May 06, 2005
Kingdom of Heaven: Is Ridley Scott Right about the Crusades?
Ridley Scott’s newest epic, Kingdom of Heaven tackles the Crusades but ignores the real history in order to get his opinion across. So we get an epic movie filled with falsehoods and half-truths with one general goal in mind: Sir Ridley wants to make faithful figures on both sides look like the bad guys (in other words “religion is bad” – Mr. Scott is a self-described agnostic).
The movie is likely to be huge, so it’s important to understand what the Crusades were in case someone asks. The Catholic Encyclopedia online has an excellent overview of the Crusades here for a detailed look. I’ll summarize here from my own studies and link to some additional articles.
To understand the Crusades, you must understand some history. From the time Islam was born, Muslims began attacking and conquering Christian cities. Within Islam there is a strong belief that although you can practice other non-Islamic religions, every state should be Islamic in nature. Thus Catholic lands were a target of Islamic warriors (remember: there were no protestants at this time – the Catholic Church was the only Christian church). Areas such as Egypt were majority Catholic (hard to believe today) and were taken over by Muslims. The First Crusade began when the Emperor of Constantinople sent a request for help to the Churches in Europe. The Pope called for all good Christians to fight in order to stop the Muslim forces (which were continuing to attack). This article on the Crusades (by a history professor) includes Pope Urban II’s hopes:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
And thus began the Crusades, which continued through the fifteenth century in one form or another. These were Christian men seeking to help their fellow Christians as well as stop the “Moors” from taking over all of Europe and freeing the Holy Land.
What do the Crusades mean for us? I thought this was a particularly beneficial point from this article on Kingdom of Heaven:
It takes no great counter-factual leap to see what would have happened if Crusaders had not fought back. Gibbon for once got it right when he imagined a Muslim England where "the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet".
By the way, the article includes a review.
Were their atrocities committed during the Crusades? Yes, two in particular against Jews that were heinous. However, in both cases Church leaders went over and beyond to stop these acts. Overall, the Crusades help save Christian civilization from being overtaken by Islam, despite what you might have heard.
There is much historical information on the Crusades available. Archbishop Chaput of Denver recently pointed out that Christians have an obligation to keep the true facts of the Crusades alive. We are constantly fed this nonsense of the Crusades being Christian aggression against a peaceful enemy. Actually, the Muslims believed they were in a jihad against all of Christianity and without the Crusades it’s hard to imagine a Christian Europe today.
So, before you go see Kingdom of Heaven (if you must), at least read about the real history. Then read some reviews by Catholics. That way you’ll at least be unfazed by the falsehoods in the movie.
God bless,
Jay
PS - Hat Tip to The Curt Jester for the Chaput article.
Posted by Jay at May 6, 2005 01:44 PM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Oh C'mon Jay!
Did R Scott, or the movie's production company, make any claims whatsoever that this film was historically accurate (yeah! like both Gibson and Icon productions made about "The Passion...")???
This is an honest question as I've not followed any of the media regarding this flick.
If such claims were made, then you have a legitimate beef. If no such claims were made, then you're betraying a duplicity inherent to the manner that you either endorse or curse a movie here at DeoOmnis...namely, if the implied "history" behind the movie's plot jibes with your beleifs a/o opinions, then its a "good" movie - and its "art", so "leave it alone!" If it doesn't jibe with your beliefs or opinions, then is not "art" - the director has no implicit right to interpret the story in whatever fashion he likes, and its a "bad" movie because the Church doesn't come out the hero. (You pulled this same sort of garbage with the movie about Luther).
You curse Scott for "ignoring the 'real' history" - yet you bless Gibson's effort despite its multiple layers of blatant & biased falsehoods after prior claims of historical accuracy and biblical fidelity???
I will certainly go and see Kingdom of Heaven since I could use & would enjoy a fanciful adventure about now - at the end of a very busy Spring.
Peace!
Posted by: Jack at May 9, 2005 08:22 AMI get the distinct impression that SIR Ridley Scott has a far greater understanding of the crusades than "Jay" does!
Shame on you Jay for ignoring the liberation of Jerusalem in the first crusade which was accompanied by the wholesale murder of every inhabitant be they Jew, Christian or Muslim (man-woman or child). Christian warriors? I don't think so. No more Christian than the scores of child abusing priests running around the English-speaking world.
People such as yourself with your rabid devotion turn people such as me (with a subtle appreciation of the gentle Nazarene) right off organised Catholicism.
Good morning, junior writers!
Welcome to the wide, wide, world of your LIFE.
Since you have been far too busy gulping sodas and and eating socially acceptable snack foods, I am more than happy to bring you into to the land of the adults.
At the front end of this post I should like to note that Ridley Scott's knighthood is a complete joke. Knighthood actually meant something prior to 1900. Since then, it has been substantially cheapened. Ridley Scott is no more a defender of the faith than you are.
Matt - ease off the CAPS key; somebody might think that there was an importance being communicated.
You both must think you are Dan Rather, or Newsweek.
Cite you sources, or go home.
You have nothing that supports your assertions.
That comprises today's lesson.
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis at June 27, 2005 09:20 PMThe description of the followers of Muhammed as 'enslavers, oppressors and torturers of Christians' might be, I believe, rooted more in motives of propaganda and power-poltics than fact. The followers of Muhammed were cerainly not angelic, particularly in certain periods of their history, but they weren't all black either. In the conduct of war, in comparison to those who lay claim to the title of 'Christian' and the followers of 'The Prince of Peace', they were generally far better.
Don't take my word for it, though. Do some serious fact-finding for yourself and then decide.
Hey Jaafir, you said, "The followers of Muhammed were cerainly not angelic, particularly in certain periods of their history, but they weren't all black either." What do you mean when you say "they weren't all black either." Are saying that being black is a bad thing, or are you just using the term of being a black person as synomonous with being a bad person? I just want to know because a whole lot of East Africans were kept in pits in East Africa while Arab slavers picked through them like vegetables at the supermarket. If you aren't careful with your terms, somebody might get the wrong idea.
Posted by: AJ at August 3, 2005 01:57 AM
