Arcadia Discussion Zone

A heads-up on a new series on the Crusades, starting on BBC TV this week, and which sounds like it could be interesting.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b3ftw

The first of three episodes airs at 2130 hrs GMT on BBC2 this Wednesday.

I previewed the only BBC channel we get, and that program doesn't seem to be available.
could you copy it and send videos to any Americans on the forum?

Thanks Richard - Sky+'d!

VAM

Sounds as though it may be worth a watch. Thomas Asbridge's book on the subject is also available

Another recent delight on the BBC - Andrew Graham-Dixon and Giorgio Locatelli in "Sicily Unpacked" -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Episode_1/

A review from the Daily Telegraph attached, by Robert Colvile, of the TV series on the crusades that starts tonight. It begins ...



Read on here for the whole article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... riors.html

Yes, just watched it. Quite good. Unfortunately due to fatigue I nodded off through the sack of Jerusalem.

I tend to agree with the assessment of the late Sir Steven Runciman that the Crusades were in effect the last of the Barbarian invasions.

Just watched the last of three episodes, and would agree that this was quite good, but not brilliant. The main problem, I think, is that there's just too much that happened in that two hundred year period to compress down to three one-hour episodes - the 1st Crusade alone could easily take up that amount of time - and so there was a lot that either didn't get covered in much detail, or was missed out all together (amazingly, the 2nd and 4th Crusades didn't even get mentioned). It was beautifully made, and took in some sumptuous locations, particularly some of the ruined castles on the Levantine coast, but I couldn't help but feel that if this had been made in, say, the 1970s, it wouldn't have looked half as good, wouldn't have had all the location filming in Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, etc., and wouldn't have had such a telegenic presenter, but probably would have done it over about ten episodes, with more talking heads, and with commentary overlaid with maps and paintings, and would probably have been drier, more stuffy and less sophisticated in its delivery, but probably better, too.

But on the plus side, there was much of interest, and some of the locations really were stunning, and made me want to visit the places to see them for myself. I found the third episode, that focused on Louis IX's disastrous expedition to Egypt, and then the massive conflict between the Mamluks and the Mongols, the most interesting, because I knew the least about it beforehand. We were also shown some beautiful and fascinating artifacts over the course of the three episodes, and the writer / presenter made some good points, I felt, particularly in his summing up. I will probably read his book now on the strength of it, particularly if it's illustrated with some of the places, pictures and artifacts we saw in the TV programme.

Worth watching, for sure, but could have been better.

Yes it was worth watching, I found the last episode fascinating, espesh about the clash between the Mamluks and the Mongol Horde - a turning point in history. BUT one big flaw and it was a BIG flaw - no mention of the 4th Crusade and the sack of Constantinople. Anyone who harbours favourable opinions of the Crusades would be advised to read up on this episode.

I know! That was astonishing, really, not even to mention that. I guess he does all of it, in his book. I looked it up on Amazon, and it's a rather daunting 800 pages (I was hoping for more of a TV tie-in, coffee table type book, with about 200 pages, and loads of pictures, but anyway, it probably would be worth reading, in slow installments), but I suppose the demands of the TV programme (very expensive per episode, because of all the travelling about, so they could only do three programmes, three hours) would have been very restricting. So, in that format, they obviously had to do the 1st crusade, which was one episode, and then they spent virtually a whole episode on the 3rd, because it's Richard versus Salahadin, and that's got the most popular appeal, and that left one more to wrap everything else up. And I suppose the focus of the series was the holy war between Christianity and Islam, whereas Constantinople was a clash between western and eastern Christianity (I don't mean existentially, but in terms of who was fighting who), so maybe thematically it didn't fit in. But still, not even to mention it in passing, seemed very odd.

But I wouldn't want knock it too much, because it really did take you to a lot of places, which TV can do so well, and he made some interesting arguments.

I think one point the program continually made was valid and often overlooked. That is the total integration of the Crusaders with the local Arab and Jewish population and the amount of trade and knowledge passed between them. As said above, strange about the 'missing Crusades' but overall not a bad watch.
Regards
Nic