Kingdom of Heaven: the Movie

[Uiler]

Wait - a common excuse that the religious right like to use for the "Well look at all the bad things Christianity has done through the centuries." is "Well, they weren't doing it because of their religion so much for money, land and power. " or the ever popular "They weren't *real* Christians" (a popular line with modern Muslims as well wrt. Al Queda). Surely, the religious right should be *happy* that the crusaders are not being portrayed as acting from their religious beliefs given the fact that the Crusades ranks up there with the Grand Inquisition and the Witch Hunts on the list of "Things that the modern Church is not really particularly proud of."

So, basically, it's a modern, politically correct version of the Crusades? "Bad" European Christians for no reason invade the "Peace-loving" Muslim Saracans homeland, and the Saracans must fight for freedom from their oppressors? Oh, don't you just love Hollywood?

 

[Britannia]

Wait - a common excuse that the religious right like to use for the "Well look at all the bad things Christianity has done through the centuries." is "Well, they weren't doing it because of their religion so much for money, land and power. " or the ever popular "They weren't *real* Christians" (a popular line with modern Muslims as well wrt. Al Queda). Surely, the religious right should be *happy* that the crusaders are not being portrayed as acting from their religious beliefs given the fact that the Crusades ranks up there with the Grand Inquisition and the Witch Hunts on the list of "Things that the modern Church is not really particularly proud of."

But a lot if not most of the Crusaders were, in their minds anyway, fighting for God. The regular foot soldiers and many of the noble leaders didnt go on the crusades for greed or wealth but to retake the holy land. I hope this is shown in the film and is not usual Hollywood rubbish. Also I dont see how anyone can claim that the people on the crusades were not "real" Christians, they may not be particularly good Christians but if they believed if Jesus Christ then they were Christians.

 

[Uiler]

But a lot if not most of the Crusaders were, in their minds anyway, fighting for God. The regular foot soldiers and many of the noble leaders didnt go on the crusades for greed or wealth but to retake the holy land. I hope this is shown in the film and is not usual Hollywood rubbish. Also I dont see how anyone can claim that the people on the crusades were not "real" Christians, they may not be particularly good Christians but if they believed if Jesus Christ then they were Christians.

The statement that they are "not real Christians/Muslims/whatever" comes up all the time when one religious/ideological group has to justify violent or otherwise undesirable fanaticism amongst their own followers. The most popular current usage is with Muslims wrt Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. I also remember in this forum when a thread came up about Christian missionaries refusing to give aid to victims of the tsuanami unless they converted many people replied saying that they were not "real Christians". It's not just religious groups of course - any sort of ideological group tends to do this when they have to reconcil horrible acts they find repulsive with people acting in the name of an ideology/religion they worship and follow and think is good. Denying that the mass murderers and torturers are"real" members of your religion/ideology tends to be the easiest way out.

Fighting for greed and god aren't mutually exclusive you know. In fact Christianity and state (and financial institutions) have always had a strong alliance in Europe (which the founding fathers of the US tried to break, though Christians in the US right now are trying very hard to reverse this process).

 

[Britannia]

Fighting for greed and god aren't mutually exclusive you know. In fact Christianity and state (and financial institutions) have always had a strong alliance in Europe (which the founding fathers of the US tried to break, though Christians in the US right now are trying very hard to reverse this process).

I agree with that but all I am saying is that there has been a certain tendency among westerners to label the crusaders as having nothing to do with God and the crusades being all about money, power and politics. Now these three things undoubtedly played a part in the crusaders lives but their main driving force was a belief that they were fighting for God and Christendom. Afterall their religious leader has called upon them to do it.

 

[Uiler]

I agree with that but all I am saying is that there has been a certain tendency among westerners to label the crusaders as having nothing to do with God and the crusades being all about money, power and politics. Now these three things undoubtedly played a part in the crusaders lives but their main driving force was a belief that they were fighting for God and Christendom. Afterall their religious leader has called upon them to do it.

Well, if we emphasise Chrsitianity's role in the Crusades, the religious right will then complain about how people are portraying Christianity as a brutal savage intolerant religion. For Christians it's a case of "do we admit that Christianity drove the Crusaders to brutal murder" or "do we disown them". Now that more historical facts about the Crusades are coming out and they are less romanticised, the later often seems to be better than the former.

Many aspects of the Crusades had nothing to with religion though. For example, the Fourth Crusade where the Crusaders attacked a Catholic city which just happened to be a former property of the leader of the Crusades that he wanted back (they even put out crosses to try to emphasise that no we are not Muslims) - for which they were excommunicated by the Pope, and the sack of Constantinople which was ruled by Christians (this was to get the Venetian's favoured ruler who was an exile on the Byzantine throne). In fact Christians in that area have somewhat similar opinion of the Crusades as the Muslims do (well when your city gets sacked by Crusaders it is somewhat difficult to have a good opinion of them). Then there was the infamous Raynald of Chatillon who instituted a pirate fleet that attacked Muslim trade and pilgrimage routes, including one caravan containing Saladin's sister and who threatened to plunder Mecca and Medina (though fortunately one of Saladin's lieutenants defeated the fleet). His inability to resist plundering rich vulnerable Muslim targets and the inability of the very weak King of Jerusalem to control him led to the breaking of the long-standing truce between Saladin and Jerusalem.

 

[Verbose]

Actually by the early 13th c. it was generally accepted in Western Europe that the crusades had gone badly wrong — in no small part because of the godless ways of the crusaders themselves, or at least so it was thought.

The loss of Jerusalem was first seen as divine punishment, and then the sack of Constantinople next to killed the crusading idea. (The Venetians were even payed by the Egyptian Sultan to keep that army away from his country.)

 

[Akka]

Anyway, I'm going to see this movie in 25 mn, I'll tell you my opinion about it later

 

[JoeM]

THe movie has been criticised by historians quite severely, but Ridley Scott thinks he knows better. He's quoted as saying "What do they know?" in the Evening Standard (link requires membership)

 

[storealex]

I saw it and it is very good.

But it was my impression that it wasn't the Templars, but the newly arrived non-order Knights from Europe, who eventually provoked the peace to break?

 

[Babbler]

I just saw the "Kingdom of Heaven" movie. Pretty awesome if you like action and sword play. It's all about crusaders and saracens in the Holy land in the 1180s. It's every bit as good a Gladiator.

What!

I thought it was about the Bush Administration.

 

[party_starter]

so does Kingdom of Heaven really have a bunch of fighting or is it mainly talk like King Arthur or what
________________________________________________________________________
"Peace is made by war, without war there is no peace."
--anonymous

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then there was the infamous Raynald of Chatillon who instituted a pirate fleet that attacked Muslim trade and pilgrimage routes, including one caravan containing Saladin's sister and who threatened to plunder Mecca and Medina (though fortunately one of Saladin's lieutenants defeated the fleet). His inability to resist plundering rich vulnerable Muslim targets and the inability of the very weak King of Jerusalem to control him led to the breaking of the long-standing truce between Saladin and Jerusalem.

This guy is one of the characters in the movie!

 

[Birdjaguar]

so does Kingdom of Heaven really have a bunch of fighting or is it mainly talk like King Arthur or what

There is quite a bit of good fighting. The plot moves nicely along from battle to battle.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I've just seen the previews so far, but the battles look amazing. Can someone give some historical verification to this, as the battles look "cooler" than I think they actually were.

 

[Vladyc]

This is good to hear. I've really been looking forward to this movie (the preview looked awesome) and I'm seeing it Saturday. My only two concerns were that Orlando Bloom would completely ruin it, or it would be too biased towards one religion, neither of which seem to be the case.

 

[puglover]

Read a review about it.

I didn't know Crusaders were pluralists.

Though I have not seen the movie, so don't take my judgement too seriously.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I've just seen the previews so far, but the battles look amazing. Can someone give some historical verification to this, as the battles look "cooler" than I think they actually were.

From Wikipedia:

Raynald of Chatillon

Raynald entered into the service of Constance of Antioch and was chosen to be her husband in 1153, four years after the death of her first husband, Raymund. One of Raynald's first acts in Antioch was an assault on the Latin Patriarch; two years later he attacked Cyprus, ravaging the island. Cyprus was a possession of the Byzantine Empire, and in 1159 Raynald was forced to pay homage to Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus as punishment for his attack, promising to accept a Greek Patriarch in Antioch. When Manuel came to Antioch later that year to meet with Baldwin III, King of Jerusalem, Raynald was forced to lead Manuel's horse into the city.

Soon after this, in 1160, Raynald was captured by the Muslims during a plundering raid against the Syrian and Armenian peasants of the neighbourhood of Marash. He was confined at Aleppo for the next seventeen years. After his released in 1176, he married Stephanie, the widow of both Humphrey III of Toron and Miles of Plancy, and the heiress of the lordship of Oultrejordain, including the castles Kerak and Montreal to the southeast of the Dead Sea. These fortresses controlled the trade routes between Egypt and Damascus and gave Raynald access to the Red Sea.

In November 1177, at the head of the army of the kingdom, he defeated Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard; Saladin narrowly escaped. In 1181 the temptation of the caravans which passed by Kerak proved too strong, and, in spite of a truce between Saladin and Baldwin IV, Raynald began to plunder. Saladin demanded reparations from Baldwin IV, but Baldwin could only reply that he was unable to coerce his unruly vassal. The result was a new outbreak of war between Saladin and the Latin kingdom in 1182. In the course of the hostilities Raynald launched ships on the Red Sea, partly for piracy, but partly as a threat against Mecca, challenging Islam in its own holy place. His ships were captured by one of Saladin's officers,

The Movie begins in 1184 but does include the siege of Kerak condensed to a single battle:

...and at the end of the year Saladin attacked Kerak, during the marriage of Raynald's stepson Humphrey IV of Toron to Isabella of Jerusalem. The siege was raised by Count Raymond III of Tripoli, and Reynald was quiet until 1186. That year he allied with Sibylla and Guy of Lusignan against Count Raymond, and his influence contributed to the recognition of Guy as king of Jerusalem, although Raymond was the better candidate. Later in 1186 Raynald attacked a caravan in which Saladin's sister was travelling, breaking the truce between Saladin and the Crusaders. King Guy chastised Raynald in an attempt to appease Saladin, but Raynald replied that he was lord of his own lands and that he had made no peace with Saladin. Saladin swore that Raynald would be executed if he was ever taken prisoner.

In 1187 Saladin invaded the kingdom, defeating the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin. The battle left Saladin with many prisoners. Most prominent among these prisoners were Reynald and King Guy, both of whom Saladin ordered brought to his tent. According to al-Safadi in al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, Saladin offered water to Guy, who then gave the glass to Raynald. Saladin knocked the water away, saying that he had not offered water to Raynald and thus was not bound by the Muslim rules of hospitality. After being rebuked by Saladin for his treachery, Raynald was executed, either beheaded by Saladin himself or killed by one of Saladin's men in the presence of his companions. King Guy, however, was spared. Saladin explained that one king did not kill another and that Raynald had only been executed because of his great crimes. Guy was taken to Damascus for a time, then allowed to go free.

This scene is in the movie.

Many of the Crusaders considered Raynald a martyr, although all evidence shows him to have been a plunderer and a pirate who had little concern for the welfare of the Kingdom. The successes of the Kingdom were almost singlehandedly undone by Raynald's recklessness and selfishness.

Raynald and Constance had two daughters: Agnes, who married king Bela III of Hungary; and Alix, who married Azzo V d'Este.

I hope this helps.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This was Orlando character.

Balian of Ibelin

Balian of Ibelin (died 1193) was an important noble of the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in the 12th century. He was the son of Barisan of Ibelin and brother of Hugh and Baldwin. His original name was also Barisan, but the pronunciation of the name changed to "Balian" in the course of the 12th century; he is sometimes known as Balian the Younger when his father is also referred to as Balian. He is also called Balian of Ramla or Balian of Nablus.

After the death of Hugh in 1150, the castle of Ibelin passed to Baldwin, who then gave it to Balian, preferring to remain lord of Ramla. Balian and Baldwin supported Raymond III of Tripoli over Miles of Plancy as regent for Baldwin IV in 1174, and in 1177 the brothers were present at the Battle of Montgisard. That year he also married Maria Comnena, widow of King Amalric I, and received the lordship of Nablus.

In 1183 Balian and his brother supported Raymond against Guy of Lusignan, husband of Sibylla of Jerusalem and by now regent for the ailing Baldwin IV. Balian was present at the coronation ceremony of Baldwin V in 1183, while Baldwin IV was still alive; this was an attempt to prevent Guy from succeeding as king. Baldwin V became king while still a child in 1185, but when the young king died in 1186, Raymond’s choice for the kingship, Humphrey IV of Toron, refused the crown and joined Guy. Balian reluctantly paid homage to Guy, while his brother refused to do so and exiled himself to Antioch.

Balian remained in the kingdom and escaped the defeat at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. He helped negotiate the defense of Jerusalem and its subsequent surrender to Saladin in October. Ibelin, Nablus, and Ramla and all of Balian's other territories were captured by Saladin after Hattin, but Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli. He at first supported Guy in the struggle for the kingship against Conrad of Montferrat, but then conspired with Maria to have Conrad marry Isabella of Jerusalem, Maria's daughter from her marriage to Amalric, giving Conrad a stronger claim to the kingdom. After Conrad's death and Isabella's remarriage to Henry II of Champagne, Balian remained one of Henry's advisors, and in 1192 he helped negotiate the treaty between Richard I of England and Saladin, ending the Third Crusade. Ibelin remained under Saladin's control but Richard gave Balian a new lordship at Caymont instead.

He died in 1193. His son John of Ibelin was Lord of Beirut and constable of Jerusalem.

 

[MeteorPunch]

@Birdjaguar: thanks for the info, but I should've been more specific . I was actually wondering about scope/scale/size of the battles, because they seem enormous, which is always cool to look at, but how accurate?

 

[Sarevok]

Sweet. Ill see it on sunday.