Today, there is no longer the clash of empires that has dominated history for about three millenniums or so. The culmination of World War 2 shattered all the remnants of imperial ambitions and empires, with one or two minor exceptions. Today, there is the phenomenon of the clash of cultures instead, especially with the rise of illegal immigration to the West. But at its roots, the Great Siege of 1565 on the tiny island fortress of Malta manifested a lot of the same thorny issues we are facing today, one of the most apparent being West, founded on Judeo-Christian concepts, Vs East.
Napier provides an excellent summary of the fundamental historical facts which resulted in the Great Siege of Malta, described by the novelist James Jackson as "history's bloodiest siege." Suleiman, Napier hypothesizes in his novel, probably realized the strategic importance of capturing Malta, the gateway to the Mediterranean and to the West, and that it should result in the elimination of his old enemy, the Knight Order of St John, made it all the more savoury to his taste:
"This barren rock is the key to the Western Mediterranean."
AND
"If Malta should fall, the balance of power in Europe will be for ever changed. Suleiman will have complete mastery of the sea. And he who rules the sea, rules the land."
I agree that that was probably the cause of the Great Siege, otherwise what could have compelled Suleiman to invest such a huge proportion of his military might just to capture one small island? In terms of money, the siege must have emptied all of Suleiman's coffers. Just to transport the siege weapons from Turkey is a significant feat, let alone the thousands of troops along with them. Napier also highlights the differences between the two sides, from the chivalry of the Knights to the ruthlessness of the Turks, without being one-sided. There is a degree of fanaticism on both sides, for example, even if nothing compares to the fundamentalism of the crazed Bektasis, who, like the members of ISIS and so many other terrorist organizations, long to 'die' (killing as many as they can in the process) so they could join their prophet in paradise.
With regards to the rest of the novel, its most redeeming quality is Napier's adherence to the historical sources, even if his protagonist, Nicholas Ingoldsby, is fictional. However, he spends too much time on that character, which detracts from the epic nature of the war. But I liked the humour interspersed throughout the novel, which serves as much-needed comic relief, and all of Napier's characters based on real figures. He breaths new life into them like few others can, especially of the young French knight Bridier de la Gordcamp, who is tragically cut down at Elmo.
'Clash of Empires', because of some minor defects, like certain glaring grammatical errors, is not a piece of classical literature. But I enjoyed Napier's story-telling, which exhibits a lot of potential, and I do recommend it for historical fiction afficionados.