As usual :mad:

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.

You know you spoke of the feeling you got at Saladin's tomb .
Although I have never been to the Middle East . I have felt that same thing at St. Basil's in Moscow for some reason .

Gettysburg battlefield is like walking into a Van de Graff generator .
Even though we were not there when history was made the energy still lingers ,for me, in a palpable way .

Unfortunately, I can't find my books (so I have to apologize for not oftering references _yet_), so I have to rely on memory and Britannica:

Salahadin (himself a kurd) was from the family of atabegs - Turk-seljuk warlords, who were supposedly "protecting" Baghdad Caliphat. With time this family and its seljuk's was becoming more and more powerful.

In 1169 Salahadin marched into Cairo, slaughtered around 40,000 black mamluks (Nubians etc.), their families, disbanded other parts of Cairo garrison and replaced it with his seljuks.

Concerning Salahadin's "white" mamluks he was the first one to introduce them into Egypt. Till that time only seljuks used to purchase slave boys from Caucasus and Kipchak territories (eventually stretching from Khorezm to Hungary), and put them into service as "guard" units. With Salahadin this practise was greatly expanded, mostly through buying kipchaks from Cuman Kipchak regions (Modern Crimea and Ukraine) and northern caucasus kipchaks.

Concerning the languages he spoke - it's certain he did speak arabic, I did not see the movie, but it seems natural for him to use arabic as a diplomatic language.

Now concerning languages that were used by mamluks among themselves in general it was always their own language - turks spoke turkish dialects (kipchak), mongols I think spoke kipchak too,
georgians spoke kartli, adighas- adighe, other caucasians (armenians, chechens etc.) spoke usually adighe or kartli, depending on which one was dominant.

Concerning that only kipchaks and circassians were mamluks - Ali-Bey, Mehmed Beg and most of post XVII century mamluks were georgians (megrel tribe, western georgia), some of prominent mamluk leaders before were Mongol or Seljuk. It's important that in arabic literature word "cherkes" can mean anything from around Caucasus.

It's interesting that mamluks were so isolated in their national community that very often they did not develop any islamic identity (great example is Rustam's memoirs and to some extent famous correspendence of XIX century mamluks with russian tzar and georgian kings).

Empu Gandreng tempering (nyepuhan) with his lips on the red hot blade for the infamous keris of Ken Aroek. Sorry guys, can't show you Empu Nyi sombro doing nyepuhan with her lips. I'll get banned from this forum! :D
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/..._019.sized.jpg

STOP! STOP! Can someone please tell this Malay prince that a keris is NOT a stabbing weapon but a holy talisman?
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/..._062.sized.jpg

These are screenshots of some of the best Malay movies produced in Singapore in the 1960s. You can see the keris in its (Malay) cultural context. Check out others at www.kampungnet.com.sg

More to come...

Thanks for the pics Rahman. Interesting the completely wrong (to my understanding at least) grip and thrust used in the second pic. Feel free to send me that pic of empu Sombro in a private e-mail. ;)

No, there was no pic... just pulling your 'leg' :D

That grip in the second pic is not unusual, but you can also see the normal grip in other pics in our gallery.

The interesting thing is, I've been playing with the Jogja and Solo keris and I can easily pivot the hilt from a normal to a reverse grip as in the photo. But I can never do that with a Malay hilt. Guess there's still a lot more to learn... :)

On mamluks:
Here is the article of Bernard Lewis (very distinguished western scholar of Islam):
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/Slav...ddle_East.html

See Chapter 9 for mamluks. Some quotes:
"Ahmad b. Tulun (d. 884), the first independent ruler of Muslim Egypt, relied very heavily on black slaves, probably Nubians, for his armed forces; at his death he is said to have left, among other possessions, twenty-four thousand white mamluks and forty-five thousand blacks."

"In 1169 Saladin learned of a plot by the caliph's chief black eunuch to remove him, allegedly in collusion with the Crusaders in Palestine. Saladin acted swiftly; the offender was seized and decapitated and replaced in his office by a white eunuch. The other black eunuchs of the caliph's palace were also dismissed. The black troops in Cairo were infuriated by this summary execution of one whom they regarded as their spokesman and defender. Moved, according to a chronicler, by "racial solidarity" (jinsiyya), they prepared for battle. In two hot August days, an estimated fifty thousand blacks fought against Saladin's army in the area between the two palaces, of the caliph and the vizier."

P.S. I really doubt that there were any significant numbers of arabs in Salahadin's forces.

But most of Saladins armies came from Cairo and Damascus, and Turkish troops werent that common in Saladins time. The only mamluks in Saladins army were his personal bodyguards. The rest of the army mainly came from barracks in Damascus, Aleppo and Cairo, all arab cities.

Arab cities does not mean arab armies (the cities always remained arab, even under mamluk sultanate).

Most of the western sources seem to refer to him as "seljuk" leader, de-facto conquering Egypt from local rulers. While there can be some misunderstanding of this on my part, and to be honest - I've never seen an exact and detailed description of Salahadin's army (and among people I asked - no one seems to be able to quote one), so I personally believe that one should rely on indirect things, like the quote above - 50,000 Nubian slave (mamluk) soldiers of Cairo garrison seem to contradict "The only mamluks in Saladins army were his personal bodyguards. The rest of the army mainly came from barracks in Damascus, Aleppo and Cairo, all arab cities".

Nowhere have I read that the Seljuks were ever the de-facto rulers of those cities, they were only the De-facto rulers of Baghdad. The Nubian slave guards were not called mamluks. These were simply called guards, mainly used for garrisons and were mostly infantry, the real mamluks were the turkish slave horsemen. There is an excellent book entitled "Mamluks" by Al-Baz Al Areeni, I believe translated into arabic from turkish, contains info from more that 20 arab sources (even primary) and more than 30 european sources. It contains info from the beginning of the mamluks, until their end in 1517, covers everything, from daily life, to food, to the barracks they lived in, to the time when the mamluks graduate from the tibaq as professional 'fursan'. No where does he include nubian guards as mamluks, yes they are mentioned, and mentioned alot, along with khwarazmians, but not as mamluks.

Many Islamic states used slave warriors or mamluks from very early on. The 'Abbassid Khalifas were using Turkish mamluks in the 9th century, Ahmad ibn Tulun was himself the son of a Turkish mamluk. Nur-ed-din Mahmud's father Emad-ed-din zenki was originally a mamluk in the Seljuq army. However these mamluks were usually relatively few in number and acted as a body guard to the ruler. The exception was the Fatimids who had large numbers of Nubian slave infantrymen and the later Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. Salaheddin had a bodyguard of several hundred mamluks called the halaqa, i.e. ring.

The rest of Salaheddin's army was a mixture. he disbanded most of the old Fatimid army after he seized power in Egypt because their loyalty to him was suspect. His light cavalry would have been made of up Turcoman horse-archers who had settled in Syria and Northern Iraq. His heavy cavalry was made up of Kurds, free Turks who had settled in the cities of syria and Northern Iraq for one or two generations, sons of mamluks and a small number of Arabs from the bedouin tribes of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. he would have had some Arab heavy infantry from the Syrian cities as well as bedouin infantry.

With regards to weapons, both straight swords and curved sabres were used. The Arabs and Kurds fought in the traditional way with sword and lance, they used straight swords. Troops of Turkish origin prefered curved sabres. there is a straight sword in the Topqapi Museum in Istanbul which is attributed to Salaheddin Yusef ibn Ayyub. The Topqapi Museum also has several Mamluk swords from the 14th and 15th centuries which are also straight. Arab miniature paintings and Coptic bibles from the 12th and 13th centuries invariably show straight swords with downcurved quillons and spherical pommels.

The film interestingly shows Salaheddin using a sword with a divided point. One of the Prophet's Muhammad's swords was also said to have had a bifurcated point. Salaheddin was undoubtedly a very pious Muslim (of the old-fashioned tolerant kind, not like a modern wahabi), but I have no idea if he would have gone as far as using a sword modelled on the Prophet's. Finally Salaheddin is often described as wearing a mail-lined kazaghand and a mail coif over which he wore a yellow skullcap and a white head cloth. But he may have worn more elaborate armour on certain occasions.

Saladins sword! Ive never heard of such thing, in Dr.Uncal Yuncel's book, there is a sword in Topkapi attributed to Najmadeen Ayyub, Saladins father, but he clearly states that there is no sword attributed to saladin is in the sarai.

In this pic, posted I believe by eftihis some months ago, the middle saber is typical turkish, while the rest of the swords are arab syrian.

I stand corrected. please excuse my rusty memory. In my defense I will say that it has been a long time since I read up on this stuff! I also don't have Dr Yuncel's book. :)

In his 'Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350: Islam, Eastern Europe and Asia Vol 2', David Nicolle refers to a sword from the Army Museum in Istanbul which is attributed to Salaheddin. Nicolle himself however has doubts about this saying he believes it is actually 13th or 14th century. It is a straight sword by the way.

I knew I had read something somewhere about a 'Sword of Saladin' in Istanbul! :D

BTW I don't really recommend the book, it was a disappointment. No photos at all, just line drawings.

I just saw Kingdom of Heaven together with a friend of mine who is a maven of all things European medieval (clothings, material artefacts etc).
He loved this movie because the Crusader stuff looked quite authentic.
I found the swords being more or less in accord with what I know about Islamic armies of the time.
Otherwise, this movie is a pure and unadulterated junk. There is no plausible story that binds the plot together (there is no plot as such ...), the characters are unexplainable and do not develop at all and the entire 2 h 25 min enterprise plods thru with as much excitement as one can get driving slowly over a speed bump.
If you, guys, want to see a lot of Islamic-looking weapon props, - plunk $8.50 and buy a ticket.
If you are expecting a semblance of an intelligent and fascinating story of the Crusade era, rent yourself "Robin Hood" ( either the Kevin Costner's one or the cartoon version from Disney). Compared to the Kingdom of Heaven, these two are truly Shakesperean.....

Ooh, thats a bit harsh.

Mind you, I've had few weeks to think think things over and look some things up, mainly in 'Saladin in his Time' by PH Newby and Hattin 1187 by david Nicolle, the only 2 books I have to hand at the moment.

Ridley Scott has taken bigger liberties with history than I thought. Salaheddin's Army at Hattin and Jerusalem was about 45,000 men, not 200,000. For some reason Count Raymond of Tripoli has become 'Tiberias' in the film (although he did have a castle at lake Tiberias), and Balian of Ibelin, who was a real person BTW, was at the battle of Hattin and was captured by Salaheddin. he was released after promising never to take up arms against Salaheddin again. A promise he broke by commanding the defenders at Jerusalem.

The other thing that irritated me is that Salaheddin's generals don't have names, you just have 'the hardliner' acted by Khaled En-Nabawy and 'the moderate' acted by Alexander Siddiq. I think these are meant to represent Salaheddin's 2 main commanders at Hattin. His nephew Taqi-ed-Din and Muzaffar-ed-Din Goqbori. The scenes showing Muslims praying are also wrong as they are all spaced out. Finally when Salaheddin is reciting the 'Fatiha' over the Muslim dead, it was edited in a way that most pious muslims would find rather blasphmemous.

Saying all that, I still liked this film. :D

Yeah, the army was probably no more than 45,000 men. Some sources say that balian was captured and released on the condition of never carrying arms against muslims again, but when he reached Jerusalem, the people begged him to defend them, and he wrote to saladin about that, and to Saladins chivalry, he allowed him to break his promise. Other sources say that he escaped from the field (fled in reality :D ) and ran away to Jerusalem.

But then, this movie isnt supposed to be a documentary, just a good movie.

Agreed
 

" But then, this movie isnt supposed to be a documentary, just a good movie. "

And Scott makes some of the best Eye Candy ; The Duellists is like a animated oil painting .

david Nicolle was bit confusing. he mentioned at one point that Balian was captured and at another that he managed to escape near the end of the battle, without ever mentioning that there were two versions. I need the rest of my books!

Nicolle did say that Balian was absolved of his oath to Salaheddin by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Although, to be fair to Scott, he did portray the patriarch as a treacherous b*st*rd.

Going back to the subject of weapons and armour for a bit, I've just remembered that the film showed some knights wearing closed helms (The scene when they try to kill Balian at his estate). I was wondering, considering that this film takes place around the year 1187, what is the earliest that great helms show up in European art?

Well, everyone's a critic. aren't they? :)
Really though, when i read a history book i expect accurate history, when i go to the movies i hope for good cinema. This movie has some brillant cinematography, fairly good acting and sticks to a general outline of history that in many ways is fairly accurate. No, Balian and Sybilla do not run off together in real history, but where's your sense of romance , man! :) In fact, she pretty much conspired with Guy all the way through the true history, convincing her brother Baldwin IV to step down and allow her son by a previous marriage to become Baldwin V with Guy as his Regent. Others conspired for the throne as well, including her half-sister whose name escapes me. So many characters and a king are left out. The character of Raynald is fairly accurate and AFAIK he was indeed executed as he was in that scene where he drinks from the goblet. It is also my understanding that Balian WAS instrumental in negotiating the surrender and safe passage for those in Jerusalem (though he was no bastard blacksmith and apparently was always aware of his nobility). But the bottom line is that real history is just too complex to put down in a 2 1/2 hr. film in any cohesive manner that has any kind of dramatic flow and sense. No, this is not history, it's Hollywood. But more than that, it is also a film that has taken an age old sensless struggle for control of the holy land and created a message for OUR time that is both moving and perhaps even essential to our survival in the decade to come. As the film points out, this stuggle has raged off and on for a millineum. Isn't time it came to an end? That's a message i can tolerate a little fudged and finaggled history over. Especially when it looks so visually appealling. :)
And Rick, ditto on the Duelist. :cool:

Since this thread is about edged weapons in films, I think I had better stick in here some pics of Islamic swords. The first is (Allegedly) the Sword of Negm-ed-Din Ayyub, the father of Sultan El-Malik En-Nasser Salah-ed-Din Yusuf (i.e. Saladin). If it is we have a 12th century Islamic sword of the type which the 'Saracens' in Kingdom of Heaven should have been using. The second sword is 13th-14th century but very Similar to Ayyub's sword.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ns/ISAS_pl.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...80_ISAS_pl.jpg

Yes! thats the one. Thats the sword I was talking about. Saladin's father's Sword. The Syrian mamluk sword you posted is what probably most of the Ayyubid troops carried. There three others in the book too. I do not understand why on the earth these swords in the the Askeri museum, along with several arab sabk jambiyas are listed as "Turkish"

I have no idea why they are listed as Turkish, but i suppose it is because the book does mention that they are 'unusual' and their hilts are very different to other Mamluk sword hilts. But it is equally possible that 13th-14th century Mamluk swords had a different style of hilt to 15th-16th century swords.

What puzzles me a bit is why Negm-ed-Din Ayyub's sword should look like a 14th century sword. I suppose one reason could be that styles of weapons and armour changed more slowly in the Islamic world. early 16th century Kilijs and Kulah Khuds look very similar to early 19th century examples for instance.

Unfortunately I have never seen the original sword and the inscription in the photo is illegible, but another possible explanation also springs to my mind. The penultimate Ayyubid sultan of Egypt was also called Negm-ed-Din Ayyub. He reigned from from 1240 to 1249 and died during the battle of Mansurah. I can't help but wonder if this sword belonged to the second Negm-ed-Din Ayyub. A more prosaic explanation could just be that the sword did belong to the 1st Negm-ed-Din, but was given a new hilt around 1300 AD.


On the subject of Edged weapons in the movies, here is a Islamic Axe from KoH:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...narms_c650.jpg

And here is a late 15th century Mamluk axe:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...Axe1495-98.jpg

Full credit to Ridley Scott for such an accurate replica of a real Islamic axe, its just a pity he got the time wrong by about 3 centuries... :D

Im not quoting about David Nicolle's book, I dont even own that :D . Im talking about articles Ive read on the internet and in some old magazines I got my hands on. I read both versions of the story repeatedly.

Here are two (unfortunately somewhat overly nationalistic in message) video clips with lots of weaponry (supposedly georgian weapons)
http://www.hangebi.com/hangebi/kviclo.zip
and
http://www.hangebi.com/hangebi/rivergeo.zip

I had a lot of fun watching them.

a couple for those that are interested in Indonesia/Philippines. 1. Ring of Fire, an Indonesian Odyssey; www.mysticfire.com - You can buy all 5 films on a 2 dvd set, Nechesh will enjoy this if he hasn't already seen it. About the Blair brothers adventures through the Islands in the 70's, excellent. 2. Imelda, Power. Myth. Illusion. by Ramona S. Diaz. best documentry I have ever seen. Certainly not pro Imelda, but if you love her or hate her, you will enjoy this on many levels, & I do mean many levels. Only a born & raised Filipino can start to understand the PI, but this will give you a glimpse of some of the complexities, + it goes in & out of bizarro world. has a 90 second clip of the assassination attempt with a bolo, that almost killed her.

Thanks Bill, I have seen some of this series, but not all of the films. Thanks for the reminder, i must add it to my Kerismas list. :D

Hi,

I would like to revive this thread to ask a question, does anyone know when the Kingdom of Heaven DVD is gonna be released? Ive been hearing september, can someone here officially confirm this?

other rumors claimed 11 october

http://videoeta.com/movie.html?via=form&id=62561

I have no information about this but I think you guys are overly optimistic .
I'm figuring it for the Holiday season Nov.-Dec. :D

SAHARA
 

Hello All!

When I saw the movie 'Sahara' I was shocked to see a Yemeni Jambiya wielded by one of the arabs. The dagger was a almost exact twin to my jambiya even down to approx. length and hilt materials and shape including the orange color hilt with two silver studs!

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=jambiya

Mark...

...for the dhafias
 

...just got done watching "Ong Bak Thai Warrior" and had some dhas on the side...

Hello All!

Another great movie is 'Khartoum', it is about the Mahdist revolt at the end of the 19th. century. There are a lot of kaskaras. Even a scene with a few koummyas and one Yemeni Jambiya. One of the best movies I have seen.

Mark...

It would seem Wolviex's rumor was right on target. Kingdom of Heaven will be released on DVD October 11th. :)

The four feathers, followed by the array of SE Asian weapons at Kurtz's camp in "Apocalypse Now" especially the Philippine spear that gets the black chap in charge of the boat. Tim

Indeed, the fierce struggle between the Spanish general Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera (with his combined force of Spanish regulars and Visayan mercs), and the Moros under Sultan Kudarat, could make a great story.

now, THAT would be epic...

Spunjer I agree, and it would be legendary too. :D

Ahhh , if wishes were fishes ......... <sigh> :o

I'm still waiting for the Hollywood clowns to release Farewell To The King on DVD . :mad: