While not as overly long as The Reign of Terror, The Crusade suffers from many of the same problems. Namely, multiple missing episodes, lack of explanation as to the historical era we're in, and a fairly thin plot.

I wasn't very engaged with this story. The fourth episode and the latter half of the third were the only ones where I was even interested in what was going on.

The guest cast is good, but their characters are all very flat and not particularly interesting. This isn't helped by the brownface and general racism, though even the white people aren't safe from being caricatures. That being said, I loved Ibrahim.

Vicki has fully cemented herself as one of my favourite companions. The First Doctor grows on me more with every story. Ian and Barbara are great as always.

The Crusade has never been one of my favourite stories. I read the novelisation long ago and found it a little dull. The existing episode three did little to improve my opinions, although I did always enjoy the performances, particularly Jacqueline Hill’s and the scene between Julian Glover and Jean Marsh as Richard and Joanna. When the first episode, The Lion, was discovered I viewed it with trepidation and found that it did little to improve my view of the story.

Rewatching the story for this marathon I have discovered a little more respect for the story – mainly for the performances, if not an enjoyment.

My main issue is the dialogue. It is incredibly florid and ‘Shakespearean’. I am a great fan of Shakespeare but, for me, this style does not fit into Doctor Who very well. It is too stagey and to some extent forced. When the Doctor himself starts using words like ‘methinks’ and Jean Marsh stumbles over lines which, to the modern tongue, are oddly constructed, I have to wonder if it was a good choice. Doctor Who can be many many things, but a Shakespeare play is not one of them – at least not on the basis of this story.

The most engaging part of this story is Barbara’s plotline. Kidnapped by El Akir’s men, managing to escape into the dark streets of Lydda, only to be captured again, we have great scene after great scene – particularly the existing episode three – The Wheel of Fortune – which sees her contemplating the death of a young girl and herself to protect them from El Akir.

Unfortunately, this is punctuated by the Doctor and Vicki’s ineffectual politics in the court of King Richard which mainly boils down to Vicki posing as a boy, the Doctor avoiding arrest for stealing clothes and the Earl of Leicester suspecting them of being spies. This final idea goes nowhere when the Doctor and Vicki simply slip out of the palace and run back to the TARDIS. They are pursued, rather feebly, by the Earl of Leicester. He takes the word of Ian, someone he has never met, and the crew are able to escape.

Indeed, Ian, with William Russell due his holiday episode, is packed off for the majority of the story in search of Barbara, whom he finds and brings back with very little effort on his part. Even his encounter with Ibrahim in the desert seems merely a way to have him do something before reaching Barbara. It certainly has no impact on the plot.

Maureen O’Brien’s Vicki is markedly less of a confident character than she will become by The Time Meddler. She is very much the poor little orphan girl, even having a slightly cloying scene where she worries the Doctor will leave her and whining that the TARDIS is the only home she has now.

The Doctor is fun, and not a little softer than earlier serials of this era, but the whole stolen clothes part sits a little uncomfortably with me.

This story is another example of some bonafide historical characters meeting the Doctor and his friends but here we have a calvacade: King Richard I, Princess Joanna (or rather Joan according to online sources), Saladin and Saphadin (the Western names for the Arabic leaders). Checking online though, it seems that Richard’s knights are all inventions. There are plenty of Williams and even a de Preaux, but none of the names actually given in the story appear in online historical sources as far as I can tell.

The story revolves around real places such as Jaffa, Lydda and Ramla with mention made of Tyre and Genoa. Production restrictions of the time though mean that much of the story could be set anywhere. Ramla is tents and Jaffa is a castle. The only place with a sense of ‘exoticness’ is Lydda with its dark shadowy streets,

The costumes for the story are very good, although I am not sure where the Doctor gets all the clothes for himself, Vicki and Ian as he only seems to steal a couple of garments and one pair of boots from the dodgy market trader, Ben Daheer.  Also, there are some very flamboyant moustaches on show – particularly William de Tornebu and the Chamberlain!

Another make-up aspect that must be mentioned is Bernard Kay ‘blacking up’ to play Saladin. It stands out quite markedly as none of the other ‘Saracens’ are blacked up. Roger Avon (Saphadin) and Walter Randall (El Akir) are not, and many of the smaller roles and extras seem to be played by actors with, at the very least, a darker complexion, if not of a non-White ethnicity. Of course, nowadays, Kay’s casting would never happen and, to be fair, it’s not massively obvious in the production as the make-up is actually quite good, but as a sign of the times this production was made, it is interesting. One wonders if more of the cast would have been made up in this way if they did not look suitably exotic, or if – for the smaller roles – non-White actors/actresses were deliberately sought with only the plum role of Saladin going to the ‘best’ actor regardless of race.

Historical episodes are difficult to pull off with the fact the TARDIS crew cannot be seen to interfere too much in established events. I think this is worse when real historical characters are included as stories such as The Aztecs seem to suffer less from the problem.

The Crusade seems to take this to the extreme with the crew having hardly any impact on the events around them, aside from saving King Richard in the first few scenes (which his men could probably have managed without them).

The regulars watch as events unfold around them, particularly the Doctor and Vicki, and for much of the story I felt like the ‘guest’ characters treated them as minor distractions from the bigger events. Their interactions continually seemed cursory.  Also, I feel the story lacks focus. There is no outright villain which most stories, even the other historicals, do have. There is no Tegana or Tlotoxl. The closest we get is El Akir, but this is a character the Doctor and Vicki never meet, Ian only meets briefly (just before he is killed by another supporting character) and doesn’t even spend a huge amount of time in the company of Barbara whom he has kidnapped early in the story.

The separate stories of the regulars don’t really end satisfactorily either. The Doctor and Vicki and Ian and Barbara arrive back at the TARDIS with little idea of the troubles of the other couple. This is something played to comic effect in The Romans, but here just means the story ends on something of a damp squib.

All in all, it’s a story which doesn’t gel for me. There are some lovely set pieces, excellent performances and the regulars, on the whole, are superb as always but, as a sum of its parts, it just doesn’t satisfy.

📝9/10

Thworping through time and space, one adventure at a time!

"The Crusade: Knights, Kings, and A Regal Drama"

This review of The Crusade, a partly missing four-part historical from Doctor Who, is based on the surviving episodes (1 and 3), telesnap reconstructions of episodes 2 and 4, Julian Glover’s Loose Cannon intro/outro scenes, and William Russell’s delightful recaps.

Despite the gaps, The Crusade holds a special place in my heart. It blends a compelling historical setting with tense drama, brilliant performances, and Shakespearean dialogue, making it one of the strongest historicals of the William Hartnell era.

A Strong Start and Tense Adventures

The story kicks off with immediate action, throwing the TARDIS crew into trouble and splitting them apart. Barbara and Ian face particularly harrowing challenges, including Barbara's desperate escape from the villainous El Akir, culminating in an unsettling moment in Part 3 where she’s instructed to commit murder and suicide—a surprisingly dark turn for a children’s show.

Ian shines in this story, embodying the archetypal knight as he braves torture by ants (a standout moment in the missing Part 4) and risks everything to rescue Barbara. His knighting scene remains a highlight, but his heroics are delayed until the final episode, which feels rushed as it ties up loose ends.

Meanwhile, the Doctor and Vicki remain in King Richard's court, navigating palace intrigue and light-hearted quarrels with colorful characters like Ben Daheer and the Chamberlain. The warm chemistry between William Hartnell and Maureen O’Brien is a joy to watch, and Hartnell delivers a commanding performance, even if their subplot contributes less to the overall narrative.

Court Politics and Stellar Guest Performances

The political tension between King Richard and Saladin serves as the backdrop but sees little resolution by the end. Some may find the dialogue-heavy scenes unsatisfying in terms of plot progression, but the richness of the exchanges elevates the material.

Julian Glover’s King Richard is a masterclass in acting—charismatic, commanding, yet deeply flawed. His fiery argument with Jean Marsh’s Joanna in Part 3, capped with the line “You defy me with the Pope?!!”, is one of the most electrifying moments in Doctor Who history. Marsh, making her first of three appearances on the show, is a standout as the defiant and principled Joanna.

Bernard Kay delivers a nuanced performance as Saladin, exuding intelligence and calm, breaking Orientalist stereotypes of the time. Walter Randall’s El Akir is suitably menacing, though he bears similarities to Tegana from Marco Polo. These performances, combined with the Shakespearean dialogue, make the guest cast unforgettable.

Production Excellence, But Flawed Execution

Douglas Camfield’s direction brings the setting to life, complemented by the detailed costumes and lush sets. Even the telesnaps of the missing episodes convey the story’s tense atmosphere, particularly the chase at the end of Part 2.

However, the pacing stumbles. David Whitaker spends the first three episodes setting up various threads, leaving Part 4 to hurriedly tie everything together. Unfortunately, the most action-packed moments, like Ian’s rescue, are lost to the archives, making the finale feel incomplete.

Aged Gracefully—or Not?

While The Crusade stands tall in many respects, its use of blackface for Saracen characters, most notably Bernard Kay’s Saladin, is deeply problematic by today’s standards. Such elements remind us of the era’s shortcomings and temper the story’s legacy.

Despite its flaws and missing pieces, The Crusade is a shining example of Doctor Who’s historical drama at its best. With powerful performances, Shakespearean dialogue, and engaging characters, it’s a must-watch (and listen) for fans of the Hartnell era.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:

• Sir John isn’t a believable fake King Richard because he doesn’t have red hair. We wouldn’t know, of course, because we see everything in black and white!
• The Doctor once again justifies his stealing by calling it “borrowing"—what a kleptomaniac he is!
• I love the return of the “characters standing still in the shot while waiting for the credits to roll” cliffhanger ending to Part 1.
• This story was originally going to suggest that King Richard and Joananna had an incestuous relationship, but these references were removed at the behest of William Hartnell and producer Verity Lambert because they felt such themes didn't fit a family series. Oh, but apparent murder and suicide do?
• Tutte Lemkow is known for playing supporting villains in '60s episodes of Doctor Who, but every single one of his performances (Marco Polo, The Crusade, and The Myth Makers) remains missing from the BBC archives.

I was impressed with how they represented two different faiths in an intelligent way, the Muslim father and daughter are the two best "non-main" characters in the show up until this point.

The Doctor's character is getting very interesting, someone who seems to be a moral saint when it comes to issues of war and violence, but in this story was essentially a thieving trouble maker! "You stupid butcher, can you think of nothing else but killing?"

Sir Ian ‘Knight of Jaffa’ was a great idea, it never ceases to amaze me how good he is in this show, I don't know what's so appealing about his character - maybe it is that voice, the voice of reason. Vicki is finally coming into her own, "who's your friend?" I didn't feel she was Susan mk. 2 in this one, much more room was left for her in the storyline, her disguising herself in masculine clothes was fun.

A mediocre story. We have a dramatic history setting, with several smaller conflicts. But sadly, they lack connection.

The party lands in the 1190s, where a Barbara quickly gets captured. The rest of the group goes looking for the help of king Richard to get her back.

After that the story has a lot of smaller storybeats with different characters. Ian gets knighted, Barbara has to hide a child in a plundered home. The Doctor talks to Richard about a marriage plan and Vicki pretends to be a boy. And these are just some of the events. The story just keeps stacking them on.

And I think that’s the problem. The individual small parts are all fine, but it misses a bigger picture tale. Except for Ian, the rescue of Barbara seems almost forgotten. Instead we become quite aimless. Stuff just happens, and it can be interesting stuff, but why should it keep my full attention? How does it all tie together?

What could’ve helped, is a better explanation of the time period we’re in. Why are these things happening? Who is ‘Richard the Lionheart’? What does history have to say? We even have a character tailor made for this kind of stuff! But she gets shoved aside real quick and no one fills her role. With a better established time period, it would be easier to understand character motivations and plans. It would all connect just that little bit better. We could even know the end result in advance, if that would help! The only thing we get here, is some small hints from the doctor, but it’s so minimal it’s basically a footnote.

And that leads to a lack of foundation. A mismatch between the history knowledge of the writer and the audience. We have the smallest inclination of where we are, but the story acts like we’re supposed to know it all. Since this is still, at the most basic level, a kids show, I consider that a flaw in the storytelling.

It is, however, a story that makes me look back at its writer. This is the 3rd story by David Whittaker. And while I like his character work a lot, he seems to struggle with making a spread out main plot. I look back at his other tales, “The Edge of Destruction” and “The Rescue”, and similar problems prop up: He has a very cluttered and oddly random main story, but with some great character beats. Those beats always show he completely gets these characters.

But even those are mostly absent in this tale. It’s his longest one yet, at four episodes, but there’s really only one good, introspective character moment. It’s between the doctor and Vicki, and she shows separation anxiety from the party, who are her only family. It’s a very nice moment for both. Great as always, but it's 2 minutes in 100 minutes of storytelling. And that's not enough.

This is a story that lacks foundation. A reason to keep you hooked to the separate moments on screen. Historical knowledge could’ve filled that void, but it is just not there. And the main appeal of this writer, character defining moments, are sadly lacking as well. So that leaves the story very fractured and unfocused. It’s not the worst or unsalvageable, but it could have been more.