The Crusades: The Crescent & The Cross, History Channel 11/6 & 11/7, 9PM

History Channel ^ | 11/6/05

[Dr. Scarpetta]

It was the collision of two great faiths…a clash between two of the world’s most enduring and powerful religions.

A thousand years ago, they battled each other for two centuries during three Crusades, each seeking control of what they claimed as the rightful holy lands of their people.

Heroes and villains emerged, and acts of barbarism cut wounds that are still felt to this day.

This November, The History Channel travels back in time for a historical, vivid and clear-eyed look at the first three Crusades, the battle between the Crescent and the Cross, which still shapes the Middle East and relations between the two great religions in our present-day world.

[Coleus]

hope it's not revisionist history.

[FreeAtlanta]

It is ironic that this comes out at the time that Muslims are trying to burn Paris to the ground. Raids by Muslims forced the early crusades, now what King will step forward and push back the Muslim hordes?

Unfortunately, this could lead to some really troubled times that the Bible says will come.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If history should repeat itself, the lesson learned is to not let up until Islam becomes a footnote in Christian history books.

Our politicians aren't good at learning lessons from history.

[StarFan]

Yes we're very interested. Thanks.

[ClaireSolt]

Sir Steven Runciman, History of the Crusades is authoritative and has withstood the test of many comers. The crusades were the result of creative problem solving by Pope Urban II. He had a letter from the emperor of Byzantium complaining about the attacks of Saladin on his territory and asking for help. French clerics had been trying to cope with the disruption of idle knights who were disturbing the peace and disrupting farming. So, he suggested that the knights go to Constantinople to help the emperor out. He sweetened the proposal with indulgences, but the crusades were not primarily religious.

The first crusade was not well provisioned and as they marched to Asia minor they ate everything in sight, arriving in Constantinople a ragged and hungry mob. Frightened, the emperor sent them on to Jerusalem. A powerful motive was to provide access to the holy places associated with the life of Jesus which Muslims had closed. After conquest, the knights templar were formed to guard these shrines, but the crusader states did not last long. Richard the Lionheart is the biggest hero of this crusade.

Economic and cultural broadening were the main efects of the crusade. As I said, they were not primarily religious, at all. Ironically, a movement that began to help Byzantium eventually sacked Constantinople in 1204.

[Renderofveils]

Islam spread solely by the sword; Christianity did not spread by the sword at all, with perhaps the exception of Charlemagne subduing the Saxon revolt, but even there, the initial embrace of Christianity was voluntary.

---

No, it was spread with rifles in western America (those pesky stubborn Injuns) and flames in northern Europe. The only thing that saved any record of the Norse history was that the Christians couldn't sail worth beans at the time. "Convert or die" was used by the Christians, same as the "modern" Muslims. And yes, I do differentiate between current Christians and those of the past. I realize the methods have become more peaceful, and I wish Islam would follow Christianity's lead. Unfortunately it'll probably take another thousand years as THESE Dark Ages pass.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Secondly, our entire civilization, including its belief in individual freedom and democracy, owes its existance to the Europeans. Had the Muslims won, America as we know it would not exist.

While we became civilized through the help of Christianity, the Muslims have been beheading people for centuries.

[satchmodog9]

bracing myself for more distorted history

[BigTime]

I saw a web banner ad tonight that I cannot now locate that promoted this series. It hyped how a Pope started the conflict and posed the question whether a president can finish it.

Couldn't believe it. Anyone seen this ad?

[SW6906]

Well, is anyone watching this? Is it revisionist history? Fair? Balanced?

[BigTime]

Just found the ridiculous web banner ad re. a President finishing what a Pope started. It's on National Review online at http://www.nationalreview.com/

If anyone who is web savvy can go and capture this ad, it's worth it.

[Publius6961]

Well, is anyone watching this? Is it revisionist history? Fair? Balanced?

If the beginning is any indication, it is revisionist BS!

[Publius6961]

I'm not sure, no matter how lavish the production, how seriously I can take a "historical" documentary that begins with an outright lie:

"[Jerusalem] Revered by muslims as the site where mohamed ascended into heaven"

Bulls**t!

Even the most rabid muslim would not make that claim; Why would a secular idiot producing a documentary do it?
Mohamed had a dream in which he "saw" the remotest place of islam, undefined further, where he was "taken" into heaven in a dream.(!)

Great way to begin a documentary. With a lie based on a drug-induced dream.
Mohamed never went anywhere near Jerusalem, and the alAqsa mosque was built at least a hundred years after the original mass murderer died!

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I'm curious to see how they rewrite history in favor of Mooooslims

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Eh, I'm watching the first part of this disaster miniseries on CBS. It's cheesy, but they had a fun opening where Paris got whomped by tornados.

And it's got Shannon Doherty, who's a Republican.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

You can make comments at the History Channel regarding this program on this page:


http://boards.historychannel.com/category.jspa?categoryID=600000014

[antiantiamericans]

I think Christians are going to come out looking worse in this, due in no small part because we won't hunt the producers down, rape their wives, murder their families, and burn down their houses because of it.

[jimbo123]

Revisionist BS. Muzzies good. Christians bad. What did you expect?

[Torie]

Having read both, Cahill's book on the Greeks is better, much better. The one on the Irish drags, and is not a very well constructed story.

[mentor2k]

Well, if you can't even trust the "History Channel" to get it right, who can you trust?