R
ringil
Guest
I would need some time to do that. Cutting and pasting teas me a while.
THe Madden history is a pretty good one BTW.
- Status
THe Madden history is a pretty good one BTW.
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Riley-Smith’s book, and also Thomas Madden, are very good. You can just “google” Madden’s work on the Crusades (he’s a real historian), and you will find a lot of good stuff.
There’s also a good book by Diane Moczar (another real historian, although this is written for a popular audience) called “Seven Lies About Catholic History” that talks about the Crusades.
Usually whatever you hear about them on TV is complete nonsense. They are used (quite unhistorically and inaccurately) to bash the Church.
There’s also a good book by Diane Moczar (another real historian, although this is written for a popular audience) called “Seven Lies About Catholic History” that talks about the Crusades.
Usually whatever you hear about them on TV is complete nonsense. They are used (quite unhistorically and inaccurately) to bash the Church.
T
Tingo
Guest
No I did not mean to include atheism as a religion. Words are useful only when their meaning It is possible for atheist belief to parallel religious belief, at least in the behavior of its adherents, but this is true of most communal human activity. I don’t know of any expansionism carried out specifically in the name of atheism - although marxist-lenninist states of course included atheist programmes in areas they conquered in war. This too is bad.
I
IacomusIosephus
Guest
We are talking about the ‘Myth-tory Channel’ right?
O
oneofmany
Guest
I always trusted the History channel to tell the truth. Just who owns it and why is it so wrong on things?
J
Jacataqua
Guest
I am having a problem with this program too. I would like to be Catholic, but my husband will not allow it. He is so anti-Catholic that he said I would have to choose between him and the Catholic Church. Watching shows like this do not help me. My husband bought the show and we watched part of it last night. It is from the History Channel and it’s called Mankind The Story of All of Us. We watched the Crusades episode last night. My husband loves anything that proves that he is right about the Catholic Church and my 18 year old son, who loves history and has studied it says the program is right and told me that I just don’t understand history. The program says the Christians are the aggressors and the Muslims were peaceful and that everyone was getting along fine until the Pope decided to start a crusade. I know I’ll never be Catholic since I am forbidden to be, but I figured in my heart I could love the church, but how do I know if this program is true or not? My son says it is true and I just don’t understand. How do I know if this is true? Shows like this make my faith shaky. How can I overcome the doubt? Maybe my husband forbids me to be a Catholic because God doesn’t want me to be Catholic. I just can’t tell.
R
RocketRM
Guest
That’s exactly it. We shouldn’t look at the History Channel as being a unbiased and academic source for historical information.
It’s entertainment. They have to cram a topic like the Crusades (which was one subject I enjoyed studying over the course of 4 years in University) into a 30 or 60 minute period. Subtract all the commercials and the “re-enactment” parts and you are left with maybe 15 minutes of information that’s been diluted to sell to a mass market.
Understanding the Crusades is nearly impossible without a firm background on the societal and cultural environment of the Church, Medieval Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic near/middle east. This doesn’t make for good TV.
We don’t even know the depth that Pope Urban II’s part in active recruiting of European nobles to the Crusades after the Council of Clermont. Both Adhemar of Le Puy and Raymond IV, took Urban’s message to their vassals and followers. We cannot be certain what was the driving message in their recruiting (salvation for Jerusalem, material gain, or a combination of the two). What we do know is that Europe at the end of the 11th Century had a surplus noble (i.e. military) population without many outlets for their skills (apart from raiding and brigandry). An outlet like the Crusades gave European nobles an avenue to utilize their skills in a culturally acceptable pursuit.
B
bilop
Guest
Don’t rely on TV for your history. Get some books from the library and study up. Here’s one book I liked.
amazon.com/Gods-Battalions-The-Case-Crusades/dp/0061582603/ref=pd_sim_b_6/181-7851622-5531434
Remind your husband and son that the entire Middle East was Christian in 600 AD, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, all of it. It only became Muslim when the Arabs invaded and coerced the population into conversion.
The Crusades were launched to help defend the Byzantine Empire against Muslim agression, and to ensure access to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims.
Also, how can you let your husband forbid you from being Catholic? He doesn’t have that authority or right. If you want to, go back to the Church.
God Bless
B
bilop
Guest
Actually, we know that the vast majority of Crusaders did not benefit materially. We have records of great lords borrowing immense sums to finance crusading, and being bamkrupted by it.
It wasn’t just the “surplus” younger sons who Crusaded. Their were many princes, dukes, counts, barons, etc., who held the titles.
As hard as it is for moderns to understand, most Crusaders really were trying to save their souls. Very few stayed in the Holy Land to acquire lands.
God Bless
R
RocketRM
Guest
Good point about the bankruptcy of many minor nobles. That would certainly prove a willingness to sacrifice in line with the higher spiritual motives of the crusade.
And you are right, it is infinitely difficult to truly understand the hearts and minds of these participants - it was a different time where the immediacy of the salvation of the soul was so much more important than many in our modern society.
But I will reiterate, you will not get the proper answers from a program on the History Channel.
J
Jacataqua
Guest
Thanks for your reply. I did tell my son that Christians were just trying to get the holy land back from Muslim control, and he said that Christians didn’t own it to begin with so they had no right to start the Crusades.
And as far as my husband having no right to forbid me to be Catholic. I’m afraid he does. If I become Catholic I will lose everything and I don’t think God wants that. If by chance he would stay with me if I returned to the church I know he would make life miserable. One time I bought a book and he found out and I got the silent treatment for 2 or 3 days because of it. I learned to hide my book purchases, if I buy any at all. If God wanted me to be Catholic I think God would do something about it and since God does nothing then maybe this was all just my idea and I should get it out of my mind. But it’s been 8 1/2 years and it won’t leave my mind yet. Anyway, my original concern was the Crusades. I wonder why God would allow such a thing to happen when He knows it would cause people to lose their faith or if they don’t lose their faith in God they would never in a million years become Catholic due to the Crusades, the Inquisition and the current sex abuse scandal. Why would God allow such things to occur knowing how it affects people? It doesn’t make sense to me.
B
bilop
Guest
God gives us free will; some men choose to do evil. Neither the Crusades, nor the Inquisition were inherently evil, although evil was committed during their course.
What do you mean by lose everything? Your husband will leave you or throw you out?
I don’t know what country you live in, but in most Western nations you have legal protections, and equal right to joint property. If my wife told me to stop being Catholic or she’d leave, I’d pack her suitcase for her.
God Bless
J
Jacataqua
Guest
I live in the U.S. I probably do have legal rights, but this is my second marriage. My first husband was abusive. I don’t want to go through another divorce. As far as losing everything. Years ago he said I’d have to choose between him and being Catholic. So, if I returned to the church I’d lose everything because I wouldn’t have any place to live. I don’t have a car so I couldn’t go anywhere even if I had a place to go. When he said I’d have to choose, I’m not sure exactly what he would do if I chose to be Catholic. He said I couldn’t have both, so I assume that means he wouldn’t want me around any more. Anything Catholic is so distasteful to him that he just can’t stand to be around it. You’re right about free will. He has a free will and this is what he chooses and there is nothing I can do about it and I feel like God just doesn’t care.
B
bilop
Guest
Well, if you’re in the US, he can’t just take everything from you. He can’t kick you out of your home for being Catholic. If he tried, a court would very likely put him out, and let you live there. In almost every state, 50% of the property acquired since marriage is yours (if you were to split up). If he has a car acquired since the marriage, 1/2 of that car is yours.
Making you choose against your faith was an unconscionable action. Your agreement is not enforceable. t was not a just bargain.
God Bless
O
oneofmany
Guest
Well I am having real problems with this series, too bad your husband bought it.
Now the last installment is saying Great Britain took opium to China and got millions of it’s people hooked on it. They made a fortune that way. I am thinking how could England get the opium to take to China—wasn’t it there for hundreds of years before England ever went there?
I wish a history professor would give this series a good look and review it. So much of it sounds off track. No matter what though we all know just from human nature, no one culture of people are all bad and one all good.
The industrial revolution started in England and the machines, etc they invented helped all of us to live better lives and easier lives.
I really want to see this series get a review from a knowledgeable person. I don’t think I would waste my money on it.
Now the last installment is saying Great Britain took opium to China and got millions of it’s people hooked on it. They made a fortune that way. I am thinking how could England get the opium to take to China—wasn’t it there for hundreds of years before England ever went there?
I wish a history professor would give this series a good look and review it. So much of it sounds off track. No matter what though we all know just from human nature, no one culture of people are all bad and one all good.
The industrial revolution started in England and the machines, etc they invented helped all of us to live better lives and easier lives.
I really want to see this series get a review from a knowledgeable person. I don’t think I would waste my money on it.
O
oneofmany
Guest
"Even when the History Channel does show historic shows, they shows aren’t always accurate.
The History Channel came to Fort Smith a few years ago to do a Wild West Tech show about the Hangin’ Judge (Isaac Parker). The park rangers (one of whom is a good friend of mine) were prompted to say things that they could not verify and they refused to say them out of fear of being incorrect. When the show aired, the History Channel had actors dressed in period attire say the things that the park rangers would not say.
The History Channel has always only been about entertainment."
I got this from another site from people discussing the History Channel. A lot of people know it not accurate and only about entertainment. I don’t know how they get away with calling themselves history when they are so inaccurate and make things up. They should put disclaimers on it before it starts.
Now I see they are going to do a series, “The Bible” that should be good counting the inaccuracies they protray. Maybe we should start a game called “count the lies” and see who comes up with the most.
The History Channel came to Fort Smith a few years ago to do a Wild West Tech show about the Hangin’ Judge (Isaac Parker). The park rangers (one of whom is a good friend of mine) were prompted to say things that they could not verify and they refused to say them out of fear of being incorrect. When the show aired, the History Channel had actors dressed in period attire say the things that the park rangers would not say.
The History Channel has always only been about entertainment."
I got this from another site from people discussing the History Channel. A lot of people know it not accurate and only about entertainment. I don’t know how they get away with calling themselves history when they are so inaccurate and make things up. They should put disclaimers on it before it starts.
Now I see they are going to do a series, “The Bible” that should be good counting the inaccuracies they protray. Maybe we should start a game called “count the lies” and see who comes up with the most.
G
GangGreen
Guest
I’ve learned long ago the the History Channel (or at it was so accurately called earlier in the thread “Myth-ory Channel”) is a bunch of nonsense. It’s a shame that so many people get their information on history from channels like this. It also doesn’t help that many public schools and such teach similar history.
There are so many atheists out there who tout the whole religious war nonsense and the first thing they bring up is the Crusades.
There are so many atheists out there who tout the whole religious war nonsense and the first thing they bring up is the Crusades.
H
HollyDolly
Guest
:flowers:I don’t get the History Channel;just basic cable. There were various reasons for the crusades and the men who went had motives from not just religious ,but aquiring lands wealth power etc My grandmother had relatives,the von Lilienschilds who according to german records fought in the Crusades and later belonged to the Livonian Knights of the Sword in latvia.I assume they went for religious reasons…Been ages since I read Zoe Oldenburg’s book on the subject.
It’s the current fashion to bash whites and christians of all stripes in this revisionist history that is spewed forth nowadays.That’s like people saying all germans were nazis.There were socialists ,communists and other political groups in Germany before and after Hitler took power.The same goes for Russia.Recall my dad saying that not everyone was a card carrying member of the communist party.There are two sides to an arguement, and both sides christian and muslim during that time period have blood on their hands. There were various battles against the muslims long after the Crusades.Jan Hunyadi and Vlad the Impaler fought them in the 15th century.It was the Battle of Lepanto which finally put an end on their desire to conquer Europe. Even before the crusades the muslims when they took over Spain fought the Visogothic kings and later engaged Charles Martel or Charlemange in battle.You can look at what is going on in the Middle East today amongst their own people to see how things roll.
Don’t rely on tv shows.Read good books on the subject. Probably learned more about history from my late father than in school. One time they had a show about WW2 and about the battle of Monte Cassino.Since my dad was actually there,and took part in the allied bombing of the famous monastery;he could of course tell you were they were correct or were History Channel was wrong.The same on any show about North Africa and other things because he actually fought and lived all that.
Unfortunately with events so far in the past like the Crusades, you don,'t have living witnesses who can demand corrections to their so called programs.
And to the lady whose husband doesn’t want her to be catholic;it sounds as if he was constantly feed growing up various lies about the church;or grew up a catholic but had problems with either priests or nuns as a youth and because of his experiences has come to hate Holy Mother Church.Some of the most virulant anti catholics are ones who used to be catholics at one time.
It’s the current fashion to bash whites and christians of all stripes in this revisionist history that is spewed forth nowadays.That’s like people saying all germans were nazis.There were socialists ,communists and other political groups in Germany before and after Hitler took power.The same goes for Russia.Recall my dad saying that not everyone was a card carrying member of the communist party.There are two sides to an arguement, and both sides christian and muslim during that time period have blood on their hands. There were various battles against the muslims long after the Crusades.Jan Hunyadi and Vlad the Impaler fought them in the 15th century.It was the Battle of Lepanto which finally put an end on their desire to conquer Europe. Even before the crusades the muslims when they took over Spain fought the Visogothic kings and later engaged Charles Martel or Charlemange in battle.You can look at what is going on in the Middle East today amongst their own people to see how things roll.
Don’t rely on tv shows.Read good books on the subject. Probably learned more about history from my late father than in school. One time they had a show about WW2 and about the battle of Monte Cassino.Since my dad was actually there,and took part in the allied bombing of the famous monastery;he could of course tell you were they were correct or were History Channel was wrong.The same on any show about North Africa and other things because he actually fought and lived all that.
Unfortunately with events so far in the past like the Crusades, you don,'t have living witnesses who can demand corrections to their so called programs.
And to the lady whose husband doesn’t want her to be catholic;it sounds as if he was constantly feed growing up various lies about the church;or grew up a catholic but had problems with either priests or nuns as a youth and because of his experiences has come to hate Holy Mother Church.Some of the most virulant anti catholics are ones who used to be catholics at one time.
H
HelenRose
Guest
You may want to do a little independant research of your own.Well, according to my teacher at this time, that happened peacefully
T
The_Wizard
Guest
The History Channel is going to have a series on The Bible. I think it is coming in March 2013. I wonder how bad they will mess it up!
- Status