Discussion Film / KingdomOfHeaven

War on Terror History of Islam (From a Vatican Perspective, U Mass-Amherst AFROTC):

600 AD: Arabia is defrauded, by Arab women's genetics, out of African mating in ancient times; the ways of Christ, the dominatrix theater actor pedophile, has destroyed Arabia. The source, of passage into Mesopotamia, outside of official channels, Egypt.

700 AD: Muhammad, derives a system of logic; an artistic work, produced by a woman, however his own theory, and a script pen, by a Jew. Together, a work of art, an instruction, to be redesigned and recompressed, outside of sight, a writer's duel; the detective's manual, a film or comic, in coming centuries.

800 AD: The conquest of Spain, North Africa, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, and India; "Money", "Arms", "Library", "God", "Trade".

900 AD: The establishment of the Rashidun; "Abu Bakr", the red light district; "Ibn-Rashid", the dueled game upon agreement, not gambling; "Uthman", the blood of Muhammad, the poverty luxury society; "Ali", the police officer, the signed paperwork. The establishment of Shi'ism, the corollary officer, to the Sunni, the Gypsy Muslim, as a games theories controller, the ZAIN ritual; the Chinese riddle, used to invoke a disassociative episode, to cure schizophrenia, the spiritual experience; (pedophilia, the holy; "hollow").

1000 AD: The People's Crusade, the demand on Vatican resolution of invader; the First Crusade, the conquest of Armenia, as Slavic Christian, Russian Orthodox; the Second Crusade, the conquest of Antioch, the trades ports of Damascus, the return to Christ as hunted, the exit from the Dark Ages, the "plowshare", and the rise of Judas, the Knight Errant; Third Crusade, the conquest of Jerusalem, the non-payer commune, the high watch over Jordan; Fourth Crusade, Pierre the Coward, the kin to Saladin, the duels over witchcraft, terrorism; Children's Crusade, the sales of children seeking war, to Africa, for seeds and samples of marijuana, by Italian merchants, the Drakes, the Chinese Navy; Fifth Crusade, the skirmishes between Baldwin IV, the O'Neill, and the Iranians, the Ayatollah, Judas versus Mullah, Jordan versus Israel; Sixth Crusade, the repatriatment of forces, and the loss of Jerusalem, to siege, poison and disease, the concept of taking a token of town, survey, as being generational in conquest, the art movement; Seventh Crusade, the thrust into Mesopotamia, failed by the German King, falling into the river and having a heart attack, the end of the Holy Roman Empire, as the warrior kings as having had a wealthy and frugal breeding, not "cheap" and "Jewish", the concept of anti-Semitic to call Jewish, to be cheap and wise, the rise of the addict and the end of Hebrew power; Eighth Crusade, Richard the Lion-Hearted, trading gold, for beets and convicts, to produce beef, pork, and chicken stock and bullion, at exchange for gold, the beginning of the Arab cow, pork, and chicken subsidy, out of Afghanistan; Ninth Crusade, the holding of Anatolia, as the Holy Roman Empire; Tenth Crusade, the return of Arab prisoners, to Italy, to be analyzed, by the deaconship. Further three Crusades, to be military wars, of Renaissance.

1300 AD: The Abbassids, the conquest of the Middle East as under black power, out of Afghanistan, the loss of the Rabbinical power, as Islam, under the "Gods", those breeding food and crop and farm, as Chinese, the superior code, returning to the Pashas, the Silk Road, the ancient adventurers under the East Indies Company; the Kurds.

1400s: The Reconquistda, of Spain, and the conquest of the Turks, of the Middle East, through slavery of both continents, of soldiers, having risen to power, Saladin having shaved the head of those relying on him, and having demanded work for food, through currency, with homosexual agents, the Scottish; to be pogrommed, as already in Britain, as "blind cats", fairies; homosexuals, "dickface".

1500s: The conquest of the Middle East, by Mongols, to eliminate assassins guilds threatening China and Russia and Egypt, through hire by mercenary viziers, the return to the Silk Road's original culture; university as prefecture, without national border or trade deal, the concept of the communist party; those empatriated to higher learning, having rewarded police forces thus, hence peace, is military readiness, against those born into piracy unions, such as Marines or Pirates.

1600s: The settlement of Latin-America, by Conquistadors, those having retaken Spain, under Frankish rule, the end to the Gauls and the beginning of the Romans and British and Portugese Arabs; the deportation, of African Gypsies, of Barca's blood, to Brazil and South America and the American Amish lands, as kings, to be taken in slavery by Maori, the common hated bigot of the South, placed there by Pitcairn, the vegetarian; the gross and fastidious farts, of someone without meat or pork or wheat barley beer. A slave owner, a Wiccan.

1700s: The American Revolution, in tobacco and potato, cigarette and vodka, out of American farms, the Madison Rule; the alliance with the Natives, through the U'Niall Boelyn, George Washington, being part Iroquois, a Mohecan (Connecticut border division), as first leader, with Madison (a Pasha, immune to the Talmud, the Shibboleth) having designed the Constitution, to release all Americans from the Talmud, if having completed studies to age 17; otherwise, slaves, having demanded medicine taken, if mixing marijuana and hard liquor, to be placed under bonded deficit, of all Americans ignoring them, as Capuchins; Christian-Muslims, not Catholics, the latter being the friend, the former being the enemy.

1800s: Spanish Revolution, Napoleonic conquest of Spain, hence government in exile in Spanish and Portugese Latin-America, sides against Arabs, and with Christianity, Catholicism, a secondary form, outside Liturgy, Irish slave, and Catechism, proper Italian, using Pentacostal beliefs instead, military state against bodily blows, the latter having struck, as homosexuals, to be hunted and raped and defecated upon, but never in literal, to confuse them, having enacted an engineer's rite, as a physical implement, an improper worker and father.

And that, is the history, of Islam, from a Vatican perspective.

Edited by chet120 Hide / Show Replies

Re: my cut of the supposed Historical Villain Downgrade of Raynald of Chatillon:

• Historical Villain Downgrade: The film's portrayal of Reynauld de Chatillon, however, was if anything too mild. He's portrayed as Guy's dragon, whereas in real life the two men hated each other, and the film leaves out the fact that he led a pirate fleet that threatened to burn down Mecca and that he flayed the Patriarch Of Antioch alive. This is one of the most common criticisms by critics, since these elements could've made it a much more interesting story.

Raynald in the movie is an unscrupulous and duplicitous villain. He is seen raiding muslim caravans twice, in full knowledge that he is violating a truce. Most importantly, he has Saladin's sister killed with the express intention of triggering a war (in which he is successful). In the latter scene, it is also implied that he allows his troops to rape the captured women.

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 ("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 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 Historical Villain Downgrade. 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.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Isn't there a trope for how it's horrible what Jerusalem's queen did? Leprosy is not *that* bad in real life. Especially as a noble, you can live with it with enough care. In hindsight, she just blatantly killed her son for almost no reason.

Edited by KarstenO

Pulled this. Reynauld of Chatillon is a historical figure, so there is no reason to look for a meaning behind the name. Reynauld does also not act very clever (= like a fox) in the movie. The example about Godfrey is self-contradictory and even says that Godfrey of Ibelin is not at all like Godfrey of Bouillon. Maybe it's not a Meaningful Name after all.

• Meaningful Name:
  • Reynauld is old French name for "Fox" (via memetic mutation from a popular folklore character) (could be mere coincidence, as Reynauld of Chatillon was a real person).
  • Godfrey of Ibelin might be named after Godfrey of Bouillon, a famous leader of the First Crusade who was also the complete opposite sort of character. A seemingly contradictory interpretation is that he was named Godfrey because that sounds like "God-free", tentatively hinting that he's an atheist.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Recently one editor changed the image caption from "The Box Office le veult!" to "Arca purgula vult!" Does anyone understand this? I sure don't.

Let's just say and leave it at that. Hide / Show Replies

Pulled the following example because it implies Saladin is evil. But Saladin is really portrayed positively in the movie. The villains are Guy and Reynald, not Saladin.

• Affably Evil: Evil is pushing it with him, but Saladin is very respectful and reasonable. After the fall of the city, he allows the citizens of Jerusalem to leave in peace after the carnage is over.

Edited by 178.2.78.250 Let's just say and leave it at that.

About Artistic License - Geography,

The Point about it being Artistic license with geography is because Kerak lies on the same side of the Jordan river as Damascus. If Saladin were to go straight from Damascus to Kerak he'd cross several rivers, but not one of them being the Jordan. It has nothing to do with it being personal or one city being closer or not, It's the fact that he would have to go out of his way to cross the Jordan, and would even have to cross it twice, or double back, or go considerably farther south then back north to get to Kerak.

Hide / Show Replies

discussion method was installed. You Fail History Forever indeed! The pity of it is the real story is certainly cinematic enough - but less Politically Correct.

The real Sibylla of Jerusalem was deeply in love with her second husband Guy de Lusignan - who btw was both young and good looking. When she suceeded her son she agreed to divorce Guy on the condition she was allowed to choose her new husband. Then at ther coronation she personally crowned Guy as her consort and co-ruler - a Crowning Moment Of Awesome if ever there was one.

The political infighting of the Crusader Kingdom is incredibly complex (you thought the Wars of Roses were bad? They're clear as crystal compared to the intrigues of the Court of Jerusalem!). Historians have traditionally followed William of Tyre in making diplomatic engagement as opposed to aggressive military action the key issue between the 'Court Party' who favored the latter led by Sibylla and Guy, and the 'Country Party' pushing for the former led by Raymond of Tripoli, the Ibelins, et-al. Modern research questions this but if there was indeed any truth to it then Guy had a point. Saladin both as an imperialist and a good Muslim was about as interested in peaceful co-existence with the Crusader states as his 21st c. successors are with coming to terms with Israel.

It was of course this very division that gave Saladin his opportunity. And if Guy's strategy was right his tactics were woeful. Those who opposed him as King-consort had damn good reason apart from policy disagreements, he was not a very able or effective leader.

Interestingly Balian of Ibelin WAS indeed married to a Queen of Jerusalem, but it was Sybilla's stepmother Maria Comnena, widow of Amaury I. He was also a middle aged nobleman born and raised in the Kingdom not a 'blacksmith' fresh from Europe.

Far from running away after the fall of Jerusalem both Sibylla and Balian stayed and fought, each other unfortunately, trying in their different ways to save the Kingdom.

As for Saladin, he seems to have deserved the respect he got from his enemies and have been as chivalrous and generous as his reputation BUT his virtues most certainly did not include relgious tolerance - which was NOT considered a virtue at all in his time by either side.

He executed all the Templars captured at Hattin out of hand after offering them the alternative of conversion to Islam (a few are said to have accepted). Had a Christian monarch done the same, forced a choice between conversion and death on his captives, it would have been an atrocity seeing however that it was Saladin it becomes an act of mercy. On the other hand Saladin's ire towards Raynald de Chatillon was fully justified - though Raynald wasn't the monster portrayed but simply a jerkass opportunist. The Soldan's lack of hostility towards Balian after the surrender of Jerusalem strongly implies that the story of Balian swearing to forgo further resistance in exchange for his freedom is untrue as some historians argue.

Balian and the Patriarch Heraclius made tremendous efforts to raise the money to ransom the entire Christian population of Jerusalem. When they fell short they offered themselves as exchange hostages but Saladin preferred to sell the remaining captives into slavery. Presumably he needed the cash more than he needed to eliminate two Crusader leaders. Of course he was also interested in encouraging the conflict between the parties and to that end released Guy. Sibylla was probably the only person on the Christian side happy about that. She died in 1189 while she and Guy were besieging Acre, leaving her half-sister Isabella heir to the Kingdom - or such as was left of it.

And finally Saladin's bloodless retaking of Jerusalem, oft contrasted with the City's blood soaked fall to the Crusaders, reflects the difference between a city taken by negotiated surrender and one taken by storm NOT any exceptional humanity on the part of the Soldan or brutality of the First Crusaders. Saladin was quite capable of slaughtering both armed foes and civilians if and when called for.

As inaccurate as this movie is, I have to speak up in defense of Godfrey's swordfighting lessons. I'm learning how to fight with a longsword and high guard is acutally a very good guard for a beginner to learn. It enables very fast and powerful attacks from several different angles that are tricky to block and is easier to master than some other, more defensive guards.

•berr: As the history goes, (as told by the lord of Tiberias' IRL sympathetic chronicler) Balian sent word to Saladin asking to be released from his promise not to put up a defense; seeing as how there were only three knights left in the city, Saladin agreed.

Of course, under this story it's notable Balian was captured and not killed in Hattin as all the rest of the knights ransomed fled to the coast. Saladin must have had some ire for the Templars... then again, the vast majority of the soldiers at Hattin were massacred.

Hide / Show Replies

We don't usually list aversions. The trope described here is "Armor Is Useful", or something to that effect. Feel free to go to YKTTW with it.

• Armor Is Useless: Averted. During the Siege of Jerusalem, Balian gets cut on his arm and gets a nasty scar, but without the mail he was wearing his whole arm would've been cut off.
  • Balian and his knights avert this hard at the Battle of Kerak where their heavy chain mail and shields lead to them killing far more in a dozens-to-one battle than they would have any right to (and in Balian's case, surviving several blows well enough to fight at Jerusalem later).

More cuts: Hollywood History is an index, not a trope. Maybe someone can still extract tropes from this.

• Hollywood History: Depends on what version you see: The Crusades were a cynical land grab by European second sons dressed up in religious sophistries, and the film makes a pretty good case of communicating that through the contempt of the main characters for the fanatics and glory seekers. The real situation was of course more complex, as both societies were feudal and had their own internal strife and cross-alliances, as suggested here.
  • Only a few characters actually view it as a religious war at all, and the major characters (except Guy and Reynold) on both sides clearly have little respect for this outlook. And Guy is mostly an ambitious noble and Raynald is mostly a psycopathic maniac, so their professed religious commitment is...questionable.

Edited by LordGro Let's just say and leave it at that.