Why was this actor so good and why haven't I seen him in any other films?

That's like basically every British actor.

Maybe watch more stuff?
He was in Harry Potter and recently did Fargo S3.

Basically, everyone was kino, except for Orlando Bloom.

>the werewolf guy in Harry Potter
was just gonna say this

>I am not those men, I am Salalhuddin

The actual Raymond III being in the film would have made more sense, but Irons does a good job. Godfrey is bland though and Chatillon's a caricature.

>Harry Potter
I'm not a millennial woman, so I don't watch it.

What was the deal with Firuz? What religion was he? If he was Muslim why was he traveling with Godfrey?

Holy shit, these are two of my favorite movies, I watch both of them all the time, and I can't believe I've never noticed that Knox was him.

Not gonna lie I’ve seen kingdom of heaven countless times and thoroughly enjoy it, and I did not know the king was Edward Norton. That blew my mind a little

Brendan Gleeson is an Irish national treasure.

I love KOH but does anyone else feel the movie fangirled a bit too much over Saladin? I don't know it it was Hollywood being liberal becaue he was brown or because the
>we want the muslim audience
thing. I mean in the movie he let's them all go but irl he enslaved most of Jerusalems citizens unless they payed for their freedom when he negotiated for the city

Attached: Jerusalem Liberated.jpg (1924x1080, 633K)

The actor is congoid instead of capoid but I still still assumed he was supposed to be Ethiopian, which was largely Miaphysite Christians.

to be fair the Crusader states hired muslim mercenaries all the time irl but is probably correct

Holy fuck, didn't know it was Gleeson playing him.

Does the directors cut eliminate it being a Bush era revision of the crusades? Or does it just fill in what the theatrical version moronically cut? That version of the film is downright nonsensical but even fixing that would only make it a decent film.

He is from Makuria. It was a Christian kingdom located on the Nile river that was cut off from the rest of the world after the Islamic conquest and conversion of Egypt. It remained independent and relatively sovereign on its own despite living in a state of constant war. The Crusades managed to reestablish contact with them and the rest of Christendom for a time being.

Give them a read, they're fascinating.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makuria

Being historically accurate isn’t a pre-requisite for being kino.
It obviously still has Bloom holding it back really hard, but look at something like Rome. You never see people bitching about how inaccurate that is

Einon judges you for not having seen Dragonheart

Attached: Einon.jpg (369x585, 79K)

>started in theatre
no, he didn't. he started in porn, like all great actors.

Attached: whatt.jpg (484x212, 18K)

There was also a Jewish state and substantial Jewish population in Ethiopia. And it was one of the oldest Christian realms that there was.
And they claim to be the keepers of the Ark of the Covenant

I still think they should have cast this actor as Baron Harkonnen in the Dune movie.

>that was cut off from the rest of the world after the Islamic conquest and conversion of Egypt. It remained independent and relatively sovereign on its own despite living in a state of constant war.
Based.

.....sauce..?

>That witness. All of Jerusalem. Holy God.
>And me.

He was dramatically more merciful to the inhabitants of Jerusalem when he took the city than the 1st Crusaders had been when they took it initially. Dramatically.

You have to judge people by the standards of the times in which they lived, and by the standards of the day, particularly when compared with his most famous antagonist Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin was extremely chivalrous. Richard was basically an unreliable, selfish, loutish bullyboy who spent all of five minutes actually governing his Empire and instead squeezed it until it was white to fund his military adventures, and later to get him ransomed out of the clutches of a German noble that he'd screwed over (one of many he'd jilted). His Crusade had a ton of problems because he was also incapable of not fucking with the French king, rumored to be his ex-lover, Philip Augustus. Richard just could not stop stepping on his own dick. He, however, was very cunning and by all accounts an absolute monster in battle.

Richard and Saladin are both fascinating, larger-than-life characters and are absolutely worth reading up on. However, of the two, Saladin was by far the one most like our modern romantic notion of a Chivalrous King.

This dude was always my favourite when I was younger. He just has presence, much like

Watch 'Naked'
It's his best film.

Attached: Naked Mike Leigh.jpg (1600x865, 213K)

Attached: remes.jpg (1080x1235, 966K)

Those early Christian kingdoms in the Horn of Africa and the Nile were based. Probably the most advanced African nations to this day.

Makurians we're badass as fuck. I read that at one point in their literature you can see they thought they were the last remnant of Christianity left on earth. They lived in a medieval equivalent of the Terminator 2, facing down the muslim horde.

Attached: 9682f5d30504b1b61d0f5cfd89cca35d--warfare-warriors.jpg (236x410, 17K)

Is this the eternal anglo?

Don't get me wrong I think Saladin is a fascinating person historically and I really like the actor who portrays him. This scene is still KINO youtube.com/watch?v=u6aPgA5549g
I just feel like the movie was a bit to pro muslim (not sure if that's the correct way to describe it) and I get a feeling it's either because of wanting muslim audiences to go see it or just Hollywood being liberal

>beat the invading muslims hard enough to establish a treaty that lasted for hundreds of years
based

Attached: 6593493.gif (245x138, 891K)

>I want chicken so bad I'm willing to get caught by my enemies

Richard kind of was a spoiled shit...

I don’t know about most advanced today, but they are also the only African country to not get colonized by Europe. They rushed industrialization like Japan, getting railroads, maxim guns, and telegraph lines. It wasn’t until Italy invaded them in 1936 that they fell.

I was shocked when they just killed him off, one of the most likeable characters in HP

>DURTEEN!!!!

Because he goes where he is needed

>Saladin was by far the one most like our modern romantic notion of a Chivalrous King.
Saladin slaughtered thousands of his own people and conquered them before realising he should probably fight the Kingdom of Jerusalem otherwise he isn't going to heaven.

Remember, Islam plays the long game. They muslim is a clever creature. When it fails to take with force, it will wait centuries to achieve via the slow conversion of its neighbors.

Makuria is living evidence of the danger they pose. A kingdom of thriving African Christians that lasted for hundreds of years before being eaten away piece by piece by conversion. Now the region that it once occupied is the hellscape that is modern Sudan. Islam is a poison, but more importantly it is one of the slowest acting poisons in history.

is it really that hard to believe they weren't all 100% lolevul?
Could have done with some better background on why the crusaders were there in the first place though (S*lj*ks getting everyones panties in a twist).

It's rounded out by his entourage being full of "god wills it" bloodthirsty psychos, I liked how pragmatic and measured he was in contrast, he's above the dogma and vitriol of his faith even though his followers aren't.

>mfw my homeland is injecting that poison willingly.

Attached: 1526540339780.gif (265x200, 1.96M)

kevin mckidd should've had bloom's role

>is it really that hard to believe they weren't all 100% lolevul?
It's fact that he didn't let everyone leave Jerusalem. He enslaved everyone that couldn't pay ransom.

oh that's in Sudan? Fuck it's sad to see what it's descendents ended up like

Makuria was just one Kingdom. There were several more throughout Ethiopia.

This is why I said you have to judge people by the standards of their age. Yes he was a conqueror, and if by "his people" you're referring to muslims or middle easterners or whatever, then you really haven't got yourself into the proper mindset for a feudal society. There is no nation, no "people" other than whoever is directly in your fief. There are no countries, only families and the areas they control. Killing other muslims from the next county over isn't some kind of racial betrayal, anymore than it was for European lords who were doing exactly the same thing a few thousand miles away.

Read about Saladin. He frequently opted for clemency after his conquests, when he was under no obligation to, and against the express wishes of his subordinate lords. He lived humbly and died almost penniless. Don't let your prejudice prevent you from learning about exceptional people, wherever you find them.

>b-b-b-but the directors cut
No!
Kingdom of Heaven is disingenuous shit. It tries desperately to make mudslimes look good and crusaders look bad no matter how ahistorical that idea is.
Fact: Saladin didnt let everyone go after the siege. In fact, he made Balian and the Bishop pay for each person they wanted to free. Both gave everything they could and when it wasnt enough for Saladin to free everyone, they both offered themselves to free more(Saladin refused this because he wanted to give some Christians as slaves to his soldiers)

Fact: Guy was not a bloodthirsty warmonger. His wife never cheated on him with Balian and was loyal till death.

Fact: Teutonic Knights never tried to assassinate Balian. In fact they didnt even really exist yet. No crusaders tried to assassinate Balian in recorded history

Fact: Balian was born in Outremer and died there. He never once saw France.

There are many MANY more flat out lies in this movie which was made as propaganda to make Muslims look good during the early 2000s when everyone (rightfully) hated them. Fuck Kingdom of Heaven.

>He frequently opted for clemency after his conquests
Because he knew it was easier to rule people if you don't kill them? Because if you leave a bunch of heathens in your realm then they have to pay you a jizya tax?
>Don't let your prejudice prevent you from learning about exceptional people
He was a good conqueror and good at ruling. That doesn't mean he was a good person, and you have failed to provide any proof that he was.

Hardly a black mark by contemporary morality, it's the same century or so where the Albigensian Crusaders "let god sort them out".

Attached: Le_massacre_des_Albigeois.jpg (363x325, 97K)

>What is Jerusalem worth?
>Nothing....
>Evertything
what did he mean by this?

You said:
>Saladin was by far the one most like our modern romantic notion of a Chivalrous King.
And now you're saying:
>then you really haven't got yourself into the proper mindset for a feudal society.

It is YOU who hasn't put yourself in the proper mindset. Unfortunately you are falling into the trap of the historical myth of Saladin being an "honourable" person. Similar to how people call Rommel the good nazi.

A lot of the clemency and things he did were things that many lords and kings did. You say he had "no obligation to". But most rulers would grant nobility decent treatment for ransom lest they be captured by their enemy. And granting clemency after conquests was what MOST rulers did. They only came down hard on people who resisted. Keeping the local apparatus of power intact was a good way to build loyalty and diplomacy.

Also I was referring to the fact that he conquered other muslims. I never said they were all part of one nation, you are clearly strawmanning me. Our concept of Christians and crusaders is often characterised by our perception of them as "barbaric" but people like you NEVER seem to apply that to the other side.

LITERALLY 99% of your perception of Saladin seems to be best on this movie and how he treated Richard. As opposed to the historical reality of a man who helped build an empire and slaughtered tens of thousands.

The land is useless but cunts just wont stop flocking to the place.

And he did what was more profitable and enslaved everyone except those that could pay ransom.
You are failing to make him appear any more chivalrous than anyone else.

Read about the conduct of the Crusaders when they took the city in 1099, friend. It was a bloodbath.

A king is generally thought of as "good" so long as the crops don't fail too often and he doesn't tax the peasants into the ground too often so as far as historically rulers go here's 1000 words for you.

Attached: Ayyubid_Sultanate_1193_AD.jpg (2892x1698, 901K)

>crusaders dindu nuffin

see Enslaving everyone that can't pay ransom isn't more chivalrous than just killing everyone.

>Ayyubid Sultanate
Ayy lmao

Attached: Tell my wife ayy.jpg (630x354, 50K)

So are we moving the goalposts AGAIN to be "effective ruler"?

>People from 1000 years ago have differing concepts of morality
Still doing better than Richard "impoverished my realm because I fucked over the Austrians" Lionheart and Phillip "let me just exterminate my subjects for having a different opinion of the Eucharist" Augustus.

The crusades were a direct response to hundreds of years of mudslimes constantly trying to invade Europe.

Nobody said shit about goalposts fren you're the one having a bitchfit over a brown person not being satan.

Did I claim either one was chivalrous?
Repeatedly you try and elevate Saladin by saying "but x was bad"
That doesn't make him chivalrous.

if only you knew pal

Oof, Godwin's law in 2 posts. Bravo user.

It was not my intention to strawman you; hence "if by". I am also quite explicitly pointing out that both sides engaged in the usual feudal warmongering and atrocity. No doubt there were charitable lords amongst the Franks, too.

My point was, in the context of this movie and why the initial poster rightly pointed out that it is pretty favorable in its depiction of Saladin, that Saladin definitely comes off looking great compared to a lot his contemporary antagonists, notably Richard Coeur de Lion, Reynald de Chatillon, Guy de Lusignan, et al. So it's not unreasonable to portray him favorably.

What about Umayyad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate

>Nobody said shit about goalposts
I did. When the person I replied to was calling him chivalrous and now you're conflating morality with effectiveness of rule.
They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
>you're the one having a bitchfit over a brown person not being satan.
I didn't bring it up you shizo, but he was correct in that the movie painted him in a more positive light by letting everyone go. In real life he did no such thing.

the early muslims were professional meme'ers

What? Not murdering people isn't better than murdering them? Have you had a closed head injury, user?

Philip didn't even participate in the Albigensian crusade, he just allowed his vassals to. It's his son Louis who brought an end to the conflict actively.

>Oof, Godwin's law in 2 posts. Bravo user.
You can take the piss, but it is an apt comparison. Historical myths such as these are perpetuated by people pushing "great men" theories in history completely ignoring the context of the time.

You can say that he was more "honourable" than his antagonists. But his antagonists aren't as responsible for as many deaths as he was.

>Don't let your prejudice prevent you from learning about exceptional people, wherever you find them.
Dont romanticise "great men" in history over learning about everything they did. No one should be so romanticised as to ignore their sins.

Oh yes it it does, you're just confusing modern day Hollywood "do right unto others"chivalry with actual "praise the lord and rule the realm" chivalry.
Saladin is generally considered Chivalrous, which is why Dante put him the 1st layer of the inferno along with Aristotle Caesar and the other righteous pagans, unless Medieval people themselves were all wrong and only now you're the one thinking otherwise?

It's a pragmatic decision.
He did what was profitable. It doesn't make him a decent person.

I'm so glad I'm not a /pol/fag or a tranny and can just enjoy movies, it's comfy.

>B-B-UT HE DID THAT THING THAT ONE TIME
Literally whatboutism.

>Oh yes it it does
No, it literally doesn't. Casting doubt on the moral character of others doesn't elevate the moral character of someone else who you have repeatedly declined to offer proof of.

Sorry, I didn't know I was required to provide you with a list.
You didn't happen to have any evidence that he was of remarkable moral character, did you? Or are you just going to keep saying "That one time didn't count"

Nobody is ignoring anything. You plainly have an axe to grind and are taking offense at someone you've chosen to vilify being described in anything other than negative terms. You can hide behind a facade of impartiality all you like, but you're hopping mad because someone said something nice about Saladin. Tsk tsk.

Exceptional people are absolutely worth investigation by virtue of their peculiar circumstances alone, and should not be ignored on ideological grounds like resistance to "great man" theory.

By the standards of his culture it was considered morally good and better than executing them.

You have no earthly idea what his motives were. We can only examine the results. More dead, or less dead.

You offered it yourselves but are too dumb to realize it, he didn't outright slaughter them but was instead merciful and gave them the chance to pay ransom, hence why he's been lionized ever since as a noble foe.
It's your modern standards that are out place here.

>By the standards of his culture
So because he was considered decent for a childfucking murdering savage then I have to pretend he was a great guy?

Not that user but that's basically whataboutism. I agree that Saladin wasn't exceptionally cruel though, he was a textbook pragmatist, just like most medieval rulers of the time. His clemency was always calculated and so was his cruelty. At the same time Richard the Lionheart wouldn't have necessarily viewed the massacre of Saladin's troops as a blemish on his personal chivalry or virtue, just as Saladin wouldn't have when he massacred the holy orders after the Battle of Hattin to appease his men.

>You have no earthly idea
I think I have more of one than you
>More dead, or less dead.
You mean more money, or less money.

Stop applying your 21st century western morals on medieval rulers

If they portrayed Saladin realistically, they would have had to have portrayed the Christians realistically as well. No one in the story is good, but if you want to make a profitable movie about it you have to romanticize it a bit.

>Nobody is ignoring anything.
Then why did you feel the need to go straight in for the ad hominem if we aren't in real disagreement? Why enter into this in such bad faith? You call me mad and take the piss. And you consistently ignore my points just to strawman. I have no axe to grind here other than conversation.

I am not vilifying him. I am saying you need to provide balance and context as opposed to romanticising him and singing his praises. No one is saying to ignore people based on resistance to "great man" theory. Of course history contains interesting individuals. Just that you shouldn't romanticise someone and you should place them in a proper context.

daily reminder that the most important legacy of the crusades was that they killed the Byzantine Empire and let the Ottomans take over the Balkans

I'm Anglo myself and therefore reserve the right to label Lionfart as shit for bankrupting the country for the sake of his own vanity.
But yeah he wasn't anything special in terms of being a humanitarian, he was just like another Christian in terms of the rules of war which is what so shocked his opponents who fully expected to be treated as they had treated others, hence his good reputation.
You have to go back.

Attached: you.jpg (546x700, 136K)

Don't expect any Hollywood movie to give a positive portrayal of Christians, the people in charge are highly against them

What did his culture feel about him killing more muslims than Christians?

back to /pol/, retard

This post reeks of paki

Does it hurt to be this deluded? Do you suffer any physical pain from your lack of critical thinking skills, or just emotional and psychological?

There's the problem friend, he was a franglo.

The guy who brought up Nazis as quick as you like is talking about reasonable discourse

The context was given explicitly. When compared with his contemporary foes, the actions of Saladin make him look pretty righteous. Reynald de Chatillon was like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Saladin was evicting a foreign invasion that had put a boot on the neck of his correligionists and had engaged in wholesale slaughter when they'd taken Jerusalem in 1099, and did not repay them in kind but opted for relative clemency.

Saying the man was a visibly more decent than some of his contemporaries is not "singing his praises"

Nice argument

I'm not deluded, Hollywood is an extremely anti-christian and anti-conservative industry. They aren't secretive about it either so don't claim it's a conspiracy.

Still huwhyter than you, Vasquez

Attached: laughs in supremacy.jpg (240x210, 9K)

Imagine being so delusional that you refuse to acknowledge the biased portrayal of western religion in media.

>It is a poor and comfy place

Attached: 1556773406301.jpg (970x546, 176K)

Recommend a better movie then.
Oh wait it doesn’t fucking exist.

On the contrary user, they derive much pleasure from drinking the kool aid. It's what makes it so pernicious.

>When compared with his contemporary foes, the actions of Saladin make him look pretty righteous. Reynald de Chatillon was like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
I thought we were talking about real life.
Raynald de Chatillon wasn't comically evil like the movie.

I liked him in a 7 Years in Tibet

>laughs in supremacy
lmao

Attached: British Empire.jpg (988x867, 88K)

He was a scoundrel and a marauder, and 15 years in prison did nothing to temper him. He did more harm to the Christian cause in the Orient than he did the Muslim.

>The guy who brought up Nazis as quick as you like is talking about reasonable discourse
This is COMPLETELY disingenous. I was comparing historical myths and how people have a perception on a character in history based on a very narrow interpretation of who they are.

>Reynald de Chatillon was like a Saturday morning cartoon villain
This is completely incorrect. Now who is doing the vilifying.

You know, we were not even massively in conflict here. You said your point, I said mine. Saladin did good and bad things. But you had to completely misrepresent things and engage in ad hominem.

He in a lot of stuff, ranging from Harry Potter to the recent macbeth.

Naked is a good movie and is the movie that launched him into being a name.

What was once may yet come again, which is more than can be said for yourself.

>He was a scoundrel and a marauder
That's a strange way of saying "conducted raids against the caravans near his demesne"
You do understand that Saladin was his enemy, correct?

Literally all of it could unite and it still wouldn't be a fraction of the might of "my" country

Saladin was somewhat merciful because the city negotiated a surrender, not because he was a good boy. Jerusalem in the first crusade did not surrender, so the invaders got a field day when they entered.
>You have to judge people by the standards of the times in which they lived
This is also true with regards to war and siege etiquette. Cities that surrendered were generally treated peacefully, cities that didn't were treated violently because fucking no one wants to go through a siege, attacker or defender. Saladin's moves were more based on a practical element of beating the crusaders without losing too much strength, not a merciful bout of chivalry. He is good in the sense that he would often make his generals actually keep their word to the defenders and stop from sacking and raping cities that surrendered without a fight, but the man still enslaved or slaughtered thousands of innocent people.

>23% of the population and 24% of the land mass isn't a fraction

Who will win, one lion, or five sheep?

You're Savannah beast now?

Attached: index.jpg (284x177, 11K)

I might as well be in a world where population and landmass immediately equal power

You pretty are already if you think human wave isn't viable.

Interesting fact- Gleeson plays the Saracen witness.

>he thinks human wave is viable

Attached: 1520280323992.gif (300x228, 2.09M)

Attached: Macbeth 2015 - killing the King.webm (1000x418, 2.76M)

>Conversion of Egypt.
Egypt remained predominantly Christian until Saladin took over and removed the more lenient and bureaucratic Shia Fatmid dynasty and replaced it with the Sunni Ayyubids.

>He thinks human wave isn't viable

Attached: raughs.jpg (1200x567, 178K)

>1950

Attached: 1528649266488.gif (245x200, 497K)

>wat is Chinese entrance
It's almost as if the military industrial complex that just fucked Hitler up the ass didn't get it's own back door sloppy seconded by 900 million screaming Chinamen.

viable because the US didn't want to start a nuclear war

>warfare in 1950 is the same as 2019
>fighting to a standstill with x20 as many men is an achievement

Attached: 1519015738139.gif (298x224, 3.59M)

>Achieving your strategic goals is a standstill

Attached: DO IT AGAIN GENERAL ROSS.jpg (768x432, 51K)

>now for the real question...

Attached: m2tw ss6.4 what is aleppo worth.jpg (1920x1080, 571K)

do you think burning a house in a swamp achieved a strategic objective?

Crusade States is a tough campaign iIRC

>outrun your own supply lines and are unable to feed your massive army and lose a third of your front line forces in a week after the element of surprise wears off
>i-i meant to stop here

Attached: 1532404217921.webm (1280x720, 1.59M)

'What's it like being you? Bit hectic?'

Attached: highland fling.jpg (758x402, 28K)

Thanks for reminding me Med 3 will never exist.
At least I have CK2

Do you think quashing Amurimutt territorial ambitions for good is not?

>quashing Amurimutt territorial ambitions for good
>20 years before annexing half of Mexico

Attached: 1557947853946.gif (320x272, 2.71M)

>Preserving British Canada forever and ever isn't a quashed ambition

Attached: still you.jpg (192x256, 10K)

>moving the goalposts

Attached: wdesfrgthy.gif (320x240, 2.87M)

Well shit man, is it soccer or football?

It's aztec basketball played with human heads

It's the MAYA ballgame damnit, -3 points!

Attached: Chichén_Itzá_Goal.jpg (2088x1550, 521K)