This is what happens if Liam Neeson trains you: In 60 seconds you become a Knight. In a couple of months you become Batman. And, in a couple of years you become a Jedi.
There 2 more mistakes, one the landscape, Jerusalem gets almost 800 mm of rainfall in a year , so I can’t be a desert, there is no big Plato , Jerusalem is on a mountain,, Second thing I love the fact he is teaching the native how to get water😂😂😂
he's one of the only charchters to appear in 5 (!) LOTR/ Hobbit movies. thats a lot of fighting. Maybe if Sean Bean would have lasted for a litlle more, he would've been able to kill jaime lannister
@Zero Maverick true, but to be fair he thought Achilles was about to kill his young female cousin.. and Paris is supposed to be a bit of a lame-o anyway.
I feel like there was probably a more interesting movie to be made about Baldwin the Leper and Saladin. They could have dispensed with Balian altogether....
If you watch the Director's cut, you'll see that there's an entirely different movie. Bailin is a more fleshed out character and his motivations and character development is much better. The Theatrical release did this movie no favours
I’ve only seen the directors cut and it’s pretty good despite a skewed bias portraying Christians as immoral, bloodthirsty, ignorant zealots and the Muslims as enlightened and morally superior.
@@psychokinrazalon There is no good record of how Bathory looked, and judging by her endeavour to look younger (by bathing in the blood of you know who), she likely wasn't aging that well.
@@jennyrust8334 In the Director’s Cut behind the scenes videos, Ridley Scott said that he would frequently ask Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud for his input on how he thought Saladin would act in this or that scenario. The dude was otherworldly!
Saladin is not accurately portrayed though.. I blame the Ridley Scott for Political Correctness and total careless for historical accuracy (since 1492 and American Gangster)
@@casioak1683 Okay, then explain what is incorrect? Would you say Saladin was a cliche villain or monster, or would you say he was mediocre, or would you say his positives came with negatives unspoken?
They say in the movie (possibly only the director's cut) that he was a military engineer in the French army. Which explains how he'd know how to build things like irrigation systems and conduct siege warfare. Not saying that this completely redeems the movie, it still has tons of problems, that's just one piece of quick dialogue that pays off later in the film.
I still find it highly dubious he'd be able to teach Middle Easterners how to irrigate their crops in the land where irrigation was born. Also, I'm no expert, but first off, there was no such thing as the French army back then - nobles could sometimes call on peasants to serve in their armies, and the king could call on his lords to form the royal host, but knights and foreign mercenaries were an essential component, not peasants - and second, I'm pretty sure a lowly blacksmith wouldn't have had access to the education needed to become an engineer, or that an engineer would not have been returned to civilian life as a lowly blacksmith. This isn't goddamn America - there are certain social statuses that make it highly unlikely for that kind social elevation to happen.
@@samrevlej9331 the village they're in outside of Jerusalem is shown to be incredibly small and very poor, which I think would make it just as unlikely that someone in this tiny village had the necessary education to build an irrigation system before Orlando Bloom shows up. Secondly, someone somewhere had to be engineers at some point in the French army, to build catapults and the like. There's nothing presented in the movie that makes it impossible for him to have been an engineer. It's never shown in the movie for him to be an unreliable narrator, so we have no choice but to take the character at his word when it's said he was a military engineer. There's no prequel or something we can look at for reference. Those are silly points to argue because we only have the scope of the film to use as reference.
@@nyyfandan I'm not saying he isn't an engineer in the movie, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying it's absurd from a historical point of view to have a blacksmith be a military engineer in the 12th century. That would be like making an industrial worker a agro business owner on his down times - they're socially separate groups. Also, what seems silly is to argue any village in the Near East at this period in time, no matter how tiny and poor, would need a European to tell them how to water their own goddamn fields. Man's only ever been in Europe, where the climate's not nearly the same and would realistically never had the chance to learn how to build canals, and he tells people who've lived on this land for generations "Oh, you see, you just need to dig these little furrows in order to actually get water to your crops?" It's be like a freaking computer programmer coming over and telling an electrician "See, the wire goes there to actually power the device". Not the same field of expertise, and the latter should probably know a whole lot more about this than the former. I'm not talking about this in terms of narrative reliability, I'm talking about this in terms of basic credibility. Suspension of disbelief from the audience requires not going over a threshold on the bullshit-meter line, and KoH uses that line like a jumping rope.
@@samrevlej9331 Most people don't know anything about irrigation, 12th century or otherwise, and there's little need for suspension of disbelief when your audience is ignorant. Ridley Scott already demonstrated his exceptional contempt for his viewers when he made the incredibly overrated Gladiator and gave us a comic book version of what life in the Roman Empire was like, complete with an utterly ridiculous and ahistorical depiction of Marcus Aurelius's death. That movie went far over the threshold on the bullshit-meter line and still raked in tons of money and awards from gullible fools who still praise it to this very day, so I can't really blame him for trying to repeat the formula. -
@@psevdhome agreed, but when you pay a guy a couple million plus back end gross, you probably expect to see their face. Or you might have an actor who is vein and doesnt want to be behind a mask. I think thats why its very noticeable when movies get those little details right.
Very true. Although he was a usurper and took his throne by conquest. English society never truly accepted him but they weren’t in any position to fight him.
Same here! I already liked the film, even though Orlando Bloom is pretty damn cheesy and I can't help but cringe at his end speech every time. But I had only ever watched the shorter theatrical cut as a kid, as that's the version we had on DVD. When I finally watched the Directors Cut I was blown away. It seriously is completely different. Sooo much was cut from the theatrical that you're basically missing half the story. The directors cut version really puts it up there with the rest of my all time favourites like Gladiator, Troy, The Patriot, The Last Samurai, Braveheart etc. And in the end, it's a movie. I'm watching to be entertained. Not so much for historical accuracy.
“When I look at history, I see it as a testament to humanity’s triumphs and worst crimes. We cannot celebrate one half and ignore the other, or worse, change details about that half for the sake of appearing politically correct, today. These things happened and there is nothing we can do about that. The only, responsible thing we can do is learn from our past mistakes. Otherwise, they will fade into obscurity and pose of us having to repeat them again.” Great quotation from you, Nick! 👍🏻
I would highly recommend the Director's Cut if you haven't seen it. It adds about an hour to the movie, giving the characters much more depth and even adding an element to Balian's backstory that explains why he has the skills he does.
+KashelGladio he showed footages from that cut so he clearly saw it, although it's an entertaining movie, it manipulates history with a political agenda that cannot be denied.
boss180888 Did he? I didn't think I saw any, but you may be right. My only real hangup was his gripe with Balian's skill set, even though the director's cut clearly states he's been to war multiple times in the past. But yes, the film uses the Crusades as a vehicle to push a humanist philosophy, which is just a more forgiving way of saying the same thing, only cuz I happen to like this movie quite a bit v_v
+boss180888 I agree with you on the political agenda. The readers and watchers should bear in mind that this movie was released after the start of the 2nd Gulf War. In which Coalition Forces invaded Iraq and there a lot of anti-war sentiment. One glaring example of anti-war propaganda was the movie "Fahrenheit 911". Clearly, "Kingdom of Heaven" is another anti-war propaganda movie in which it pits the Western World against the Islamic World, while glossing over the small but CRITICAL details. Thus oversimplifying things and misleads the audience of highly complex events.
+KashelGladio The Directors Cut is a completely different movie. As said above, it explains his expertise as a siege and castle engineer. It also has a whole plot on the succession crises were the king and his sister get to know the protagonist better.
Dankaert Lexicon No yeah, the succession plot gives Isabela some much-needed characterization and gives her relationship with Balian a lot more dimension.
Just one theological correction, the crusades were known as an indulgence. This doesn't mean all their sins are forgiven, it means temporal punishment can be lessened for guilt of sin that is already forgiven. Think of it as a form of penance. I say this, as the video tries to undo common misconceptions, well this is one of them and a major one. The crusaders were not saved once and forever, that is a modern prostestant idea. The crusaders were Orthodox/Catholics Christians, faith was lived day by day.
That's actually not true. The reality was that to go on Crusade was considered a cleansing of the spirit of all sins. It's the whole reason behind the People's Crusade (which is kind of the crusade version of a prologue). Almost entirely made up of poor or landless knights, the reason they left was partially due to their desire to be considered without sin.
@@berubeacting5858 the peoples crusade was lead by "Peter the Hermit" and the peasants that partook were motivated by a series reasons, a major one being poverty. It was not part of the official crusade. The reason why we know that it was for "temporal punishment for sins already forgiven" and not the "cleansing of all sins" is that this is not what an indulgence is. The pope granted an indulgence and not an absolution. If he granted an absolution then you would be correct.
@@edmund7290 according to Robert the Monk ( who was present at the Council of Clairemont where Pope Urban II gave the speech considered to have started the crusades) Pope Urban II said : "God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven." Fulcher of Chartres wrote that the Pope also said: "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins..." which can also be seen in a letter he wrote to the Flemish as well. The idea of plenary indulgences certainly existed, but it wasn't anywhere near the intrepretation needed to make an assault on the Holy Land make sense. The Crusades involved a looooot of killing, even if it was killing "heathens", which would still have run counter to the scope of early Medieval indulgences. Generally indulgences consisted of prayers or "charitable" acts. In fact the shift towards making indulgences more and more about nobility giving money to the Church could easily have been a reaction to the Crusades.
@@chainmbl4257 what propaganda? I agree the overall message of religious tolerance and all that doesn't really fit in a middle-ages setting but most main characters' attitudes were largely similar to real life imo
Right? During the beginning where they explain that he was an unusually talented siege engineer in a handful of feudal conflicts before he became a blacksmith was KIND OF a big thing to explain why he was able to do the things he did.
That's just the thing: unusually talented siege engineers don't just "become blacksmiths". They remain siege engineers. When I first saw this video 8 years ago, I thought he was being unusually harsh. Now, years later, I know a little bit of mediaeval history and the movie is just absurd. Still fun, but absurd. To give you a perspective: imagine the finance minister of your country dies. A couple days later, a young lad with no prior experience just turns up and says "I'm the new finance minister. The last one came to me before his death and told me his long lost son" Who would accept that? Would the citizens? Would other members of his party or the government? Would other ministers or the prime minister/president? And you ask if he has any experience, and he says "oh, I was a graduate from Harvard business school before I started working as a mechanic. Before I was a mechanic I was an unusually talented accountant at a large company" Are you starting to see how absurd this sounds? And then the country enters into a period of conflict and they say "you know that finance minister. He's a good guy. Apparently he's also a talented surgeon, because he learned that at Harvard as well. Let's bring him on board for military strategy" An alternative version: imagine the senior HR manager at a big company does and the next day a young graphic designer shows up, claims to be his long lost son, and simply takes over his position. Would the employees just accept this? Would the board of directors just say "well your dad was a good man. I see nothing wrong leaving such an important task to someone we don't even know". Would the owner of the company say "I think you should be ceo" or would he say "bro your father can't just decide who is his successor. I decide that" This should give you a roughly good idea of mediaeval politics, and how absurd this film is even if you take away historical accuracy. A siege engineer turned black smith becoming a baron over the course of a few days is like a military engineer turned mechanic turned minister of agriculture. It can happen, but it's so rarely and absurd you'll have to write a hell of a story for it. Every character that meets Balian should just go "damn, you're an exceptionally talented, charismatic individual with incredible luck and intelligence".
the scene where Saladin only wants the men who attacked the travelers and his sister's body, is actually pretty accurate. Saladin actually did something similar in history
i would also say the guy in the video somewhat misses the mark. there are moderates and radicals on both sides in the movie. I would say the main point of the movie is more so 'cant we all just get along' or so. also keep in mind when it came out, only a couple years after 9/11
@@cowboybob5301exactly, the whole plot for the battles in the movie are: “two wise kings are pushed to a war they do not want to fight by their moronic vassals”.
Director’s cut shows him spending an entire night with Baldwin talking about philosophy, strategy (since Balian has fought wars before as an engineer), and politics. Baldwin knows him Also the cut shows Saladin is dealing with extremists on his own side
yeah he definitely didnt see the directors cut, the version he saw i can see why hes so critical. The theatrical cut isnt very clear, the directors cut answers most of his gripes.
His focus is on the historical inaccuracies of the movie. If the director and writers bothered to follow the actual history of the events and people. Then it would make more sense, but just like Braveheart. History is tossed aside for the sake of creativity.
Practically every description of Saladin Ive ever heard was a honourable intelligent man even the crusaders had enough respect not be bias when describing him.u gotta respect that.
He maybe was honorable in war. But he was well known to persecute and publicly execute people who didn't want a muslim rule. And christians and jews especially were very hardly persecuted during his era as ruler of these regions. But he was "comparatively" less cruel than other arab leaders at the time. But he was still very very cruel. Honor does not equal good.
@@mathewemad9661I mean, he was less cruel than the people who came centuries before and would came centuries later. So I think say "Very, very cruel" is kinda overkill.
@@AimForMyHead81 not "significantly" per say. coptic Christians have entire books about his persecutions. there were in history far more peaceful muslim rulers than him tbh
I have seen the director's cut on RU-vid and I can say it's still not a masterpiece. The shots are great but it still misrepresent the time period and the poeple of the time. This movie reminds me of the film Avatar. Where the shots and effects are amazing but the story telling is filled with cliches and has bad story telling.
Masterpiece? Its post modern garbage. The directors cut doesn't solve any of the problems he mentioned. The movie looks nice and the costumes were very good, maybe the best overall depiction of the high middle ages on film, ever made. That doesn't change the fact that the story itself was made to smear western society and christianity.
17:19 I'm going to try really hard not to rant, but "Medieval society would never accept a bastard as King". Not true. Medieval society did this several times. Just as examples, Henry II of Castile, William I of England, Ferrante of Naples, John I of Portugal, and Sweyn III of Denmark. Apparently Denmark did that fairly often.
Also, the Christian kingdoms in Outremer were in a nearly constant state of border conflict or open warfare, and the heavy casualties that resulted meant a lot of bastards inherited lands and titles, and women were often heirs conveyant whom any skilled knight could hope to marry.
To the defense of the film's portrayal of Bailen, he was a siege engineer as shown in the director's cut and not just a blacksmith. So making him the defender of Jerusalem as shown in the movie would theoretically make sense. He would have clearly fought in battle before, though not as skilled as a knight, and clearly have experience in sieges and therefore the defense of cities. I think a lot of the plot fallbacks of the theatrical film are answered by the directors cut and unfortunately were lost when many of the scenes were removed.
LMFAO thats obviously just an excuse cooked up at the last minute to justify how balian would even have the slighest idea of sieges. Just a a made up sentence to defend the shitty plot
bailan's backstory was done earlier on, including being not accepted by his uncle and half brother priest. that's how we know he had siege experience before meeting the king. by telling the king what he would have done for jerusalem's defense upon their first meeting, impress the king. the movie made it seems like they had a long discussion of things in their first meeting. the movie didn't really emphasize that the princess husband was not liked by the king and that godfrey's journey home might be to look for a husband to replace her husband. if this was the plot by the king's side, it would make sense how the princess came to ibelan after balian's first arrive, before even balian's official presentation to the king. godfrey was trusted by the king and had credit in the kingdom's prosperity up to this point. and it would make sense then for the king to offer balian to head his army by marrying the princess and executing the princess current husband. balian's story arc had him be the perfect knight to redeem himself and his wife and unborn child. it was also why he didn't accept the king's offer, dooming what was to come after the king die. also godrey told balian in the kingdom of heaven, deed counted just as much family connection with the emphasis on crusading knights weren't by next in line to inherit from their fathers. the crusading knights were to make a name for themselves. godfrey did this because he was not the eldest to inherit his father position.
Ah the nostalgia. The director's cut was amazing compared to the original. The characters I loved in the movie were Saladin and Baldwin IV. Their presentations were epic.
"Medieval Society would never accept a Bastard as King..." *Laughs in William of Normandy* *Laughs in Bernard, Son of Pepin* *Laughs in Eadweard of England* *Laughs in Vladimir of Kievan Rus* *Laughs in sons of Sweyn - Harald, Canute, Oluf, and Eric* *Laughs in John of Aviz, King of Portugal* *Laughs in Manfred of Taranto* *Laughs in Brother and Son of Alfonso V* *Laughs in Bretislaus I of Bohemia* *Laughs in Enzo, King of Sardinia*
The position those guys had was not handed to them like most Kings but they have to fight and force others to accept them HB intends to say that they can be accepted but not without them successfully convinsing everybody they are worthy to have the crown. The mistake in the film was that unlike most of these people who are locals and are well known in their regions or in the conquerors case already making an name for himself Movie Balian already has allies in the Jerusalem court which is unlikely because he is both an outsider and a bastard which means he needs double the effort but instead he becomes lord without protest. It would have been better if Movie Balian was just an outsider with military experience than a bastard.
@@forickgrimaldus8301 I agree with you on that, I would have preferred if the movie did away with "Journey to the Holy Land" and established Balian as already established Crusader Count (as he was). It might have been more interesting in that case to show his tensions with the Knights Templar as they would have had history. (unlike modern Romantic Depictions, Knights Templar were not well liked by other Beholden Lords and Knights to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as Knights Templar did not pay taxes and were not in Jurisprudence of the King of Jerusalem)
@@HierophanticRose however not like this as the film turns them into violent thugs which is inaccurate also they are not the only ones exempt as the other Knightly orders were exempt the only difference here was that a lot of Kings had depts to pay to the Templars which equals to a ton of Royalty and Nobility having an axe to grind against the Templars.
@@HierophanticRose there is an interesting story about a Muslim diplomat that was visiting a Templar Chapel where he commented at them as being their "friends" as they treated him with respect even though they despised each other and the diplomat does not really think highly of other "Franks".
Thou shall not kill is actually a mistranslation. The 6th commandment is specifically “Thou shall not murder.” Hebrew has always had 2 separate words for kill and murder like English. The commandment has always referred to murder which is obviously a huge difference
@DRayCoRpro thou shalt not kill would mean it is never acceptable to take a life. Period. Thou shalt not murder means you can kill if it is justified, like self-defense or a soldier in the military. This mistranslation is a big reason people think Christians have to be pacifists.
To the movie's defense: A lot of explanations got lost in the theatrical versions. You should watch the Director's cut. Balian is a war engineer. But I know, it still doesn't respect history.
@@Sea-zu4bj and that was exactly what he was. Going to battle with Baldwin at Carrack would have cost him dearly. He was not a fanatic, but an exceptional strategist - militarily and politically.
It's difficult to entertain a modern audience whilst being true to history. Not impossible, but in some respects like with the directors cut, its better just to get the historical flavour and focus on making a decent movie
Yup. And I really wish this channel would keep to focusing on historical inaccuracies, I can barely stand their tone there, but it gets way worse if you're starting to review films from a cineastic perspective and have no idea wtf you're talking about As perfectly demonstrated by them appearently not even being aware of the director's cut.
To be fair, in the director's cut we find out that Balian has served as a soldier and siege engineer in the past. That doesn't account for all of your criticisms, but it does salve the issues you bring up about his military competency. The director's cut version is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Yep. There is a vid floating around that talks about how almost an hour of extremely critical plot points were cut from this film. Balians character development was so astoundingly - non existent- in the final cut it was infuriating. Almost all of his motivation was left on the cutting room floor. As well as that of the Queen of Jerusalem.
the directors cut is probably the greatest directors cut Ive ever seen, I despised the original cut but the directors cut is among my favorite movies, I agree a lot of his complaints about Balian are corrected or at least less offensive in the directors cut
Yeah, this was frankly a pretty ridiculous thing to say (especially so heatedly). For someone who is complaining very loudly about the film's misunderstanding of medieval history, well...
@@joshuaprayit's not ridiculous at all. Bastards were seen as illegitimate successors and would never be seen as claimants. The only time they were "accepted" was when the bastard in question had the army to defend their claim. But that still doesn't legitimize him
Also, William the Conqueror was earlier. Church laws (which were what prevented bastards from inheriting) were much more lax in William the Conqueror's time, than they were even 50-70 years later. You still even see priests with wives and children as late as 1139, until the Second Lateran Council put a stop to that shit.
In Nick's defense, William the Conqueror was the only male child of the Duke of Normandy (despite being a bastard) so that's why the Duke wanted to leave Normandy to him, and the King of France supported the claim...which is why he inherited it in the end.
So he doesn't get proposed to by Sybilla's brother and she actually sides with her husband, a man to whom she historically remained loyal? Does she also die soon after the city falls? As Nick says, this film is bollocks.Looks gorgeous though.
Exactly, I`m no history expert, but it was clearly that being historical accurate aint one of the goals of this movie. I would even call it romantic before anything else. I have just watched it two weeks ago for the first time and now cant stop thinking about it ever since. While I agree that Crusaders have been pointed one-sided and cruel, I think its more about a fact that Crusaders eventually failed, heck, Austrians captured King Richard and demanded ransom, so Ridley took that into account. Movie is painting bigger picture here, its portrait of something more than just Kingdom of Jerusalem.
There are always exceptions to rules like this in history, while certainly unlikely, anything Is possible with power, and we can safely say William earned his new nickname "the conquered."
+alvaro vazquez The difference here is that William didn't inherit England, he conquered it, given that I'd say that it gives him a certain legitimacy, kind of the whole right by might kind of thing.
+alvaro vazquez His claim was seen as weak and nonexistent by pretty much all nobility. Only because he had Harold Godwinson delivered to him and made him promise to support his claim and even then it was only because Godwinson was an extremely influential Earl. Then Harold took his support back and the Anglo-Saxon nobles said it was made under duress and didn't count anyway. William won because he had a bigger army. No one actually thought he had any right to claim England.
Hahaha, that is an excellent point! I meant it more as a statement that he was accepted only because he had the might to back it up rather than because the populace actually thought he had a right to rule.
I dont know about England, but most of Europe wasn't game of thrones. Bastards sons were acknoledge and recognized all the time, and inherited. Full noble houses were begun from bastard, for gods sake. So yeah, maybe medieval england was like Game of Thrones, but most of Europe wasn't. The rest, I can agree on.
In earlier periods, sometimes, depending on where you're talking about. But by the period in which this movie takes place, the 1180s, that has started to come to an end.
So sick of directors and the “morally righteous” shoving bullshit down my throat. Stick to the facts, both sides were evil in different ways and committed horrible acts to the other at different intervals in history. This movie would have been 10 times better if they stuck to the original story and let the audience decide how they felt about each side. Making only the Crusaders comically evil is downright diabolical just to push your agenda. Ridley Scott blundered what could have otherwise been a great movie.
This! The film is specifically anti-Christian Crusader and perpetuates the classic “Muslims and Christians are the same” ignoring the point that both religions saw each other as heretical beliefs because of how different they actually were.
You are reviewing the butchered version. The studio forced Ridley Scott to cut out great plot points and character development. The director's cut version is a masterpiece.
@@L1b3rta It's not a fucking documentary. Like most of these movies, it is vaguely based on the historical context for the purpose of the movie. There isn't much to be ashamed of.
You know what was the biggest problem in Kingdom of Heaven? Gladiator. Ridley Scott tried to remake Gladiator. Sure Gladiator has very little historical accuracy but it works as a movie. If you compare the two protagonists what you have is a noble hero that loses his wife, is loved by a mentor and a ruler (that both eventually die), is entrusted with great power but declines it and in the process jeopardizes the life of the son of the woman he loves. The major difference was that Maximus had a simple, clear motivation - revenge. What was Balian's motivation? To be a good knight? Okaaaay... Also, Gladiator had Russel Crowe as the lead while Kingdom had fucking Orlando Bloom. That was pretty much the final nail in the coffin
+poontang3zizo There is an idiom in Russian "Из грязи в князи" which translates literally as "From dirt to a king". It describes a situation when a nobody becomes a figure of great importance for virtually no reason. I think Ridley Scott likes that kind of stuff. In Gladiator the hero was at least an important person before he was made a gladiator. In Kingdom of Heaven, however, the main character becomes a knight and gets everything for no reason really.
+poontang3zizo I think Balians motivation is quite clearly a search for redemption. I agree though that the plot moves way too conveniently (at least in the inital cut, I really like the Director's Cut).
Catholic here, some corrections: Firstly: he granted a plenary indulgence, which is not an ultimate guarantee of Heaven. It is a remission of all past sins, and an elimination of time due in Purgatory up to the point. If you sin mortally or otherwise after that, it begins to add up. Secondly: for the 5th commandment, the Hebrew verb רצח (ratsakh) is the word in the original text actually translates as "murder". Not 'kill' as is contemporarily circulated in our Protestantised humanistic readings of the Bible. Very different consequences.
I like how Nick points out the mass conversion of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa during the period of Muslim expansion. It really shines a light on a historical trend that is seldom discussed in popular discourse.
People tend to forget that the Muslim Empire was well an empire and got land anyway they can and that it split some time later forming many Califates and Sulatanates in the process.
It was a clash of civilisations that were both vying for regional and international dominance. The endless push-pull of the tides of history. The Persian Empire aggressed the Greeks, the Greeks aggressed the Persians, the Romans aggressed the Greeks, the Steppe Hordes aggressed the Romans, then the Islamic Invasions aggressed Christian and Jewish societies, and invaded Christian lands. A response is almost as certain as tides coming in after receding. Nothing is ever static, and nothing is truly forgotten.
I disagree with both the movie and nick's analysis ,nick missed the point that indeed the muslim world under saladin regime was relatively more tolerant and pregressive compared to the christian states at the time ,the first conquest of jerussalem by arabs was completely bloodless ,the christian citizens and pilgrims got relatively nice treatment from the muslim rulers compared to how other minorities were treated in the other parts of earth .but only after the turk takeover of muslim world things became more chaotic ,the minorities got a lot of oppressions and discriminations(just like how in europe or everywhere else at that time) .this harsh treatment by the turks was the one ignited this crusade .but than after the the saladin rule ,things got better again hence this movie portayed the muslims as "not evil"
The movie didnt even villainize the christians unlike what he implied ,it only portrayed the templars for how they were ,notice how wise king baldwin and his men are in this movie .and its the fact that medieval muslim world was far more progressive than medieval christendoms with its "nice" tolerance on religious and racial diversity (turks r the exception) ,so the movie portrayal of christian-muslim relation in medieval time is actually quite fair and accurate
What about Saladin? In history, he really was an extremely noble man. Treated women fairly, allowed Christians to keep their land and faith, and strook a weird friendship with Lionheart. He died with only 1 gold coin and 36 silver dinari. Dante put him in Limbo and named him Noble Saladin.
I agree that that distinction is important. Though I still think his statement is on point, that all the in-fighting of the time is hard to justify from a Christian standpoint; which is why the Catholic Church may have wanted to put a stop to it.
@@jeffbenton6183 I suggest reading "God's Battalions" by Rodney Stark. The Crusades were not started by the Christians, and the push back was to ensure it wouldn't happen again.
@@Liberator130 Thanks. As a Catholic, I would like to read that perspective. Though another historian I like to follow seemed to imply that's the wrong way to view that history, so I'll keep an open mind.
While I'm at it, I should add this to what the OP said: we Catholics call it "the 5th commandment" rather than the 6th. Instead of separating the "no other gods before me" and the business with graven images, we seperate the coveting of neighbor's goods from neighbor's wife. A small distinction, having nothing at all to do with the I'd point, but I felt I should mention it, now that I noticed it.
Slight correction, in the directors cut it does briefly explain Balian did design siege equipment for his lord in France. This is how he was able to know about planning a siege.
It is a far better film, and one of my favourites. But in terms of historical accuracy (which is very much this channel's prime purview) it's a scant improvement.
@@royalblue5367 Yeah but, there's so many points he stresses over that are not issues in the Directors cut and they all create more accurate world building. Ridley Scott has full on disowned this cut, its dog shit.
7:24 Excuse me, but are those men wearing a mail coif without padding? Wouldn't that be extremely uncomfortable and completely inaccurate as to how you actually use mail?
Not to mention it would be fairly ineffective at actually protecting you; it would perhaps turn aside blows which would have cut you, but you'd just get massive concussions instead.
Also, the real Balian was middle-aged at this time. They should've had Liam Neeson play Balian, and be the main character. Bloom could've stayed as a young French knight, coming to the Holy Land for the first time, to be the fish-out-of-water who asks a lot of questions. The best thing about this movie is the armour, which they got mostly right (including details like a cylindrical skullcap under a mail coif, which I've not seen in another movie). Though Bloom too often has his head uncovered to show off his pretty face and Breck girl hair.
Technically the Balian in the movie encompass a few people from the period, they condensed about 50 years of history into one movie that takes place over at most 2-3 years.
Alas, Neesons only has a particular set of skills, and would not have known how to solve the multiple problems plaguing the holy land at the time (like farming and irrigation) thereby plunging the land into such catastrophes as famine and pestilence
The history buff seems confused that everyone loves Bailian instantly. But I think he is underestimating the fact that Bailian looks like Orlando Bloom.
Please watch the directors cut. The director’s cut is a rich, fleshed-out product that is, in my opinion, a cinematic masterpiece. It also includes time lapses and answers most of your complaints.
I saw the director's cut, It explains Orlando's military experience, partaking in his lord's wars, but not much else. and he was still a Merry sue and the movie even more boring. Sorry.
I agree, this is an odd review. The film became incoherent after having an hour cut out(see directors cut). Apart from the love affair and Ballin actually being the legitimate younger son of Barisan of Ibelin, lord of most of modern Israel, the film is very historically accurate once out of Europe, Isn't the point of this channel historical accuracy?
I still like this movie but I just accept that it’s not historically perfect. I think we’re at a point where these characters are entering mythology, especially due to movies like this
This movie came out in 2005. The point wasn't to be historically accurate, but to use the backdrop of the crusades to discuss the big questions raised by the Iraq war. So much of this movie explores the topics on everyone's minds during the occupation.
you may, but the extended cut brings very little in terms of "fixing" the historical issues, it actually introduces the theme of atheism in a period when it was unheard of and would have never been accepted. While true that some things are explained in the extended cut, the whole affair could have been explained and exposed better had they stuck with real history.
The extended cut is still a much better *film*, and you have to evaluate historical films on such a basis as well. And even with all of the inaccuracies, I think he is much too harsh on this film compared to a lot of the garbage that he reviews and is not as harsh on. As for atheism in the Middle Ages...was it really unheard of, or just never talked about? We know there were atheists in the Ancient World, and there were atheists in the Early Modern Era, but not at all in between? Also, it's never explicitly said by any of the characters that there is no god, just that they have lost their faith - and we do know plenty of people believed God had turned his back on them like Balian does. Also, the extended cut makes it clear that the most anachronistic character in the film, the Hospitaller, may have good reason to be, as it is heavily implied that he is otherworldly. And that is perfectly in keeping with what Christians at the time believed more strongly than they do now - that angels and higher beings walk among us.
I would argue that in the Middle Ages and Ancient World, the philosophy most commonly associated with asking the question "Why?" in the West would be Cynicism. Diogenes of Sinope in Ancient Greece was famous for sitting in his barrel/home and challenging passers-by on all their beliefs. Cynicism arose partly as an alternative to Stoicism and also to Greek religion. Stoicism argues that the individual soul did not survive death but that it merged with the universe, so there is a form of afterlife, but not a 'personal' one. It was the most popular religion of the upper classes in the Ancient Mediterranean and it heavily influenced Christianity. Interestingly, Epicureanism, an atheist philosophy of the Ancient World, posited that there was no afterlife, but that the gods existed - only that they had no influence over worldly affairs. Julius Caesar was an Epicurean and he argued on this basis that the death penalty was not a punishment, as the condemned did not suffer. There have even been many religions that have gods and other supernatural entities who do influence world affairs, and to whom praying is effective, but which have no afterlife. Many animistic religions hold this view. Even the Jewish Sadducee sect referenced numerous times in the Bible explicitly did not believe in an afterlife, and in the entire Old Testament there are only a few references to life after death.
Bipolarbear 4873 i agree that atheism wasn't born recently but what i was saying was that it would have been unacceptable to be vocal about It, as is balian, in the middle ages, people have been excommunicated for much less and at the time autority was given "from God" there was the understanding that people were in power because of the Will of God and to doubt the Faith publicly would have had enormous repercussions, for example balian's followers may have denounced and abbandoned him
Presenting the historical inaccuracies of the movie is one thing. Expecting to be spoon-fed every single detail of a blacksmith's journey from France to the siege of Jerusalem in a 3 hour movie is just moronic. All in all, this was a bad review of a good movie.
@01001100 01001010 This isn't a review of the movie, though. More an analysis based on it's historical accuracy (or the lack thereof in the case of this movie). And in this regard, this movie couldn't fall harder. Of course, he's just human, so his personal bias will influence his view on the movie itself, and how he talks about it and the plot besides the historical aspect. That doesn't make his points about the historical aspect wrong, though.
He's not really unbiased though. He falls into the fallacy of depicting the various Islamic states that existed up to the Crusades as one conglomerate unified in its actions and goals toward Europe. The Battle of Tours is pretty much the last major military move by any Islamic state to attempt to conquer Central Europe. He mentions the "sack of Rome" in the 9th century (an incredibly intellectually dishonest statement) but the city itself was never sacked, the Aurielian Walls prevented that. Only the outskirts were. The "sack" itself was perpetuated by raiders from the Aghlabids emirate in modern day Tunisia. A polity that was independent from the Abbasid Caliphate who was more preoccupied with fighting the Byzantine Empire. We can't just look at the actions of a small polity and believe it to be the actions of a far larger culture across a wider geography. If he truly wanted to do the "both sides were bad" argument then maybe he should've talked about how the Seljuk Turks were attacking both Muslim and Christian alike when they invaded the Middle East despite being Muslim themselves.
+LordVader1094 When he says that small detail, he's referring to the period just before the Crusades. He does not make this distinction during his little "anti-PC" rant. You also fall into this generalization fallacy. You guys are so focused on the fact that because they were Muslim, it means ALL of Islam was being aggressive against Europe. In Iberia, the Muslim states there didn't have grand plans to conquer Europe, they were content with their rule in Iberia and also had to contend with their own internal issues. I don't know which states you'd be referring to when talking about Greece, considering that no Muslim state existed in Greece until the Ottomans in the 1400s, but you're most likely referring to their precursors the Seljuk Turks. The Turks being Muslim was a minor difference for them in the grand scheme of warfare. They were a steppe peoples that were migrating from Central Asia, they invaded the Eastern Roman Empire because their lifestyles up to that point encouraged raiding for additional resources. Honestly, I'm surprised that no one has decided to go to the other side of the coin with this argument and talked about Christian aggression against Islam. In the 11th century, Muslim Sicily fell to the Normans, never again to reenter that cultural sphere. In Spain, the Christians soon ransacked the Muslim states there overtime. Afterwards, they forced all Muslims to either leave or convert. Then in Anatolia, before the entry of the Turks, the Roman Empire was occasionally making ground against the Abbasids and various emirates in the area. Then there's the matter of the Crusades over the next few centuries. A stupid argument like this ignores the intricacies, nuance, and time span between these various events. It's incredibly problematic when people decide to justify history by looking off on a checklist, cherry picking the events they want to fit their argument and just using broad brushstrokes in order to fit their present day world view.
I'm a history student who is focusing on and writing a paper on the Crusades and I will say that this movie might give 1492 a run for its money when it comes to historical inaccuracy. For starters, the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is an event that is simply too massive to be depicted in a movie. It really was a Game of Thrones style period of intrigue and backstabbing that would take three hours just to provide context, let alone show the fall. Lets get the major inaccuracies out first. Balian of Ibelin was not a bastard and lived his whole life (as far as we are aware) in the Holy Land. Baldwin would never have worn such a stupid outfit considering his body was covered with sores. Queen Sibilla did actually love Guy of Lusignan and it was because of this love that Guy became king. Guy was the last man anyone wanted to be king and actually forces Sibilla to divorce Guy before she could be crowned on the condition that she got to pick the next king. She chose Guy much to the horror of the kingdom. Raynald of Chatillion was a kill crazy bastard but he never killed Saladin's sister. The real reason the Saladin killed Raynald was because Raynald had actually financed a pirating expedition into the Red Sea with the objective of sacking Mecca. This failed and Saladin, who had proclaimed himself to be the protector of Islam, was forced to declare jihad against the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Keep in mind that this is the most basic stuff. I could go on for hours on what this film gets wrong between the crusader costumes being used interchangeably with those of the Templars or the part where Baldwin is seen walking but this comment is long enough. I am glad that you called attention to bullshit of this movie.
I recommend the book @The Crusades seen by the ARABS *roughly translated, it also explains that Raynald disrespected several pacts and he actually was the one that influenced King Guy with his politics rather the other way around.
Red Rose Wish to deny historical facts in favor of a political cause meant to justify the actions of radical Islam and demonize all forms of Christianity?
powerist Some of the most rapid expansion of the Christian Church was within the Roman Empire, even with opposition from the likes of Nero, and for Christian roman citizens afforded a great amount of freedom and many missionary opportunities so that within a few hundred years much of the empire including the emperor were Christian, so I'm not sure they minded the romans all that much...
both sides were bad. The only saving grace was Aladin himself who was a person who respected the enemies, stuck to his words and cherished his men. When he died, he gave all this fortune to the poor.
You can't use the excuse of Wikipedia of being unreliable. Details can be unreliable within an article not the ENTIRE ARTICLE itself. The article itself should encourage you to google this. But in any case I am done wasting my time on this if people are too stubborn to listen and lazy to find out themselves.
The article has few citations and there is no balance. You would expect to see an argument that this period of time was not a renaissance which could then be overridden by the evidence for it. The article is unreliable. Not to add to the fact that we can't see where it has been cited itself, but in all probability it has never been cited by journal article or book which again brings into question this article. On the laziness thing, well aren't you trying convince us that this period existed. If I say your evidence for it is unreliable then you've either got to find more evidence or say why it is reliable. And on the stubbornness thing, if I disagree with you because I feel the evidence is unreliable that doesn't make me stubborn. And if you ask the same questions I do about your own argument and evidence but, can convince yourself that it remains valid then you wouldn't be either. However, saying to someone who disagrees with you on a point that they are stubborn for not agreeing, says more about yourself than the other person.
The Topography is wrong too. Jerusalem is a city on hills/mountains with an escarpment between it and Jericho. There isn't any large open flat plains to have the long-range bombardment depicted in the movie.
After you've watched the Director's Cut you won't want to ever watch the original again. It 'fleshes' out some of the characters. Without spoilers - the relationship between Balian and the Priest is revealed as is the relationship between Liam Neeson's character and the lord of the area. There are also extended bits with Isabella.
If you watch the original the movie seems really fast, like half of it is missing. Then you watch the DC and learn that half the movie WAS missing. Some significant bits of the main story are different in the DC as well.
About the bastardy bit with Balian, you are right that him simply getting knighted wouldn’t make him the heir to his father, but it’s not impossible for him to inherit his lands. They would’ve had to go through what is probably a fairly lengthy procedure of legitimization with him, but it’s not unheard of. William the Conqueror after all was a literal bastard and was even referred to as “William the Bastard” yet still inherited Normandy.
Well said. The claim that bastard children could never "get in" only shows a lack of familiarity with medieval history. My feeling is that the area in which this channel is truly "at home" is maybe 18th and 19th century military history (based on the excellent reviews of The Last Of The Mohicans, Master & Commander, The Bounty, The Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves etc)
@@alexandrumircea Yeah definitely, I get the same vibe as well that he’s far more familiar with later century history than Medieval. Nothing wrong with that of course, but still like you said it’s apparent if he didn’t know bastards could inherit under the right circumstances.
I think his point was that Godfrey can’t just name him the Baron of Ibelin. Since Godfrey didn’t have a legitimate son or daughter, his lands would revert back to the King after his death. From there the King would decide if he wanted to reward one of his supporters with the land or annex them into his own land so that they belong directly to the Kings and Queens of Jerusalem. Balien could petition for the Barony but unless he had people backing him in court it seems unlikely that he would be successful.
You forgot to mention the geographic inaccuracies regarding Jerusalem's surroundings as a city in the middle of a fucking flat dessert instead of being between fricking mountains!
Fun fact: Eva Green's character is not only a descendant of her character from the 300 sequel but in her later life became a witch obsessed with a man named Barnabas
+TheoKabala89 Same here, weirdly enough. Though, with what some might call an overactive imagination, I have a tendency to plaster over plot holes and then need to have them pointed out to me after the fact. Honestly, I enjoy this movie, even knowing what I do. The movie has a certain charm in the soundtrack, and many other aspects, including quite a few of the character, even if they aren't accurate to their real life counterparts.
+TheoKabala89 Thank God. Apparentely writing a screenplay and actualy motivate the audience through plot mechanics is a crime. It's a movie, not a documentary. This just comes across as a stupid angry rant meant to elevate himself more than educate himself. He keeps forgetting. It's a fucking movie.
Yes but in our half-educated world people, especially students, have no discernment in separating fact from fiction. Can't tell you how many of my students bought this as history, just as they bought e.g. the DaVinci Code. There are Curious sociological implications of this preference for fantasy, and accepting it over reality, actually.
Fair points about thr historical accuracy, however, I found that the acting was extremely high level and all of them were able to delivery depth and humanity to their characters
In the beginning, his blacksmith forge, Balian did mention that he fought in multiple wars, "on horse and as an engineer also", "for one lord against another over a point which cannot be remembered". So his knowledge of strategy and siege weaponry.
Henrique Souza Its just a much better movie. Flows better and some key plot points are in. Think studios are under pressure from execs and movie theaters to make movies under 2 and a half hours so they can do more showings. Same thing happened to Batman v Superman.
To be at least mediocre, this movie would have to replace half the script with actual good writing. I doubt a few extra scenes can fix that, flow or no flow.
the credits say that footage of the directors cut was used. however, the credits also say that another guy edited the video, so its possible that the guy you hear talking didnt see the directors cut. and i honestly think he didnt see it because he complains about stuff that is explained in the directors cut.
I used to like this movie but not as much as i used to now. I agree that the main character is a Mary sue. but the biggest problem is of-course its trying to be PC for the sake of not offending Muslims today. I want to see a crusader movie that dosent pull any punches and show the absolute cruelty of both sides.
So you want to see women being raped on camera and children and the elderly killed in mass executions? It won't change anyone's opinion lol because both sides were forced to commit atrocities. That movie would serve no purpose but to satisfy the ego of those who are already anti-Islamic or anti-Christian, it changes no one's opinion.
Let's be completely honest for a second, that's because almost every written account of the Crusades (many by Christians themselves) reveal that one side was far more atrocious in their crimes and that's just something that you have to accept. It's easy to say war is 50-50 always and both sides do the same crimes and the same amount of genocide but that's what they tell you when you're 6 years old to make you stop worrying about it. Christians lived under Muslims before the Crusades and after the Crusades and they still live in the Middle East, sometimes it's satisfying to claim that those 'sand people' treat our lost Christian brothers like shit, but that's just not true. Maybe that frustrates some people but it doesn't change the truth.
Another thing that is funny is that when the byzantine emperor asked for help he asked for a small, elite group of soldiers not a massive army. When the pope sent him thousands upon thousands of men to his aid he was actually really mad.
Love your historical analysis that at least tries to be objective in comparison to most on youtube. As an Egyptian from a Muslim family, let me add that Salah El Deen and his Ayyubids as well as the Seljuks were far kinder ans chivalrous to the Western crusaders than to Egyptians and I presume other peoples under his rule. To the point that his brother at a later date handed Jerusalem back to the Crusaders as a gift/dowry. While Rey auld de Chattilion was a right royal prick and his character in the movie, to me, was spot on, the crusades were not simply Muslim vs Christian. 1) Rivalries and bloodshed within Muslim and Christian leaders were as bloody as was between them. 2) Many conflicts during the Crusades were often between allied Christian and Muslim vs other allied Christian and Muslim leaders. 3) frequently The Western Crusaders showed little mercy to the Eastern Christians just as Muslim Leaders showed little mercy with Muslims. 4) As far as regular people go, North African and Levantine peoples were about 50/50 in terms of religious affiliations and often suffered just about equally under Tyrants of both religions. 5) The crusades is a heavily politicised story to our day, and political regimes in the West as well as Muslim world continue to add fictitious fuel for political aims. I hope as human species we can truly invest in reading history properly, lest we repeat our mistakes. Thanks to your work, it does help in that regard. Subscribed, liked, and shared. Be well mate 🤙🏽👍🏽
Ah, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling whenever somebody covers the Crusades in a historically acurate matter and discards all the bullshit misrepresentations.
Can you recommend a movie that fits that profile , please? I'd love to watch it. This one was a time -killer, but I know the inaccuracies take away something.
I think he's being a bit hyperbolic for the sake of entertainment and the whole 'critique' stich, but the history is ... how you say ... skewed. As all entertainment's interpretations of history is.
The problem is we don't get to know the morals of those people. The movie reflects our current morals through these people, so we cannot really learn history, only some data.
Have to admit I do cringe a little when watching 2nd world war movies that make up or even spin facts in favour of the allies. Both sides had their sadistic & cruel moments! This movie is different however; there is not much I know about the Crusades but (fictionalisations aside) the movie puts context to it much better than a textbook ever could! I understand The History Buff's points of view but there was no need to look deep and far beyond the historical inaccuracies in my opinion. His criticism of Ballion as a character especially was a bit too hyperbolic as others have pointed out, too. Plus he mistakenly said 'resumé' as opposed to 'Curriculum Vitae' in his native British English...hmm...! 🤔
@DrPeePeePooPoo because it was never lost... how would you rediscover shit that was never lost in the first place. Byzantium was a direct continuation of Rome, and so was their knowledge.
@@emeraldashborers4261 dark ages is a term from the last cenrury mate. You should read some more recent pubblications. The church wrote all kinds of ancient knowledge down. About mythologie, astrology, history or just Prosa. They didn't hold knowledge back, most people just couldn't read.
@@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506 In fact the term dark ages derives from the 14th century where it was presented as light (present) versus dark (past). Thought obviously the dived isn't quite this black and white, saying the church did not hold back knowledge isn't not quite factual ether, though it probably wasn't deliberate. The economic system after the Western Roman Empire fell simply did not have the means to maintain the ancient knowledge and the church definitely did not try to hold on to it itself. It was far to weak for that (you have to understand that a strictly organised catholic religion only started to take shape with Pope Gregorius VII in the 11th century, around the same time the economy starts growing again) In the first middle ages (I prefer this term to dark ages: 500-1000) a lot of the ancient works vanished. The Western Roman Empire was far from literary outside the big cities. After it fell, the knowledge of Latin disappeared together with the Roman upper class system. The church which tried to hold on on a very local level was the only place where the use of Latin continued though it was very scars (most priest could not understand Latin them selves). And because of this scarcity the church was very selective on what kinds of books they copied and kept. These works where far from the big ancient texts known in Roman upper culture. In the 12th century renaissance the church did start new education reforms and more broughter ancient lecture was being copied and criticized, as indeed prosa of it own. But this revival of ancient wisdom was not because the church had kept ever book on ancient knowledge. Presenting the 12th century renaissance as a consequence of unbroken church knowledge about the geeks and romans is simply wrong. At least in western Europe it is fair to say a rediscovery took place because the knowledge was in fact lost.It started because of the church efforts to open schools teaching Latin. But impossible without contact with other cultures: Muslims during the reconquista, Normans, Byzantines, Jews and Muslims in Sicily, North-Italian states during the expanding commerce started by the crusades... It would also be quite unfair to discredit the knowledge the Arabic culture and Byzantines added themself's into this mix and helped grow western European knowledge.
The movie was made and released during the heights of the US invasion of Iraq and if I remember correctly Ridley Scott made the movie with that in mind. Hence Western European Christians and Muslims are portrayed the way they were. He wanted to sort of draw parallels between the movie and what was going on at the time in the Middle East.
The anti-Christian and pro-Muslim bias in the movie also bothered me quite a lot and made it difficult to enjoy the film, despite how good it looked and how well it was shot. Modern ignorance of the Crusades is really annoying, most people think of it as a fanatical war of aggression because they don't have a clue about the rise of Islam, its centuries of war against Christian lands, and how by the time of the First Crusade a majority of the original Christian heartland had been conquered and converted, either by force or by repressive social practices that made conversion the only way to get a fair shake in life. The Crusades were a bloody and brutal business full of horrible deeds, but there was little to distinguish the warriors themselves apart from the symbols on their weapons and armor.
Current American media culture is very anti-christian and pro-muslim dispite the atrocities purpetrated against civilian populations by those claiming Islamic affiliation. Anti-semitism and anti-christian rhetoric flood the internet and social media.one cannot help but notice that the current President espouses a very peo- muslim foreign policy while systematically dismantling the bastions of American culture based ob Biblical principles and ethics with the exception of sexual morality . Interestingly the mainstream media chronically ignores this probably based in their fear of accusations of racial bias against Obama.
+jh099 : very good review. We as 21st Century persons comfortable in our modern homes need be careful to judge those of a 1000 years ago. War back then was horrible and more personal being face to face combat. When i was in my officer training program my professor of military history remarked that modern war with its nuclear weapons and now drone warfare takes the personal up front contact of warriors away as a factor for wanting peace.
+TheMythof Feminism Saladin and Balian represented what was originally intended for Islam and Christianity respectively, regardless of the overwhelming number of examples depicting the opposite of the depicted inter-faith spirit. Saladin may be only one of the few who showed compassion in war as a Muslim, but he did exemplify the true embodiment of Islam in terms of what is taught on how to be righteous and reasonable in challenging times. Muslim rulers and leaders during the Islamic Golden Age practised a lot of diplomacy and dialogue in their foreign policies, more than you would think. Read up on Muslim Spain, and the Jewish Golden Age that took place there. Read up on the Muslim-Christian interface that existed and shifted over the centuries. You will be surprised how much Christian-to-Muslim cross-over there was, both violent and peaceful, compared to the opposite situation. Christians and Jews were given special status to be able to practise their faith; many prospered well as philosphers and scientists. Non-Muslims did have to pay a unique tax, but they were also exempt from the compulsory Muslim almsgiving. The First Crusade created rivers of blood, Jewish and Muslim, that still stains the paves of Jerusalem. Orientalism has conciously and subconciously biased our view of Islam and its place in Middle Eastern and European history. The largest chunk of the world we cannot afford to misunderstand, and yet an agenda calls for us to feel we cannot afford to portray the legacy of Islam uncensored.
well the germans hate to talk about the jewish genocide and same goes for the turks and the Japanese. its not PC its for people who want history to forget there mistakes.
+Kristoff Bjorgman™ It was a secular humanist message, to be respectful and tolerant of others and don't harm others, as displayed by the sympathetic characters in the film. The sympathetic characters are the ones who are open to the religions, but don't believe very much. Also, the film follows the modern democratic and humanistic ideals about the pursuit of happiness, not the medieval Christian (regardless of Catholic or Orthodox) ideal of taking up your cross. For example, the hero commits adultery; a sin serious enough to be the ten commandments , and the film doesn't portray them as feeling any qualms about it, whereas in real life her relationships depended on her marriage and being widowed, not whether or not her husband were 'in love'. Instead, in the film he had qualms only of killing Guy (killing is still bad to secular humanists).
Accuracy matters. The commandment is NOT "Thou shalt not kill". The commandment IS "Thou shalt not Murder" There is a world of difference between the two. You should know better.
+Daniel Hall YES! I really liked that German 'warrior-lawyer' guy. Seemed like a very interesting character to have around. He could have been very useful in settling the whole 'Bastard has no claim' issue.
The first crusade was more of a response to Seljuk Invasion as they were a lot less intolerant to heathens than the previous Arabic rulers. In some sense its really a cultural aversion more than a religious one. Religion is just the tool. This also backs the fact that it took that long to get a response from Christian realms.
And also let's not forget when the 1st Crusaders Arrived in Jerusalem, they Massacred EVERYONE. Muslims, Jews and even Christians... well at least there isn't any discrimination i guess...
I don't agree that Balien had limited military experience as you state in the movie. In the movie it shows that he has experience of building siege engines - that is, probably, only done in war time. This does not make him an experienced commander but there could be more in his past that we simply don't know. Just because it's not shown in the movie does not mean it did not happen.
He did not state that, in fact, he stated the opposite. He stated that the REAL Balien had that military experience but there was no way that the movie Balien coud have acquired so much military experience in such a short time to be declared defender of Jerusalem.
panzerabwerkanone Are you presuming that Balien did not get this experience before the period shown in the movie? Just because it's not shown in the movie does not mean it did not happen.
No the possibility of a bastard blacksmith living in France would not have had the experience of the real Balien who actually lived in the region and would have had a schooling in military tactics and siege warfare. Nick points out the movie is based on real events and the real person Balien and then tries to almost turn the real person into a fictional character by creating a backstory that is totally false.
I think we also need a bit of perspective when talking about the crusader sack of Jerusalem at the end of the first Crusade. Although it was probably a bit worse than most, it had been the tradition of feudal armies for a very long time that if a city did not surrender the lives and property of its inhabitants were forfeit when the city fell. Christians in Europe did similar things to other Christian cities. The common idea that it was motivated to such an extent by religious or racial hatred is just not realistic. Don't get me wrong, it probably played a part, but it was not the reason Crusaders killed so many people when they took Jerusalem.
Yeah, whenever people hear about the atrocities that happened in medieval and ancient war, they think that those cases are exceptions, but sadly times were extremely brutal.
+paranoidwaffles65. "Medieval and ancient war," Look at the past 150 years. The only thing that has change is better food production and health care so that we can watch and read how 30+million die in W.W. 2 and Stalin Russia.
+Percy Danvers I don't think anyone needs to justify what the Crusaders did. They were angry? Uh, sure. But they were also shitty Norman assholes who loved looting, raiding, murdering, and justifying all this with "but they're infidels." They were pretty much JUST like the Turks in that regard--recently-converted barbarian warriors who wanted to work out their violent tendencies in a religiously acceptable manner.
+Percy Danvers It went on for longer than we realise in history as well. In 1812 Wellington's army took the fortress-town of Badajoz, which was well known for having one of the only populations in Spain that were largely sympathetic to the French. 4,000+ civilians were murdered, there were hundreds of rapes, and the cities churches were looted and desecrated. If his army had advanced through France there would have been a lot of similar atrocities.
13:11 “And that’s so you remember it.” Nope. They slapped freshly knighted knights because it was supposed to be the last blow they would take without retaliation.
@@sp10sn -To expand, there was no _one way_ to knight someone, contrary to belief. The oath was often tailored directly to the situation of who was administering the oath and who was being knighted. Just-so, it's not exactly implausible that that might be added to one's 'unanswered strike' as it could be anything from that to the light tap on the shoulders we see _done to death_ in just about every other film.
*Not at all when you realize this guy is straight up shitting on a movie out of spite. He judged wrongly when he thought everyone will just agree with him when everything he's shitting on about is carefully explained by others in the comment section.*
@@tombombadilofficial And we all know the best movies are the ones which need their important bits to be explained to its audience by the youtube comment section. Brilliant argument.
