Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

[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.

[Hurin_Rules]

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.

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.

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.

[Thoros of Myr]

I'll be seeing it.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

A true diplomat.

[Colovion]

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.

[Magraev]

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?

[Meneldil]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

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.

[Colovion]

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.

[Spino]

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.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

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.

[Colovion]

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.

[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.

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.

[The Wizard]

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

[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)

[Colovion]

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.

[Dîn-Heru]

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.

[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.

[Brutus]

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.

[the Count of Flanders]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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?

[Brutus]

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...

[the Count of Flanders]

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...

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

[Brutus]

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...

[The Wizard]

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

[Steppe Merc]

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.

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.

[the Count of Flanders]

...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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[Lazul]

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