23 August 2006

The Metrosexual Crusader in the Kingdom of Heaven

'Kingdom of Heaven', Ridley Scott's 2005 politically correct medieval vehicle with heart throb Orlando Bloom, lacks the grandeur and the epic feel of his previous success, 'Gladiator', and is burdened by a cliched plot which attempted to adhere to historical circumstances with simplifications. (It's a film after all!). With the lightweight Bloom spotting a constantly pained expression as the lead and his inability to carry the lead role, Bloom made for an invisible and forgettable protagonist. His lack of charisma and scene presence were painfully obvious and that was not assisted by his rather weak acting, think rasping in a soft man-hunk whisper throughout and posturing like a beef-cake pinup. He's the New Age man in the wrong era, a metrosexual crusader.

Of course, in the film, the crusaders were evil, not that some of them weren't self-interested powermongers in reality. In reality, Saladin, despite his celebrated chivalry in medieval and later romances, was no saint either, being guilty of perpetuating massacres, conducting betrayals, breaking of treaties. Similarly, Reynald raided caravens for profit, breaking treaties. For that period and circumstance, raids and skirmishes were the norm of the day, with battles being more of a rarity, though as Raymond of Tripoli had pointed out in the film (and in reality), the Saracens outnumbered the crusaders by vast numbers and Saladin was the leader of an empire and it would be unwise to wage war against him. In terms of the levels of power, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was merely a collection of coastal fiefdoms, Saladin had an empire in arms. Saladin had previously conducted raids and attempted invasions but those were either defeated or thwarted due to a variety of factors, with little to do with nonexistent crusader strategy.

Raiding was common throughout the region and also in Europe.

However, this being Hollywood, and political correctness is the current norm, the Saracens, read Muslims, are the noble enemy. Treachery? Yes, only the evil crusaders and Templars were capable of that.* And it was all up to the metrosexual crusader to try to save the day. Beard, beefcake appeal and immaculate hair. And there was Hattin. End of story. But that made the backdrop for a nonexistent siege of Jerusalem.

The upside? Some historical accuracy which I thought was great. For instance, the injuries from medieval combat according to some sources can be fixed. In fact, surgeons of that period were quite adapt at patching people up. However, what was not understood was infection. Thus, when the baron survived grievous wounds but ultimately succumbed to infection, one could tell that someone had done his or her homework.

Regarding that nonexistent siege of Jerusalem where the inhabitants 'fought for freedom' in Balian's words, the Saracens might have used some form of Greek fire but the trebuchets were shooting napalm and high explosives. Doh. Were the trebuchets in use at this point? I thought it was a late medieval weapon.

The fights with the war swords** were fascinating. Pommel to the face. Realistic. Crossbows were common in that period and that was depicted in the movie. The Saracens were known to be to be deadly afraid of them, whereas, the short bows utilised by the Saracens lacked penetrating power and there were accounts of men at arms in battle with several shafts stuck to their chainmail and cloth padding.

Balian of Ibelin was at Hattin and he was paroled by Saladin and released to see his wife. Instead, he took up arms and went to defend Jerusalem. Balian finally surrendered on terms. There was no siege at Jersualem. The inhabitants were ransomed, at ten pieces of gold for each person. And the poor who could not pay were sold in the slave markets. Saladin's brother took a thousand slaves for himself.

I think for most people, the problem with this Ridley Scott movie, was the rather prodding and uninspired narrative. No one I knew liked it. I had no problem with the pace but the script was pedestrian, the lines were cliches, the characterisation were that of standard stereotypes. Where have I seen those characters previously?

Somehow, an X-factor was missing too. 'Kingdom of Heaven' had more historical foundation than 'Gladiator' but yet...

On a related topic, Saladin was a Kurd. Saddam Hussein who protrayed himself as Saladin and built statues of himself as Saladin, killed thousands of Kurds. A recent Kurdish allegation was that he and his Baath party functionaries murdered over 100, 000 Kurds.

*The Crusaders did stupidly spark off the conflict after Raymond's truce. Saladin's buildup was not unknown and it would be a matter of time before he took the coastal states. Saladin's dream was to cleanse Europe of all infidels. He was no lamb or noble enemy. He was a religious fanatic, not unlike some of the crusaders.

** War swords. Hand and a half. Bastard sword.

10 comments:

Machinistscott said...

I liked it. I don't understan why Salidan gave them mercy. He must have been low on water.

Chuang Shyue Chou said...

In reality, Balian did threaten to raze Jerusalem and Saladin was alarmed and he believed it, likewise in the movie. In the settlement of terms, Balian was the real loser. A lot of the population were enslaved. Who could pay 10 pieces of gold in those days?

Saladin wasn't always merciful. Though this isn't exactly mercy, is it? Enslavemnent of thousands. He perpetuated massacres and the razing of other cities.

Yes, he's probably short of supplies. Water too.

Anonymous said...

I recall reading once an obscure reference that trebuchets were invented by the Chinese (Northern Song), and the subsequently lost to them. Knowledge of it was kept alive by the Kara Khitai Empire (built by remnants of the Khitan Liao Dynasty after its destruction by the Jurchens in 1125) and introduced to Persia. It was then reintroduced by Genghis Khan in his sieges against the Kingdom of Xi Xia and the Jin Dynasty Jurchens, and subsequently by his successors (Tuolei, Ogedai, Mongke and Kublai) against the Southern Song. It might be possible that Saladin has gotten hold of the knowledge to build them since it would be another 60+ years before he took Jerusalem.

Anonymous said...

The longbow was amongst the deadliest weapon in those day as they could be reloaded again and again faster than crossbow and I wonder how many Saraces were killed by the longbow n that war.

There are no longbow material/wood in other part of Europe or the world apart from UK/England in those day. They need special wood and the wood could only be found in UK/England as the French found out from the wars with England.

I suspect longbow was also used in the defence of the city during those days. I am also not suprised if a single good longbow archer could killed many with his bow.

Bear in mind, there are many different arrow heads for different purposes as well and they are very deadly effective against the enemies. The French found out how deadly longbow could be having fought many wars with England.

Hence, the famous two fingers "V" sign against French for not able to defeat the English longbow.

d;-)

Chuang Shyue Chou said...

Just a quick clarification. This was too early. This was during the Second Crusade.

The longbow was only developed much later during Edward I's wars with the Welsh and the Scots.

Chuang Shyue Chou said...

It is not inconceivable trebuchets that the Chinese invented them. Likewise, the Chinese did invent gunpowder. The matter of the transmission of ideas, is, of course another matter.

Oh, Balian surrendered. There was no siege.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the trebuchet was engineered by the Persians.

The story goes like this. When the Mongols were not able to capture a Chinese city for a long time they enlisted the help of the Persian engineers and they came up the the trebuchets idea which was later used to destroyed the Chinese city wall. So there you go.

Bear in mind the Persians are very resourceful people and I bet you know it is present day Iran and that means having a nut case at the helm of the govt with powerful nuke weapon waiting to fire.

If only the Persian use their intelligence to create a greater good theirs will be a great country. Not some nut case lunatic trying to rule the world. I blame it on their ayatollahs i.e. their supreme religious leader with a god like status. Funny thing is that although they denounce idolisation somehow I think they do idolise their ayatollahs or perhaps the ayatollahs have got so much power that they actually deluded themselves by thinking they themselves being "god" sent.

So they got power and power did eventually got to their heads and as you know absolute power corrupts mind and theirs are the best example.

I just hope that they will not end up being conquered by "Alexander" again with great humiliation in war and turn the land into massive orgies. (Persian girls are very beautiful by the way)

Time will tell.

d;-)

Chuang Shyue Chou said...

It is ironic, isn't it? They have the minds to build nuclear plants and yet, they can only see military uses for them.

Such a culture. One that is capable of great beauty... Yet.

Chuang Shyue Chou said...

Another quick clarification. The English longbow was made from Yew which is common in Europe, parts of Africa and Asia.

The reasons for other nations not adopting the longbow were societal and cultural. The main one was that it took a lifetime to train one. And the society of the longbowmen would have to accommodate the constant practice and lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's true that it takes a long time to train a skill longbow archer and I think the French found their weakness to in one of the battle because the English gave away their tactics i.e. giving away their longbow archers' position before the battle.

Still it was a leathal weapon in those days. A good archer could fire 18 arrows per minute and imagine those arrows raining on the enemy.

d;-)