The Crusades (1 Viewer)

[mk26gmls]

Hey everyone,

How many people here read about the "Crusade" period? Which Crusades peak your interest the most? Are there any particular historical figures during this time that you admire or loathe? Whom are some of the authors you like most on this subject?

When I was growing up, even from as early as I can remember, I devoured everything on the American Civil War. As I entered into the military at 18 years old, my interest turned more to the second World War. Then it was on to Napoleon. Now in the past several years, it is the Crusades that demand most of my reading time. Has anyone else here gone through the same thing?

Darrell

One of my shipmates and I host a website for our old ship, the USS Ticonderoga CG-47. You can check out the site below for some good pictures. That is where my user name came from. I worked and operated the Mark 26 Guided Missile Launching System.(MK26GMLS) So, now you know.

http://www.ussticonderoga.com/

 

[CannonFodder1971]

Darrell,

For a while there I thought that GMLS reference was to some sort of Genetically Modified Lentil Soup thing from Monsanto. Reassuring to know that you're a vet.

On the subject of the Crusades I think it is interesting to read of so many radically different accounts of the same series of events. In different centuries certain tales have taken on greater or lesser significance and it is hard to separate the myths from the history. Still though, with characters such as Barbarossa, Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin, Baybars and so forth it will always be fascinating for those interested in history, religion or literature for that matter: Dante assigns Saladin a special place in Limbo, Sir Walter Scott's writings etc.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit the Crusader castle at Kerak. Unfortunately some of the resoration work in the 1980s was less than authentic, but it was still breathtaking. (Saladin spared most of the survivors of the seige - it fell long after Hattin débacle and the loss of Jerusalem).

 

[mk26gmls]

Hey CannonFodder1971,

I have some pretty diverse books on the subject myself and I love the different accounts. Mostly, each side tries to put their side in the best light and assign the worst motive to their enemy. Hey, doesn't that sound like politics today? There are exceptions of course. I have a couple really good books on Saladin. Saladin - The politics of the Holy War by Lyons and Jackson is very good, but it is a labor of love to read that book. It is a tough read and not for the lightly interested. The best on him though is a book titled The Life of Saladin by Beha' Ed-Din. Great book! Saladin was capable of great generosity, but at the same time, he could be ruthless and brutal. At least by our standards today. I also have a good Muslim perspective by Amin Maalouf titled The Crusade Through Arab Eyes. I disagree with some of Maalouf's arguments about the modern day Muslim view of that period and how that came about, but it is a good view on a different perspective.

I do some editor work on Wikipedia on the Crusades as well including articles on Saladin and Zengi. M26gmls is my user name there as well.

Darrell

 

[Capitolron]

Darrell

Do you mean the place where you go to where the men speak Italian and the keep going until they speak something else?

Ron

 

[sceic2]

Darrell, Do you mean the place where you go to where the men speak Italian and the keep going until they speak something else? Ron

I love that movie (Kingdom of Heaven). I watch it, and SPR, everytime it comes on. I wish that this was a series of movies so that the story would continue or go back to the beginning of the Crusades. But, I guess its another of my unfullfilled wishes, hopes and/or dreams.

 

[mk26gmls]

Actually, I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven for its entertainment value, but historically, it was a load of crap. My fear is that people will take the story as fact. It isn't even remotely close. The true story was far better than anything Hollywood could have ever made up. Why mess with it? In fact, several of the leading Crusade historians slammed the movie for its historical inaccuracies.

I would really like to see a set of movies or a well done TV series like Horatio Hornblower done of the Crusades.

Darrell

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Being interested in the Crusades has always been an area that I pop into when I am not digging about in my WWI Tank books or something from the Raj. I too enjoyed the movie Kingdom of Heaven for the entertainment factor and not much else. It was a fun yarn sort of like the 13th Warrior is a fun yarn. But there really hasnt been very much fun to watch since El Cid and Ivanhoe. I sort of wish the folks in Holywood would also take a look at the books by Henryk Sienkiewicz on the Poles and Russians against the Turks and of course a relook at Quo Vadis would be fun. However since this thread is about the Crusades which one do you enjoy most and why and with that what books do you recommend to best cover your pick?

All the best

Dave

 

[mk26gmls]

I can’t narrow it down to just one. Of the Crusades, the eras of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Crusades (I really dislike the use of the “numbered Crusades” since they are so misleading) interest me the most.

I love reading about the 1st Crusade simply because of the odds against them and how they overcame them. One book in particular on the first Crusade I really like is Thomas Asbridge’s The First Crusade. Excellent book.

How can you not like the drama of the 3rd Crusade with characters such as Richard I and Saladin? I got a good laugh the other day when I was watching a show on the Crusades and Tariq Ali was on there giving an interview and he said something along the lines of how the Muslims had killed the Franks best warriors at Hattin and this was great. Later in the program when Richard I killed the Muslim captives at Acre, Tariq said how horrible and brutal a thing Richard had done. I just laughed! You can’t have it both ways. The only difference between the two was the days that the respective leaders waited. Saladin waited two days and then let his holy men do the deed, which they weren’t familiar with executions in how to do it swiftly.(That was on purpose by Saladin) Richard I waited 38 or 39 days I believe. I’d have to check my book. Anyway, the books on the 3rd Crusade I really enjoyed are the following.

Saladin – The politics of the Holy War by Lyons and Jackson
The life of Saladin by Beha Ed-Din
Richard I by Gillingham

The 4th Crusade is so remarkable because of the events that lead to the sacking of Constantinople. It starts with a very unrealistic contract with Venice by the western lords and goes down hill from there. I do think the Venetians do get the bad rap in this. Conspiracy theories of course. With men like Boniface of Montferrat, Baldwin of Flanders, the Doge of Venice, Alexius, etc… So interesting and yet so sad. I highly recommend the following books on this subject.
The 4th Crusade by Queller and Madden (The best book in my opinion written on this crusade)
The 4th Crusade and the sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips (a very close 2nd)
The Conquest of Constantinople by Robert of Clari – Translated by Edgar Holmes McNeal (Be careful here. Robert of Clari uses a lot of camp rumor/gossip)
Joinville and Villehardouin – Chronicles of the Crusades by Penguin Classics (Villehardouin obviously makes his initial decision on the contract as correct)

My favorite authors on the Crusade era are Jonathan Riley-Smith, Jonathan Phillips, Thomas Madden, Don Queller, and Thomas Asbridge. I have also read Sir Steven Runciman’s three volume work and it is wonderfully written as everyone states. I hate to say this knowing it might upset our British cousins, but much of what he wrote is out of date. Some things are just completely false like Runciman’s “Second Son Theory”. Not to mention you have to wade through his Byzantium bias. I typically don’t recommend readers to Runciman’s work unless they already have a good grasp of the Crusade era. For people new to this subject and aren’t familiar with it at all, I recommend them to read Thomas Madden’s book The New Concise History of the Crusades. It is an excellent one volume work. A simple overview.

Those are some of my thoughts.

Darrell

 

[mk26gmls]

Crusaders 'left genetic legacy'

I found this to be an interesting article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7316281.stm

 

[jac28]

Actually, I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven for its entertainment value, but historically, it was a load of crap. My fear is that people will take the story as fact. It isn't even remotely close. The true story was far better than anything Hollywood could have ever made up. Why mess with it? In fact, several of the leading Crusade historians slammed the movie for its historical inaccuracies.

I would really like to see a set of movies or a well done TV series like Horatio Hornblower done of the Crusades.

Darrell

I guess I don't necessarily go to movies for the historical accuracy as long as it's reasonable... Unless of course the movie is passing itself off as a historical account of something..... Having said that - Kingdom of Heaven was great - I thoroughly enjoyed it and it even has a happy ending...

Jim

 

[desert fox]

I don`t think any incident of the Crusades tops Richard the Lionheart marching out alone challenging Saladin`s entire army to fight by himself . When no one takes him up on the offer Saladin has him brought a new horse stating that he deserved a better one .
Quite often I am surprised by the lack of piety regarding the motives of the Crusaders . A good incident comes to mind with the Lionheart during an all evening prayer vigil marching his city out of I believe Jaffa because the Genoese are bringing in a ship load of prostitutes & he wants to keep his army pure . The crusades are a fascinating period to read about , I`ve already finished 4 books on the subject .

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I really detested Kingdom of Heaven. It was a weak movie thematically and it portrayed all the Templars as war-mongering baby killers. I would've liked to have seen a more sophisticated exploration of spiritual themes like the paradox of killing in Christ's name.

 

[UKReb]

Actually, I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven for its entertainment value, but historically, it was a load of crap. My fear is that people will take the story as fact. It isn't even remotely close. The true story was far better than anything Hollywood could have ever made up. Why mess with it? In fact, several of the leading Crusade historians slammed the movie for its historical inaccuracies.

Darrell

Hi Darrell

Years ago an intrepid movie magazine reporter asked John Wayne whilst he was directing The Alamo "Was that really the way it was". Wayne replied, "Hell No, but that's the way it ought to have been".

Unfortunately Hollywood has followed that criteria since The Silent Movies and still does and you would be hard pressed to come up with one single historical American film that was 100% accurate. There are in fact business reasons for that explained by an American producer whose lecture I attended at the National Film Theatre in London. He said that a producer has no more than 3 minutes to pitch a new film to the studio magnates and in no more than 5 short sentences, if he hasn't got their interest by then -he's out. The studio men also always insist that the script/story is clear on good guys and bad guys, because their guide for historical epics is if they cant clearly discern between the two the great unwashed movie-goers wont either.

However, Ridley Scott did not have to pitch Kingdom of Heaven in this way he had already sold it to them and private investors on the back of the massive box-office and Oscar hit Gladiator and he had Russell Crowe in the role of Balian. The script "The Crusaders" full of the usual historical inaccuracies had been around for years with at one time Arnie Schwarzenegger in the main role (Lord protect us from the Hun-And he did) it was rejigged with yet more inaccuracies as "Tripoli" and finally metaphorsised into Kingdom of Heaven But by the time it was ready to roll Crowe was committed to Cinderella Man and had to pull out. Scott, although still with a green-light from the studios and a fine list of character actors now had no big star for the lead role.
In my opinion-for what it's worth-he made a big big mistake giving it to Bloom- the role of Balian was far too huge for the acting ability of a mediocre actor who was fine as the white-haired fairy Legolas but as the Christian Knight rallying peasants to fight Saladin-forget it. His heroic speech made me and still does cringe with embarrassment whenever I watch the movie and I always try to imagine Crowe in the role instead. In fact this box-office failure, and it was, has severely damaged Bloom's career and he knows it-forget the Pirates II & III he was already committed to them- and you wont be seeing him in anymore heroic roles anytime soon.
Why? Back to that little producer trying to pitch a historical movie starring Bloom in the lead role-he wouldn't even get 3 seconds into his pitch with the studio magnates-based purely on box-office history and that is the only accurate history Hollywood has any interest in.

Reb

 

[Saber]

Hollywood seems to be forever ruining perfectly good historical facts with baloney! I never have understood why interesting historical events have to be spiced up to sell? Is it because these producers remember tired boring lectures of monotone dates times etc and think that is the extent of the real historical record? Come on Hollywood! Let's have a real Crusade film or even something on the Black Prince would suit me. One thing we don't need from this time frame is another Illuminati/Templar Conspiracy flick.