Age of Empires II: The Saladin Campagin

http://pc.ign.com/articles/070/070754p1.html

Does anybody remember that old computer game, Age of Empires II? It's a game that consists of selecting a civilization to play with, building a city, and (basically) destroying all other civilizations. I sure know I spent a lot of time playing it. Until recently, however, I had never tested its historical accuracy.

The link is to an information page about the Saladin campaign of Age of Empires II. As you begin campaign mode, you are thrown back into the times of the third crusade, when the Muslim world is in a state of confusion, run by weak leaders. You take control of Saladin and his armies and slowly unite Muslim armies in order to fight off Christians in your homeland. There are two levels I distinctly remember: the first level, where Saladin marches to Cairo to overthrow a weak vizier and break Cairo's alliance with the Frankish people; and another level, where the pirates of Reynald are ruthlessly attacking Muslim caravans and Saladin and his troops must put an end to this growing problem. Several other historically accurate levels exist, such as the Muslim victory at Hattin. However, we also find some fairly inaccurate material in this campaign, such as Richard the Lionheart's attack on Jerusalem, which never fully carried out.

Overall, this game is worth a try for anybody remotely interested in the Middle Ages and has proven to be one of the most fascinating games of its time. While some inaccuracy exists on the topic of the crusades, the engaging gameplay experience will most likely help you overlook those minor details.

The Battle of the Horns of Hattin

I was curious about the Battle of the Horns of Hattin, so I found an article detailing the engagement at the following site: http://historymedren.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=16&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.intranet.ca/~magicworks/knights/hattin.html. Saladin brought 12,000 knights and an army carrying provisions to Tiberius. The Christian army amassed for the battle consisted of 20,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 knights. The Christian army set out for Tiberius early the day before the battle without enough water to sustain their ranks the next day. By nightfall the Christian army was weary and dehydrated. The only water source nearby was a stream well guarded by Muslim warriors; any Cristian who attempted to drink for the stream was captured and beheaded. The Christian army led a charge the morning of July fourth to which Saladin allowed the advance of the enemy army into his ranks, surrounded the Christians, and slaughtered them. Any soldiers that were captured were sold off as slaves. All Hospitalers and Templars were beheaded except for the Templar Grand master Gerard de Ridefort. The barons were held as hostages and eventually ransomed. King Guy of Jerusalem, who had spent the duration of the battle hiding in a tent at the center of his army, was put under Saladin's protection, and the prince of Antioch, Reynald, after insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, was executed. King Guy was released from prison the next year.

The Children's Crusade.

I learned about Children’s Crusade through the first assignment. While reading the article about the Crusade, Children’s Crusade caught my eye. After reading the article, I tried to search for information from the books. Children’s Crusade, however, was not mentioned. I have decided to learn more about the Children’s Crusade and found this article: The Children’s Crusade of 1212.

It describes how the crusade began, where the children have traveled, and the dangers they have faced. Wikipedia article, however, disagrees with this article in few aspects. Children’s Crusade actually consisted of wandering poors rather than children and Wikipedia explains it is due to mistranslation.

- Wikipedia article

Popularity vs. Accuracy in Movies

After the class when watching the trailer for the Nicholas Cage movie trailer Season of the Witch, I was interested in two things:

1. Even though it seems that the movie is based on total inaccuracy, as are a lot of historical movies lately, I think everyone can agree that the point of the movie is not to be polite to the history books. It's a movie, thus it's entertainment, and if it's eccentric and entertaining it gets more money. I did wonder that if there were any recent movies that were fair to history, or if it took a trip further back in time to find ones that were. I bet myself that I wouldn't find one on a list that was made after 1990 on a legitimate looking list for historically accurate medieval movies... http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=5947&NLID=229. I wasn't surprised by this (minus the fact that there was one movie on the list from 1994), but I was surprised to find that people during class acted as if a movie coming out today was holding to historical myth over accuracy.

2. The reasons behind witchcraft being blamed for the black plague. The cultural beliefs of the time seemed to fit right into a myth blaming women for a mass epidemic. I found this interesting... http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-witchcraft-and-witches.htm

Medieval Sourcebook

I was trying to find credible sources online that could help out with the new debate assignment, essays, and everything basically. I came across this source, Medieval Sourcebook, which I think turned out to be pretty cool. That link will take you to a page that has basically, a table of contents. If you click on the link you'd like to get more information, you're taken to that page and all it's goodies. At the way bottom are the sources so you can check those out as well. Pretty awesome?

Abby P.

Crusades Songs and Troubadours

After reading The Song of Roland, I was interested in the kind of music that was popular during the time of the Crusades. As it turns out, the crusades were actually seen as a catalyst for music in Europe, partially because it increased contact with Islamic culture and music which influenced European artists, but mostly because of the rise of the troubadours. Before the crusades, the most common form of music was church-related, either being Gregorian Chant, a Sequentia or other similar forms. About the time of the Crusades, however, individual musicians began to rise. Many journeyed with the crusaders and wrote of their adventures, while more remained behind either in the service or a lord or as travelers. With the rise of chivalry, tales of honor, love and courage became very popular.

This website lists some details on the more famous of the troubadours, and even has some samples of their work.

-Peter C.

A couple recent mentions of "crusades" in the news

The above title naturally omits news stories about the chap "crusading" to save a pub, things of that sort. I'm referring to mentions such as that in Stafford Williamson's American Chronicle. The relevant passage appears below, since it's rather far down the page:

They´ve Gone Too Far - AND They "Broke" the Constitution

Where they went was to Iraq and Afghanistan, but in this case, it isn´t a who, it´s a what. It´s a WHAT?? Okay, that may be sloppy linguistic construction but the problem here is worth mentioning because it is the kind of arrogance that could spark a regional conflict into a global war that lasts a millennium. Pardon me, I mean, another millennium, because this one has already been going on since the Crusades, indeed, it IS the Crusades being resurrected by the same kind of intolerant religious fanatics who started the Crusades in the first place.

No, in case you didn´t pay attention in history class, I am NOT talking about the "Infidels" who captured the ancient biblical lands, I mean the Christians who were outraged by the fact that they had been relieved of control of the "holy lands" despite the generally peaceful and tolerant rule provided by Moslems then and now. That may not ring as a popular sentiment with some people, and I am sorry they have come to that conclusion because of a few hundred fanatics on the "other side" (which is to say, Moslems) who "hijacked" their religion for political purposes. But this is an action that could inflame Muslim sentiment around the world, and it should have been prevented by rules already in place that prohibit religious propaganda on government goods.

My concern here is not with the modern political content, as the article goes on to discuss the recent flap over that arms manufacturer labeling military weapons (not my business, given the general purpose of this blog), but with the casual (and untested) assumptions that a) medieval Muslim society was homogeneous, and b) Muslim rule in general was benevolent. Regarding point A, there was no single "Muslim society" in the 11th-13th centuries, something of which the Latin West was well aware, and of which the Egyptians, Arabs, and Turks were very aware. John France has done some excellent work regarding the constant infighting and warfare that plagued crusades-era Muslim society, just as Latin Christian society was afflicted with constant fighting. Regarding point B, the various sultanates, emirates, and other principalities did have a generally better track record in dealing with minorities than did the Latin West, but that has to be heavily contextualized and qualified, depending on time and place. Not to get into the business of making a numbers game of massacre, but it's worth remembering that Baybars' slaughter of Christians at Antioch and the Mongols' destruction of Baghdad made the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 rather pale in comparison. So, there's plenty of blame and atrocity to go around...

On the other hand, here's a letter to the editor which goes a bit too far in the other direction, particularly with this line:

I accept the fact that there were those Crusaders who sacked cities and treated people unjustly. However, these people were in the minority and were condemned or excommunicated by religious leaders.

Ummmm....no, not really. They weren't in the minority, and they weren't excommunicated. War in general was a nasty business, regardless of who fought it, and the "rules of war," while they did exist in various fashions, were too fragmented and uneven to apply in all circumstances. The negotiations between Richard and Saladin, and Richard's massacre of the prisoners of Acre, are both worth studying as examples of how "international" modes of diplomatic discourse and martial codes functioned in the 12th century.