Quite often, in fact, the book takes on the tone of a historical dramatization rather than a historical account. Reston consistently puts words and thoughts into the mouths of historical figures without any indication of whether there is a record of this, whether Reston is extrapolating from solid evidence, or whether he’s just making things up. There are no footnotes whatsoever — although it is understandable that a popular history doesn’t need to exhaustively document every single point, a bit more responsibility with the historical material should be expected.
Reston does succeed in writing a vivid story that is sure the capture the imaginations of people who don’t normally read history. Not every history book should be aimed at academics. At the same time, though, getting people interested in history shouldn’t be done at the expense of historical truth. A particular problem is Reston’s insistence that Richard the Lionheart was a homosexual. Others have made the claim before, but despite the scanty evidence for it Reston not only asserts it as a fact, he even goes so far as to simplify the entire history of English/French conflict to a lover’s spat between Richard and Philip Augustus of France:
- “In any event, in their adolescence and early adulthood, Philip Augustus and Richard the Lionheart had been lovers. They were everywhere together. In the delightful verbal gymnastics of turning homosexuality into a lofty sentiment, Gerald, the Archdeacon of Wales, asserted that Richard “so honored Philip that by day they ate at one table, off one dish, and at night they slept in one bed. And the King of France loved him as his own soul.””
- “For the next five years after his glorious return from captivity, Richard the Lionheart preoccupied himself, one way and another, with his endless quarrel with Philip Augustus of France. They were two spitting cats, backs arched, fur raised, teeth bared, tails waving menacingly. Neither would ever have justice or satisfaction or the retribution he required. ...But behind it all the matter was personal. They fought and made peace and fought again, just as lovers fight and make up and fight again.“
Some indication of sources and some acknowledgment that we don’t have direct quotes for everything would have gone a long way to make the book more credible from an academic perspective. Even better would have been the simple admission that Reston is providing a perspective on matters which, while interesting, involves many hotly-contested issues and doesn’t even begin to exhaust the interpretations that exist. Presenting a weakly-supported interpretation as if it were unquestioned fact might make for juicy reading, but it’s poor scholarship and even worse history.
Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade
If you read this book like a novel or melodrama and set aside any expectation of learning history, you’ll probably enjoy it. If you keep in mind that some of the book is historically accurate but most is tainted by an unacknowledged bias and that there are different (not to mention sometimes better) interpretations of nearly everything, you’ll probably learn a few things and will, perhaps, be inspired to seek out sources that are better. Maybe we can’t expect much more from popular history, even in the hands of a capable writer like Reston.
« Back...
