Balian was not really a prick in real life. He was like most lords at the time, but he cared for the people a lot more than many others at that time. Saladin did not allow everyone to leave freely in reality. Balian (and the Bishop) bought as many as they could and even offered themselves up as slaves to try to free more. That is more than any of us would have done, I can assure you of that.
i was reading up on this article and Salahuddin was more than kind enough to let them leave, women and children even the knights. Just that they were asked to pay an amount. I'm sure we all would have done what Balian had. But not many would release women, children and eventually even those crusaders. Had we be Salahuddin. :)
A compassionate heart and showing the crusaders back then the meaning of Chivalry.
@birdingable What you described is known as ransom. This was the "neutral" behavior during this period of history. It was neither chivalrous nor nefarious, it was the default. All reputable sources say that only a portion of the Christian people in Jerusalem were able to pay the ransom or be paid for by Balian. And I doubt that most people in today's society would have sold themselves to someone who would kill you at the first chance just for a few others. It's against our nature.
@guilemaster147 This was the ''neutral''... thank you. But reputable sources also said that how Salahuddin, according to his captors/crusaders/etc mention of his chivalry. I guess we all believe in which ever way we want to. :)
0:38 The "posta del falcone"!!! He has remembered everything he's learnt up to this point.
This Directors' Cut is a masterpiece of a movie. The studio should have had the balls to release it. Orlando Bloom is just so much more of a badass in this version. You understand much better what he's going through.
This may have been pure hollywood history - but its still a cool film I think. I liked this fight. Kept me entertained.
Furthermore - it had a surprisingly accurate portrayal of Saladin - strong, intelligent, brave, tactically sound, faithful, and above all - an honorable and virtuous man.
As a Christian myself - I look highly upon Saladin's memory.
@NicholasGeschke What I really liked about the film was it's message. Namely don't fight over religion. We all have different beliefs and ultimately it's up to us what relgion follow and what beliefs we go by. Forced conversion is wrong. And the so called "holy" wars are anything but holy. They're done to conquer, kill indiscriminately, and steal valuables.
@lastswordfighter of course, the problem is setting this during the crusades will attract attention from historians more than philosophers. That's when the criticism comes. That, and from Bloom's acting.
This is a great movie. It has every factor an adventure story should have. So I forgive them for getting some of the history wrong, because, when you're trying to fit a whole story into around three hours, of course you can't fit everything in and have it make sense.
wow. all these people come here to fight over who is getting the facts right. this is a movie. of course they aren't gonna get ALL the facts right (usually not even most of the facts right) as long as the movie is entertaining, who cares.
@Sirio42 That's because it, along with a lot of other vital scenes, were cut from the theatrical version. You need to watch the Director's Cut which is far superior and includes this scene
The director's cut is so much better than the theatrical. This is the cut that should have been in theaters instead of a version that didn't connect us with the characters, felt too short at 144 minutes, left out pieces that made the film confusing, and made us forget that we were supposed to care this movie was even along. Thank God for DVDs.
@MrSupreme10 Where have you read about his character? All I've read are his actions and the results of them, the most I can glean of his personality/character was that he was a man of his age.
Perhaps not quite as chivalrous as Saladin (who himself had a few not so chivalrous moments).
@Daladun Because deep down they have a massive inferiority complex and hate themselves as much as they hate others. Plus Guy being executed is the only way he would have kept his honor, when Bailian let him live that was extremely insulting to his honor.
I quite liked this film- Not only because I'm an avid researcher of the Crusades, but also because I really love stories of Knighthood and honor and bravery.
If Balian had been as his film counterpart in real life, I imagine the Second Crusade would likely be looked upon in a more positive light. The Crusades did do alot of good- Not all of it was just fanatical, pride-fueled violence: Many brave men gave their lives fighting for God and served a cause greater than themselves.
@NicholasGeschke And you call yourself a researcher? You evidently carry a bias.
The crusades we never about doing good they were ordered by the pope and if you actualy DID any research you would know that the vatican was as corrupt as an institution can be and run for power and greed.
God has always been used as a tool to make people do evil things. No leader of a faith is beyond corruption and often had to be to get there!
historic knight/modern mujahideen... they are interchangable
@leedsm18 The Crusades were called in response to Muslim aggression. Perhaps you choose to forget the conquest of northern Africa, and Spain, and the invasion of France by the Muslims. The Crusades were simply a counterattack. As to Vatican corruption, why then does the Church hold up people like St. Francis, who live at this time, and went on a mission to convert the Muslim caliph to Christianity, as models that all catholics should follow. He was not corrupt, whatever is said.
@qmasterx Actually the first Crusade was instigated by the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor, who wanted an army of Western mercenaries to retake Anatolia (Turkey) from the Seljuk Turks who had invaded and annexed it. The Pope would likely have decided that it made more 'sense' to then go for the Christian holy lands instead, turning the Crusades from what would have been a political conflict to a religious one.
Just my two cents, albeit with a lot of historical likelihood.
@qmasterx St. Francis is held up as exceptional for the time in large part BECAUSE of how corrupt the bureaucracy of the Church was becoming.
The retaking of the Iberian penninsula by the spanish (Leon, Aragon, Portugal, etc.) and the retaking of Sicily by Normans were examples of what you were talking about and preceded "The Crusades," even though they were Crusades themselves.
As Celtic said, The Byzantines provided the excuse and Urban II used it.
@Floridanon407 No, the Muslims took Spain in the 700s. It wasn't completely reconquered until 1492 when Grenada fell. Sicily was taken by the Normans in the eleventh century, but not as a Crusade, but as England was conquered, as a Norman conquest. And yes, the Church does have periods where a large part of the clergy is corrupt. That is why the Church is constantly reforming, even today. If it was perpetually corrupt, the Church would not honor Francis, Dominic, Thomas Aquinas ect.
@qmasterx There were plenty of political non-religioius reasons as well, Italian nations like Sicily, Genoa and Venice wanted access to new trade from the area, other nations used it to send away their more rambunctious nobles but all of that aside, the Moors had no part in the fighting in the Levantine. The Muslims fighting the Christians in THESE crusades were the Fatimids, Seljuks and Ayyubids.
The Northern Crusades a century later would start similarly, Poland asked for help like Byzantium
@Floridanon407 I know history, my friend, I've studied it for years. As G.K. Chesterton said " Before the Crusaders had ever dreamed of riding into Jerusalem, the Muslims had almost ridden into Paris" The Crusades were simply a counterattack, as I've said. Tell me what happened, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks? Europe was fighting for its life in a battle led by the Church. Have you not heard of Malta, Vienna, Belgrade, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Lepanto?
WOW WHAT THE HELL. Orlando could have like saved every soul in Jerusalem had he just killed the bastard. And he even had a legit reason to since he was only defending himself unlike later when Tiberius plots to assassinate him. Dumbass..... Two times he could have killed Guy and prevented more deaths.
@XxPhantomedusxX This was at the end of the movie, after he rejected his part in the plot. The point was that Bailian believed like his father and tiberius did, that it was better to live among men than kill them. Killing Guy may or may not have done good, but it would have been murder, which is still evil.
If Guy de Lusignan took this duel into consideration, he may have seen that Balian was more than a blacksmith but someone who knew Saladin would lure the Crusaders out into a battlefield and into disaster.
Oh My God Orlando Bloom is a knob lol..He cant act for shit..Worst actor in this Movie..The Syrian Actor Ghassan outclassed them..The accent Orlando speaks is like mid-London and not Middle-Ages Palestine, gosh lol..No expressions, no versatility from Orlando. He only became an Actor as there are shortages of British Actors, gosh!.
Am a girl by the way and Orlando is too short and chubby, and average looking. Weak ppl bad judge of characters will say hes good actor lol. Wake up.
@easynowww Hey i'm just fcking saying my opinion ! And by the way I don't care about what you think about him. And i,m not saying that his the best in the movie I'm just saying that its his best movie !. Not every girl have the same taste. Wake Up
@easynowww Apparently the fact that this was a role where saying little was key to the character is lost on you. Allow me to point this subtle fact out. Had Bailian spent the movie being a loudmouth, the complexity of his character would have been lost. Had he had a french accent (because the crusaders hailed from france, NOT palestine), it would have no doubt been harder to follow and lost a good deal of it's impact.
@Grummur The Balian this character is based on was born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not in France. He likely would have had a European accent to some degree though as you say since you correctly pointed out the majority of the Crusading nobility in the conquest came from France.
@Floridanon407 The Crusades were started by Pope Urban II at the Council de Clermont. French=Franks. It consisted of a series of crusades, and started between the Franks and the Seljuk Turks. The Franks lost at first and then succeeded in their prime objective of capturing Jerusalem. They were very barbaric. They then fought the Mamluks, Abbasid and Ayyubid Empires. Franks lost Jerusalem to Saladin Ayyubi in the 3rd Crusade. Europeans were defeated.
@IamFreeRu What does that have to do with what I said? That doesn't change the fact that the Balian that the movie's character is based on was actually born in the Levant, not in France.
@Floridanon407 Why does it matter where Balian was born? I believe he was born in France. Which is depicted in text and film. He then went on a crusade to Jerusalem in order to have his "sins forgiven", which was for murdering his brother. He was of Frankish lineage and was son of Baldwin of Ibelin. He was a black smith and a poor commander. In fact, the weakest defender of Jerusalem under the Franks. Its clear to say that Balian was born in France, not in Syria.
@IamFreeRu No.Balian comes from the Ibelin family in Iblein, Nablus and Ramla, son of Barisano, italian noble man, and he was younger brother of Baldwin of Ramla, not son. This film is totally bullshit, Balian married first Agnés de Courtenay mother of Baldwin and Sibilla Anjou kings of Jerusalem, and then Maria Comnena daughter of the Emperor of Costantinople Manuel.Sibilla wasn' t his lover, but her stepdaughter.Ah, and according to Guillame,she was madly in love with Guy de Lusignan.
@IamFreeRu Mistake.Richard Lionheart won Shaluddin taking back St John of Acres, Tripoli and other cities around Jerusalem, and left the Holy Land not for defeating but only to return in UK and stop his brother John who was plotting against him secretly with Philip II of France for conquering the crown of England.Richard cared about London much more than Jerusalem.This means Jerusalem was worth nothing for the King.
why did we lose the second crusades how cane the european knight lose :( oh well i suppose we were fighting in a different climate against people adapted to that climate :)
Crusaders were the best but they were surrounded by countless ennemies, reinforcement took sometimes month to come. And the worse is that the crusaders sometimes fought each others.
@solwen i dont know how the knights could even live in those mail coats in palestine, let alone fight-the saracens worse very light clothing...goes to show the immense bravery, skill and prowess of the Crusader
@catholicmilitantUSA oh yeah that must be completely correct, your logic is so perfect..... or not,MAYBE it was because Saladin was the best general in the world at the time and the Abbasid Caliphate was the world's major power breaker at the time. can't you so called "catholic militants" (if that is the pathetic name that you really give yourself) just accept that the Western World hasn't ALWAYS contained the worlds major super power?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lmao lol he was a flop, everyone said so. The guy can act. If u put any half decent actor/actress in a powerful role then of course they look good but Orlando didnt cut it, majoruty of ppl say this. Then again ppl like u are weak minded, easily lead and gullible. Be realistic girl!.
He did a great job as Bailen. The only short-comings of his role were due to some lines that fell flat but that was script issues and not Orlando's fault. If anything I thought this was his best role to date.
I thought he played the role of Paris very well. Paris is not meant to be a valiant and heroic character in the Aeneid or the Iliad. It just kind of happened that Bloom fit that role kind of well from his archetype of being a nancy-boy. He did do a horrible job in the Pirates movies though and it took Johnny Depp to make those movies bareable.
This is just a continuation. Europe was advanced in many areas. Spain, Italy, Byzantium, France, and others. Northern Europe was developing as well. Poets, philosophers, religious scholars, and artists, were becoming very common. Debates, or disputations, were held between politicians, priests, and philosophers. We must keep in mind, though, that the West did borrow, and to a great degree, elaborated on sciences and ideas that came from the near east;mideast and west culture had merits.
Ok historians, cool it. You have to study history with open eyes, open mind, and a willingness to change your view if you find evidence that contradicts what you believe is true. Both the Christians and the Arabs carried out horrible acts during the crusades, whether for plunder or revenge. The Islamic world, which was connected to the Mediterranean Sea and all of its trade, was generally more educated because they were connected to other cultures by way of trade. This is impartial info.
too true...frankly both sides were to blame...and both were educated in their own way... and both were barbarians...there is little point to judge them by our standards...but one can wonder...for me...I often wonder what would have happened if Fredrick Barborosa had made it without dying...would have proven interesting to see the two very powerful and experienced men go head to head
me copy of kingdom of heaven doesnt av this scene..is this the extended version of the movie wit all deleted scene added to the original movie,also the dude below is right,they protray the crusaders as evil,saladin did commit some war crimes also,dont believe me,just google saladin,its war,all did some bad stuff,but saying the crusaders did much worst is kinda bullshit.
well sorry to tell you but the crusaders did the worse, they took cyprus from byzantine hands, they went on wars, the battle of hattin defeat the massacre taking Jerusalem and to topple that The looting of Constantinople in 1204 just shows that the crusaders were nothing more than mercenaries in search of wealth
both sides commited war crimes mate,but the movie make it like only crusaders did the worse,saladin aint a saint either,he did massacre other muslims n christians also,only thing why most say saladin is a very noble man is bcoz he allowed christians to still visit n worship in jerusalem after he drove out the crusaders,is it coz he's a peaceful man or it was a political move by saladin,allowing christians to worship in jerusalem will not start another crusade eh,its politics saladin played.
The portrayel of Guy of Lusignan in this movie is really unfair. The portrayel of Saladin is also too generous. This movie is basically pro-Muslim, anti-Crusader propaganda.
The Crusaders did three very important things: 1) The Crusades in the Holy Land held back the onslaught of Islamic imperialism for a crucial 200 years, 2) The Crusades in Spain drove the Muslim tyrants out of the country by 1492 and restored freedom to that land, and 3) The Northern Crusades successfully expanded the realm of Christendom in the Baltic, spreading civilization and high culture.
In short, the Crusades saved Western Civilization from Islamic decay and tyranny.
i strongly disagree don't try to educate me first you have to study both points of view which i have done, if there is a civilization responsible for holding back the muslims from EUROPE not just a tiny strip of land would be the byzantine empire, yet thanks to the crusades its capital of constantinople was looted. The crusades were imperialistic themselves and you know it. Islamic decay? spreading high culture? besides the byzantines most of europe was illiterate unlike the arabs and muslims
Your conclusions about the Crusades being failed imperialism are the conclusions of an ignoramus who doesn't understand the history of the period. The Crusades were a desperate attempt to defend against a violent and cruel foe.
shut the hell up it seems you just write from your point of view and not the whole truth, trust me i read about the crusades, what did you read? literature making the crusaders looks like heroes and muslims like barbarians?, violent and cruel were the crusaders, even the pope was ashamed after the sack of constantinople in 1204, don't try to make me like the crusaders after they sacked the capital of the civilization that was educated and held back muslims from reaching europe. You fail!
and no I am not of muslim descent I have just read a lot from both points of view and concluded that the crusades were an unsuccessful attempt at imperialism, at least muslims were educated and knew how to read and were advancing in science while at that same time Europe was at war and most people besides the byzantines and the clergy couldn't read! so what "High culture" were they spreading? who was most decayed? you just talk in a racist point of view against muslim civilizations my friend
You don't know anything. You've studied anit-Western propaganda. I majored in medieval history in college and studied the Crusades IN DEPTH, including primary sources from all sides. By the time of the Crusades THE LEARNING WAS EQUAL IN THE WEST AND EAST. The Byzantines were doing a poor job of holding back the Turks. Most of the warriors in the Byzantine army were either Turkish or Frankish themselves! You're anti-Western bias doesn't change the fact that the Crusades were a great help.
don't try to impress me you just prove to be a racist anti-muslim person and admit it, your little crusaders did the same effect than did the battle of adrianople to rome, you should be ashamed of defending those dirty vandals their greed caused their fall and i'm happy the ottomans ended up kicking their ass at Varna (the last crusade attempt). Why did they admire Rome when they were the cause the last legitimate piece of roman tradition dating to augustus ceased to exist.
I saw your page, you a racist anti-islam piece of shit and no more, you call me anti-western??are you retarded then why do you think overall i defend the byzantine empire over the latins, turks and arabs, great help you say, Alexios Kommenos regret bringing the army when he saw they were mostly on the quest for wealth and fearing the sack of his capital (which ended up happening in 1204) he drove them into asia minor and into palestine.
its just sad that they cut some of the best scenes out of the movie .. this fight is i think the best and much more realistic fight the Hollywood ever shown .. as supposed to the one in troy and 300 (awesome but unreal) fights !!
I know! I don't know why scott cut this, it's a great scene that ties up guys character, when I watched the theatrical cut I thought it was weird I didn't see him again.
excellent scene, they shouldn't have cut this out. Sound effects are quality as well. But if you notice, Guy sometimes has two swords and sometimes he has one... just doesnt make sense haha
There's no such thing as a cheap shot in a life or death struggle.
Back then, if you were are warrior, you were expected to expect anything, and to be aware of your surroundings. You didn't have to fight dirty, but you had to expect your opponent to fight dirty.
Thanks for posting this scene! I've only seen the regular movie version, and I always wondered what became of the Lusignan dude. Does this extra scene come after the very last scene of him from the regular version, do you know?
Anyway, I can't stand Lusignan. While I don't agree with Balian's adulterous relationship with Lusignan's wife Sibylla, Balian is far more honorable and chivalrous than Lusignan.
agreed. it's just very unfortunate that Balian of Ibelin wasn't very much like this in real life (he DID exist). I like to think of Bloom's character as being fictional, but representing the men who did fight for the people of Jerusalem and what they believed in. This is a very underrated film.
Considering that Balian of Ibelin was a rather intrigant, dark character, and that he, along with his wife Maria Komnena, granddaughter of the Byzantine Emperor Manouel Komnenos, played the kingmaker after Salah ad-Din's conquest of Jerusalem... he was quite a character as he already was, I really don't see the need of making him a fantasy perfect knight. If anyone, this role would have to go to Raymond of Tripoli, represented here by Tiberias.
In reality, the two had a long, and acrimonious, involvement in the ongoing struggle in the Holy Land. Balian and Sibylla are seen to be riding in the opposite direction at the crossroads to that of Richard and his followers. This version of Balian is so far-removed from the historical figure, that it may be reasonably said that Bloom's character replaces his real-life counterpart in the film's narrative, and is not intended to be interpreted as the same man.
But it's a movie, it's not supposed to be a text book. It's far better to tell a story rather then history. In real history everyone depicted in the movie was a fanatic, except Saladin.
The real Bailan did negotiate the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin after the Battle of Hattin. He really did have a poor relationship with King Guy. But he remained in the Holy Land his entire life and did participate in the Third Crusade with King Richard. Guy never regained his kingdom in Jerusalem, but he did become King of Cyprus a few years later. Bailan lost his castle of Ibelin when Saladin conquered it, but Saladin actually gave him another one to rule when peace was made in 1192.
In the film's coda, Balian returns to France (with Sibylla) where he meets Richard I of England, who rides up to Balian and says to him that he is looking for Balian, the defender of Jerusalem, to which Balian replies that he is a blacksmith.
The movie's Godfrey, however, is closer to the real Balian in age and in his friendship with Raymond III of Tripoli, although not in his friendship with the King, Baldwin IV, who in reality was wary of the Ibelins' ambitions. The film depicts Balian as the sole commander of the defense of Jerusalem: instead of working in close alliance with Patriarch Eraclius, Balian is depicted as his rival.
There is no direct counterpart to the character of Godfrey in actual history, but he is a composite of several other Crusader nobles. The movie does not include any of Balian's brothers (although the Director's Cut version identifies the priest he murders as his half-brother), and the character may be a composite of Balian and Baldwin of Ibelin: he is portrayed as having a love affair with Sibylla, possibly derived from the French Continuation of William of Tyre's claims about her and Baldwin.
A highly fictionalized version of Balian is the main character of the 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven, played by Orlando Bloom as a young man with a questioning sensibility regarding religion and social attitudes. In the film, Balian's father, a fictional character named Godfrey (played by Liam Neeson), returns to Europe to find his long-lost illegitimate son, a blacksmith in France, and encourages him to come to the Holy Land as his heir.
In the sequel, Balian and Maria are depicted as manipulated by Conrad, whom Shelby (without any historical evidence) portrays as an evil sadist, and they become his enemies. Shelby even depicts Balian telling Conrad he wishes he could kill him, although all the historical evidence indicates they were close friends and allies. Balian is also portrayed in Alan Gordon's fourth work in the Fool's Guild Mysteries, The Widow of Jerusalem (2003), as the wise adviser of Conrad and Isabella.
Balian appears in Ronald Welch's children's novel Knight Crusader (1954) as a fat, middle-aged baron. He is a sympathetic major character in British author Graham Shelby's two novels of Outremer, The Knights of Dark Renown (1969) and its sequel The Kings of Vain Intent (1970). However, the first is based on now-outdated research.
Balian became a common name in the Ibelin family in the 13th century. Balian, lord of Beirut, son of John and grandson of the above Balian, succeeded his father as lord of Beirut in 1236. Balian of Beirut's brother, also named John, had a son named Balian; this Balian was lord of Arsuf and married Plaisance of Antioch.
The name also passed into the family of the Greniers of Sidon, since Balian's daughter Helvis and Reginald of Sidon named their son Balian.
Balian's squire Ernoul, who was with him on the embassy to Tripoli in 1187, wrote parts of the Old French continuation of the Latin chronicle of William of Tyre (William had died in 1186, before the fall of Jerusalem). Although this family of manuscripts now often bears his name, his account only survives in fragments within it, mainly for the period 118688, with a heavy bias in favour of the Ibelin family.
Under this treaty, Ibelin remained under Saladin's control, but many sites along the coast which had been reconquered during the crusade were allowed to remain in Christian hands. After Richard departed, Saladin compensated Balian with the castle of Caymont and five other nearby sites, all outside Acre.
Balian became one of Henry's advisors, and later that year (along with William of Tiberias), he commanded the rearguard of Richard's army at the Battle of Jaffa. Later, he helped negotiate the Treaty of Ramla between Richard and Saladin, ending the crusade.
Richard was widely suspected of involvement in the murder. Isabella, who was expecting her first child (Maria of Montferrat), married Henry II of Champagne only a week later.
On 28 April 1192, only days after his kingship was confirmed by election, Conrad was assassinated in Tyre. It is said that one of the two Hashshashin responsible had entered Balian's household in Tyre some months previously, pretending to be a servant, in order to stalk his victim; the other may have similarly infiltrated Reginald of Sidon's or Conrad's own household.
The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi wrote that Balian was a member of a "council of consummate iniquity" around Conrad, accused him of taking Conrad's bribes, and said of Maria and Balian as a couple:
"Steeped in Greek filth from the cradle, she had a husband whose morals matched her own: he was cruel, she was godless; he was fickle, she was pliable; he was faithless, she was fraudulent."
Balian and Maria's role in Isabella's divorce and their support for Conrad as king earned them the bitter hatred of Richard and his supporters. Ambroise, who wrote a poetic account of the crusade, called Balian "more false than a goblin" and said he "should be hunted with dogs".
The succession dispute was prolonged by the arrival of Richard I of England and Philip II of France on the Third Crusade: Richard supported Guy, as a Poitevin vassal, while Philip supported Conrad, his late father's cousin.
Isabella's marriage was annulled by Ubaldo Lanfranchi, Archbishop of Pisa, who was Papal legate, and Philip of Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais. The Bishop of Beauvais then married her to Conrad (controversially, since his brother had been married to her half-sister and it was uncertain whether he had been divorced by his Byzantine wife).
If Isabella were to succeed, she needed a politically acceptable and militarily competent husband, the obvious candidate being Conrad of Montferrat, who also had some claim as Baldwin V's paternal uncle. Balian and Maria seized Isabella and talked her into agreeing to a divorce. There were precedents: the annulment of Amalric I's marriage to Agnes of Courtenay, and the unsuccessful attempts to force Sibylla to divorce Guy.
Any moment I expect Altair to walk around the corner lol
silvertusk 2 months ago 5
Balian was not really a prick in real life. He was like most lords at the time, but he cared for the people a lot more than many others at that time. Saladin did not allow everyone to leave freely in reality. Balian (and the Bishop) bought as many as they could and even offered themselves up as slaves to try to free more. That is more than any of us would have done, I can assure you of that.
guilemaster147 3 months ago 2
@guilemaster147 just a question...
i was reading up on this article and Salahuddin was more than kind enough to let them leave, women and children even the knights. Just that they were asked to pay an amount. I'm sure we all would have done what Balian had. But not many would release women, children and eventually even those crusaders. Had we be Salahuddin. :)
A compassionate heart and showing the crusaders back then the meaning of Chivalry.
birdingable 1 week ago
@birdingable What you described is known as ransom. This was the "neutral" behavior during this period of history. It was neither chivalrous nor nefarious, it was the default. All reputable sources say that only a portion of the Christian people in Jerusalem were able to pay the ransom or be paid for by Balian. And I doubt that most people in today's society would have sold themselves to someone who would kill you at the first chance just for a few others. It's against our nature.
guilemaster147 1 week ago
@guilemaster147 This was the ''neutral''... thank you. But reputable sources also said that how Salahuddin, according to his captors/crusaders/etc mention of his chivalry. I guess we all believe in which ever way we want to. :)
nice knowing you guile.
birdingable 1 week ago
yeah with two swords.... french coward
Milanao 3 months ago
wow king guy is an awesome swordsman
silvertusk 4 months ago
@silvertusk king guy got his ass kicked. and he had 2 swords for christs sake. balian is a much better swordsman
ezioaltiar22 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is this in kingdom of heaven??
i didnt see this part in kingdom of heaven..
Dimaz10 6 months ago
0:38 The "posta del falcone"!!! He has remembered everything he's learnt up to this point.
This Directors' Cut is a masterpiece of a movie. The studio should have had the balls to release it. Orlando Bloom is just so much more of a badass in this version. You understand much better what he's going through.
JVbin 7 months ago in playlist fight
1:35 thought i heard the azhan there.
itsallfake100 8 months ago
@itsallfake100 your right I hear it too
vide0gameCaster 7 months ago
meh.... Prick Orlando so gay... can beat u with samurai !
TheOnlyCoolestGuy111 8 months ago
Now THIS is medieval combat. Not that shit you see with Errol Flynn.
bgdancer100 9 months ago
here the answer about samurai vs knights
robertoantoniohenriq 9 months ago
This may have been pure hollywood history - but its still a cool film I think. I liked this fight. Kept me entertained.
Furthermore - it had a surprisingly accurate portrayal of Saladin - strong, intelligent, brave, tactically sound, faithful, and above all - an honorable and virtuous man.
As a Christian myself - I look highly upon Saladin's memory.
NicholasGeschke 10 months ago 20
@NicholasGeschke What I really liked about the film was it's message. Namely don't fight over religion. We all have different beliefs and ultimately it's up to us what relgion follow and what beliefs we go by. Forced conversion is wrong. And the so called "holy" wars are anything but holy. They're done to conquer, kill indiscriminately, and steal valuables.
lastswordfighter 8 months ago
@lastswordfighter of course, the problem is setting this during the crusades will attract attention from historians more than philosophers. That's when the criticism comes. That, and from Bloom's acting.
yourverysilly 7 months ago
@yourverysilly I must admit the battle sequences were quite impressive though despite the films flaws.
lastswordfighter 7 months ago 2
@lastswordfighter Did you see the extended version? It makes the storyline 10x better
JacksMagicBean 3 weeks ago
It was a cut scene
808stewart 10 months ago
It's a deleted scene, right?
Barakonyi 10 months ago
This is a great movie. It has every factor an adventure story should have. So I forgive them for getting some of the history wrong, because, when you're trying to fit a whole story into around three hours, of course you can't fit everything in and have it make sense.
Adnama109 11 months ago
@Adnama109 you mean all of the history wrong
yourverysilly 10 months ago
Reminds me of star wars episode 2, with Anakin getting two Lightsabers
silvertusk 1 year ago
wow. all these people come here to fight over who is getting the facts right. this is a movie. of course they aren't gonna get ALL the facts right (usually not even most of the facts right) as long as the movie is entertaining, who cares.
calebinoutlook 1 year ago 2
If I lost the Cursader Kingdom...I'd be ticked off too.
TheDevilOfKimon 1 year ago
i don't remember this scene
Sirio42 1 year ago
@Sirio42 That's because it, along with a lot of other vital scenes, were cut from the theatrical version. You need to watch the Director's Cut which is far superior and includes this scene
Jellyroll2 11 months ago 2
you realize that this is Celeborn and Legolas fighting,here. LOL
FelicityCatherine 1 year ago 6
@FelicityCatherine LMAO, i didnt recognize celeborn xDD
pureindian407 1 year ago
@FelicityCatherine hahhaha i thought i was the only one who noticed lol, can't wait for The Hobbit !
HuntingAwaller 9 months ago
Balian was overpowerd in this film x.x
inorelin 1 year ago
I don't remember this scene .
osmiu 1 year ago
@osmiu Well, its from the three-hours directors cut.
derworfnet 1 year ago
glad this wasnt in the finished
EtownMurderJunkie 1 year ago
Guy de Lusignan... Pompous arrogant stupid bastard
Tigergruppen88 1 year ago
The director's cut is so much better than the theatrical. This is the cut that should have been in theaters instead of a version that didn't connect us with the characters, felt too short at 144 minutes, left out pieces that made the film confusing, and made us forget that we were supposed to care this movie was even along. Thank God for DVDs.
ShaneBeacham 1 year ago
I wish I could kill a man in a sword fight...
Lion85 1 year ago
@Lion85 You are sick.
irishxxkelt 1 year ago
Balian was a prick in real life...
MrSupreme10 1 year ago 36
@MrSupreme10 Where have you read about his character? All I've read are his actions and the results of them, the most I can glean of his personality/character was that he was a man of his age.
Perhaps not quite as chivalrous as Saladin (who himself had a few not so chivalrous moments).
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@MrSupreme10 Everyone is a prick to someone...and a hero to someone else.
daviddrakehunter 10 months ago 7
@daviddrakehunter Wow wisdom. It is a seldom thing on youtube
dfolkeparti 8 months ago
@MrSupreme10 u knew him ? impressive.
Tobolococo 7 months ago
@MrSupreme10 based on what are you saying this?
ezioaltiar22 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hail to the Crusaders. Smash the Muslim scum! All Christians we must unite and save Europe from the Arab pig worshiping invaders!
ThunderFarts420 1 year ago
shit 2 longhaired men fighting i couldnt tell who was who at one point
lordofthenachos 1 year ago
love the scene where the bastard got beat down
tibianus123 1 year ago 2
Why do villains have an obsession with being executed?
Daladun 1 year ago 3
@Daladun Because deep down they have a massive inferiority complex and hate themselves as much as they hate others. Plus Guy being executed is the only way he would have kept his honor, when Bailian let him live that was extremely insulting to his honor.
WhiteStoneChild 1 year ago
Is this cut out of the movie?
groberti 1 year ago
I quite liked this film- Not only because I'm an avid researcher of the Crusades, but also because I really love stories of Knighthood and honor and bravery.
If Balian had been as his film counterpart in real life, I imagine the Second Crusade would likely be looked upon in a more positive light. The Crusades did do alot of good- Not all of it was just fanatical, pride-fueled violence: Many brave men gave their lives fighting for God and served a cause greater than themselves.
NicholasGeschke 1 year ago
@NicholasGeschke And you call yourself a researcher? You evidently carry a bias.
The crusades we never about doing good they were ordered by the pope and if you actualy DID any research you would know that the vatican was as corrupt as an institution can be and run for power and greed.
God has always been used as a tool to make people do evil things. No leader of a faith is beyond corruption and often had to be to get there!
historic knight/modern mujahideen... they are interchangable
leedsm18 1 year ago
@leedsm18 The Crusades were called in response to Muslim aggression. Perhaps you choose to forget the conquest of northern Africa, and Spain, and the invasion of France by the Muslims. The Crusades were simply a counterattack. As to Vatican corruption, why then does the Church hold up people like St. Francis, who live at this time, and went on a mission to convert the Muslim caliph to Christianity, as models that all catholics should follow. He was not corrupt, whatever is said.
qmasterx 1 year ago
@qmasterx Actually the first Crusade was instigated by the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor, who wanted an army of Western mercenaries to retake Anatolia (Turkey) from the Seljuk Turks who had invaded and annexed it. The Pope would likely have decided that it made more 'sense' to then go for the Christian holy lands instead, turning the Crusades from what would have been a political conflict to a religious one.
Just my two cents, albeit with a lot of historical likelihood.
CelticAndProud 1 year ago
@qmasterx St. Francis is held up as exceptional for the time in large part BECAUSE of how corrupt the bureaucracy of the Church was becoming.
The retaking of the Iberian penninsula by the spanish (Leon, Aragon, Portugal, etc.) and the retaking of Sicily by Normans were examples of what you were talking about and preceded "The Crusades," even though they were Crusades themselves.
As Celtic said, The Byzantines provided the excuse and Urban II used it.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 No, the Muslims took Spain in the 700s. It wasn't completely reconquered until 1492 when Grenada fell. Sicily was taken by the Normans in the eleventh century, but not as a Crusade, but as England was conquered, as a Norman conquest. And yes, the Church does have periods where a large part of the clergy is corrupt. That is why the Church is constantly reforming, even today. If it was perpetually corrupt, the Church would not honor Francis, Dominic, Thomas Aquinas ect.
qmasterx 1 year ago
@qmasterx There were plenty of political non-religioius reasons as well, Italian nations like Sicily, Genoa and Venice wanted access to new trade from the area, other nations used it to send away their more rambunctious nobles but all of that aside, the Moors had no part in the fighting in the Levantine. The Muslims fighting the Christians in THESE crusades were the Fatimids, Seljuks and Ayyubids.
The Northern Crusades a century later would start similarly, Poland asked for help like Byzantium
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 I know history, my friend, I've studied it for years. As G.K. Chesterton said " Before the Crusaders had ever dreamed of riding into Jerusalem, the Muslims had almost ridden into Paris" The Crusades were simply a counterattack, as I've said. Tell me what happened, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks? Europe was fighting for its life in a battle led by the Church. Have you not heard of Malta, Vienna, Belgrade, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Lepanto?
qmasterx 1 year ago
WOW WHAT THE HELL. Orlando could have like saved every soul in Jerusalem had he just killed the bastard. And he even had a legit reason to since he was only defending himself unlike later when Tiberius plots to assassinate him. Dumbass..... Two times he could have killed Guy and prevented more deaths.
XxPhantomedusxX 1 year ago
@XxPhantomedusxX This was at the end of the movie, after he rejected his part in the plot. The point was that Bailian believed like his father and tiberius did, that it was better to live among men than kill them. Killing Guy may or may not have done good, but it would have been murder, which is still evil.
Grummur 1 year ago
If Guy de Lusignan took this duel into consideration, he may have seen that Balian was more than a blacksmith but someone who knew Saladin would lure the Crusaders out into a battlefield and into disaster.
3baxcb 1 year ago
This is by far Olando's best movie. I was just wondering this is in the director cut but in the normal version this would come after what ?
lovesick15 1 year ago
@lovesick15
Oh My God Orlando Bloom is a knob lol..He cant act for shit..Worst actor in this Movie..The Syrian Actor Ghassan outclassed them..The accent Orlando speaks is like mid-London and not Middle-Ages Palestine, gosh lol..No expressions, no versatility from Orlando. He only became an Actor as there are shortages of British Actors, gosh!.
Am a girl by the way and Orlando is too short and chubby, and average looking. Weak ppl bad judge of characters will say hes good actor lol. Wake up.
easynowww 1 year ago
@easynowww Hey i'm just fcking saying my opinion ! And by the way I don't care about what you think about him. And i,m not saying that his the best in the movie I'm just saying that its his best movie !. Not every girl have the same taste. Wake Up
lovesick15 1 year ago
@easynowww Apparently the fact that this was a role where saying little was key to the character is lost on you. Allow me to point this subtle fact out. Had Bailian spent the movie being a loudmouth, the complexity of his character would have been lost. Had he had a french accent (because the crusaders hailed from france, NOT palestine), it would have no doubt been harder to follow and lost a good deal of it's impact.
Grummur 1 year ago
@Grummur The Balian this character is based on was born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not in France. He likely would have had a European accent to some degree though as you say since you correctly pointed out the majority of the Crusading nobility in the conquest came from France.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 The Crusades were started by Pope Urban II at the Council de Clermont. French=Franks. It consisted of a series of crusades, and started between the Franks and the Seljuk Turks. The Franks lost at first and then succeeded in their prime objective of capturing Jerusalem. They were very barbaric. They then fought the Mamluks, Abbasid and Ayyubid Empires. Franks lost Jerusalem to Saladin Ayyubi in the 3rd Crusade. Europeans were defeated.
IamFreeRu 1 year ago
@IamFreeRu What does that have to do with what I said? That doesn't change the fact that the Balian that the movie's character is based on was actually born in the Levant, not in France.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 Why does it matter where Balian was born? I believe he was born in France. Which is depicted in text and film. He then went on a crusade to Jerusalem in order to have his "sins forgiven", which was for murdering his brother. He was of Frankish lineage and was son of Baldwin of Ibelin. He was a black smith and a poor commander. In fact, the weakest defender of Jerusalem under the Franks. Its clear to say that Balian was born in France, not in Syria.
IamFreeRu 1 year ago
@IamFreeRu No.Balian comes from the Ibelin family in Iblein, Nablus and Ramla, son of Barisano, italian noble man, and he was younger brother of Baldwin of Ramla, not son. This film is totally bullshit, Balian married first Agnés de Courtenay mother of Baldwin and Sibilla Anjou kings of Jerusalem, and then Maria Comnena daughter of the Emperor of Costantinople Manuel.Sibilla wasn' t his lover, but her stepdaughter.Ah, and according to Guillame,she was madly in love with Guy de Lusignan.
evadidio 1 year ago
@IamFreeRu Mistake.Richard Lionheart won Shaluddin taking back St John of Acres, Tripoli and other cities around Jerusalem, and left the Holy Land not for defeating but only to return in UK and stop his brother John who was plotting against him secretly with Philip II of France for conquering the crown of England.Richard cared about London much more than Jerusalem.This means Jerusalem was worth nothing for the King.
evadidio 1 year ago 3
i was SO dissapointed when this was cut from the theatrical version. I mean who didnt want to see this?
happycompy 1 year ago
ridiculous. bloom would have died back when got assaulted by 3 templars.
miscast. should have gotten russel crowe to play ibelin
zackhanscom 1 year ago
I wish Liam Neeson would teach me to fight like that!
TheUsrper1 1 year ago
why did we lose the second crusades how cane the european knight lose :( oh well i suppose we were fighting in a different climate against people adapted to that climate :)
catholicmilitantUSA 1 year ago
@catholicmilitantUSA
Crusaders were the best but they were surrounded by countless ennemies, reinforcement took sometimes month to come. And the worse is that the crusaders sometimes fought each others.
solwen 1 year ago
@solwen i dont know how the knights could even live in those mail coats in palestine, let alone fight-the saracens worse very light clothing...goes to show the immense bravery, skill and prowess of the Crusader
catholicmilitantUSA 1 year ago
@catholicmilitantUSA You lost because G-d wanted you to lose. The same reason why people win.
ballantrae101 1 year ago
@catholicmilitantUSA oh yeah that must be completely correct, your logic is so perfect..... or not,MAYBE it was because Saladin was the best general in the world at the time and the Abbasid Caliphate was the world's major power breaker at the time. can't you so called "catholic militants" (if that is the pathetic name that you really give yourself) just accept that the Western World hasn't ALWAYS contained the worlds major super power?
Wolverinefan33 1 year ago
Mad scene. I wish he killed him.
truebeliever786 1 year ago
Well, you know, he was sleeping with his wife
edinscot56789 1 year ago
@edinscot56789 lol
truebeliever786 1 year ago
Comment removed
ryanthai2 1 year ago
@edinscot56789 I would swordfight a guy if he was sleeping with my wife. But I would still be rooting for Balian on this one.
ryanthai2 1 year ago
Guy did rise again even though he was an asshole. He help take Acre in the third crusade and became the ruler of Cyprus, not bad for a fallen king.
dallascowboyfan101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The christians drank wine and backbited eachother, the muslims fasted during the day and prayed during the night, no wonder they[muslims] won
Welle92 1 year ago
i think the only this movie did not have is enough of liam neeson
TheModerndaycrusader 1 year ago 64
@TheModerndaycrusader Apart from Liam Neeson I have no idea what this film was about. It seems to have no story at all.
irishxxkelt 1 year ago
This was cut from the movie huh? xD
Remontify 1 year ago 2
I think orlando did good but if you think you can do better then go ahead and try bud
xXxFadeX2XBlackxXx 1 year ago 2
Can't everybody just stop freaking out?
LegoGenfilms 2 years ago
is it just me or did orlando do a really really good job in this movie!! :)
mrsbloom2007 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lmao lol he was a flop, everyone said so. The guy can act. If u put any half decent actor/actress in a powerful role then of course they look good but Orlando didnt cut it, majoruty of ppl say this. Then again ppl like u are weak minded, easily lead and gullible. Be realistic girl!.
Kellystarrr 1 year ago
He did a great job as Bailen. The only short-comings of his role were due to some lines that fell flat but that was script issues and not Orlando's fault. If anything I thought this was his best role to date.
Colest503 1 year ago
@Colest503 he did great job as legolas as well , but troy was a disaster
kokomal1 1 year ago
@kokomal1
I thought he played the role of Paris very well. Paris is not meant to be a valiant and heroic character in the Aeneid or the Iliad. It just kind of happened that Bloom fit that role kind of well from his archetype of being a nancy-boy. He did do a horrible job in the Pirates movies though and it took Johnny Depp to make those movies bareable.
Colest503 1 year ago
@Colest503 yeah you are right :)
kokomal1 1 year ago
Yeah, why cant people be as good like you are with spelling?
amirite?
latinoheat300 1 year ago
This is just a continuation. Europe was advanced in many areas. Spain, Italy, Byzantium, France, and others. Northern Europe was developing as well. Poets, philosophers, religious scholars, and artists, were becoming very common. Debates, or disputations, were held between politicians, priests, and philosophers. We must keep in mind, though, that the West did borrow, and to a great degree, elaborated on sciences and ideas that came from the near east;mideast and west culture had merits.
pkart7 2 years ago
Ok historians, cool it. You have to study history with open eyes, open mind, and a willingness to change your view if you find evidence that contradicts what you believe is true. Both the Christians and the Arabs carried out horrible acts during the crusades, whether for plunder or revenge. The Islamic world, which was connected to the Mediterranean Sea and all of its trade, was generally more educated because they were connected to other cultures by way of trade. This is impartial info.
pkart7 2 years ago 4
The islamic world was more educated in your eyes.
That's subjective.
What you might see as a barbarous world some might see as their loving home.
wachaufeuropa 1 year ago
too true...frankly both sides were to blame...and both were educated in their own way... and both were barbarians...there is little point to judge them by our standards...but one can wonder...for me...I often wonder what would have happened if Fredrick Barborosa had made it without dying...would have proven interesting to see the two very powerful and experienced men go head to head
pres921 1 year ago
me copy of kingdom of heaven doesnt av this scene..is this the extended version of the movie wit all deleted scene added to the original movie,also the dude below is right,they protray the crusaders as evil,saladin did commit some war crimes also,dont believe me,just google saladin,its war,all did some bad stuff,but saying the crusaders did much worst is kinda bullshit.
fmoa 2 years ago
well sorry to tell you but the crusaders did the worse, they took cyprus from byzantine hands, they went on wars, the battle of hattin defeat the massacre taking Jerusalem and to topple that The looting of Constantinople in 1204 just shows that the crusaders were nothing more than mercenaries in search of wealth
Justinian43 2 years ago
both sides commited war crimes mate,but the movie make it like only crusaders did the worse,saladin aint a saint either,he did massacre other muslims n christians also,only thing why most say saladin is a very noble man is bcoz he allowed christians to still visit n worship in jerusalem after he drove out the crusaders,is it coz he's a peaceful man or it was a political move by saladin,allowing christians to worship in jerusalem will not start another crusade eh,its politics saladin played.
fmoa 2 years ago
The portrayel of Guy of Lusignan in this movie is really unfair. The portrayel of Saladin is also too generous. This movie is basically pro-Muslim, anti-Crusader propaganda.
Cocteau120 2 years ago
what good did the crusaders do? besides expanding byzantine land gains in asia minor they did nothing else
Justinian43 2 years ago
The Crusaders did three very important things: 1) The Crusades in the Holy Land held back the onslaught of Islamic imperialism for a crucial 200 years, 2) The Crusades in Spain drove the Muslim tyrants out of the country by 1492 and restored freedom to that land, and 3) The Northern Crusades successfully expanded the realm of Christendom in the Baltic, spreading civilization and high culture.
In short, the Crusades saved Western Civilization from Islamic decay and tyranny.
Cocteau120 2 years ago
i strongly disagree don't try to educate me first you have to study both points of view which i have done, if there is a civilization responsible for holding back the muslims from EUROPE not just a tiny strip of land would be the byzantine empire, yet thanks to the crusades its capital of constantinople was looted. The crusades were imperialistic themselves and you know it. Islamic decay? spreading high culture? besides the byzantines most of europe was illiterate unlike the arabs and muslims
Justinian43 2 years ago
Your conclusions about the Crusades being failed imperialism are the conclusions of an ignoramus who doesn't understand the history of the period. The Crusades were a desperate attempt to defend against a violent and cruel foe.
Cocteau120 2 years ago
shut the hell up it seems you just write from your point of view and not the whole truth, trust me i read about the crusades, what did you read? literature making the crusaders looks like heroes and muslims like barbarians?, violent and cruel were the crusaders, even the pope was ashamed after the sack of constantinople in 1204, don't try to make me like the crusaders after they sacked the capital of the civilization that was educated and held back muslims from reaching europe. You fail!
Justinian43 2 years ago
and no I am not of muslim descent I have just read a lot from both points of view and concluded that the crusades were an unsuccessful attempt at imperialism, at least muslims were educated and knew how to read and were advancing in science while at that same time Europe was at war and most people besides the byzantines and the clergy couldn't read! so what "High culture" were they spreading? who was most decayed? you just talk in a racist point of view against muslim civilizations my friend
Justinian43 2 years ago
You don't know anything. You've studied anit-Western propaganda. I majored in medieval history in college and studied the Crusades IN DEPTH, including primary sources from all sides. By the time of the Crusades THE LEARNING WAS EQUAL IN THE WEST AND EAST. The Byzantines were doing a poor job of holding back the Turks. Most of the warriors in the Byzantine army were either Turkish or Frankish themselves! You're anti-Western bias doesn't change the fact that the Crusades were a great help.
Cocteau120 2 years ago 2
That was a typo up there, it should be "anti-Western propaganda."
Cocteau120 2 years ago
don't try to impress me you just prove to be a racist anti-muslim person and admit it, your little crusaders did the same effect than did the battle of adrianople to rome, you should be ashamed of defending those dirty vandals their greed caused their fall and i'm happy the ottomans ended up kicking their ass at Varna (the last crusade attempt). Why did they admire Rome when they were the cause the last legitimate piece of roman tradition dating to augustus ceased to exist.
Justinian43 2 years ago
Also, that should be "Your" not "You're." Your annoying comments made me type too fast.
Cocteau120 2 years ago
I saw your page, you a racist anti-islam piece of shit and no more, you call me anti-western??are you retarded then why do you think overall i defend the byzantine empire over the latins, turks and arabs, great help you say, Alexios Kommenos regret bringing the army when he saw they were mostly on the quest for wealth and fearing the sack of his capital (which ended up happening in 1204) he drove them into asia minor and into palestine.
Justinian43 2 years ago
even though this is a directors cut..what part in the movie was this? towards the end? when they first kissed? in the middle of the film?
burgersforreal 2 years ago
the end of the movie
Invinciblez18 2 years ago
its just sad that they cut some of the best scenes out of the movie .. this fight is i think the best and much more realistic fight the Hollywood ever shown .. as supposed to the one in troy and 300 (awesome but unreal) fights !!
omerthe3rd 2 years ago
I know! I don't know why scott cut this, it's a great scene that ties up guys character, when I watched the theatrical cut I thought it was weird I didn't see him again.
yourverysilly 2 years ago
just something, does anyone notice that lucius vorenus appears in this movie? but suddenly dissapears after messina?
angrycaveman 2 years ago
Should've at least cripple the bastard. Cut off his achilles tendon or something.
geekboyII 2 years ago
excellent scene, they shouldn't have cut this out. Sound effects are quality as well. But if you notice, Guy sometimes has two swords and sometimes he has one... just doesnt make sense haha
italiastallion6 2 years ago
Yea, the crunching when he nuts him was awesome...
franka64 2 years ago
He has two swords at first then it appears he dropped one but later in the fight pulls out a dagger to cut Bailian with a cheapshot
mikeshanley2121 1 year ago
There's no such thing as a cheap shot in a life or death struggle.
Back then, if you were are warrior, you were expected to expect anything, and to be aware of your surroundings. You didn't have to fight dirty, but you had to expect your opponent to fight dirty.
DarthChuckwa 1 year ago 2
this reminds me of star wars at the end
"do it.."
DERPMAX 2 years ago
fucking good scene,and at last the bastard gets beat down!!!!!!!
MsKaraya 2 years ago 11
I thought Orlando did good in this film; he just needs more solid roles to be a leading actor.
InnateNobility 2 years ago 2
Love the sound of metal hitting metal. Fucking awesome.
Ninjauman558 2 years ago 3
This is such an awesome scene. I can't believe they cut it out of the regular version if the movie.
VictoriousLizard 2 years ago 3
Thanks for posting this scene! I've only seen the regular movie version, and I always wondered what became of the Lusignan dude. Does this extra scene come after the very last scene of him from the regular version, do you know?
Anyway, I can't stand Lusignan. While I don't agree with Balian's adulterous relationship with Lusignan's wife Sibylla, Balian is far more honorable and chivalrous than Lusignan.
Orlando Bloom is sexy as Balian, too. ;)
spaciousgalaxy 2 years ago 4
agreed. it's just very unfortunate that Balian of Ibelin wasn't very much like this in real life (he DID exist). I like to think of Bloom's character as being fictional, but representing the men who did fight for the people of Jerusalem and what they believed in. This is a very underrated film.
P00PD0G89 2 years ago 20
Considering that Balian of Ibelin was a rather intrigant, dark character, and that he, along with his wife Maria Komnena, granddaughter of the Byzantine Emperor Manouel Komnenos, played the kingmaker after Salah ad-Din's conquest of Jerusalem... he was quite a character as he already was, I really don't see the need of making him a fantasy perfect knight. If anyone, this role would have to go to Raymond of Tripoli, represented here by Tiberias.
Ennio444 1 year ago
Will u rise again? rise a night looooooool what a knob saying, damn that was embarassing lmao.
easynowww 1 year ago
@easynowww Coming from a person who uses the unintelligent word "knob". Your comments mean nothing.
frankyzangetsu 1 year ago
Usually the director's cut doesn't add too much to the movie, but this one's added like half an hour at least didn't it?
WowUrTheMan 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how come the crusades could not defeat the muslims?they have lots of well-trained knights and good warriors? go crusades!!
laurenpoyong 2 years ago
pious arrogance and ignorance on both sides sometimes makes people just stupid fucks.
kardentyrell 2 years ago 6
haha the movie to Assasins creed xD
DannyJamesRead 2 years ago
when did this happen?
WRECKINBALLA1995 2 years ago
its the the directors cut
spunkyjp11 2 years ago
He means at what point of the movie does this happen. End? Beginning? Half way?
AnonAnonyAnon 2 years ago
it happened after balian surrenders jerusalem and are exacuating the city
spunkyjp11 2 years ago
wtf this never hpnd in the movie
ajail92 2 years ago
its the director's cut. Read the bloody info dude
FieldMarshallDavian 2 years ago 6
Balian also appears in Jan Guillou's book The Knight Templar, the second book in the Arn Trilogy.
Hosea22 2 years ago
In reality, the two had a long, and acrimonious, involvement in the ongoing struggle in the Holy Land. Balian and Sibylla are seen to be riding in the opposite direction at the crossroads to that of Richard and his followers. This version of Balian is so far-removed from the historical figure, that it may be reasonably said that Bloom's character replaces his real-life counterpart in the film's narrative, and is not intended to be interpreted as the same man.
Hosea22 2 years ago
But it's a movie, it's not supposed to be a text book. It's far better to tell a story rather then history. In real history everyone depicted in the movie was a fanatic, except Saladin.
SSJ2VEGEROTRULES 2 years ago 3
The real Bailan did negotiate the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin after the Battle of Hattin. He really did have a poor relationship with King Guy. But he remained in the Holy Land his entire life and did participate in the Third Crusade with King Richard. Guy never regained his kingdom in Jerusalem, but he did become King of Cyprus a few years later. Bailan lost his castle of Ibelin when Saladin conquered it, but Saladin actually gave him another one to rule when peace was made in 1192.
derkommissar1917 2 years ago
balian commanded king richards rear guard in the battle of jaffa also
legateFade 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats why they picked orlando for this role...he commanded many REAR GUARDS thats for sure....
Blackhammer99 2 years ago
In the film's coda, Balian returns to France (with Sibylla) where he meets Richard I of England, who rides up to Balian and says to him that he is looking for Balian, the defender of Jerusalem, to which Balian replies that he is a blacksmith.
Hosea22 2 years ago
The movie's Godfrey, however, is closer to the real Balian in age and in his friendship with Raymond III of Tripoli, although not in his friendship with the King, Baldwin IV, who in reality was wary of the Ibelins' ambitions. The film depicts Balian as the sole commander of the defense of Jerusalem: instead of working in close alliance with Patriarch Eraclius, Balian is depicted as his rival.
Hosea22 2 years ago
There is no direct counterpart to the character of Godfrey in actual history, but he is a composite of several other Crusader nobles. The movie does not include any of Balian's brothers (although the Director's Cut version identifies the priest he murders as his half-brother), and the character may be a composite of Balian and Baldwin of Ibelin: he is portrayed as having a love affair with Sibylla, possibly derived from the French Continuation of William of Tyre's claims about her and Baldwin.
Hosea22 2 years ago
A highly fictionalized version of Balian is the main character of the 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven, played by Orlando Bloom as a young man with a questioning sensibility regarding religion and social attitudes. In the film, Balian's father, a fictional character named Godfrey (played by Liam Neeson), returns to Europe to find his long-lost illegitimate son, a blacksmith in France, and encourages him to come to the Holy Land as his heir.
Hosea22 2 years ago
In the sequel, Balian and Maria are depicted as manipulated by Conrad, whom Shelby (without any historical evidence) portrays as an evil sadist, and they become his enemies. Shelby even depicts Balian telling Conrad he wishes he could kill him, although all the historical evidence indicates they were close friends and allies. Balian is also portrayed in Alan Gordon's fourth work in the Fool's Guild Mysteries, The Widow of Jerusalem (2003), as the wise adviser of Conrad and Isabella.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian appears in Ronald Welch's children's novel Knight Crusader (1954) as a fat, middle-aged baron. He is a sympathetic major character in British author Graham Shelby's two novels of Outremer, The Knights of Dark Renown (1969) and its sequel The Kings of Vain Intent (1970). However, the first is based on now-outdated research.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian became a common name in the Ibelin family in the 13th century. Balian, lord of Beirut, son of John and grandson of the above Balian, succeeded his father as lord of Beirut in 1236. Balian of Beirut's brother, also named John, had a son named Balian; this Balian was lord of Arsuf and married Plaisance of Antioch.
The name also passed into the family of the Greniers of Sidon, since Balian's daughter Helvis and Reginald of Sidon named their son Balian.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian's squire Ernoul, who was with him on the embassy to Tripoli in 1187, wrote parts of the Old French continuation of the Latin chronicle of William of Tyre (William had died in 1186, before the fall of Jerusalem). Although this family of manuscripts now often bears his name, his account only survives in fragments within it, mainly for the period 118688, with a heavy bias in favour of the Ibelin family.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian died in 1193, in his early fifties. With Maria he had four children:
* Helvis of Ibelin, who married (1) Reginald of Sidon; (2) Guy of Montfort.
* John of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut and constable of Jerusalem. He married (1) Helvis of Nephin; (2) Melisende of Arsur.
* Margaret, who married (1) Hugh of Saint-Omer (stepson of Raymond III of Tripoli); (2) Walter of Cæsarea.
* Philip of Ibelin, Regent of Cyprus, who married Alice of Montbéliard.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Under this treaty, Ibelin remained under Saladin's control, but many sites along the coast which had been reconquered during the crusade were allowed to remain in Christian hands. After Richard departed, Saladin compensated Balian with the castle of Caymont and five other nearby sites, all outside Acre.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian became one of Henry's advisors, and later that year (along with William of Tiberias), he commanded the rearguard of Richard's army at the Battle of Jaffa. Later, he helped negotiate the Treaty of Ramla between Richard and Saladin, ending the crusade.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Richard was widely suspected of involvement in the murder. Isabella, who was expecting her first child (Maria of Montferrat), married Henry II of Champagne only a week later.
Hosea22 2 years ago
On 28 April 1192, only days after his kingship was confirmed by election, Conrad was assassinated in Tyre. It is said that one of the two Hashshashin responsible had entered Balian's household in Tyre some months previously, pretending to be a servant, in order to stalk his victim; the other may have similarly infiltrated Reginald of Sidon's or Conrad's own household.
Hosea22 2 years ago
The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi wrote that Balian was a member of a "council of consummate iniquity" around Conrad, accused him of taking Conrad's bribes, and said of Maria and Balian as a couple:
"Steeped in Greek filth from the cradle, she had a husband whose morals matched her own: he was cruel, she was godless; he was fickle, she was pliable; he was faithless, she was fraudulent."
Hosea22 2 years ago
Balian and Maria's role in Isabella's divorce and their support for Conrad as king earned them the bitter hatred of Richard and his supporters. Ambroise, who wrote a poetic account of the crusade, called Balian "more false than a goblin" and said he "should be hunted with dogs".
Hosea22 2 years ago
The succession dispute was prolonged by the arrival of Richard I of England and Philip II of France on the Third Crusade: Richard supported Guy, as a Poitevin vassal, while Philip supported Conrad, his late father's cousin.
Hosea22 2 years ago
Isabella's marriage was annulled by Ubaldo Lanfranchi, Archbishop of Pisa, who was Papal legate, and Philip of Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais. The Bishop of Beauvais then married her to Conrad (controversially, since his brother had been married to her half-sister and it was uncertain whether he had been divorced by his Byzantine wife).
Hosea22 2 years ago
If Isabella were to succeed, she needed a politically acceptable and militarily competent husband, the obvious candidate being Conrad of Montferrat, who also had some claim as Baldwin V's paternal uncle. Balian and Maria seized Isabella and talked her into agreeing to a divorce. There were precedents: the annulment of Amalric I's marriage to Agnes of Courtenay, and the unsuccessful attempts to force Sibylla to divorce Guy.
Hosea22 2 years ago