NORTON!!!!
Posted on 04/14/2005 11:33:01 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Come again? The Muslim hoardes invade more than half of the land that was then Christian, enslave pilgrims to the Holy Land, and the Christians are somehow at fault? Sheesh...
Catholic ping!
Are you really suprised?
lol. That is correct. Muslims had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusades and the Catholic Church was just being a viscious, racist, tyrant in attacking a poor, innocent people. /sarcasm
Very disappointing. I was really looking forward to this movie. Guess I won't be seeing it. The black legend of the Crusades, as with many black legends about the Catholic Church, was created by the Protestants to attack the Church. I was hoping that recent events might have caused some to revisit the Crusades in a more historically accurate way.
Saladin WAS a good guy. The problem is that PC history forgets that he was hardly typical of Muslim leaders.
Well, to give the benefit of the doubt to at least the movie, the content of the movie may not reflect the content of the director, since the movie does supposedly portray the massacre of a Crusader force trapped in a city. If they somehow portray the Crusaders as "deserving" it, then it deserves not to be seen.
NORTON!!!!
I don't know much about Saladin, so I'll give you that. But to say the Christians "made the problem" is inaccurate, at best.
King Arthur was probably the best of the ones mentioned, but an amazonian Guenevere? C'mon!
Troy just plain stank.
Alexander was a movie-length commercial for homosexuality.
Maybe if they put out good historical films they'd actually see some measure of success. Just reading the above I can tell you that Kingdom will bomb because of Scott's comment about Christians being the bad guys.
Oh please.....
hummana-hummana-hummana!
It is possible that the movie will make out better than the sophomoric Troy, and the rest of pop-history movies of late. It will nevertheless be trash.
Our century is organically uncapable of understandiing the Crusades: we barely understand Christian or Muslim basics, we are indoctrinated against all holy works and all expresison of piety, we cannot conceive of a grassroots military enterprise even on a modest scale, and we fear war.
Choosing this subject is a dumb idea. But then one of the characteristics of the dumb is that they don't understand their limitation.
What, you mean the Lord of the Rings movies weren't historical? :-)
I've also been looking forward to it. I've been on a Crusade mode in my book selections recently. I believe there were atrocities on both sides. I certainly don't believe that the Muslims were the innocent oppressed people that many are claiming. So far I think I'll still see it.
One of my wishes is that a good movie would be made about Richard the Lion-Heart. I don't know of many people who had a more interesting life.
That's Celtic. And smile when you say that, podnuh! (I'd love to see the screenwriter's evidence that Pict women participated in battle. It does seem to be a nod to modern sensibilities.)
I thought it was a good movie but I'm a sucker for any treatment of the Arthurian story.
From your first link:
It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born. Most of the philosophes, like Voltaire, believed that medieval Christianity was a vile superstition. For them the Crusades were a migration of barbarians led by fanaticism, greed, and lust. Since then, the Enlightenment take on the Crusades has gone in and out of fashion. The Crusades received good press as wars of nobility (although not religion) during the Romantic period and the early twentieth century. After the Second World War, however, opinion again turned decisively against the Crusades. In the wake of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, historians found war of ideology—any ideology —distasteful. This sentiment was summed up by Sir Steven Runciman in his three-volume work, A History of the Crusades (1951-54). For Runciman, the Crusades were morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God. The medieval men who took the cross and marched to the Middle East were either cynically evil, rapaciously greedy, or naively gullible. This beautifully written history soon became the standard. Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades.
I never knew Martin Luther felt that way about the Crusades, although it does say that he changed his mind when Austria was overrun.
The second paragraph though I think is more relevant in that it states that the current thoughts about the Crusades come from people who hate Christianity in general.
In all my talks with people I have never seen a Protestant use the Crusades against the Catholics. I have seen over and over unbelievers using the Crusades against Christianity in general.
Your second link is about the Inquisition, not the Crusades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.