The View From 1776

History Channel Distorts the Crusades

By presenting only part of the background leading to the first Crusade, the History Channel gives us another example of liberal media bias.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/13 at 08:37 PM
  1. I completely agree with you.
    Posted by Tim  on  11/14  at  08:26 PM
  2. I was wondering when someone was going to address this? I thought spencers' would but not yet. I do like the History channel generally, but I was curious about how they would tackle this. I paid close attention to the "set-up" in the first few minutes and have a few questions.
    1. They mentioned the muslims "took" Jerusalem in the 7th century, what occurred prior to cause them to take it, and was it a defensive move?

    2. Why would the emperor of Constantinople reach out to his Christian brothers in 1095 in the west? What did he fear? There's a big gap between the 7th century and 1095 that the history channel left blank.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/15  at  01:14 AM
  3. Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has written several books which go deeper than the web site. The one I just read is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)." In the book, Spencer provides an overview of the entire history of jihad conquest and Muslim warmaking in the west and in the east.

    The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (638) was preceded by Mohammed's ultimatum to the Emperor of Christian Byzantium, demanding conversion to Islam and threatening destruction (before 632), the Muslim conquest of Damascus (635), and the Muslim conquest of Antioch (636). No chance this was anything but Muslim conquest in the name of Islam. Islam is spread by the sword!

    Thirty thousand Christian churches were destroyed by rampaging Muslims in lands formerly part of Byzantium in the period 1004-1014 alone. In 1095, when Pope Urban II called the first Crusade, Byzantium had been asking for help from Western Europe for several decades. Muslim conquests had reduced the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) to Greece and little else. Gone were the Christian lands of Spain and Portugal, Sicily, most of North Africa, Egypt, Jordan, the Holy Land, Lebanon,Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia.... The Persian Empire, which had been Byzantium's chief rival, was gone under Muslim banners. France in the West and Constantinople in the East had held back the Muslims through three hundred years of warfare. Had either failed, all Europe would have been overrun.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  11:27 AM
  4. Why can't you let the facts speak for themselves? Why must you intrude your personal generally uninformed (or, perhaps, liberal or socialist)opinions into the description of historical events. The movie, "The Kingdom of Heaven," did the same. What is about Western civilization --- or, should I say, Christendom --- that you so despise that you must distort the history of the Crusades (in this case)?
    You turned to scholars for your information? What is their ideology? Their historiosophy? Prejudices? If they gave you the historical data for this program, they are as myopic as you are.
    To be sure, there were horror stories on both sides, the Christian and Moslem, but, with cunning, you downplay (if not ignore) the latter. What do you know, Mr Brewton, about the history of Islam? Have you read the Koran? Moslem chroniclers? Do you know what role the Eastern Roman Empire took in the Crusades? Who were the Comneni? Who wrote the Alexiad? Do you know anything about "the Byzantine Empire"?
    "Land of the free, and the home of the brave," indeed! Land of mediocrity and political correctness!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/16  at  12:26 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.