Terry Jones' "The Crusades"

[Glen K]

Seeing "Kingdom of Heaven" caused me to watch part of Terry Jones' "The Crusades" four-part series and therefore continue the love-hate relationship I have with this documentary: It's terribly funny, and it's about an era of history that I'm completely and totally fascinated by, but DAMN is there a serious slant to it....

So, I thought I'd start a thread where we can bash/defend this bit of fun-to-watch drivel. Any takers?

[Wolf]

ack that bathing suit. they need a warning or something

[Gwydion Caithnes]

Oh, I don't know...It could'a been a LOT worse...you have to take into account Jones' "Monty Python" background. His more recent book on Chaucer's "murder" (which I just finished, and enjoyed) is very similar: He's got his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, but I think he's making an honest effort to make the material more accessible to a wider audience.

And he's not working alone: In both the Chaucer piece and the "Crusades" series he collaborated with recognized academics and historians, none of whom (I assume) would have agreed to lend their names to pure crap. I've seen lots worse.

I have the companion volume to "Crusades." It's well-illustrated with period illuminations, and lots of great photographs of the sites under discussion, including the only photograph of the inside of the Dome of the Rock that I have ever seen.

The back cover photo of Jones in crusader regalia is priceless - if you can get past thinking about "Holy Grail," the construction looks reasonably-accurate. I don't know about the fabric choice, but those seams look hand-stitched. Don't think the mail hauberk is rivited, but the design looks right, as do the shoes, hose, sword and sword belt, and helm.

[Engenulf]

I really liked the creativity of the dramatizations. The actors faces panted to look like European,Byzantine and Eastern illuminations was pretty cool, but the coolest in my opinion was the scene with all the common folk in the hovel watching a WWII style propaganda movie promoting holywar, with the bishop operating the projector......pretty cool.

What I did not really like was the obligitory depictions of the crusaders as unwashed, ignorant bigots who were jelous of the enlightend eastern culture.
Were the Crusaders brutal, bloodthirsty and narrow minded? Sure they were. Although they were no more or less fitting of this discription then their Muslim counterparts.

All in all I did enjoy the series and would suggest this series to any one intrested in the Crusades.

Hi! I'm Chris, And I approve this message.

[Egfroth]

I loved the episode with the fire hose!

[Aaron]

Can we pick it up on DVD?

[Samuel]

Seeing "Kingdom of Heaven" caused me to watch part of Terry Jones' "The Crusades" four-part series and therefore continue the love-hate relationship I have with this documentary: It's terribly funny, and it's about an era of history that I'm completely and totally fascinated by, but DAMN is there a serious slant to it....

So, I thought I'd start a thread where we can bash/defend this bit of fun-to-watch drivel. Any takers?

I did the exact same thing..

I liked the terry jones bit. I thought it was a good general overview of what happend and what got it all going..

[Stefan ap Llewelyn]

I own this box set and thought it was very good.

Can anyone tell me how accurate it is, please?

[Endre Fodstad]

"Kingdom of Heaven" got a short news special on a norwegian channel a few days ago, and an academic (Sverre Bagge, Medieval Ph.D. fellow from the University of Bergen) commented on the usual portrayal of crusaders as smelly bad guys:

"In the 19th century crusaders were frequently painted by popular historians as heroes fighting villanous muslims. Today, the pendulum has swung so far the other way that academics who know anything about the period tend to defend the crusades, on the basis of the periods attitude to war and religion - overall, neither muslims nor christians felt that invading foreign lands under religious precepts was wrong, unless, of course, they were the ones being invaded."

[lorenzo2]

Endre has a good point. The crusaders explained some of their violent behavior as simply revenge for muslim invasions of formerly christian lands such as Spain. Its really the same old story, pick a time in history where things were "ideal" and justify todays actions, no matter how wrong, as an attempt to get back to that "ideal" point in history.

As to Terry Jones Crusades, there is still the unexplained mystery, what about the washer women?

[Glen K]

It seems that ya'll are echoing a lot of what my feelings are on the documentary.

I LOVE the way Jones gets the information across; it's easy to understand, clever, and entertaining (not that I feel all education should be and/or could be entertaining). Stumbling around the Holy Land in pretty dang authentic kit going from site to site is pretty neat. The looks on the faces of the modern locals has to be something akin to the looks on the faces about 1000 years ago. Jones is a good scholar, a great interpreter, and knows quite a bit about humor as applied to real life.

If ONLY he hadn't been so skewed in his take on things. I can handle a little bias (I can appreciate some of the points David Nicolle makes, even! ), but this one goes so far that, from a legitimacy point of view, causes all the effort put into doing things so right to be nearly wasted.

Perhaps my biggest complaint about this documentary, and for that matter practically every take on the Crusades I've seen in book, film, and on TV is that they lead one to believe, explicitly or implicitly, that "bad" Muslim/Christian relations started in AD 1098 and completely ignore that anyone/Muslim relations have been pretty "bad" since near the beginning of Islam when they decided to brutally rape, conquer, and murder pretty much all the territory they could get their hands on, sweeping through the middle east, across north Africa, and into Spain. I'm not saying that the Crusades weren't a brutal invasion(s) in their own right; I'm just saying that there's a lot of blame [sic] to go around before, during, and after the Crusades. Most works on the Crusades, and ESPECIALLY the Jones documentary, seem to ignore that on purpose.

[Gobae]

My favorite part was when he nicely disproved the "scholars" who thought the beach he was on couldn't have been part of the invasion (of I forget what city) because the knights in their mail would have sunk into the sand.

With any luck we're getting some of these people out of their ivory towers.

[Gwydion Caithnes]

I'm not saying that the Crusades weren't a brutal invasion(s) in their own right; I'm just saying that there's a lot of blame [sic] to go around before, during, and after the Crusades. Most works on the Crusades, and ESPECIALLY the Jones documentary, seem to ignore that on purpose.

"Oh, let's not argue about 'oo killed 'oo..."

I dunno about "on purpose." If you're writing a history about a particular time period, it can be difficult to fully analyze and consider every prior cultural and historical event as the context for what you're actually writing about. (And yes, I realize that made absolutely no sense...I've not had quite enough coffee yet today...)

Your point about Islamic history is well taken, though. "Crusades" came out before 9/11, so Jones can't be accused of following current PC trends.

I don't know enough about the Muslim invasions of Spain, N. Africa, etc. Were they motivated by religion, or "simple" conquest/expansion desires? Most crusade historians seem to focus on the religious aspects, although I would argue that your average Crusader probably wasn't as motivated by religion as he was by the opportunity to go fight someone, and perhaps make a name for himself.

[Gwydion Caithnes]

My favorite part was when he nicely disproved the "scholars" who thought the beach he was on couldn't have been part of the invasion (of I forget what city) because the knights in their mail would have sunk into the sand.

With any luck we're getting some of these people out of their ivory towers.

Yeah, I'd be careful about his "analysis," though. Jones tends to make lots of assumptions that may or may not be valid. He'll use them to support an interesting theory, then come to a conclusion which forms the basis for repeatedly "debunking" something, or "proving" that a commonly-held bit of research or "historical fact" is faulty.

The Chaucer "murder" book is full of such assumptions - which indeed formulate the entire premise of the book. They're entertaining, but not necessarily accurate in and of themselves. They generally fall into the category of "enlightened speculation," because they can be neither proved or disproved with certainty.

[Endre Fodstad]

I don't know enough about the Muslim invasions of Spain, N. Africa, etc. Were they motivated by religion, or "simple" conquest/expansion desires? Most crusade historians seem to focus on the religious aspects, although I would argue that your average Crusader probably wasn't as motivated by religion as he was by the opportunity to go fight someone, and perhaps make a name for himself.

The muslim conquests of Persia, Africa, Spain, the Levant and parts of western India were considered a Jihad by the muslims of that time, and it is likely that the Iberian Christians got the concept of holy war from the invaders. Later, muslims scholars would decree that a true Jihad can not be offensive in nature, and the modern concept of defensive jihad was introduced,

[Gwydion Caithnes]

Interesting. Thanks!

[Glen K]

Later, muslims scholars would decree that a true Jihad can not be offensive in nature...

I've often thought it very convenient that they reached that conclusion only after they had taken over everywhere.

[Strongbow]

The Chaucer "murder" book is full of such assumptions - which indeed formulate the entire premise of the book. They're entertaining, but not necessarily accurate in and of themselves. They generally fall into the category of "enlightened speculation," because they can be neither proved or disproved with certainty.

And, to be fair, Jones says that about every page.

Jones' work can certainly be sensationalist, but much of his basic research is very good. In fact, I'd wager to guess that most modern scholars would agree with most of his basic research in "Murder." I think the position held in the 19th and most of the 20th century that Chaucer was a conservative author, and that that Henry IV was a glorious usurper deposing the hated Richard II is not really tenable in light of close scrutiny of the facts.

Jones tends to rub some scholars the wrong way. Partly because his writing is accessible and sensationalist, partly because he is considered to be a celebrity amateur. But he has done some remarkable work. His "Chaucer's Knight" book is still a source of debate and scholarly research 20 years after it was written.

[Thomas Powers]

Swordsmith; I must have missed that part; did he first show that the sand currently there is the same sort that was there close to a thousand years ago?

Beaches can change dramatically with only 1 storm!

Thomas

[Adriano]

I really enjoyed the "Crusades" on tv, and got the companion volume. I started out reading about the Crusades with a strong anti-Christian slant, but upon study have developed a more balanced anti-religion-in-general slant, echoing the feelings of some contemporary observers.

I'd also recommend Terry Jone's book Chaucer's Knight, which makes a good case for reevaluating the popular perception of the Knight character in The Canterbury Tales. Increased my regard for Chaucer as a satirist.

[Strongbow]

Adraino,

If you liked "Chaucer's Knight," check out "Who Murdered Chaucer?"

[Gwydion Caithnes]

The Chaucer "murder" book is full of such assumptions - which indeed formulate the entire premise of the book. They're entertaining, but not necessarily accurate in and of themselves. They generally fall into the category of "enlightened speculation," because they can be neither proved or disproved with certainty.

And, to be fair, Jones says that about every page.

That's true - he does work the "disclaimer" pretty well, for which he is to be respected.

I actually enjoyed the heck out of the book, and the Crusades series as well.

[Glen K]

(Adriano: please take this as a discussion point and not an attack. )

...but upon study have developed a more balanced anti-religion-in-general slant, echoing the feelings of some contemporary observers.

See, that's one thing about the modern historiography of the Crusades: The pendulum was at "the gracious, educated crusaders are doing good, the barbarian saracens are doing bad"; then it went to "the barbarian crusaders are doing bad, the gracious educated saracens are doing good"; now it's sort of in the middle with a can't we get along "everybody did bad things and everybody was wrong". There is no doubt that some evil things were done by both sides, especially by the Franks. There is no doubt a lot of crusaders went with the idea of gaining wealth and lands rather than motivated by religious zeal. There is also no doubt that a lot of folks' religious zeal went WAAAY to far.

What gets my goat, though, about the way things are portrayed nowadays (and the Jones documentary is a good example of this) is the complete rejection of taking honest and pure Faith (from both sides) at face value, and the idea that the practitioners of a Faith were controlled, ignorant, backwards, and a bunch of spiritual dupes. I think that we today are far to quick to skip over (if not outright condemn) the idea of Faith and non-zealous fervor as a role, even a positive one, in what people did. Religion played such an important part in the world back then, and (obviously) such an important part in the Crusades and jihads. I think it does a great disservice to those that we study and ourselves to fail to at least attempt to grasp some of those issues and emotional aspects. I don't think we have to have a particular Faith ourselves to try it, but I think that a great many (professionals and amateurs) are so convinced that some/all religions are no more than "misguided myths" that in dismissing them, or creating artificial constructs to "explain" such "behavior" that they miss a big piece of the pie.

For my part: I find the First Crusade by far the most fascinating. It never, ever ceases to truly amaze me that the movement succeeded, considering everything that they had to go through: marching thousands of miles, starvation, desertion, years away from home, unspeakable hardship, etc. We're talking about knights and professional soldiers who usually got pissed when their lord suggested they serve more than their 40 days, and here they are for TWO YEARS. There were so many times that the odds were so stacked against them that they should have stopped while they were ahead; that they should have been completely destroyed by the forces arrayed against them; that the leaders squabbled so as to destroy the Crusade from the top down. Now I can buy that a lot of motivation might have come from the idea of material gain, but I believe that such motivation only goes so far. When you look at what they went through, the only reasonable explanation becomes "Faith". At Antioch, in perhaps their darkest hour and against all logic and hope, they rode out to do battle and miraculously (is there any other word for it?) defeated the combined armies of the Turk.

Anyway, enough of a rant. My point is, I suppose, that all of us (myself included) should give the proper respect and perspective to all aspects of medieval life if what we're really trying to do is walk a league in their hand-stitched turnshoes.

[Josh W]

Well said indeed, Glen. I share your fascination with the First Crusade. In no other Crusade (except perhaps the Third) are the principal characters of such a "larger than life" quality.

Mail is still crappy armour, though.

[Gabriel Morgan]

See, that's one thing about the modern historiography of the Crusades: The pendulum was at "the gracious, educated crusaders are doing good, the barbarian saracens are doing bad"; then it went to "the barbarian crusaders are doing bad, the gracious educated saracens are doing good"; now it's sort of in the middle with a can't we get along "everybody did bad things and everybody was wrong".

A great point.

And we've seen that progression over and over, in every academic discipline, even the sciences. The initial burst in scholarship tends to be propelled by a political cause that sees it as useful, and so the original scholarship tends to have huge veins of nationalism/marxism/imperialism/X-ism tainting it - my own disciplines, anthropology and folklore, got a lot of their initial energy from imperialism and nazi-ism, respectively. Then, a little while after the discipline is discarded as no longer being useful or the movements which gave it momentum are no longer viable, a bunch of horrified scholars with a conscience understandibly overcompensate the other way. After a good deal of time, good solid work starts to be produced on a more regular basis. Not that all early work is lousy or all late work is good, but the signal-to-noise ratio seems a little better, at least where rampant ideological contamination is concerned.

I cringe every time I hear someone opining about the evils of religions, or blaming large socio-economic events on this religion or that; despite what people may think, I've never heard this in an academic setting, but it seems a common and easily muttered statement from the coffeehouse intellectual set. The fact of the matter is, wars are inevitably political and economic things. Any strongly held belief can be used to influence a person and a populace, be that belief religiosity or patriotism or something more intellectual or ephemeral. This does not mean that all religious people are dupes, or that individual persons did not have overridingly religious reasons for participating. It just means that some people took advantage of that fact for political or economic gain.

I repeat for emphasis: wars are political events. I think one achieves more clarity by thinking of them as such, whether one is examining the original Muslim expansion, The Ghost Dance movement, the Crusades, or the modern Troubles.

(Then comes the reductionist problem of declaring that religions are merely political, or just socio-economic - but that's another tale._

[Gobae]

Thomas - Geological details of the beach's make up weren't expounded on. But, the scholars referenced were making assumptions without even *walking* the beach.

[Glen K]

True about the beach's geographic conditions, etc. But if nothing else it was valuable to show that 1) you could jump out of a boat, 2) you could run, 3) it wouldn't disentegrate (nor would you drown) if you're in water, and 4) when you fall, you can get up pretty quickly again.

Obliterating myths, one stone at a time.

[Thomas Powers]

Comes from an engineering background and judging too many science fair projects where *none* of the variables were controlled....

Thomas

[RenJunkie]

Faith and Religion....Two things that can be utterly and diametrically oppsed to each other, and yet at the same time have a rather uneasy overlap. The Pope was calling for Crusade for religion and power. In his mind they were the same...He would unite the Greek and Catholic chirches...presumably under him. To him, I think it was not just one or the other, he thought that he should have the power as God's representative on Earth, and that it would be best for both to be united. To the great lords who could possibly read Latin, I think it may have been more of a money opportunity. God knows some of these guys proved beyond all doubt they were all about the power and gain, and to Hell with religion. I'm intentionally not addressing lesser lords and knights, since I don't know what their education and knowledge of Scripture may have been.

The Peasant's Crusade was faith, and nothing about religion, I would think. These were people who only knew what their priests and other religious leaders told them was right and holy. The dupe principle. But they went entirely on faith. They believed that yes, this is what God really wanted from them to do. I would imagine many of the lesser and middle clergy really got caught up in that belief as well. Maybe even some Cadinals and Archbishops. You can't get 60,000 peasants to march as a mob that they truly feeel is justified without true faith. Simple deception I don't think, would cover something of that scale. These are people who honestly wanted to do God's will, yet unfortunately, were given really bad instructions on what that was.

Obviously the Saracens operated on faith. It's a good point that jihad was only after the great conquests pulled back to defensive wars. They went to evengelize with the sword...as did many Christians, even Charlemange in conquering his empire. Tho he may have more used evangelism as conquest.

Yeah, both sides were wrong and did awful things. But, both sides were utterly convinced they were RIGHT. Material gain can give you just as much conviction in your own mind as faith or religion.

Maybe if the Crusades had been launched as "a strike behind enemy lines to relieve the pressure on our Spanish brothers" ...lol.

Ok, I'm done yammering.

Christopher

[Alcyoneus]

Later, muslims scholars would decree that a true Jihad can not be offensive in nature, and the modern concept of defensive jihad was introduced,

Now that we have ours...

No, we aren't giving yours back...

[BdeB]

It perpetuates the 'Richard I was gay' BS, and glosses over a lot of facts to make it's points. I was the same as you Glen, I was disappointed in some regards, and chuckled at others. Over all, I sorta just groaned thru it...