Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

Aqtai · 11th May 2005, 08:32 PM

I've just seen Kingdom of Heaven as well. I enjoyed it. I agree there were errors, but I give Ridley Scott points for trying to be more accurate than his predecessors.

My understanding of Salahuddin's Armies is that the core would have been a mixture of Kurds, Turkish mamluks, Turcoman tribesmen, professional Turkish soldiers and Bedouin tribesmen. Something that didn't really come across in the film, where the 'Saracens' were represented as a fairly homogenous mass. However I feel that trying to explain the ethnic complexity of a Medieval Muslim Army to a modern multiplex audience would have been an instant 'turn-off'.

With regards to the use of Arabic by Salaheddin and his commanders, I believe that Salaheddin was a multilingual man: he would have spoken in Kurdish to his Kurdish troops, Turkish to his Turkish Emirs and Arabic to his Arab Imams and civil servants (who would have all been Syrian and Egyptian). But since the film was made in Arab country i think that is why he had to show Salaheddin speaking Arabic. To have him him speaking in Turkish or Kurdish, while more accurate, would have probably lead to effigies of Ridley Scott being burned on the streets of Cairo and Baghdad!

As for the armour and weapons, while some of it is anachronistic (the mail and plate armour worn by Alexander Siddiq looks 15th century rather than 12th) I give him credit for at least including genuine Islamic armour. In addition there is very little Islamic armour surviving from the 12th century anyway, so RS is entitled some artistic license. I also give him credit for having some of the Muslims wearing lamellar armour.

Overall I liked this film, it tried to stick to the main historical facts, although it did take liberties with the details, but that is unavoidable in a film.

Rick · 11th May 2005, 10:51 PM

I just got back from viewing this film and the details that we notice will , of course go unnoticed by the uniniated .
I thought it was a terriffic film on the whole and despite the overabundance of Orlando Bloom these days , he did a workmanlike job in his role .

I thought the subject matter was handled quite well and equably ; I find Scott's films to be among the best cinematic offerings around these days .

I actually left the theater tired out by being swept up in the experience .

Can't wait for the DVD < rubs hands in anticipation >

M.carter · 11th May 2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I just got back from viewing this film and the details that we notice will , of course go unnoticed by the uniniated .
I thought it was a terriffic film on the whole and despite the overabundance of Orlando Bloom these days , he did a workmanlike job in his role .

I thought the subject matter was handled quite well and equably ; I find Scott's films to be among the best cinematic offerings around these days .

I actually left the theater tired out by being swept up in the experience .

Can't wait for the DVD < rubs hands in anticipation >

Actually, they say that the DVD will be 195 minutes long. Thats 50 minutes extra! I also had a feeling that there would be an extended DVD version since I got out of the cinema, because in the trailer, there were many scenes that werent shown in the movie.

Rick · 11th May 2005, 11:12 PM

Fifty more minutes ?!
Oboy !
< Rubs hands even harder>

I will bet you dollars to donuts that the first DVD of this film released will not be the extended version .

I have been fooled a couple of times by this Hollywood distribution trick .

M.carter · 11th May 2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I will bet you dollars to donuts that the first DVD of this film released will not be the extended version .

As usual

Rick · 11th May 2005, 11:50 PM

You know you spoke of the feeling you got at Saladin's tomb .
Although I have never been to the Middle East . I have felt that same thing at St. Basil's in Moscow for some reason .

Gettysburg battlefield is like walking into a Van de Graff generator .
Even though we were not there when history was made the energy still lingers ,for me, in a palpable way .

Rivkin · 12th May 2005, 01:33 AM

Unfortunately, I can't find my books (so I have to apologize for not oftering references _yet_), so I have to rely on memory and Britannica:

Salahadin (himself a kurd) was from the family of atabegs - Turk-seljuk warlords, who were supposedly "protecting" Baghdad Caliphat. With time this family and its seljuk's was becoming more and more powerful.

In 1169 Salahadin marched into Cairo, slaughtered around 40,000 black mamluks (Nubians etc.), their families, disbanded other parts of Cairo garrison and replaced it with his seljuks.

Concerning Salahadin's "white" mamluks he was the first one to introduce them into Egypt. Till that time only seljuks used to purchase slave boys from Caucasus and Kipchak territories (eventually stretching from Khorezm to Hungary), and put them into service as "guard" units. With Salahadin this practise was greatly expanded, mostly through buying kipchaks from Cuman Kipchak regions (Modern Crimea and Ukraine) and northern caucasus kipchaks.

Concerning the languages he spoke - it's certain he did speak arabic, I did not see the movie, but it seems natural for him to use arabic as a diplomatic language.

Now concerning languages that were used by mamluks among themselves in general it was always their own language - turks spoke turkish dialects (kipchak), mongols I think spoke kipchak too,
georgians spoke kartli, adighas- adighe, other caucasians (armenians, chechens etc.) spoke usually adighe or kartli, depending on which one was dominant.

Concerning that only kipchaks and circassians were mamluks - Ali-Bey, Mehmed Beg and most of post XVII century mamluks were georgians (megrel tribe, western georgia), some of prominent mamluk leaders before were Mongol or Seljuk. It's important that in arabic literature word "cherkes" can mean anything from around Caucasus.

It's interesting that mamluks were so isolated in their national community that very often they did not develop any islamic identity (great example is Rustam's memoirs and to some extent famous correspendence of XIX century mamluks with russian tzar and georgian kings).

M.carter · 11th May 2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

I've just seen Kingdom of Heaven as well. I enjoyed it. I agree there were errors, but I give Ridley Scott points for trying to be more accurate than his predecessors.

My understanding of Salahuddin's Armies is that the core would have been a mixture of Kurds, Turkish mamluks, Turcoman tribesmen, professional Turkish soldiers and Bedouin tribesmen. Something that didn't really come across in the film, where the 'Saracens' were represented as a fairly homogenous mass. However I feel that trying to explain the ethnic complexity of a Medieval Muslim Army to a modern multiplex audience would have been an instant 'turn-off'.

With regards to the use of Arabic by Salaheddin and his commanders, I believe that Salaheddin was a multilingual man: he would have spoken in Kurdish to his Kurdish troops, Turkish to his Turkish Emirs and Arabic to his Arab Imams and civil servants (who would have all been Syrian and Egyptian). But since the film was made in Arab country i think that is why he had to show Salaheddin speaking Arabic. To have him him speaking in Turkish or Kurdish, while more accurate, would have probably lead to effigies of Ridley Scott being burned on the streets of Cairo and Baghdad!

As for the armour and weapons, while some of it is anachronistic (the mail and plate armour worn by Alexander Siddiq looks 15th century rather than 12th) I give him credit for at least including genuine Islamic armour. In addition there is very little Islamic armour surviving from the 12th century anyway, so RS is entitled some artistic license. I also give him credit for having some of the Muslims wearing lamellar armour.

Overall I liked this film, it tried to stick to the main historical facts, although it did take liberties with the details, but that is unavoidable in a film.

I do not think that Saladin could speak Kurdish (although he was a kurd). His father died when he was in an early age, and he was sent from childhood to a Sunni Islamic religious school in Damascus. He lived all his life in Damascus, and died there. When I visited his tomb, I got goosebumps all along my spine, with a tingling feeling (unexplainable). He probably knew arabic and a little turkish (as turkish troops were gaining more attention rapidly in the region).

Aqtai · 11th May 2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

I do not think that Saladin could speak Kurdish (although he was a kurd). His father died when he was in an early age, and he was sent from childhood to a Sunni Islamic religious school in Damascus. He lived all his life in Damascus, and died there. When I visited his tomb, I got goosebumps all along my spine, with a tingling feeling (unexplainable). He probably knew arabic and a little turkish (as turkish troops were gaining more attention rapidly in the region).

While it has been a long time since I read 'Saladin in His Time' by P.H. Newby, note to self, must re-read it

, i'm pretty sure Salaheddin was in his 20ies when his father died. Add to that he was from a large and clannish family, when his uncle Assad-ed-din Shirkuh was sent to Egypt by Nur-ed-din Mahmud the Emir of Damascus, Salaheddin accompanied him. I'm pretty sure he spoke to his uncle in Kurdish. he also had his brother and Nephews all appointed to prominant positions.

I agree with you about the Turkish though, Nur-ed-din Mahmud, Salaheddin's original sovereign and mentor was himself a Turk and most of the emirs in his armies and Saladin's own armies would have been Turks. I think knowing Turkish would have essential for a 12th century Muslim military commander.

11th May 2005, 10:51 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,376	K.O.H. I just got back from viewing this film and the details that we notice will , of course go unnoticed by the uniniated . I thought it was a terriffic film on the whole and despite the overabundance of Orlando Bloom these days , he did a workmanlike job in his role . I thought the subject matter was handled quite well and equably ; I find Scott's films to be among the best cinematic offerings around these days . I actually left the theater tired out by being swept up in the experience . Can't wait for the DVD < rubs hands in anticipation >

12th May 2005, 01:33 AM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Unfortunately, I can't find my books (so I have to apologize for not oftering references _yet_), so I have to rely on memory and Britannica: Salahadin (himself a kurd) was from the family of atabegs - Turk-seljuk warlords, who were supposedly "protecting" Baghdad Caliphat. With time this family and its seljuk's was becoming more and more powerful. In 1169 Salahadin marched into Cairo, slaughtered around 40,000 black mamluks (Nubians etc.), their families, disbanded other parts of Cairo garrison and replaced it with his seljuks. Concerning Salahadin's "white" mamluks he was the first one to introduce them into Egypt. Till that time only seljuks used to purchase slave boys from Caucasus and Kipchak territories (eventually stretching from Khorezm to Hungary), and put them into service as "guard" units. With Salahadin this practise was greatly expanded, mostly through buying kipchaks from Cuman Kipchak regions (Modern Crimea and Ukraine) and northern caucasus kipchaks. Concerning the languages he spoke - it's certain he did speak arabic, I did not see the movie, but it seems natural for him to use arabic as a diplomatic language. Now concerning languages that were used by mamluks among themselves in general it was always their own language - turks spoke turkish dialects (kipchak), mongols I think spoke kipchak too, georgians spoke kartli, adighas- adighe, other caucasians (armenians, chechens etc.) spoke usually adighe or kartli, depending on which one was dominant. Concerning that only kipchaks and circassians were mamluks - Ali-Bey, Mehmed Beg and most of post XVII century mamluks were georgians (megrel tribe, western georgia), some of prominent mamluk leaders before were Mongol or Seljuk. It's important that in arabic literature word "cherkes" can mean anything from around Caucasus. It's interesting that mamluks were so isolated in their national community that very often they did not develop any islamic identity (great example is Rustam's memoirs and to some extent famous correspendence of XIX century mamluks with russian tzar and georgian kings). Last edited by Rivkin; 12th May 2005 at 01:46 AM.

11th May 2005, 08:32 PM	#1
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I've just seen Kingdom of Heaven as well. I enjoyed it. I agree there were errors, but I give Ridley Scott points for trying to be more accurate than his predecessors. My understanding of Salahuddin's Armies is that the core would have been a mixture of Kurds, Turkish mamluks, Turcoman tribesmen, professional Turkish soldiers and Bedouin tribesmen. Something that didn't really come across in the film, where the 'Saracens' were represented as a fairly homogenous mass. However I feel that trying to explain the ethnic complexity of a Medieval Muslim Army to a modern multiplex audience would have been an instant 'turn-off'. With regards to the use of Arabic by Salaheddin and his commanders, I believe that Salaheddin was a multilingual man: he would have spoken in Kurdish to his Kurdish troops, Turkish to his Turkish Emirs and Arabic to his Arab Imams and civil servants (who would have all been Syrian and Egyptian). But since the film was made in Arab country i think that is why he had to show Salaheddin speaking Arabic. To have him him speaking in Turkish or Kurdish, while more accurate, would have probably lead to effigies of Ridley Scott being burned on the streets of Cairo and Baghdad! As for the armour and weapons, while some of it is anachronistic (the mail and plate armour worn by Alexander Siddiq looks 15th century rather than 12th) I give him credit for at least including genuine Islamic armour. In addition there is very little Islamic armour surviving from the 12th century anyway, so RS is entitled some artistic license. I also give him credit for having some of the Muslims wearing lamellar armour. Overall I liked this film, it tried to stick to the main historical facts, although it did take liberties with the details, but that is unavoidable in a film.

11th May 2005, 11:12 PM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,376	Fifty more minutes ?! Oboy ! < Rubs hands even harder> I will bet you dollars to donuts that the first DVD of this film released will not be the extended version . I have been fooled a couple of times by this Hollywood distribution trick .

11th May 2005, 11:50 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,376	You know you spoke of the feeling you got at Saladin's tomb . Although I have never been to the Middle East . I have felt that same thing at St. Basil's in Moscow for some reason . Gettysburg battlefield is like walking into a Van de Graff generator . Even though we were not there when history was made the energy still lingers ,for me, in a palpable way .