There are two artists by this name:
1) Punk, hardcore, and indie influen… Read Full Bio ↴There are two artists by this name:
1) Punk, hardcore, and indie influenced rock from Orange County, New York. Members are/were in Our Cross To Bear, XclamationX, Bust Out!, Given Up For Dead, Better Days, Fallen So Far etc.
2) Pseudonym for the Dutch artist Boudewijn De Groot on a single released in the United Kingdom in 1966.
1) Punk, hardcore, and indie influen… Read Full Bio ↴There are two artists by this name:
1) Punk, hardcore, and indie influenced rock from Orange County, New York. Members are/were in Our Cross To Bear, XclamationX, Bust Out!, Given Up For Dead, Better Days, Fallen So Far etc.
2) Pseudonym for the Dutch artist Boudewijn De Groot on a single released in the United Kingdom in 1966.
The Gravediggers
Baldwin Lyrics
We have lyrics for 'The Gravediggers' by these artists:
Black Tape for a Blue Girl The gravediggers lick their lips And push their shovels ag…
We have lyrics for these tracks by Baldwin:
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
More Genres
No Artists Found
More Artists
Load All
No Albums Found
More Albums
Load All
No Tracks Found
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Search results not found
Song not found
PiBmovieclips
@Cleeon Virlief I'm sorry Cleeon, but slavery can't ever be better than freedom. Even if it means you die. Many wars were fought for Freedom (and died for).
If the "purpose" as you call it is generating wealth for someone else, then that purpose has no meaning since you're working for "free".
If you're not generating wealth for yourself but your master, then your master's is not protecting you - but his "assets". He's not providing you with food and water out of his gratitude or compassion, but so that you can generate wealth for him. It's business. Slavery was always business and still is (in some places).
Even if your master can't legally kill you, and you will be eventually free (as it was the case for most slaves in USA in 19th century), If you never generate wealth for yourself - earning wage (also exclusive to US slaves to my knowledge - without consent of their master) - that would allow you to be independent once your slavery is over, it was still just pure exploitation.
I can understand that many would have died in misery and without care during medieval period - thus you say they would be better off working for someone who takes care of them - but that life had only the meaning of "free workforce" for their master that would only give them the absolute minimum necessary to sustain their life so that they can create wealth for him (paying for itself and more) and ultimately no meaning after all.
Who would like to work-himself into his grave with nothing to show for whilst never been able to do anything of his free will or leave?
Either way, look at current situation. 18th generation wanting to play victim card for their ancestors being slaves - on a wage and contract with expiry date in most cases; and with their masters no being able to legally kill them (in all cases) - all of that way before the Abolishment of slavery across all western societies; and tell me again how even "traditional" slavery would have been better for them.
I'll borrow and paraphrase what Robert E Lee wrote to president Franklin Pierce on December 27, 1856 -
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things - BUT, there are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
The Evil White Man's Culture (as portrayed today), had long ago abolished it's own profitable business (and good portion of economy) because despite of thinking that the slaves "are better here than (insert country of origin) and hopefully it will mean their brighter future, slavery (any form) is EVIL" - and it was in direct conflict with the forming of values that: "MEN ARE ALL EQUAL, AND FREE".
No need for a revolution, no need for a "struggle" between masters and their slaves. White man even fought the other white man (and won) that couldn't let go of his "business" because the forming "western culture of the evil white man" couldn't let it go on no more.
Instead of being celebrated, this is now being demonized in our current "clown world", where everything seems to be "backwards or upside down".
Sorry for the essay! :D
Ups, I did it again :/
Christopher Sanchez
Well Salidan was expected to take revenge for the murder of his sister and the deaths of Muslim Pilgrims that started this conflict
Not to mention the murder of his messenger when they tried to negotiate
His own men was frustrated how soft Salidan was over the conflict
So Balian would at least expect a massacre if he surrendered
Because the other Muslims would want Justice
But Salidan made his intentions clear that he would spare everyone unmolested, and would allow religious tolerance in the city after Muslim Occupation
Making it favorable for Bailan to surrender, as anything less would have him Continue to fight and take the wonders of the city with him
Aidan Rogers
It says a lot about Saladin when the Crusaders completely changed their view of him during the Third Crusade, particularly Richard I. Saladin impressed them with his chivalric manner and how he treated non-Muslims under his rule. The reason he is still respected and even admired in the West today is because of the Crusaders who returned home and spoke of Saladin in a favourable light, when at the start of the Crusade he was thought of as Satan’s son and one of the heads of the dragon of the Apocalypse, for taking Jerusalem.
PiBmovieclips
He was equal to Ibelin in Chivalry. What a wonderful story of mutual respect on opposing sides, and even dam straight admiration for each other. Reminds me of how British Commonwealth soldiers gave funeral to the Red Baron with full military honor once they finally shot him down, some event felt sad once they realized whom they had killed. He was thought of as a "Gallant and Worthy Foe" - inscription on his cross - by them.
Kaboom
While Sladin was more honorable than most at the time, this scene isn't accurate. He allowed safe passage to those that could afford it, those who couldn't were sold into slavery. Most were able to afford it, but there were still thousands that were made slaves.
PiBmovieclips
@Kaboom You're quite right - 15 000 in total. I mentioned this in one of mine other reactions to another comment. But that being said, the Rich of Jerusalem refused to pay for the poor and rather carried out chests full of gold with them out of the city, and the noble people didn't even have to pay any ransom for themselves. On top of that, when a group of veiling women approached Saladin at one point, he ordered to released all captive men in his possession , and personally guaranteed safe passage to those women - "for free". He had to capture the city and he had to do it in a way he wouldn't loose face. All considered - he gave the Christians a lot of "space" to safely leave as free people.
Cleeon Virlief
@PiBmovieclips I must give an additional info about Muslim tradition and the social condition of medieval period. For the very poor enemies who have defeated, sometimes is better to be slave. The reasons is.
1. They still can stay and live peacefully and protected ( by their master) in that city.
2. Their life have more purpose or at least a jobs, not as beggar or face misery because of very poor condition
3. The slave system in islam guaranteed protection, well daily ransoom for food & shelter& drink& and even from attack by strangers, including their master Neighborhood and brothers, so the slaves are well protected by the law.
4. No force for the slave to follow their master Islam, they can stay with their faith as long as they like, free from taxes, and can pay for their freedom while they have enough to pay, anytime as they want it.
Thats it, the benefits can be more useful for very poor woman, especially if that womans become slaves of higher ranks of Muslim wifes
PiBmovieclips
@Cleeon Virlief I'm sorry Cleeon, but slavery can't ever be better than freedom. Even if it means you die. Many wars were fought for Freedom (and died for).
If the "purpose" as you call it is generating wealth for someone else, then that purpose has no meaning since you're working for "free".
If you're not generating wealth for yourself but your master, then your master's is not protecting you - but his "assets". He's not providing you with food and water out of his gratitude or compassion, but so that you can generate wealth for him. It's business. Slavery was always business and still is (in some places).
Even if your master can't legally kill you, and you will be eventually free (as it was the case for most slaves in USA in 19th century), If you never generate wealth for yourself - earning wage (also exclusive to US slaves to my knowledge - without consent of their master) - that would allow you to be independent once your slavery is over, it was still just pure exploitation.
I can understand that many would have died in misery and without care during medieval period - thus you say they would be better off working for someone who takes care of them - but that life had only the meaning of "free workforce" for their master that would only give them the absolute minimum necessary to sustain their life so that they can create wealth for him (paying for itself and more) and ultimately no meaning after all.
Who would like to work-himself into his grave with nothing to show for whilst never been able to do anything of his free will or leave?
Either way, look at current situation. 18th generation wanting to play victim card for their ancestors being slaves - on a wage and contract with expiry date in most cases; and with their masters no being able to legally kill them (in all cases) - all of that way before the Abolishment of slavery across all western societies; and tell me again how even "traditional" slavery would have been better for them.
I'll borrow and paraphrase what Robert E Lee wrote to president Franklin Pierce on December 27, 1856 -
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things - BUT, there are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
The Evil White Man's Culture (as portrayed today), had long ago abolished it's own profitable business (and good portion of economy) because despite of thinking that the slaves "are better here than (insert country of origin) and hopefully it will mean their brighter future, slavery (any form) is EVIL" - and it was in direct conflict with the forming of values that: "MEN ARE ALL EQUAL, AND FREE".
No need for a revolution, no need for a "struggle" between masters and their slaves. White man even fought the other white man (and won) that couldn't let go of his "business" because the forming "western culture of the evil white man" couldn't let it go on no more.
Instead of being celebrated, this is now being demonized in our current "clown world", where everything seems to be "backwards or upside down".
Sorry for the essay! :D
Ups, I did it again :/
Pedro Hoelzle
The way he delivers "I am not those men" is so good. Shows how much he despises them and their actions. Great writing and acting.
PiBmovieclips
Acting was definitely a big part of this masterpiece. Everyone did a great job.
Totally Not Alpharius
Agreed . It's him saying " how dare you compare me to those men? I'm fucking SALADIN"
Swede Johanson
I love this scene. The amount of mutual respect shown by Saladin and Balian is priceless. Both men accomplished what they wanted. Balian saves lives and Saladin gets Jerusalem.