Saladin: The Sultan Who Vanquished the Crusaders and Built an Islamic Empire
by John Man
David Eppenstein‘s review – May 27, 2016
This is a relatively short biography of a true hero of the Muslim culture, Saladin. As such it is a history that westerners are relatively or completely unfamiliar with. The book covers roughly the period of Middle East history during the Second and Third Crusades in which Saladin rises from obscurity to unifier of a major portion of the then Muslim world. Saladin is truly a historic personage worth learning about as he exemplifies qualities that we westerners would like to think are possessed by our historic heroes. While the history is well written and engaging it is a bit thin in my thinking considering Saladin’s accomplishments and the obstacles he faced within his own culture. That he was able to do any of the things he did in the face of the Shia and Sunni animosity that still exists today and he, Saladin, being a mere Kurd on top of it is quite remarkable. The brevity of the biography may be due the lack of resource material available for this man. As the author admits there is virtually nothing known about Saladin’s childhood and it is only because of his leadership positions that he is known at all. And while he was revered in life he was soon forgotten after his death. He is known today only because of a renewed interest in his life that began toward the end of the 19th century as a propaganda symbol of the Ottoman Emperor and those trying to win favor with the emperor. However, as Saladin’s death is reported in this book there are still two more chapters and nearly 40 pages of text remaining. I expected to be treated to a description of the post-Saladin scramble for power and the intrigues usually associated with a power vacuum. Unfortunately, that id not happen. What you get is a chapter discussing leadership, its definition and its attributes and whether they applied to Saladin. The next chapter was the influence or lack of influence of Saladin in present day Middle East affairs. Such discussions were certainly not expected. Neither chapter was badly written or without merit but I question their value in a biography and maybe they should have been better placed in a scholarly paper rather than in this book. Nevertheless, not a bad book but I would have like more substance, more meat. The book did leave me wanting more so maybe that’s not a bad thing.
(Goodreads.com)