The Historical Inaccuracy of Kingdom Of Heaven the Movie ?

[LeftEyeNine]

I just watched it for the second time. There had been a debate in the frontroom about this movie before if I'm not wrong. I know many found it way too inaccurate and missing any collosal wars.

Well, I really like the movie. The scenes, the cast, the camera angles, the soundtrack that drives the epic theme higher - all earn my favor.

However, since it was claimed to be inaccurate (Movies have to be inaccurate anyway - the DVD set even has sections about "being a movie" and "being the history"), I would like to know what was inaccurate with the storyline.

Anyone please?

[Grey_Fox]

The oversimplification of making the Templars out to be genocidal maniacs.

Sybillia hated Balien.

Guy du Lusignon was not the evil bugger portrayed in the film - he actually did wanted to try to live peacefully with Saladin.

Balien was at Hattin and trampled his own men to escape the slaughter. He was also not the only knight to escape to Jerusalem.

Tiberius allied with Saladin and allowed his army to cross his lands.

[Kralizec]

Balian was not a bastard.

[LeftEyeNine]

DVD materials suck then.. They all say (the cast especially) the movie is more of the history - the major incidents were the same as they were once actually.

[Weebeast]

Tiberius allied with Saladin and allowed his army to cross his lands.

It actually was Raymond of Tripoli who let Saladin enter. Saladin actually assembled his army in Raymond's fortress in Tiberias. Tiberias (the place) was besieged right away when Raymond reconciled with Guy.

Guy du Lusignon was not the evil bugger portrayed in the film - he actually did wanted to try to live peacefully with Saladin.

Yeah, but his colleagues considered him "incompetent" and hated him for that. He had problems with many important people of the holylands.

It was also Raymond who suggested Guy not to march to relieve Tiberias (a place) not Balian.

The True Cross was dragged all over Jerusalem by the Saracens but it was placed nicely onto the table by Saladin in the movie. However, Saladin was nice in real life. He let Balian go for free without ransom after the Battle of Hattin and lowered the price of ransom of those who were defending Jerusalem.

There was a king before Guy, Baldwin V (son of Sybilla and Will Monferrat) who was a little kid who supposedly died of sickness a year after. Balian was never offered to marry Sybilla.

Also, I don't think Guy and Raynald were templars (I don't see any article online mentioning they were templars). In the movie Raynald was mentioned of being a templar.

History channel had a show about the First Crusade a while ago, not to mention there was also a show about Kingdom of Heaven and historical correctness.

As for me, the movie was fairly entertaining and I didn't mind the historical incorrectness (I have History channel anyway). I just don't understand why the director didn't show Battle of Hattin. I mean out of all battles why exclude Hattin? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[Randarkmaan]

There was a king before Guy, Baldwin V (son of Sybilla and Will Monferrat) who was a little kid who supposedly died of sickness a year after. Balian was never offered to marry Sybilla.

Baldwin's brother was offered to marry Sibylla, but he was taken captive by Saladin after a battle and when he got ransomed Sibylla had fallen in love(yes, she did) with Guy de Lusignan.

Also, the film seriously oversizes the saracen army. the movies says 200.000 actually it was about 45.000(12 000 professional cavalry, plus other less effective troops), the crusader army was propably at 22-25 thousand or so(1200 knights, 4000 cavalry sergeants and turcopoles, infantry making up the rest)

However, since it was claimed to be inaccurate (Movies have to be inaccurate anyway - the DVD set even has sections about "being a movie" and "being the history"), I would like to know what was inaccurate with the storyline.

Watch it with the pilgrim's guide on, it reveals alot of it's own historical inaccuracies

[the Count of Flanders]

Knights charging in loose formation and with sword (instead of lance) in hand...

[Rosacrux redux]

Some of the (many...) innacuracies:

- Guy was not a Templar! Neither was Raynald.
- Sibylla adored Guy and remarried him to secure the thrown for him.
- There was a conspiracy alright, but that conspiracy was led by Raymond against Guy, in order for the latter not to get the throne. The counterconspiracy was led by Sibylla, Guy and Reynald. The latter, btw, was very much the frigging bastard the film potrayes him as, but was also considered a handsome bugger and had much success with rich and powerful ladies (that's how he got his titles, anyways). Of course in the time of Hattin he was an old man (he got to the Holy Land as a young lad aged 22 with the second Crusade, almost 40 years earlier).
- Raymond did allow a small recon detachment under Gokbori (one of the best generals Saladin had) to pass through his lands and leave the same day. The detachment met with a delegation of Guy trying to reach Tiberias to talk Raymond into joining forces to fend off Saladin. The delegation, led by among others the Magisters of two knightly orders, gathered any Order (Templars and Hospitalers) knights available from around, and attacked the Arabs... and was promptly crushed. Raymond couldn't help it but declare his alliance with Saladin void and enter the war in the side of Guy.
- Balian and Raymond were among these who managed to get out of Hattin. In the case of Balian the story is rather... ahem... not quite honorable, while Raymond tried to break the Saracen's right to secure the road to the fountains at Hattin, but was cut off and had to flee (it would be pure suicide to try and reenter the trap).
- Guy was released (after continuous pleas by Sibylla to Saladin) and fled with his wife. Unfortunatly the lady died before Guy managed to secure (through the Templars and with the help of Richard Lionheart) the hegemony of Cyprus. Sibylla certainly didn't go to France...

There are many more holes to the story, but I am bored to actually recite all of them. Needless to say, they pretty much slaughtered the story...

[Byzantine Prince]

Aye, there's some serious accuracy issues. Nevertheless, like Gladiator (if not more so), I found it to be very good none the less.

Gladiator is a completely fictional story. You know that right?
After all the Republic was never put back into power lol.

[Templar Knight]

I haven’t seen the film yet. Apart from the inaccuracies how many would recommend it?

[Knight Templar]

I've not seen the film, so I can only comment your comments

The oversimplification of making the Templars out to be genocidal maniacs.

As you said, both Guy and Raymond were not templars

Also, the film seriously oversizes the saracen army. the movies says 200.000 actually it was about 45.000(12 000 professional cavalry, plus other less effective troops), the crusader army was propably at 22-25 thousand or so(1200 knights, 4000 cavalry sergeants and turcopoles, infantry making up the rest)

Actually, I think Saladin had about 30-35 thousands men (12000 cavalry, 12000 infarty and the rest were volunteers), while crusaders had an army about 22-25 thousands men (but very little (at most 2500) cavalry).


Also, did the film mentioned a guy called Renaud or Reginald de Chatillon?

Historically, he was real bastard, pillager and killer who obviously came to Outemer to harm anyone who is not Catholic. During the peace between Saladin and crusader states, he was pillaging merchants and pilgrims to Meka. He even attacked and ruined Cyprus, Byzantine island (of course, with no reason except to grab money) and after that humiliated himself in front of Manuel (Byz emperor) in order to not get attacked by Byzantine army.

[Grey_Fox]

I liked the film so long as I didn't think too much about it's innacuracies.

[Randarkmaan]

while crusaders had an army about 22-25 thousands men (but very little (at most 2500) cavalry).

Actually(according to the book I read) the crusaders had 1200 knights(ie. heavy cavalry, the knights of the kingdom plus the knights of the military orders), they also used the money given by Henry II of England(to repent for killing Thomas Becket) to hire mercenaries mostly cavalry sergeants. The total number of their cavalry was about 5000, 1200 knights and the rest being lighter cavalry sergeants and turcopoles.

Knights charging in loose formation and with sword (instead of lance) in hand...

Actually most knights did charge in a pretty undiciplined manner back then(except for the knightly orders who practised charging in a tight manner), though they would obviously use lances and not swords as you pointed out.

[LeftEyeNine]

I haven’t seen the film yet. Apart from the inaccuracies how many would recommend it?

I do.. Get the DVD

[Templar Knight]

I do.. Get the DVD

£11.99 at Play.com including delivery

[Pericles]

I think the film is highly entertaining and I would strongly recommend it.

This is not an historical film; rather, it's an historically based film.

The dvd has two excellent one hour docs, that if priced separately, would cost about $50.00 (as most A&E one hour docs are $24.95 or $29.95 each).

People shouldn't get too hung up on a few inaccuracies. Scott clearly states on the dvd that some things had to be changed to condense the story (in other words he knows his history); his ultimate reason for making the film was to show the futility and endless warfare that has taken place in the Middle East up to the present time (as subsequent history has shown).

Remember when Balian asks Saladin, "What is Jerusalem worth?" Saladin replies, "Nothing...." Saladin then walks a bit, stops, turns, and then states, "Everything!"

Just think of the characters as archetypes.

I think an historically based film should:

1) Tell a good story

2) Evoke time and place

3) Develop a sense of history.

4) Motivate the viewer to want to learn more (to actually read a book on the subject).

BTW, a Director's cut of the film will be released next year that will include ONE EXTRA HOUR of the movie. So, hopefully, the Battle of Hattin will be included in it.

[Kraxis]

Knights charging in loose formation and with sword (instead of lance) in hand...

Hey there old buddy (Tarrak here).

The knights were not out to fight per se, they were not equipped and would rather have loved to enter the castle, but Balian wanted to give the peasants time, and thus they had to sacrifice themselves. It was forced upon them to cahrge with swords.

Anyway I liked the movie, and besides cases of recent history or Danish history I don't really notice the inaccuracies as I have come to expect them. They don't bother me much anymore.

BP, sure he does, he only mentioned Gladiator because he liked that one too.

[LeftEyeNine]

In fact, I was only curious about the inaccuracies -not questioning the producers about it. I don't think this movie deserves much negative comments when it is about the history and the screenplay. It was very well produced, me thinks.