I recently watched the first episode of a new BBC programme called The Crusades. The show is hosted by Thomas Asbridge, a medieval historian. I have heard good things about his book The First Crusade: A New History and have it on my to-read list. And so it was very disappointing to actually watch the television program.
The first part is called "Holy War" and it is an account of the First Crusade. It begins by showing the statue of Urban II at Clermont where he gave his adamantine call for crusade in November 1095. The show quotes Urban as saying that there were a bunch of barbaric Muslims in the Holy Land making life horrible for fellow Christians. Asbridge describes how nobles such as Raymond of Toulouse, Bohemond of Taranto, and Godfrey of Bouillon signed up. Much is made of Urban's promise that those who die will have their sins forgiven. In other words, it's a holy war and those who fought in it did so for the love of their god. It's a very appropriate introduction considering what follows. But it's also jumping the gun, in my opinion.
Now, I'm no scholar of the Crusades but even I sat there waiting for Asbridge to mention the name of the Byzantine emperor, Alexios I, who had written to Urban asking for Western help against the Seljuq Turks in the spring of 1095. He never did. I'm also no scholar of the history of scholarship of the Crusades but my impression is that Asbridge's "new history" is one that emphasizes the religious duty that crusaders felt they had and minimizes what is perhaps a more traditional view which holds that the noblemen who led the First Crusade were less interested in doing God's work and more keen on crushing their enemies, seeing them driven before them, hearing the lamentation of their women, and gathering up all their booty. Fair enough. In my last adventure learning about The Crusades, a sense of religious duty was definitely one of the motivations mentioned. The problem is that Asbridge never mentions Alexios I by name and says, strictly in passing, that Byzantine emperors had appealed to the Latin West for help in the past. All the emphasis on piety and duty relegates the fact that Alexios I asked for help in March 1095 and that this was a prime factor in Urban calling for a crusade in the first place to the deleted scenes featurette on the forthcoming DVD. Plus Byzantine emperors loved to dangle the carrot of reconciling the Latin Church with the Eastern Orthodox one. When Urban made his speech, it had been just over 40 years since a papal legate and the patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated one another.
I found this part of the show confusing. Asbridge notes that Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for a few centuries and that seemed to work out OK so there was no new and urgent reason to take Jerusalem. Urban was faced with a problem in trying to motivate people to retake the city. Asbridge takes Urban to task for lying about Muslim treatment of Christians in the Levant but he never really establishes why Urban called for a crusade in the first place. It was like he pulled a new religious duty out of his ass. Not only was Alexios' plea ignored but I don't recall the program saying a word about how it had become incredibly difficult for Westerners to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem.
Alexios at least gets mentioned – referred to only as "the Byzantine emperor" – when the main contingent of Frankish nobles arrive in Constantinople. Other than this, the Byzantines aren't mentioned at all. Asbridge devoted a few seconds to the so-called "People's Crusade" which arrived in Constantinople first. Comprised of pilgrims and some minor nobles, it proved to be an unruly mob which not only massacred Jews along the way (which was mentioned briefly in the show) but also pillaged the area outside the walls of Constantinople (not a peep about this). This is important because the show recites the words of the one of the important Frankish nobles in the second wave upon meeting Alexios which leads viewers to believe that all was well with the Crusaders and their host. However, this was not the case. Alexios was really unamused by the first wave of crusaders and was thusly highly suspicious when the second arrived. He made the leaders take an oath of fealty to him, gave them provisions, and sent them on their way so that they'd be the Muslims' problem, not his.
While in Anatolia, the Crusaders were joined by some Byzantine forces, a fact that Asbridge never mentions. I think that the Byzantine troops had all returned from whence they came by the time the Crusade made it to the Levant, but this certainly is no reason to avoid noting their presence altogether. Asbridge focuses on the fierce resolve of the Westerners in face of some terrible trials and tribulations and it cannot be denied that they encountered some adverse situations, to say the least, and overcame them. Their story is truly remarkable. But Asbridge goes too far with this Hollywood-esque underdog-beats-the-odds approach. Context is left out and details get ignored. Antioch and Jerusalem are mentioned but why was Edessa left out? It was one of the three crusader states that were established in the wake of the First Crusade.
In addition to the Byzantines being left out, I think that only a single Muslim was mentioned. It's sort of ironic because Asbridge talks about Urban II making the Muslims out to be the dreaded "Other" and demonizing them, yet Asbridge basically does the same thing. When the Crusaders battle Turks for the first time, he says that the leaders were caught off guard as they'd never encountered Muslims and their style of fighting. Perhaps I'm confusing this crusade with a later one, but I thought that at least one of the nobles on the First Crusade had fought in the Reconquista and was familiar with their opponent's tactics.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this program was written under the impression that it would be 90 minutes or 2 hours long and that some producer made the decision to cut it down and make it into such a narrow story worthy of Hollywood. From what I can tell, Asbridge is a scholar of some repute so the omission of so much information must surely have been anathema to him.
Aside from all that's wrong about the program, there are several good elements to the show. First is that you get to see some pretty pictures in HD. It was great to see the last remaining section of the wall which surrounded Antioch in the late 11th century as well as a few books which are some of the precious few primary and secondary sources we have. The illumination/gilding looked magnificent. (Although you have to laugh at his feigned surprise at seeing these books. The guy has a doctorate in the subject and is a published author. He has no doubt seen all these texts before.) I want to give Asbridge and the makers of the show my great thanks for not doing reenactments. I'd rather look at illuminated codices than watch reenactments. The only computer-generated anything was probably the maps, which they made good use of in orientating the viewer. Some CGI reconstructions of cities wouldn't have been bad but I like the stylistic decision to stick with real things that you can stick a camera in front of. There were some awkward shots, though. The program made use of contemporary footage of the Levant and hearing Asbridge's narration about Muslim attacks while seeing some gentlemen at a table playing a game and drinking tea was, well, awkward.
Lastly Asbridge deserves credit for taking time at the beginning of the show to explain and emphasize the role of religion during the Middle Ages in Western Europe and how this helped explain the answer to Urban II's call. Westerners live in secular nations these days whereas a thousand years ago religion was ubiquitous and had the Church had a large role in both secular and quotidian affairs. Securing an afterlife in heaven was a much greater priority then than today.
While there was much to like about this first episode of the series, I am still amazed at just how much was left out. One needn't go on about the state of Frankish political affairs or the different factions in Anatolia, but I just don't understand how you can talk about the Crusades and all but avoid mentioning the Byzantines. The narrative here is so narrow to be misleading. Hopefully part 2 will be better.
No comments:
Post a Comment