History: Actual, Fictional and Legendary discussion

Some points for discussion:

1. Why has this crusade become the most famous of them all?

2. What precipitated the Third Crusade?

3. How did Frederic Barbarossa of Germany and his troops fare? Why?

4. How did Philip Augustus of France and his troops fare? Why?

5. How did King Richard of England and his troops fare? Why?

6. Why was Saladin so successful against the cream of European military strength?

7. Why were the Europeans successful at Acre?

8. Why did the Crusaders fail to take Jerusalem?

9. What methods did King Richard employ to fund his participation? Were these methods effective? Were these methods worth the outcome?

10. Why did King Richard stay in Palestine after Frederic died and Philip left?

11. How did the Third Crusade end? Was this a good outcome or not? Why or why not?

Saladin is the most interesting figure in the Crusades to me. He seems universally respected as a great strategist and leader and as a generally humane guy.

Richard's decision to execute 2700 Muslim prisoners, I think, colored everything that came after. Muslims still remember that. He did it, I gather, because he felt that Saladin was stalling to allow reinforcements to arrive and he felt he had to make a show of force to get Saladin to act (on a ransom agreement). With hindsight, though, that wasn't the best way about it.

In the recent movie "Robin Hood", Richard asks Robin what he thinks of their efforts in the Holy land and Robin tells him that the murder of the 3,000 prisoners was a blot on the whole enterprise. For which statement, of course, he is put in the stocks.

Ha! I noticed that Robin Hood takes place right about this time. I was gonna see it anyway, because I enjoy watching Russell Crowe stab people, but now I can pretend it's for history's sake.

Alex wrote: "Ha! I noticed that Robin Hood takes place right about this time. I was gonna see it anyway, because I enjoy watching Russell Crowe stab people, but now I can pretend it's for history's sake."

Whatever gets you into the theater. I liked the movie. One of the few times I've disagreed with Roger Ebert. It, is by the way, far less bloody than "The Gladiator" was.

The most ridiculous scene is saved for the end when Philip and his Army invade England, ala "Saving Private Ryan". Almost ruins the whole movie.

That does sound pretty dumb. Of course, I'm not expecting smart. I'm expecting lots of swords and Russell Crowe looking focused.

My gold standard in Robin Hood films is still the 1937 with Errol Flynn.

This one can hardly be worse than Kevin Costner's outing, however it is, though. (I'm assuming that Mr. Crowe's accent will not yo-yo on and off!)

I was deeply traumatized by Costner's version because during the love scene you can clearly see a big rope of spit between the two of them. Ugh.

I don't think any Robin Hood movies measure up to the Robin of Sherwood series that starred Michael Praed and later Jason Connery. But I'm a Robin Hood fanatic and will definitely get around to seeing the Russell Crowe movie--probably soon. I've already purchased the novelization.

Shomeret wrote: "I don't think any Robin Hood movies measure up to the Robin of Sherwood series that starred Michael Praed and later Jason Connery. But I'm a Robin Hood fanatic and will definitely get around to see..."

If this is the series that was on BBC, I heartily concur. We only got one season here in Hong Kong, though.

My favorite Robin Hood movie HAS to be Men in Tights. I mean, come on, the historical accuracy is glaringly accurate, right?

(tongue in cheek, of course)

Ed wrote: "Shomeret wrote: "I don't think any Robin Hood movies measure up to the Robin of Sherwood series that starred Michael Praed and later Jason Connery. But I'm a Robin Hood fanatic and will definitely ..."

I'm talking about the earlier BBC series, not the more recent one. The more recent one had great chemistry between Marion and Guy, but I can't say much for that Robin.

Ed, I'm blaming you for this conversation going completely off the rails. :)

My question: are the Crusades a specific, real thing? Or are they just a name for a series of battles that Christianity and Islam were fighting before, and have continued fighting since? When GW Bush referred to the "War on Terror" as a crusade, was he just misspeaking as usual? Or was he conscious of what that word means, and was he even correct in using it?

Alex wrote: "Ed, I'm blaming you for this conversation going completely off the rails. :)

My question: are the Crusades a specific, real thing? Or are they just a name for a series of battles that Christiani..."

I AM HAPPY TO TAKE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY!

I've always resented those sites where I was reprimanded for not limiting my comments to the specific topic being discussed. My mind doesn't work that way.

On this site people are free to take the discussion wherever it goes.

Alex wrote: "Ed, I'm blaming you for this conversation going completely off the rails. :)

My question: are the Crusades a specific, real thing? Or are they just a name for a series of battles that Christiani..."

I believe the term "Crusade" has become a generic term for any effort that at least intends to be for a good cause. Eisenhower used it in his memoirs of WW II called Crusade in Europe. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Now that I think about it, perhaps we should refer to the crusades, we are discussing, as the "Religious Crusades" or the "Medieval Crusades".

I suspect Bush was using it as a generic term in the way I identified it above. It's hard to imagine that he knew or cared how much the Muslims resent the word.

Oh, I agree. I hope I didn't sound like I was actually pissed off; I liked the Robin Hood conversation. I'm like the worst ever for derailing threads. They go the way they go, just like all conversations do.

And yeah, "Crusade" has to some extent lost its original meaning and come to mean any fight; now you can crusade against drugs, or illiteracy, or anything else. But as you point out, Islam disagrees. For Muslims it still means aggression and crime.

I always struggle with GW; was he clueless about the effect that word has? Or was he sending a message? Unfortunately...either way reflects poorly on him, doesn't it?

Ed wrote: "Alex wrote: "Ed, I'm blaming you for this conversation going completely off the rails. :)

My question: are the Crusades a specific, real thing? Or are they just a name for a series of battles th..."

I knew you were kidding. I saw the :).

I go for clueless whenever I think about old GW.

Evil or clueless, what a choice.

Susanna wrote: "Evil or clueless, what a choice."

You're right, that's not really fair. He's perfectly capable of being both at once.

I tend to think GW purposely chose the the word "crusade" to try to make our side seem like the righteous side rooting out evil. He may not have been totally clued in on all the nuances, but I am very willing to believe this his speechwriters were looking for as much imagery as possible to win our hearts and minds over to the idea that a conflict was inevitable. And now . . . 8 years later look where we are.

I seem to recall that GH Bush purposely mispronounced Saddam's name by placing the emphasis on the second syllable which was the word for jackal (or something like that) -- just to kind of give a dig at him every time he mentioned his name. I could be wrong on that -- I may have been too under the influence of a vast left wing conspiracy or something so feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

I thought Melisende was really interesting. Does anyone know of any other books w/ more detail about her? I also loved the reference in the Phillips book about the Street of Bad Cooking. What was that all about, I wonder?

Quick correction -- he placed the emphasis on the first syllable of Saddam's name. I'm dyslexic today.

I found the Street of Bad Cooking funny too. I googled it just now and came up with very little. This tour claims to take you along it; it may be in Suq el-Attarin. Google Maps is a disaster with Muslim words thanks to our Babelesque inability to spell any of them, so I can't find it there.

Cool link Alex -- thanks!

Wendy wrote: "... GH Bush purposely mispronounced Saddam's name ..."

He made it sound like sodom.

Y'all know that story going around right now, that the CIA considered faking a gay porn video with Hussein? We're so weird.

(This post sounds like weird spam or something, but that's an actual story that actually happened.)

I'm getting this mental picture of a bunch of CIA guys sitting around a table late at night w/ cold chinese take-out littering the table and some guy saying, "hey, I know what we could do -- a gay porno w/ Saddam!" and, due to lack of sleep and other factors, everyone in the room got all excited and agreed that it would be a fabulous idea.

Wendy wrote: "I'm getting this mental picture of a bunch of CIA guys sitting around a table late at night w/ cold chinese take-out littering the table and some guy saying, "hey, I know what we could do -- a gay ..."

Great image. Got me chuckling.

Is there any good book relating the fight of Richard III and Saladin?

That would be Richard I. Richard III was centuries later.

Hi, I wonder whether anyone here thinks Richard made the right decision when he refrained (twice) from attacking Jerusalem. At first, I think he's being a coward and totally betrayed his faithful soldiers who followed him against all odds, but somehow I also think he's being realistic because attacking Jerusalem with such minimal force would not make it possible to defend the city for long before reinforcement came.

Ed wrote: "Some points for discussion:

1. Why has this crusade become the most famous of them all?

7. Why were the Europeans successful at Acre?

1. Well, one of the reasons gotta be because it had Richard and Saladin, two most renowned exalted figures in the whole crusades.

7. AFAIK it was because the Crusaders used a double-pronged attack, one from the land and the other (the main force) from the sea. Acre's coastline remained unguarded, thus the arrival of Richard sent Saladin's army into utter disarray.

Silvana wrote: "Ed wrote: "Some points for discussion:

1. Why has this crusade become the most famous of them all?

7. Why were the Europeans successful at Acre?

1. Well, one of the reasons gotta be because it had Richard and Saladin, two most renowned exalted figures in the whole crusades.

7. AFAIK it was because the Crusaders used a double-pronged attack, one from the land and the other (the main force) from the sea. Acre's coastline remained unguarded, thus the arrival of Richard sent Saladin's army into utter disarray..."

I was hoping someone would explain what happened at Acre. I saw a movie a long time ago that showed the Crusaders winning but never explaining why.

Also, at Acre, the crusaders had all three leaders and armies not just Richard.