Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the History Channel Leaves Out With the Crusades (News/Vanity)
Mid-day.com ^ | November 7, 2005 | Prasad Patil

Posted on 11/07/2005 7:55:59 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: christianity; crescentandcross; crusades; cultureclash; hc; historychannel; islam; leftistrevisionism; trop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: USConstitutionBuff

Because through the building and unbuilding of Empires, and from migrations and trade the Greeks and the Persians shared alot, in art, science and literature.


81 posted on 11/08/2005 5:10:46 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Did you compile this line of events or pick it up from somewhere else? I mean, if I wanted to slam somebody with the facts what source can I site other than "Wuli." No offense, but I think you know what I mean.


82 posted on 11/08/2005 5:18:52 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

You are partially right in noting one of the things that lead to a weakend Byzantine Empire, which helped make some of the Muslim conquests possible. There were many other factors as well.

My main point is that the spread of the Muslim faith was entirely by Military conquest, other than in Indonesia, Malyasia and the southern Philippines where Islam was introduced by seafaring traders to people who were essentially animists (nature worshipers).

It is historical stupidity to ignore that they were "conquests" and they were conducted for the spreading of Islam. It was not peaceful conversion of neighboring peoples.


83 posted on 11/08/2005 5:23:00 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TR Jeffersonian

ping


84 posted on 11/08/2005 5:27:38 AM PST by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

If it is time to "move on", then it is time to understand from what we are "moving on", and if we can only tell one half of a story, from a part of the past that helped build our present, then whether or not it is "time to move on", we will not.


85 posted on 11/08/2005 5:41:03 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie; All
"The real point of course is not who started what and who ate who, but who is still fretting about 1000 year old history.."

You are so very, very right. And, it makes one really more suspicious about the History Channel segment on the Crusades, because part of the dogma accepted by the Al Queda types is that they are fighting to restore the Islamic lands of Europe that Christianity "took" from them, in the centuries after the crusades.

The History Channel show helps that propoganda because it leaves out the three hundred year Islamic Jihad that placed Islam in Europe in the first place.

86 posted on 11/08/2005 5:47:27 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
This I know, so it would be correct to say that Persian knowledge was influenced by Greek (European) knowledge; I just don't think it correct to say that Persian knowledge was originally from Europe.
87 posted on 11/08/2005 5:54:04 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy

The muslim history they lean to is after their own major military conquests - the three hundred year Jihad that built the civilization of Islam - is over.

Their resentment is towards what lands Muslims then later lost, while ignoring those "lost" lands were simply taken back by the peoples the Muslims conquered them from to begin with (Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, all of North Africa, Spain and Portugal and eventually a good part of central Europe (the Balkans).


88 posted on 11/08/2005 5:55:12 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kms61

Because the eastern and western branches of Christianity were in the midst of their own discord, between each other, when the era of the crusades open. And, as the centuries went on the Byzantine (Orthodox) side became the weaker side and lost more to the Muslims (like Palestine itself).


89 posted on 11/08/2005 5:58:28 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul; JustAnotherOkie; Siena Dreaming
"Pro-Bush v. Anti-Bush is a very narrow prism through which to view the world. Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon one.

Your replies to these posters are nonsensical. Step away from the bong.

90 posted on 11/08/2005 6:17:41 AM PST by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

The Columbia History of the World (Edited by John A. Garraty and Peter Gay, Forwarde BY President William J. McGill, Columbia University, 1972 by Harper and Row)

The Timetables of History (A Horizontal Linkage of People and Events, by Bernard Grun, based on Werner Stein's Kulturfahrplan, with a forward by Daniel J. Boorstin, 1979 by Simon & Schuster)

Rand McNally Atlas of World History [Maps], 1992, Rand McNally

and my fabulous brain


91 posted on 11/08/2005 6:17:49 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff

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.


92 posted on 11/08/2005 6:21:39 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Excellent! Thank you and your brain.


93 posted on 11/08/2005 6:49:33 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Anyway to shut that background music off? I quit watching after 5 minutes. The story sucked also.


94 posted on 11/08/2005 7:23:45 AM PST by UpToHere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Amazing that Persia is part of the west, when it was always referred to as the exotic east.

So if they are advanced and civilized that changes their geographical locale? While civilized they were 'western' but when they sank into 12th century depravity they are suddenly the 'east' again?
95 posted on 11/08/2005 7:34:45 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff

I am citing how the Persians were viewed at the time, in the ancient world, not how they later came to viewed by "western civilization", after it (Roman + Judeo-Christian) moved north and west from the Mediterranean world, became dominant more in the "world" it spread to than in the world it came from, which was, in ancient times, the confluence of the Mediterranean and the ancient Middle East - from Persia, down through Mesopotamia and Arabia to Egypt, up through Israel and Syria to Greece; Rome was a late comer and brought very little science of her own. Her art and literature was learned and expanded from the Greeks and the Etruscans.


96 posted on 11/08/2005 8:01:44 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I have a question. I am still doing research, but I know I could get the answer faster here. The Turks who overran Hungary during the Tartar invasions of the 1400s. Were they Muslim? If so, did Hungary have Middle Eastern influence at that time?


97 posted on 11/08/2005 8:10:43 AM PST by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

And they got paid back by the crusade that sacked Constantinople at the urging of the Venetians. This probably took 100 years off the life of the Eastern Empire.


98 posted on 11/08/2005 10:21:07 AM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

It is not God who is vengeful, it is his acolytes who are foolishly drawn to the power of the sword and the attraction of conquest.

It shall be this way until a true Age of Reason sets in.


99 posted on 11/08/2005 10:53:16 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer
And they got paid back by the crusade that sacked Constantinople at the urging of the Venetians. This probably took 100 years off the life of the Eastern Empire.

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.
100 posted on 11/08/2005 11:16:08 AM PST by Antoninus (The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson