Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Boogieman

Didn’t see “1492” but your description of “Kingdom of Heaven” is what I constantly read on FR. Then I saw it, and I really didn’t see the denigration. There was an asshole Crusader, a king who was trying to keep the peace, and the Muslims were brutal as hell. They also got their asses handed to them, which was gratifying. I also had to agree with the overall lesson that “it’s just a city of landmarks, it’s not worth that much bloodshed.” Especially since I know how the story ends anyway.


19 posted on 07/09/2014 6:54:04 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Future Snake Eater

“There was an asshole Crusader, a king who was trying to keep the peace, and the Muslims were brutal as hell.”

But, the Crusaders were depicted as aggressors, invaders, and the Muslims were depicted as defending themselves against murderous Christians, which is quite the opposite of the actual history behind the events.

“I also had to agree with the overall lesson that “it’s just a city of landmarks, it’s not worth that much bloodshed.””

In the film, the Muslims didn’t “get” that lesson and walk away from Jerusalem, the Crusader did. It’s very obviously a message that he only wants the modern day “Crusaders” to worry about. No need for the Muslims to stop fighting to keep all the lands they conquered, they just get a pass.


22 posted on 07/09/2014 7:29:50 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Future Snake Eater; Boogieman
Didn’t see “1492” but your description of “Kingdom of Heaven” is what I constantly read on FR. Then I saw it, and I really didn’t see the denigration. There was an asshole Crusader, a king who was trying to keep the peace, and the Muslims were brutal as hell. They also got their asses handed to them, which was gratifying. I also had to agree with the overall lesson that “it’s just a city of landmarks, it’s not worth that much bloodshed.” Especially since I know how the story ends anyway.
Well, how about we start here with trying to provide some balance to the movie and your post:

Kingdom of Heaven - Hollywood's Crusade Against History

snip

Kingdom of Heaven also distorts history beyond all recognition. The "hundred-year truce" between the Christian and Muslim armies is a figment of their imagination. The warfare throughout the 12th Century was incessant.

The depiction of the Knight's Templar as a band of religious fanatics trying to shatter the truce and provoke war with the Muslims by attacking caravans is a total fabrication. No Knight's Templar ever attacked any caravans. Attacking caravans is what the founder of Islam, Muhammad, engaged in regularly as did his handpicked apostles, the Caliphs. The Knights Templar were formed primarily to protect travelers from the attacks of the Muslim army. In fact it was the slaughter of Christian pilgrims, by Muslim armies, in violation of earlier agreements of safe passage that precipitated the crusades in the first place.

The central figure of this film, Sir Balian, is a historical figure, did in fact play a critical role in the defense of Jerusalem in 1187, but the film script distorts his character and role beyond all recognition. First of all, Balian was not a blacksmith, nor did his wife commit suicide, nor was he illegitimate, nor raised as a commoner. His father, Balian the Old (not Godfrey as in the movie), had three sons, all legitimate: Hugh, Baldwin and Balian. Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land, because he grew up as part of the nobility there. Balian was married to royalty long before the events portrayed in the film, and he was not at all romantically involved with the Princess Sybilla. (His brother, Baldwin, had some love interest in Sybilla.)

In Kingdom of Heaven, Balian is portrayed as questioning whether God exists, although according to the historical records it is clear that Balian was a dedicated Christian who took his faith very seriously. Nor did Balian desert the defense of the Holy Land following the fall of Jerusalem. Far from returning to France, Balian proceeded to Beirut in Lebanon which he helped fortify against Muslim invasion. He was present with Richard the Lionhearted at the signing of the peace with Saladin, which secured safe passage for Christian pilgrims and recognized crusader control over the 90 mile stretch of coastline from Tyre to Jaffa.


There is much more to this article, and most scholars of this time period in the western world really panned this movie as just propaganda for the Muzzies.
24 posted on 07/09/2014 8:03:08 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson