Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

[M.carter]

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]

" 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]

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]

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.

[Aqtai]

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.

[M.carter]

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"

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by M.carter

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:


And here is a late 15th century Mamluk axe:


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...

[M.carter]

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]

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.

[Bill]

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.

[nechesh]

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.

[M.carter]

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?

[wolviex]

other rumors claimed 11 october

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

[Tim Simmons]

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