14-05-2005 19:09									#181
	Suffering from ads?

Here's a little article about it, which says similar things as those which can be found in this thread (from various sides):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4544173.stm

Best however, for those who didn't know it already, is the last sentence:

quote: If you really want to know about the Crusades, the historians say, by all means go and see the film, but then go out and buy a good book.

	14-05-2005 23:33									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II Ah I see. My confusion arose from the fact that in american politics we were taught that that strand of thought was called "Jeffersonian" foreign policy... part of a 4 part typology of American foreign policy: Jeffersonian - avoiding foreign entanglements Jacksonian - emphasis on honour and military accomplishment Hamiltonian - emphasis on securing commerce Wilsonian - exporting democracy I'd say Bush's policy is an amalgam of the latter three strands.

Jackson honor? You be betrayal, exceeding military orders, ignoring Supreme Court orders and committing genocide against the Indians.

	14-05-2005 23:35									#183
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

BeBro, I think that Brit historian has got it right. This movie is a PC adaptation of history that is going to cause a lot of people to truly misunderstand history.

	16-05-2005 16:34									#184
	Put an end to popups!

I've seen it.
First of all, film is film and not schoolbook of history. But this film is a film that tries to influence our ways of thinking and as such, deformations of history present in it are more dangerous.
This film delt in reality with current history of Palestine, as visible in the conclusion and in some of the stuff the main hero said. The main idea of this film was: religion is bad, it causes fanaticism and wars. So was then, so is now. Jews practically were not present, fanaticism on Muslim side was shown only once, but Christianity, and especially clergy, is the main bad character in this film.
What are the clergy in this film shown like?
- a priest who steals the cross from the corpse of the wife of Balian, and is killed by hero.
- fanatical monks who with faces of village idiots shout out that killing heathens is right
- patriarch of Jerusalem who's shown as idiot, and two-faced guy who'd abandon his faith to retain his life and who even his cowardice explains by the will of God
- templars, who are depicted as highwaymen
- pope, who, according to this film, simply orders people to kill the heathens
there are hospitaliers, but I don't recall their name actually being mentioned (once as "your order")
Several times it had to be mentioned that I crusade slaughtered entire (which actually isn't true) Jerusalem.
If someone does anything bad, it has to be Christian side. It may be partially right in this particular time, the story of Renaud de Chatillon is about right (his relation to Gui is not shown correctly as far as I know). Saladin was an exceptional ruler, however, and as exceptional were the deeds of de Chatillon. A viewer will remember the slaughter of Jerusalem of first crusade, but about the alughter of it by Turks earlier, or much worse slaughters of Acco, Antioch and other bigger cities commited not by a band of bewildered by thousands of kms of extremly harsh journey crusaders, but by fully aware and organised Muslim rulers being even today remembered as heroes, one will not hear. But true, the film should not be blamed for this. But depicting Kingdom of Jerusalem (or half of it) as bloodthirsty warmongers, and Muslim side as actually pretty peacefull folk is untrue, and the words "king Baldwin and Saladin work together for peace" or whatever, is simply silly, especially if You recall the later mentionings of Baldwin himself about his victory over Saladin. Saladin attacked Kingdom of Jerusalem several times before the unfortunate excursions of Renald.
the pathethic love story that had to be implanted in the film I will not comment.
The most ahistorical part were the feelings and words of Balian. He is a XX/XXI century person of liberal views put into Middle Ages. His words during the siege of Jerusalem, that they're fighting for the people of Jerusalem, not for the temples that pass etc and that no-one remembers the massacre of Jerusalem today etc only make sense today as words about present Israel, make sense that current Israelis are not responsible for the bad deeds of the ones that created the state. In the times of crusades such thoughts not only were not very likely to be said or thought, but would not get applause for sure. bla bla bla etc.

	16-05-2005 16:59									#185
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Heresson I've seen it. First of all, film is film and not schoolbook of history. But this film is a film that tries to influence our ways of thinking

I think every movie does that

BTW, do they show how Saladin orders the killing of the templars he got at Hattin? Still haven't seen the movie....

	16-05-2005 19:12									#186
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned BeBro, I think that Brit historian has got it right. This movie is a PC adaptation of history that is going to cause a lot of people to truly misunderstand history.

Like Braveheart, The Patriot, Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World, Pearl Harbor, that submarine movie, and others. Wow, who would ever have guess Hollywood would get history wrong?

	16-05-2005 20:20									#187
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

In all honesty though, M&C was an adaptation of a novel, not a re-enactment of a historical event.

	16-05-2005 20:27									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

They still changed it.

	16-05-2005 20:28									#189
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara They still changed it.

Why should M&C be different from any other book made into a movie?

	16-05-2005 20:48									#190
	Support Apolyton

Let's complain that "Ivanhoe" isn't a historical character.

	16-05-2005 22:07									#191
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Like Braveheart, The Patriot, Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World, Pearl Harbor, that submarine movie, and others. Wow, who would ever have guess Hollywood would get history wrong?

I also heard massive complaints by whole countries over the recent Alexander film. Still, don't we have a right to complain a bit?

	16-05-2005 22:11									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I would hope we are above such stupidity.

	16-05-2005 23:23									#193
	Tired of ads?

And they changed M&C to make the movie more true to the books where the French were the main enemy and the Americans were the enemy only in 'Far Side of the World'.

	17-05-2005 06:08									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's funny how movies are held to such a high standard these days. Imagine if we held all movies set in the past to the same standards. Let's start with Cowboy and Indian movies and work our way through almost every movie made in america into the 60's that showed crowded streets empty of minorities. This movie is not a PC version because it manages to offend just by having a point of view. You don't have to agree with the characters ideas to enjoy the story. People are too afraid to be challenged with opinions and views that differ from theirown. I went to see Passion of the Christ even though I don't agree with the religous fanaticism prevalent in american society. Let's just judge this on the merits of cinematography, writing, acting, and storytelling.

	17-05-2005 12:59									#195
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I think every movie does that

Nah, some are just commercial ones.

quote: BTW, do they show how Saladin orders the killing of the templars he got at Hattin? Still haven't seen the movie....

No, they only show the murder of Renaud.

	17-05-2005 23:17									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Just a question from a "war" point of view. In Gladiator, Return of the King and this movie, large catapaults are effectively used against the enemy. The most effective against troops, IMHO, were the firebombs.

Did the ancients, etc., actual use such things?

	17-05-2005 23:39									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes and no. Some types of catapults used spears or small stones, which would be useless against a fortified structure. Using a trebuchet against troops, on the other hand, would be a waste, and the larger weapons were used only for bringing down structures.

I'm assuming you've heard of Greek Fire? It was a weapon invented by the Byzantines, kind of like ancient napalm. We don't know what it was or how it was delievered, but it was feared.

	17-05-2005 23:50									#198
	Full PM-box? Change here!

They used trebuchets in the middle ages. Probably not much in Western Europe during the dark ages, since (West)-Europe was rather backwards then, ancient knowledge was often "lost". Also large stone castles were not common at those times. Therefore you must see the development of those large siege engines related to the development of castles. The first crusaders weren't very familiar with sieging big castles or cities, so they got help from Byzantines (which had kept ancient knowledge) and from Italian trade cities which also provided often ships.

In 12th/13th century, when the movie plays, all sides used quite sophisticated siege techniques, and all sides were able to build excellent stone castles. Those big catapults were the best "artillery" before cannons appeared. Romans had catapults and other stuff before, as you see in Gladiator, but the movie depicts their effects IMO too "modern" (looks like if they fire napalm -edit. I mean the "explosions", no doubt they had burning stuff).

	18-05-2005 02:19									#199
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Oh, and lets not forget the Forth crusade and the sacking of Byzantium by the crusaders and their Venetian chums.

Than the Pope came close to Excommicate every Crusader who took part for all the murder and rape done in the city.

	18-05-2005 02:29									#200
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Actually the Colonel Tarenton, upon who the British bad guy flunkie was obviously based did indeed murder colonial wounded and prisoners, though AFAIK he never herded colonial civilians into a church and burned it down. The British high command didn't like his methods and rebuked him. He was not killed by the Swamp Fox as depicted in the movie, but instead survived the war. He was present at Yorktown. After the surrender, Cornwallis threw the traditional post-battle feast for the officers of both sides. He made a point of not inviting Tarenton.

The Britich solider where basely hornable man. Plus the King also dinot want his past subject harm it possible it the Redcoat herb woman and childern into church and burn the Church down would have make it impossible to have the america public expect their rule it the Red Coat have won the war.

	18-05-2005 02:33									#201
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes and no. Some types of catapults used spears or small stones, which would be useless against a fortified structure. Using a trebuchet against troops, on the other hand, would be a waste, and the larger weapons were used only for bringing down structures. I'm assuming you've heard of Greek Fire? It was a weapon invented by the Byzantines, kind of like ancient napalm. We don't know what it was or how it was delievered, but it was feared.

I don't think that any of these machines were generally used against troops, they were generally assembled on the site. Not even an idiot is going to post his troops in a field waiting nearly a month for the opposition to build their seige weapons. Even if a commander happened to have som already assembled, they're too slow to move, load and aim to use against troops in the open. The opposition would either charge and take the thing or move out of range. Arrow firing machines like ballistas or small stone throwing catapults could be used against troops inside a fort, since the troops inside of a fort couldn't just move out of range.

Greek fire was generally used at sea.

	18-05-2005 03:18									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Renaud was execute for his many crime like attacking religious cavan carry muslim to Mecca than treaty agree to by the King of Jerm and tact approval of the Pope. He launch than sea base attack in the Red Sea to take Mecca and burn it down, the King told him not to do it. The Pope was happy that loose cannon was execute also. It Renaud have burn down Mecca, the Muslim in North Africa would have burn down the city of Roma too. His fail attack on Mecca united the Muslim against the Christian. Saladin who have a hard time keeping his army together got money, supplies, free elite solider to fight for 1 year without paying then.

Renaud rape than Imperial Princess of the ERE and rape Saladin sister law who was on than religious cavan going to Mecca.

Hal Limsay than far right wing Christian of our time make Renaud out to be than good guy. When the Pope hear about
the Attack on Mecca they where close to declareing Renaud than unchristian.

	18-05-2005 16:48									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Perhaps the attitude of Renaud towards Muslims came out from his 15 years of imprisonment.

	18-05-2005 19:27									#204
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

He was a thug.

	18-05-2005 19:31									#205
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Charles, interesting. Was the rape of the ERE princess before or after the alliance between the ERE and Salah al-Din?

	18-05-2005 19:34									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Dr. Strangelove, good post, although I thought the Romans did use some big weapons on conventional battles.

When the Mongols stormed in from the East shortly after the period of this movie, they were using rockets to fire into the opposing army. The point of these rockets was as obvious as firing napalm into the German ranks in Gladiator.

	19-05-2005 01:16									#207
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned Charles, interesting. Was the rape of the ERE princess before or after the alliance between the ERE and Salah al-Din?

Before the Alliance. Plus he attack ERE land on than regulate
base. The ERE complain to the King of Jerm who did nothing about him showing what a weak king he was. The Knight Templar hated his gut for cause touble in general. The Muslim and ERE where the only civilise people in the area.The ERE and the Kingdom of Jerm where allied and for the king to do nothing about Renaud was to show that they didnot want than to be allied. Look we are loseing Italy as than ally for murbering they agent in Iraq the way we did. with our tigger happy troop there. When we shot down than Iran cicli passerage liner over the Persian Gulf without handing over supid naval captrain to Iran to be execute for his hostile action against Islam.

	19-05-2005 01:21									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Dr. Strangelove, good post, although I thought the Romans did use some big weapons on conventional battles. When the Mongols stormed in from the East shortly after the period of this movie, they were using rockets to fire into the opposing army. The point of these rockets was as obvious as firing napalm into the German ranks in Gladiator.

It depend on what type of battle they where fighting. It was than large scale battle in large formation of tighly pack man they use small engine to fire very small stones in a basket like grapeshots was once use, and to fire spear like arrows also at tight formation. It was a small battle or loose formation where use they didnot use then.

	19-05-2005 01:42									#209
	Inflate your Upload Space

The Knight Templar didnot like the ERE at all but they where intelligence enought to know they cannot fight both ERE and Saladin at the same time. The treatry allow safe passage to Christian and Muslim believe to travel safely to the Holy site was than very old one sign under the first king of Jerm with the muslim with tact approve of the Pope as it allow safe passage thought muslim land for Christian to visit the Holy land but if than Christian did than clear cut criminal act like rape he lost the protection of the pact.