dailygalaxy.com, i think it's prolly as good approximation of a real Templar as i've seen never been to the site though, just did a search one day on images of the KT
Posted on 10/11/2014 12:16:54 PM PDT by marshmallow
The four-part series is intelligent, balanced, and features good production values
As a professor with an academic specialization in the crusades, I'd like to think that I would be well informed about the existence of a new documentary series on those medieval campaigns (especially when the program features several professors from the institution where I did my graduate degrees). However, if it was not for a few email alerts from my parents earlier this week, I would have been completely unaware of the four-part documentary series, “The Crusades,” that EWTN has been showing over the last several nights.
The last major documentary on the crusades was produced by the History Channel – before that channel mostly ditched history and Hitler in favor of pawn shops and ice road truckers – back in 2005. The production values were impressive and it had some established scholars offering sensible opinions. But the program also had its fair share of flaws. Those shortcomings included prominently featuring Tariq Ali, a novelist who knows about as much (or perhaps less) about the crusades as my grandmother, covering only the first three major crusade expeditions to the Holy Land, and failing to provide a broader context for the genesis of the crusading movement.
Assessed on this metric, the new EWTN documentary series gets high marks. Tariq Ali, thankfully, is nowhere to be found. Part 1 of the series (which aired this past Wednesday night) intelligently explained the wider history of Muslim-Christian conflict in which the First Crusade emerged. Crusading in areas outside the Levant has been discussed over the first two episodes, and the promotional materials for parts 3 and 4 indicate that the series will be examining crusading activity up through the battle of Lepanto in 1571.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicworldreport.com ...
Perhaps you should have done a more thorough search. I believe the program in question is “Crusades: Crescent & the Cross”, which aired in 2005.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487888/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
“I can easily refute with an identical comment to yours: How many people in the U.S. watch EWTN? None.”
You have not refuted anything I said. 1) I never claimed any particular number of people - 5, 10,000, 2 million, whatever - watch EWTN. Thus, saying none watch it refutes nothing I said. 2) I know for a fact that some people do watch EWTN. The number is small, but viewers of the channel exist. Thus, your attempt at refutations fails there as well. 3) I noted that no one watches BBC 2 here, and thus, there is no mention of a show that appeared only on that channel. To say that no one watches EWTN - which is, of course, false - in no way means that people here in the U.S. would see BBC 2 here in the U.S. Thus, you refuted nothing I said.
You really don’t know how this works, do you?
“I live in the U.S. and watch BBC programs from time to time. Don’t recall ever watching anything from EWTN, though.”
Ohhhh, so you’re particular viewing habits are the proper standard to go by? And, let’s face it, you really do mean “BBC programs”, right? So, are you actually watching the channel BBC 2 or just a BBC 2 program?
“I see that accuracy is also not one of your strong suites.”
Wow. That sure looks like a big heaping piece of projection you posted there.
“Which is probably why you missed the point of the previous posts, namely that historical facts seem to be missing or misstated in the article, which makes it seem inaccurate thereby.”
Except you focused on the fact that a particular documentary wasn’t mentioned. In that post you named no “historical facts [that] seem to be missing or misstated in the article”. And that was your first post in the thread. And the only thing you found - and posted about - that seems to be “inaccurate” is the fact that another show about the crusades was released in 2003 and not 2005. But are you sure about that? The documentary in question is not the program you mentioned - which IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY BUT A VIDEO GAME - but this one which actually was released in 2005: http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Channel-Presents-Crusades/dp/B000BB1520 The program did, in fact, air in 2005: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487888/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
I think it is very telling that you mistake a video game for a documentary but criticize the article for getting the release date for the documentary wrong when it is in fact correct. That pretty much sums up your contribution about “historical facts [that] seem to be missing or misstated in the article” and you, in fact, are the only one posting an inaccuracy. Imagine that. What a shocker!
“Just as your comment was also instantly recognized as inaccurate.”
Except that it wasn’t inaccurate. Only you were inaccurate. Remember, you apparently thought a video game was a documentary and you got the year the documentary was released wrong. Think on that before you post again.
You beat me by 14 seconds!
“How many people in the U.S. watch EWTN”
It’s the biggest Catholic Channel in the world. You do the math.
Doesn’t EWTN pay their operating costs through donations?
Yes.
No.
The last Crusader stronghold in the Holy Land fell in 1291, after which the Church sponsored no further invasions.
That had nothing to do with Protestants, though perhaps something to do with Templars.
All told there were seven major crusades and many minor ones, the last mentioned in the mid-15th century against the Turks.
Martin Luther was born in 1483.
The Thirty Years' War between Catholics & Protestants began in 1618.
Where is that graphic from?
dailygalaxy.com, i think it's prolly as good approximation of a real Templar as i've seen never been to the site though, just did a search one day on images of the KT
Actually Cicero is more right than you’re giving him credit for.
“No. The last Crusader stronghold in the Holy Land fell in 1291, after which the Church sponsored no further invasions.”
You’re making a false point. No matter when the last Crusade fortress fell in the Holy Land that had nothing to do with other crusades (i.e. Baltic, Balkans, Spain, Mediterranean).
“That had nothing to do with Protestants, though perhaps something to do with Templars.”
No, Templars were gone in 1311. Crusades, however, would continue until 1444 (Varna). And talk of crusades would go on for quite a while after that - well into the Protestant era. That’s why Luther would say, “What forsooth is a crusader who does not crusade?”
Yes, it depends what you call a Crusade.
The Battle of Lepanto was 1571. The Battle of Vienna was 1683. And it was certainly a fact that Queen Elizabeth sat there and did nothing. And that the French actually helped the Turks several times in their blind determination to defeat the Holy Roman Empire.
Okay, thanks. Quite moving.
Only if you use the word "crusade" in it's generic sense, as for example, President Eisenhower's book, "Crusade in Europe" about his WWII experiences.
Or, to cite other examples: Campus Crusades for Christ, or a recently cancelled Army weapon system named "The Crusader".
Sure, in those generic senses, of course "Crusades" have never ended, and never will.
But when we're talking about "THE Crusades", we usually mean the seven major Crusades, first called for by Pope Urban II in 1095 and ending with the fall of Acre in the Holy Land in 1291.
yes it is, no phony baloney, just a simple, dog tired, battle weary Templar.
BTW, big bummer here. I thought I was DVRing the EWTN “Crusades” series, but I plugged in the wrong time. We sat down to watch it tonight and discovered my error. So we get no “Crusades”. :(
I looked on line to see if I could buy the disk, but I found nothing.
will it will be on their website later? next week maybe??
Cicero is partly right, but centuries too late. The Muslims broke out of the Arabian peninsula due to attacks on Ghassanid Christians who were considered heretics by the Byzantine Christians. The Ghassanids practiced monophysitism. The Sassanids also went after a client state to the south for heresy and they too allied with the Muslims. Fracturing the line holding them on the peninsula.
Thanks, I agree, and sadly those are far from the only examples of Christians being our own worst enemies.
As in all such complicated situations, things sometimes went astray. I just looked this up, and find that in the two so-called “Shepherds’ Crusades,” Jews were killed. But the ruling authorities punished those who did so. And neither of the Shepherds’ Crusades was really a crusade, but more of a popular revolt acting in ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.