The Fifth Crusade

Oh yeah, Crusades Month is back, and better than ever! Well the scope and overall effectiveness of the Crusades covered this month aren't better than ever (believe it or not, they're even worse), but that doesn't mean we still can't have fun at the expense of trivial religious warfare! This month I will be covering Crusades 5-7, which, if they were movie sequels, would be well past the tipping point of enthusiasm for even the most beloved film franchises (unless you're The Fast and the Furious, for reasons I dare not comprehend).

Fig.1: Europe just couldn't wait to add another one of these to its list of "Reasons Why the Rest of the World Thinks We're Jerks."

By the year 1213, the Crusades have had over a century to build up their reputation of suckiness. The First Crusade (1096-1099) allowed the Christians from Europe to conquer the holy city of Jerusalem from the various Muslim groups that previously controlled it, only to undermine their victory by bringing their typical European pettiness along with them. The fall of one of their possessions led to the Second Crusade (1145-1149), which not only attacked the wrong Muslims, but also lost against them! The fall of Jerusalem to Saladin led to the Third Crusade (1189-1192), which started out pretty promising for the Christians under the leadership of Richard the Lionheart, only to have it all end with a dud in the name of peace (yawn). And then there was the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204), which didn't even make it to the Holy Land and only led to the destruction of the Christian city of Constantinople (granted, they totally deserved it for leavening their communion bread). Instead of just cutting their losses and focusing on other things, like, I don't know, feeding their starving peasants or something, Europeans decided to call for yet another crusade. And so the franchise regretfully continued (a quote that would be repeated ever since Transformers got a sequel).

Mount Everest (video)

Here is Canned History #6, where I please my geologist friends by talking about one of Earth's greatest natural wonders (behind rock candy, of course): Mount Everest. The mountain and the people surrounding it have such a rich history, regardless of its present status of the world's deadliest tourist trap. Once you're done watching this video, make sure to donate to a relief fund in order to help Nepal recover from this year's devastating earthquakes, and then watch the video about seventeen more times! 

For more information on relief efforts, visit the Nepal Red Cross Society's website.

Canned Histories: Mount Everest

Trojan War

Fig.1: Only the greatest conflicts are depicted on pottery.
Now where did I put my Desert Storm vase?

No other war seems to have impacted or defined a civilization more than the Trojan War did to Ancient Greeks (unless you count the Pastry War on the French, who sure do love their pastries). The stories of the clash between the Achaeans and the Trojans were passed down from generation to generation, and contain lessons that are still common knowledge today. Who could ever forget the kidnapping of Helen by Paris, the exploits of Achilles, the cunning of Odysseus, the courage of Hector, and of course the armpit-stabbing-suicide of Ajax? Plus, who doesn't know about the Trojan Horse, and its moral that you shouldn't just accept strange gifts left outside your door (I'm watching you, UPS man!). So the ultimate question: is the Trojan War one of the most important conflicts in history?

Ivan the Terrible

Fig.1: If anything's terrible,
it's that robe.

Back in the day, epithets really defined what people were all about. Sure, there have been plenty of "the Great"s, but let's not forget awesome ones like Richard the Lionheart, Suleiman the Magnificent, and the attractive uncle-nephew duo of Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat (until they morphed and became Charles the Danny-DeVito-Doppelganger). But my favorite epithet was given to Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich of Russia: the Terrible. Granted, the word terrible is being used here in its original sense (as in one who strikes terror in people, which can be seen as a good thing if you're always at war with your neighbors like Russia is), but its modern definition as bad, unpleasant, and just downright jerkish also would apply to Ivan. Examples of his terribleness include imprisoning people for no reason, destroying cities within his own kingdom, taking over indigenous peoples in Siberia, and killing his own successor so that his kingdom would fall into chaos within 15 years of his own death. If anything, maybe Ivan should be called something worse than "terrible," since that merely puts him on par with your average Adam Sandler movie.