Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'

telegraph ^ | (Filed: 18/01/2004) | Charlotte Edwardes

[RussianConservative]

Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

Spoken like true useful idiot.

[Pelayo]

Well I hate to burst your bubble but they can't make a sequel with Richard I in it since this movie takes place long after the Third Crusade. Although, knowing Hollywood's understanding of historical accuracy they might put him on a boat with Don John of Austria.

Oops. I should have actually read the article, insted of just assuming what I'd heard was right. It seems the movie takes place right before the Third Crusade. My bad.

[eleni121]

Scott needs to go back to making commercials...after all, what he is doing is "selling" his brand of history and he's done it before with Muslims.

About your Black Hawk Down comment --- there is little mention of Islam in Black Hawk Down. Aside from a line about the enemy being "in prayers," there is no identification of the subject of the Somali militia's religious and ethnic specificity--presumably Sunni Muslim. Either this was a conscious choice on the part of the studio or Scott himself to avoid the appearance of Muslim-bashing.

Whatever the case, truth is the victim.

[Windsong]

All things considered, it might be hard to cast ANYBODY in a good light during the Crusades. I s'pose you put an emphasis on personal courage, but really, the whole thing was just a bloody mess

Exactly. I took an Eastern European History course at a local Christian university last semester (Im 33) and came away with that exact sentiment.

[1rudeboy]

Black Hawk Down failed to mention that the Clinton Administration sent those men there with only a few clips of ammo each, due to cutbacks on the military.

Huh?

[Polybius]

Now someone needs to make A pro-christian, muslim smashing movie to be fair. Americans would go see this big time.

Two nominations for historical events for such a movie;

1. The Siege of Malta: Seven thousand Christian Knights fight an army of 90,000 Muslims for six months........and win.

2. The Battle of Lepanto: The Christian fleets of Spain, Venice and smaller Italian city-states take on the larger Muslim Mediterranean fleet and annihilate it.

[Pelayo]

Exactly. I took an Eastern European History course at a local Christian university last semester (Im 33) and came away with that exact sentiment.

I submit that the course was biased. I've been reading the primary sources as a student of medieval history for the past 4 years and can assure you that that "sentiment" is the product of over simplification and a fundamental misunderstanding of the people and events of the period.

[Pelayo]

Two nominations for historical events for such a movie;

Or if you wanted to keep it in the time frame of THIS movie, you should go for the battle of Montgisard.

[Little Ray]

Don't see any evidence that Baldwin IV (aka Baldwin the Leper), Latin King of Jerusalem, was anything other than an ordinary ruler of the time, perhaps a bit unlucky in his health and his relatives.
Apparently he was lucky enough that Saladin was distracted distracted, and unlucky that his idiot brother Raynald started raiding caravans from Krak de Chevaliers (one of the greatest castles ever built!).
Do you have something specific that I should be looking at?

[Rummyfan]

Between The Patriot and Braveheart (and even Gallipoli, going way back in his career), Mel has quiet a bias against the English.

[metesky]

Fear of fatwa.

[Pelayo]

Don't see any evidence that Baldwin IV (aka Baldwin the Leper), Latin King of Jerusalem, was anything other than an ordinary ruler of the time, perhaps a bit unlucky in his health and his relatives.Apparently he was lucky enough that Saladin was distracted distracted, and unlucky that his idiot brother Raynald started raiding caravans from Krak de Chevaliers (one of the greatest castles ever built!).

Raynald the knight of Châtillon-sur-Loing was not the "brother" of Baldwin! And his castle was not Krak-de-Chevaliers it was the Krak of Moab in Oultrejordan. And thirdly Saladin was not "distracted" during Baldwin's reign so much as he was forced into a cease fire treaty by Baldwin's superior soldiery (at the battle of Montgisard 500 knights under the Leper King defeated the entire Kurdish and Egyptian army of Saladin, who was supposed to be this great Muslim general.)

Do you have something specific that I should be looking at?

I don't need to point out anything specific, I only mentioned the Leper King to contest your claim that "it would be hard to put a good light on any buddy during the crusades." Baldwin IV was at the time not only a courageous and brilliant soldier, he was also universally respected for his piety and fairness by both Arabs and Christians. That he didn't come out of the whole thing smelling like roses was only because he dies of leprosy.

[Little Ray]

I didn't know there was more than one Krak; I only know of Krak de Chevaliers. Some friends told me that this was possibly the greatest castle ever built.

Was also wrong about Raynald being his brother. This is all I could find:

BALDWIN IV., the son of Amairic I. by his first wife Agnes, ruled in Jerusalem from 1174 to 1183, when he had his nephew Baldwin crowned in his stead.
Educated by William of Tyre, Baldwin IV. came to the throne at the early age of thirteen; and thus the kingdom came under the regency of Raymund II. of Tripoli. Happily for the kingdom whose king was a child and a leper, the attention of Saladin was distracted for several years by an attempt to wrest from the sons of Nureddin the inheritance of their father; an attempt partially successful in 1174, but only finally realized in 1183.
The problems of the reign of Baldwin IV. may be said to have been two: his sister Sibylla and the fiery Raynald of Chatillon, once prince of Antioch through marriage to Constance (1153-1159), then a captive for many years in the hand of the Mahommedans, and since 1176 lord of Krak (Kerak), to the east of the Dead Sea.
Sibylla was the heiress of the kingdom; the problem of her marriage was important. Married first to William of Montferrat, to whom she bore a son, Baldwin, she was again married in 1180 to Guy of Lusignan; and dissensions between Sibylla and her husband on the one side, and Baldwin IV. on the other, troubled the latter years of his reign.
Meanwhile RaynaLd of Krak took advantage of the position of his fortress, which lay on the great route of trade from Damascus and Egypt, to plunder the caravans (1182), and thus helped to precipitate the inevitable attack by Saladin. When the attack came, Guy of Lusignan was made regent by Baldwin IV., but he declined battle and he was consequently deposed both from his regency and from his right of succession, while Sibylla's son by her first husband was crowned king as Baldwin V. in 1183. For a time Baldwin IV. still continued to be active; but in 1184 he handed over the regency to Raymund of Tripoli, and in 1185 he died.

The account doesn't mention Montgisard, obviously a severe oversight on the author's part.

[Pelayo]

The account doesn't mention Montgisard, obviously a severe oversight on the author's part.

It was one of the greatest military achievements of the whole crusade period, but no one remembers it. Sad. The article you quoted makes it sound like Saladin didn't try to conquer the kingdom until late in Baldwin's reign. That is totally wrong, Baldwin was only 17 and already suffering from his disease when he defeated Saladin on his first invasion of the kingdom.

[Eternal_Bear]

Well I hate to burst your bubble but they can't make a sequel with Richard I in it since this movie takes place long after the Third Crusade. Although, knowing Hollywood's understanding of historical accuracy they might put him on a boat with Don John of Austria

Richard I of England led the Third Crusade since Federick Barbarossa drowned and Phillip of France went home. He took the fight to Saladin and fought well. Maybe you were alluding to another Monarch? He also put to death the garrison of Acre when Saladin dallied in the payment of ransom money.

Santiago!!!

[Pelayo]

No I just didn't read the article fully. Some one had told me that Scott's movie was set during the Crusade to Egypt (the one that St. Francis of Assisi went on). See my post #69

[Pelayo]

See my post #69

or #68 rather.