Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven accused of being propaganda

[lonewolf371]

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.

[The Wizard]

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

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[The Wizard]

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

[Steppe Merc]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Thoros of Myr]

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.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[the Count of Flanders]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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

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...

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.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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...

[Pindar]

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.

[ah_dut]

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...

[Thoros of Myr]

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.

[Hurin_Rules]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

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.

[The Wizard]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

Just saw the movie, I was impressed. Not great, but good, and better than I expected. Deffiently the most historically acurate film of it's type that I've seen, far more so than Gladiator and Braveheart.

These "historians" accusations are baseless. They never talked about any sort of Muslim, Jew and Christian alliance, only said that before the Crusades all could come and go to the Holy Land, which was true. The Muslims, and in particular Salah ad-Din were potrayed accuratley. Honorable but harsh. He wasn't really a good guy or a bad guy, as I think he was in reality.
The Chrisitans weren't potrayed evilly, either. The main baddies were Christian, but so were the main good people.

The warfare was good, though not enough of the Muslim's horse archery was depicted. It suffered from Hollywood Fire Arrows, but all in all the warfare was more accurate than either Braveheart or Gladiator.

A lot of the characters were of course streched, but thankfully the love intrest didn't ruin it, and was kept safely on the side for a lot of it. I really liked the King of Jeruselaem, and how they showed him.

So it is in no way propganda, and wasn't as bad historically as most films. It was a good movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone who likes this sort of film.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Propaganda or not I know I will love this movie.

It suffered from Hollywood Fire Arrows

It was cool the first time in Gladiator but once was enuff. I prefer the fighting in Excalibur and the Messenger

[DisruptorX]

It was cool the first time in Gladiator but once was enuff. I prefer the fighting in Excalibur and the Messenger

I loved Excalibur, but you have to admit that it suffered a bit from "monty python" syndrom. The hacked off limbs with squirting blood looked rather like a certain scene from the search for the holy grail.

As far as solid, bone crunching melee, I think we can all agree that Conan did it the best.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I was so disapointed he stopped after two as Red Sonya wasnt as good. I still like him as Conan the best. He was perfect. He should make 1 more I can still watch those over and over.

[Ser Clegane]

Saw the movie yesterday and my impression is pretty much in line with Pindar's.

Not an all-time great but certainly a very good and impressive movie (and definitely worth the money to watch it).
Very good overall feeling in terms of the design of the movie and an apparently rather balanced view on the situation.

I also heard that they cut a lot of footage that will be included in a director's cut on DVD - which I am looking forward to asyou often had the feeling that something was missing, I expect the movie to gain considerably from having additional footage included again.

IMO the movie lacked a bit of originality when compared to Gladiator - Ridley Scott shamelessly borrowed plot parts from his own movie (which is not bad if you judge KoH on a stand-alone basis).

My only "real" gripe: The main character really seemed to have a "green thumb". It was a bit bordering the hilarious when he took over the lands of his father and seemingly turned barren land into a flourishing paradise within weeks.

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, that was quite funny. It was hard to tell how long it took though, but it seemed to go from barren to very good farmland very quickly.

[Adrian II]

The warfare was good, though not enough of the Muslim's horse archery was depicted.

Would it ever be enough for you?

Seriously, is there any movie you would recommend because it does feature lots of good horse archery?

[Byzantine Prince]

Yeah, that was quite funny. It was hard to tell how long it took though, but it seemed to go from barren to very good farmland very quickly.

lame. Thank god I didn't see this, I would have been infuriated.

[Steppe Merc]

Would it ever be enough for you?

Seriously, is there any movie you would recommend because it does feature lots of good horse archery?

You can never have enough horse archers.
As for movies that have a lot of horse archery in it, can't really think of any at all. Even that TV movie of Attilla had no horse archers in it practically. I wonder why Hollywood doesn't understand them, or something. You'd think that they would have made some sort of movie with Mongols, or any sort of nomads, but nope.
At least the foot archers in this movie had proper looking bows.

lame. Thank god I didn't see this, I would have been infuriated.

It is a good movie, and it could have taken a while, but it just doesn't really have any good indication of how long it took.

[Orda Khan]

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.

LOL.......and VI is historically accurate is it not?

.........Orda