Let me be frank, John Man is an exceptional story-teller. His narrative possesses a fluidity which makes his words comprehensible while also ensuring that the reader cannot wait to devour more of his pages. What John Man, however, is not is a historian irrespective of his credentials. The reality is that only a very few writers are able to operate as historians and vice versa. Man is not one of them.

He commences from a post-modernist view that one must emphatically deconstruct one perspective of Saladin to up the other-that the man was an unblemished hero while alive. What he presents is the 'evil crusader' versus 'perfect Mujhaideen' dichotomy. While this might not be a great fault given that Man is, after all, human it underscores his next fault: other than a narration his book offers us nothing more. It overplays few instances of Saladin's generosity but never effectively analyzes the how and why behind them. More parochially, it fixates itself on a few figures while failing to consider contemporary economic/geopolitical factors pervading both Europe and the Middle East.

Overall, this book might act as a good introduction to Saladin as a historical personality but should not be accepted as a genuine picture of a complex personality who played a critical role in shaping the world as we know it today. There is just too much lack of detail. ( )

Very good, enplanes much about the middle east and thoughts of the crusades. What it means to lead well, both good and bad.