saturday | october 22, 2016
politics economics & social issues on a global scale
science technology nature without limits
art & entertainment through the mushroom lens
sport & leisure time activities
Ask Lacey

Is this chick too crazy for the effort?

Vic Darchinyan: 'I love watching Pacquiao's speed against bigger guys right now'

Victor Ortiz: 'I can tell you Pacquiao-Mosley is going to be a great fight'

Chauncy Welliver: 'We were just offered a deal in China'

Buster Douglas: 'I really like that Manny Pacquiao'

Robert Guerrero: 'You can never count Shane out against Pacquiao!'

Crusades: Crescent & the Cross (2005) (TV)
Bone , 1/18/2007 9:56:20 AM

This flawed production presents only obvious causes for Urban II’s appeal for action.

History Channel Productions: 2005
Running time: 3 Hours

The 2005 History Channel production of the Crusades Crescent and Cross is a two part series. Part I concentrates on the First Crusade, while part II tells the story of the Second and Third Crusades. This documentary utilizes a straight narrative style detailing primarily military action, based largely on the first hand account of William of Tyre and various Arabic sources and writers with commentary both by various western, mostly British historians, and Islamic scholars and writers for balance. Filmed on location in the Holy Land and Morocco, Crusades employs Hollywood like techniques and reconstructions to get its points across.

This flawed production presents only obvious causes for Urban II’s appeal for action, and provides only unsophisticated reasons why 60,000 Western Christian warriors took the Cross, and traveled thousands of miles to kill people who never really had hurt them. The film attributes Urban’s appeal to Byzantine Emperor Alexis Comnenus’ cry for reinforcements against the Turks, the Pope’s acquiescence as an attempt to restore damage to papal prestige, caused presumably by the ongoing Investiture Controversy, and the Church’s attempt to re-channel the violence so endemic in Medieval European Society. It makes no mention of how the concept of Holy War crept into Christian thought through the Koran probably via Spain, nor does it cite the role of Manzikert, the split between Eastern and Western Christendom, or the ongoing Reconquista in Spain. It also does not provide an explanation why Urban would call for the freeing of Jerusalem from Muslim rule, when, in fact, the Holy land had been part of the Islamic world for 400 years.

The film’s attempt to explain why Western Christian warriors responded so enthusiastically to Urban’s appeal is valid as far as it goes. Certainly, salvation, wealth and the importance of Jerusalem were primary factors, but the role played by pilgrimage is not mentioned at all, and the production makes only a superficial attempt to explain the powerful hold the Church had on the medieval mindset. Nor does it demonstrate the impact the Koran had on Medieval, and one could argue modern, Islam.

The greatest strength of this film resides in its interesting narrative of the First Crusade contained in Part I. I say this despite the fact that there is no overriding thesis, or attempts to present compelling new ideas concerning the event at hand. There are also several annoying quirks surrounding the telling of the tale, e.g., only a passing reference to the Paupers (Peoples) Crusade, and labeling the Holy Roman Empire as the “German Empire.” Still, the story of the First Crusade is presented in a crisp, clear and flowing manner using “Hollywood” like techniques to recreate battles and related events. The narrative presents interesting facts, and is very easy to follow. Part I ends with the establishment of the Crusader States AKA Crusading States, and a warning that the Islamic world was ready to pounce on the invaders when the opportunity presented itself.

The content of Part II, covering the Second and Third Crusades is more problematic. The coverage of the Second Crusade led by French king Louis VII is sketchy, at best. The recounting of the Third Crusade is more detailed, but no less troubling in some respects. It had the participation of the three most powerful kings in Medieval Europe and I tell my classes this is the “Hollywood Crusade” since this is the one most likely to be portrayed in the movies. Yet, this documentary fails to mention the participation of Philip Augustus, who would emerge arguably as the most powerful European monarch of his day.

The production does a good job demonstrating the roles and relationship of Richard the Lion Hearted and Saladin, whose re-capture of Jerusalem in 1187 precipitated the Third Crusade. In the end, however, the film may give Richard a little too much credit. While he was able to stabilize the remaining Crusader States, he never achieved his ultimate goal of retaking Jerusalem. At he risk of being labeled “politically incorrect,” I found the treatment of the various massacres and atrocities committed by both sides to be one sided and biased despite the best efforts of the producers to present a balanced narrative. When the Crusaders perpetrate an atrocity it is called a case of “ethnic cleansing,” and another instance a “war crime.” In the only instance of a massacre(there were others) perpetrated by Muslims, the production labeled it an “example” of psychological warfare used to frighten the Crusaders. Apparently, the producers let their concern of offending the sensibilities of a segment of the population override their sense of true scholarship.

The greatest flaw of the Crusades Crescent and the Cross resides in its assessment of the effects of the Crusades. It quite correctly identifies the psychological impact the Crusades had on the Islamic world. It adequately describes the shock and imprint on Muslims even to this day when Osama bin Laden and other Islamist radicals can get away with labeling their Western or Christian opponents as “infidels” or “Crusaders.” Also, according to the production the main result in terms of the West was military failure. Certainly, the Crusades did fail, but that fact does not begin to correctly assess the impact they had on both the West and the Muslim world. The production does not take into account the long term economic, social, military and cultural impact of the Crusades.

Is this documentary worth viewing? It is if one is primarily interested in military history, and if the sins of omission are ignored. If, however, one wishes a little more in depth analysis of the reasons why and how the Crusades began, or a more vigorous look at their effects, a pass is in order.

About the author: The Ol’ Professor, a recently retired college instructor, taught history in various junior colleges and universities for the past sixteen years.

Welcome to the professional victims' club!
If you do not vote for Senator Obama you are being set-up as a racist.
Offshore drilling
How the American consumer gets screwed by politicians who oppose offshore drilling.
A Letter to Ebby
Yesterday we made the gut wrenching decision to put our Ebby to sleep.
All articles by this author

Current rating ( 3.1 )
hot not
What's your number?

Evander Holyfield is 'On the Ropes'
Evander Holyfield will be on episode 106 of 'On the Ropes Boxing Radio'

Pacquiao-Margarito Post Fight Edition of 'On the Ropes Boxing Radio'
Starts at 1:30am EST. (646)716-5404

Emanuel Steward is 'On the Ropes'
Emanuel Steward, Kelly Pavlik, and Amir Khan will be "On the Ropes"

Why Pacquiao is better off now that Cotto is going to fight Mayweather instead
Why Pacquiao is better off now that Miguel Cotto is going to fight Mayweather instead

Why Wladimir Klitschko will make quick work of David Haye
At the end of the day, Klitschko has every advantage going into this fight.

Amir Khan: 'Manny Pacquiao and me will never fight!'
Amir Khan appeared on episode 121 of "On the Ropes Boxing Radio"
“Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Seeking Madam Mushroom | Superbabes
Go to The Mushroom Mag
Where's your ad? Win a free DVD and poster.
Operation C.O.C.K. | Superbabes Thrillogy
Visit the Superbabes Online Headquarters

The This