Posted on 05/12/2005 10:41:01 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
If you want to learn something about the Crusades, stay as far away from Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven as you can. There's more historical accuracy in The Lord of the Rings, which took place in a world that never existed. On the other hand, if you just want to see some big medieval battle scenes and eat popcorn while absorbing Scott's obvious message, then this one's for you.
Kingdom of Heaven is the story of Christian zealots inciting a war against the innocent Muslims because their bloodthirsty God wants them to kill infidels. Sound like a familiar lament from the Left? The peace-loving knights (what?!?) who happen to live in Jerusalem value their truce with Saladin's forces, and are horrified by the villainous fanatic Guy de Lusignan, leader of the religious order of the Knights of the Temple (Templars), who schemes to stir up trouble and sieze power.
If you don't want to know any details about the movie, this is as far as you should go. There will be "spoilers" ahead, although there's nothing to spoil... unless you're the type who would have been upset at finding out the ship was going to sink at the end of Titanic, or that the Japanese were going to attack in Pearl Harbor.
Still with me? Good.
The movie is set in the late 12th century (yes, that part's true -- there really was one!), and follows the events that led up to the Third Crusade. Some basic historical facts are used as a framework. Reynald of Chantillon broke a truce by attacking a caravan and taking the sister of Saladin prisoner. King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was a leper who died young and was eventually succeeded by Guy de Lusignan. Guy sent his forces to fight Saladin (Salah al-Din al-Ayubbi, a Kurdish warlord who preached jihad) without an adequate supply of water; they were slaughtered, leaving Jerusalem defenseless. Balian of Ibelin defended the city with only two knights, and he negotiated the city's surrender to Saladin. The capture of Jerusalem sparked the Third Crusade.
Everything else in the movie is pure Hollywood.
The movie's hero is Balian, a simple village blacksmith until his real father -- a knight named Godfrey -- comes by to claim him. It's difficult to sustain a proper suspension of disbelief while trying to imagine spindly Orlando Bloom wielding a blacksmith's hammer for a full day's work without collapsing of exhaustion. It was even more ridiculous when the simple blacksmith learned to wield a sword like a master in one easy lesson. Upon reaching the Holy Land and finding his home of Ibelin, he astounded the locals -- whose people had lived in the desert for thousands of years -- by showing them how to find water. Apparently, they had never thought to employ a shovel to dig a well. Later, the fictional Balian shows that while shoeing horses (using iron shoes, a bit ahead of his time) in a small French village, he had found the time to master the intricacies of siege warfare and ballistics. Amazing, the things that these peasant blacksmiths thought about while at the forge.
The real Balian of Ibelin was not a knight's bastard suddenly raised to the nobility; he was born and bred a knight. By the time the movie takes place, he had been lord of Ibelin for several decades. He married Maria Comnena, widow of King Amalric I of Jerusalem, in 1177. She and their two sons were very much alive during the Third Crusade; in fact, she died in 1206. His wife was shown as recently dead at the beginning of the film merely to showcase the greedy priest who robbed her corpse of a silver crucifix before taunting Balian about her being a suicide. Just a hint of the omnipresent anti-Christian feeling in the film, like background radiation.
Because King Baldwin IV was a leper, in real life his six-year-old nephew (the son of his sister and her first husband) was crowned co-king with him in 1183. The real Balian supported the candidacy of Raymond of Tripoli to be regent of the young co-king. Guy de Lusignan, married to Baldwin IV's sister, became Baldwin IV's regent as his sickness advanced. Baldwin IV died in 1185. His nephew Baldwin V (now eight) became the sole king, but suddenly died a year later. The man Raymond chose to become the new king refused the crown and gave his support to Guy, enabling Guy to take the throne. Raymond was in Tiberias (by the Sea of Galilee) at the time, and was unable to prevent Guy's coronation. Most of this real history, with its political games and power struggles, was ignored to insert a love story between the fictional Balian and the wife of Guy de Lusignan. You just have to love Hollywood.
The fictional Balian got past Saladin's forces to reach Jerusalem by the intervention of a man whose life he had once spared. The real Balian requested permission from Saladin to get his family out of the city, swearing not to take up arms against Saladin's army. Once he reached the city, however, the Patriarch of Jerusalem absolved him of his oath so he could take over the defense of the city. To make up for the shortage of fighting men, Balian knighted fifty sons of noblemen, though they had not yet completed their training. (Some accounts report that he knighted everyone of noble birth who was sixteen years or older.) In the movie, the Patriarch was a narrow-minded bigot who was stunned at Balian's presumption in knighting commoners with no fighting experience. After surrendering the city, the fictional Balian retired into obscurity, returning to the simple life of a village blacksmith. The real Balian, a nobleman who would have been offended at the very idea, became an advisor to Henry II, King of Champagne. After he helped Richard II negotiate a new treaty with Saladin in 1192, Balian was rewarded with the lordship of Caymont. He died the next year, but his family went on to wield power and influence for generations.
Someday, Hollywood will make a movie based on real history, which is much more complex and fascinating than made-up history filmed just to send a message could ever be. Well, if nothing else, the movie ought to play as well in the Middle East as Fahrenheit 9/11 did. As historian Jonathan Riley-Smith said, "It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history... It depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality." Maybe Ridley Scott can take a hint from Michael Moore and get Hezballah to help distribute his film, too.
For more information: A History of the Crusades, volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem by Steven Runciman Fighting For Christendom: Holy War And The Crusades by Christopher Tyerman The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith (editor) A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden Timeline of the Third Crusade at About.com
Joe Mariani
If I see it in the movies , I know it's real ...
If I see it in a historical reference it's just a put on...
Yea , I think I understand ...
I saw it this past weekend. Good fighting scenes but bad history.
"Someday, Hollywood will make a movie based on real history"
Doubtful...that's Mel Gibson's job.
And I didn't see this anti-Christian bent that everyone is talking about. Yes, both the 'heavies' in the movie are Christian. (small spoiler.....) They both foment a war - one to satify a need for power, and the other for bloodlust. They both have counterparts on the Arabic side, as well. If there was any underlying anti-christian message, I missed it.
I lost all interest in this movie after finding out that CAIR gave it a rave review. Given CAIR's hair-trigger tendency to take offense, you just knew it had to be a complete white-wash of all things Muslim and the Crusaders would pretty much have horns on their heads.
If the author is so concerned about history, he should check his own. I'm pretty sure it was Richard the First, not Second.
I though the movie was bad. It was dull. Bloom was horribly cast, and every scene had a dark pallor. And the plot dragged IMO.
The real history sound much more interesting thatn the Hollywood copy. 'Tis a shame. I'm glad that I passed up the opportunity to see this last week.
"that's Mel Gibson's job."
You're not referring to that historically-horrific "Braveheart", are you?
A simple mistake. He confused Christians with Mohammedans. You'd think someone would have caught the error though.
Well, Braveheart took some real liberties, but at least Gibson got the sides right.
"Braveheart took some real liberties"
That's being polite. He wasn't close on any of the battles, except for accurately showing how bloody and gory medieval battle was. At displaying lots of blood and gore, Gibson is the king. I probably enjoyed "The Patriot" most of all his works, but that was terribly historically flawed as well.
But as another poster said, Hollywood is about entertainment first, not history.
I don't plan to see it.
Bump for later read
No...I haven't seen Braveheart. While nothing can be historically pure, I think his work in "The Patriot" and "The Passion" confirm he's not a slave to political correctness or Hollywood "culture".
"No...I haven't seen Braveheart."
I highly recommend it, as it's very entertaining. It's just not very accurate, but who cares - it's fun. Warning- it's very bloody and violent at times!!
" While nothing can be historically pure,"
You're exactly right. The only thing that's historically pure is the event itself and since it's officially 'history', any future portrayal of it will have elements of inaccuracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.