The History Book Club discussion

This is a thread devoted to the discussion of THE CRUSADES (people, locations, events, books and other publications, battles, historic sites, maps, research information, urls, etc.)

Please feel free to add any and all discussion information related to this topic area in this thread.

Bentley



The Crusades were a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire.

The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century.

The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.

Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence. The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders.

The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.

Please make sure when adding books that you are recommending that you add both the book's cover and the photo or link to the author. This helps populate the site properly.

Hi folks,

Just to start this new section off I can recommend a few good books that I have read covering this period of history:

by Thomas Asbridge
by Zoe Oldenbourg
by Piers Paul Read
by Jonathan Phillips

by Antony Bridge

Others that I have but not read yet include:

by Jonathan Phillips

by Christopher Tyerman

& & by Steven Runciman

Thank you Aussie Rick for your post and thank you for adding both the covers and the author's links.

Hello everyone,
I have and own two books that I am looking at and Recommend during the Crusade period! These books will give you a perspective view of the Arabs eyes and European eyes view! Very Interesting!


Francesco Gabrieli


Thomas F. Madden

I hope we can start a discussion on the Crusades. Especially these coming Holy Holidays!

Thank you for your adds Regulo (both covers and authors).

How about any of these?

The Atlas of the Crusades (no cover available) by Jonathan Riley-Smith

Elizabeth Hallam



Robert Payne

Christopher Tyerman

Jonathan Riley-Smith

Regulo wrote: "Hello everyone,
I have and own two books that I am looking at and Recommend during the Crusade period! These books will give you a perspective view of the Arabs eyes and European eyes view! Very I..."

You should on this thread; just post what you are interested in discussing. You may want to discuss some of the pros and cons of some of the books you posted and/or others have posted and tell us a little bit about your love of this period in history. I know Aussie Rick is very interested in discussing with you some of your readings, etc.

Bentley wrote: "Regulo wrote: "Hello everyone,
I have and own two books that I am looking at and Recommend during the Crusade period! These books will give you a perspective view of the Arabs eyes and European eye..."

I'm more than happy to discuss the Crusades and any good books anyone wants to mention. I'm interested in the military religious orders in the Holy Land and the military campaigns undertaken by the crusaders.
I’ve always liked that story of Richard the Lionheart averting his eyes so he would not see Jerusalem knowing that he could never enter the city. I have a few good books on Saladin that I want to read as the sections I have read about him in general histories have attracted my interest.

by Geoffrey Hindley and;

by P. H. Newby and finally:

by Malcolm Cameron Lyons

These two books I have read and quite enjoyed:

by James Reston Jr. and;

by John. Gillingham

Bentley wrote: "How about any of these?

The Atlas of the Crusades (no cover available) by Jonathan Riley-Smith

[author:Elizabeth Hallam..."

Hi Bentley,

I read Robert Payne's book on the Crusades (ISBN 070905467X) and if I remember correctly it was a fairly decent read, a good general history and a interesting account. I think it would be a good starting point for anyone who hasn't read about this period of history before.

(I can't seem to get the link to the book)

Robert Payne

I think this is the book you mean.

I've quite enjoyed edited by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

Bentley wrote: "Robert Payne

I think this is the book you mean."

Thanks for that Bentley, for some reason I couldn't get the link to work properly. For those who are looking for something a bit different to read about the Crusades I could recommend this title:

by Tim Severin
Publishers blurb:
"Nearly 900 years after Duke Godfrey de Bouillon set out on the First Crusade, Tim Severin set out with one woman and two horses to retrace his steps. Starting out from Chateau Bouillon in Belgium with the same breed of Ardennes Heavy Horse used by Duke Godfrey, Severin followed the historic trail for eight and a half months. Riding out of the green countryside of northern Europe into the heat and parched landscape of the Near East, he and his companion covered more than 2,500 miles, past ruined Crusader settlements and ancient battlefields, through arduous mountain passes and across barren Anatolian steppes. Across Germany, Austria, Hungary, (then) Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Syria, he followed the precise route of the medieval voyagers towards their common destination - Jerusalem. In this dazzling synthesis of adventure, practical history and exploration, Severin assesses just how far Duke Godfrey could have travelled each day; which routes the Crusaders would have taken and how they would have cared for themselves and their horses."

The Crusades:

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 1 of 10)

The History Channel:

This is an excellent documentary on the Crusades, the religious wars that pitted Christians and Muslims against each other for control of the Holy Land. Includes acted out sequences, battle scenes, expert commentary... Everything that makes a modern documentary better.

The first part segment deals with the beginnings of and the reasons for the Crusades. And the fate of the First Crusade, the most successful one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu2UG2...

Books on The First Crusade:


Thomas Asbridge

Book Review on The First Crusade: A New History, by Thomas Asbridge

http://atheism.about.com/od/bookrevie...

Thomas Asbridge - Biography

http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/a...

Books on The First Crusade and locales:

Tariq Ali

ABOVE - HISTORICAL FICTION - NOVELS

Tariq Ali's Point of View on Recent Times:

Tariq Ali

ABOVE - NON FICTION

Some of Ali's Recent Talks:

http://www.tariqali.org/Talks.html

About Ali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali

British Council:

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/au...

Conversation(s):

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_1.2...

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Elbe...

http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatters...

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/tari...

Books on the First Crusades and others:

Who is Dr. Jonathan Phillips?

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/...

[image error] Jonathan Philips

Books on the First Crusades and others:

Who is Professor Paul Crawford?

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/...

The Crusades: Secondary Sources:

http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/relig...

The On Line Reference Book to Medieval Studies

http://www.the-orb.net/

The Templar of Tyre - Google

http://books.google.com/books?id=BfNq...

Pope Urban II - most well known for starting the first Crusade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urb...

http://www.templarhistory.com/urbanii...

New Advent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210...

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/...

http://medievalhistory.suite101.com/a...

November 27, 1095

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi...

Medieval Sourcebook on Urban:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source...

Robert Somerville

Timeline of the East West Schism:

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/ort...

Wow, what a lot of rich information. Some day I'll have to read about the Crusades. Good thing I'll know where to look for books!

Smile.

Bentley wrote: "The Crusades:

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 1 of 10)

The History Channel:

This is an excellent documentary on the Crusades, the religious wars that pitted Christians and Musli..."

Bentley wrote: "The Crusades:

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 1 of 10)

The History Channel:

This is an excellent documentary on the Crusades, the religious wars that pitted Christians and Musli..."

Hi Bently,
Thank you for sharing this Excellent documentary on the Crusade during the religious war between Christans & Muslims. An interesting perspective view of the Crusade.

I'm also looking at the Crusade period from the other side, through the eyes and minds of men who at the time were the enemy. An interesting perspective view also!

Thanks
Reggie,

Yes that would be.

Bentley

Hi Aussie Rick,
Thank you for sharing your interest on the Crusades. I'm really fascinated as to the history and campaigns that took place during the beginning of the Crusades.

I'd like to first discuss the beginning of when the Turks defeated the Byzantine forces at the battle of Manzikert during the 1071. Who was Emperor Romanus IV (1068-1071). Who was the Turk leader during the intial attack on Byzantine forces? Who was Alexius I Comnenus during (1081-1118) who raised a mercenary army to fight the turk and turned to the West Europe for help. How did Gregory VII react to Byzantine appeal for his help.

I'd like to get a better understanding of the Council of Clermont. How did Pope Urban II during (1088-1099)react to Alexius I Comnenus request for aid to help fight the Turks? What happened?

Your Thoughts on pope Urban II preaching on the First Crusade.

Regulo wrote: "Hi Aussie Rick,
Thank you for sharing your interest on the Crusades. I'm really fascinated as to the history and campaigns that took place during the beginning of the Crusades.

I'd like to fir..."

Hi Regulo,

I am going to have to dust off my books from trilogy on Byzantium, which covers this complete period in detail. If you haven't read his works I would suggest that you would most likely enjoy reading his three volumes on Byzantium, a great historical account and a great read. I have been trying to find a reasonably priced second hand copy of:

The Dreadful Day The Battle of Manzikert, 1071 by Alfred Friendly

as I would love to read more about this battle.

Romanus IV (Diogenes), Byzantine emperor from 1068 to 1071, was a member of a distinguished Cappadocian family, and had risen to distinction in the army, when he was convicted of treason against the sons of Constantine X. While waiting execution he was summoned into the presence of the empress regent, whom he so fascinated that she granted him a free pardon and shortly afterwards married him. After his coronation he carried on three successful campaigns against the Saracens and Seliuk Turks, whom he drove beyond the Euphrates; in a fourth he was disastrously defeated by Alp Arslan in 1071 on the banks of the Araxes at the Battle of Manzikert and taken prisoner.

A plea from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. to Pope Urban II. lead to the Pope making a public speech in the cathedral of Clermont, urging all Christians to reinforce the Byzantines and reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. At that people from all over France and parts of Europe dropped tools and started for the Holy Land finally being massacred and enslaved by the Turks after being ambushed near the village of Dracon (this was after these Crusaders had done considerable damage to cities and towns in their path whilst trekking through Europe to the Holy Land). This was known as the 'Peoples or the Peasants Crusade'. Besides this crowd of people we also had the knights and orders of Europe attending the Holy Land as part of the First Crusade.

& & by John Julius Norwich


One book that covers Byztantium's early wars against the Turks is:

by Geoffrey Regan

THE HISTORY CHANNEL - UK VERSION OF THE CRUSADES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--A7WD...

The History Channel's own pub historian explains why Pope Urban II called Christians to join the Crusades and capture Jerusalem.

The Crusades:

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 2 of 10)

The History Channel:

This is an excellent documentary on the Crusades, the religious wars that pitted Christians and Muslims against each other for control of the Holy Land. Includes acted out sequences, battle scenes, expert commentary... Everything that makes a modern documentary better.

The Crusades has as their beginning the pleas from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. The Muslim Seljuk Turks from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) were trying to make huge conquests including the Byzantine empire and at the same time spread Islam. The First Crusade was the way to strike back and to take back the Levant, Jerusalem and undue what had occurred in Constantinople. From my viewpoint, it was not as if the Crusades set out on a mission without huge initial provocation. However, things have a way of getting out of control. Remember however, it was the Anatolians (Turks) who had started this ordeal with their horrendous march and takeover of Byzantine areas of Persia, Syria, Palestine, Jerusalem and poor Constantinople. This was not an Islamic area. Of course now everyone knows the song...Istanbul is Constantinople...but it wasn't always that way.

According to Wikipedia:

The First Crusade was a military expedition by European Christians to regain the Holy Lands taken by the Muslim conquest of the Levant, which resulted in the capture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to the appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. The Emperor requested that western volunteers come to their aid and repel the invading Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, modern day Turkey. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule.

Pope Urban marketed the Crusades and gave all participants a "ticket to heaven". However, any non Christian became known as an infidel.

Does this sound familiar?

Of course over time, there is a great deal of back and forth and contention about who were the aggressors and who were the victims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W9Ru4...

One thing that did occur at the hands of the Crusaders is what some consider the first Holocaust. Another terrible event.

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 3 of 10) - The History Channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaqXU2...

What precipitated the First Crusades?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/cr...

Who was Duke Godfrey?

Medieval Sourcebook:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source...

New Advent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06624...

To take the cross as they said someone did who joined the Crusades was a huge sacrifice, they sold their land, they mortgaged land and basically sold everything they had to finance their participation. This was a big sacrifice for pious men like Duke Godfrey.

His brother Count Baldwin however was not as pious.

An account of Baldwin I of Jerusalem as he became known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_...

Who is Professor John France of Swansea?

http://www.swan.ac.uk/news_centre/Lat...

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/...

Professor France is actually spending some time in the US at West Point (2009 - 2010) - He will be holding the Charles Boal Ewing Chair in Military History at the military academy during that time period.

[image error] John France

Professor France states that the prospective Crusaders like Duke Godfrey and others had to save and come up with about 6 years income before departing to be able to live and survive through the Crusades.

A rich man would come with his household and everybody who would normally accompany him. They also in many instances brought their wives...yes their wives went with their husbands to the Crusades. They too were inspired by this remarkable opportunity for salvation that had been promised by Pope Urban for participating in these Crusades and making these personal sacrifices in their own lives. What you ended up having in these marches was almost a whole city on the move going Eastward towards Jerusalem. Also, he stated that it must have been an enormous undertaking to find enough food for these large numbers of pilgrims on their march. He believes that they must have had to buy their food from the local communities they passed through and farms along the way.

All of these armies across Europe kept going towards the East and Jerusalem and converged and met each other at their designated meeting point: Constantinople.

An excellent site on the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople:

http://www.pallasweb.com/deesis/index...

Books regarding the fall of Constantinople:


Steven Runciman

Stephen R. Turnbull

David Nicolle

Nanami Shiono

(no cover) by John J. Yiannias

(no cover) by Edwin, Sir Pears

[image error] Edwin, Sir Pears

Bernardine Kielty

What Professor Phillips states is that Emperor Alexius was furious that he got tens of thousands of fanatical religious personages at the gate of Constantinople...what he wanted was about an elite team of mercenaries not the hoardes of armed men outside his gate. He certainly did not want to offend them but this was not was he asked for and certainly not what he expected. He wanted about 300 knights - well trained and well armed so that he could direct them to the strategic locations.

Alexius was crafty like a scorpion and decided that he was a man with a plan..he decided to invite in simply the leaders of the expeditions - especially Duke Godfrey and his brother Count Baldwin.

Alexius however did not count on Bohemond; although ultimately he prevailed:

http://www.pallasweb.com/deesis/index...

From the google book: The Normans (about Bohemond)

http://books.google.com/books?id=tUns...

Christopher Gravett

Alexius tried and planned through fraud and cunning to trick these Christian knights:

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 4 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00GdXW...

Alexius had lost a great deal of his land to the Turks already and he did not want to lose the rest to these Christian knights so he decided to play what he considered his trump card. Alexius controlled all of the markets and all of the food; both sides realized that they must deal with Alexius to even eat. In return for his promise to provide food, each knight and leader had to swear an oath to the Emperor himself. They also had to swear that any lands that they won back from the Turks that they had to return to him. The Crusaders new partners became the Byzantines. The Crusaders were then on their way to Jerusalem; but on their way they hit the first enemy held city: Nicaea which had been a Byzantine city before being attacked by the Turks. Now the Turks call it İznik.

Twenty years earlier this Byzantine city had been seized and was at that time being controlled by Kilij Arslan I of Rum. He was the most powerful of the leaders of the Turks.

For six weeks the Crusaders beseiged the walled city of Nicaea and the fighting was intense. The Byzantines had brought their ships to help with the siege but they used their ships for a much different purpose. The Byzantines contacted the Turks inside the city secretly and asked for their surrender or stated basically that they would have to face the Crusaders. So when morning breaks, the Crusaders are shocked to see the Imperial flags of the Byzantine empire flying. The city had surrendered!

This incensed the Crusader army for they knew then they had been double crossed by the Byzantines and Alexius. This did not bode well for their new found alliance. Likewise Kilij Arslans was none too pleased and shadowed the Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem and wanted his revenge. He was very upset about losing what was his best seized Christian city which had once become his capitol.

He wanted to ambush the Crusaders and he had with him - 50,000 troops. This was to be one of the famous battles of the first Crusade.

First Crusade: Battle of Dorylaeum

See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_o...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 5 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwzJA_...

Who is Dr. Taef el-Azhari?

He is a professor from Egypt who teaches in Saudi Arabia. In the History Channel's presentation on the Crusades, Dr. Taef El-Azhari, Faculty of Arts and Education, Buraida, Safra Quassim, Saudi Arabia, visits the abandoned city of Maarrat Numan to tell the tale of Christian soldiers' brutality in the First Crusade. Currently the site of that first battle is now a junkyard believe it or not. What is surprising in a way is that El-Azhari fails to present the fact that the Byzantine empire and other Christian cities had been savagely attacked and exterminated in many cases. And the Crusades were the response to that call of help. Yes, the Crusaders also resorted to the same tactics.

But it does appear to be revisionist history or an error of omission to mention the one without the other or to potentially suggest that the Christian brutality came first!. I found that rather interesting. There is no doubt that in Maarrat Numan the Crusaders were also brutal which seemed to ring true during this period of time. Neither side can be exonerated but there was a timeline. Of course, the professor's segment could have been heavily edited. One of the tidbits that I found personally interesting was his account of these foot soldiers who would lay on their backs and shoot these crossbows; they had depictions of them...I think these are some photos of how they explained they shot their arrows. Positively astounding: (I think these are some enactments of how they operated - I could not find any other photos) - they called them the Naukia or something like that...not sure of the spelling.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showth...


I actually later found some references to the professor being at Helwan University, Egypt.

This is the only book that I could find by the professor on goodreads...there does not appear to be a cover (I will continue to look):

Taef Kamal El-Azhari

Here is the DVD from The History Channel on the Crusades..it is not that pricey:

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=...

I think that the truth of the matter is not as simple as Alexius scheming behind the Crusaders backs. He asked for assistance from the catholic Church and didn't exactly get what he hoped for, and what was the point of losing his lands to the Turks and then winning it back again at some cost just so the Crusaders could keep it for them selves which is what exactly happened in the long run.

Look what happened on the Fourth Crusade when the Christian Crusaders stormed and sacked Constantinople. Poor old Alexius was in a no win situation. What about the oath’s taken by the Crusaders to respect Alexius rights in regards to the conquered areas, were they respected? Some of the Crusaders really believed in a Holy quest but many were on the look out for lands and power for themselves and their families, regardless of who actually had rights to the land they re-took.

I know this is a bit simplistic but I have very little time at the moment and figured this might get people talking.

It seemed that one of the Crusaders strategic mistakes was to take a more circuitous route to Jerusalem through the Anti-Taurus mountains.

Baldwin's wife was one of the casualties of this detour and all of her land holdings would go back to her family upon her death.

Within a day or two of her death; Count Baldwin's policies changed to one of acquisition and greed (according to Professor Phillips). Baldwin went off to seize a target of his own: Edessa.

But this was not a Muslim city but a Christian one that had held out against the Turks.

Since the city was weary of attacks by the Turks, they implored their leader to ask these Crusaders in and maybe they could give them some help.

A brief history of what he was up to:

In 1098, Baldwin of Boulogne left the main Crusading army, which was travelling south towards Antioch and Jerusalem, and went first south into Cilicia, then east to Edessa.

There, he convinced its lord, Thoros, to adopt him as a son and heir. Thoros was a Christian of Armenian origin but of Greek Orthodox religion and was largely disliked by his Armenian Orthodox subjects; in March 1098 he was assassinated or abdicated (here historians conflict), although it is unknown if Baldwin had any part in whichever of the two options did happen.

Nonetheless, Baldwin succeeded Thoros as ruler, taking the title of Count (having been Count of Verdun as a vassal of his brother in Europe).

In 1100, Baldwin became King of Jerusalem when his brother Godfrey of Bouillon died.

The County of Edessa passed to his cousin Baldwin of Bourcq. He was joined by Joscelin of Courtenay, who became lord of the fortress of Turbessel on the Euphrates, an important outpost against the Seljuk Turks.

The Frankish lords formed a good rapport with their Armenian subjects, and there were frequent intermarriages; the first three counts all married Armenians.

Count Baldwin's wife had died in Maraş in 1097, and after he succeeded to Edessa he married Arda, a granddaughter of the Armenian Roupenid chief Constantine.

Baldwin of Bourcq married Morphia, a daughter of Gabriel of Melitene, and Joscelin of Courtenay married a daughter of Constantine.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_o...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 6 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhl4o...

The main body of the first crusade began to depart in mid-August 1096.

Hugh of Vermandois who was the brother of France arrived at the city of Constantinople first, then Godfrey of Bouillon. Both had already reached Constantinople and were transported across the straits to confront the Turks.

By far the most powerful magnate to take up the cross was Raymond, Count of Toulouse. This fifty-five year old warrior had spent his life extending his power over thirteen countries in southern France almost entire region.

Pope Urban II desire was to have Raymond to serve as the commander in chief, or at least principle leader, on the holy enterprise.

Raymond arrived at Constantinople on April 21, 1097 just after Hugh, Godfrey and Bohemond had already been transported across Bosporus.

The Crusade's first objective would be the city of Nicaea and finally captured and won by the crusaders.

The next objective was the city of Antioch. On October 21, 1097, they caught sight of the large walls of Antioch. Its fortifications were massive with long walls.

Bohemond had for some time been attempting to corrup a captian of the guard in the city, and had finally met with success. On the night of June 3, 1098, Bohemond and his men scrambled over the walls and opened the city gates of Antioch.

The crusaders spilled into the dozing city, capturing it in matter of hours. Antioch was in crusader hands.
Source Book:

What happened to Thoros does not bode well for making the Crusaders look like folks who have only come to save Christians from the invaders.

According to Tariq Ali, many of the Christians started to look upon the Crusaders as fanatical and brutal Christian fundamentalists and barbarians who maybe should be feared. Of course, this is all conjecture and the warfare tactics of both sides left a lot to be desired.

In the meantime, the other Crusader army arrived at Antioch. Since the apostle Saint Peter this had been a thriving Christian city. But in 1085, the Turks had seized control. This would have been a prize second only to Jerusalem. Antioch now lies in ruin in Eastern Turkey so it is hard to envision today what the splendid city must have been like.

Here are some photos of the Cave Church of St. Peter, Antioch:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/tu...

About Antioch:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/tu...

At the time of the Crusades, the majority of Antioch's inhabitants were Armenians and Greek Orthodox Christians. Supposedly they had been granted total freedom to worship.

The Turk who had seized Antioch had been Yaghi-Siyan. The story goes that when he knew that the Crusaders were going to be outside his gates, he decided on a plan because he did not know whether he could trust the Christians. So the first day he sent all of the Muslims outside of the city to dig trenches. At the end of the day he let them all back in. The next day he sent the Christians out to do the very same thing. However, when they were finished at the end of the day; he refused to let them back in. He locked them out with the Crusaders. After 8 months, the Crusaders were no closer to getting in and the situation was growing desperate. Food was getting scarce and the Crusaders had to feed the expelled Christians too. However, Bohemond made a deal with Firuz a tower guard and because of that betrayal, the Crusaders were able to get into the city.

About Yaghi-Siyan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaghi-Siyan

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 7 of 10

I do think this version (the History Channel) tried very hard to glorify Yaghi-Siyan...I did not understand some of the editing of this program. Yet overall it was pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBKCi...

In the next segment, there was an account by Father Bernt Besch, who was the Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem who spoke of the visions or dreams by Peter Bartholomew.

Father Bernt Besch:

http://www.lpj.org/newsite2006/priest...

About Peter Bartholomew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ba...

Here is an on line class about the Crusades which some of you might be interested in:

http://crusades.boisestate.edu/classr...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 8 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBgI_1...

Some of the acting is a bit overdone and the editing is heavy handed but the story line is good.

Regarding the Crusades - Times On Line:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spor...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 9 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABeV6...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 10 of 10)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2Z8z...

Jerusalem was returned to the Christians with the Crusaders' victory; but Pope Urban had passed away and never realized that this had finally taken place. Of course, they were worried about a counter offensive...so they advertised so to speak for European settlers to go to Jerusalem. Instead of go West young man, it was go East young man.

At the same time, since the death of Mohammed, the Islamic world had been split between two competing doctrines - the Sunni orthodoxy of Baghdad and their bitter rivals the Shia who held power in Cairo.

About.com - Differences between Sunni and Shia:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f...

The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 1 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YD1ob...

We now have Jerusalem bustling and growing exponentially after the Crusades and the population grew to about 30,000; the size of a medieval Paris. It was a thriving and spiritual metropolis.

The Europeans set up new farms, castles and settlements around the captured cities (which I might add had been Christian to begin with after Christ, etc.)...I think that this series should have stated that the Christians were not "occupiers".

At the time when these cities were first seized by the Muslims and had been Christian..that terminology might certainly have applied to them.

What annoys me a little about this rendition of the Crusades it that it makes it appear that the Crusaders were the occupiers and not the Muslims when they plundered and ravaged the cities taking it over from the Christians in the first place. I do not discount the barbaric and horrendous deeds in the name of religion on either side, please do not get me wrong.

The innuendoes in this series are not true in many cases...Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.

When the Muslims try to re-seize these cities (which they will do in the next episodes), it is not because these cities were their right in the first place as this rendition tries to make you believe.

This rendition is very slanted in parts. It makes out that the Crusaders were the interlopers and that the Christians were the visitors to the Holy Land!

I just wish this series had decided to tell history the way history happens to be versus rewriting and slanting it towards the direction of either a producer or some other alleged expert who may have a dog in the hunt.

Neutral is neutral and that in my opinion is how a documentary should be made.

I think it is worth watching but be advised that "somebody" had a heavy hand in the editing and the "script" of this presentation.

Some of the experts were quite neutral including Phillips and Asbridge (who I liked); Tariq Ali was very entertaining - a bit opinionated but not too bad. Crawford and France were just OK.

Father Besch had his slant; but he tried valiantly to "appear" unbiased. For me, Taef el-Azhari was a little over the top and was not portraying a worldly, neutral historic view; and he did not try to appear unbiased. (JMHO).

I would be very interested to hear what Crusader experts in the group feel about this rendition of the Crusades done by the History Channel. I am not one; but I know "hidden persuaders" in a telecast when I see it. If you disagree and feel that this series was totally accurate, that is OK too. I would love to hear everybody's opinions.

OK, I am back on the episode trail. I am continuing the journey (smile)

Here is:

Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 2 of 10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Y748...

Thanks for all your notes and comments, Bentley. I don't have time to watch it all, but I've enjoyed reading through your summaries.

Like you, I'm no expert on the Crusades. But I've always understood that there were atrocities committed by both sides, and that neither side could be considered as innocent. I guess in my mind, once both sides have so deeply bloodied their hands, it doesn't much matter who started it since both are enthusiastically continuing it. I would imagine there were individuals on each side who were honestly fighting for what they thought was right, and who did not agree with or participate in the awful parts. I am certainly willing to be corrected on any of this if there is someone more well informed!

The Old City of Jerusalem:

The City of Jerusalem: now called the city of three faiths

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Christian Holy Site

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

Of course, the Jewish people have a long standing claim to Jerusalem:

The Western Wall: Judaism's Sacred Shrine:

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

Then there is the Muslim influence with the The Dome of the Rock: An Icon of Islam - built in 685 much later than the Caananites, Persians, Jews, Romans, Byzantines and Christians

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

Threats to the City:

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

Bibliography:

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

Timeline:

From this timeline which appears to be quite accurate to me...it is fair to say that the Muslims came to Jerusalem far later than the History Channel's presentation suggests.

http://www.history.com/classroom/unes...

One can see why this beloved and venerated city has had such a tortured past and is considered such a prize to everyone.

Bentley wrote: "The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 1 (Part 10 of 10)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2Z8z..."

Bently

I really enjoyed watching this video. Great perspective and quick and to the point. I like it.

I am glad you liked it. I think it is tremendously entertaining but I would have liked to have a bit more emphasis for balance on the history of Jerusalem and why the Christians were there in the first place as well as the other earlier inhabitants prior to the invasions. There seemed to be more of an emphasis just on the Muslims and their trying to recapture something that was not theirs in the first place. All of the generals and leaders of all of the invasions could have done things a lot better; and both sides were guilty or their followers were guilty of some horrendous things...all done in the name of religion.

Such a wonderful area...so full of such amazing and emotional history for the world.

Bentley wrote: "OK, I am back on the episode trail. I am continuing the journey (smile)
Here is:
Documentary: Crescent and the Cross Ep. 2 (Part 2 of 10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Y748..."

Hi Bently,
I'm just fascinated by these videos, you are sharing with us. Please stop its keeping me from reading my books on the crusade. Just kidding...Great work...keep posting its very educational! I also enjoyed watching this video on Jerusalem. Gives me a quick perspective review of a story. I can only amagine what really happened. I difinately would like to visit Jerusalem. I think I will!

Elizabeth S wrote: "Thanks for all your notes and comments, Bentley. I don't have time to watch it all, but I've enjoyed reading through your summaries.

Like you, I'm no expert on the Crusades. But I've always unde..."

I think you make some good points..when you do get a chance to watch it..I would be interested in hearing what you think.

I have to say that it was very entertaining; but biased. Difficult to say why the History Channel would edit a "documentary" that way but obviously there was a rationale. But it really isn't a true historical rendition in terms of the actual timeline of events. I will leave it at that.

Some horrible things were done in the name of religion by both sides and even to their own people; not only to each other and others indiscriminately.

What men are capable of!