Kingdom of Heaven and the Crusades

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:57 am

One of the reasons I've heard for the Christians coming out looking bad is that they didn't seem to have been too particular what they did whilst on their way to Palestine. They apparently terrorised the inhabitants of Constantinople (Christians at that time) when they dropped in as uninvited guests. Presumably they got to survive throughout the long march in ways armies tended to at the time, by pillaging the areas they travelled through. There were reports I've heard of crusaders massacring whole Christian communities in Turkey en route. In short, once they got beyond the confines of Western Europe they behaved like football hooligans, thus suggesting that the motive for going for perhaps a majority had more to do with enthusiasm for wog-bashing than it had to do with religious fervour.

Conceivably, some Christians might be a bit miffed if this side is accurately portrayed.

OnTheMoor · Post by **OnTheMoor** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:12 am

Wombat wrote:One of the reasons I've heard for the Christians coming out looking bad is that they didn't seem to have been too particular what they did whilst on their way to Palestine. They apparently terrorised the inhabitants of Constantinople (Christians at that time) when they dropped in as uninvited guests. Presumably they got to survive throughout the long march in ways armies tended to at the time, by pillaging the areas they travelled through. There were reports I've heard of crusaders massacring whole Christian communities in Turkey en route. In short, once they got beyond the confines of Western Europe they behaved like football hooligans, thus suggesting that the motive for going for perhaps a majority had more to do with enthusiasm for wog-bashing than it had to do with religious fervour.

Conceivably, some Christians might be a bit miffed if this side is accurately portrayed.

No doubt. I would think that most of the rank and file were just happy to get out of medieval Europe and it was probably a good deal like the South Park episode where the Civil War reenactors get hooked on Shnaps and set about pillaging for the fun of it (although obviously more serious). But one of Madden's more interesting points is that the leaders of the Crusade and the knights were not doing what they did out of greed, that doesn't make sense. The knight that actually made it back to their castles and manors, from what I have read, often found their lands and wealth taken by their creditors or, funny enough, the Church.

BTW, Dorothy Dunnet's books (House of Nicolo), historical fiction, are really quite good, I really enjoyed them. They're set in 15th Century Europe and, I feel, give a really good view of the times. Whether historically accurate or not, I can't say.

feadogin · Post by **feadogin** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:23 am

Great use of quotations, Bloomfield. That fordham site is great for anyone interested in Medieval History.

And just to retouch on the "Holocaust" issue, the first Crusade was the first time Jews were massacred in Europe.

I haven't read the article, but from what I've heard:
As far as the Crusaders' motivation, I think a lot of people believed they were doing the will of God (a belief, as Bloomfield pointed out, that was instilled by the pope), but others had other motivations. The classic example of course is the issue of the younger sons who had no land to inherit going to try and get land and wealth in the Holy land. I'm sure the soldiers' motivation at the beginning of the crusade changed as they went along, also. Maybe what started out as a desire to "free the Holy land," (even though Muslims allowed Christians to travel freely through the Holy land), became something else as the war went on.

The papacy, by the way, was also looking to get something out of the Crusades, and regularly institued "Crusade taxes" in Europe, most of which went to fill the pockets of the clergy.

Justine

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:23 am

OnTheMoor wrote:
No doubt. I would think that most of the rank and file were just happy to get out of medieval Europe and it was probably a good deal like the South Park episode where the Civil War reenactors get hooked on Shnaps and set about pillaging for the fun of it (although obviously more serious).

Very good comparison I would have thought. I wish I could provide you with a reference for what I just said but my source was a very well-researched TV documentary some years ago. The presenter was a very well-credentialled academic historian.

OnTheMoor wrote:But one of Madden's more interesting points is that the leaders of the Crusade and the knights were not doing what they did out of greed, that doesn't make sense. The knight that actually made it back to their castles and manors, from what I have read, often found their lands and wealth taken by their creditors or, funny enough, the Church.

It's worth remembering that these knights were the direct ancestors of Rugby Union internationals who, until very recently, beat the tripe out of eachother on a regular basis for fun, purely on an amateur basis. Perhaps all the fruits of pillaging might have been needed to survive. I suspect that many knights might have embarked without a realistic idea of how long and difficult the journey would be.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:53 am

Firstly I wish to say that defensive acts of preventing Moorish invasions of Europe were probably justified.

As for the Crusades, they were a mixed bag, to say the least, but a whole lot of inexcusable negative, to be sure. Men's baser nature got the better of them. It always happens.

Religion served as an excuse for some matters. Other matters, such as crimes against Eastern Orthodox populations may or may not have had any religious motivation, even in the minds of those perpetrating the crimes.

Some of it can be attributed to people who had no idea what they were doing. They'd never traveled. A good many of them had not the benefit of even faulty education. All they knew about the places they plowed through was hearsay... very negative hearsay. So lacking was their understanding of even Christian Scripture and history that many mistook the Dome of the Rock for Solomon's Temple. Ignorance and power, coupled with a notion of fighting for the right can form a dangerous combination, especially when love and compassion get lost from the picture.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:03 am

Walden wrote:Some of it can be attributed to people who had no idea what they were doing. They'd never traveled. A good many of them had not the benefit of even faulty education. All they knew about the places they plowed through was hearsay... very negative hearsay. So lacking was their understanding of even Christian Scripture and history that many mistook the Dome of the Rock for Solomon's Temple. Ignorance and power, coupled with a notion of fighting for the right can form a dangerous combination, especially when love and compassion get lost from the picture.

True enough. When you talk about hearsay, let's be honest and mention whose was the "say" part of hearsay. As for understanding of Christian Scripture, mass was conducted in a langue only the tiniest fraction of the population (even the wealthy population) understood, and Church policy was not to let anyone but the clergy have access to the scripture. In the church's view, people were supposed to not know what the bible said.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:12 am

I've read that this movie only covers the run up to the third crusade.

What I think happend to mainstream Christianity--the Church--is that something was lost between the OT and NT. In the old ways, under the old character of God, religious wars were common and condoned. But after the peaceful cheek turning carpenter from Nazareth came along, with a whole new set of guidlines, things should have continued to be different. But that was original Chrisitanity, not the later wayward mainstream. Something got lost in the shuffle for power.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:22 pm

OnTheMoor wrote:Yep, I can't recall looking forward to a movie this much in... well... recent memory I guess. And you're right, it did sort of come out of nowhere. I only started seeing the previews last week and was quite happy to find out that it opens so soon. Better not be a bust a la Alexander.

Ah...that's because you don't have an Orlando Bloom-obsessed 12-year-old! I've been hearing about "Kingdom of Heaven" for ages now!

Redwolf

missy · Post by **missy** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:29 pm

Redwolf wrote:
"Orlando Bloom-obsessed 12-year-old"

Ohhhhhh! Haven't seen previews - is he "naturally" dark haired this time or blond aka Legolas???

Missy

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:17 pm

missy wrote:Redwolf wrote:
"Orlando Bloom-obsessed 12-year-old"

Ohhhhhh! Haven't seen previews - is he "naturally" dark haired this time or blond aka Legolas???

Missy

Dark haired...more or less like he was for "Troy" and "Pirates of the Carribbean." He's bearded though.

Also coming this summer is Elizabethtown, which has him with his more natural, dark and rather curly hair.

Redwolf

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:32 pm

It seems like we discuss the same thing, with slightly different words, twenty five times a day.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:46 pm

Cranberry wrote:It seems like we discuss the same thing, with slightly different words, twenty five times a day.

We talk about Orlando Bloom 25 times a day???? How did I miss this? More to the point, how did my daughter miss this?

Redwolf

feadogin · Post by **feadogin** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:33 pm

Redwolf wrote:
Cranberry wrote:It seems like we discuss the same thing, with slightly different words, twenty five times a day.
We talk about Orlando Bloom 25 times a day???? How did I miss this? More to the point, how did my daughter miss this?

Redwolf

He's a cutie pie.

Justine

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:05 am

Thanks for the links Bloom. I've read several chronicles of medieval fame (Frossert and another) I'll have to read this character.

BTW. The movie takes place in the late 12th century about 90 years after the first crusade. It covers the time of Saladin. Hopefully they'll give a good account of the battle of Hattin.

Any chronicles there Bloom?

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:46 am

Some crusade leaders were ordered on crusades by Popes as a penance for sins. I'm at work and don't have my books available or I could give you names. They were horribly barbaric and violent - in those horribly barbaric and violent days throughout the world. That was the lovely time when men were being hanged, drawn, and quartered.

Susan