Reluctant Crusader: Chivalry where you’d least expect it(National Review reviews Kingdom of Heaven)

National Review Online ^ | May 6, 2005 | Steve Beard

[Zechariah11]

Thanks. I just ordered it.

[Antoninus]

Decline is very long and covers about 1500 years of history. Someone remarked taht no library is complete without a full set of Gibbons - unread. I think that creates much misunderstanding for this work.

You're preaching to the choir. This article contains a little background on the "history of the histories" and it actually goes easier on Gibbon than I would:

A Brief History of No-Popery

[Antoninus]

Hear, hear! I want to go see it just because I don't think I've ever seen a movie featuring trebuchets in the battle sequences. Trebuchets are cool! ;-)

Actually, they had trebuchets in that simply awful recent movie about the archaeologists who are sent back to medieval France. Anyone remember what that steaming POS was called?

[Antoninus]

Michael Medved absolutely ripped "Kingdom of Heaven" to shreds today. He compared it to "1492: Conquest of Paradise."

[Centurion2000]

as well as honorable ... Muslim

There is no such creature that walks this Earth.

[Williams]

Yes well, as you can see Gibbons converted to Catholicism at one time. In terms of the claim that Gibbons did not rely on original sources, he seems to quote historical sources quite readily. I can't claim to know all the inside baseball of church histories, but Gibbons' work is a tremendous masterwork and it tells the whole sweep of human history. I certainly don't view it as just a history of the church, although it contains much on the church. If anyone wants to see how nations and governments and churches and individuals behave throughout history, I can't think of a better work. The stories of so many great persons are there and it's beautifully written.

[Antoninus]

Yes well, as you can see Gibbons converted to Catholicism at one time.

Yes, and then denounced Christianity in general later, becoming a nominal Anglican.

In terms of the claim that Gibbons did not rely on original sources, he seems to quote historical sources quite readily. I can't claim to know all the inside baseball of church histories, but Gibbons' work is a tremendous masterwork and it tells the whole sweep of human history. I certainly don't view it as just a history of the church, although it contains much on the church. If anyone wants to see how nations and governments and churches and individuals behave throughout history, I can't think of a better work. The stories of so many great persons are there and it's beautifully written.

I'm not saying that Gibbon wasn't a tremendous philologist. I'm just cautioning you that he was a man of his time and place in history. He should not be taken as the last word in Roman, Medieval, and Ecclesiastical history. There is a competing continental/Catholic version of that same history that gets little play in the English-speaking world.

[Williams]

Not take Gibbons as an authority on Roman history? That goes way too far. He is THE authority on 1400 years of Roman history, city and empire.

[Plutarch]

Other comments made on FR had almost convinced me not to see it. I trust NRO's judgement.

I'm a sucker for chain mail, and I wanted to like Kingdom of Heaven. But, the movie is a muddled P.C. mess. I guess I am glad I saw it, as I have a better visual appreciation for Medieval warfare, but, that is about all you can get out of it.