Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

[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.

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

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.

Well yeah, he has no palaces in either Syria or Egyot that are attributed to him. Only a fortress in Northern Syria, and one in Egypt.