Main > The Round Table
What would you have been in the medieval age?
Silvanus:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-10-23, 21:17:22 ---Little footnote, the Teutonic Order wasn't around at the time. Find another band of knights to blame for attacking Orlando Bloom! ;)
Also, the real villain of the whole affair weren't the Templars (the knights of the Temple took no part in any of Reynald's raids, or were ever under his command) or even Guy. Reynald de Chattillion was the true villain, and he was portrayed pretty accurately.
Guy was actually a French adventurer, and it seems Sybilla fell madly in love with him (her family had little to gain from Guy, and were against the marriage). It also didn't help that Baldwin seriously undermined Guy's authority during his fits of madness (brought upon by his advancing leprosy). This caused many blunders under Guy's rule due to the nobility not respecting or obeying him (the most notable example was Hattin of course). In fact, Guy was actually the reason Outremer made it into the 13th century. Saladin released Guy after the fall of Jerusalem, thinking the man a broken king. However, after being released, Guy gathered up all of the remaining forces along the coast and besieged Acre, putting up a heroic resistance to the superior Muslim forces until Richard and Phillip arrived with the 3rd crusade.
--- End quote ---
LOL, yes I saw that anachronism, too, Sir Nathan. Another thing about Reynald was that he was a bit of a pirate. He actually constructed ships on land near Gaza, tore them down and had them hauled across the Sinai to the Gulf of Aqaba and was set on sailing down the Red Sea and attacking Mecca and Medina. The mission failed miserably, of course.... He was ruthless, but I do have a grudging admiration for his daring - though not his massacres of innocent traders. He did spend 14 years in a Saracen prison as a younger man before his family ransomed him. Perhaps that was when he began to lose a bit of sanity.
Sir William:
--- Quote from: Silvanus on 2012-10-23, 20:53:29 ---
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-10-23, 20:01:31 ---Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
--- End quote ---
Well, to be sure, there were some unjust - even evil - Templars who bullied and butchered the native population of Outremer. That might be said for any group of knights in the Holy Land. However, Scott seems to enjoy portraying the entire Templar brotherhood as greedy fools with no idea of the military reality in which they were in. The General of the Order, as well as Guy - who was not historically a Templar, btw - and Reynald were among the villains of the film.... Don't get me wrong, KoH and Scott did a great service to the portrayal of knights and the kingdom of Jerusalem. But not one good Templar? (You understand I have a certain duty to defend my overlords.) :)
--- End quote ---
I think what constituted a 'good' Templar differs from what we consider good, today. For instance, the Templars, while seemingly autonomous, were the Pope's elite fighting troops- they fought under the aegis of the Church, took the Cross as their blazon. I fancy myself a bit of a Crusades historian, with emphasis on the Third Crusade (which is slightly after the events of the film, only at the end do you see Richard on his way to the Holy Land) - but just from what I've read, we would consider such soldiers as fanatics in every sense of the word. Their ruleset was dedicated to keeping the soldiers in line, giving them somewhat else to focus their energies upon- things like the trappings of wealth and society held little meaning for the rank and file. Maybe not necessarily so for the leaders, but definitely for the ranks. They were groomed to be zealous in the defense of the Faith- and were granted 'immunity' from the sins they would commit in the Holy Land- and you can take that a number of ways, but I looked at it as a license to kill Muslims, be they citizen or soldier. It is also interesting to note that the Templars enjoyed success only in the First Crusade, although they butchered the indigenous populace when they first took the city...they were never again able to match that level of success, although Richard did make some progress toward restoration of the Holy Land to the Church but he was not ultimately successful. His treaty with Saladin, which could not have happened were it not for the actions of Guy prior to Richard's arrival (alluded to by Sir Nathan), allowed for the Holy Land to have a modicum of peace while still being in Muslim hands. At least until the 4th Crusade was called for ten years later.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-10-24, 14:50:45 ---
--- Quote from: Silvanus on 2012-10-23, 20:53:29 ---
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-10-23, 20:01:31 ---Silvanus, KoH is a favorite of mine as well- in fact, I implore anyone interested in viewing it to view the Director's Cut as opposed to the theatrical version. What did you not like about his portrayal of the Templars?
--- End quote ---
Well, to be sure, there were some unjust - even evil - Templars who bullied and butchered the native population of Outremer. That might be said for any group of knights in the Holy Land. However, Scott seems to enjoy portraying the entire Templar brotherhood as greedy fools with no idea of the military reality in which they were in. The General of the Order, as well as Guy - who was not historically a Templar, btw - and Reynald were among the villains of the film.... Don't get me wrong, KoH and Scott did a great service to the portrayal of knights and the kingdom of Jerusalem. But not one good Templar? (You understand I have a certain duty to defend my overlords.) :)
--- End quote ---
I think what constituted a 'good' Templar differs from what we consider good, today. For instance, the Templars, while seemingly autonomous, were the Pope's elite fighting troops- they fought under the aegis of the Church, took the Cross as their blazon. I fancy myself a bit of a Crusades historian, with emphasis on the Third Crusade (which is slightly after the events of the film, only at the end do you see Richard on his way to the Holy Land) - but just from what I've read, we would consider such soldiers as fanatics in every sense of the word. Their ruleset was dedicated to keeping the soldiers in line, giving them somewhat else to focus their energies upon- things like the trappings of wealth and society held little meaning for the rank and file. Maybe not necessarily so for the leaders, but definitely for the ranks. They were groomed to be zealous in the defense of the Faith- and were granted 'immunity' from the sins they would commit in the Holy Land- and you can take that a number of ways, but I looked at it as a license to kill Muslims, be they citizen or soldier. It is also interesting to note that the Templars enjoyed success only in the First Crusade, although they butchered the indigenous populace when they first took the city...they were never again able to match that level of success, although Richard did make some progress toward restoration of the Holy Land to the Church but he was not ultimately successful. His treaty with Saladin, which could not have happened were it not for the actions of Guy prior to Richard's arrival (alluded to by Sir Nathan), allowed for the Holy Land to have a modicum of peace while still being in Muslim hands. At least until the 4th Crusade was called for ten years later.
--- End quote ---
Of course the original Crusaders had success because they killed everyone non-Christian including Jews, Orthodox, etc as well as Muslims when they took the Holy Land as they considered them all infidels (even if not by the Pope's decree). They butchered all in Jerusalem without concern of mortal sin or murder of innocents. They were unorganized to oppose them, unprepared, & not capable of a viable defense against the mass of Crusaders intent of killing all without mercy or concern of damnation. They won because none were left to fight them after the massacre.
Sir Robert:
Perhaps this is an old post but I'll add my voice to it.
I would have been a smith, its too much in my family blood to not to have been, we have had several generations of black smiths in my family tracing back to England and to Germany. Perhaps I would have been able to take it further as like most of you here I am highly technical but I also can visualize shapes and convert them to patterns fairly well, I am pretty good at tailoring as well as making armor. Combine that with a good chemistry and metallurgical education, and lots of practical experience at the forge, maybe I would have eventually been an armorer or bladesmith. I prefer armor to blades, but both have their quality. This background originally lead me to our more modern family business of engineering but I prefer my hot/cold and dirty forge to my office any day.
SirNathanQ:
Lord Dane, yes, as depicted in KOA, the Templars were evil punks. No one disputes that, as it was kind of the point. In reality they, and the crusaders in general, were for the most part, nothing like that.
Also the Pope in Rome had very little to do with what the Crusaders did once they got on the boats for the Holy Land. The Pope didn't direct Reynald on his raids, or the Crusaders to Hattin. The Pope called the crusade, got them on the boats, told them the overall goal, and that's really it. The Crusades were in a spiritual sense, a show of devotion, and an extremely elaborate penance (that's where the forgiveness for past sins (and those committed on Crusade). There were those of course who abused this, and took it as a licence to do whatever they wanted, but that was never the idea.
Also the Crusaders actually just barely won the first crusade. At every turn they faced overwhelming odds, and their series of victories could almost be considered miraculous. The siege of Jerusalem was an extremely hard fought siege, with much death on both sides. A sack of the city was simply standard military protocol for the time. The total exterminations took place on the Temple Mount (the last and fiercest defender holdouts), not the whole city. It was a fierce siege followed by a fierce sack. Nothing abnormal at all for the time. And I would be very hesitant to call the defenders of Jerusalem "not capable". The only reason the siege succeeded as soon as it did (and it needed to, a Muslim relief force was on its way) was because of tactical ploys by the crusader leaders.
Also the Templars weren't around for the first Crusade, being founded almost 30 years afterwards.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version