Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

[FabiusBile]

Excellent historical epic with great production values in the battles. Must see for a Broken Crescent fan.

[Dago Red]

This reminds me though, where are the Giraffe Riders for the Egyptian Caliphs? And shouldn't we get scarab attack beetles?

[sumskilz]

Excellent historical epic

[Intellected]

Kingdom of Heaven is my all time favorite.

[Jwb187]

I haven't even seen Prince of Persia yet...but knowing the games and seeing the previews, I wouldn't call it a historical epic.

Kingdom of Heaven is the one at least as far as BC time goes

[Quirl]

Me watching Kingdom of Heaven...


"I'm a Crusader! I hate everything and everyone! Blah! Blah! Blah!"

[kingman1337]

Well, I wouldn't say PoP is "historical", but it sure as hell was fun!

But I agree, Kingdom of Heaven is really underrated and it was a great movie.

And no, Transformers 2 was NOWHERE near historical, or good.

[intifadanyz]

Maybe the time sand is distorted?....

Hmm, I have the game Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, and I think the time in the game was set not during Medieval Persian (which BC is set) , and not even Classical Persian (RTW, EB, RTR etc)....It was more during Ancient time...during the time of Assyria, Sumeria, Akkadia, Babylon etc....

[Tuskin4]

Kingdom of Heaven WAS NOt HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AT ALL. I hate how everybody say that the Crusades were evil they werent. One critic of the movie said "Kingdom of Heaven was Bin Laden's version of the Crusades." Please dont argue with me or it will go on and on and on The battles were good though.

[Bull]

Kingdom of Heaven WAS NOt HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AT ALL. I hate how everybody say that the Crusades were evil they werent. One critic of the movie said "Kingdom of Heaven was Bin Laden's version of the Crusades." Please dont argue with me or it will go on and on and on The battles were good though.

Please tell me how the Crasades were not evil?

It's essentially expansionism with a religious facade, much like today's Iraq war.
Except the story has changed to "...we need to stop that terrorist who's sponsoring other terrorist..."

I can't see how the Crusades or the current War-on-Terror will bring any benefit for the average people. Young people die, and those that don't pay other prices be it war tax, freedom, or other sorts of censorship.

Anyway, I digress.
Crusaders on more than one occasion massacred civilians, so they are evil no matter their cause.

[Berkut]

Please tell me how the Crasades were not evil?

It's essentially expansionism with a religious facade, much like today's Iraq war.
Except the story has changed to "...we need to stop that terrorist who's sponsoring other terrorist..."

I can't see how the Crusades or the current War-on-Terror will bring any benefit for the average people. Young people die, and those that don't pay other prices be it war tax, freedom, or other sorts of censorship.

Anyway, I digress.
Crusaders on more than one occasion massacred civilians, so they are evil no matter their cause.

Don't be so naive. Saying the crusaders were evil religious fanatics because they killed civilians and ending it at that is a rediculous dumbing down of the situation. At the time with the political/religious situation in europe and the middle east it was more of 2 different cultures colliding that each wanted to control the world that resulted in numerous wars. The first crusade was a conflict centuries in the making and you could write a book about the reasons behind it, so I'm not going to write out all of it here, but you could read up on it if you wish. Nearly every single powerful military organization in history is at fault for killing a great number of people so calling that evil makes pretty much everyone evil.

[Neige]

@Berkut; He is not talking about the people participating the Crusade being evil. He is talking rather that the whole idea of a war for any (social, religious etc.) ideology is evil. War causes death which is in its core - evil. Will you deny that?

[Quirl]

War is evil because it causes death? So death is inherently evil?

Living also causes death. Living is also evil?

[Neige]

Alright. What I mean is - (I doubt you didn't get it, but I'll make it clearer anyway) war is a military conflict that involves killing people. Real people (not M2 pixels on your screen)! Young, old - it doesen't matter - taking someone's life is not a very good thing, is it? I mean you wouldn't like it if someone walked right at you and chopped your head off because of some religious ideology, would you? So.. I don't know.. one would think that war IS evil.

[Berkut]

@Berkut; He is not talking about the people participating the Crusade being evil. He is talking rather that the whole idea of a war for any (social, religious etc.) ideology is evil. War causes death which is in its core - evil. Will you deny that?

What I'm saying is things usually aren't as simple as good and evil (essentially a flawed religious idea in itself), and the sooner most people realize that fact and learn to look at all points of view involved the sooner the concept of good and evil will stop being abused to fuel wars. Also there are worse things than war.

[Quirl]

I mean you wouldn't like it if someone walked right at you and chopped your head off because of some religious ideology, would you?

No, I wouldn't. And if that were the actual causes of the Crusades, that would be something. Though, war is more complex than that, isn't it? History is more complex. And while the crusades launched Europeans into the Middle East on the basis of religious justification, the Caliphates were invading Europe long before that using the same justification.

It was two different worlds colliding together while the earth was in its early stages of globalization. Cultures met that had previously had no contact with one another and naturally violence ensued. To look at either one of these peoples and deem their actions as merely being "evil" is simply unwarranted. It's far too easy for us to look back now and be so judgmental--assume we would/could do it any better.

But, truly, we should be more fair to our ancestors than that...

[Neige]

To look at either one of these peoples and deem their actions as merely being "evil" is simply unwarranted.

Again. I do not accuse the people for being evil. I call the act of war itself being evil. Yes, sure, I know that there were a lot of different factors that dictated the events at those times. Religion being not the only one (and not the main) reason for all the slaughter etc. However, I would blame the leaders of that time. I would blame them for warmongery in stead of peaceful diplomacy. Most of the common people in armies were not savage murderes. They were driven and encouraged by their leaders. Most of the politics were basically governed by a handful of people... And from that perspective I do see war as being evil.

[Tuskin4]

This is what is was worried about. But the Crusades HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ.

[Dago Red]

This is what is was worried about. But the Crusades HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ.

No, they didn't. And neither did weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda, or 911. But that's what most of us believed at the time.

So there is a common thread, and that is ignorance. A western populace, completely ignorant of the facts and the reality under which they march to war. Common people and peasants marched to war in the Crusades for many reasons, but mostly out of religious piety, these uneducated masses manipulated out of their ignorance to thinking they would be granted salvation for slaying unbelievers and taking the Holy lands for Christendom... that God would wish this of them. Absurd.

As usual, the Princes and Nobility - the wealthy and powerful - did not go to war for those same reasons. Sure, some of them had similar reasons but there were complex geopolitical reasons at work... land, power, influence, greed, regaining the prominence of the Papacy in Rome over the eastern Christians and the Greeks.

I do not hold the Turks and Fatimids, etc, the Muslims on a pedestal either.... and truly they too had ignorance to spare among themselves. But it was we (westerners) who brought the religious conflict into it. For before that, though there were certainly grievances, Christians, Muslims, Jews and Zoroastrians, etc were allowed to live and worship under Muslim rule. When the westerners came, they butchered everyone routinely, Muslim and Christian alike FYI.

People, kingdoms, civilizations battled each other all the time... only after this "Crusade" did we come to think of these various peoples so sternly as Muslim ones or Christian ones and then draw battle lines accordingly. Westerners opened that pandora's box.

We knew nothing when we started that. And we knew nothing when we started the Iraq war. And whatever the next war is, we will know nothing about that either.

(When I say "we" I mean the general populace.)

[Berkut]

No, they didn't. And neither did weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda, or 911. But that's what most of us believed at the time.

So there is a common thread, and that is ignorance. A western populace, completely ignorant of the facts and the reality under which they march to war. Common people and peasants marched to war in the Crusades for many reasons, but mostly out of religious piety, these uneducated masses manipulated out of their ignorance to thinking they would be granted salvation for slaying unbelievers and taking the Holy lands for Christendom... that God would wish this of them. Absurd.

As usual, the Princes and Nobility - the wealthy and powerful - did not go to war for those same reasons. Sure, some of them had similar reasons but there were complex geopolitical reasons at work... land, power, influence, greed, regaining the prominence of the Papacy in Rome over the eastern Christians and the Greeks.

I do not hold the Turks and Fatimids, etc, the Muslims on a pedestal either.... and truly they too had ignorance to spare among themselves. But it was we (westerners) who brought the religious conflict into it. For before that, though there were certainly grievances, Christians, Muslims, Jews and Zoroastrians, etc were allowed to live and worship under Muslim rule. When the westerners came, they butchered everyone routinely, Muslim and Christian alike FYI.

People, kingdoms, civilizations battled each other all the time... only after this "Crusade" did we come to think of these various peoples so sternly as Muslim ones or Christian ones and then draw battle lines accordingly. Westerners opened that pandora's box.

We knew nothing when we started that. And we knew nothing when we started the Iraq war. And whatever the next war is, we will know nothing about that either.

(When I say "we" I mean the general populace.)

I don't understand how you can just single out the crusades like that in a period of history that was all like that basically. What about the few centuries prior to the crusades of muslim armies ruthlessly conquering christian lands? The crusades are really a major thing in history not because it was when religion became a big thing, or first examples of large conquests for land, resources and power, it is a well known part in history because it's the first time christians (not only europeans) managed to form some sort of union and jointly went on the counter offensive against muslims that have thus far been completely unstoppable.