|
| Crusades | 
| Directors: Alan Ereira, David Wallace (ii)
Actors: Terry Jones, Anthony Smee, Steve Purbrick, Marcello Marascalchi, Robin Sebastian
Studio: A&E Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $39.95
Buy New: $23.27
You Save: $16.68 (42%)
New (39) from $23.27
Avg. Customer Rating:  58 reviews
Sales Rank: 22943
Format: Box Set, Color, Dvd-video, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Running Time: 200 minutes
Number Of Items: 2
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.5 x 1.4
MPN: D70384D
ISBN: 0767042816
UPC: 733961703849
EAN: 9780767042819
ASIN: B00005U8F3
Theatrical Release Date: 1995
Release Date: January 2, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: BRAND NEW AND FACTORY SEALED
|
| Customer Reviews:
 The good, the bad, and the ugly, portrayed with impish humor July 24, 2006
7 out of 9 found this review helpful
Some people can't look at history objectively, and have to try to find "their" side in struggles that took place thousands of years ago. If they don't see "their" side portrayed in a good light, they cry fowl.
Terry Jones does not suffer from this problem. His history is both accurate and humorous, and how else can one approach the sheer absurdity of many of the events which took place, whether it is the parading of religious figures around the walls of beseiged cities, the military blunders, or the crazed fanatacism of the rank and file. Contrary to some other reviews, the series is not anti-European and looks under the robes of many Islamic heroes just as thoroughly as it does the Crusaders. Sure the Christian armies of the first Crusade are depicted in all their brutal glory (using direct quotations from direct sources, the Crusaders themselves) but so are the Mamelukes. Reynard de Chattillion comes across as the psychotic jerk that he was, but many Muslim leaders including Nur Adin and Baybars are shown warts and all, while other Crusader leaders are much more sympathetic. And while Crusader myths are abolished, so are many Muslim myths, such as when Terry himself simulates an amphibious landing in mail armor contrary to Muslim claims that it was impossible.
From the undiminished mystery of Crusader miracles at the Siege of Antioch, to the strange terror of the Assasins, the sheer wonder of this amazing era comes across, in many cases in beautiful scenery shot on location often in the words of those who lived through it, the Crusaders, the Byzantines, and the Arabs themselves. The delivery is excellent and the history, is accurate... if some people are upset that Terry Jones does not try to rationalize such atrocities as the Massacre of Jerusalem or the Cannibalism in the First Crusade any more than he does massacres by Saladin or Baybers, thats there problem. The facts speak for themselves. My only complaint is that the series while very strong on the first Crusade, somewhat glosses over the other important reiterations of the next 150 years. I for one would like to see more of this type of documentary, showing every aspect history as it really was, good bad and ugly.
A Good Choice June 20, 2006
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
It's difficult to find a documentary that is informative and engaging. This one manages to pull it off. It is filmed partly on location and includes interviews with historians as well as reenactments. Jones, not surprisingly, narrates---and even recreates some incidents---in a witty and entertaining manner.
While attention is paid to the whys and wherefores of the Western perspective, the program is sympathetic to the Muslim perspective. This will not sit well with all viewers. I, however, fail to see how a neutral documentary about a subject as complicated as the Crusades could be anything other than a dull, wish-washy mess. The Muslim slant is sympathetic but not blind or sentimental; this documentary is NOT four hours of Christian-bashing. This program is clearly aimed at Western audiences, and I think that it's important that we learn to see history from a different perspective; learning and questioning are not PC acts.
As other viewers have commented, the program is long and there are a few inaccuracies and some broad generalizations. However, on the balance it is overwhelmingly accurate and certainly engrossing. Obviously, the Crusades could not be fully covered in a four-hour program, but this show gives a good overview. It's a great choice for the amateur historian or for someone who'd just like to know more about the Crusades.
 Historicity excellent May 2, 2006
5 out of 13 found this review helpful
This documentary excellently presents an historical overview often skewed to western prejudices appearing this side of the world, like that of the previous two reviewers.
 Historically Inaccurate April 27, 2006
19 out of 40 found this review helpful
The underlying premise of this "documentary" is that the savage "Franks" (an originally derogatory term) attacked the peaceful peoples of the Middle East, who, being culturally more enlightened and morally right were naturally victorious over the course of time. This is of course absurd. The Europeans at this time were much more culturally advanced than is popular to recognize today, in terms of the arts and in martial skill. For example, in nearly every battle of the period the Europeans were outnumbered from 2-1 to 5-1 (even worse in the final years from the 1270s up to the fall of Acre in 1291. The fact that they managed to win approximately 50% of their battles was quite an achievement. Additionally, they were far from their logistical bases. On the other hand, the Moslems had their supplies directly to hand. Another myth is that the locals were peaceful. The Arab and early Turkish dynasties were riven with strife and war; indeed, a major reason why the Europeans had their initial successes. Yet another myth is that "Christendom" started the early wars with the Moslems. The Moslems, in fact, staged a thousand year invasion of the West (their Crusades), commencing in the Seventh Century and more or less ending in the third siege of Vienna in the 1680s. All these considerations and more are absent in this Monty Python presentation. Moreover, the Arab conquest of the Byzantine Christian (Eastern Roman) Middle East demanded a response, politically and morally. The European Crusades were therefore completely understandable in the context of the times. All of these glaring facts, and more, are missing from this unfortunate series. Smaller underlying inaccuracies are too numerous to mention; however, two shall suffice as examples. First, Mr. Gilliam makes sport of the knights and their chain mail armor, and particularly of the legend of King Richard jumping into the surf at Jaffa to engage the enemy. Two tests of early medieval chain mail were whether a knight could do a somersault or leap onto a moving horse. If completed successfully, the armor and the man passed the test. Although difficult for Mr. Gilliam to achieve personally, these were commonplace acts for men trained in contemporary warfare. Secondly, every actual or alleged European atrocity is mentioned; I know, I have read the original records and know the difference between actual and alleged. Conversely, every Arab or Turk atrocity, massacre and beheading is ignored. As one example only -- after the battle of Hattin all Christians were beheaded who would not convert and the remainder were sold into slavery. I am proud that several of my own ancestors participated in the 1st through 4th Crusades, actual names withheld, but they are prominent in this series. Opponents may reasonably accuse me of bias, therefore, but originally I had accepted all the politically correct diatribes that had been presented in school, that is, until I obtained a Doctorate in European Military History and studied the Crusades in detail. Buy this if you desire an occasionally funny romp through history presented by a non-professional (except in comedy). Avoid this series if truth and understanding are your guiding lights.
 Dissapointedly one-sided April 22, 2006
8 out of 21 found this review helpful
First, to be fair, I did not finish this series. I turned it off near the end of the first episode.
I am a big Python fan, and I was very much looking forward to this documentary - and within ten minutes, I was disgusted.
As with most even remotely objective historians, I realize that the Crusaders did a number of (from our society's point of view) horrible things, as did most every group of people at one point or another in history. What made these actions so terrible is that they were undertaken in the name of Christ, who preached love.
But Terry Jones, aside from often spouting innacuracies (saying, for example, that the Turks let Christians make pilgrimages is flat out wrong - the ARABS permitted Christians to worship in the Holy Land, but the Turks conquered the Arabs, and refused Christians and Jews, whereas Muslims permitted them, though at a higher tax bracket), makes hugely bigoted assumptions on the motives of the crusaders. All of the upper-tier Crusaders (from the Pope to the knights) had no religious motivation at all, according to Jones - the only reason that any of them undertook the crusades was for personal wealth and power. His introduction of Bohemond was the only one that addressed a possibility of religious motivation... and his deduction was that Bohemond must have been schizophrenic to want to genuinely be a Christian and a warrior at the same time.
He also claims that the church tried to get commoners to go on the first crusade - another innacuracy. Clement II's address was a call to arms for the knights of Europe, not for empire-building, but in order to get them to stop fighting each other. The church had already made steps towards this - the no fighting on the weekends law, which was observed - and the Crusades was partially a "retaking" of the holy land, partially a unifying of Christian military forces. The church did not want peasants packing up and leaving, nor did the nobles. At least not at first.
Some of the techniques used in this production are very clever - actors made up like
byzantine icon paintings reciting eyewitness accounts, things to that effect - but the whole thing is soured by the host's condescending manner. He seems smug and arrogant, and approaches the whole thing from a "my, how pathetically horrible people of the past were" attitude.
I stopped watching it, partially because of the biased slant, partially because I didn't want to risk filling my head with incorrect facts. I gave it two stars rather that one because of its excellent and creative production values.
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
