There is a documentary series on Prime called How the Crusades Changed History.

I'm a late bloomer, getting exposed to social-political-religious constructs late in life. Much of this is complicated and new to me. I've been aware of something called the Crusades but didn't no much about them - why, when, who, etc.

I'm watching the series and being exposed to lots of information.

Question: has anybody watched this series? Is it largely factual? Is it biased toward a particular perspective or relatively neutral? Should I continue or watch something else?

I found the existence of two houses, the House of Islam and the House of War, and their respective objectives, interesting. It was only cursory but still it sheds some light.

Gotta be careful about your sources when learning about and contextualizing the Crusades. There are ideological and political interests mischaracterizing and distorting by omission why and by whom.

Ack. Hence wondering if I should watch this series or stop and consider an alternative. I don't know how to discern this yet.

Not sure yet if this is rationalizing the Crusades or condemning them. Or neutral. It's too much info. Too many characters and places.

It’s all about first cause and methods. Discover that and you’ll have context. It’s really a narrative on human conflict historically. A recent example is Oct 7th 2023. There’s first cause and methods creating a reaction that is father reaching than anyone could predict. First cause in that case is debated and goes back to the beginning of the conflict between Israel and Islam. It’s too complex to post here.

I suggest searching YouTube. Watch more than a few videos and be sure they’re history based and not documentaries that tend toward ideology.

As always, Philomena Cunk breaks it down:

https://www.tiktok.com/@clips_.../7212378416136375557

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
As always, Philomena Cunk breaks it down:

https://www.tiktok.com/@clips_.../7212378416136375557

she is amazing, in a most English way

I'm more of a Mary Beard and Bettany Hughes-type but, Cunk's humor is quite British. Wish the US had more of it.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:


I suggest searching YouTube. Watch more than a few videos and be sure they’re history based and not documentaries that tend toward ideology.

I respectfully would suggest, as an alternative, reading a few books (or listening to them).

Why? Because with books you can be sure of a few things. First, it was probably well edited for facts and grammar. Second, you can generally tell the bias before you open it by reading about the book in advance. I advise (strongly) that in a topic as complex as "The Crusades" you get a lot of different perspectives, because context is important to understanding. And lastly, YouTube has absolutely no repercussion for actual false information except the internet itself and that is, frankly, a dumpster fire. The book author and publisher CAN be sued and have a lot on the line to put a book out for publication, something that any jackass with an opinion and a computer has no fear of.

Sorry, I feel like I'm assigning homework, but even a basic understanding of the Crusades, and by "basic understanding" I mean more than "Christians and Islam fought some wars in ye olden days" requires some work.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
There is a documentary series on Prime called How the Crusades Changed History.

I'm a late bloomer, getting exposed to social-political-religious constructs late in life. Much of this is complicated and new to me. I've been aware of something called the Crusades but didn't no much about them - why, when, who, etc.

I'm watching the series and being exposed to lots of information.

Question: has anybody watched this series? Is it largely factual? Is it biased toward a particular perspective or relatively neutral? Should I continue or watch something else?

I haven't seen it.
Nothing wrong with watching...
let us know what you think.

As others have suggested, reading multiple sources is the best way to learn.
And, yes, the history of the Crusades will vary depending on one's perspective.

I've watched two episodes and have found the facts presented to be accurate historically.

Just a rough guess, based off my dim remembrances of Medieval and Renaissance architecture courses from 20+ years ago, but understanding the Crusades is more like a graduate thesis/maybe a lifetime of work, than a few videos.

The relevant part we went over, was that the blocking of pilgrims to Jerusalem greatly interfered with the pilgrimage business, which was one of the main forms of trade in the Medieval era, and was considered a vital part of the Roman Catholic Church at that time.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Gotta be careful about your sources when learning about and contextualizing the Crusades. There are ideological and political interests mischaracterizing and distorting by omission why and by whom.

Indeed.
Over a 200+ year period, the Crusades generated all sorts of heroes, villains, myths and stories.

It was a period of major societal upheaval for at least half the world. Christianity was struggling through the Dark or, Middle Ages since the fall of Rome, as The Great Schism had occurred in 1054 resulting in the two Christina sides to this day not quite seeing eye-to-eye on many things. Islam was solidifying itself, first with its rapid expansion wiping-out the last of the Persian Empires, dominating large chunks of Central and Western Asia, then crossing North Africa into Spain. The Seljuk Turks recently migrated from Central Asia into the Eastern Mediterranean bringing with them a more fervent view of Islam (Sunni) that clashed with the existing practices of Shia along with bumping into the Byzantium Empire which not only had its hands full with the big split but, was beset with poor governance and a squabbling ruling family.

In short, the early Crusader success was a surprise since the European powers weren't believed to be sophisticated enough to do expeditionary warfare but, they pulled it off and established a number of states around the Eastern Mediterranean. Unfortunately, the problems and shortcomings that enveloped the period around Europe undermined the Crusader cause, rivalries and infighting from Europe carried over undermining alliances and agreements. The fall of the Byzantine Empire fell soon after, allow the Seljuks to take over all of Anatolia and allowing Istanbul to fall, helped in large part after the disastrous fourth crusade. The Ridley Scott movie Kingdom of Heaven, gives some insight into Crusader period, the fervent religiosity, the figures involved and the overall environment. HOWEVER, not everything depicted is accurate nor, does it provide errorless portrayal of events; the directors cut is the one to watch just keep in mind its a movie, hard to condense a complicated 200yr old period into a 3hr piece of entertainment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: corsair,

quote:

The Ridley Scott movie The Kingdom

Kingdom of Heaven. Great flick. The director's cut, as you said, is a requirement. I don't know how historically accurate it is. In recent years, I have been of the opinion that the Europeans who perpetrated the Crusades were not what I would call "good" Christians. They may have been exemplary Europeans and soldiers, but I don't think they were particularly Christ-like. They were not good ambassadors of the Christian faith.

One of the things to remember in that era, is that the Bible had been relegated to something “no one was supposed to really worry about.”

Being a “good Christian” meant “obeying God’s emissaries,” and that what you were told to do, mattered more than what Scripture said.

(The Bible and Mass were, originally, in Latin, so that common people could understand them. That concept was rejected around the same era as the death of St Patrick.)

Sometimes that was the Pope, sometimes it was the King.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
[
In recent years, I have been of the opinion that the Europeans who perpetrated the Crusades were not what I would call "good" Christians. They may have been exemplary Europeans and soldiers, but I don't think they were particularly Christ-like. They were not good ambassadors of the Christian faith.

I read a couple books by Pastor John Hagee (who I consider the greatest living Christian teacher), and he pointed out how very anti-semetic the crusaders were. They killed Muslims AND Jews in large numbers, and did not seem to discriminated between any of the non- Christian peoples.

After reading that, I am not using any more 'crusader' imagery, icons, or memes.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog: They killed Muslims AND Jews in large numbers, and did not seem to discriminated between any of the non- Christian peoples.

After reading that, I am not using any more 'crusader' imagery, icons, or memes.

You should read up on what happened to the Cathars.
The Spanish Inquisition was a branch off the same tree unfortunately.
Every society/region went through its bad period, for Europe it wasn't until the Renaissance and then later the Enlightenment periods when society could break the strangle-hold religion & aristocracies had over society and the poor decisions as a result.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:


I suggest searching YouTube. Watch more than a few videos and be sure they’re history based and not documentaries that tend toward ideology.

I respectfully would suggest, as an alternative, reading a few books (or listening to them).

Why? Because with books you can be sure of a few things. First, it was probably well edited for facts and grammar. Second, you can generally tell the bias before you open it by reading about the book in advance. I advise (strongly) that in a topic as complex as "The Crusades" you get a lot of different perspectives, because context is important to understanding. And lastly, YouTube has absolutely no repercussion for actual false information except the internet itself and that is, frankly, a dumpster fire. The book author and publisher CAN be sued and have a lot on the line to put a book out for publication, something that any jackass with an opinion and a computer has no fear of.

Sorry, I feel like I'm assigning homework, but even a basic understanding of the Crusades, and by "basic understanding" I mean more than "Christians and Islam fought some wars in ye olden days" requires some work.

Agreed. I suggested videos because the topic has been so polluted with ideology that one could easily waste considerable time researching from an unreliable source. Videos would only be a primer to lead one further into the topic. Books are far more comprehensive but do require an investment of time. Shame to waste it on garbage sources.

quote:

break the strangle-hold religion & aristocracies had over society

I think "religious institutions" is more appropriate. In the instance of the Crusades, and it's affiliated Christianity, the affiliated religion itself does not promote damaging/problematic behavior.

I've watched several episodes. It's a lot of dry material - too many names and places and dates and events.

But the narration seems to be mostly fact based; it's too much for me to digest but significant bias doesn't seem to be coming through.

I like that he acknowledged that the written accounts of the first crusade being referenced were written post facto; as such may have been written to fit events. So what Pope Urban may have actually said or why the first crusaders went to Jerusalem (not an original objective) may be unclear (don't trust the written accounts written in retrospect, especially since accounts are not consistent).

I wish there was use of graphics and other aids - it's just a verbal lecture so it's hard to follow sometimes. Especially when I start to lose focus.

I'm learning a lot though. This may be beginner stuff to many of you but for me, it's a whole new world of information.

i haven't watched the series, but will check it out.
I have read a few books of early European history including the crusades.
The easiest distinction is that no war is "holy" these conflicts are all political and for political reasons.
The siege of Acre, Sidon, and Jerusalem during the first crusade were very different with very different outcomes. Any source that eludes to "Christian bad" or "Muslima bad" is oversimplification. That being said, my leisurely study of history... i am not sure how the first crusade could have been avoided considering the prior two centuries of conflict. Those forces were going to meet, what happened for the next few centuries is a different story...
Thanks for pointing out the series.