What would you have been in the medieval age?

[Sir Edward]

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?

I think the film showed them in a particularly bad light. It wouldn't have been universally so.

[Sir William]

Was it a particularly bad light?  I didn't think so...unless we're talking about Guy using them as his personal shock troops...I did not read anywhere that that was the case (the attack on Saladin's sister's caravan, or sending them to attack Balian- altho I thought those particular knights were Teutons, just based on the white surcoats and shields blazoned with a black cross) but it is Hollywood after all and someone had to be the villains, no? 

Still, I thought the portrayal to be decent- bad thing about history is it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the Templars themselves.  The Order, the organization, who the leaders were...but not of the men themselves.  Lots of conjecture and discourse, but not a lot in the way of fact.  Given the religious intolerances of the day, I did not think it a reach to portray them as zealots for the Church, that is, in fact, what they were.

[Silvanus]

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?

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.)   

[SirNathanQ]

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. 

[Lord Dane]

I have seen it many times over Silvanus. And will continue to watch it wishing I could live in the time period of the Crusades. Was a great depiction of the era from one standpoint.

What I dislike is how the Templars act in this film or are portrayed (by Scott) as it makes me want to disfavor the Order (even though it is not a completely factual depiction of what historically occurred with characters as explained by Sir Nathan). Their bloodthirst & cry for war in the name of God is disheartening & a serious taint of any sense of pious honor. Templars in this movie needed to learn temperance & could have learned more following the actions of their Hospitallier brethren & Knights who followed King Baldwin IV faithfully in maintaining a peace w/ Saladin.

They could have maintained the Kingdom under Christian rule if they were more observant & wise to the true meaning of God's teachings & not the Pope's decree of what God demands of them. They were truly corrupted in this portrayal & 'real butchers' like the original Crusaders that won Jerusalem through the most non-Christian means. Their leaders were not men of God but of & for 'themselves'.   

[Silvanus]

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.

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]

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?

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.)   

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]

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?

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.)   

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.

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.       

[Lord Dane]

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.     

I said original CRUSADERS, Sir Nathan, not Templars. I know they were founded circa 1118.
Yes, they were not as well prepared & against odds but did find themselves having divine luck in most of their efforts. Desperation can motivate the most moral man to do the unthinkable even when intentions are good in his mind including betrayal to Christian beliefs.
 
However, Pope Urban II had everything to do with the 'motivational aspect' of those that chose to take the Holy Land & he certainly gave them the reasons to not be concerned about murder (even if not responsible for their actions). A one way ticket to Heaven & forgiveness for all past sins would be quite appealing to Christian guilt of the day especially to the knights who spent most of the their feudal days prior killing their fellow Christians in bloody disputes over land in Europe. He was the quinticential salesman of his day who knew how to market his trade to the masses of minions who followed Christian ideology.

They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.   

[SirNathanQ]

Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?

Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer. 

Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.

Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting. 

[Lord Dane]

Lord Dane, I was responding to Sir William's post, which seems to imply that the Templars were present during the 1st crusade.
Lord Dane, what sources do you have that say anything that happened during the siege of Jerusalem was contrary to the common practices of the day, or contrary to medieval Christian thinking?

Yes, a church endorsement was a good motivator, and when later crusades actually do start getting around to offering plenary indulgences for going on crusade, you do get some effect beyond devotion and penance (the crusades were never a straight ticket to heaven by themselves, and it was not for the remission of sins themselves, noting of course that remission and penance are two different things. As Catholics, all of the crusaders would have access to total remission of their sins through Confession, right at home.) But the Pope never directed the actual military forces in Outremer. 

Also, Urban II was responding to pleas for help from Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire. The Pilgrimage (it wasn't even known as a Crusade until much later) had the goal of seizing Muslim-held territory and returning it to the Byzantines (Christians, if not Catholics) in return for military aid on their pilgrimage. Land was only taken by the Crusaders when Stephen of Blois advised the Byzantine aid that the Crusaders were lost. If there was any true "salesman" behavior going on, it was probably Urban II hoping that the Pilgrimage could re-unify Christianity (Greek Orthodox had only split from the Catholic Church mere 50 years beforehand) under the Papal banner.

Also your description is actually the siege of Antioch. Jerusalem was won by a two-pronged attack, one of which shifted their position during the night to gain the element of surprise. And my point was that the garrison mounted an effective defense. The terms "not capable" and "unprepared" were taken from your post.
Also, where did you hear that account of the siege of Jericho? I am not near as knowledgeable with ancient battles, but it sounds rather interesting.

I agree with the Urban II historical account of why Crusaders went on Pilgrimage to the Holy Land resulting from the Byzantine Emperor requesting assistance from the Roman Church. It was just more a "ploy" on the part of the Pope that allowed the Crusades to begin (not just the invitation by the Byzantines who did not have the military might to retake their once-held territory from the occupying Muslims).  Pope Urban II wished more to unify the East and West under the Papal banner so Christian power would again reign in Rome. Granted, he did not control the masses who flocked on pilgrimage but he began what he knew would result... a good marketing campaign to assist the Church's end goal.

True enough regarding the practice of "remission" and "penance" right at home but the Pope could not motivate masses of murderous Christian soldiers on campaign for something they could do at home. He needed to appeal to those knights who would undertake the campaign by his guarantee of divine forgiveness for all sins if they went on campaign in the name of Christendom.

Honestly, we know the crusaders were motivated by different reasons (i.e. faith, greed, power, etc) in accordance with most accounts of the 3 year campaign (1095-98) to reach Jerusalem. The effort alone to reach Jerusalem under such dire and poor conditions would lead many of them to do inhumane and barbaric things, and it has according to history. Noone can really say it was one mitigating factor that drove them to go, but I think if Urban II hadn't made his plea, the Crusades would not have happened in the same way. He took advantage of a situation and did it well.

The Byzantines needed the Papacy aid but did not want to share what they now enjoyed. They did not expect a Catholic mob of about 100,000 Crusaders at their doors so they were hesistant to welcome them. This made the leaders of the Catholic campaign reign in their own efforts to retake the lands from Muslims for other reasons and led to betrayal. It certainly would not make reunification of East and West occur.

Yes, those were "my terms" from my post.  History Channel's series "Ancient Battles of the Bible" accounts for a whole documented history dedicated to the Israelites campaigns to take Canaan. Series noted battles led by Joshua, David, etc. that included Jericho.

[Sir James A]

They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.

Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?

[Lord Dane]

They took Jerusalem because some competent Crusader leader(s) were able to convince (bribe) a certain Muslim guarding a tower to give them access to a lightly defended West Wall with ladders during a night raid that led to the opening of the gates. No one said Jersulaem defenders were 'not capable', they were 'unprepared'. So yes, in relation to their military tactical ploys, their strategy worked great. Just like when Joshua conquered Jericho's walls by having Isrealite spies win some whore's heart who in turn, allowed his commandos at night to scale the walls with dropped ropes & penetrate the city defenses. Distraction & deception work well in military strategy when desperate.

Desperate or not, effective is effective. Never heard of that story. Seems interesting, is it fact based on evidence, or speculation?

Which one, Jerusalem or Jericho? Jerusalem account was more speculation which is to say unproven but the Jericho siege account is documented history.