Discussion History Film / KingdomOfHeaven

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Edit: Unfortunately I can\\\'t edit the post.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.

Now this example claims that Raynald\\\'s movie portrayal is still \\\"too mild\\\". But of the arguments given here to support that claim, none holds up against scrutinity:
* Raynald of Chatillon did not flay the Patriarch of Antioch alive. The patriarch was tortured (\\\"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimery_of_Limoges#Dispute_with_Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon_(1153) beaten until bloody, stripped naked, covered in honey, and left in the burning sun on top of the citadel to be attacked by insects]]\\\"), but he survived and lived for some 40 years after that. You don\\\'t survive flaying alive.
* Raynald may have threatened to burn Mecca, but he did not do it and may never actually have had the power to do it. There also seems to be no compelling reason to describe Raynald\\\'s fleet as a \\\"pirate fleet\\\" except that it sounds more dastardly. It was a fleet meant to plunder cities; one may call that piracy in a loose sense, but then again there is nothing unusual about this kind of warfare in the Middle Ages. We \\\'\\\'do\\\'\\\' see Raynald raiding caravans; whether raiding is done by land or by sea does not affect its moral evaluation.
* Raynald\\\'s relationship to Guy de Lusignan is irrelevant when it comes to determining the degree of his villainy. Although the fact that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon#Kingmaker Raynald supported Guy\\\'s ascension to the kingdom of Jerusalem]] makes it seem unlikely that he hated Guy very fiercely.

Conclusion: Example cannot support its claim that Raynald was subject to a HistoricalVillainDowngrade. Especially considering that the most villainous thing Raynald does in the movie, namely, the killing of Saladin\\\'s sister, is one thing he almost certainly did \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' do in reality.