims as "the other side," or things to that effect. He describes Conrad of Montferrat as the "moving spirit of the Third Crusade," which is funny, more than a little dubious, and very possibly a bit of Italian chauvinism showing through. None of this stuff would fly in professional historical circles nowadays, though it fortunately doesn't have much effect on the quality of his translations, at least so far as I can tell.

The most irritating thing about the translations is that he's not quite consistent about the forms of the names he uses- eg the Arabized Bardawil vs the modernized Baldwin. He uses the traditional Romanized form "Saladin" rather than "Salah ad-Din" (or whichever form the original author used), and he substitutes in "Guy" for when the writer mistakenly used "Godfrey;" but also Reynald of Chatillon is bizarrely, consistently, and exclusively referred to as the Arabized "Arnat" in the text, and his actual French name- by which he's referred to more or less universally in modern works- only appears in the index. It's weird.

The actual historians and chroniclers are pretty solid. Arabic historiography seems to have been in a pretty good place when they were writing. They're all unabashedly partisan, which isn't surprising (though they're just as often partisan to one competing Muslim dynasty or another as they are to Muslims as against Christians generally); but they tend to be pretty even-handed for that, and willing to recognize strength or intelligence in someone they consider a foe (even if they cast that strength or intelligence as ruthlessness or cunning). For all the standard disclaimers of "only God knows" or "according to God's will," they actually pretty consistently favor reasonable, rationalist explanations for events, and are often willing to offer multiple possible explanations, which I appreciate. (eg- Why did Richard I execute his prisoners taken after the fall of Acre? Baha ad-Din (as eager a partisan for Saladin as anybody) willingly grants that Saladin was dragging his feet on implementing his end of the treaty for their release; and then offers the potential explanations that maybe it was in reprisal for the prior killing of Christian prisoners; or maybe it was because Richard planned to march south, and didn't want to leave a large body of captive soldiers (and guards for them) in his rear. The latter is actually still probably the best-evidenced and most-accepted explanation in modern scholarship; in a contemporary Christian chronicle, you'd be much more likely to find a bland "it happened because God willed it so" instead of such an intelligent, reasoned explanation.) They can be pretty turgid reading, though, especially when some of them (looking at you, Ibn al-Athir) try to get super-clever stylewise.

A fascinating collection, especially the long middle section about Saladin.

Enjoyable read, though if you think the European chroniclers were wordy you're in for a whole new ballgame with the Muslim chroniclers

After I read Gabrieli’s Arab Historians of the Crusades, I found different portrayals of Muslim leaders that are worth of discussion.
In general, most Muslim leaders depicted in different narratives in this book are firm believers of God and just rulers. However, some were committed to the idea of Jihad whereas some were not. Zangi used “courtesy and diplomacy” first before violence and aimed to seek “peaceful agreement without bloodshed” (44). He also “reassured the inhabitants with promises of good government and universal justice” (50). It seems that he used the strategy of conquering hearts and minds instead of pillage and violence first which could only be the last means to exploit in order to achieve peace.
In contrast, Saladin was “most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War” (99). Ibn ‘Asakir mentioned in his writing that the goal of jihad is to uproot the unbelievers and tyrants who have terrorized the land and proliferated oppression and corruption. It seems that Saladin appropriated this understanding of jihad as he marched forward to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). However, one significant difference of his practice of jihad was his treatment to other monotheists, in this case Christians, when they sought for “protection.” When the Franks asked for safe-conduct out of the city and to hand Jerusalem over to Saladin, he refused this peaceful solution to receive Jerusalem, but resorted to the violent way, as he said “we shall deal with you just as you dealt with the population of Jerusalem when you took it in 1099, with murder and enslavement and other such savageries.” This was a major departure that transformed the meaning of jihad and legitimized the violent action of Muslims against other monotheists.
Besides, almost all of Muslim leaders are wise and courageous, bellicose and tactful. Yaghi Siyan showed “unparalleled strength and judgment” (5) whereas Isma’il ibn ad-Danishmand nearly miracle-like defeated the Frankish army from Antioch “in the space of a few months” (13). Similarly, Saladin is “one of the most courageous of men; brave, gallant, firm, intrepid in any circumstance” (97). Even though these leaders played an important role in the victory of the counter crusade, each narrator still consciously contributes the ultimate success to the omnipotence of God, like “God gave the Muslims victory at last” (117), and “with the thanks of Islam and the support of God Almighty” (127). One claim is most apparent in proving that the war and violent act during counter crusade is divinely justified, or fought in the name of God, that is “Peace was therefore an act of divine providence and a fortunate occurrence for Islam” (234). This not only suggests that war is divinely sanctioned, but also implies that war and violence are means to achieve an end of peace. Interestingly enough, when Muslims were defeated by the Franks, the fault was to blame Muslim leaders. For instance, Kerbuqa was blamed for his contemptuous and scornful treatment to other Muslims and his awful military judgment when he prevented Muslims’ killing of the Franks (8).

Gabrielli is the editor who does a wonderful job of drawing together over one hundred different accounts written by Arabs over the long Crusader period. He does a good job with footnotes. This is one of the best sources for the original writings of Arab historians that refer specifically to the Crusades.

How did the Arabs living in the Middle East at the time view the Crusades? Why not ask the contemporary historians, many of them actual witnesses or participant in many of the events. These accounts provide some detail of what life was like at the time, which often gets left out of professional histories. In this review I will simply quote a few stories that caught my eye, and offer a few comments.


THE FRANKS CONQUER JERUSALEM (IBN AL-ATHĪR)

In this brief account of the fall of Jerusalem in the First Crusade, putting the population to the sword is simply stated without comment, suggesting it is an expected consequence. He even gives the Franks credit for keeping their word in one instance, which suggests this might be a reasonably even-handed report.

n  In fact Jerusalem was taken from the north on the morning of Friday 22 sha‘bān 492/15 July 1099. The population was put to the sword by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of David and fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering. The Franks honoured their word, and the group left by night for Ascalon. In the Masjid al-Aqsa the Franks slaughtered more than 70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams and Muslim scholars, devout and ascetic men who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the Holy Place.n

THE FRANKS AND MARITAL JEALOUSY (USAMA)

This is a fascinating chapter by a Muslim who frequently visited and conducted business in the crusader states. It shows that there was a great deal of interaction between Christians and Muslims, much of it reasonably friendly, at least at a cultural level. I am nearly as surprised as he is by the lack of sexual jealousy among the Christians that he observes.

n  Now this man [a Frank] returned home one day and found a man in bed with his wife. ‘What are you doing here with my wife?’ he demanded. ‘I was tired,’ replied the man, ‘and so I came in to rest.’ ‘And how do you come to be in my bed?’ ‘I found the bed made up, and lay down to sleep.’ ‘And this woman slept with you, I suppose?’ ‘The bed,’ he replied, ‘is hers. How could I prevent her getting into her own bed?’ ‘I swear if you do it again I shall take you to court!’—and this was his only reaction, the height of his outburst of jealousy!n

It is not often that we get a look at the physical appearance of these people. For example, did they all have beards, or did some shave? This curious account of a cross cultural interchange answers that question in a rather unexpected way.

n  I heard a similar case from a bath attendant called Salim from Ma‘arra, who worked in one of my father’s bathhouses. This is his tale: I earned my living in Ma‘arra by opening a bathhouse. One day a Frankish knight came in. They do not follow our custom of wearing a cloth round their waist while they are at the baths, and this fellow put out his hand, snatched off my loin-cloth and threw it away. He saw at once that I had just recently shaved my pubic hair. ‘Salim!’ he exclaimed. I came toward him and he pointed to that part of me. ‘Salim! It’s magnificent! You shall certainly do the same for me!’ And he lay down flat on his back. His hair there was as long as his beard. I shaved him, and when he had felt the place with his hand and found it agreeably smooth he said: ‘Salim, you must certainly do the same for my Dama.’ In their language Dama means lady, or wife. He sent his valet to fetch his wife, and when they arrived and the valet had brought her in, she lay down on her back, and he said to me: ‘Do to her what you did to me.’ So I shaved her pubic hair, while her husband stood by watching me. Then he thanked me and paid me for my services.n

SALADIN’S CHARACTER (BAHĀ’ AD-DIN)

This author of this section was a constant companion to Saladin during his campaign, and a witness to the events he writes about. Although his writing amounts to a hagiography, it is not all entirely appealing from today’s perspective in the West. First we learn Saladin was a rigid believer who put “philosophers, heretics, and materialists” to death.

n  He venerated deeply the laws of the Faith, believed in the resurrection of the body, the reward of Paradise for the virtuous and of Hell for the sinners, and accepted all the teachings of Holy Scripture with an open heart. He hated philosophers, heretics, materialists and all the opponents of the Law. For this reason he commanded his son al-Malik az-Zahir, Prince of Aleppo, to punish a young man called as-Suhrawardi who called himself an enemy of the Law and a heretic. His son had the man arrested for what he had heard of him and informed the Sultan, who commanded that he be put to death. So he was killed, and left hanging on the cross for several days.n

If you thought Saladin was only interested in defending his realm, consider this:

n  While I was standing thus Saladin turned to me and said: ‘I think that when God grants me victory over the rest of Palestine I shall divide my territories, make a will stating my wishes, then set sail on this sea for their far-off lands and pursue the Franks there, so as to free the earth of anyone who does not believe in God, or die in the attempt.’n

This account of an attempt at forced conversion contradicts Saladin’s reputation for tolerance and forgiveness:

n  No sooner had he come down from the Tall than a Frank captured from the enemy army was brought to him. He invited the man to embrace Islām and when he refused gave the order for his head to be cut off, which was done in his presence.n

On the other hand, sometimes he did live up to his reputation. Maybe a little flattery made the difference. One should not apply simplistic stereotypes to a complex individual such as Saladin.

n  Once a Frankish prisoner was brought before him in whom the Sultan aroused such fear that the marks of terror and agitation were visible in his face. The interpreter asked him: ‘What are you afraid of?’ God inspired him to reply: ‘At first I was afraid of seeing that face, but after seeing it and standing in his presence, I am sure that I shall see only good in it.’ The Sultan was moved, pardoned him and let him go free.n

Saladin is often praised for allowing the Christians to leave Jerusalem peacefully after he conquered it. But his biographer reveals that was not his original intention. He later changed his mind and made a deal when the inhabitants threatened to destroy the Muslim holy places.

n  They decided to ask for safe-conduct out of the city and to hand Jerusalem over to Saladin. They sent a deputation of their lords and nobles to ask for terms, but when they spoke of it to Saladin he refused to grant their request. ‘We shall deal with you,’ he said, ‘just as you dealt with the population of Jerusalem when you took it in 492/1099, with murder and enslavement and other such savageries!’n

BAIBARS AGAINST TRIPOLI AND ANTIOCH: HIS LETTER TO BOHEMOND VI (IBN ‘ABD AZ-ZAHIR)

Saladin’s reputation for tolerance is based on the contrast with other leaders of the period. For example, Baibars, who finished driving the Crusaders out of Palestine, wrote a letter to a Christian prince boasting of what he did to the people of his city:

n  He saw the ruins [in Antioch] and the slaughter that we left behind at our departure; the churches themselves were razed from the face of the earth, every house met with disaster, the dead were piled up on the seashore like islands of corpses, the men were murdered, the children enslaved, the free women reduced to captivity…

You would have seen your knights prostrate beneath the horses’ hooves, your houses stormed by pillagers and ransacked by looters, your wealth weighed by the quintal, your women sold four at a time and bought for a dinar of your own money! You would have seen the crosses in your churches smashed, the pages of the false Testaments scattered, and the Patriarchs’ tombs overturned. You would have seen your Muslim enemy trampling on the place where you celebrate the mass, cutting the throats of monks, priests and deacons upon the altars, bringing sudden death to the Patriarchs and slavery to the royal princes.n

This book is a great source of insight into how people lived during the time of the crusades, and what the Muslim observers at the time thought of it. It makes a great follow-up to an overview history, which helps put what is written here into context.

Very useful perspective on the Crusades from dozens of Arab historians. Well laid out. Although a translation from Italian it is well done and many useful insights were preserved from the Arabic.

There's no fear like an old fear.

Couldn't finish this book. It took too much effort. Most annoying were translations of the works of one or two chroniclers. These used flowery language to an extent that could only be realized in the Arabic language. I can imagine how enjoyable reading these accounts would be in Arabic to someone able to do so. The translation however strips them of any poetic attributes imbued in them by their author. What we're left with are poorly written paragraphs that contain a sentence worth reading, if at all.

Unfinished. Not what I thought or wanted exactly. Straight translation of various Arab and non-Arab accounts of individuals or general historical stories. No context and nowhere near the outstanding narrative of Amin Maalouf's excellent book n  nThe Crusades Through Arab Eyes Usually I really enjoy and seek out original sources. Disappointing for sure.

There are accounts of various battles and events. The exaggerations of opposing forces and victories over the Crusader forces are a feature. At least back then they were fighting against other armed forces. Nowadays, they celebrate their victories over defenseless babies, old people and anyone without a means to defend themselves.

It's always useful to look at history from both sides. This work is only translations from the Arabic of primary sources from the Muslim side of the Crusades. I've read several works from the Western, AKA Franks, side. While the actions are the same the way they are seen is totally different. For instance the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. From the Franks histories, the two lines of refugees that left Jerusalem one to freedom in Acre or Tye the other into slavery under the Muslims'. Iblen spent 16000 Dinars to buy the freedom of the poor. Now from the Muslim side. Iblen spent 16000 Dinar most from the cities treasury but also a majority of his own fortune. The Patriarch of Jerusalem took all the plate, candelabras, and gold from the churches treasury with them to Tye and Acre. Iblens part is written with admiration but the Patriarchs is written, even in translation, with a huge amount of disdain for the Frankish Church. Disdain for not using the Church's money to pay for the poor's freedom. Or a case from everyday life where a Muslim doctor is tending at the Franks request to a women who is constantly vomiting and a Knight with a broken leg. The women is put on a special diet and is getting better. The knights has had his leg set and the wound is being cleaned daily and he is improving. The Christian priest shows up and tells both that "If you value your soul you'll stop this infidels treatment and I will cure you." Ok so the knight is told he will have to lose his leg or his life. The knight says take my leg and the "Doctor " calls over an axman who takes two blows to remove the leg. The knight died in a "blink of an eye". The women had her skull sawed open to look for demons that possessed her. She also died. The Muslim doctor left in disgust. These are just a few of the differences between the Frankish, Catholic, Western European version of what happened from 1090 until 1225. There are many others. If the Crusades interest you or if you want to know more about the origins of the current Mid-East policies and conflicts this is a must read.