kingdom of heaven

[konstantinius]

Slllrrrhhheherrrrrstt...(sound of extensive and profound salivating)...

[konstantinius]

On a more serious note, when I checked out trailers and fotos I noticed a light-blue coat of arms with a yellowish or golden Maltese-resembling cross. Does anyone know who's coat that was? King of Jerusalem? Military order? How about Orlando Bloom's quartered red and white tunic with the opposite color cross on each of the four quarters? I haven't seen any of these on various fotos from gamers' Later Cru. Is it imagination or fact? Thanks, K.

[Darren Buxbaum]

a light-blue coat of arms with a yellowish or golden Maltese-resembling cross Konstaninius,
You are right when you mention that it is the device for the "Latin" King of Jerusalem. Although I am not sure why the field is blue. On later COA's the field is usually white which is odd since it is an infraction in heraldry tinctures in the west (metal upon metal; gold upon silver). The Knights Hospitallars are usually white with a red cross (St George), but this could vary depending on which branch they belong to. WRG's Armies of the Crusades, Armies of the Middle Ages vol 1 both by Ian Heath have good descriptions of those orders.

[E_A_Lindberg]

Originally posted by Darren Buxbaum:
. . .which is odd since it is an infraction in heraldry tinctures in the west (metal upon metal; gold upon silver).The metal/color rules of heraldry were not as hard and fast as one is often led to believe. Both the Papal and Kingdom of Jerusalem coats of arms use or on argent (gold on white).

The arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were incorporated into many descendants of the House of Anjou, including Margaret of Anjou, and, as a result, Queens' College Cambridge (http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/).

I can't think of anyone who used the crosses of Jerusalem on a blue field. It could very well be that Ridley-Scott found that the historical coats of arms don't photograph well. (Which I suppose might be a minor vindication of the metal/color rules after all.)

[Redwilde]

Also I've come across Portuguese arms that are green on red. Each kingdom would have its own college of heralds to set their rules.

[Bill Sumruld]

Anyone know what this movie is based on other than the Crusades. Is it based on a book of fiction on historical events, or what? Is it bending over backwards to be pc or is it letting the chips fall where they may? I mean, apart from the battle scenes will it be worth seeing? ;)

[Darren Buxbaum]

From what I gather, the movie is fiction but based in a historical setting. Since it is a movie, I don't believe in its historical integrity, but might be inspired to do my own research on the said period. I will throw my money at it only in hopes to be entertained for a couple of hours.

[Dhingis Khan]

Read a review in the New Yorker. Reviewer liked Gladiator but said this doesn't match up, basically because Mr. Bloom doesn't carry the film. I hope he's wrong.

The plot seems to be based on history. It's about the fellow who ends up defending Jerusalem against Saladin after Hattin. Don't know if Hattin is in the movie.

The trailer I've seen has lots of flaming arrows and what appear to be a few explosions.

[Chris Brantley]

For a brief historical note on Balian de Ibelin, see: http://crusades.boisestate.edu/Outremer/32.shtml

[Macbeth]

I'm going to see Kingdom of Heaven tomorrow night.

With any luck, part of the basis for the movie would be the novel "The Knights of Dark Renown" by Graham Shelby.

I found this novel was excellent for providing human depth, and plausible motives to the nobility of Outremer leading up to Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem. Too often when reading histories of the period I was at a loss to explain the counter productive actions of the main players.

Cheers

[Darren Buxbaum]

I just saw the movie Saturday night and I have to admit that I was pleasantly suprised. But what made me more excited was when I got home and picked up my WRG book Armies and Enemies of the Crusades 1096-1291 by Ian Heath. Heath not only shows that Ibelin was an actual crusader state or at least city, he uses Jean d'Ibelin's rosters for the knights that owed service to the King of Jerusalem during the period covered in the movie (1174-1185). Of course the reference was written in 1265, but I would assume that they were taken from the records carried by the Marshal (Senschal) of Jerusalem at the time of the evacuation of the city.

The movie on a whole was pretty good. The fight scenes are pretty cool (many neck shots that produced much blood spray) and you get the same digitized pyrotechnics during the siege of Jerusalem as were displayed in the opening battle in Gladiator. There are some leaps of faith dealing with the lead character, Balian, and some strange editing, but these were probably created to keep the story going. Hattin is covered in the movie but you see it from the point of view of the garrison that was left in Jerusalem and the aftermath in Saladin's camp, but not the fighting during the battle. The best written character has to be Saladin. I am not a big fan of the crusades for the Holy Land, but after this movie I was inspired to possibly paint an army of Saladin in a future project. Also, the costumes were excellent for both armies and I especially appreciated the crusader's carrocio bearing the True Cross. Lastly, when the armies were present for the battles, there seemed to be many extras wearing the costumes and not just computer generated images. Although I would assume that there were images used to fill out the depth of the armies, but the technology is so good that it didn't look unrealistic. Pretty cool movie and I would add it to my dvd collection in the future, especially if it contained scenes that were cut out in the theatre. That's my report and I am back to painting.

[ May 21, 2005, 13:25: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Macbeth]

I concur,

but I was a little dispappointed in the fact that all the Crusader villians were arrayed in Templar livery.

Reynald de Chatillion was portrayed well although he seemed to be a composite of both Reynald de Chatillion and Gerard de Ridefort

Hollywood has been kinder to Sybilla than contemporary historians were.

All in all a good film but not really a history lesson.

Cheers

[konstantinius]

Was Guy de Lusignan a Templar? I don't recall seeing that in anything I've read. Both him and Raymond are portrayed as psychopathic villains. Is that accurate?
Moreover, an enlightened peasant blacksmith with higher standards in the boons of France c. 1184?
That came as hard to swallow. The shipwreck scene was weird; the way the boat capsized it should've gone down, not wash out on the shore with the hero inside (who, by the way, managed to retain the sword his father gave him). His first act as a new-comer on foreign soil is to slain a high-ranking warrior of the opposite religion (way to go, chap) who must have been swinging swords and riding horses as a way of life and for much longer than the "green" Balin with his peasant background.
The flaming comets of molten matter swung from the Ayyubid mangonels during the siege were also hard to fathom. Is that in any records? I would think that the mangonels would primarily fire huge rocks. It's hard to see how any defense would even be possible with "artillery" like this.
What I did like: the costumes, armor, weapons and the decor of the living spaces, especially in the palace of Jerusalem, that I think captured the oriental oppulence very nicely.
I really enjoyed the aerial view of the battle outside Kerak. We can see the Crusader tactic of a second echellon braking off (probably at a signal from the commander at the point of the echelon) to draw off part of the marvellously swirling Saracen LH. It could've been the few drinks that we've had before-hand but I got goose bumps during that scene.
Epic movies like this are always plagued by the fact that 2 1/2 hrs. are just not enough to cover the scope of the subject. Alexander suffered of the same. While the result is generally worth seeing (Arthur, Troy), it seems to have an endemic tendency to speed on, brush over, and garble up the stories it handles.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by konstantinius:
Was Guy de Lusignan a Templar? I don't recall seeing that in anything I've read. Both him and Raymond are portrayed as psychopathic villains. Is that accurate?
Neither Guy or Reynald were Templars in reality; and in the movie no-one actually referred to either as being Templars, they just wore the uniform so you could take it as read.

The Reynald of the times was a complete psycopath and as for Guy, I thought they portrayed him well as a recent emigre from France, ambitious but not too bright cashing in on his more recent contact with the "mother culture" and his lucky marriage to the heir apparent. That pretty much covers Guy - except that he was more cunning in the movie than most histories make him out.

The creation of Balian as a peasant hero well lets not go there; that is the stuff of modern fables about democracy - where anyone can grow up to be (you know the rest) ;) and it gave him the chance to make the anti terrorism speech about Jerusalem. :D

Cheers

[Terry37]

I just saw it and I did enjoy it, but agree with the general train of thought. The critics blasted Orlando as not being able to carry it, and I do see what they were meaning, but I also think they missed the true theme of the charatcer he was playing. You see that toward the end and I think he was just right. I was also grateful that with so much combat I didn't have see unnecessary gore and loped off body parts. I was concerned about that, because I don't need to see it to understand what combat can be like or to enjoy a movie. The combat was well done and quite effective. To me the biggest fault was blacksmith to super military tactition and knight of neverending skills! A little like a romance novel I felt, or maybe Bruce Willis in Die Hard Crusader. I agree with Darren - worth seeing and worth adding to the DVD library. Terry

[Timurilank]

Historically accurate or not I was greatly entertained. The variety of uniforms and headgear within formations was a nice touch for the Saracens. The amount of flags carried by the knights and foot soldiers is certainly worth duplicating for similar period armies. I could well imagine a peasant soldier fired up by a crazed priest located on the flank seeing the True Cross glittering in the sunlight and the flutter of standards would think that Heaven had opened its gates and angels were helping the righteous (or sinners).

I have recently been painting Medieval Russians, the latest offering from Old Glory 15s and was startled by the character of Baldwin IV the leper. Within the Russian command pack is an identical figure lacking only the cloak with cowl.

cheers,

[imported_JamesLDIII]

For those who saw the movie or got the soundtrack, how is the music? Is it suitably martial to accompany my assorted Crusading Europeans or Arabs? Even if I were to not like the movie, I'd consider getting the music to accompany a game of DBA...

[konstantinius]

A lot of Gregorian chanting. You can listen to two samples on the movie's website. During the battle scenes it becomes more Wagnerian, epic-like.

[El' Jocko]

Pure eye candy. Beautiful costumes, well filmed battle scenes. I really enjoyed the spectacle.

Horrible writing. Terrible dialog. And could Ridley Scott have hit us over the head with his theme any more blatently? Sure, the Crusades make a great parable about war and peace, religion and conscience. But was it necessary to keep shouting: THIS IS PARABLE ABOUT WAR AND PEACE, RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE. I got it already!

Sorry to rant. It's just so disappointing to see so much effort go into something, only to have it fall so far short of what it could have been.

(And don't get me started on Orlando Bloom. He makes Liam Neeson look like an actor.)

- Jack

[David Schlanger]

So Jack... how do you feel about Orlando Bloom?

DS

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by David Schlanger:
So Jack... how do you feel about Orlando Bloom?

DS Hah! You think you can bait me so easily? I will not fall for your little trap. (Hmm. I need a graemlin with a sneer to go with that. None of the choices seem to fit.)

[ May 12, 2005, 11:18: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[El' Jocko]

Ok. I'm ready for next time. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/icon_sneer.gif

[ May 12, 2005, 11:45: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[Kanishka]

Templars are referred to in he move - Templars are sent to kill Balian, and Balians priest goes off to Hattin in his black suroat and white cross saying "I go with my order" or something like that.

That page reference to Balian was great - shame they couldn't have stuck to that storyline a bit closer!!

[hammurabi70]

Originally posted by E_A_Lindberg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren Buxbaum:
. . .which is odd since it is an infraction in heraldry tinctures in the west (metal upon metal; gold upon silver).The metal/color rules of heraldry were not as hard and fast as one is often led to believe. Both the Papal and Kingdom of Jerusalem coats of arms use or on argent (gold on white).
</font>[/QUOTE]As I understood it the Papal banner and that of the KoJ were 'allowed' to break the rules because of their special and unique positions, Lords Temporal and Spiritual. :cool:

Originally posted by Bill Sumruld:
Anyone know what this movie is based on other than the Crusades. Is it based on a book of fiction on historical events, or what? Is it bending over backwards to be pc or is it letting the chips fall where they may? I mean, apart from the battle scenes will it be worth seeing? ;) I understand it deals with the events around Hattin but instead of having the named hero a major prince as he historically was he has become an illigitemate (of a major noble) pilgrim from the lower orders. Hollywood has as usual cut history to fit and left little accuracy behind. :eek:

Originally posted by konstantinius:
The flaming comets of molten matter swung from the Ayyubid mangonels during the siege were also hard to fathom. Is that in any records? I would think that the mangonels would primarily fire huge rocks. It's hard to see how any defense would even be possible with "artillery" like this.
Like with Gladiator, NAM strikes again. Hollywood seems to think audiences do not believe it is fighting without some flames, which have very strong visual and emotional impact on people. :(

Originally posted by Terry37:
To me the biggest fault was blacksmith to super military tactition and knight of neverending skills!Quite so; but then you have to make the viewer believe it could be him (well you do if you want that sort of identifier film).

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Horrible writing. Terrible dialog. And could Ridley Scott have hit us over the head with his theme any more blatently? Sure, the Crusades make a great parable about war and peace, religion and conscience. But was it necessary to keep shouting: THIS IS PARABLE ABOUT WAR AND PEACE, RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE. I got it already! Not subtle then. :rolleyes: I'll save the cash and wait to see it on the small screen.

[imported_Polynikes]

A better book to tell the story of events before Hattin would be "Jerusalem" by Cecelia Holland.
One uneasy undercurrent(OIMHO) but great action and sense of purpose.

[ May 19, 2005, 20:35: Message edited by: Polynikes ]

[Macbeth]

I can also recommend 'The Knights of Dark Renown' and its follow up 'The Kings of Vain Intent' by Graham Shelby.

For the First Crusade there is Alfred Duggan's 'Knight with Armour' and Zoe Oldenburg's 'The Heirs of the Kingdom'

Cheers

[Cremorn]

Sorry if I'm a bit off topic.
The Zoe Oldenbourg book "The World is not enough" is great. She shifts time a bit to get her main character into the Third Crusade, but her account of the life of a 12thC knight is very gritty and nasty. I don't think I had much idea of medieval life till I read it.
Richard.

[Dhingis Khan]

Originally posted by hammurabi70: I'll save the cash and wait to see it on the small screen. A gaming friend who owns a couple 100 Years War armies saw the flick and advised me to wait for the video rental. Too bad.

[ May 20, 2005, 15:23: Message edited by: Dhingis Khan ]

[Wagnerion]

I just got back from watching the film and I have to say I enjoyed it.

What I found interesting was the way in which the gentility and honour of the Muslims was set in contrast to the brutality of the more fanatical crusaders (the finger being pointed at the Templars in particular) and the cowardice of the Bishop "Convert to Islam and then repent after!"

I was expecting an unsubtle Hollywood allusion to current strife with Islam with the Muslims being painted with the fanatical brush and for the Crusaders to be seen as the righteous and so was pleasantly surprised to see the lack of pro-West propaganda and, in fact, a fair portrayal of 'the other side', so respect to Scott for that!

I also think that considering just how non-Christian the Orders were in their treatment of the Muslims when Jerusalem was first taken that the theme of Conscience should have been that blatant. Even though it wasn't really blatant at all IMO.

So...I'm going to get it on DVD!

[Dhingis Khan]

"You only truly get to know a man when you fight him";

Getting to know you, (WHAP!) getting to know all about you.. (THUD!)