A review of the BBC’s “The Plantagenets”

“No scutage nor aid [i.e. forms of medieval taxation] shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom [which is the beginning of Parliament], except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.”

– English translation of Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Medieval Latin, which was forcibly signed by King John, one of the Plantagenet kings

Backstabbings, assassinations, and civil wars: The story of Britain’s bloodiest dynasty

“The story of the Plantagenets,” says the box for this DVD, “is the real Game of Thrones.” Although I’ve not seen the show “Game of Thrones,” I know its reputation, and so this may actually be a good comparison – although this program, thankfully, has no sex scenes in it; while the show “Game of Thrones” does. The Plantagenet story is filled with violence, both on the personal and national levels. On the personal level, kings were murdered by those in their own families who were next in line for the throne – sometimes in clear ways, and other times in ways that were merely suspicious; but which raised more than a few eyebrows at the time. And on the national level, the struggles to control the throne often sucked in the rest of the country as well, dragging England into multiple civil wars. This was one of the surprises for me, that there were multiple civil wars just during the Plantagenet reign. The most well-known are the fifteenth-century “Wars of the Roses,” which I cover in a different blog post. But there were others as well, showing that monarchy is actually a fairly unstable form of government. Ironically, the supporters of monarchy have often defended it as the most stable form of government imaginable, but the story of the Plantagenets tends to suggest otherwise, with a fairly high body count by the time that their reign was concluded in 1485.

Edward the First

A review of “St. Thomas Aquinas” (audiobook)

The Italian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas is appreciated by more than just Catholics. He is also venerated by some Protestant groups, such as Lutherans and Anglicans. Thomas Aquinas wrote before the Protestant religion had come to be. This may help to explain why a number of later Protestants felt comfortable with quoting him. And, of course, he is lionized by Catholics, who give him the coveted title of “St. Thomas Aquinas.”

A review of “Duns Scotus and Medieval Christianity” (audiobook)

The Scottish philosopher Duns Scotus got a bad rap after his death. The English word “dunce” comes from the name of “Duns Scotus.” By extension, so does the English phrase “dunce cap.” But there’s a lot to learn about with Duns Scotus, and from the other medieval Christian philosophers. This audiobook is marketed as “Duns Scotus and Medieval Christianity,” but the introductory narration for this audiobook calls it “Duns Scotus and Medieval Christian Philosophy.” To me, this sounds like a more appropriate title, since the focus of the audiobook is on philosophy – and, more specifically, religious philosophy.

A review of “Maimonides and Medieval Jewish Philosophy” (audiobook)

Moses ben Maimon (better known as Maimonides) was one of the most important philosophers of the Middle Ages. He was a Jewish philosopher, but he also had a great effect on Christians and Muslims. Nonetheless, he was quite controversial in his own time, even amongst his fellow Jews. He criticized certain aspects of the era’s Jewish religion, and made many enemies by so doing. He was controversial enough that his books were burned by the authorities, sometimes at the request of his fellow Jews. This was ironic, because he lived in the Muslim Almoravid Empire, which was then fairly tolerant of the Jewish religion. Nonetheless, the Muslims would grant some of the requests to have his books burned, and some of those who had requested this burning later saw their own books burned as well. Such is the irony of censorship, then and now.

A review of “Medieval Science” (audiobook)

The medieval period is often seen as “backwards” today – and to some extent, this really is true. But this era also had some great science, as this audiobook attests. Much of it was in the Western world, but much of it was instead in the Islamic world. This is sometimes considered the “Islamic Golden Age,” with fantastic achievements in the arts and the sciences. For example, the Muslim invention of algebra is a product of this period. Obviously, algebra is more mathematics than science, but it is used extensively in science, and thus is relevant to their discussion at times. This audiobook is careful to avoid the kind of complex mathematics that would repel a general audience, but it judiciously mentions the role of math whenever it is relevant to their discussion.

A review of the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga”

There’s a reason that 1066 is the best remembered year in British history. In that year, the Normans invaded England. They are the last people ever to do so successfully. Others have tried since then (notably Napoleon and Hitler), but none of them have succeeded. This is known in English history as “the Norman Conquest” – or sometimes, just “the Conquest.” But who were the Normans? Where did they come from? How did they come to be in France – and then, later, in England? Did they engage in conquests elsewhere in the world? And why, after all of their successes, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

These are complicated questions, and researching them brings a number of surprising answers. But two documentaries are especially good at delving into this subject. They are the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga.” I considered reviewing them separately in two different blog posts, but the overlap between them is quite considerable. Thus, it may make sense to cover them together here, and show their relative advantages and disadvantages. Each of them covers some things that the other doesn’t, and brings a unique perspective to some of the events that both of them cover.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages”

During the Dark Ages, there were a number of invasions of what is today “England.” Some of them were before the state of England was created, while others of them happened long after its formation. But if you want a good television overview of these invasions, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better one than Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages,” made for the BBC in the late seventies and early eighties.

A review of Neil Oliver’s “Vikings: The Real Warriors” (BBC)

In the year 793, the Vikings attacked a monastery on the English island of Lindisfarne. It was the beginning of the Viking invasion of England – or, at least, the first Viking invasion. Thus, many historians mark this raid as the beginning of the “Viking Age.” It was then that they first became important players on the world stage. But who were the Vikings? Where did they come from? Why did they act as they did? Were they just a kind of “medieval terrorist,” or is there more to the story than that? And why, after all that they accomplished, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

A review of “Avicenna and Medieval Muslim Philosophy” (audiobook)

During the Middle Ages, the Muslim world helped to keep Greek philosophy alive. In the wake of the Roman Empire’s fall in the fifth century, the West was rapidly forgetting Greek learning. In particular, the works of Aristotle were temporarily lost in the West. But in the Middle East, they were kept alive in Arabic translation, long before the West would rediscover their original Greek during the Renaissance.

A review of “Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity” (audiobook)

“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

– Closing lines of the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” (381 CE), a modified version of the “Nicene Creed” (325 CE) – as translated by the 1975 ecumenical version from the “International Consultation on English Texts” (or ICET)

In the eleventh century, Christianity was split into two groups: the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These churches are the subjects of this audiobook.

A review of “The Life of Muhammad”

“Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers and compassionate with one another.”

– English translation of The Quran, Surah 48:29

A biography of the founder of Islam, who lived in the Early Middle Ages …

Of the English-language films about the Prophet Muhammad, this one appears to be the longest. It is a journalistic examination of his life, and is good despite this journalistic style. It was made by the BBC, but distributed in America through PBS. If I am not mistaken, the film was directed by one British Muslim, written by another, and presented by still another – namely, Rageh Omaar. I am glad that this documentary was made by Muslims, because it allows one to hear an inside perspective on their faith. For this reason, one wishes that PBS’s film “The Mormons” had been made by a Latter-Day Saint filmmaker – or more precisely, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. “The Life of Muhammad” gives a three-hour overview of the life of Islam’s great prophet – which provides no pictures of Muhammad himself, in deference to the Muslim prohibitions on these pictures of the prophet. Nonetheless, this film succeeds in providing its viewer with a visually interesting biography despite this limitation.

Rageh Omaar, the presenter of this documentary

A review of “Islam: Empire of Faith” (PBS Empires)

“˹He is˺ Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him, the Lord of the Mighty Throne.”

– English translation of The Quran, Surah 27:26

A history of medieval Islam, and the empires that it influenced …

Islam seems always to be in the news these days. Ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we have heard much about this religion (not all of it accurate). But this series came out before the terrorist attacks had ever happened – the year 2000, to be specific. This may actually be a virtue of the series, that it came out before then. It makes it easier to be objective about their history, and to not read contemporary interpretations into their history that might be best left out. We get neither a heroic nor a villainous version of Islam, but something in between. We hear well-deserved praise of their massive achievements, as well as some presentation of the controversies involved in their history.

A review of “The Dark Ages: An Age of Light” (BBC)

The Early Middle Ages are today remembered as the “Dark Ages.” The art historian Kenneth Clark made this argument in his landmark documentary series “Civilisation.” His first episode is entirely focused on this period, and he concludes that this period was essentially uncivilized. The History Channel documentary entitled “The Dark Ages” also makes the case for these being “Dark Ages.” For example, they point to the lack of literacy and education in the Early Middle Ages. But there have been others, such as Waldemar Januszczak, who have argued that it is a much-maligned age. They point to the fantastic art of this period, as evidence that it is more sophisticated than people thought. This is the case that Waldemar Januszczak makes in this film.

Which interpretation is correct? To a large degree, they both are. I don’t believe that we have to choose between them. The fall of the Western Roman Empire left utter chaos in its wake, and this chaos does indeed define parts of the Early Middle Ages. But it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say. There were islands of civilization even in the Early Middle Ages. More to the point, Waldemar Januszczak seems to be correct that there was fantastic art in this period, which cast doubt upon the most extreme interpretations of the “Dark Ages.”

Waldemar Januszczak, the presenter of this series

A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown”

So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?

In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.

The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …

It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.

20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil

A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)

The greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history (the Black Death) …

It is still the greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history. Some estimate that the plague killed 30 percent of the European population, but many others place it around 50 percent. To many Europeans of this time, the apocalyptic Plague seemed like “the end of the world,” and there may have been reason for them to see it this way. No war has ever killed as many people as the “Great Plague” did, and the death toll was easily numbered in the millions. Small wonder, then, that this massive outbreak of the fourteenth century is sometimes known simply as “the Plague,” as it is called in this documentary's title.

A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

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 review of “The Dark Ages” (History Channel)

The term “Dark Ages” usually refers to the Early Middle Ages, if it is used at all …

People once used the term “Dark Ages” to refer to the entire Middle Ages. But now, when the term is used at all, it usually refers to just the Early Middle Ages – that is to say, the centuries immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. A number of people today have actually objected to the use of the term “Dark Ages” itself. But although the History Channel acknowledges the prevalence of this objection, it obviously does not agree with it, as it seems to make clear in this documentary. Whatever you call this period, though, it is clear that the fall of what Westerners today call the “Roman Empire” left chaos in its immediate wake.

When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta