What the History Channel Leaves Out With the Crusades (News/Vanity)

Mid-day.com ^ | November 7, 2005 | Prasad Patil

[Wuli]

“It will help people to understand why the world is the way it is today,” said Richard Bradley, founder of Lion Television, which has produced The Crusades: Crescent and The Cross — a documentary series that will premiere in 130 countries on The History channel on November 13 and 14.

The Crusades: Crescent and The Cross unfurls two centuries of war about two cultures impassioned by belief. The series will be an epic of human drama against the back drop of the holy.

It was a collision of two great faiths and of two of the the world’s most enduring and powerful religions. These religions fought for nearly two decades seeking control over what each claimed as the rightful holy lands of their people.

[Antoninus]

Oh, and you are incorrect about that thema system. It was set up by Emperor Heraclius in the 610s as a response to the invasions by the Persians.

True enough. I was too absolute in claiming that the system hadn't been set up by 630. Clearly, Heraclius had set it up in some areas as early as the 610s. However, the system could not have been well-developed by the 630s in Palestine and Syria--areas that had been utterly devastated by the Persians not many years previous. Heraclius didn't even win these areas back from Persia until 626-7. Thus, any local militias which existed when the Muslims invaded in 634 must have been in their infancy.

The themas were at their heart a hereditary system and it takes more than 7 or 8 years for such a system to be effective.

[Antoninus]

In the ancient world, Persia was more part of "the west", Greco-Roman civiliation (which spread to Europe) than was the areas that later became France, England, Germany, etc.

Even the Romans and Greeks referred to Persia as the "East", considered them "barbarians" and recognized the vast difference between the two civilizations. In terms of governmental structure (absolute monarchy), religion (Magian fire worship), philosophy, law, art, and literature, there were obvious differences. That is not to say there isn't much that is praiseworthy about Persian culture and that the East and West didn't borrow heavily from each other. But to say that Persia was part of the "West" is, in my opinion, not accurate.

[Antoninus]

Rome was a late comer and brought very little science of her own.

As long as you don't consider engineering a science...

[nuke rocketeer]

"Indeed. Actually, it probably is what sealed the fate of Byzantium. Had they been able to hold out another 100 years, the Turks might never have defeated them."

Might have been tough seeing how the Turks were already using cannon when they took Contantinople in 1453 (and I have never seen any info showing that the Byzantines used them too). But it might have bought time to prevent them from penetrating even further into Europe. A VERY interesting "what-if" for some good hsitorical writer to explore.

[Wuli]

Again, I am not talking about what the late Roman Empire built, but the science that they built with, which came from the Greeks.

[Wuli]

While there are/have been

times when someone who sees himself as one of God's "acolytes"

has been/was "drawn to the power of the sword",

that is not always true of such persons (who see/saw themselves as such an "acolyte")

and

such persons are not the only ones who are/have been "drawn to the power of the sword",

and

the taking up of the sword is not, universally,

due to one being drawn to its power,

but,

at times,

has occured due to the revulsion

from watching the tyranny and destruction

from others who were drawn to its power for the sake of its power.

No, I am not a pacifist, and yes if a cop has a choice between his life or an innocent's life and a murderer, I hope he will use his "power" and know he used it justly,
just as nations sometimes do as well.

[Wuli]

In 1451 the Ottoman Empire of the Turks stretched as far west as to have obsorbed most of Greece, north to the Danube in Bulgaria, up the Danube to Odessa on the Black Sea, down to Constantinople and across most of Anatolia (Asia Minor/Turkey).

There must certainly have been raids by Turks and Tartars (allies) in the later 1400s, because:

By 1503 the Ottoman Empire north of Greece has been extended north-northeast through all of Bosnia and west from there to Belgrade, forming a frontier with Hungary. The Turks breach that frontier from time to time between and by 1566 they absorb most of Hungary.

By 1566 the states and principalities on the empire's northwestern and northernmost borders pay tribute to the Sultan (from Croatia up into Poland just south of Cracow and east across the Caucasus north of the Black Sea.

I hope this helps.

[Wuli]

"If so, did Hungary have Middle Eastern influence at that time?"

Sorry, in addition to the "conquest" info, the answer to your question is "yes".

[Wuli]

"By 1503 the Ottoman Empire north of Greece has been extended north-northeast through all of Bosnia and west from there to Belgrade, forming a frontier with Hungary. The Turks breach that frontier from time to time between and by 1566 they absorb most of Hungary."

Should have been:

"By 1503 the Ottoman Empire north of Greece has been extended north-northwest through all of Bosnia and east from there to Belgrade, forming a frontier with Hungary. The Turks breach that frontier from time to time between and by 1566 they absorb most of Hungary."