Crusade Pictures from a 1963 National Geographic Magazine (Vanity)

National Geographic Magazine | December, 1963 | Franc Shor

[Theoden]

I found one of my dad's old National Geographic magazines, and it had some neat pictures on the crusades that I thought I would share.

Peter Bartholomew, a servent in the Crusader army, told the nobles that St. Andrew had revealed to him the hiding place of the lance that pierced Christ's side at the Crucifiction. Here, after a search beneath the Church of St. Peter, Crusaders gasp as Bartholomew uncovers a corroded lance head. Hope rekindled, the knights broke the Muslim siege the next day.

Braving a Rain of Arrows, Europeans Route the Turks on the Plains of Antioch.

Crusaders Marching Around the Holy City of Jerusalem.

Victorious Crusaders fall to their knees in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[VOA]

It's not the same one.
Nice, same theme, same setting but not the same artist (or style).
The one I'm thinking of has more of a perspective of looking up to
the Dome of The Rock, whick is behind the assembled Crusaders.
IIRC, one of the Crusaders is on horseback and holding his arms outstretched
in dramatic exaltation (not a Christ-image IMHO, although some might see it
that way).
Also, in the painting I'm thinking of...the finish has a lot of sheen.
The Dome of The Rock really looks like glowing, shiny gold and stands
out in sharp relief against the dark/blue sky.

[VOA]

When I look closer at the painting you posted...I finally notice a Crusader
with arms thrown up aboard a horse.
I wonder if we've just seen the rendering of the same scene (maybe from
a history text or old carving) as imagined by two different artists.
Or maybe one painting is the original and the other a "re-make" by
another artist.

But either way, I'm sure at full-size, both are pretty impressive.

[VOA]

IIRC, the relic got a documentary (or part of one) on The Discovery Channel.
Hitler may have just about been "the devil incarnate", but he sure did
go for those Christian legends and imagery.

[VOA]

This is the last time I'll bother you on this (I think)...

Darn-my-eyes!
I think you did get the same one.
I tracked down a slightly larger version and blew it up a bit.
I think that's the one!
http://www.templaricavalieri.it/images/gerusalemme_conquistata_15_luglio_1099_dipinto_di_emile_signol_castello_versailles_e_di_trianon.gif

Thanks, now I at least know the name of the painter.
And I note that it sure doesn't seem to be published much in cyberspace.
I suppose folks don't want any denial-of-service attacks from some
Religion-Of-Peace fans.

[SunkenCiv]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution. Big graphics, lotta bandwidth.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Khurkris]

Thank you. Great pictures.

[ClaireSolt]

I just read the newest book on the first crusade. What is your source?

[eleni121]

The latest? From your insistence on labeling the Crusaders as violent to the exclusion of the importance of their goals, it sounds like classic Runciman. Look---In the past 20 years, serious scholars have concluded that the Crusades have been inaccurately labeled as a war of aggression when actually they were defensive in nature. Whatever "latest" you are reading remind yourself that the crusades have been used as a political whipping post since around the enlightenment when the self hatred of the west among the scholarly world emerged.

[ClaireSolt]

All I said is that they killed everyone when they conquered a city. Contrast that with the furor over 50 casualties. As some have said, it is as if we are waging war with one hand behind our backs.

I think your patronizing tone on crusade historiography is laughable. I have written and published on the subject, and I didn't just reproduce pop art from the National Geographic. The most recent book I referred to was 2001, not Runciman, by the way.

[Nihil Obstat]

thanks - I enjoyed them

[eleni121]

Patronizing tone? You are the one making false statements - "they killed everyone" - about the crusades. As such either put forth your sources or take that statement back.

As for writing on the subject of the Crusades - anyone can do that. It's seems apparent from your comments that you are no expert in Byzantine or Medieval history...far from it.

We can agree on one thing however: The PC era we live in makes it so much harder to defeat the enemy.

[ClaireSolt]

I suppose you like to pick fights, and I suspect I have run into you before. I just have a PhD in Medieval history. That's all. Killing the enemy was a time honored military tactic which had its good points. Maybe you might find that in your old magazines, if you look.

[eleni121]

Again, statements like "they killed everyone" do not display PhD's in anything except for blatant bias.

[litehaus]

Ain't that the SAD TRUTH...............

[ClaireSolt]

Yep, consult the wise ones at the local bar for correct info.

[ClaireSolt]

The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam by Thomas Asbridge (Paperback - Sep 29, 2005)

A narrative that follows sources closely.

[Aquinasfan]

Ha! I was born just before this issue came out, which is to say I missed the "pro-Crusades" era. I grew up in the "evil Crusaders" era.

But, you wait long enough, and the truth comes around again. I haven't heard anyone bad-mouthing the Crusades for a while.

[mware]

I dont see Green Helmet Guy anywhere.