All brutes & barbarians?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, 05 May 2005 11:34.

Late last year I chose for the inaugural Biased History Award a school textbook which described the crusaders as follows:

“They were all fanatics. Crusaders were fundamental extremists - mad warriors who were intent on causing havoc for whatever they believed. They were virtually religious terrorists.”

This year’s leading contender for the award has chosen the same theme. Film director Ridley Scott has made a $150 million feature about the crusades called Kingdom of Heaven. The New York Times pithily described the plot of the film this way:

“Muslims are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything.”

According to an excellent review by Robert Spencer, the film invents a group called the “Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians” whose multicultural solidarity is only ruined by the activities of the Knights Templar.

This is too much even for academic historians. Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith called the movie “rubbish”, “not historically accurate at all”, “nothing to do with reality” and “utter nonsense”. He complained about the bias of a plot which depicts “the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised” in contrast to the Crusaders who “are all brutes and barbarians”.

But to really get a grasp of how false the film is I suggest you read a short article called “The Real History of the Crusades” by Professor Thomas Madden of St Louis University. Professor Madden reminds us in this article of the reality of the situation which gave rise to the crusades:

“So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

“Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.

“Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

“When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

“With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed.

“By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

“That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.”

Tags: History

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 May 2005 12:53 | #

Kingdom of Heaven is a monumental epic of tolerance, honor and humanity, starring Orlando Bloom and set against the turbulent, emotionally charged and world-shaping Crusades. From master filmmaker Ridley Scott, it traces the story of Balian, a common man of extraordinary conscience who rises to knighthood and embarks upon a life-changing journey to find peace and a better world.

That’s the blurb on “Ridley’s Space” at: http://www.kingdomofheavenmovie.com/koh.html?lang=uk
Personally I think they missed the “d Out” on that page title. “... peace and a better world”! Bloody hell, La-La land comes to Jerusalem.

I don’t know how one can wrench idiot liberals away from their La-La love of false morals and the false superiority they afford. These people are spiritually defective. Unfortunately, ridiculously, disastrously, they are also in control. Not only does “Sir” Ridley seek to prostitute for culture war the valour and sacrifice of our forefathers, he’s given 150 million bucks with which to do it. Probably by people more paranoid about Christianity and European Man than they are about Islam and their fellow Semites.

But for Mel Gibson’s “Passion” on the other hand ...

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:21 | #

History does provide us with a few examples of remedial action, take the Protestant Reformation (A group I now have little fondness for).

Like them we ought to charge into the universities, gov’t offices, schools, and media centers and destroy the secular priesthood’s equipment, burn their homes and facilities, and for a good measure put a few heads on fence posts. Those not decapitated ought to swallow a few quarts of castor oil.

Only radicalism can fix things now.

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 05 May 2005 16:25 | #

Well in Post modernity when truth does not exist and lies are the answer,When a sub text becomes existant above the metaphisics, when logic becomes the anti, etc, lets face it , there is not much difference between the philosophical leftoid and Islam, based on findings, they for the purpose of denials of truth and reality, and the noterioty of plagerism in historical perspective, They are the existance of a sub text, the un Metaphysics, the illogical consiquence of sub intellectual pandering to Elitism status, the methodologhy to control,answer, Socialism , and from history, Mazdakism is a off shoot of Zoroastrianism, and is the very first socialist left movement, so then comes Islam, the mother of all Cults, It is not a Religion, it is a designated methodology of supression, so is Leftism, anything that goes to advance their Cult, is open slather, anyone who Questions it, is dead. Thats a reason why when people sprout on about Palastinian issue and Israel, Basic history will answer that, and always remember before sprouting, who told you, Palastine is Jordon, not Israel, another Arab Lie uncovered,Arab is not native of the broarder mid east, it is Islamic Cult and Arabs that are the occapiers of the Mid East, so be careful which lie you subscribe to, or you can be a leftoid subscriber, Arab , Islam, Leftism, Yes =, Missinfomation, lies, Propaganda, inculcation of un truth,Creationalist of something of the non existant, Neurological disorders and the mind set of the Pathalogical.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:02 | #

Ah, now I understand perfectly why Bloom was chosen for that particular part (I made a post a few days ago questioning the decision based on his near-total lack of masculinity). Now it makes perfect sense; Bloom is to be our PC hero, and as such he must be androgynous.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:03 | #

I made the post at Stormfront, not here btw.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:07 | #

Tonight I’ll pray this movie pisses Mel Gibson off enough to put a hundred million into an accurate crusader flick.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:22 | #

Tonight I’ll pray this movie pisses Mel Gibson off enough to put a hundred million into an accurate crusader flick.

Nah. A movie on the Ukranian Holocaust would be better. That would really rile up the powerful in Hollywood (especially if the villains of the piece are identified properly).

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:25 | #

Am I the only one who thinks this Orlando Bloom looks a bit malnourished?

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 05 May 2005 22:16 | #

Even a mainstream reviewer like Leigh Paatsch in the Melbourne Herald Sun thinks Orlando is too much of a “pretty boy” for the lead role. He writes,

“The only real letdown is Orlando Bloom’s wispy presence in the central role of Balian. When it comes to the crunch and he must deliver a grandstanding speech ... The Lord of the Rings pretty boy comes a cropper.”

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 05 May 2005 23:16 | #

Nah. A movie on the Ukranian Holocaust would be better. That would really rile up the powerful in Hollywood (especially if the villains of the piece are identified properly).
Yeah, I’d buy a ticket for “Holodomor” in a New York second.

As for the Gibson version of the crusades, I think a Gibson version of the Islamic invasions of Europe would be far better; why be reactive when you can be proactive?