Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

Aqtai · 12th May 2005, 11:40 PM

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.

Aqtai · 13th May 2005, 12:30 PM

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!

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

ariel · 16th May 2005, 03:55 PM

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.....

Aqtai · 17th May 2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

M.carter · 17th May 2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

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 about45,000 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.

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

) and ran away to Jerusalem.

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

Rick · 17th May 2005, 07:40 PM

" 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 .

Aqtai · 17th May 2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

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

) and ran away to Jerusalem.

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

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?

nechesh · 17th May 2005, 10:39 PM

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.

M.carter · 19th May 2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

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?

Im not quoting about David Nicolle's book, I dont even own that

. 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.

Rivkin · 31st May 2005, 10:30 PM

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.

Tim Simmons · 7th October 2005, 08:53 PM

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

17th May 2005, 07:40 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	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 .

7th October 2005, 08:53 PM	#11
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,854	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 Last edited by Tim Simmons; 7th October 2005 at 09:18 PM.

12th May 2005, 11:40 PM	#1
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	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.

13th May 2005, 12:30 PM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	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! BTW I don't really recommend the book, it was a disappointment. No photos at all, just line drawings.

16th May 2005, 03:55 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.....

17th May 2005, 10:39 PM	#8
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	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.

31st May 2005, 10:30 PM	#10
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	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.