This is a very busy picture. I'd be very impressed if anyone spotted every pun, reference, analogy and metaphor in one viewing. I keep finding new things myself. But let's be clear, history does not repeat itself. For sure, they didn't have tanks in the Middle Ages. Portraying our leaders as medieval tyrants is just my way of showing them as I see them. But...there are a few interesting parallels - and ironies.

The Crusades were religious wars initiated by Christian western Europe (Christendom) against "non-believers". Traditionally only the Pope can start a Crusade. The First Crusade began in 1095 and many more took place over the following centuries. Originally the target was Islam and the main justification for the first three Crusades was to wrest control of Jerusalem from the "Mohammedans". The subtext was clearly a fear of the spread of Islam, which already stretched from Spain to India. But later Crusades were aimed at anyone the Catholic Church opposed - mainly other Christians. For some historians the early Crusades represent the start of western imperialism, which would suggest that the crusader metaphor is highly apt for the US-led coalition in Iraq.

But it would be a serious error to imagine that the crusaders were plundering a poor helpless region. Islam's heartland in the Middle East was more powerful, advanced and wealthy than any part of Europe. It was the first world, and Baghdad was the New York of its day (now, there's irony!). One explanation for the crusaders' extraordinary victory in the First Crusade was that the Muslims simply did not believe it possible and were ill-prepared. It would have been a bit like a motley coalition of France, Quebec and a few confused Cajuns sailing into Manhattan Harbour to reclaim the Statue of Liberty. But additionally this Crusade coincided with a period of weak rule in the Holy Land (ie Syria). In the wider historical context it was also about this time that the tide of power was beginning to turn in favour of the west.

During the Third Crusade two great warrior-rulers faced each other in battle. Saladin, sultan of the Saracens, and Richard I ("Lionheart") of England - leading the crusaders. On September 16, 2001, Bush referred to his battle with Al-Qaida as a crusade. Bin Laden and his ilk continually refer to their enemies as "infidels and crusaders". It suited Saddam to refer to the coalition forces as crusaders too, to rally all Iraqis to his side.

Saddam also compared himself to Saladin, one of the greatest heroes of Islamic history. This was a bit rich. True, Saladin was a Sunni Muslim who fought his way up to supreme power from humble origins and his eventual empire included Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). Coincidentally he was also born in Tikrit. Apart from that they have little in common. Saladin was a devout Muslim, credited with reviving Jihad (Holy War), but allegedly he did not harm civilians during warfare. Said to be a firm but fair and tolerant ruler, he allowed Christians and Jews to live and worship in Jerusalem. By a curious irony, he was also Kurdish!

It is worth pointing out that Saladin ruled an empire greater than Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire, which made him possibly the most powerful man on earth (excluding China perhaps). It says a lot about western history books that he barely gets a mention. Actually, now I think of it, Saladin and Saddam did have something else in common: neither of them had WMD.

How about Tony Blair (TB) as Lionheart (or Lyingheart, as I have renamed him)? I think TB might be quite happy to be identified with good King Richard who, according to tradition, was a brave Christian hero - tall, handsome, muscular, chivalrous, well-educated and even a poet. But revisionist history paints a different picture of him: violent, anglophobic and gay. What do you think, Tony - still a good role model? [NB. I should point out to overseas readers (especially Americans) that TB does not rule the United Kingdom (actually a "queendom") - despite appearances.]

To understand anything about Richard I one must first dispel any rose-tinted myths about the English monarchy in the Middle Ages. In 1066 England was invaded and conquered by Normans. For 300 years this ruling class continued to speak French and treated the English peasantry with undisguised contempt. They remained foreigners in their own land. This is probably where the British class system originated and possibly why the aristocracy still speak as if their jaws are wired together: "Nice hice!" (nice house). This period also produced some of the cruellest leaders in history. In the cases of William I and Edward III, in particular, the term psychopath seems apt.

Richard may not have been the harshest king of England, but he was possibly the least patriotic. He spoke only French and, apart from a brief visit to Oxford (for his own birth) and a rushed Citybreak in London to remind the English who their king was, he spent almost his entire life in his French territories or in the Holy Land. He sold off most of England to pay for his Crusades. The one thing that Richard excelled at was war. He fought the French, the Saracens, he even waged war against his own dad. Richard could have killed for England. Oh...he did! Well, not for England, exactly. The romantic myths that surround him seem much like the sadly inflated stories that abandoned children invent about their absent fathers. And Tricky Dicky never came back either.

Back in 1099, when the crusaders of the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem, they spent three days slaughtering almost everyone - regardless of age, gender and even religion. Yes, they killed Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews. Not so much friendly fire - more a case of "couldn't tell the difference and didn't care". It was said that they were literally up to their ankles in blood. There's more; they even cooked and ate the corpses. This was all recorded with relish by their own chroniclers, but even they thought cannibalism was going a bit far. When Saladin regained control of the city in 1187 the terrified inhabitants were shocked at his courtesy and lack of retribution. But Pope Gregory VIII wasn't having it and the Third Crusade (1189-92) was launched.

This was the "Celebrity Crusade" to die for - and most of them did. All the movers and shakers of Christendom were saddling up their ponies and spoiling for a fight. This included the three most powerful European kings: Frederick (the Holy Roman Emperor), Philip I of France and Richard. It is generally accepted that Richard was gay and some historians think that he and Philip were "friends". After a promising start, the Crusade ended dismally. Frederick drowned on the way, Philip handed in a sick note and went home and, despite Richard's best efforts, almost nothing was achieved. If only they'd had tabloids then... "Pope says Kurds are Shi'ite!", "Rich Dick heads off to the Holy Land!" and finally "Kinky Kings in Kasbah Kibosh!"

Richard never succeeded in reconquering Jerusalem, but he did his best to emulate the "heroes" of the First Crusade. After besieging the city of Acre, Richard slaughtered 2,700 people outside the city walls, because Saladin was late paying a ransom. But, before conservatives accuse me of being PC, it is only fair to point out that these were the normal rules of engagement on both sides. Saladin's restraint and compassion were unusual.

In the Middle Ages the top dog in Europe was the Holy Roman Emperor, a position held mostly by German kings. The HRE was roughly equal in status to the Pope, the two nominally sharing power (one ecclesiastical, the other secular) but frequently locked in a power struggle. Frederick I, Barbarossa (Redbeard) held the job in 1189 - head of Christendom's only superpower. The nearest equivalent to the US at the time. But here "Gorge-Dollar Putsch" is the "Holy Petroleum Emperor" and if you look closely you will see that his livery banners carry appropriate logos. Unlike Bush, Fred led his men into battle - or he would have done if he hadn't drowned trying to swim across a river in Turkey. You see why he was my role model for Dubya! If George had led the troops into Baghdad I can see him now, tearing off his bomber jacket and jumping in the Euphrates: "C'mon, last one across is a chicken...in Turkey!"

The Holy Grail was not directly connected with the Crusades, but it was a contemporary metaphor. This was the wooden cup that Christ was thought to have drunk from, a sacred relic said to be in the Holy Land. Christian knights occasionally went in search of the Grail but it is not always clear whether they were seeking a literal object or on a mystical quest in search of truth, redemption or whatever. It was a good excuse for a bloke to hit the road for adventure and come back with tales of dragon slaying. In time the Grail came to represent any obsessive mission or search for some intangible entity - need I say more?

Then as now, propaganda was rife. Lyingheart calls out, "God wills it!" This was the battle-cry of the crusaders - used to justify their atrocities. My, what ignorant fanatics they were! We're so much more sophisticated now... Yeah, right. In May 2003, US Brigadier General Mark Kimmit said, "Iraqi children shouldn't be afraid when they hear low-flying helicopters - it's the sound of freedom." No wonder the Iraqis call him Comical Kimmit.

To be continued...