Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

Is that some sort of arabian swordsmanship?!

Sorry for interrupting, but I always thought that Salahadin's army was as unarabic as possible. Kurd commanding kipchaqs, circassians and some turks (after purging the army of africans).

It was also my understanding that the responsibility for training lied mostly on kipchaqs.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Sorry for interrupting, but I always thought that Salahadin's army was as unarabic as possible. Kurd commanding kipchaqs, circassians and some turks (after purging the army of africans).

It was also my understanding that the responsibility for training lied mostly on kipchaqs.

Nope, the Ayyubid family was kurdish, but the ayyubid armies were mainly Syrian and egyptian garrisons, no kipchaqs. The Kipchaqs and circassians came much later, during the mamluk period.

[tom hyle]

Who has commentary to distinguish Kurdish weaponry from Arab at the time? (I have no idea; heck, I don't know anything constructive about modern Kurdish edged weapons )
Even if Rivkin is incorrect about the more Northern peoples, it's certainly possible the curved swords are ethnically correct for some portion of the army, nor would it surprise me if there were some sabre type swords all along, as there more or less were in Europe, but if they are depicted as the dominant type, that seems incorrect to me. What of jambiya and its curvature? Some old swords we've discussed recently have rather jamiyesque handles, but straight blades..........How old is the (Eastern?) Afrasian simply curved two-edged dagger/sword? I don't seem to recall it from "classical antiquity?" (among Afrasians around the Mediterranean, though curved double-edgers are occasionally seen out of BCE Europe, and mainly I don't know what with nonmediterranean Afrasians; the more southern protoBerbers; Africa remains a dark continent in the same sense as the premedieval period was Europe's dark age; it has been hidden from us....archaeology has been making inroads in both.....)........random thoughts; seeem relevant somehow.....

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

Nope, the Ayyubid family was kurdish, but the ayyubid armies were mainly Syrian and egyptian garrisons, no kipchaqs. The Kipchaqs and circassians came much later, during the mamluk period.

First of all I apologize if my statements are going to be incorrect, and I truly hope to be corrected.

My understanding was that Saladin died in 1193, and by 1250-1260 Ayyubids were mostly outed by rebelling mameluks (which does not seem to be much later than Salahadin's reign) - who formed the next dynasty, Bahri (which was a kipchaq dynasty). During the reign of Saladin he, and his commanders were very often of kurdish origin, but the army was already predominantly mamluk, the practise which started basically in 10th century with black mamluks (Nubians etc.). I think 1169, the battle of Cairo is considered the foundation of mameluks as a cast - the black mameluks were slaughtered by the order of Salahadin, and replaced by "white" mameluks - Kipchaqs from northern Caucasus and surrounding steppes, Circassians and other northern tribes. Since then, "blacks" were barred from being mameluks.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

First of all I apologize if my statements are going to be incorrect, and I truly hope to be corrected.

My understanding was that Saladin died in 1193, and by 1250-1260 Ayyubids were mostly outed by rebelling mameluks (which does not seem to be much later than Salahadin's reign) - who formed the next dynasty, Bahri (which was a kipchaq dynasty). During the reign of Saladin he, and his commanders were very often of kurdish origin, but the army was already predominantly mamluk, the practise which started basically in 10th century with black mamluks (Nubians etc.). I think 1169, the battle of Cairo is considered the foundation of mameluks as a cast - the black mameluks were slaughtered by the order of Salahadin, and replaced by "white" mameluks - Kipchaqs from northern Caucasus and surrounding steppes, Circassians and other northern tribes. Since then, "blacks" were barred from being mameluks.

In a translated Turkish book, edited by egyptian historians I have, Ive read that the purchase of mamluks didnt start by the Ayyubids until the reign of Al-Salih ibn Al-Kamil ibn Al-Adil ibn Salahuddin, Saladins great grandson, who widely introduced mamluks into military service and Khwarazmian cavalry after the defeat of the Khwarazmian Sultan by Gengiz Khan.

[Mark]

A few observations:

1) Saladin's helmet: Saladin was renouned and greatly respected for his humility and the simple life he lead. It therefore would be appropriate that his personal arms were simple and functional rather than austentatious.

2) Curved swords: in that period the swords used by the Muslim army were straight. Turkish curved swords came later (see below).

3) Mamluks: in Saladin's time the Muslim army was mainly composed of "Arabic" peoples, loosely defined -- Berbers, Arabs, probably Persians. The later Mamluks were Turkish slaves trained exclusively to fight, some say in emulation of the military monastic orders (never heard of the Nubian mamluks -- that is very interesting). Baibers, who finally drove the Europeans out of the Levant, was a Turk, but not a Kwarisman. The Kwarismanian turks were invited in to fight the Mongols, but got out of control and attacked Egypt and the Crusader states and were with difficulty defeated.

Errors and omissions are categorically denied, and if pointed out will be re-written to conform to the most recent with currrent official history, which itself will be rewritten or simply expunged to the extent that it varies from the canon noted above. Oink.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

A few observations:

1) Saladin's helmet: Saladin was renouned and greatly respected for his humility and the simple life he lead. It therefore would be appropriate that his personal arms were simple and functional rather than austentatious.

2) Curved swords: in that period the swords used by the Muslim army were straight. Turkish curved swords came later (see below).

3) Mamluks: in Saladin's time the Muslim army was mainly composed of "Arabic" peoples, loosely defined -- Berbers, Arabs, probably Persians. The later Mamluks were Turkish slaves trained exclusively to fight, some say in emulation of the military monastic orders (never heard of the Nubian mamluks -- that is very interesting). Baibers, who finally drove the Europeans out of the Levant, was a Turk, but not a Kwarisman. The Kwarismanian turks were invited in to fight the Mongols, but got out of control and attacked Egypt and the Crusader states and were with difficulty defeated.

Errors and omissions are categorically denied, and if pointed out will be re-written to conform to the most recent with currrent official history, which itself will be rewritten or simply expunged to the extent that it varies from the canon noted above. Oink.

1. Humility?? I dont get it, what do you mean Mark?

2. Thats exactly what I was talking about on SFI, if you have the book "Islamic Swords and swordsmiths" see portraits 80,81,82,83. These are the swords of that time in Syria, but if you look closely at the swords in the movie (I watched it three times now ) some swords are straight, and some are curved sabers. Perhaps Ridley or his historical dept. wanted to show the transition from straight to curved swords during that period?? Anyway, I believe the swords in the movie were fine, at least none of those Sinbad scimitars!

3. You are absolutely correct, same thing in my book, during Baibar's time, the Khwarazmians he invited to stay in cairo and syria got out of control and started pillaging and burning the countryside, thus he had to send his personal Mamluk guards to stop the rebellion, they cut noses, tongues, ears and popped the eyes of the Khwarazmians to scare them into submission. I also never heard of Nubian Mamluks myself. The only Mamluks I heard of were Kipchaq Turks and then replaced by Circassians.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by M.carter

1. Humility?? I dont get it, what do you mean Mark?

I meant that Saladin was respected not only because he kicked infidel butt, but also because he lead a simple life and did not create a cult of personality around himself as so many powerful rulers did (and still do). No harem, no huge ornate palace, no wild parties, no booze. I remember reading somewhere that he drank only water, and slept on a small cot or mat. Whether it was a put-on or not, it gave him a more spiritual air that was welcomed after the debauchery so common among the Egyptian (and probably other) Sultans. Hence he was seen not only as the restorer of Muslim power in the area, but of Islamic faith and culture in general.

[Aqtai]

I've just seen Kingdom of Heaven as well. I enjoyed it. I agree there were errors, but I give Ridley Scott points for trying to be more accurate than his predecessors.

My understanding of Salahuddin's Armies is that the core would have been a mixture of Kurds, Turkish mamluks, Turcoman tribesmen, professional Turkish soldiers and Bedouin tribesmen. Something that didn't really come across in the film, where the 'Saracens' were represented as a fairly homogenous mass. However I feel that trying to explain the ethnic complexity of a Medieval Muslim Army to a modern multiplex audience would have been an instant 'turn-off'.

With regards to the use of Arabic by Salaheddin and his commanders, I believe that Salaheddin was a multilingual man: he would have spoken in Kurdish to his Kurdish troops, Turkish to his Turkish Emirs and Arabic to his Arab Imams and civil servants (who would have all been Syrian and Egyptian). But since the film was made in Arab country i think that is why he had to show Salaheddin speaking Arabic. To have him him speaking in Turkish or Kurdish, while more accurate, would have probably lead to effigies of Ridley Scott being burned on the streets of Cairo and Baghdad!

As for the armour and weapons, while some of it is anachronistic (the mail and plate armour worn by Alexander Siddiq looks 15th century rather than 12th) I give him credit for at least including genuine Islamic armour. In addition there is very little Islamic armour surviving from the 12th century anyway, so RS is entitled some artistic license. I also give him credit for having some of the Muslims wearing lamellar armour.

Overall I liked this film, it tried to stick to the main historical facts, although it did take liberties with the details, but that is unavoidable in a film.

[Rick]

I just got back from viewing this film and the details that we notice will , of course go unnoticed by the uniniated .
I thought it was a terriffic film on the whole and despite the overabundance of Orlando Bloom these days , he did a workmanlike job in his role .

I thought the subject matter was handled quite well and equably ; I find Scott's films to be among the best cinematic offerings around these days .

I actually left the theater tired out by being swept up in the experience .

Can't wait for the DVD < rubs hands in anticipation >

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Rick

I just got back from viewing this film and the details that we notice will , of course go unnoticed by the uniniated .
I thought it was a terriffic film on the whole and despite the overabundance of Orlando Bloom these days , he did a workmanlike job in his role .

I thought the subject matter was handled quite well and equably ; I find Scott's films to be among the best cinematic offerings around these days .

I actually left the theater tired out by being swept up in the experience .

Can't wait for the DVD < rubs hands in anticipation >

Actually, they say that the DVD will be 195 minutes long. Thats 50 minutes extra! I also had a feeling that there would be an extended DVD version since I got out of the cinema, because in the trailer, there were many scenes that werent shown in the movie.

[Rick]

Fifty more minutes ?!
Oboy !
< Rubs hands even harder>

I will bet you dollars to donuts that the first DVD of this film released will not be the extended version .

I have been fooled a couple of times by this Hollywood distribution trick .

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Aqtai

I've just seen Kingdom of Heaven as well. I enjoyed it. I agree there were errors, but I give Ridley Scott points for trying to be more accurate than his predecessors.

My understanding of Salahuddin's Armies is that the core would have been a mixture of Kurds, Turkish mamluks, Turcoman tribesmen, professional Turkish soldiers and Bedouin tribesmen. Something that didn't really come across in the film, where the 'Saracens' were represented as a fairly homogenous mass. However I feel that trying to explain the ethnic complexity of a Medieval Muslim Army to a modern multiplex audience would have been an instant 'turn-off'.

With regards to the use of Arabic by Salaheddin and his commanders, I believe that Salaheddin was a multilingual man: he would have spoken in Kurdish to his Kurdish troops, Turkish to his Turkish Emirs and Arabic to his Arab Imams and civil servants (who would have all been Syrian and Egyptian). But since the film was made in Arab country i think that is why he had to show Salaheddin speaking Arabic. To have him him speaking in Turkish or Kurdish, while more accurate, would have probably lead to effigies of Ridley Scott being burned on the streets of Cairo and Baghdad!

As for the armour and weapons, while some of it is anachronistic (the mail and plate armour worn by Alexander Siddiq looks 15th century rather than 12th) I give him credit for at least including genuine Islamic armour. In addition there is very little Islamic armour surviving from the 12th century anyway, so RS is entitled some artistic license. I also give him credit for having some of the Muslims wearing lamellar armour.

Overall I liked this film, it tried to stick to the main historical facts, although it did take liberties with the details, but that is unavoidable in a film.

I do not think that Saladin could speak Kurdish (although he was a kurd). His father died when he was in an early age, and he was sent from childhood to a Sunni Islamic religious school in Damascus. He lived all his life in Damascus, and died there. When I visited his tomb, I got goosebumps all along my spine, with a tingling feeling (unexplainable). He probably knew arabic and a little turkish (as turkish troops were gaining more attention rapidly in the region).

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by M.carter

I do not think that Saladin could speak Kurdish (although he was a kurd). His father died when he was in an early age, and he was sent from childhood to a Sunni Islamic religious school in Damascus. He lived all his life in Damascus, and died there. When I visited his tomb, I got goosebumps all along my spine, with a tingling feeling (unexplainable). He probably knew arabic and a little turkish (as turkish troops were gaining more attention rapidly in the region).

While it has been a long time since I read 'Saladin in His Time' by P.H. Newby, note to self, must re-read it , i'm pretty sure Salaheddin was in his 20ies when his father died. Add to that he was from a large and clannish family, when his uncle Assad-ed-din Shirkuh was sent to Egypt by Nur-ed-din Mahmud the Emir of Damascus, Salaheddin accompanied him. I'm pretty sure he spoke to his uncle in Kurdish. he also had his brother and Nephews all appointed to prominant positions.

I agree with you about the Turkish though, Nur-ed-din Mahmud, Salaheddin's original sovereign and mentor was himself a Turk and most of the emirs in his armies and Saladin's own armies would have been Turks. I think knowing Turkish would have essential for a 12th century Muslim military commander.

[PUFF]

For Dah/Dahb guys...

http://www.kingnaresuanmovie.com/ (soon)

Its historical accuracy 's not as high as reference books, but they did the best. There 's some degree of producer 's interpretation, though.

[Yannis]

I am far of dhafia , but I will see the movie for sure. It looks epic.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by PUFF

For Dah/Dahb guys...

http://www.kingnaresuanmovie.com/ (soon)

Its historical accuracy 's not as high as reference books, but they did the best. There 's some degree of producer 's interpretation, though.

Cool! Looks epic. Any word of a subtitled release?

[Bill M]

"The Road to Bali" has a few guys wearing Javanese keris.

Two of the character's names are amusing.

Ramayana --- actually the name for a Hindu epic. 500 to 100 BCE

Ken Arok --- a fascinating character in ealry Javanese history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Arok

The latter is a wonderful story about a famous Javanese keris and Mpu Gandring. Certainly read the part about the woman (Ken Dedes) Ken Arok went for and where she kept a shining light.

However these characters in the movie have absolutely nothing to do with their famous names. I just think it is very funny that someone decided to name two people in a Bob Hope / Bing Crosby / Dorothy Lamour movie.

[Emanuel]

Just saw this movie today, and I do recommend it. There's quite a bit of flying around, as Chinese movies are famous for, but the story is quite good and it features a lot of fighting...The story is akin to some Shakespearean dramas, and does a good job of showing the wielding of true power.

There is a particular cycle knife/sword a lot like a large bank, or maybe like some versions of the falx. Of course it's used in very weird ways, thrown around and caught back like a boomerang, but nice anyway. I have many many misgivings about the types of warfare depicted but I'll put that down to artistic license
There's also some interesting pole-arm fights, but somehow I doubt these were ever used in close quarter combat. Magnificent demonstration of armour, but again, I somehow doubt these were 10th century styles.

Emanuel