Osama bin Laden's view of the Crusades

[BeBMan]

Here's a little article about it, which says similar things as those which can be found in this thread (from various sides):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4544173.stm

Best however, for those who didn't know it already, is the last sentence:

If you really want to know about the Crusades, the historians say, by all means go and see the film, but then go out and buy a good book.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Ah I see. My confusion arose from the fact that in american politics we were taught that that strand of thought was called "Jeffersonian" foreign policy... part of a 4 part typology of American foreign policy:

Jeffersonian - avoiding foreign entanglements
Jacksonian - emphasis on honour and military accomplishment
Hamiltonian - emphasis on securing commerce
Wilsonian - exporting democracy

I'd say Bush's policy is an amalgam of the latter three strands.

Jackson honor? You be betrayal, exceeding military orders, ignoring Supreme Court orders and committing genocide against the Indians.

[Ned]

BeBro, I think that Brit historian has got it right. This movie is a PC adaptation of history that is going to cause a lot of people to truly misunderstand history.

[Heresson]

I've seen it.
First of all, film is film and not schoolbook of history. But this film is a film that tries to influence our ways of thinking and as such, deformations of history present in it are more dangerous.
This film delt in reality with current history of Palestine, as visible in the conclusion and in some of the stuff the main hero said. The main idea of this film was: religion is bad, it causes fanaticism and wars. So was then, so is now. Jews practically were not present, fanaticism on Muslim side was shown only once, but Christianity, and especially clergy, is the main bad character in this film.
What are the clergy in this film shown like?
- a priest who steals the cross from the corpse of the wife of Balian, and is killed by hero.
- fanatical monks who with faces of village idiots shout out that killing heathens is right
- patriarch of Jerusalem who's shown as idiot, and two-faced guy who'd abandon his faith to retain his life and who even his cowardice explains by the will of God
- templars, who are depicted as highwaymen
- pope, who, according to this film, simply orders people to kill the heathens
there are hospitaliers, but I don't recall their name actually being mentioned (once as "your order")
Several times it had to be mentioned that I crusade slaughtered entire (which actually isn't true) Jerusalem.
If someone does anything bad, it has to be Christian side. It may be partially right in this particular time, the story of Renaud de Chatillon is about right (his relation to Gui is not shown correctly as far as I know). Saladin was an exceptional ruler, however, and as exceptional were the deeds of de Chatillon. A viewer will remember the slaughter of Jerusalem of first crusade, but about the alughter of it by Turks earlier, or much worse slaughters of Acco, Antioch and other bigger cities commited not by a band of bewildered by thousands of kms of extremly harsh journey crusaders, but by fully aware and organised Muslim rulers being even today remembered as heroes, one will not hear. But true, the film should not be blamed for this. But depicting Kingdom of Jerusalem (or half of it) as bloodthirsty warmongers, and Muslim side as actually pretty peacefull folk is untrue, and the words "king Baldwin and Saladin work together for peace" or whatever, is simply silly, especially if You recall the later mentionings of Baldwin himself about his victory over Saladin. Saladin attacked Kingdom of Jerusalem several times before the unfortunate excursions of Renald.
the pathethic love story that had to be implanted in the film I will not comment.
The most ahistorical part were the feelings and words of Balian. He is a XX/XXI century person of liberal views put into Middle Ages. His words during the siege of Jerusalem, that they're fighting for the people of Jerusalem, not for the temples that pass etc and that no-one remembers the massacre of Jerusalem today etc only make sense today as words about present Israel, make sense that current Israelis are not responsible for the bad deeds of the ones that created the state. In the times of crusades such thoughts not only were not very likely to be said or thought, but would not get applause for sure. bla bla bla etc.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Heresson
I've seen it.
First of all, film is film and not schoolbook of history. But this film is a film that tries to influence our ways of thinking

I think every movie does that

BTW, do they show how Saladin orders the killing of the templars he got at Hattin? Still haven't seen the movie....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
BeBro, I think that Brit historian has got it right. This movie is a PC adaptation of history that is going to cause a lot of people to truly misunderstand history.

Like Braveheart, The Patriot, Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World, Pearl Harbor, that submarine movie, and others. Wow, who would ever have guess Hollywood would get history wrong?

[JohnT]

In all honesty though, M&C was an adaptation of a novel, not a re-enactment of a historical event.

[chequita guevara]

They still changed it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They still changed it.

Why should M&C be different from any other book made into a movie?

[BeBMan]

Let's complain that "Ivanhoe" isn't a historical character.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Like Braveheart, The Patriot, Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World, Pearl Harbor, that submarine movie, and others. Wow, who would ever have guess Hollywood would get history wrong?

I also heard massive complaints by whole countries over the recent Alexander film. Still, don't we have a right to complain a bit?

[chequita guevara]

I would hope we are above such stupidity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And they changed M&C to make the movie more true to the books where the French were the main enemy and the Americans were the enemy only in 'Far Side of the World'.

[Pax]

It's funny how movies are held to such a high standard these days. Imagine if we held all movies set in the past to the same standards. Let's start with Cowboy and Indian movies and work our way through almost every movie made in america into the 60's that showed crowded streets empty of minorities. This movie is not a PC version because it manages to offend just by having a point of view. You don't have to agree with the characters ideas to enjoy the story. People are too afraid to be challenged with opinions and views that differ from theirown. I went to see Passion of the Christ even though I don't agree with the religous fanaticism prevalent in american society. Let's just judge this on the merits of cinematography, writing, acting, and storytelling.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by BeBro


I think every movie does that

Nah, some are just commercial ones.

BTW, do they show how Saladin orders the killing of the templars he got at Hattin? Still haven't seen the movie....

No, they only show the murder of Renaud.