Historical howlers

It's unfortunate none of them seem to be historians. It's not a right or left wing or religious issue (for the record, I'm a) a-religious; b) on the left; and most relevantly, c) a mediÊval history graduate), but a basic ethical one. Wilfully propagating falsehoods about the past is just plain wrong, regardless of the political direction it's coming from.

And yet, Scott's fiction left subliminal influences on later generations of historians who had been brought up on his novels when they were kids. Whatever they learned from the sources was filtered through the preconceptions they had received from the novels.


Tell me about it--I quake at the thought of what Dan Brown is now doing to millions of impressionable young minds. I've seen grown men's brains literally seep out their ears while reading "The DaVinci Code"--it was like something out of Doctor Who!

I do think you have a point, and the same sort of Psycology shows up all over the map in Humanity. Look at the American Presidential race. Everyone is suppose to adore the godlike Obama, and ignroes the grumpy old man McCain.

The Media spotlights Obama, ignores McCain unles he critises Obama, and tries to spin him in the most posiitve light they can.


The same happens in the Entertainment industry in regards to the Knights Templer or anythign invovleing Christianity.

I know, soem of you will say I'm just saying they are Anti-CHristian, but I think the Anti-Christian bias at th BBC is well established and evident in pretty well most of their shows. Even Robin Hood omited until this tyear Friar RTck, whilst havng a Saracean woman.


I think it tracks back to the Enlightenment, though.

And thats were I am headed in this post. Please read the whoel of it, it oes talk of the Templers. Or rather, how they came to be Historis favourite Midaevel Villain.

During the Enlightenment, the most promenant idealouges shaping the movement sought to undermine Christianity in order to help get rid of it and establish their Utopia, and in orer to do this they had to demonise it. Thus they looked at History and wrote it to slnt in favour of their own views, and created what became known as the Dark Ages by cherry picking instances they coudl use and distorting the facts.

Once Christianity was demonised and blamed for the fall of the ROman Empire, and collapse of civilisaiton, and shown as an oprpesive force sprea dby brual measures that was the enemy of Liberty, Justice, and reason, it was far easier to attack it.

The Enlightenment had a profoudn ipact on the culture in Europe and America, and as a result many of their conclusions and sentiments have been absorbed, sort of ike a spirit that permates the air an infuses with the people in the culture. This culminated, over time, and with the rise of Liberal scholarhsip and Neitchean Philosophy, and Marxism, which at the time was not seen as the dire evil it is now, and Freud, you sa a culture that gradually accepted, withotu queastion, that there is something dodgy about them thar Christains and just knew that they had had a brutal past. It as common knoledge, everyone knew this.



Although the Enlightenment Era thinkers knew that they engaged in Propoganda, I don't think that the sme is true today though of those who have htis instinctive, almost visceal distrust of anythign to do with Christianity and a wariness of it. I think that it just sort of soaked intot he culture. Its a subliminal idea that has simply been accepted icne chldhood and been there hovering, like a shadow, like a ghost, in the background, and just accepted as common knoledge and never questioned. Why shoudl it be qustioned? its obviosuly true.


Of coruse anone who has studied History knows that Modern Historians do not refr to the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages, and in fact the term is no longer in use at all. When it was in use it refered only to the priod between the Fall fo Rome and the reestablishment of European COmmerce, and thus the beginning of new records, and as called Dark because we didn't know anythign abotu it, not because it was a bleak tiem of oppression. It was also not all encompasing, and didn't effect the enturety of Europe,a dn wa smuch shorter than peopel thing, between 300 and 500 years.

The Middle Ages themselves wehewn't all bad either, and sw the invention of the Hospital, the Double-bladed Plough, and other interestign inventions. Even the Printing Press can be seen as Late Middle Ages though semplace it n the Early Modern period.

As for the CHurch and Christianity, it largley spread along Roman Trade routes and although soem violence erupted occassionally, the Christian Faith by and large spread peacefully from travelign evangelists and Monistary outposts.

The idea htta Christianity cpnquered Europe byt he sword and killed all who refused to COnvert is simply not true. When you lok at the Misionary travels of St. Augustine of Canterbury, or St. Patrick fo Ireland, you don't see warlike camapigns agaisnt local Pagans, and hte same is true of Bonaventure, and other early Saints hwo helped seed the faith in Europe.

But, to tell most people this is to be scoffed at because everyoen knows Christianity spread by violence.

And, the same is true of the Crusades.

In the 19th Century, it became popular to link Christianity to violence via the Crusdes, ignorign why they where fought and who the enemy they fought where. The result was that all the blame for them fell on he Christians who unjustly went ot war for no reason other than that hey where mean and nasty.

Of ocurse his is Hogwash and the Crusades where far, far more complexe than this oversimplsitic view, but this is the view that seems ot permate the mindset of modern people so that, when they do study Hisotry, they filter it through this mean.

In fact, they filter all of History through the screen of hatred of Christianity, even if the particular student doens't harbour an individual reaosn for such a contemot.

Its just soemtgin everyone knows, that Christianity is usually if not always to blame for these evil and dire things that happen.

And of course the Templers, a Knightly order that grew powerful in the Middle Ages, are a nice and easy target for hatred, because htey where Christian and did fight the crusades, and came to a bad end. Obviosly their attorcities where so bad, they had ot be killed even by other ruthless CHristians!

And they where widespread leaving their mark on the hwole of Europe and th eMddle East, makign them easier ot identify, and legends do surround them about mysteriosu treasures and secrets. Beign Christian makes thos esecretds sinister.


Of ocurse the modenr-day thinkr is also endlesly told they must respect Islam, because Islam is a Religoon of Peace. We had sort of a reverse reactionary effect omn spciety afer terror attakc sint he US and UK, and in an age that values "Tolerance and Diversity" above all else, w had to show we where acceptign of the Muslim community tot he point of beign absurdly overacceptign of it. Thus, Muslims are inscerted everywhere, even in ENgland 800 years ago, where they relaly don't make any sence. (RObin Hood.)

Now I dont hate Muslims and htink they shoudk be treated with respect, bu the overbearing promotion of Muslims and Asian Chasrecter is just too intensive for my taste, and of ocurs epOliticlaly corect because we ar showign how multicultural we are by embracing them an dnot blamign them.

So, we simply reverse the roles, and make an extremist Evangelical Christian Group with its fundamentlaist beleifs behead a Muslim, and link this vicariosuly to the Knights Templer and the Crusades, because everyoen Knos Christaisn are a violent lot who have caused all sort sof problems in the wolrd, and must be kept in check or they'd do it again.

At leats, thats how I think the htinkign developed, and hwy the Knights Templer where demonised.

I hate to further depress disgruntled Bonekickers viewers (or ex-viewers) who have an interest in history or archaeology - which, as it was marketed in that direction, is likely to be a fairly big chunk of the initial audience - The BBC now owe one of TV's most irritating experts a big favour. We might get to see a lot more of Dr Mark Horton in future documentary programs.