The problem with this book, for me, was its use of sources. I enjoyed the emphasis on Salah ad-Din, but why are pro biased Salah ad-Din sources treated as the truth while pro biased Richard I sources are treated as fabrications? Reston never explains how he made this determination
Part one is very engaging and, dare I say, exciting. I won't read part two for awhile, though, but just because I'll want it fresh in my mind as research in the future.
Log in with Facebook 
