To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).
What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?
But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.
Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades
A balanced portrayal of both sides, which tries to find (and even film) the actual battle sites
As far as bias goes, it would seem that this documentary actually doesn't have much of it. They definitely cover the Christian atrocities, of course, and show that they were the true aggressors in this conflict. But they also cover the Muslim side, and cover its warts to boot. Moreover, this documentary also interviews talking heads from both the Christian and Muslim nations; and all of these talking heads speak English, incidentally. This makes it easier for us to understand them, of course, without any need for dubbing or subtitles. There is also a significant focus on archaeology here, since they try to find (and even film) some of the actual battle sites of the Crusades. The exact location of some of these battles has long been a mystery, but the History Channel claims to be the first to find at least one of them – namely, the actual site of the Battle of Dorylaeum. I do not claim to be an expert on archaeology, of course (at least, not for this period); and thus cannot speak to the accuracy of their conclusions. Nonetheless, their chosen site seemed like it was at least plausible; and since they needed a visual for their depiction of this battle, I suppose that their choice was as good as any. The re-enactments for the battle scenes are excellent, as it turns out, and their other re-enactments are also quite good. Surprisingly for a History Channel production, they also have actors dramatizing the writings of this time by speaking into the camera. Since they use period costumes when doing this, their chosen technique was very effective here, and helped to bring some of these firsthand accounts to life. This is one of the highlights of this documentary for me, as was Keith David's narration (which was brilliant as always).
Battle of Dorylaeum, 1097
Both sides viewed the other as “barbarian infidels” at this time
Both sides were in something of a “medieval mindset” at this time. The Christians and Muslims both viewed each other as “barbarian infidels” during the Middle Ages. For the most part, Christians have since moved beyond this mindset, but many Muslims have not. A Muslim historian in this documentary mentions that many Muslims today remember the stories of the Crusades – including the many Christian atrocities – “as if they were yesterday” (to paraphrase what he said). Muslims still often see the Westerners as “invading Crusaders,” of course, and thus see every Western war in the Middle East as being another “Crusade.” It would seem that there are some flaws in these comparisons, but they are nonetheless uncritically accepted by some on the modern left. Like some of their counterparts in the Muslim world, the left is unable to forgive the West for any portion of its past sins; and can find (seemingly limitless) reasons to be angry at events from 700 years ago. But with rare exceptions, this documentary doesn't get involved much in these contemporary politics that I have just mentioned. Rather, it just sticks to telling the story for the most part; and this adds much to their storytelling. One exception to this is when one of the Muslim talking heads mentions George W. Bush's (admittedly unfortunate) use of the word “crusade” to describe the War on Terror, with the historian's comment that it sent a “collective shiver down the spine of the Muslim world” (or words to that effect). I should acknowledge for my readers here that this was probably an accurate description of the Muslim reaction to these comments. But in fairness to Mr. Bush, one might briefly point out in his defense that the word “crusade” has other meanings in English, besides the one (wrongfully) attributed to him here. Thus, it would seem that his comments here were somewhat distorted; although the Muslim propagandists who seized on these comments may have made this inevitable, since they did not have a strong regard for the truth of the matter. Like many of their counterparts in the Western world, it would seem that their bias overwhelmed any desire they might have had for factual accuracy. (But that's a topic for another post.)
Statue of Saladin in Damascus, one of the most celebrated Muslim generals of the Crusades
The Crusades had negative effects on the Christian world (and not just on the Islamic world)
But whatever one thinks of the contemporary politics of Islam, this documentary would seem to be the definitive coverage of the history of the Crusades themselves; and their negative effects on both the Islamic and Western worlds. The Christian nations of this time, for example, often taxed their people heavily to pay for it all; and so the treasuries of these countries were often somewhat depleted. The territorial gains of these Crusades were also somewhat short-lived, and the territory that they conquered is now mostly in the hands of Muslims today (as, perhaps, it should be). Many of the Crusaders themselves believed that they would go to heaven if they fought honorably in these campaigns. But even the Catholic Church no longer endorses this belief, and many have since interpreted these arguments as mere “rationalizations,” and nothing more. For these people – including myself, to some extent – the true motives of these Crusaders were “land” and “money.” For some of these soldiers, the religious argument may have been more important psychologically; but for the leaders of the Crusades, at least – and even for many of the soldiers – the “land and money” argument was probably the most powerful inducement, as it has been for every other aggressive enterprise in history.
King Richard the Lionheart, one of the most famous of the Crusaders
Conclusion: For now, this documentary may be the definitive coverage of the Crusades
But regardless of how the individual soldiers of this time may have viewed the Crusades, their motivations for these campaigns will remain somewhat alien for us today – and, perhaps, should be so. The Byzantines and Muslims were, of course, justified in defending themselves (and their homes) from any sort of invasion, but the war of the Crusader side was ultimately an unjust war, which did not justify the significant cost in human life that it entailed. Even in the Western world, this negative assessment is now generally accepted today. Thus, the memory of this conflict tends to be somewhat painful, even for a number of contemporary Christians. But if you want to really understand what happened in these Crusades, you would be well advised to come to this documentary for a television overview. In three hours, it manages to be relevant for our times, solid on the information, and entertaining and interesting to boot – thus achieving all of the essential features for a documentary.
DVD at Amazon
If you liked this topic, you might also like:
A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)
A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)
A review of “The Dark Ages” (History Channel)
A review of “Islam: Empire of Faith” (PBS Empires)
A review of the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga”
A review of the BBC’s “The Crusades”
A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)
Part of a series about
European history
This list covers Europe through the Renaissance. For Europe since the Renaissance, click here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment