Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

Quote:

---

Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'
By Charlotte Edwardes
(Filed: 18/01/2004)

Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.

The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".

Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations".

The film, which began shooting last week in Spain, is set in the time of King Baldwin IV (1161-1185), leading up to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 when Saladin conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims.

The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship.

"They were working together," the film's spokesman said. "It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them."

The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".

He said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and 'baddies' is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land."

Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."

Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The production team is using Loarre Castle in northern Spain and have built a replica of Jerusalem in Ouarzazate, in the Moroccan desert. Sir Ridley, 65, who was knighted in July last year, grew up in South Shields and rose to fame as director of Alien, starring Sigourney Weaver.

He followed with classics such as Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, which won him an Oscar nomination in 1992, and in 2002 Black Hawk Down, told the story of the US military's disastrous raid on Mogadishu. In 2001 his film Gladiator won five Oscars, but Sir Ridley lost out to Steven Soderbergh for Best Director.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ixworld.html

Lord of the Rings portrayel of the West is to nice and totally ignores the years of fascist rule over the orcs...

Really it is just another movie. If it was a book it would be in the fiction not fact section.

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

Asking Hollywood to make a historically accurate movie is like asking Dolphins to mountainclimb. They are not capable of it. I mean have they EVER made a historically accurate movie. They fantasize and cannot see that history is more interesting than anything they are capable of dreaming up.I would settle for a good movie which they are not too swift at either, but it is at least possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Asking Hollywood to make a historically accurate movie is like asking Dolphins to mountainclimb.

---

~D

That's Ridley Scott too. Black Hawk Down, :dizzy2:

This is just a controversy ploy ala' Mel Gibson's Passions. More controversy, more buzz, more viewership, more cash. :duel:

I can already picture them brainstorming this "idea". It's so obvious. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

---

An interesting opinion of yours... A self confessed bias.

No way muslims can do any good?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

"It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The acedemics seem to think its not so much a rectification and more of a distortion.. i really dont want to see a movie that demonizes Christians and glorifies Muslims.. something just doesnt seem right about that.

---

They are French knights though...

Look at the date.....its nearly a year and a half years old, and the film comes out this week. I doubt they even started filming it by that point, and those guys haven't even seen it yet!

Well I certaintly am not having any high hopes for history with this, but I'm gonna go see it... But is it bad to show the Muslims as not evil? Preferably, neither side would be good or bad, and show both their faults, but I understand it's Hollywood...
And I fail to see potraying Saladin as not a monster is bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And I fail to see potraying Saladin as not a monster is bad...

---

I believe it's the 'confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians' that the professor takes issue with. Seems like utter nonsense indeed.

Probably just as well as depicting the crusaders like Guy de Lusignan and the Templars as really, really evil villians with probably a ridiculous scheme to rule the world...
However, if anyone has ever read Steven Runciman's 'History of the Crusades', it does the same... (depicting all western Christians as either totally oblivious barbarians without any sense of decency or as power-hungry madmen who stop at nothing to get to their goals... most funny amongst them is Reynald de Chattillon, who seems to be in the movie as well. In the book he comes out as the eternal arch-villain, doing intentionally everything that is wrong and coming back over and over again...) but of course that work is half a century old and very much disputed by most historians, most prominent amongst them being Jonathan Riley-Smith!

well, first, the article is written at the time the filming was at the very beginning and all those academics probably didnt go to the previews....

Secondly, the guy is an "expert in ecclesiastical history", dont you think he is a bit biased towards the Templars? or any other order of knight-monks for that matter.

Or maybe he , just as Jager cant picture the christians being the bad guys. Or maybe he was wasted when he wrote the article, or maybe his dog was kidnapped by some guy named Saladdin :dizzy2: ~D Or something...

Ah, whatever. I see difference between this and the "historical" crap that has seemingly taken Hollywood by storm lately. Alexander, Troy, Augustus, a remake of Spartacus, King Arthur...it's all bunk. I might see this movie, but I won't pay for it.

Fellini's Satyricon was pretty accurate if you know what I mean. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Fellini's Satyricon was pretty accurate if you know what I mean. ~D

---

Nope. Explain.

I teach a course on the crusades, and I can attest to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a 'confraternity between Christians, Muslims and Jews'.

On the other hand, I think ol' Jonathan Riley-Smith and Philips seem oddly riled up by a more sympathetic portrayal of Muslims. But unlike them, I'm going to wait till I see it this weekend before I make any judgements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Nope. Explain.

---

The whole movie is the same as the play. Everything about is true.

Quote:

---

I believe it's the 'confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians' that the professor takes issue with. Seems like utter nonsense indeed.

---

Agreed. I also think it's quite stupid... but I was mainly reacting to how he seemd to be saying that Muslims were evil, and that the Franks were good... Which is bull.

I'm going to see it, however I have a fear it may be bull :brood:

My question is why do they have to make romance out of everything. Is it like a rule in hollywood that every story however romance-less has to be injected with bs?

I agree, there is no point to it, all that i'm interested in is the battles ~:)

Agreed. Romance tends to kind of mess things up, unless it's done perfect. You think that they can save most of the romance stuff for the pre teen girls, you know?

I can't get my head around it :no:

Quote:

---

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

---

But in Jersalem weren't all three faiths living in relative harmony before the Crusades?

And didn't the Crusaders kill anyone of all three faiths who got in there way?

As for 'fairer' portrayels of Muslims take a look at the historical figure of El Cid or even the hollywood movie...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

(..)I was mainly reacting to how he seemd to be saying that Muslims were evil, and that the Franks were good... Which is bull.

---

Sure, the 'rectification' quote is the embodiment of Liberal idiocy if you ask me. But there may be a mistake of perspective here, and I'll wait to see the movie for myself before I can be sure -- but I think the movie doesn't glorify or whitewash Saladin so much as make him look interesting, give him depth, at least more so than the run of the mill, semi-literate Franks opposite him. And if that is the case the director is quite right, because Saladin was indeed a fascinating character. That doesn't necessarily make him morally better or worse than the opposition.

I just hope good and evil are not included in this movie because every time such themes are added the movie itself becomes automatically weaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I just hope good and evil are not included in this movie because every time such themes are added the movie itself becomes automatically weaker.

---

Why? Good and Evil exist. It is just the 'feeble masses' who don't understand that they do.

Scott is a talented Director. The Period chosen is also a very interesting choice. I'll pay my money first and judge afterwards.

An interesting opinion of yours... A self confessed bias.

No way muslims can do any good?

Louis,

I see no point in pandering to Muslims as the article seems to indicate the movie is doing by demonizing the Christians and glorifying the Muslims.

Me thinks that if the "Christian World" hung wemon in soccor stadiums for getting raped and cut peoples heads off, maybe hollywood would show them in a favorable light? Interesting..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

An interesting opinion of yours... A self confessed bias.

No way muslims can do any good?

Louis,

I see no point in pandering to Muslims as the article seems to indicate the movie is doing by demonizing the Christians and glorifying the Muslims.

Me thinks that if the "Christian World" hung wemon in soccor stadiums for getting raped and cut peoples heads off, maybe hollywood would show them in a favorable light? Interesting..

---

We should meet the Muslim world halfway in the Interest of 'confraternity' and hang rapists in our stadiums.

In a few more days, we can actually see the movie and then make an informed decision about what it is or isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

But in Jersalem weren't all three faiths living in relative harmony before the Crusades?

---

More or less. The Christians massacred thousands when they took the city in 1099. But after that, Muslims and Jews did live in the city in relative harmony. They were clearly second class citizens, but they were not generally attacked or physically persecuted.

Quote:

---

And didn't the Crusaders kill anyone of all three faiths who got in there way?

---

Yes, crusaders and Muslims did make alliances, sometimes against people of their own faith.

Quote:

---

As for 'fairer' portrayels of Muslims take a look at the historical figure of El Cid or even the hollywood movie...

---

Heh, that's a good one. I love the old Chuck Heston Cid, even if it is sheer fantasy. But yes, we've mostly gotten portraits of Muslims that demonized them here in the Western world.

And PJ: your comment about Muslims hanging rapists in stadiums is a bit misplaced. During the period of the crusades, the Christian West was just as if not more barbaric in its legal and military processes than Islam.

I'll be seeing it.

We should meet the Muslim world halfway in the Interest of 'confraternity' and hang rapists in out stadiums.

A true diplomat. :bow:

I'll be seeing it. Though not totally historically correct, as I'm sure it won't be, I'll still enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies and ahistorical aspects of it to the people around me.

Remind me to not go see it with you then ~;)

Very interesting discussion here. My view is that the individual crusaders went to the Holy Land to do gods work (or because they needed to get away from their former location, but mostly with good motives). The leaders of the crusades probably had more murky motives, since the crusades played an important part in the powerstruggles between the major european states.

How about the crusade that sacked Constantinople (a fellow cristian city). Surely they were little more than pope-sanctioned brigands?

I'm sure the moslems felt (with some justification) that they were defending their homelands. The moment they stopped backstabbing each other the christians didn't stand a chance.

It would make an interesting what-if: What if the crusader states held on, and remained a sovereign state to this day?

Quote:

---

And didn't the Crusaders kill anyone of all three faiths who got in there way?

---

So did almost everyone during middle-age. I could give a whole lot of examples of Muslims killing everyone in their way (ie, when the Ottomans conquered Egypt, when the Mameluks achieved their coup, when St-Louis' army was captured near Egypt -I think that was near Damas), but that wouldn't make them better or worse than Christians.

The western and eastern (muslim) point of view about the crusades is kinda biased nowadays, partly because the event is still very important for many muslims. Still nowadays, some people seem to think that Muslim world collapsed because of the Crusades, which is total BS.

Islam's culture and society was held back, and became far more religously war minded. Between the Crusaders and the Mongols, Muslim society was certaintly negatively influenced a lot, though obviously not destroyed.

Magraev:
I'm sure some Muslims felt like they were defending their homelands like I'm sure that some Christians in the "Muslim" armies felt like they were defending their homeland.

The middle east had a huge Christian population at the time as much of it was comprised of what had been the southern part of the very Christian Byzantine Empire.

These areas had been attacked and seized by Mohammed and his descendants since the 7th century.

Here's one for the PC concerned crowd: why is a response (the crusades) to Islamic aggression portrayed as unfounded barbaric hostility? I believe that the actions of a certain Fatimid Caliph (and their aftermath) were essential in bringing about the first crusade.

the first crusade was set out upon because of Pope Urban II's need for power. He felt that a grand and noble enterprise to the Holy Land would instill new faith in the Church as well as perhaps helping him oust his anti-pope nemisis from Rome, Guibert.

LIkely, had Urban II not done something - the two greatest powers in Europe may have continued to weaken the power of Europe; the German Empire and the Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

In a few more days, we can actually see the movie and then make an informed decision about what it is or isn't.

---

Yeah, you could, but numerous critics have already done so for us and most of them are non too thrilled with Kingdom of Heaven. A 53% rating is pretty, err... rotten.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/

Ridley Scott produced and directed KOH so you can't lay the entire blame on Hollyweird's shoulders. Personally I think Scott has a penchance for screwing the pooch when he's given too free a hand. His biggest problem is that he's a terrible judge of scripts and loves to cast at least one or two amateurish actors in big roles. For the last 20 years Scott's career has been primarily flash over substance.

colovion:
so the Byzantine emperor's request for help had nothing to do with it?
the pope just felt like invading the middle east?
or maybe his aims just coincided with helping other Christians...
plus he may have felt that he could heal the schism between the eastern and western churches (as it was quite new at the time).

Also, the huge popular response to the venture was obviously unexpected (especially by the shat upon Byzantines).

There is no way you can honestly say that the first crusade was due to Urban II's desire for power without taking into account what had happened in the middle east, the emperor's request for help etc.

I suppose I should've mentioned that though it wasn't the only reason, it was the catalyst for the expedition. I do not doubt that he had the noblest of intentions of freeing the Holy Land from the 'infidels' and giving it to those Christians who had been disposessed of their lands. Yes, without Emperor Alexius Comnenus' request for aid, the Crusades may never have occured.

Colovion, and everyone else for that matter, I thought I should just point out that I'm not trying to be turdy.

I just noticed the tone of some of my responses and they are a little confrontational.

Also, to add to your last post,I can't help but feel that the change in Christian/Muslim relations in the Holy Land in the 11th century (especially the actions of the Seljuks as well as the earlier actions of Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah) also contributed to the enthusiasm for Crusade.

Now, I haven't read any of the replies yet, so forgive me for missing points already made. ~;)

Anyways, it seems to me -- from reading the article alone -- that these academics see Saladin as just your usual run of the mill ruler?

He certainly was not. The fact that even Christian accounts speak of his chivalry and excellent sense of honor points at the fact that he was a good, benevolent ruler and general.

But that does not mean that he did not commit any kind of atrocities. It was war, after all -- atrocities abound in that sector of livelihood. ~;)



~Wiz

the crusades happend because the muslims especuialy the turks were rampaging through armenia and threatning the byzantine empire. it was a call for help. This should be pointed out and not make the movie one sided making the muslims be the good guys. The turks were taking christians mainly greeks and armenians and enslaving whole villages and towns forceably converting them to islam. ( the jannisary of the turks were basicaly christains who were taken from their homes at a very young age and raised as muslim)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

Colovion, and everyone else for that matter, I thought I should just point out that I'm not trying to be turdy.

I just noticed the tone of some of my responses and they are a little confrontational.

---

Nah, I was actually pretty vague in my reasoning - you were right to call me on it. :bow:

I went to see the movie yesterday, and I did not find the movie to be overly biased to either side.

There were characters on both sides that were more bloodthirsty than the rest. Reynald de Chatilon and Guy de Lusignan and the Patriarch of Jerusalem were the warmongerers and most selfish on the Christian side. One person on the muslim side was similar. (only three muslim main characters, Saladin, possibly his brother, and this other dodgy charcter). Furthermore there were the fanatics back in Europe shouting that it was not a sin to kill an infidel. So in a sense it might be easy to say that it portrayed Christians as barbaric, but then again you did not really see many muslims exept in battle.

The focus was primerily on the Christian side that was divided into two camps. King Baldwin IV, the count of Tiberias, and Balian d'Ibelin on the "live in relative peace or end up being destroyed" side and Reynald de Chatilon and Guy de Lusignan and the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the "create war so that we can get richer and more powerful / myself first, to hell with the rest" side.

In my opinion it focused more on individual differences than group differences.

It is not a great movie, but it certainly is not a bad movie either. There were some things about the movie I disliked a bit, mainly things about Bloom's role. But I liked it and do not regret having seen it.

~:)

The call for help was an excuse, not a reason. The Crusades was just about money, and power, not about religion or helping fellow Christians. The idea that the Crusaders cared about the Byzantines is incorrect, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

The call for help was an excuse, not a reason. The Crusades was just about money, and power, not about religion or helping fellow Christians. The idea that the Crusaders cared about the Byzantines is incorrect, IMHO.

---

At least most of the common people involved in a crusade (mainly the First one) had maily religious motives. How do you otherwise explain the extasy many were in after seeing Saint Peter fight on the Christian side or the joy many felt when discovering "The holy lance" at Antioch? Most of these men (and women, mind you) didn't have it that bad at home but still went to the East to get in these insecure, unsafe and unhealthy conditions were the chance of death was very, very big. Of course some of the nobles would have gone to get the land and power they couldn't get at home (both Chattillon and Lusignan being junior members of their families, for example), but most would have probably been primarily motivated by religious feelings.

For example, Raymond of Toulouse went on the First Crusade, leaving all his possesions in southern France to his son, even though he was one of the wealthiest and mightiest men alive at the time, to go and live in the Holy Land, struggeling for many years to get any possesion at all. Why?

Also, Latin Christian relations with the Byzantines were pretty good at the start, but after the Byzantines bribed the Turkish garrison of Nicea and took the city while the besieging crusaders were still waiting toget a chance to kill the 'infidels', reliations more and more detoriorated. To me it seems the bad relitions with Byzantium resulted from power politics instead of religious feelings, especially since the 'Great Schism' still wasn't as definitive as it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

The call for help was an excuse, not a reason. The Crusades was just about money, and power, not about religion or helping fellow Christians. The idea that the Crusaders cared about the Byzantines is incorrect, IMHO.

---

:dizzy2:
Pardon my french but to this I say: bollocks. I'm not saying Urban's motivations were 100% altruïstic (but neither were they 100% selfish).
But of all the major western Lords that took part in the first crusade I can think of only 3 (Bohemund, Tancred and Baldwin) that actually intended to and did make a profit out of it. The others were lords with big, profitable fiefs back home that made huge commitments and spent fortunes to get the expedition going. Many of them even returned home after Jerusalem was captured. To say they only were interested in money and power is plain wrong. Especially a few decades later Outremer did attract wild-west style adventurers, but not all crusaders were like that. And the crusaders were the essence of the crusade.

I must say I swallowed this propoganda hook line and sinker. Dont our muslim posters always point out how more civilazed Saladin and they were back then? In fact every movie Ive ever seen on the crusades form the early silent ones to this one portray the christains as idealistic barbarians invading the more civilized Mulsim lands. Where even though they loose the great Saladin lets them visit the holyland out of his kindness. True they are pictured as heroic fighters but barbarians all the same. This seems to be refuted here. Whats the real truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders

:dizzy2:
Pardon my french but to this I say: bollocks. I'm not saying Urban's motivations were 100% altruïstic (but neither were they 100% selfish).
But of all the major western Lords that took part in the first crusade I can think of only 3 (Bohemund, Tancred and Baldwin) that actually intended to and did make a profit out of it. The others were lords with big, profitable fiefs back home that made huge commitments and spent fortunes to get the expedition going. Many of them even returned home after Jerusalem was captured. To say they only were interested in money and power is plain wrong. Especially a few decades later Outremer did attract wild-west style adventurers, but not all crusaders were like that. And the crusaders were the essence of the crusade.

---

Indeed. But don't forget Stephen of Blois, he didn't do it because of religious feelings and also not because he wanted land or power... he was forced by his wife... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

Indeed. But don't forget Stephen of Blois, he didn't do it because of religious feelings and also not because he wanted land or power... he was forced by his wife... ~D

---

A reason as good as any I'd say! ~:) But he did chicken out halfway though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders

A reason as good as any I'd say! ~:) But he did chicken out halfway though...

---

But when he got home his wife kept bullying him so much ("What will the neighbours say!") he went back again and got himself killed outside Askalon in 1102... Poor bugger... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

the crusades happend because the muslims especuialy the turks were rampaging through armenia and threatning the byzantine empire. it was a call for help. This should be pointed out and not make the movie one sided making the muslims be the good guys. The turks were taking christians mainly greeks and armenians and enslaving whole villages and towns forceably converting them to islam. ( the jannisary of the turks were basicaly christains who were taken from their homes at a very young age and raised as muslim)

---

Do try to make a difference between the Selçuks and the Ottomans... Basically it was nothing special what the Selçuks did in Cappadocia and Armenia.

You see, taking Christians captive and selling them in the slave markets of Damascus was nothing new. And it was common practice for promising Christian children, taken captive, to be sold to the Caliph (or rich men within the Caliphate) and raised as ghulams. They were the precursors to both the Mamluks and the Yeniçeris.

The most amazing part was that it was common practice amongst Muslims to sell themselves as ghulams! Why? Because it was able for one of these men to buy his freedom later on, and if one could do that, he probably would have amassed enough wealth and power to live a much better life than he could have hoped for in his earlier life. Such a strategy to get higher up in society was much practiced amongst the Oghuz living in the Samanid emirate.

Anyways, on the topic of Crusaders going on crusade for profit or for zeal: personally I think that there was a fair share of both in the First Crusade. Men joined up to escape punishment for criminal acts, to go to Heaven when they first could not have, or yes, to simply become rich. And then there were people who went along as simple pilgrims, seeing this as a very large-scale armed pilgrimage. And then there were those who went purely and simply to 'liberate the Holy Land from the infidel.'

To say that there was one alone or the other is wrong, as stating with full assuredness a certain percentage of each.



~Wiz

Most of the soldiers were motivated by faith, and even some of the high ranking nobles. But the Crusades itself wasn't started about helping the Byzantines or about religon, and that's what I was talking about, not the actual soldiers.
And excellent point about the ghulams, Wiz.

Quote:

---

I must say I swallowed this propoganda hook line and sinker. Dont our muslim posters always point out how more civilazed Saladin and they were back then? In fact every movie Ive ever seen on the crusades form the early silent ones to this one portray the christains as idealistic barbarians invading the more civilized Mulsim lands. Where even though they loose the great Saladin lets them visit the holyland out of his kindness. True they are pictured as heroic fighters but barbarians all the same. This seems to be refuted here. Whats the real truth?

---

Frankly, I view the Muslims as far more civilized and cultured. Better medicine, better books, better education, better warfare, better horses, better arceticture, etc.
But the Crusaders weren't barbarians as I don't think any culture is barbarous per se. They were just different. Both had bad people, and both had decent people (as the time went). If it happened today, both sides would likely be viewed horribly, but it was totally different back then.
I think that the idea of potraying the Muslims as cultered is accurate, as long as they show their dark side. I don't think the Crusaders should (or will be) shown as murderous barbarians, though some were very bloodthirsty.
As for Saladin, many of his enemies did admire him. Sure he did ruthless things, but so did his nemesis, Richard (great ruler... spent three months in his kingdom the whole time he ruled England...).
And I do think Muslims before the Crusades were far more tolerant, and lenient to all faiths, then the Westerners were at this time, and the Muslims became afterwards in response of the Crusades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

...better warfare, better horses...

---

Again I don't agree. The crusaders adapted their tactics very quickly and they were very succesfull with them (and they were almost always outnumbered, often heavily) untill incompetent commanders made the big mistake of trying to force battle themselves. Seeing the enormous inbalance of resources one can only conclude the crusaders did a largely excellent job.
The warhorses were different, suited to their own kind of warfare. Destriers were excellent at their role, arab horses at their own. Saying that one is better is rather strange, since they were used in different roles. A destrier makes a better charger, an arab a better skirmisher.

All I know is that in MTW the Christains rule even in the desert. ~D

tho Gawain, the Christian knights aint much use in the desert after the first charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Count of Flanders

Again I don't agree. The crusaders adapted their tactics very quickly and they were very succesfull with them (and they were almost always outnumbered, often heavily) untill incompetent commanders made the big mistake of trying to force battle themselves. Seeing the enormous inbalance of resources one can only conclude the crusaders did a largely excellent job.
The warhorses were different, suited to their own kind of warfare. Destriers were excellent at their role, arab horses at their own. Saying that one is better is rather strange, since they were used in different roles. A destrier makes a better charger, an arab a better skirmisher.

---

And of course Polish horses had the best of both worlds, they could charge and skirmish.

Eh? The Poles mainly spent their days crusading against Prussian and Pommeranian tribes...

Anyways, if I recall correctly, faris cavalrymen had to be able to skirmish as well as charge. Their horses needed to be capable to do both -- which they could, since an important part of their blood was of the Parthian horse.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Anyways, if I recall correctly, faris cavalrymen had to be able to skirmish as well as charge. Their horses needed to be capable to do both -- which they could, since an important part of their blood was of the Parthian horse.

---

Exactly. And skirmishing is superior, espetially in the desert. Christians are slow and plodding, and can only fight one way. Muslims had far more varied and rigourous training. But I prefer Eastern style warfare with horse archers and lighter armor to just charging.

Well I do agree with the Count of Flanders that the crusaders did quite well... used what they had well and defended themselves time and time again against the Muslims -- who were divided amongst themselves.

Two major events meant the end for the Crusader States.

The first was the rise of Nur ad-Din (Nureddin), whose tactical skill very effectively continued the line set by his father Zengi, who had conquered the County of Edessa. He defeared the Principality of Antioch, unifying Syria and crushing a major ally of the Byzantine Empire, which had fought alongside the Komnenoi in all their major battles ever since Ioannes II brought them into the fold.

Besides that, Nureddin's rise also facilitated the rise of Saladin, the nephew of his general Shirkuh. Ascalon was taken in 1153 by the Kingdom of Jeruzalem, cutting off Egypt from Syria. Then the Kingdom attacked the Fatimids, leading Nureddin to send Shirkuh to the relief of the tottering Fatimid caliphate. When Shirkuh died, Saladin came to the throne (although he did not submit to his uncle's master, and later took Syria from the Zengids).

The second was the ascension of several bellicose and expansive Kings of Jeruzalem, who took their small armies on daring campaigns, raided caravans of Muslim pilgrims on hajj, and generally unified the Muslim world against them as Manuel I had done with the enemies of the Byzantine Empire at virtually the same time. Besides that, they forced such rulers as Saladin, sunnis, to act, since Guy de Lusignan threatened to attack Mecca and Medina.



~Wiz

They might have done well, but I still think the Muslim tactics and armies in general were superior.

Quote:

---

tho Gawain, the Christian knights aint much use in the desert after the first charge.

---

Only a fool uses knights in the desert. I tell you nothing can touch the English in the desert in high and late and nothing can touch the French in early desert. If you dont believe me and have VI look me up sometime and I will gladly give you a lesson in desert warfare. Any here who have met my English army in the desert can back up my claims. ~:)

I saw it today. I agree with Dîn-Heru's impression of the film. No side seems to be portrayed as out-right barbarous killers though the Muslims show a bit more refinement throughout which, at the time, is believable.
It was a good movie. Not great. Not bad. Simply good or good enough atleast.

I think the Muslim tactics at this time were superior as a whole but I don't think their armies were superior as a whole but only in specific areas.

I saw a part of it and the dialogue and music seemed to create a really lame feel which personally can't stand in films. Why does hollywood have to ham everything up with "inspirational" tunes when people speak? I'm not talking about a theme song, just that really lame music they add to make the conversations and action all hammy.

the first crusade was set out upon because of Pope Urban II's need for power. He felt that a grand and noble enterprise to the Holy Land would instill new faith in the Church as well as perhaps helping him oust his anti-pope nemisis from Rome, Guibert.

Not really. The origin of the first crusade is a message sent by the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope. Constantinople was about to fall to the Seljouks, and the Commenes (sp?) thought they could hire some mercenaries. When he made his speech in Clermond, Urbain never thought that that many people would travel to the eastern world to 'save' Jerusalem.

Quote:

---

The call for help was an excuse, not a reason. The Crusades was just about money, and power, not about religion or helping fellow Christians. The idea that the Crusaders cared about the Byzantines is incorrect, IMHO.

---

They didn't, just as the Romans didn't care about the Crusaders until they saw they had enough manpower to help them reconquer their lands.
Just FYI, there was much more peasants than knights in the crusades, and I'm fairly sure none of them joined the expedition to get more power or more money.
I mean, would someone say that the Muslim conquest was just about money and power ? Probably just as much as the Crusade, but their was also a spiritual goal behind it, and you can't deny that.

Quote:

---

Do try to make a difference between the Selçuks and the Ottomans... Basically it was nothing special what the Selçuks did in Cappadocia and Armenia.

---

From what I've read, Seljuks (or Selçuks if you prefer) were not as tolerant and a 'nice' as other muslim nations. I can't remember the exact date, but when they took Jerusalem, they killed or ensalved all christians and jews, and burnt a whole lot of city in the Byzantine empire.

Quote:

---

they had well and defended themselves time and time again against the Muslims -- who were divided amongst themselves.

---

Just as the crusader states were. They crusaders lords spent their time fighting their rivals and were far from being unified.

Quote:

---

They might have done well, but I still think the Muslim tactics and armies in general were superior.

---

Then how do you explain that Crusaders did hold their lands that long, though they were surrounded by many more powerful enemies ?
Even Muslims writters agree to say that Christians were very good and brave warriors. To me, none of them were better than the other. Both sides won a fairly good amount of battles. And in the end, both get owned by the Mongols in the same way. Muslims, with their 'superior tactics and armies' were crushed just as badly as the Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Exactly. And skirmishing is superior, espetially in the desert. Christians are slow and plodding, and can only fight one way. Muslims had far more varied and rigourous training. But I prefer Eastern style warfare with horse archers and lighter armor to just charging.

---

Again I do not agree, the crusaders adapted and also used skirmishers in their armies, crusader armies were more varied as they had a solid well-trained infantry core (both spearmen and missile armed troops) supported by light skirmishing cavalry and with heavy cav as a sledge hammer for the killing blow. If the crusaders could put in a succesfull heavy cav charge the battle was usually over. But they didn't rely on charges alone, far from it, the infantry was actually more important. This led to many stand-offs where no battle was done. The downfall of the crusaders was that they couldn't afford any mistakes. eg Saladin could lose half an army at Mont Gisard and just raise a new one, Outremer had no such luxury.

Infantry? Don't get me started. Give me a Muslim army any day to a Crusader army.

Quote:

---

They didn't, just as the Romans didn't care about the Crusaders until they saw they had enough manpower to help them reconquer their lands.
Just FYI, there was much more peasants than knights in the crusades, and I'm fairly sure none of them joined the expedition to get more power or more money.
I mean, would someone say that the Muslim conquest was just about money and power ? Probably just as much as the Crusade, but their was also a spiritual goal behind it, and you can't deny that.

---

I know, I was talking about why it was started, not the actual people who fought it. I know some did believe it was about religion...

Quote:

---

Then how do you explain that Crusaders did hold their lands that long, though they were surrounded by many more powerful enemies ?
Even Muslims writters agree to say that Christians were very good and brave warriors. To me, none of them were better than the other. Both sides won a fairly good amount of battles. And in the end, both get owned by the Mongols in the same way. Muslims, with their 'superior tactics and armies' were crushed just as badly as the Christians.

---

Agreed. Mongols had even better armies and tactics. They were defeated because they had strayed to far from their nomadic horse archer roots. Give me a Muslim army any day to a Crusader, and pure nomad army any day over any army.

I saw the film and it was enjoyable with the siege of Jerusalem being quite amazing and extremely accurate, especially with the parley between Saladin and Balain but it lags heavily in the middle and i would loved to have seen the battle of Hattin.

Edward Norton as King Baldwin is great, subtle and gracious. The poor king died when he was twenty four with leprosy and his mother forcefulness and sisters stupidity only adding to the quickness of his death.

Raymond of Chatillon is played well by Brendan Gleeson and for all the remarks made against him Bloom is fine and i think it just due to female admiration that people insult him and his acting ability.

I don't think Bloom is a bad actor... I would have prefered say Liam as the main character, but ce la vie. Hopefully will see it today...

I saw the film. Charges of PCism are ill-founded. It is a good film, not great, but good. It plays out at close to two and half hours. Scott goes for an epic feel: the scenery, and general environment play into this. This will invariably be compared to Gladiator. It does not have the emotion that Gladiator had. I think this is due to chosen storyline as opposed to any failure on Bloom's part: the film goes for more of a political dynamic moving events than a personal vengeance story.

Even with the obvious a-historical elements, I noted several times in the film where they incorporated actual events and in this sense the film is more historical than Gladiator: though I have always been surprised by those who seek to get history from film.

There are things I wish they had done differently: not making Balien a blacksmith, showing Hattin etc. but still it was OK.

I understand that the DVD will have an extra 80 min of film included in the director's cut. That will be a long film, but I like the genre so I'll buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Exactly. And skirmishing is superior, espetially in the desert. Christians are slow and plodding, and can only fight one way. Muslims had far more varied and rigourous training. But I prefer Eastern style warfare with horse archers and lighter armor to just charging.

---

One thing I am not sure about...apparantly many muslim Ghulams using the spear 2 handed (much like the Kontos as far as I understand) were actually more dangerous than the couched lancers...

And you are incorrect to my knowledge when you say Christian inf wasn't so good...they got much better by the end and were a capable force, if always outnumbered and without as effective cav support. After all, the Turcopoli were never the most reliable iirc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia

i would loved to have seen the battle of Hattin.

Bloom is fine and i think it just due to female admiration that people insult him and his acting ability.

---

Yes, I was a little upset they left that out, hopefully it's in the directors cut.

Bloom was better than I thought from seeing the trailers but King Baldwin and a few others steal the show from him. Bloom wasen't bad though.

Dear lord, do you mean to tell me that they don't show anything about the Battle of Hattin? ACK!

I'm seeing it tomorrow, but sheesh... that is so very disappointing.

Quote:

---

And you are incorrect to my knowledge when you say Christian inf wasn't so good...they got much better by the end and were a capable force, if always outnumbered and without as effective cav support. After all, the Turcopoli were never the most reliable iirc...

---

I don't like infantry, period. To me, they just are support for the cavalry, not an particullary important part. Foot archers are the most key infantry soldiers, in my mind.

Quote:

---

One thing I am not sure about...apparantly many muslim Ghulams using the spear 2 handed (much like the Kontos as far as I understand) were actually more dangerous than the couched lancers...

---

They were trained more to use different types, and use it more delicetly, if you will. So it wasn't as much of a shock, but more dangerous in actual fighting since they manuevered it better.

Back to the topic of the movie again -- however good Kingdom of Heaven may be, only Gladiator surpasses the Korean movie Musa the Warrior. That movie had no CGI; the money left over was spent on good actors for a change, elevating it far above almost every 'ancient war epic' flick. You should see it! ~;)

Bloom isn't a bad actor AFAIK... it's just that I hated ol' elf boy in the book already and don't get me started on Paris. But in Pirates of the Caribbean he was OK -- outmatched, of course, by Johnny Depp.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Exactly. And skirmishing is superior, espetially in the desert. Christians are slow and plodding, and can only fight one way. Muslims had far more varied and rigourous training. But I prefer Eastern style warfare with horse archers and lighter armor to just charging.

---

As I said come face me in VI and Ill show you that Christains even rule the desert. Slow and plodding my butt. Ill be all over you like white on rice. ~;) On normal ground its no contest. Ill also out last you in stamina.