Helen Nicholson and David Nicolle, God’s Warriors: Crusaders, Saracens and the Battle for Jerusalem (Klarner)

Helen Nicholson and David Nicolle

God’s Warriors: Crusaders, Saracens and the Battle for Jerusalem

(Osprey Publishing, 2005) 224pp.  $29.99

Gods Warriors

Helen Nicholson and David Nicolle have not written an introductory text.  The book is not large, but packs information into almost every sentence without repetition.  This is both a boon and a burden throughout the book, particularly for anyone who is introduced but not indoctrinated into Crusader State period technology or more-than-general political state.  Little sprinklings of un-glossed terms dot the work, particularly the early chronological history of events, and it will be necessary for many to look up definitions for at least a few French or Italian terms for military equipment or rank.  This distracts from what is otherwise a very smoothly written piece by academic standards.  There are no strange or unexplained jumps around subject matter as are found in some surveys and once the reader understands the terminology used in the book it is easy to absorb, even with its density of information.

Part of that density is one of the strongest aspects of the book.  When God’s Warriors does contain a defined term the authors use it as either a spring into a larger explanation—the section on Saracen taste in literature is a great example—or to bridge from one subject to another.  This is not a strictly military text: the book paints a fairly thorough picture, in broad strokes, of the clash between cultural, religious, and economic forces represented by the Crusades and their resultant Latin states between the disastrous Second Crusade and the climactic Third.

It is kept from being a ‘must-have’ book by the uneven nature of its explanations.  The Battle of Hattin is the pivotal point in the first section of the book and is the connection of the two disparate militaries expounded on in the second half, yet even its outcome is not mentioned until relatively late, after the battle’s description…and long after the end of several of the short biographies of its major players have been given, particularly the spate of Muslim generals under Saladin. (15-17) If better executed this would give a sense of suspense, but after talking about the deaths of major players in events and the eventual ramifications of the battle before its outcome is discussed the authors undercut themselves.  Some of the biographical sections early in the book are strangely at odds with the otherwise fluid sections on the campaign and battle themselves.

The argument made to explain the Islamic victory at Hattin is essentially non-combative, although distinctly military: Saladin out-smarted, both strategically and logistically, his Latin adversaries.  The ways in which this occurred are well explained and copiously sourced, and while the military capabilities of the Crusaders state armies receive some depredation (85) it is also made clear that much of the success of Saladin’s forces in the field was based around refusing to meet the Christian knights on their own terms, an admittedly prudent tactic.  Overall the fractiousness of the Crusader hierarchy and tactical approach is portrayed as nearly as much as cause of Crusader failure as Saladin’s brilliance was his reason for victory.

This is not to emphasize the author’s high opinion of the Islamic forces.   Their own difficulties, particularly the maintenance of the army, are gone into at length as well.  (50)  There is also some dispelling of popular myth, particularly regarding the continued importance of the bow to Faris warriors, the Islamic rough equivalent of the European knight.  The authors argue that the spear had gained greater importance by the campaign in 1187, an adaptation that took place in part because of the horse archers’ ineffectiveness against heavily armored European knights.  (126-128) The only other departure, however slight, from prevailing thought that I found regards the charge of Count Raymond of Tripoli.  His charge and subsequent withdrawal from the battle are often seen as acts of cowardice, but the authors argue that the charge was well placed (it did break the Muslim line) and that after their momentum carried the knights well downhill, away from the Horns of Hattin where the battle was taking place, heavy cavalry riding uphill against archer fire.  No Christian troops had followed Raymond through the hole he made, and rather than lead his troops to slaughter he turned them away and took them to Tyre.  If the charge had been supported properly perhaps the battle would have had a different outcome, and Raymond would be painted a hero—or at least this is intimated.  (67-69)

The second part of the book is divided into descriptions and histories of the Saracen Faris and the knights as represented by the Templars.  Both are given equal space, and far more than their military roles are displayed.  Each group’s sociological, logistical, and economic roles are given in detail.  The Templars’ multinational influence and role as a template for other knightly orders is concisely woven through a description of its recruitment and beliefs, almost disguised in other information.

Overall it is a strong book, well researched and written, but the uneven nature of its term definition and strange early construction prevent it from being widely required reading.  It is not a redefining work in the field, and was not meant to be.  As a survey and explanatory work about the situation and conflicts around the Holy Land in 1187 and its fateful campaign, God’s Warriors is a solid contribution and summation of knowledge.

William Christian Klarner
University of Nottingham
[email protected]

This entry was posted in BookReview. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.