Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

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.

Aqtai · 18th May 2005, 04:48 PM

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 · 18th May 2005, 06:52 PM

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 · 18th May 2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

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...

17th May 2005, 10:39 PM	#1
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.

18th May 2005, 04:48 PM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	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.

18th May 2005, 06:52 PM	#3
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	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"