Bradford sure can spin a yarn. He gives an endlessly interesting account of the siege, replete with personalities and imagery, which could have been difficult to pull off about a centuries' old battle with little documentation. I could have escaped some of the visuals at that - such as the one of the Knights using cannon to fire the heads of the Turkish prisoners at the lost St. Elmo!
That said, I have mixed feelings about this. I like, really like, war as a topic (a taste which has been deplored by some in the club
). But what I like are the politics, the economics, the cause and effect, the social and cultural and intellectual aspects of war. I have limited interest in strategy (the broad strokes will suffice for me) and none at all in gore. This book was some strategy and mostly gore, as to be expected from a battle narrative. Nothing wrong with that, just not to my particular taste. Ultimately, it didn't advance my understanding to a great extent.
And aside from the aforementioned western bias, it also showed the defects of its virtues. As I said, it's a great read, but it's also typical of some popular history in not being terribly rigorous and I also suspect understanding has advanced in the past half-century, neither of which actually matters that much to me since I knew nothing at all about it going into it.
I'm glad to have read (listened to) it. I already owned both the ebook and the audiobook so the intention was there; having it as a book club choice just bumped it to the forefront. I was entertained and now I have some understanding about a key event in the history of west v. east.