What do you think?
Rate this book
Lionhearts: Richard 1, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade
Discusses the geopolitics of Europe and the Middle East at the time of the Third Crusade
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
1 person is currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Regan
43 books3 followersGeoffrey Regan is an English military historian, former senior school teacher and broadcaster.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 9, 2023
Kind of a slog. Worth my time post The Talisman. Had hoped for more about the men, but was largely about the battles. Probably what we actually know.
April 18, 2016
This is one of the better accounts of two of the most fascinating figures of the Middle Ages. Their struggle turned out to be fairly inconclusive, but the similarities and contrasts in the two characters make for one of the most rivetting stories in history. It is rare that real history makes for a good novel, but this is one of those cases. Unfortunately, the author's style, while highly readable, veers between mainly dry to scattered showers of garish purple.
Neither of these men were perfect, but both seem to be almost superhuman in their positive qualities. Saladin was patient, generous to a fault, tolerant and a great strategist, but physically slight and sickly, and in the end lacked the raw aggression and a key insight to secure his gains against the Latin Christians before they could send and entrench reinforcements from Europe. He willingly freed Balian from an oath not to defend Jerusalem while visiting to save his family, directed his artillery not to disturb a Christian wedding, yet executed a Frankish raiding party sent into Arabia despite a guarantee of their lives given by a subordinate. To their credit, even Muslim observers have criticised this act. He systematically planned and realised the destruction of the Latin army at Hattin and the liberation of Jerusalem, yet he failed to secure the last of the coastal ports that could have thwarted a new Crusade.
Richard was the physical opposite. The Angevin King - no "Englishman", Robin Hood myths notwithstanding, and only briefly in England - was a virtually invincible athlete and soldier, careless of his own safety and yet capable of truly great generalship. He was loved by his common men yet made enemies promiscuously among his fellow nobility. He was a born leader yet possessed of a destructive childish streak. He was able to deal honorouably with enemies, yet he massacred the entire garrison of Acre without hesitation when a ransom was not expeditiously paid. He took back a remnant of the Crusader Kingdom from the Muslims' greatest leader, yet allowed himself to be shot dead by a cook wielding a frying pan as a shield.
Many of the other cast-members are moral small-fry by comparison. The Latin Christians, while formidable in anything military, were culturally backward in almost all other respects. Those assimilated by several generations in the Middle East had acculturated, speaking Arabic, wearing silk and taking sugar. They participated in the shifting patchwork of alliances in the region like any other Arab fiedom, often supporting Muslim interests against Byzantine. Yet they remained intolerant and exercised systematic discrimination against Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians which robbed them of support. The newly-arrived Latins from Europe appear to have been nothing short of narrow fanatics, their impetuosity and arrogance drawing them straight into the trap set at Hattin. They systematically broke oaths sworn to Muslims on the spurious grounds that an oath sworn to an unbeliever is not binding on a believer, who enjoys moral superiority and can therefore lie with impunity. The Muslim lieutenants, on the other hand, seem to have lacked all lust for a fight and could probably never have been unified without Saladin. Even in his presence, their motivation sagged as the struggle drew out. Still, their victory led to the restoral of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the liberation of the Eastern Churches, even after Saladin's generous hand was withdrawn by his death.
The Latin Bishop, Eraclius, seems to have been a particularly shoddy piece of work. Saladin agreed to extraordinarily generous terms of ransom for the population of Jerusalem after Balian threatened to eradicate the holy sites stone for stone. Great generosity was added by both sides in finding the ransom for the poorest of the peasantry, saving them from slavery. Eraclius loaded up carts with gold and jewels from his churches, shipped them home in front of Muslim and Christian eyes and paid only the ten dinars for his own ransom. A shining example of Frankish moral fibre, perhaps.
Richard was cut of very different cloth. Religiously rather indifferent, he was indeed a lion of a man, as was Salah ud-Din. History will likely not see their kind again.
Neither of these men were perfect, but both seem to be almost superhuman in their positive qualities. Saladin was patient, generous to a fault, tolerant and a great strategist, but physically slight and sickly, and in the end lacked the raw aggression and a key insight to secure his gains against the Latin Christians before they could send and entrench reinforcements from Europe. He willingly freed Balian from an oath not to defend Jerusalem while visiting to save his family, directed his artillery not to disturb a Christian wedding, yet executed a Frankish raiding party sent into Arabia despite a guarantee of their lives given by a subordinate. To their credit, even Muslim observers have criticised this act. He systematically planned and realised the destruction of the Latin army at Hattin and the liberation of Jerusalem, yet he failed to secure the last of the coastal ports that could have thwarted a new Crusade.
Richard was the physical opposite. The Angevin King - no "Englishman", Robin Hood myths notwithstanding, and only briefly in England - was a virtually invincible athlete and soldier, careless of his own safety and yet capable of truly great generalship. He was loved by his common men yet made enemies promiscuously among his fellow nobility. He was a born leader yet possessed of a destructive childish streak. He was able to deal honorouably with enemies, yet he massacred the entire garrison of Acre without hesitation when a ransom was not expeditiously paid. He took back a remnant of the Crusader Kingdom from the Muslims' greatest leader, yet allowed himself to be shot dead by a cook wielding a frying pan as a shield.
Many of the other cast-members are moral small-fry by comparison. The Latin Christians, while formidable in anything military, were culturally backward in almost all other respects. Those assimilated by several generations in the Middle East had acculturated, speaking Arabic, wearing silk and taking sugar. They participated in the shifting patchwork of alliances in the region like any other Arab fiedom, often supporting Muslim interests against Byzantine. Yet they remained intolerant and exercised systematic discrimination against Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians which robbed them of support. The newly-arrived Latins from Europe appear to have been nothing short of narrow fanatics, their impetuosity and arrogance drawing them straight into the trap set at Hattin. They systematically broke oaths sworn to Muslims on the spurious grounds that an oath sworn to an unbeliever is not binding on a believer, who enjoys moral superiority and can therefore lie with impunity. The Muslim lieutenants, on the other hand, seem to have lacked all lust for a fight and could probably never have been unified without Saladin. Even in his presence, their motivation sagged as the struggle drew out. Still, their victory led to the restoral of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the liberation of the Eastern Churches, even after Saladin's generous hand was withdrawn by his death.
The Latin Bishop, Eraclius, seems to have been a particularly shoddy piece of work. Saladin agreed to extraordinarily generous terms of ransom for the population of Jerusalem after Balian threatened to eradicate the holy sites stone for stone. Great generosity was added by both sides in finding the ransom for the poorest of the peasantry, saving them from slavery. Eraclius loaded up carts with gold and jewels from his churches, shipped them home in front of Muslim and Christian eyes and paid only the ten dinars for his own ransom. A shining example of Frankish moral fibre, perhaps.
Richard was cut of very different cloth. Religiously rather indifferent, he was indeed a lion of a man, as was Salah ud-Din. History will likely not see their kind again.
October 31, 2008
Interesting, if somewhat dry, story of the two very different personalities who dominated the Third Crusade. The bits about Saladin are worth knowing, but the story really takes off when Richard enters the scene. What a bad ass. This guy was like Conan, except real. His individual feats of valor are amazing. Unfortunately, not enough blood and guts for me to make it riveting. Still, worth a read if you want to understand the era.
September 27, 2018
A brisk, rich, and clear history of the Third Crusade.
Regan does a great job showing how Richard was shaped by power struggles within his family, and how Saladin rose to prominence through military acumen.
The book doesn’t really have a solid analysis of the battles; the campaign’s sieges just kind of happen, without any explanation of the effort and innovation they required. He uses lots of medieval terms and just assumes that the reader knows what they are. Also, we never really get a glimpse of what motivated the knights and soldiers. Regan also tries to make the case that Richard’s massacre at Acre somehow required “moral courage,” but the reasoning in this part of the book is as unsound as can be expected, and his account of the massacre is almost boring
A well-researched, well-written and accessible work overall.
Regan does a great job showing how Richard was shaped by power struggles within his family, and how Saladin rose to prominence through military acumen.
The book doesn’t really have a solid analysis of the battles; the campaign’s sieges just kind of happen, without any explanation of the effort and innovation they required. He uses lots of medieval terms and just assumes that the reader knows what they are. Also, we never really get a glimpse of what motivated the knights and soldiers. Regan also tries to make the case that Richard’s massacre at Acre somehow required “moral courage,” but the reasoning in this part of the book is as unsound as can be expected, and his account of the massacre is almost boring
A well-researched, well-written and accessible work overall.
March 17, 2025
A wonderful book on two of the most dynamic military leaders and rulers of their time in the late 12th century. Saladin was a tremendous strategic leader while Richard the Lionheart was a superior tactician on the battlefield. The writing style of the author can be a little stilted at times but the overall telling of the story of their military engagements during the Third Crusade is captivating. I’d rate this book 4 1/2 stars.
April 21, 2023
This book is a well thought out and in depth look at two of the primary characters of the Third Crusade. It is not content to merely illustrate the two men as the met in the Holy Land, but to give you backgrounds and epilogues on both, covering them from birth to death and giving more context to their conflict. I especially enjoyed the unbiased an honest view of both, not painting either as the hero or the villain but showing both for just the men that they were.
If you are interested in a more complete picture of these characters, or a fan of the Crusades themselves, this book will not disappoint and is an engaging read for even someone not well-versed in the history.
If you are interested in a more complete picture of these characters, or a fan of the Crusades themselves, this book will not disappoint and is an engaging read for even someone not well-versed in the history.
October 11, 2011
One of the better written books about the era...
Check out the InkHorns Reading Group, for discussions on this book.
Check out the InkHorns Reading Group, for discussions on this book.
April 25, 2016
Captivating non-fiction accounts of King Richard I and Saladin.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews