Paul M. Cobb

Cobb's prose is clear and easy reading, which suggests that this is a book suitable for the amateur; what he writes about, however, is a dense name-porridge with a lot of military derring-do, which suggests that it's really for academics or true Crusade buffs. If the book was an artwork, it would be a series of maps showing the boundaries of the territory in question, which changed hands umpteen times during the period. Next to each map would be a large screen flashing the words "IT'S show more COMPLICATED." There's lots of description of battles and sieges, far less court-intrigue type politics, and almost nothing else at all.

As a professional historian, then, Cobb has done a great job. You couldn't possibly read this and come away still thinking that the 'Crusades' were a clash of Christianity and Islam. But I doubt whether the average reader will get too much out of it other than that, which, given that our notional reader is picking up a book called 'An Islamic History of the Crusades,' she probably already knows. It took me about 18 months to read. It's less than 300 pages long. The chapter titles don't describe what's in the chapters. Why do historians insist on doing this? Just tell us what's in the chapters. It makes everyone's lives much easier.

That said, I trust him entirely, and he can write sentences. I'd very much like to read him on the less high-military-politics aspects of the period. show less