Belegarth

I'm writing a research paper on equipment and tactics of latin crusaders in the 12th century, and I'm having a hard time finding any decent books specifically detailing the military aspects of it. Plenty of chronologies and exposition about the political reasons, but very little useful material. Does anyone know any good books or online resources that specifically cover arms, armor, and tactics?

Look for kids picture books, and archaeological papers--you're probably looking the wrong places, there's plenty of stuff. Very well documented archaeologically. Sorry I don't have time now to give you links.

Armies of the Crusades
http://www.amazon.com/Armies-Crusades-M ... 26-8863860

The Osprey books are pretty good.

Oh, right, Osprey--good call Winfang, I should have thought of that immediately . . . yeah, the Osprey books are excellent resources.

http://www.deremilitari.org/

This might be a good website to check out.

u should watch kingdom of hevean cuz that looked pretty real

Mungus wrote:u should watch kingdom of hevean cuz that looked pretty real

For inspiration and entertaiment, perhaps, but not if you're looking for historical accuracy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200505270751.asp

Though I can't exactly cite a historical drama as a credible source in a research paper. Kyrian, Winfang, thanks a great deal, the book and website have turned out to be great resources, I appreciate it.

On the plus side, a lot of the costuming WAS good . . . if that's all you're looking for, KoH was a lot better than it could have been.

I thought the original was an okay movie, but I watched the directors cut and thought it was phenomenal, definitely one of my favorite chivalric romances. The only small thing that bugged me about the movie was the very non-period religious pluralism the main characters were bandying about, despite that it was a pretty responsible representation.

None of the ideas were at all Medieval. It was a modern morality play in medieval clothing. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the message being pushed, it was completely unmedieval.

God wills it!!

Well besides the idea of religious equality, is there anything you can think of that was particularly non-period Oisin? That was the only thing that ever really struck me, was the treatment of religion. Besides the fact that the characters and their relationships were dramatized, the whole backdrop of the Crusader States and High Middle Ages Europe was pretty accurate and well done. They just added a contemporary moral gloss to the main characters.

Well, I did find it rather funny that Balian "introduced" irrigation to his little plantation--considering that in the fertile crescent, they've been irrigating for what, about 7000 years at that point? Otherwise, the whole treating the holy land like it was this wide open new land, wild west style, is pretty inaccurate, and other than that, I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so I can't say for sure.

Ah yes, I forgot about that. I made that exact comment to someone last time I watched it. That and Guy apparently sends Teutonic knights to kill Balian, nevermind the fact that they didn't exist yet. Though I've heard before that the templars sometimes wore black crosses, I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Yeah, I think you're right about the colors being wrong--there's a lot of anachronistic time-frame stuff. Balian was in his 40's during the defense of Jerusalem, his father was like 30 years dead I think, and I don't think he ever even went to France, let alone live there as a blacksmith. He was a politician and knight of Outremer for his whole life. IIRC, they also get the kinship mixed up in the movie. Cousins who were actually brothers, or something like that. Also some of the friendships were wrong. I don't remember the exact details, I know a lot more about the period of the First Crusade than the Third (or, in this case, the events which led up to it). Try searching wikipedia for Balian of Ibelin.

As far as the Templars are concerned, they were formed right after the First Crusade, and officially sanctioned in the early 1100's, and were in fact a . The colors of the clothes the Hospitallers (or whoever those guys in blue were supposed to be, but I think they were Hospitallers) wore were completely wrong, but whatever. Also, Raymond (Tiberius in the movie, after his home fiefdom) was not a member of the Hospitallers, and neither Guy nor Raynald were Templars (though they were political allies), or quite as stupid, although every bit as bloodthirsty, as in the film. The army of Jerusalem marching out to its slaughter at the Horns of Hattin was also not a unilateral decision of Guy's, but reached after council between all of the main players, including Raymond and Balian, after the two parties (which were pretty much as in the movie--Guy and Raynald and the Templars on one side, Raymond and Balian and some others on the other, rivalry if anything more bitter than in the movie) had a pretty good reconciliation.

Also, has anyone seen the director's cut? I've heard that it is a much better movie . . .