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. They're 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 that suffuses 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. 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 city's defense. 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. Surrender, as shown in the film, is the preferred, "moral" option -- not something the defenders were forced to do.
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 I of England 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
Posted at Wednesday, May 11, 2005 by
CavalierX
 |  |  |
Paladin May 13, 2005 03:37 AM PDT
You forgot to tell them the message at the end of the "ahem" Movie. You know about how there is still unrest in the kingdom of heaven to this very day. |
 |

 |  |  |
JM May 13, 2005 06:48 AM PDT
Well, it MIGHT have been referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More than likely, though, Scott was pushing a "run away from Iraq" message. |
 |

 |  |  |
historyofjihad May 13, 2005 06:54 AM PDT
For the Real Story of the Crusades, visit:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/crusades.html |
 |

 |  |  |
Cinnie May 15, 2005 12:19 AM PDT
I'm Joe's friend, saw the movie with him last night. When the horror died away and I was able to function coherently again, I wrote up a review of my own, in three parts.
Historical critique: http://www.livejournal.co/~cgwriting/184110.html
Theatrical critique: http://www.livejournal.com/~cgwriting/184388.html
Positive points:
http://www.livejournal.com/~cgwriting/184688.html
Hope you like it. |
 |

 |  |  |
JM May 17, 2005 02:35 PM PDT
Cinnie, those were excellent reviews. Almost made seeing the movie worth it. |
 |

 |  |  |
AlphaPatriot May 18, 2005 06:12 PM PDT
Brialliant post (as usual). |
 |

 |  |  |
JM May 18, 2005 09:58 PM PDT
Thanks, Alpha. |
 |

 |  |  |
Mad heron May 22, 2005 02:54 PM PDT
Hmmm what do liberals want? more control higher taxes more regulations voting more felons and the UNs one world goverment |
 |