Crusade movie strikes chord in Arab world ("Kingdom of Heaven")

[DeepModem Mom]

New York Times:
Crusade movie strikes chord in Arab world
By REUTERS
Published: May 9, 2005


CAIRO (Reuters) - A new epic movie about the Crusades has struck a chord in the Arab world, where cinemagoers say it has challenged the Hollywood stereotype of Arabs and Muslims as terrorists.

Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven," which depicts a 12th Century battle for Jerusalem between Muslims and Crusaders, is also a welcome message of support for those who back moderation over extremism in managing ties between Islam and the West.

"The film goes against religious fanaticism very clearly. All that goes against hatred, fanaticism and systematic opposition between those two worlds is welcome,'' said Lebanese writer Amin Maalouf, author of 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes'.

Some religious leaders were concerned a film about the Crusades, a term once used by President Bush to describe the war on terror, would fuel the idea of a war between the West and Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"The aim of the film is to heal wounds, not reopen them," Egyptian film critic Tarek al-Shenawy said....


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-arts-mideast-kingdom.html

[zbdent]

1. I wonder how many of the people who went to see "The Passion of

The Christ" AND this movie left in disgust because "it didn't show the Christians in the Right light"?

[Windy]

3. It was a wonderful movie

I saw it over the weekend. It puts Arabs in a great light and highlights that violence can be overcome by peaceful means. It also illustrates the greed and fanaticism of the early catholic church...a trait that has never gone away and is rearing its ugly head once again. Everyone should see this movie. There are many correlations to what is going on today. It gives you a lot of food for thought. I'm sure the religious right won't like it....

[patcox2]

4. Who attacked who first?

Who conquered Spain? Who conquered Constantinople? The Balkans? Why is there this idea that the peaceful muslims were just minding their business, not bothering anyone, and then the Catholic church decided, hey, lets go kill muslims?

[Casablanca]

6. The Romans attacked first.

Muslims weren't all peaceful, but they were minding their own business at the time.

And if you saw the movie, you might have noticed that the Christians were occupying Jerusalem after having driven the Muslims out.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Get this bud: Jerusalem DOES NOT BELONG to Christiandom!

Jerusalem has belonged to Christiandom, and it never will. Christians cannot claim Jerusalem as their own anymore than Bush can claim Baghdad.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

50. Oh.... OK

Sippin' the righty koolaide there?

[Daphne08]

55. Jerusalem is revered by the Jewish people, the Christians and

by the Moslems.

Study the three religions.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

84. LOL... good God

[PsychoDad]

51. Just interjecting a little real history

In 135 ad Emperor Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem which had been sacked by the romans and renames the city Aelia Capitolina and the country Palestine, at this point Jews were banned from Jerusalem by the Romans.

From 313 to 628 the city is controled by Byzantine, Persian then Byzantine forces. In 638 a.d., 6 years after Muhammad's (SAW) Death, Muslim forces under Caliph Omar capture Jerusalem and the Jews are readmitted.

The city flourishes under Muslim rule, The Dome of the Rock is built by Caliph Abd al-Malik, and Al-Aqsa Mosque is completed by al-Walid al-Malik

In 750 Power shifts from the Umayyards of Damascus to the Abbasids of Baghdad; Abbasids continue to enhance Jerusalem, but troubles begin under the Fatimids in 969 and many Churches and Synagogues are destroyed.

In 1099 Crusaders led by Godfrey de Bouillon, capture Jerusalem. Baldwin I is declared king and Jews and Muslims are slaughtered. contemporary Christian writers state that "The streets flowed with blood". Once again Jews are expelled from the Holy city of Christendom.

Almost a hundred years later in 1187 Kurdish general Saladin captures Jerusalem from Crusaders. Saladin permits Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city. Christian Pilgrims are also permitted to enter the city.

Sounds like those Muslims were pretty bad....

[patcox2]

59. Interject some more history, its not about jerusalem.

The muslim religion "exploded" in the middle east and spread rapidly, almost always accompanied by violent conquest. From Arabia, it spread through the middle east, then up through asia minor, they conquered Istanbul by force, and took regions in the balkans (the current conflict between serbs and croats is a continuation of the balkan conflict between christians and muslims). Muslims also spread all the way across north africa and conquered, as in, took by violent conquest, sicily and parts of spain.

The crusades were a reaction against a violent invasion.

[PsychoDad]

80. The discussion up to this point was about..

Jerusalem specifically.

But, the whole topic of the Muslim conquest of the middle east is an interesting subject. By 632 the Byzantine Empire was falling apart around the edges. The period of the Muslim conquest dates from this time, when Abu Bakr sent Muslim armies into Syria and Iraq. There was little resistance.

In 636, At the battle of Yarmuk, the Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslims. Muslim sovereignty over Palestine begins at this time.

In 638, the "Covenant of Umar," a pact between Umar Ibn Khatib and the Christians of Jerusalem, was concluded on the occasion of the conquest of that city by the Muslims. Umar decreed that Muslims should forever thereafter guarantee Christians freedom of religion, use of their churches for worship, and the right to visit holy places. In another version, Umar rescinded the Roman decrees that had banished Jews from Jerusalem and accorded Jews all the rights granted Christians.

Non-Muslims were not required to participate in jihad (military action in defense of Islam) nor did they have to pay the zakat (the tax for charity required of all Muslims), but they were required to pay the jizya, a poll tax that helped defray the expense of protecting them. Since Muslim taxes amounted to considerably less than what had been exacted from them under Byzantine rule and since Muslims allowed them much more freedom to pursue their own customs and religious beliefs, Jews and Christians almost universally welcomed their new rulers.

Sounds like The Muslim conquest of Palestine and Jerusalem in particular was a positive development for Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

And I don't think the Crusades were a "reaction" against aggression nearly as much as an opportunity for political gain and a release for a society becoming more and more burdened by a glut of landless nobles.

[okasha]

90. Some more history

Some of "the violent invasion" you claim precipitated the Crusades occurred two hundred years after the Crusades had come to an end. For all practical purposes, the fall of Acre in 1291 marked the close of the crusading era. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks a hundred and fifty years later, and it was the Ottoman Empire, based in Istanbul, that moved into the Balkans.

At the time of the First Crusade, the only places "Christendom" was under pressure from Muslim advances were the eastern and southern frontiers of the Eastern Roman Empire and the in Iberian peninsula, where the Muslim civilization of Al-Andaluz far outpaced the Spanish Christian kingdoms in tolerance, learning and quality of life. When Edward I of England and Philip IV of France expelled the Jews en masse from their Christian kingdoms, many of them found refuge in the Andalusian emirates. They managed to live there in peace for several centuries, until the Inquisition arrived with the Reconquista.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

63. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is not that simplistic.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

As one might expect, this source is generally favorable about the Crusades. But they are also depicted as political maneuvers to strengthen the Papacy.

And there are other viewpoints.

[The Stranger]

70. Completely False.

There were no "Christian Nations" at the time of the Crusades. There were a mass of Franks and Normans in what would be considered tribes, who were killing each other, when the Pope decided that they should all go kill Muslims and attack the Holy Land.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

77. Why the contempt for historical fact?

In the Beginning: There Was a Holy War. Why?

“On November 25, 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II summoned the First Crusade. For Western Europe, it was a crucial and formative event and it is having repercussions in the Middle East today. Addressing a vast crowd of priests, knights and poor people, Urban called for a holy war against Islam. The Seljuk Turks, he explained, a barbarian race from Central Asia who had recently become Muslims, had swept into Anatolia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and had seized these lands from the Christian Empire of Byzantium. The Pope urged the knights of Europe to stop fighting each other and to make common cause against the enemies of God. The Turks, he cried, are ‘an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God.” Killing these godless monsters was a holy act: it was a Christian duty to ‘exterminate this vile race from our lands.’”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385721404/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-7956821-8817721#reader-page

[PsychoDad]

82. I don't think there is a contempt for Christians,

As in Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus, son of Mary, but there is a contempt of those "christians" who are simply people who wrap themselves in the name in order to provide some semblance of legitimacy for their actions.

And I will be the first to admit that there are "muslims" of the same sort. (every religion is plagued with them)

Interestingly, the crusades are are historically known in Arabia as the "War with the Franks", not a war with Christianity.

Why?

Because, in the Muslim mindset, the followers of Jesus, real Christians, would never have been able to perpetrate the atrocities that they saw and documented from the crusaders.

[Bridget Burke]

64. You misspelled Christendom

And there was NO "entire reason" for the Crusades. The situations were a bit more complex than that.

[patcox2]

58. Since Rome fell in the 400s, and Mohammad lived in the 600s

It wouold have been difficult for the Romans to time-travel forward 200 years to attack the muslims, don't you think?

[PsychoDad]

83. Byzantium - The Eastern Roman Empire

Constantinople, became a capital of the Roman Empire in 330 AD after Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, refounded the city of Byzantium. Although the city was called Constantinople until its fall, the Eastern Roman Empire became known by the classical name of Byzantium, and often the city was called by its old name as well.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

7. an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind -ghandi nt

[liberalpragmatist]

8. Ancient Kingdoms Conquered

In ancient times, kings conquered other kingdoms. The fact that Muslim rulers conquered Spain and the Balkans is no different from England conquering Ireland or France conquering what was Southern France.

I'm not going to argue that Islamic conquests were totally peaceful - war is never peaceful, and of course atrocities occurred. But it's well-documented that under initial phases of Muslim rule, the Holy Land was quite peaceful and had good relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Likewise, in Spain and the Balkans, the Muslims were very peaceful and tolerant rulers by the standards of the day.

It's well-documented that the Catholic Church launched the crusades as a political move, aimed at strengthening the power of the Pope and also at weakening the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's also well-documented the Crusaders were EXTREMELY brutal - FAR more brutal than the Muslim rulers of the Holy Land at the time. Christian crusaders killed thousands of Jews in the Holy Land, for instance, in a massive slaughter.

You're clinging to a very anti-Islamic worldview that says that the Christians were totally peaceful and merely acting in defense, while the Muslims were conquering savages. Neither were peaceful or humane by today's standards, but the Crusades were largely aggression on the part of the Catholic Church and it's wrong to imply that Muslims were any more brutal than anybody else who conquered at the time - in fact, they were generally much more tolerant than Christian conquerors.

Might I remind you that under Muslim rule, Spain was the most tolerant, prosperous, and peaceful part of Europe and that it was under Christian rulers that the Reconquista and then the Inquisition occurred?

[LiberallyInclined]

11. one big reason for the Arab conquests at the time-

they had the most advanced sciences.

[happyslug]

20. Not quite true

At the time of the Arab Conquest the Greeks in Constantinople were the most advance people in Europe. They maintain this advantage till the Fourth Crusade (1204). After the Fourth Crusades (and its taking of Constantinople) the intellectuals of Greece slowly migrated to Italy (and this is the start of the Renaissance).

As to the Arabs of the Seventh Century, they were a back ward people from right is now Arabia with a simple view of things (Mohammad even ordered the Islamic lunar Calendar NOT to have any adjustments for the difference between the Lunar and Solar Calendar, thus the Islamic Calendar rotates through out the years and repeats itself every 33 years). This lack of basic Science lead to the early Arabic Rulers using Christians as their Science Advisor's.

Now by the Time of the Crusades things had changed. The Arabs were as advance as the Greeks (and in some ways more advance having adopted the modern Arabic Numbering system while before the Greeks and western Europeans did, through the Pope of the Ninth Century liked the System so much and ordered its wide spread adoptions in the West).

Even the Moslem's view the Original Arab conquest with some problems, for it lead to basically a thin Islamic elite over Christian, Zoroastrians (In Persia) and pagan majorities. The original Arab empire fell for this reason and modern Islam came out of this fall NOT the Conquest.

Anyway by the Tenth Century the Moslem's were in rapid decline and the Greeks of Constantinople where on the Verge of Reconquering Syria and Egypt. Do to the nature of the Greek Empire the two serious attempts died with the Emperor planning the Conquest. At that point the Seljuk Turks arrived from Central Asia. Compared to the Arabs, the Turks were as barbaric as the Western Europeans of the time. It was the Turks that defeated the Greek on 1071 in the Battle of Manzikert. This was a disaster for the Greeks, they lost central Asia minor, they main base of support and supply of soldiers since the fall of Western Roman Empire. The Greeks than turned to the West for Help in taking this part of Asia minor back, and the pope responded in 1100 with his famous order for a Crusade (Thus staring the First Crusade).

Manzikert had not only lost Central Asia Minor, but had bankrupt the Greek Empire so Northern Europe found itself in a depressions. For over 300 years the Greek Empire had used Northern Europeans as their Archers and what we would call "Policemen" of Constantinople. After Manzikert the Greeks could no longer afford to pay for these men.

Thus by 1100 the stable world of the previous 200 years was in a shift. Northern Europeans had no way to earn a living (The Greeks were no longer hiring them as mercenaries), Going Viking was no longer an option (Everyone in Northern and Western Europe was a Christian by 1071 AD). Thus a depression set in that was solved by the Pope Asking for a Crusade.

On the Moslem Side, the Seljuk Turks had been held in check, but the Shiite Moslem's hold over most of the Islamic World was falling in favor of Sunni version of Islam. This would continue during the Crusades (For Example Egypt would switch from Shiite rule to Sunni rule just before the Third Crusade). At the same time the majority of people in both Syria and Egypt were still Christian (Through not wanting to be part of either the Catholic Church of Western Europe nor the Greek Orthodox of Constantinople, though many of them would join the Catholic Church during the Reformation).

Just a comment that the situation in the Middle East during the Crusades was never as simple as it is often depicted. The majority of the people living in Palestine were not even Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Moslem's (Technically there were a third group of Christians, the Monophysitisics).

More on the Byzantium Empire:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/Byzantium.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html

[PATRICK]

25. The Pope's motives

too were in connection with the Greek Empire and mutual benefits. No one
really had countered on the catastrophic success of actually capturing the Holy Land, but the Greeks reaped the most benefit of having the West from then on as an enthusiastic buffer- until the Crusades turned fatally cannibalistic with the Crusader sack of Constantinople. The Pope too reaped the catastrophic success of combining holy war and the noble warrior class into monastic domination of the model of Christendom. Crazy. Thank heaven they failed to restore Empire.

No other Crusade had the success. The benefits were all money and intrigue and cross culturization that could have been accomplished peacefully much better. The later crusades destroyed Constantinople's power and set in concrete mutual fanaticism and a divide in world relations.

Despite the temporarily redeeming features which critics might be as happy to see as Native Americans were the demythologizing of General Custer I wonder about the effect on viewers of the lingering echos of one of the most emotionally charged nonsense movements in world history?

I would think romanticizing of any sort continues to buffer allegiance to horrific mindsets so much that the big picture or small points dissolve into a resurrected demon. This is not remotely symbolic like Tolkien, it is historical and ongoing. I suppose the story per se is good entertainment and educational. And discussions about Hollywood and ancient history are trendy fluff compared to where it might count in movies that really challenge contemporary society.

[struggle4progress]

52. Nope. The Islamic world saved and studied the ancient Greek texts.

Classical Greek civilization collapsed before the collapse of the Roman empire.

The Crusades were indirectly responsible for the Renaissance, because the Europeans brought classical Greek learning back from the Islamic world, together with the "Arabic numerals," which playerd an important role in the development of Western commercial trade practices.

[happyslug]

56. Constantinople was the largest City in the World at that time.

Even Gibbon made the comment that when the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople and burned PART OF IT, what burned equaled almost 1/2 of total number of houses in Urban areas of France of that same time period.

Constantinople was the center of Europe. It had replaced Rome (Through this appears to have taken over 200 years, from its Founding By Constantine I in the early 300s and Rome's Decline AFTER the Collapse of the Western Empire in 476 AD (Some Historians Argue Rome outnumbered Constantinople till Justinian's Reconquest of Italy in the 530s when Rome changed hands five times, each time losing more people).

From the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (476 AD) Constantinople was the largest City in the World. In many ways small compared to Modern Cities, but the shopping mecca of the World for that whole time period based on its size. It was where you went to study and learn and where almost all the Greek Texts were kept.

Now if you are talking about the ancient Greek Schools that dominated advance Education in the Greek and Roman World, yes most were gone by the time of the Arab Conquest. Some do to withdraw of support from the Imperial government, some do to a switch to Christianity, others do to lack of students. Justinian did the last of these Schools in, but not to abolish the teachings, but to make sure all such teachings occurred in Constantinople.

Since the time of Rousseau, there has existed a prejudice against what he first called the Byzantium Empire (What its contemporaries called the "Roman Republic", a named used since the founding of the Republic Of Rome in 510 BC). This prejudice was re-enforced by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In many ways this prejudice still exists and you have to look get around this prejudice to see what was happening in the Roman Republic from the Lombard Invasion of 570 AD till the fall of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD.

Between those dates the most powerful country in the world (Outside of China and the later Mongol Empire) was what themselves called the Roman Republic (What we call the Byzantium Empire). The Republic's greatest Assets was its Capital, the largest city in the world, Constantinople. That city was the center of Culture and Education in the world outside of China and India.

Now Constantinople was a dictatorship and like most dictatorship unable to delegate power let the person given that power uses it to take power. This is why it slowly declined, the Emperor could not afford to leave Constantinople let someone else takes over he reins of power, nor delegate to someone else a job on the frontier let that person become so popular that he leads a revolt against the dictator. Given this inherent flaw it is wonder that Constantinople survived till 1204 AD. The city was never taken by a foreign foe till 1204 (and Constantinople was only lost to a foreign foe permanently in 1453).

You can actually see the transition after 1204, as scholars either taken from or coming from Constantinople found schools of Greek learnings in Italy after 1204 AD. These schools are the real start of the Renaissance for it restored Ancient Greek and Roman teachings to Italy and the rest of Western Europe. The Crusades were NOT the factor for Palestine was NEVER on the real east-west Trade line. That Trade line went through Constantinople and/or Baghdad (with some in Damascus) BUT NOT JERUSALEM. The Crusaders contact with Civilization was via Constantinople or Egypt (and in some ways Spain) but not via the Crusades in Palestine. Thus the Crusades only introduced Civilization to Western Europe when the Crusade (like the Fourth Crusade) went some place other than the Holy Lands (In the case of the Fourth Crusade taking Constantinople twice).

As to Arabic Numbers, they were in use in Europe BEFORE the Crusades. Pope Sylvester II (999-1003) used them (and apparently most people ho had to add up numbers as opposed to using numbers). Through the wide spread adoption did not occur until after the adoption of the double entry accounting system was invented in the 1300s (In Double Entry accounting you enter an amount TWICE, one on the debit side the other as a credit, thus you have to add thing sup twice, easier to catch mistakes but requires twice the adding). http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/arabnums.html

On the Roman Empire and Constantinople:
http://www.roman-empire.net/constant/constant-index.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/index.html

More on Rousseau:
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96jun/rousseau.html

[struggle4progress]

57. The attitude of Constantinople towards the classical Greek learning ...

... is probably well-described by the treatment of Archimedes' brilliant infinitesimal treatise "On the Method," which Heiberg discovered there as a palimpsest somewhere around 1907: the Greek mathematics had been carefully scraped off, as pointless pagan material useless for the salvation of souls, and had been overwritten with religious material; this had the accidental effect of saving the text, but the effect was different from the intent. From the end of the classical era, the attitude of the Christian community towards Greek science might be best summarized by the murder of Hypatia.

If Gerbert, before he became Sylvester II, did actually know about the arabic numerals, there is no evidence that such personal knowledge produced any major or widespread use of the notation. Fibonacci's Liber Abaci, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, in the midst of crusades, is generally recognized as really introducing the notation to the Western world and is followed quickly by the establishment of schools in Italy for the purpose of teaching the notation to merchants.

[happyslug]

60. Before the 1850s paper was expensive

And it was common to re-use old paper. Prior to the 1850 (and the widespread adoption of Pulp based paper) paper was linen based (as are today's paper money). Linen based paper was expensive so often reused. Thus I am NOT surprised a paper by Archimedes was overwritten (a lot of papers were overwritten). The real issue was this intentional? or did the person overwriting Archimedes paper was doing so because it was a duplicate (i.e. a Duplicate in his time, that the duplicate was destroyed or lost subsequently is NOT the fault of the person who re-used this piece of paper to write his paper). Given the expense of linen based paper why would you keep two copies of books? This seems to have been a policy during the Middle ages and the reason a lot of ancient writings were lost, basically the writings were NOT copied and lost do to age. Linen paper last about 1000 years so it was un-common to make copies unless someone requested a copy. You had a copy why make a new one? It was this attitude more than hostility to the Ancient writings that caused a lot of ancient writings to disappear. You might want a copy of those writings but during the period from 500 AD to 1500 AD a most of people did not, either because they had access by reading OR it was NOT something their were interested in. Disinterest is NOT hostility, it is disinterest and let us not forget the difference.

[struggle4progress]

86. If, in Constantinople, during the period under discussion, there were ..

.. any interest in the works of Archimedes, to the extent that multiple copies of "The Method" were available at one and the same location, one should expect evidence (beyond your speculation) of a scholarly tradition of studying and explaining and extending such materials -- but there's not.

Incidently, I am extremely curious how anyone could reuse a piece of linen paper: the expense of paper simply implied that every scrap of it was used. The palimpsest to which I refer is not paper.

[happyslug]

91. Someone made a copy in the tenth Century, for that is what this is:

For that is when this copy was made. Someone else had to hold onto it for over 200 years before someone else wrote over Archimedes's Writing. Someone had to keep it for those 200 years. Might have been a Moslem but given that it was written over IN GREEK FOR AN ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS RITUAL, it appears to be some GREEK who had the book at least when it was over-written and probably inherited from a relative or another religious person (Religious in that the person is a Priest or a monk as opposed to a lay person who is a believer).

First a palimpsest is a piece of paper whose writing has either been scraped off for re-use (or worn off and someone decided to re-use the paper). It is not some "special" type of paper, and prior to the 1850 Linen was the base for most paper used (Through the paper is question is on parchment not Linen, I admit I speculated on linen for it was the preferred source of paper before Pulp paper became the norm starting about 1850).

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/november6/archimedes-116.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/arch-a03_prn.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/967

NOVA says the following about "Palimpsest":
"A palimpsest, from the Greek word palimpsestos meaning "scraped again," is a manuscript written on parchment that has another text written over it, leaving two (or more) layers of visible writing. Palimpsests were common in antiquity because parchment for writing was scarce and costly. As certain kinds of texts went in and out of literary fashion, manuscripts were recycled and reused, their original content rubbed away and overwritten."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html

NOVA also says the Book is "Parchment": Parchment is defined as:

"A translucent or opaque material made from the wet, limed, and unhaired skins of sheep, goats, or similar smaller animals, by drying at room temperature under tension, generally on a wooden frame known as a stretching frame. Wood is used because a frame of iron, for example, is likely to cause blue iron stains which are difficult to remove. Good parchment must be fine—that is, thin, strong, yet flexible—and must have a smooth surface if it is to be used for writing.....

.....The manufacture of parchment dates back to at least the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, or approximately 2000 B.C. Its manufacture arrived in Northwestern Europe along with Christianity, where it became the most important writing material of the Middle Ages. From the 12th century onwards, however, its use slowly declined in favor of paper. Its use today is limited, being restricted largely to state and legal documents, certificates, and the like; in the construction of musical instruments; and in certain aspects of archival conservation."

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt2487.html

[struggle4progress]

100. At least you now understand parchment is not "linen paper."

I'm still wondering why you thought the writing could be scraped off "linen paper" ...

[happyslug]

104. Counterfeiters did it in the 1990s

That is one of the reason for the change in the US Dollar bills, counterfeiters were bleaching one dollar bills and than using color copies to print copies of $20 bills on the bleached $1.00 bills. Thus it is possible to remove writing on linen. The counterfeiters did this for it solved the second problem of counterfeiting US Currency, the paper. Until the advent of Color Laser Copiers it was hard to copy exactly US paper money. With the advent of Color Laser Copiers that became so easy anyone could do it. Thus the Secondary system to stop counterfeiters became the primary means to catch fake bills. The secondary method was the type of paper US Dollar bills were printed on. Bleaching One dollar bill provided the paper. Thus after bleaching one dollar bills and printing $20 dollar bills over the One dollar bills you had an exact copy of a $20 bill right down to the paper.

As I said this lead to the changes in US paper money (except for the One Dollar Bill) starting in the early 1990s, but it also shows you how easy it was to REMOVE the writing off linen paper. Now a faint outline of the One Dollar bill survived the process (And this is seems how the fake bills were detected through the Secret Service is Keeping mum on HOW their detected the faked bills). Thus such counterfeits are also a "palimpsest" with two sets of writing on the paper.

[struggle4progress]

108. Even if true, it would shed no light on tenth century practice. eom

[struggle4progress]

101. So now you understand some religious moron scraped off Archimedes' ..

.. brilliant text and overwrote it with some silly and entirely forgettable ritualistic claptrap.

That's typical of the attitude towards real learning that the Christian world exhibited at that time and contrasts with attitudes in the Islamic world.

[happyslug]

107. Brilliant Texts?? What use was it?? That is being Judgmental.

Given how such texts are used, the "Ritualistic Claptrap" was used at least yearly for years (If not Daily for Centuries), while the writing of Archimedes might not have been read or even used for Centuries (and was NOT read or looked at for over 700 years i.e. till 1906). Thus the owners of this book AND society as a whole thought more of the "Ritualistic Claptrap" than of Archimedes's writings. You might think the writings are more important but we only have this book do to the book being saved by the writer of the "Ritualistic Claptrap".
The person who wrote the "Ritualistic Claptrap" at least SAVED writing of Archimedes and that would NOT have occurred except for the NEED for of the "Ritualistic Claptrap". Thus without the "Ritualistic Claptrap" we can not have the writings of Archimedes. The writing of Archimedes thus can not be any more brilliant than "Ritualistic Claptrap" that permitted it to be saved. We can not have one without the other, thus which is more "Brilliant"?????

In fact given the nature of the Technology of the time (And the limit in using Math given that the Greeks and Romans were still using Greek and Roman Numbers instead of Arabic Numbers at the time period in question) the book might be of intellectual interest today, but had no real influence on how things have been done (Please note I am referring to the Copy we have NOT Archimedes writings, the EFFECT of his writing has come down through the comments made of him and how his writings were used and adopted since his time, effect that affect us to this day, what I am referring to is THIS EXACT COPY).

The book in question has no new discoveries that were UNKNOWN when found in 1906 (Newton and other other more recent mathematicians had covered the same area). The book does shows at last one person was dealing with Newton Level Math in the Ancient world, but even by 1906 Einstein was about to expand BEYOND Newton with the math behind his theory of relativity.

Thus by the time this paper was found, it worth to advance Mathematics was minimal (It helps us understand Math in the time of Rome and how Math evolve since that time, but NOT any improvement in math theory since 1906). Thus this book is more important as a historical document than a book that advance mathematics (Again I am referring to this copy of Archimedes writing, NOT his writings as a whole for those were used from his time forward). In fact the "Ritual Claptrap" may have more "value" in that it gives us an idea on how people were thinking when it was written (i.e. as the Crusades ended).

The "Ritualistic Claptrap" gives us an idea on how people react to stress in society, i.e. how did the Greek handle the expansion of the Crusading States, their fall, the raise of Tamerlane, and the joint Ottoman Turk and Greek Constantinople stand against his invasion of Europe. The radical changes of the time period would be stressful no matter which side of the dispute one was on. Thus the "Religious Claptrap" can give us an idea on how at least the Greeks were handling the stress.

Thus I have to question your definition of "Brilliant Text", for that phase implies that the text had SOME USE to ALL of the OWNERS of the text from the Tenth Century to 1906 and till today. Apparently NONE of the owner of text thought more of Archimedes writing than the "Ritualistic Claptrap" till 1906. Thus if it was NOT for the "Ritualistic Claptrap" even this version would have been lost.

The real question should be why did someone have the text copied in the Tenth Century? Someone thought enough of the writing to have a copy made (HAND COPIED from another copy). Since it was NOT translated to Arabic or Latin at the same time, this implies it was written for someone who read Greek (Which could be an Moslem, Christian Arab, or even someone from the West). Someone thought enough of Archimedes text to copy it, yet you even attack him for leaving the text fall into the hands (200 years later) of a Religious person who needed a pray book. A "Ritualistic Claptrap" pray book that if NOT made from the old text of Archimedes, we would have lost this book forever.

Thus without the "Ritualistic Claptrap" this book of Archimedes would have been lost forever, thus to attack that writing is to say you would have preferred to book destroyed than preserved for that was the choices in the 12th century. The person who wrote the "Ritualistic Claptrap" thought enough of the book to save it, he saved it by re-using the papers, but he did save it and it is for that reason alone we have this copy so one should NOT attack what he did, you should actually thank him for saving it. This book is important from an historical point of view not only on the writings of Archimedes, but how it survived to this day. The later in many ways more important than Archimedes actual writings in this book (Again I emphasis that much of Archimedes writings have come down to use by in-direct means, used by later writers and engineers and builders, sometime attributed to him sometime not, the purpose of this tirade is to defend how this copy of Archimedes writings survived NOT to belittle his efforts, the efforts of the people who saved this copy especially the people of the time of the Crusades that saved this for later generations).

[struggle4progress]

111. The point is: tenth century Islam respected science while Christendom ..

.. did not.

When Europe decided it again wanted Euclid, it went to and translated from Arabic texts, because the Islamic world had retained a scholarly tradition in such subjects, while Christendom had instead scraped off the old texts and overwritten them with silly gibberish, or burned them as pagan trash, or (really!) used them to wrap fish for sale in city markets ...

And you might want to learn more about mathematics, more about history, and more about the history of mathematics before repeating toudly loudly and too often your opinion that Archimedes' "Method" is of minimal worth ...

[happyslug]

112. I have a very good background in History and in Math.

My comment was NOT that Archimedes method was "Minimal" but that this particular book is minimal to our knowledge of Math. Almost all of it was either re-discovered by Newton (or another mathematician of his time period) OR was incorporated into math studies that survived from the time of Rome till today. Thus the discovery of this Book did NOT improve our knowledge of Math, but did help out knowledge of what Archimedes was doing AND that people were still interested in his work at the height of the Byzantium Empire.

I also appreciated the fact that the only reason we have most of the books of the Ancient word is that some monk copied it for some reason during the period of 500 AD till 1500 AD. If some monk did NOT copy it, than it became lost and lost forever. Parchment and Linen do not last more than a 1000 years thus the need for someone to copy the work for it to survive. The Arab World did appreciate these books, but most of our knowledge comes from Latin or Greek copies NOT Arab translations. At the time of the Taking of Alexandria by the Arabs, the Great Library was again burned down, and when this came to the attention of the Arab General all he had to say that he had the Koran and did not need any other book.

Thus at the time of the Arab Conquest the Arabs were as bad as the Christians are perceived to be (The Christian actually hauled a lot of the books to Constantinople at the time of the Conquest do to the earlier invasion by the Persians). During this time period (700-1100 AD) it was the Greeks in Constantinople who were the intellectual giants of the time period. From 900 AD the Arabs equaled them but than both faded away after the Sacking of Constantinople (1204) and Baghdad (1258).

Even this Arab flowing seems to be short lived, the Turks seem not to be part of it and the TURKS dominated Islam in the Middle east after 1071 AD. Now England was greatly influenced by the Moors in Spain do to the long Alliance between England and Spain against France. During the period in question England would support Spanish attacks on Moslem's cities in right in now Spain. Both Spanish and English noble men went to Moslem schools (More than did French or Italians) but the Renaissance came from Italy and than to France and Germany NOT from Spain (Neither Moorish or Christian Spain). It is from Italy, France and Germany that the Renaissance reached England (Through the Spanish Alliance would prejudice things till the dissolution of that Alliance Under Elizabeth I, and than the Hostility to Spain would ally England with the Turks for the period after Elizabeth).

One of the great fallacy of people is their hatred of things they do not understand. The Christian Church during the Middle ages was more important in most people's life their the country their were living in or their rulers. People identified themselves based on their religion NOT on what country they happen to live in. To break with one's religion was to break with all of your family AND your friends. Thus religious conversions were rare unless politically advantages to the person being converted. Religious persecutions were done for political reasons more than religious reasons. Thus the "silly gibberish" was important for these people to define themselves. You are the one belittling them by refusing to understand them. In many ways you belittle them for you fear them for you do not understand them. I would advise you to try to understand them. Such understanding will help you understand and deal with people today for most people want to be both understood and want to understand and practice makes that easier to do.

[struggle4progress]

113. I will reiterate that at the time of the Crusades, there was no meaningful

scientific tradition in Christian Europe, and that the scientific and mathematical achievements of the ancient Greeks contributed to scholarly traditions in the Islamic world at the time, but not in the Christian world.

There seems to have been no medieval mathematician of any importance in Christian Europe, other than Fibonacci (whose "Book of Squares" does actually discuss interesting and difficult questions), whereas the Islamic world produced a number of first rate mathematicians who obtained interesting geometric results and produced useful rules for handling the "arabic numerals," including recognizable recipes for extracting roots. When the Europeans first copied Euclid from the Arabs, they did not even bother with the proofs, which were apparently "too abstract" for early medieval Europeans to understand.

I am indeed sneering somewhat at the anonymous idiot who scraped off Archimedes' writings in order to record ritualistic material. The reason is simple: Archimedes was a mathematical genius of first rate, unparalleled in imagination until Newton. Because the insights of such people are unlikely to be accidently reproduced by others, you are mistaken in your view that Newton somehow supplanted Archimedes; they had rather different ideas and objectives, and Archimedes' so-called cattle problem has continued to excite attention. "The Method" itself is extremely interesting text and could have been a useful subject of study, had anyone been aware of it through the later middle ages and into the early renaissance. At the very least, this "scraping off" illustrates clearly the medieval europeans' complete lack of intellectual curiosity and highlights the fact that there was no meaningful community of scientific scholars in the Christian world at the time, a fact which contrasts with the situation in the Islamic world.

[Trajan]

87. You have went to extraordinary efforts ...

to heap moslems into an image of ignorance, whilst simultaneously promoting Byzantine is the protector of greco-roman thought ... Yet MOST of the great greek and latin works were BURNED, or otherwise destroyed, by orthodox christianity, beginning with Theodosius and his sack of the Library of Alexandria, and continuing through the Iconoclastic strife that beset Byzantine society in the 9th century ....

The rulers and clerics of 'St. Sophia' had NO interest in preserving the great works of the 'pagan' greeks or sinful latins .... They DESPISED the pagan thinkers ...

[happyslug]

96. I "went to extraordinary efforts"......,?????

All I said is that the Western World had more contact with Constantinople than with the Arabs. The First and Second Crusades both went THROUGH Constantinople, the Third Crusade's leaders all visited Constantinople (do to the Eastern Emperor Signing a Peace Treaty with Frederick Barbarossa to permit him to continue to the Holy land through Asia Minor). The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople.

Of the three Contestant to the Throne of England in 1066, one, Harald Hardrade had served in Constantinople. He arrived in Constantinople via Kiev after backing the losing side in a War in Denmark. He subsequently re-took Denmark and used that as his base to invade England in 1066. People got around even in that day and age.

My point was that the thrust of MOST interaction was with Constantinople NOT Baghdad nor Cairo (Through some contact with the Moors in Spain). The big center of Learning for the Arabs was Baghdad, a city the Crusaders turned away from when the went SOUTH instead of East when they hit Syria. I do not believe I belittled the Arabs, I am just pointing out that the Greeks were in the way AND the West had more Contacts with the Constantinople than with Baghdad.

Some back ground on the Crusades:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
If you do not like the Catholic Encyclopedia here is another site:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html

For more on Harald Hardrade
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hardrada.html

As to the Iconoclastic strife that was aimed at what the Iconoclasts called "Idols" i.e. symbols of Christ than in removing or destroying ancient Pagan symbols or books (What the Catholics and Orthodox call "Icons"). The thrust of Iconoclastism (like the later Iconoclastic thrust of the Puritans during the Reformation) was against Icons and other symbols of worship WITHIN the church NOT Pagan objects. Paganism was not even threaten by Iconoclastism (in fact during the height of the Iconoclast controversy, the Eastern Emperors permitted Moslems to open the first Mosques in Constantinople). The Iconoclasts did not even try to rename the days of the week nor the Months of the Year (The Puritans also did NOT rename the months or the days, thus our Calendar to this day are made up of Months and Weekdays named after Pagan Gods and Goddesses). Thus the thrust of Iconoclast-ism was NOT against anything ancient or pagan, but anything that was worshiped IN A CHURCH.

The best explanation of the Iconoclast movement is that the Eastern Empire wanted to reduce expenditures so to have more money to fight the Arabs, thus adopting Iconoclastism to be able to take down all of the Icons (and melt them down to use to pay for more troops). By the time Iconoclastism hit Constantinople they was very few pagan items to melt down and destroy. A similar situation occurred during the Reformation, the Puritans tended to be from the Middle Class and disliked spending money supporting the very wealthy churches, and wanted that money spent on other things (in the case of the Puritans return to them so that they could use it to develop their Businesses). Thus both movements to remove "Icons" from the Church reflect a desire by the powers that be to reduce the wealth held by the Church. Attacking pagan symbols would NOT do that, attacking the Church as infected by pagan symbols does.

For more in Iconoclastism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm
http://www.greece.org/romiosini/iconoclastic.html
http://www.sbuniv.edu/~hgallatin/ht34632e07.html

[PsychoDad]

93. Some quotes by Historians

About Islamic sciences in the middle ages

John William Draper in the "Intellectual Development of Europe"

"I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe."

Robert Briffault in the "Making of Humanity"

"It was under the influence of the arabs and Moorish revival of culture and not in the 15th century, that a real renaissance took place. Spain, not Italy, was the cradle of the rebirth of Europe. After steadily sinking lower and lower into barbarism, it had reached the darkest depths of ignorance and degradation when cities of the Saracenic world, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordova, and Toledo, were growing centers of civilization and intellectual activity. It was there that the new life arose which was to grow into new phase of human evolution. From the time when the influence of their culture made itself felt, began the stirring of new life.
"It was under their successors at Oxford School (that is, successors to the Muslims of Spain) that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic Sciences. Neither Roger Bacon nor later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of apostles of Muslim Science and Method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic Sciences was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge. Discussion as to who was the originator of the experimental method....are part of the colossal misinterpretation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe.

"Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world; but its fruits were slow in ripening. Not until long after Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant, which it had given birth to, rise in his might. It was not science only which brought Europe back to life. Other and manifold influence from the civilization of Islam communicated its first glow to European Life.

"For Although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic Culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the permanent distinctive force of the modern world, and the supreme source of its victory, natural science and the scientific spirit.

"The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The Astronomy and Mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute method of science, detailed and prolonged observation and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to the Greek temperament. Only in Hellenistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world. What we call science arose in Europe as a result of new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics, in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.

"It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would never have arisen at all; it is absolutely certain that but for them, it would not have assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution."

For those of us who like visuals :) I would also direct the interested to the BBC's production - "Islam, Empire of Faith" Part 2 of 3, for where the Muslim world was technologicly and educationaly during the middle ages in respect to europe.

The BBC also created the program "What the Ancients Did for Us: The Islamic World" and the producer had this to say :

"My colleagues at www.muslimheritage.com provided some consulting and advice for this episode, in which Adam Hart-Davis recreates some of the most amazing inventions of the early Islamic World, "from soap to torpedoes and from water pumps to windmills." The programme also surveys more widely the boom in scientific innovation that accompanied the golden age of Islam. "


More can be found here:
http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm
http://www.muslimheritage.com/
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/Introl1.html
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec12.htm

[happyslug]

98. I agreed with you.

But Spain was off the beaten track for the Crusades (The subject of this thread). My point was the situation had changed. In the 700s the Greeks were without peer in their knowledge of Science and learning, but 900 AD that had changed, the Arabs were their equal (and their superiors in some ways).

The problem is that by the time of the Crusade, it is a fight between the Franks and the Turks NOT the Greeks and the Arabs. After the third Crusade the Greeks backed the Arabs and Turks against the Crusaders (While Egypt seems to have backed the Crusaders against the Turks). Saladin had united both Syria and Egypt at the time of the Third Crusader, but this barely survived his death. The subsequent survivor of the Crusading states relied on the tension between the Seljuk Turks and the Egyptians (Who recruited troops from the Caucuses and shipped their recruits via Constantinople).

It is only with the Mongols taking of Baghdad in 1258 that Egypt decides the Crusading states had to go. Egypt had either used them as sources of supply (or they had been neutral) when the Mamalukes marched on the Mongols and defeated them in battle of Ayn Jalut on September 8, 1260.

That the Crusading States had been needed by the Mamalukes to defeat the Mongols was not lost on the Mamalukes. The reverse could also be done thus the Mamalukes than destroyed the Crusading states AND THAN DESTROYED THE CITIES ALSO to prevent any support to getting to the Mongols (This is how much fear the Mongols had produced).

In many ways the Islamic world never really recovered from the Mongol Invasion. That sacking of Baghdad was the beginning of the long decline in Islamic and Arabic learning. Thus at the same time Constantinople was in Decline (After the Fourth Crusade of 1204) the Second largest city in the World was also in Decline (Baghdad after 1258). The West received a huge jump in knowledge from both for many of the scholars had no place else to go.

In many ways, this movement westward is downplayed in our Western History books, but a movement that affects us to this day.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/amitai-preiss.html
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec11.htm
http://www.jerusalemites.org/history_of_palestine/4.htm

[1texan]

16. Ignore history and it will repeat

The Crusades were about access to the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrims. Imagine, for a moment, that Mecca-the holiest place in Islam-was taken over by Christian forces and that Pilgrims were taxed, harried, taken hostage, or prevented entirely from doing their Hajj-required of them by their faith. This is the type of situation that faced the Christians during the Crusades. At the time, a Pilgrimage to the Holy Land was required, if one was able. This requirement was eventually dropped and replaced in the Catholic Church by the Stations of the Cross, in large part due to the failures of the Crusades. Only the first Crusade was in any way a success, the others complete failures. I have no idea where you get the idea that Muslims were somehow nicer to the people they conquered than were the Christians. Entire populations were slaughtered on the whim of Saladin. The Christians that were martyred by the Muslims are uncountable. Did Christians commit horrible acts? Yes, they did, and were ex-communicated by the Church. Saladin was revered for his acts of mercy and brutality equally.

[jukes]

18. boohoo for the pilgims

:cry:

let's be realistic: the only one's that cd even consider such a pilgrimage were the incredibly wealthy. the rest of the xian world was working it's collective ass off to support them & the extravagance of the catholic church.

i don't believe for one tick that ANY crusaders were excommunicated for excessive cruelty to muslims, and there is absolutely no historical (as opposed to hysterical) evidence to support such a claim.

muslim soldiers slaughtered xian soldiers; xian soldiers slaughtered muslim soldiers but also raped, pillaged, and slaughtered non-combatants that were in their path. for muslims to equal xian barbarity, the wd have had to counter-invade as deep as rome, at least, and lay waste to all the land in between.

early muslims were quite tolerant of other religions within their countries. while catholics oppressed jews, hounded & lynched gypsies, and tortured their own citizens upon mere whim. not to mention the suppression of science & creative thought, which the muslims nurtured.

[1texan]

39. Urban III excomunicated the ENTIRE crusade

Per your "no historical evidence to support such a claim" there certainly is. The practice of indulgences in the Catholic Church of the time did indeed call for every Christian that was able to pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The "Pilgrimage Indulgence" was replaced by "The Stations of the Cross" also known as "The Way of the Cross". I suggest this link for a short read to bring you up to snuff on the Crusades: http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

[okasha]

47. Innocent (not Urban) III excommunicated the entire Fourth Crusade

not because they slaughtered innocent Muslims or Jews but because they massacred their fellow Christians. They sacked and looted Eastern Christian churches, murdered priests and laypeople, raped nuns on the altars. Innocent was so overcome with grief, in fact, that he turned his Crusaders loose on the Cathars in the South of France, where they proceded to do to their fellow Westerm Christians (albeit heretical ones) just as they had done to the citizens of Constantinople. You've heard the phrase "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out?" That was the Papal representative's advice to the Pope's commander at the siege of Bezier, when the latter wondered how he was supposed to tell the Cathars in the city from the Catholics.

[JTHC]

45. You've got to be kidding

You think Muslim conquerers didn't rape, pillage, and slaughter? As for barbarity, war itself is barbarity, and the Muslim nation(s) waged it all the way through northern Africa, Spain, southern France, Anatolia, the Balkans, and almost to Vienna. Just because they were more tolerant afterwards doesn't mean jack, especially when you consider all the slaughter and enslavement that preceded that.

The Crusaders were certainly a nasty lot, but let's not pretend the Muslim invasions were some Sunday picnic.

Oh, and look up the Fourth Crusade--Crusaders were certainly excommunicated.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. I never said there weren't atrocities committed on both sides

But the idea that the Christian soldiers were wholly innocent is ridiculous. It really was a power-play. The Crusaders massacred virtually the entire population of Jerusalem, including Eastern Orthodox Christians.

And the Muslim rulers of Spain and the Ottomon Empire were, by the standards of the day, more tolerant (in general) than their European counterparts. That's not to say there wasn't any repression, and certainly by today's standards they wouldn't be seen as being in any way innocent, but they were far better towards religious minorities in general than their Catholic counterparts at the time. The Jews in Spain for instance had the most acceptance there than any other European country.

As for the cause of the First Crusade, the oppression of Christian pilgrims is believed by most historians to have been greatly exagerrated by the Church. Again, that's not to say there wasn't any oppression, but it was far less than many believe and it was not the real cause of the crsuades, which were really to increase the power of the Pope and regain influence over the Eastern branch of Christianity.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?041213crbo_books

by the eleventh century it was agreed that in certain circumstances God might not only condone war but demand it. Of course, there had to be an important cause. The Church claimed that it had such a cause: Jerusalem had fallen into the hands of infidels. Actually, that had happened more than four hundred years earlier, and in the ensuing period Christians were generally treated far better in the holy city than non-Christians were in Europe. But there was another call to arms: Alexius I Comnenus, the emperor of Byzantium—that is, of Catholic Europe’s Eastern brother—had asked the Pope for help against Muslim forces threatening his borders. Again, however, this was something less than an emergency. Byzantium and Islam did fight, but no more frequently than most neighboring powers of the time.

According to many modern historians, what triggered the Crusades was not an external cause but an internal one: a campaign, beginning with Pope Gregory VII, in the late eleventh century, to reform the Church. This was a two-pronged effort. One goal was to stamp out immorality: get the priests to stop marrying, stop selling ecclesiastical offices, live by their vows. A second, and probably more important, objective was to strengthen the Papacy. In religion as in politics, Europeans of that period had little respect for centralized authority. The Pope’s sovereignty was disputed not just by secular rulers but within the Church. When Urban II, Gregory’s successor, was elected, in 1088, it took him six years to get a rival, German candidate out of the Lateran Palace. (He finally had to bribe him.) This is not to speak of the fact that the Pope had no control over the Eastern churches, the dioceses of the Balkan peninsula, Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. Most of these territories were under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine Empire and hence of the Greek Orthodox Church, which, to Rome’s abiding fury, had broken with the Western Church in 1054. The Vatican wanted to get mightier and holier, and Urban II took on the job.

In 1095, he went on a tour of France, and one afternoon in Clermont he gave a sermon calling on Christians to journey to the East and reclaim the Holy Land. “A race absolutely alien to God,” he said, was defiling Christian altars, raping Christian women, tying Christian men to posts and using them for archery practice. None of this was true, but it had the desired effect. First, as the postcolonial theorists would say, it “otherized” the Muslims. Second, it gave the European nobles a cause that could distract them from warring with their neighbors—a more or less daily occupation of knights in that period—and unite them, for a holy purpose. In the months that followed, at convocations across Europe, between sixty thousand and a hundred thousand people came forward and knelt to “take the Cross.”

And...

By the time the Crusaders got to Jerusalem, the Seljuk Turks, their primary enemy, had lost the city to the Egyptian Fatimids, who were in diplomatic negotiations with the Crusaders. So the people from whom the Crusaders took the city were not their foes but their hoped-for friends. Pope Urban II never heard of the victory; he died two weeks after it occurred. Most of the wealth that the soldiers had acquired was spent on their return passage; many arrived home penniless. The Eastern Christian sects—the Armenians and Copts and others whose freedom to worship in the city was one of the Crusade’s foremost stated goals—were expelled from Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Franks had established the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, which, despite various losses (notably the city of Jerusalem), did not fall for two hundred years.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalpragmatist]

76. What's your point?

Yes, in general, Muslim societies are currently quite intolerant. Religions go through periods of turmoil and right now Islam is in serious turmoil.

But what is the point of this reply? As if you're justifying the crusades on current-day Islamic terrorism? We're talking about what caused the crusades, not current-day grievances.

[PsychoDad]

95. Depends on the Muslim

If you look under the Hijab or Kufi, you will discover a human being, who like yourself, and all other human beings, has faults and strengths.

How many Muslims do you personally know? How many of them are "intolerant" ? Muslims are the same as Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc.. you have your good, bad and ugly.

[DulceDecorum]

97. Do they throw Democrats out of the mosque?

No?

Have they held a Justice Friday mega-mosque rally
to interfere with the political process?

Well, then.

[KTM]

99. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Yeah.. those muslims nowadays are awfully intolerant.. unlike those white xian fundies... :eyes:

[PunkPop]

22. What does "ignore history and it will repeat" mean?

What does that have to do with this topic?

Are you saying that what happened in the Crusades is some kind of justification for bushie's little parade of death and destruction in Iraq? Help me out.

[1texan]

36. NO

Holy war against the US is what Ussama bin Laden declared because of our troops in the Holy Land of Mecca. His "Jihad" has the same basis as the crusades did, occupation and control by the "infidel"

[CJCRANE]

79. Bin Laden is not a Pope.

Just because some rich guy slumming it in a cave declares "holy war" doesn't make it some kind of Crusade. 19 hijackers is not an invasion.

[stlsaxman]

43. I believe the actual quote is...

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Some guy named Santana said it.... not Carlos... lol

Here's an example-

Boston Massacre=
Crowd of protesters throw snowballs at Redcoats who shot into crowd killing four.

Kent State Massacre=
Crowd of protesters throw rocks at National Guard who shoot into crowd killing four.

[democracyindanger]

29. The Pope excommunicated the Crusaders that killed 40,000 innocents

when they finally took Jerusalem?

That's a link I'd like to see.

[1texan]

37. Look at "History of the Crusades"

I know there is an awful lot of information on them, here is one link that may be useful to you: http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Yes, even the Pope was sickened by what they did. I will not try and turn this into a defending the Catholic Church thread, but read the charters of the Crusaders. Pilgrims on a mission from God. Are they really that different from the Jihadists of Al Queda?

[democracyindanger]

38. No, the Crusaders weren't really that different from Al Qaeda

I'm sure that's not the argument you were trying to make, but that's what you've written. You've inadvertently managed to make a correct statement.

The Crusaders weren't pilgrims. They were invading armies. Their purpose wasn't simply to go to Jerusalem and worship--their purpose was to capture Jerusalem by force for the Catholic Church (not Christianity in general: once in Jerusalem, the Crusaders tossed out all the Greek Orthodox priests and installed their own), and kill a whole lot of innocent Jews, Muslims and non-Catholic Christians along the way, not to mention conquer chunks of Hungary, the Balkans and Armenia.

And thanks for the link to that magazine. Now I have to reformat my hard drive to erase anything that might prove I visited a site that proudly prints an editorial from Rick "Man-On-Box Turtle" Santorum.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democracyindanger]

42. Kinda hard not to see red

when somebody links to a Santorum-tainted source. Fine. Truce.

[Malikshah]

73. Yes-- THEY WERE different from today's "jihadists"

In a big way.

1) They rationalized war as the ultimate act of love.
2) They preached the crusade throughout Europe (though most came from France and Germany -- then, the HRE. They came from all levels of society. This was officially sanctioned by the leaders (secular and spiritual.
3) It went on for over 200 yrs, -- these constant calls for Crusade.

Yes, they failed in the end.

The point is-- there are MAJOR differences between al-Qa'ida and the Crusader forces. To try and equate the two is to ignore the realities of both and thus come up with specious generalizations.

This whole..."but they did it too" argument is insipid-- and folks should avoid it lest they come across as apologists for the Crusades and al-Qa'ida.

al-Qa'ida has NEVER had the support that the Crusaders did. Never had the sanctioning of numerous governments.

[Bridget Burke]

33. The Turkish invasion of Anatolia interrupted the Pilgrimages temporarily..

Which gave one of the excuses for the First Crusade. You always need an uplifting excuse for a war--"They stole Helen!" or "There are WMD!"--even when the motivations are less pure.

The Turks, as new converts, were a bit overzealous at first. Generally, the Muslims encouraged pilgrims--yes, they taxed them. And sold them supplies, etc.

There are lots of good books on the Crusades. With multiple Crusades & multiple viewpoints, I'd be hard-pressed to recommend just one.

[okasha]

49. "Entire populations were slaughtered on the whim of Saladin."

Document this, please.

[jwirr]

13. maybe because some of the history

books suggest that. The book "The Crusades: Iron Men and Saints" for one describes how Urban II needed to gain power to overcome his rival popes and invented the reasons for the crusades. Also the moors in Spain were settling there not attacking it. They more or less had peaceful colonies in southern Spain for years. It was El Cid and the Spanish crown/church that wanted them out. Either that or the history of El Cid is one big lie in itself.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Moors were in Spain for 4 centuries, and the Jews lived in peace

When the puke Christians took over Spain, it was the beginning of a mini-holocaust for the Jews of Spain.

When it comes to cruelty and murder, Christianity is second to none!

[Hardrada]

54. Was it "Moors" or "Moops"?

Some Seinfeld thing about that.

[atreides1]

15. Maybe you should take some history courses

Who conquered Constantinople?

The Western Christians captured and sacked it in 1204, it wasn't until 1453 when the Ottoman Empire captured it.

Who conquered the Balkans?

Once again the Ottoman Empire did in the 15th Century, but the history of the Balkans is dominated by wars, rebellions, invasions and clashes between empires, from the times of the Roman Empire to
the latter-day Yugoslav wars.

Who conquered Spain(Iberia)?

Starting in the 9th Century, Celtic tribes entered the Iberian peninsula and settled. In 1100 BC the Phoenician merchants founded
the trading colony of Gadir or Gades(modern day Cadiz). The Greeks showed up in 8th Century BC and established colonies along the
Mediterranean coast, and it was the Greeks that named it Iberia, after the river Iber(Ebro in Spanish). The Carthginians arrived in 6th Century BC. The Romans didn't get to Spain until 2nd Century BC, and were followed by the Suebi, Vandals, Aslans, and the Visigoths.
It wasn't until 711 that Spain was conquered by the Moors of North Africa, and it became part of the expanding Umayyad Empire.

[bleedingheart]

21. If I recall it was the Christian Armies of Venice that weakened

Constantinople. The Doge was so enamoured of the wealth that he basically sacked it and that helped to weaken it further to the Muslim invaders.

[atreides1]

24. Not the Venitians alone

Yes Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice. But this happened in 1204, and it wasn't until 249 years later in 1453. And it wasn't just the
Venetians, it was also Crusaders who were told by The Doge, that if they helped in taking Constantinople the debts that they had accrued
in Venice would be forgiven.

Some of the Crusaders refused, but the majority joined in with the Venetians and sacked the city.

This was during the Fourth Crusades.

[bleedingheart]

26. It has been some time since I read up on the Crusades...

I have not studied the period in over 15 years, but it was one of the periods of history that I found interesting.

As to the movie I have been reading up on the information through the net but would prefer to get a book out of the ole library as sometimes the 'net isn't so thorough.

[Bridget Burke]

34. I toured our local Greek Orthodox Cathedral a few years ago.

It was preceded by a brief history of Orthodox Christianity.

There had been doctrinal differences for centuries, but the sack of Constantinople was the last straw. The Greeks are still mad & I don't blame them. Many ancient relics were destroyed when that beautiful city was sacked.

[erichzann]

23. Because its its more accurate.

That's why.

[manic expression]

48. Umm....

The Moors were invading the Iberian peninsula, "Spain" did not exist at the time. The Turks conquered Constantinople, and the Crusades were against the Arabs, different peoples. Muslims would not reach Constantinople or the Balkans until MUCH MUCH LATER (try the 1500's), and again, these were Turks. The Muslims really were peaceful, and people of all faiths were allowed in Jerusalem without any trouble, even when the *gasp* Muslims controlled the city (on edit: the Christians were brutal and horribly intolerant when they conquered the city).

Here is what you desperately need to do:
Step 1.) Read a history book
Step 2.) Think

[The Stranger]

69. Why is there this idea that the Catholic Church decided, hey, let's go

kill Muslims?

Because it did.

[KittyWampus]

85. Mooooooooom, He Hit Me First (Pout). Great Historical Info In This Thread

and the movie sounds terrific as I love historical movies with some amount of pageantry and costumes...

but at the end of the day, the warfare and bickering reminds me of two children who've been fighting for hours and when Mom finally has to step in, who hit who first always seems to be the kids priority and not the fact that they refuse to work things out diplomatically.

[dionysus]

92. well, you know,

those dirty muslims, we should nuke em all (puuuuke)

[MADem]

102. The Muslims made it all the way to Germany, briefly

...before they were turned back. Of course, now they are taking the same tack as Mexico....and retaking Europe one "guest worker" at a time!!! There are pockets of France and Germany where if you don't speak Arabic or Turkish, you ain't gettin' directions!

[cascadiance]

110. In Germany it is said that doner kebab is more popular than hamburgers...

... in the American fast food restaurants around there. For those here who don't know what Doner Kebab is, it is the Turkish equivalent of the Greek Gyro that is made with some slightly different spices, tomato, and butter sauce along with yoghurt. Very tasty if you can find a Turkish restaurant near you (Iskender style is best in my book, though Adana isn't bad).

[Casablanca]

5. Five in my neighborhood

When I saw it on Friday, there were a group of 5 20-something girls that walked out of the movie, after muttering nonstop among themselves for fifteen minutes. Ridley and Orlando now have five fewer pseudo-fans - good for them.

[bleedingheart]

2. Saladin was a very interesting and heroic figure in the Arab world

what I read about him (years ago) was all rather positive...he was a scholar, a leader and a moderate in comparison to Bin Laden.

I look forward to seeing the movie.

[Casablanca]

9. "he was a scholar, a leader and a moderate ..."

And in response to having their collective asses handed to them by Saladin, those noble crusading knights began to fraternize with the enemy rather than hold to their own principles. The corrupted knights became very impressed with certain aspects of the Egyptian and Muslim religions, returned very wealthy and started the Knights Templar, one of the ancient strains of certain popular Masonic orders.

This is why Masonic ritual still contains many mixed references to Egyptian mysticism and Christian religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The Knights Templar were founded well before Saladin

in 1118 or so. At that point, only the First Crusade had happened, which the Christians won.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Matariki]

41. scholar or no -

i know what you're talking about. having been inside the tent myself ;-)

[cascadiance]

10. Also saw the movie over the weekend...

I liked it very much, though I wonder if it could have been editted down somewhat. 2 1/2 hours was a bit long and the themes and plots, etc., nice as they were weren't as complex to need to be that long. Just don't want people just going to the movie to watch just the battle scenes and the visuals (which as in most Ridley Scott movies were great). My mom, who I took to it for mothers' day I think was a bit overwhelmed by its length. I think the message came through to me, but might get lost on others.

This movie wasn't quite at the level as Gladiator was, but it certain was up there on my list of flicks. And I have to hand it to Ridley Scott to deal with a very difficult and controversial theme and making something that arguably reasonable people on both sides would enjoy and get something out of that's substantive instead of exploitive.

I'd like to see him tackle a movie on Ataturk and the Armenian genocide. I think using a similar approach, he could do a lot of good making a similar movie about that controversial subject as well.

The visuals and sets, as in most other Ridley Scott movies, were fantastic too.

I did like how Ridley made Orlando's character as the most "Christian" (if one is to define Christian as being "pure of heart") and not being tied to the rituals and traditions of what other Christians were thought to do in those times. That the most important thing was to protect people (*all* people), and not just look to protect castes of people and religious icons and symbols. I think that's also what gained him respect from those fighting him too (even though outwardly they had to "capture Jerusalem for the Muslims").

[Mike Daniels]

14. Re: length - I read somewhere that the original cut was 3 hr. 45 min

so it appears he edited down quite a bit just to get 2.5 hrs. The longer version apparently included more back story on the various characters and gave a better sense of their motivations.

It'll be interesting if a future version of the DVD release contains the full movie as initially planned.

[cascadiance]

17. Though some might find it too long...

I might appreciate a longer movie with some more complex back stories and sub plots.

I think that with the length of the battle scenes and the plot lines being more "simplified" it made it kind of long to get through. A longer movie in other areas might make me appreciate the longer battle scene a bit more, much like the extended editions of LOTR series.

[Bridget Burke]

31. I've heard there will be an extended DVD.

It will include more character development, etc.

Watching at home, one can hit PAUSE when necessary!

[MADem]

103. If you ask the average Turk

...they will tell you that that massacre NEVER happened--that it was a big lie designed to make them look bad, for purely political reasons (I'm not kidding, just try having the discussion sometime--warning, if your average Turk is a friend, you risk losing a friend!). This is is taught to them in school from earliest childhood. In fact, you can get a lovely book from their Embassy, hard bound with great detail, that will tell you that in words and pictures. Of course, if you talk to any Armenian, you know full well that you will hear a totally different story!!!

History is interesting, and more often than not has a nationalistic bent. Where you stand on an issue can depend on where you sit.

I don't own any of it, as I was not alive at the time. But I do find it interesting that some folks keep fighting old battles...and we make fun of the Hatfields and the McCoys...!

[cascadiance]

109. That's really why I'd like to see someone like Ridley do it...

Before this movie, many would have speculated it would have been impossible for someone to make a movie on the Crusades and get any kind of Muslim endorsement/acceptance of it. But, even though the theatrical version doesn't look to be without flaws, it does look like he pulled this aspect of it off. The Armenian genocide is more of a challenge, because those who know much of anything about it are very opinionated and have a very one-sided view of it, whether you talk to Armenians or Turks. I have a problem swallowing an argument from either side that one come to me. There's just too much distortions, etc. on both sides to know at a glance what really happened, without some *exhaustive* research and at least an attempt to be objective. Not many objective people have a stomach to take on this challenge.

The most vocal about it are the ones that are emotional and one-sided about it. I think there are many out there though that just keep silent and avoid talking about it, even if some of them still may have been first hand witnesses to it from their childhoods. I think some of these folks might have some more objective accounts of what went on, but that will go away soon if someone doesn't attempt to do a project like that now.

I really would like to see Ridley try though. He has my ultimate respect as an artist and with the history of making great "scenic" films he's made (Gladiator, Blade Runner, Alien, Black Hawk Down, etc.) and is someone that I think can try to bring back and help us "feel" what it might have been to live then, provided he got the right research done on it. If someone could put out a really well-researched historical treatise on this time that at least reasonable people can accept as an account of what happened then, it might keep the extremists on both sides from "campaigning" to win over those in the middle to their side in the perpetual conflict they have. If everyone else has a reasonable understanding from a film like this, they will feel more inclined to look at a decent compromise in this area of the world, not only for Armenians and Turks, but perhaps for Kurds and Turks and other conflicting parties as well.

There's parts of that history that both sides can be really sorrowful and not wanting to talk about (the killings on both sides, especially the Turks). There's also quite a bit to be proud of too. The Turks being very unique in how they obtained democracy then at that time and the incredible individual that Ataturk was in helping them throw off the Ottoman Empire's monkey off it's back and put together a government that many middle eastern governments look to as an example.

[maxsolomon]

27. less eva green, more david thewlis!

saladin came off as smart, and ultimately merciful. cool looking actor, too. famous syrian actor, i understand. hope ridley scott cleared that with homeland security first.

and nasir, orlando blooms' saracen buddy? dr. bashir of deep space 9!

WTF!

only critique: i still hate that choppy digital video swordplay. TOO impressionistic.

i'm glad the muslim world sees it as even handed - i did too. basically points out that ITS THE SAME GOD, MONOTHEIST IDIOTS.

[mainer]

32. agree with you on Eva Green

The love story was utterly lifeless, and the princess little more than an irritation. But Thewlis was a delight.

The big surprise was Orlando Bloom. He's certainly outgrown Legolas!

[clyrc]

53. My husband and I were the only Westerners in the theater

when I saw this movie, and most of the other viewers were Arabs. I got the impression that they approved of the movie. My only problem with seeing it in the Middle East was that the Arabic wasn't translated.

[tiredofthisstuff]

65. I Loved The Movie

I have to agree with the initial threads statement. This movie gave me a different look at the Arab world. It humanized the Muslim people which I think we need more of.

[Beacho]

68. I see a lot of 'facts' being thrown around regarding history

The period known as the 'crusades' is an incredibly complex web of interactions that defies summary.

I will recommend a source that I find definitive by a true scholar, Sir Steven Runciman.

Yes, it's a link to amazon, but at least you can get the ISDN # and find it where It pleases you.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052134770X/102-4496100-1599356?v=glance


Readers who aren't complete history geeks , like yours truly, may find it a tad 'dry'. However, the research done by this eminent scholar is based on multiple sources and paints a very accurate picture of what was happening on the ground

This is the first of three volumes, I suggest that anyone interested in a complete picture of the times read them

[The Stranger]

71. Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact On Today's World (Armstrong)

Read Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World by Karen Armstrong.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385721404/qid=1115740492/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7956821-8817721?v=glance&s=books

[Bridget Burke]

72. Given the "quality" of the highly critical reviews, it sounds good.

No one book can cover the entire period of history. But this looks like an interesting addition to the library.

[The Stranger]

78. Who can blame them?

It is not easy to face up to the atrocities committed by Christian Crusaders in the name of God. Nor was it limited to Muslims. Before a Crusade would embark to murder Muslims, they would commonly have a pogrom and massacre local European Jews.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

89. I have a prediction ...

Something about a slab of granite ...

[Malikshah]

75. Riley-Smith, Hillenbrand for further reading

Jonathan Rile-Smith-- A Short History of the Crusades

Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (numerous articles)

Carole Hillenbrand-- The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives

THese are scholarly works on the subject and will clear up much of the piffle that is being spouted by some.

[Trajan]

88. What Gibbon says about the 1st Crusade ...

(The Entire Gibbon History - http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html)

(Chapter 58 - Volume 2 - http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/cntnt58.htm)

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap58.htm#Seige

" .... The circumjacent country is equally destitute of trees for the uses of shade or building, but some large beams were discovered in a cave by the crusaders: a wood near Sichem, the enchanted grove of Tasso, (109) was cut down: the necessary timber was transported to the camp by the vigour and dexterity of Tancred; and the engines were framed by some Genoese artists, who had fortunately landed in the harbour of Jaffa. Two movable turrets were constructed at the expense, and in the stations, of the duke of Lorraine and the count of Tholouse, and rolled forwards with devout labour, not to the most accessible, but to the most neglected, parts of the fortification. Raymond's Tower was reduced to ashes by the fire of the besieged, but his colleague was more vigilant and successful; the enemies were driven by his archers from the rampart; the draw-bridge was let down; and on a Friday, at three in the afternoon, the day and hour of the passion, Godfrey of Bouillon stood victorious on the walls of Jerusalem. His example was followed on every side by the emulation of valour; and about four hundred and sixty years after the conquest of Omar, the holy city was rescued from the Mahometan yoke. In the pillage of public and private wealth, the adventurers had agreed to respect the exclusive property of the first occupant; and the spoils of the great mosque, seventy lamps and massy vases of gold and silver, rewarded the diligence, and displayed the generosity, of Tancred. A bloody sacrifice was offered by his mistaken votaries to the God of the Christians: resistance might provoke but neither age nor sex could mollify, their implacable rage: they indulged themselves three days in a promiscuous massacre; (110) and the infection of the dead bodies produced an epidemical disease. After seventy thousand Moslems had been put to the sword, and the harmless Jews had been burnt in their synagogue, they could still reserve a multitude of captives, whom interest or lassitude persuaded them to spare. Of these savage heroes of the cross, Tancred alone betrayed some sentiments of compassion; yet we may praise the more selfish lenity of Raymond, who granted a capitulation and safe-conduct to the garrison of the citadel. (111) The holy sepulchre was now free; and the bloody victors prepared to accomplish their vow. Bareheaded and barefoot, with contrite hearts, and in an humble posture, they ascended the hill of Calvary, amidst the loud anthems of the clergy; kissed the stone which had covered the Saviour of the world; and bedewed with tears of joy and penitence the monument of their redemption. This union of the fiercest and most tender passions has been variously considered by two philosophers; by the one, (112) as easy and natural; by the other, (113) as absurd and incredible. Perhaps it is too rigorously applied to the same persons and the same hour; the example of the virtuous Godfrey awakened the piety of his companions; while they cleansed their bodies, they purified their minds; nor shall I believe that the most ardent in slaughter and rapine were the foremost in the procession to the holy sepulchre. ... "

[entanglement]

105. Refreshing to see Hollywood ease up on the Arab/Muslim bashing

I hope this is the beginning of a trend in Hollywood

[ozone_man]

106. I will see it mainly for this reason

and the medieval battle scenes.

It is refreshing and timely to see a fair treatment of Arabs and to even get their endorsement of the movie.