Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi

  1. #1
    Banned user Ayura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In The Desolate Deserts Dune's
    Posts
    3,336

    Default Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi



    Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, the hero of hundreds of battles, was the person who for twenty years braved the storm of the Crusaders and ultimately pushed back the combined forces of Europe which had come to swarm the Holy Land. The world has hardly witnessed a more chivalrous and humane conqueror.
    The Crusades represent the maddest and the longest war in the history of mankind, in which the storm of savage fanaticism of the Christian West burst in all its fury over western Asia. `The Crusades form', says a Western writer, `one of the maddest episodes in history. Christianity hurled itself against Muhammadanism in expedition after expedition for nearly three centuries, until failure brought lassitude, and superstition itself was undermined by its own labour. Europe was drained off men and money, and threatened with social bankruptcy, if not with annihilation. Millions perished in battle, hunger or disease and every atrocity imagination can conceive disgraced the warrior of the Cross'. The Christian West was excited to a mad religious frenzy by Peter the Hermit, and his followers to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the Muslims. `Every means', says Hallam, `was used to excite an epidemical frenzy'. During the time that a Crusader bore the Cross, he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins.
    Peter the Hermit himself led the second host of the Crusaders comprising forty thousand people. `Arriving at Mallevile, they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to every species of grossness and liberalism'. The savage hordes called Crusaders converted Hungary and Bulgaria into desolate regions. When they reached Asia Minor, they, according to Michaud, `committed crimes which made nature shudder'.
    The third wave of the Crusaders commanded by a German monk, according to Gibbon, `were comprised of the most stupid and savage refuse of people. They mingled with their devotion a brutal licence of rapine, prostitution and drunkenness'. `They forgot Constantinople and Jerusalem', says Michaud `in tumultuous scenes of debauchery, and pillage, violation and murder was everywhere left on the traces of their passage'.
    The fourth horde of the Crusaders which had risen from western Europe was, according to Mill, `another herd of wild and desperate savages... The internal multitude hurried on the south in their usual career of carnage and rapine'. But, at last, they were annihilated by the infuriated Hungarian Army which had a foretaste of the madness of the earlier Crusaders.
    Later the Crusaders met with initial success and conquered a major part of Syria and Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem. But their victories were followed by such brutalities and massacres of innocent Muslims which eclipsed the massacres of Changiz and Hulaku. Mill, a Christian historian, testifies to this massacre of the Muslim population on the fall of the Muslim town of Autioch. He writes: `The dignity of age, the helplessness of youth and the beauty of the weaker *** were disregarded by the Latin savages. Houses were no sanctuaries, and the sign of a mosque added new virulence to cruelty'. According to Michaud: `if contemporary account can be credited, all the vices of the infamous Babylon prevailed among the liberators of Scion'. The Crusaders laid waste to flourishing towns of Syria, butchered their population in cold blood and burnt to ashes the invaluable treasures of art and learning including the world famous library of Tripolis (Syria) containing more than three million volumes. `The streets ran with blood until ferocity was tired out', says Mill. `Those who were vigorous or beautiful were reserved for the slave market at Antioch, but the aged and the infirm were immolated at the altar of cruelty'.
    But in the second half of the 12th century, when the Crusaders were in their greatest fury and the emperors of Germany and France and Richard, the lion-hearted king of England, had taken the field in person for the conquest of the Holy Land, the Crusaders were met by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, a great warrior who pushed back the surging wave of Christianity out to engulf the Holy Land. He was not able to clear the gathering storm but in him the Crusaders met a man of indomitable will and dauntless courage who could accept the challenge of the Christian West.
    Salahuddin was born in 1137. He got his early training under his illustrious father Najmuddin Ayub and his chivalrous uncle Asaduddin Sherkoh, who were the trusted lieutenants of Nooruddin Mahmud, the monarch of Syria. Asaduddin Sherkoh, a great warrior general was the commander of the Syrian force, which had defeated the Crusaders both in Syria and Egypt. Sherkoh entered Egypt in 1167 to meet the challenge of the Fatamide Minister Shawer who had allied himself with the French. The marches and counter-marches of the gallant Sherkoh and his ultimate victory at Babain over the allied force, according to Michaud, `show military capacity of the highest order'. Ibni Atheer writes about it: `Never has history recorded a more extraordinary event than the rout of the Egyptian force and the French at the littoral by only a thousand cavaliers'.
    On January 8, 1169 Sherkoh arrived in Cairo and was appointed as the Minister and Commander-in-Chief by the Fatimid Caliph. But Sherokh was not destined to enjoy the fruits of his high office long. He died two months later in 1169. On his death, his nephew Salahuddin Ayubi became the Prime Minister of Egypt. He soon won the hearts of the people by his liberality and justice and on the death of the Egyptian Caliph became the virtual ruler of Egypt.
    In Syria too, the celebrated Nooruddin Mahmud died in 1174 and was succeeded by his eleven year old son, Malik-us-Saleh who became a tool in the hands of his courtiers, specially Gumushtagin. Salahuddin sent a message to Malik-us-Saleh offering his services and devotion. He even continued to keep his name in the `Khutaba' (Friday Sermons) and coinage. But all these considerations were of no avail for the young ruler and his ambitious courtiers. This state of affairs once more heartened the Crusaders who were kept down by the advice of Gumushtagin retired to Alippo, leaving Damascus exposed to a Frankish attack. The Crusaders instantly laid siege to the Capital city and released it only after being paid heavy ransom. This enraged Salahuddin who hurried to Damascus with a small force and took possession of it.
    After occupying Damascus, he did not enter the palace of his patron, Nooruddin Mahmud, but stayed in his father's house. The Muslims, on the other hand, were much dismayed by the activities of Malik-us-Saleh and invited him to rule over the area. But Salahuddin continued to rule on behalf of the young Malik-us-Saleh. On the death of Malik-us-Saleh in 1181-82, the authority of Salahuddin was acknowledged by all the sovereigns of western Asia.
    There was a truce between the Sultan and the Franks in Palestine but, according to the French historian Michaud, `the Mussalmans respected their pledged faith, whilst the Christians gave the signal of a new war'. Contrary to the terms of the truce, the Christian ruler Renaud or Reginald of Chatillon attacked a Muslim caravan passing by his castle, massacred a large number of people and looted their property. The Sultan was now free to act. By a skilful manoeuvre, Salahuddin entrapped the powerful enemy forces near the hill of Hittin in 1187 and routed them with heavy loses. The Sultan did allow the Christians to recover and rapidly followed up his victory of Hittin. In a remarkably short time, he reoccupied a large number of cities which were in possession of the Christians including Nablus, Jericko, Ramlah, Caesarea, Arsuf, Jaffa and Beirut. Ascalon, too, submitted after a short siege and was granted generous terms by the kind-hearted Sultan.
    The Sultan now turned his attention to Jerusalem which contained more than sixty thousand Crusaders. The Christians, could not withstand the onslaught of the Sultan's forces and capitulated in 1187. The humanity of the Sultan towards the defeated Christians of Jerusalem procures an unpleasant contrast to the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem when conquered by the Christians about ninety years before.
    According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Saracens defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'
    There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Saracens were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.
    Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.
    These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished.
    On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.
    The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even *****ped them. They marched into the Saracenian country, and were well received'. Michaud gives a long account of the Christian inhumanity to the Christian refugees of Jerusalem. Tripoli shut its gates on them and, according to Michaud, `one woman, urged by despair, cast her infant into the sea, cursing the Christians who refused them succour'. But the Sultan was very considerate towards the defeated Christians. Respecting their feelings, he did not enter the city of Jerusalem until the Crusaders had left.
    From Jerusalem, the Sultan marched upon Tyre, where the ungrateful Crusaders pardoned by Sultan in Jerusalem had organized to meet him. The Sultan captured a number of towns held by the Crusaders on the sea coast, including Laodicea, Jabala, Saihun, Becas, Bozair and Derbersak. The Sultan had set free Guy de Luginan on the promise that he would instantly leave for Europe. But, as soon as this ungrateful Christian Knight got freedom, he broke his pledged word and collecting a large army, laid siege to Ptolemais.
    The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims threw Christendom into violent commotion and reinforcements began to pour in from all parts of Europe. The Emperors of Germany and France as well as Richard, the Lion-hearted, king of England, hurried with large armies to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. They laid siege to Acre which lasted for several months. In several open combats against the Sultan,, the Crusaders were routed with terrible losses.
    The Sultan had now to face the combined might of Europe. Incessant reinforcements continued pouring in for the Crusaders and despite their heavy slaughter in combats against the Sultan, their number continued increasing. The besieged Muslims of Acre, who held on so long against the flower of the European army and who had been crippled with famine at last capitulated on the solemn promise that none would be killed and that they would pay 2,00,000 pieces of gold to the chiefs of the Crusaders. There was some delay in the payment of the ransom when the Lion-hearted king of England butchered the helpless Muslims in cold blood within the sight of their brethren.
    This act of the king of England infuriated the Sultan. He vowed to avenge the blood of the innocent Muslims. Along the 150 miles of coastlines, in eleven Homeric battles, the Sultan inflicted heavy losses on the Christian forces.
    At the last the Lion-hearted king of England sued for peace, which was accepted by the Sultan. He had found facing him a man of indomitable will and boundless energy and had realized the futility of continuing the struggle against such a person. In September 1192, peace was concluded and the Crusaders left the Holy Land with bag and baggage, bound for their homes in Europe.
    `Thus ended the third Crusade', writes Michaud, `in which the combined forces of the west could not gain more than the capture of Acre and the destruction of Ascaion. In it, Germany lost one of its greatest emperors and the flower of its army. More than six lakh Crusaders landed in front of Acre and hardly one lakh returned to their homes. Europe has more reasons to wail on the outcome of this Crusade as in it had participated the best armies of Europe. The flower of Western chivalry which Europe was proud of had fought in these wars'.
    The Sultan devoted the rest of his life to public welfare activities and built hospitals, schools, colleges and mosques all over his dominion.
    But he was not destined to live long to enjoy the fruits of peace. A few months later, he died on March 4, 1193 at Damascus. `The day of his death' says a Muslim writer, `was for Islam and the Mussalmans, a misfortune such as they never suffered since they were deprived of the first four Caliphs. The palace, the empire, and the world was overwhelmed with grief, the whole city was plunged in sorrow, and followed his bier weeping and crying'.
    Thus died Sultan Salahuddin, one of the most humane and chivalrous monarchs in the annals of mankind. In him, nature had very harmoniously blended the benevolent and merciful heart of a Muslim with a matchless military genius. The messenger who took the news of his death to Baghdad brought the Sultan's coat of mail, his horse one dinar and 36 dirhams which was all the property he had left. His contemporaries and other historians are unanimous in acknowledging Salahuddin as a tender-hearted, kind, patient, affable person--- a friend of the learned and the virtuous whom he treated with utmost respect and beneficence. `In Europe', says Phillip K. Hitti, `he touched the fancy of the English minstrels as well as the modern novelists and is still considered the paragon of chivalry'.

    Comments and feedback is glady appreciated

    Salam.

  2. #2
    DOR M_S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Wasnt he a kurd?

    If so, from which city?

  3. #3
    Member Jedburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    936

    Default

    Yup, Salah ad-Din was a Kurd, born in Tikrit, grew up among Arabs and was trained in the military arts by Seljuk Turks.

  4. #4
    Member MickCollins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    St.Brutus's Center for Incurably Criminal Boys
    Posts
    53

    Default

    On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city.
    No, he didn't. He gave free passage to anyone who could pay their way out of the city. Those who couldn't were collectively marched to the coast and sold as slaves. That article has some issues.

  5. #5
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    9,004

    Default

    Just a lot of BS..

    Europe withdraw from the holy land because the orginal Pope's proclamation had lost it's meaning and because european kingdoms were focusing on wars in EUROPE. The time for divine callings simply was no more.


  6. #6
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor
    Just a lot of BS..

    Europe withdraw from the holy land because the orginal Pope's proclamation had lost it's meaning and because european kingdoms were focusing on wars in EUROPE. The time for divine callings simply was no more.

    Your post has a a lot of BS

  7. #7
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northern part of the great evil Zayonist entity itself !!
    Posts
    5,949

    Default

    I remember talking with several Arabs about the subject of great strategists amongst Arab fighters , with a connection to history of Arab Israeli wars . The funny thing is that the first (and that was everybody) name they always said was - "Salah E-Din" . While I was correcting them to the small fact that Salah was never an Arab but a Kurd , reaction went from disbellief to .... well , disbellief

  8. #8
    Member MickCollins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    St.Brutus's Center for Incurably Criminal Boys
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor
    Your post has a a lot of BS
    Nope, he makes a good point. It wasn't the only reason the Crusader states failed but it was a big one. The article states that there was still wave after wave of Crusaders coming East when that wasn't the case. The leaders of the Crusader states begged for more soldiers from Europe and were often told they couldn't be spared. Which meant they should have laid low. Instead, they poked at Saladin until he smashed the hell out of them. The Crusader states were not only stupid but stupid and outnumbered which is a bad combo. Even the Third Crusade had manpower problems because most of the German Crusaders went home rather than follow the English or French.

  9. #9
    Senior Member shadower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    nije doslo vreme da se gine nego da se vidi ko je kakav
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Just watched kingdom of heaven one hour ago nice movie well done it ended *hity it should have part two.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Rhine River Valley
    Posts
    72

    Talking

    Gentlemen.

    "Kingdoms of heaven" is Hollywood - and it is defiently NOT history. Just check f.i., who Balian d'Ibelin was...

  11. #11
    DOR M_S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor
    Just a lot of BS..

    Europe withdraw from the holy land because the orginal Pope's proclamation had lost it's meaning and because european kingdoms were focusing on wars in EUROPE. The time for divine callings simply was no more.


    Thor, really, your opinion is BS.
    You are pathetic.

  12. #12
    Senior Member shadower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    nije doslo vreme da se gine nego da se vidi ko je kakav
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    I am avere of holliwood need to F UP the history,but they have to sell the movie and that is probably one of the reasons.

    Here is more historic facts about king of Jurusalem lords etc,...
    (1) Kings and Succession to the Throne

    The succession of kings is as follows:

    Godfrey of Bouillon, elected Lord of Jerusalem, 22 July, 1099, did not assume the royal crown and died 18 July, 1100, having strengthened the new conquest by his victory over the Egyptians at Ascalon (12 August, 1099).
    After his death the barons invited his brother Baldwin, Count of Edessa, to assume the lordship of Jerusalem. Baldwin accepted and had himself crowned King of Jerusalem by the Patriarch Daimbert in the basilica of Bethlehem (25 December, 1100). Baldwin I (1100-1118) was the real founder of the kingdom. With the aid of new crusaders, and more especially the help afforded by the Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets he took possession of the principal cities on the coast of Syria. Besides, the Countship of Tripoli and the Principality of Edessa became fiefs of the new kingdom, but the Principality of Antioch preserved its independence. Baldwin I attacked even the Caliphate of Egypt but died at El-Arish (1118) in the course of this expedition.
    His cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, Count of Edessa, was chosen by the barons to succeed him. Baldwin II (1118-1131), who had followed Godfrey of Bouillon to the crusade, was a valiant knight and, in 1124, took possession of Tyre. In 1129 he married his daughter Mélisende to Fulc, Count of Anjou, who was the father of Geoffrey Plantagenet and already sixty years of age.
    Fulc (1131-1141) succeeded his father-in-law.
    Under his son, Baldwin III (1144-1162), who married Theodora Comnena, the kingdom attained its greatest dimensions after the capture of Ascalon (1153), but the principality of Edessa was wrested from it in 1144.
    Amaury I (1162-1174), brother of Baldwin III, succeeded to the throne on the latter's death, being only twenty-seven years of age. He was one of Jerusalem's most brilliant sovereigns, and thought to profit by the anarchy that prevailed in Egypt in order to acquire possession of that country, reaching Cairo twice (1167 and 1168); and, for the moment, having Egypt under his protectorate. But the formation of Saladin's power soon placed the kingdom in peril.
    Amaury died prematurely in 1174, leaving as his successor his son Baldwin IV (1174-1185), a very gifted young man, who had been the pupil of William of Tyre, but who was attacked with leprosy and rendered incapable of taking charge of affairs. He at first reigned under the guardianship of Milon de Planci and, assisted by Renaud de Châtillon, inflicted a defeat upon Saladin at Ramleh (1177).
    By 1182 the dreadful disease had gained such headway that the unfortunate Baldwin "the Leprous" ("le Mesel") had the son of his sister Sibylla by the Count of Montferrat crowned under the name of Baldwin V. He also had Sibylla take as her second husband Guy of Lusignan, who had put himself at Baldwin's service and had been appointed by him regent of the kingdom. However, as Guy seemed incompetent, the barons took the regency away from him and confided it to Raymond, Count of Tripoli. Baldwin IV died in 1185, at the age of twenty-five, without having married, and left the kingdom a prey to discord and exposed to the attacks of Saladin.
    The young Baldwin V, his nephew, died in 1186, supposedly of poisoning.
    It was largely due to the instrumentality of Renaud de Châtillon that the barons elected Guy of Lusignan, (1186-1192) and Sibylla sovereigns of Jerusalem. Incapable of defending his kingdom against Saladin, Guy was made prisoner at the battle of Tiberias (4 July, 1187), which was followed by the capture of Jerusalem (2 October), and purchased his liberty by yielding Ascalon to Saladin. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was destroyed. Then took place the Crusade of Saint-Jean d'Acre, of which Guy commenced the siege in 1188. However, Queen Sibylla died in 1190 and Conrad of Montferrat, who had married Isabella, Sibylla's sister, disputed the title of king with Guy of Lusignan, and this rivalry lasted throughout the siege of Saint-Jean d'Acre, which city capitulated 11 July, 1191. On 28 July, Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, imposed his arbitration upon the two rivals and decided that Guy should be king during his lifetime and have Conrad for his successor, the latter to receive Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon as guarantees; but on 29 April, 1192, Conrad was assassinated by emissaries of the "Old Man of the Mountain". Guy, on his side, renounced the title of king (May, 1192) and purchased the Island of Cyprus from the Templars.
    He died in 1194 and his widow named Henry I, Count of Champagne (1194-1197), who was elected king, but in 1197 Henry died from an accident.
    Isabella married a fourth husband, Amaury of Lusignan (1197-1205), brother of Guy and already King of Cyprus. The turning of the course of the crusade to Constantinople obliged him to conclude a truce with the Moslems. Amaury died in 1205.
    He left an only daughter Mélisende who married Bohemond IV, Prince of Antioch. However, it was to Mary, daughter of Isabella and Conrad of Montferrat, that the barons gave the preference, and they requested the King of France to provide her with a husband.
    Philip Augustus accordingly selected John of Brienne (1210-1225), who hesitated for a long time before accepting and did not arrive in Palestine until 1210, having first obtained from the pope a considerable loan of money. He directed the Crusade of Egypt in 1218 and, after his defeat, came to the West to solicit help. Hermann von Salza, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, advised him to give his only daughter Isabella (Yolande) in marriage to the Emperor Frederick II.
    In 1225, Henry of Malta, Admiral of Sicily, came to seek the young princess at Saint-Jean d'Acre, and on 9 November she married Frederick II at Brindisi. Immediately after the ceremony the emperor declared that his father-in-law must renounce the title of King of Jerusalem, and he himself adopted it in all his acts. After the death of Isabella, by whom he had a son Conrad, Frederick II attempted to take possession of his kingdom and to fulfill his crusader's vow, the execution of which he had so long deferred, and landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre (September, 1228), excommunicated by the pope and in disfavour with his new subjects. By a treaty concluded with the Sultan of Egypt, Frederick regained Jerusalem, and on 18 March, 1229, without any religious ceremony whatever, assumed the royal crown in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Having confided the regency to Balian d'Ibelin, Lord of Sidon, he returned to Europe. To strengthen his power in the East he sent to Saint-Jean d'Acre Richard Filangieri, Marshal of the Empire, whom he named baile (guardian) of the kingdom. The new regent combated the influence of the Ibelins and tried to secure possession of the Island of Cyprus, but was conquered and had to content himself with placing an imperial garrison at Tyre (1232).
    In 1243 Conrad, son of Frederick II, having attained his majority, the court of barons declared that the regency of the emperor must cease, and invited the legitimate king to come in person and exercise his rights. Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus and daughter of King Henry I, claimed the regency on the ground of being Isabella of Brienne's nearest relative; and it was conferred upon her and her second husband Ralph, Count of Soissons, the imperial garrison, besieged in Tyre, being forced to capitulate.
    On the death of Alix (1244) her son Henry of Lusignan, King of Cyprus, assumed the regency but, in the month of September, 1244, a troop of Kharizmians seized Jerusalem, whilst the Mongols threatened Antioch. After his Crusade of Egypt, St. Louis landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre (1250) and remained four years in Palestine, putting the fortresses of the kingdom in a state of defence and endeavouring to reconcile the factious barons. However, just at the time that the Christian states were menaced by the Mongols and the Mamelukes of Egypt, interior strife was at its height.
    In 1257, Henry of Lusignan having died, some of the barons acknowledged Queen Plaisance regent in the name of her son Hugh II, whereas others would give their allegiance to none other than Conradin, grandson of Frederick II. Moreover, civil war broke out at Acre between the Genoese and the Venetians, between the Hospitallers and the Templars, and on 31 July, 1258, the Venetians destroyed the Genoese fleet before Acre. The Mameluke Sultan Bibars, "the Cross-bowman" (El-Bundukdáree), recommenced the conquest of Syria without meeting any resistance and, in 1268, the last Christian cities, Tripoli, Sidon, and Acre, were cut off from one another.
    King Hugh II of Lusignan had died in 1267, and his succession was disputed by his nephew, Hugh III, already King of Cyprus, and Mary of Antioch whose maternal grandfather was Amaury of Lusignan. In 1269 the barons acknowledged Hugh III, but the new king, unable to cope with the lack of discipline among his subjects, retired to Cyprus after naming Balian d'Ibelin regent of the kingdom (1276). But, in 1277, Mary of Antioch sold her rights to Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, who, thinking to subdue the East, sent a garrison under command of Roger of San Severino to occupy Acre.
    After the Sicilian Vespers (1282), which ruined the projects of Charles of Anjou, the inhabitants of Acre expelled his seneschal and proclaimed Henry II of Cyprus (15 August, 1286) their king. But at this time the remnants of the Christian possessions were hard pressed by the Mamelukes. On 5 April, 1291, the Sultan Malek-Aschraf appeared before Saint-Jean d'Acre and, despite the courage of its defenders, the city was taken by storm on 28 May. The Kingdom of Jerusalem no longer existed, and none of the expeditions of the fourteenth century succeeded in re-establishing it.
    The title of King of Jerusalem continued to be borne in a spirit of rivalry: by the Kings of Cyprus belonging to the House of Lusignan; and by the two Houses of Anjou which claimed to hold their rights from Mary of Antioch. In 1459 Charlotte, daughter of John III, King of Cyprus, married Louis of Savoy, Count of Geneva, and in 1485 ceded her rights to Jerusalem to her nephew Charles of Savoy; hence, from that time up to 1870, the title of King of Jerusalem was borne by the princes of the House of Savoy

  13. #13
    Senior Member shadower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    nije doslo vreme da se gine nego da se vidi ko je kakav
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    About historic facts and the movie.
    http://hksw.org/Kingdom%20of%20Heaven.htm

  14. #14
    Member MickCollins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    St.Brutus's Center for Incurably Criminal Boys
    Posts
    53

    Default

    My biggest beef with the movie was how the completely screwed with the character of Balian and tried to turn him into some sort of modern secular hero. If Balian had been some young punk like he is in the flick, no one would have followed him. Especially not if he told the local religious leaders to piss off. Instead of telling the real story of the Horns of Hattin and Siege of Jerusalem, they tried to make a half-assed allusion to the modern Middle East and that ruined the flick.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •