Thread by @_VoC__

Kingdom of Heaven (2005) directed by Ridley Scott, much like his other works in Gladiator and Robin Hood, heaps modern thought onto a historic canvas.

But that’s a well worn path. Let’s look at the historic figures themselves and compare and contrast the fiction to reality.

Set just prior to the Third Crusade and the Fall of Jerusalem being the climax, it is important to first focus on the “anti-antagonist” of the film, Saladin. The film draws from contemporary sources such as that of Richard the Lionheart that recognize Saladin as

Very savvy politically, very adept martially, and very chivalrous in conduct. This was so much the case that the Christian world preserved Saladin’s legacy far better initially than the Muslim world. Saladin’s depiction is fair, but the viewing of others through his lens is not,

And this reliance on “Saladin Sources” is a major factor in the error of other depicted characters, coupled with Hollywood drama, agnosticism, and the like. All in all, however, I cannot disagree with Dante and consider Saladin admirable. He did often spare many Christians.

Facing off against Saladin is Baldwin IV. The movie gets correct the fact that Baldwin IV worked hard to negotiate a peace with Saladin, but glosses over the fierce battles the two fought previously. Drumming that up would have made him more impressive but downplayed him as

The leading member of the “peace and tolerance” faction. Fair to do for the sake of time. The worst bit is they have Baldwin refuse Last Rites because he doesn’t like the priest, which is dubious of a devout Catholic at any time, let alone a Crusader. B- (Saladin gets an A btw)

Who was this priest? None other than the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Heraclius.

The portrayal of Heraclius is consistent with “Old French Continuation” by Archbishop William of Tyre, a political/ecclesiastical rival of Heraclius who was bitter the latter received the Patriarchate

Is this primary source document fair to Heraclius? No. It is basically a hot piece on him and claims he illicitly excommunicated William and tried to have him killed which is easily disproven yet all portrayals of Heraclius to date are negative.

Heraclius seems to have been in actuality very pious, impressing courtiers with his spirituality and zeal. He even took church money (and some silver stripped from the adornments of the Holy Sepulcher) to pay Jerusalems defenders, and raised an exorbitant sum to ransom captive

Commoners from slavery, and even offering himself as collateral for more to Saladin (which was declined) this heroic virtue is a far cry from the corrupt and cowardly portrayal in the movie, as the movie Heraclius is willing to apostatize to save his own ass. F.

That’s all… for now. More to come!

*hit

Gerard of Ridefort- a minor character in the movie so not much developed apart from being hot-headed and zealous, to the detriment of those around him and the kingdom itself. Turns out contemporary sources agree, especially considering he was involved in some of the worst

Crusader defeats of the time, was at constant odds with Raymond III of Tripoli, to the point of personal spite, and allegedly stole alms sent by King Henry II of England to aid Crusaders after his involvement in the St. Thomas Becket murder. Surprisingly accurate, sadly. B+

That brings us to “Tiberius” or the historical Raymond III, Count of Tripoli. What does the movie get right? He’s an astute politician and rival to Guy de Lusignan. In fact one remark by Guy in the movie states Raymond is a washed up has-been and more of a “never-was”

This has been supported by historians, stating Raymond was personally ambitious, and his endeavors were usually of little merit if not total failures. The film also seems to imply he and Saladin have mutual respect, when in reality most Muslims considered him a dire enemy.

This hatred made his survival of the Horns of Hattin very suspicious- he did not dodge the battle out of prudence as in the movie, but he survived and escaped to Tripoli, arousing rumors among Christians that he apostatized, tho Muslim accounts say he was too cowardly to. C.

Balian of Ibelin. Far less interested in the movies fictional origins as I am their portrayal of his character. The real Balian was far more politically motivated, siding with Raymond and later Conrad Montferrat against the faction of Guy de Lusignan, somewhat consistent in film

While he did acquit himself well in the Battle of Montisgard, and the defense of Jerusalem in which he took charge, he was far from a popular figure to his contemporaries, some charging him as cowardly, and that he “trampled Christian and Cross” as he fled Hattin

He also swore to Saladin not to fight him again, though Heraclius wisely released him of this, as his duty to Christendom was seen as greater than an oath to a Muslim. His defense of Jerusalem is admirable and he did secure the saftey of many Christians.

But some sources call him “false as a goblin”, call him fickle, cruel, faithless, one who accepts bribes, and one who “should be hunted with dogs”

Hardly the man sought out by kings for his noble conduct. Turns out his wife was allegedly sinister too. D.

Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem- the movie gets correct that Sibylla was a clever political actor but that’s about it. The suggestion she poisoned her son is about as fanciful as the contemporary one that Raymond of Tripoli killed him, which is certainly more interesting.

In matter of fact, the movie depicts her marriage to Guy de Lusignan as a sham, both being openly unfaithful. However, Sibylla’s grandest political achievement was maneuvering a way for them to retain control in Jerusalem and was unshakably loyal to her husband, and he to her. F

We come to Guy de Lusignan, who like Raymond seems to be a figure of some controversy due to factionalism. As stated, he was loyal to his wife which the film changed. He was certainly politically ambitious, involved in dubious schemes for the English throne

This rebelliousness caused the English throne to prefer him in the Holy Land. Guy married Sibylla, and after his brother in law and then step-son’s death (Baldwin IV and V, respectively) he and Sibylla stood to inherit power of Jerusalem. This is shown in film, however

It was the loyalty of the now-queen Sibylla that would secure his kingship: she promised to annul her marriage to him prior to being named queen on the promise she could chose her next husband, where she promptly remarried Guy and allowed him to crown himself, showing him as king

(Epic girl boss moment??) Yes Guy did preside over the disaster of Hattin but Saladin did show him honor and mercy as a fellow monarch. Guy was freed at Sibylla’s intercession, but they were denied refuge by the treacherous Conrad and Balian, who tried to usurp the crown

Guy decided to besiege Acre instead, losing his daughters and beloved Sibylla to disease. He had the chivalry to save his rival Conrad’s life, and seemingly accepted a council’s decision to give his crown to Conrad later. But then Conrad got assassinated almost immediately. Oops.

Verdict? Guy seems extremely complex, falling out and in favor with English monarchs, having an interesting marriage and political carrier, mixed military exploits, but a fairly chivalric reputation. He did have a bit of a tricky streak, as in the film. C-

Ever notice how films are so ham fisted in making someone “obviously” bad they unintentionally make them look cool? Enter Raynald of Châtillon. The film depicts Raynald basically as a murderous sociopath used by the zealous Gerard and the scheming Guy

His scenes are laughably comic and it’s obvious the actor is enjoying the heck out of it. Shouting randomly (mostly his own name) and skipping around. He seems to relish bloodshed and it isn’t stated it’s due to his enemies being a different faith it’s just: “that’s what I do”

What was the real Raynald like? We’ll much like Balian and Baldwin IV and a couple others he was at the Battle of Montisgard where the crusaders crushed an invading army under Saladin. He was courageous in battle and indeed did carry the fight to the enemies of Christendom

Even when others were not willing; he stated he swore no oath that they did and was bound by no truce (the movie makes him out to be a renegade outside the law) and he likely made these attacks in an attempt to keep Saladin from amassing power.

He took initiative and thought of clever ways to harass Saladin, earning him an ire Saladin would “never forgive”. He was also instrumental in rallying support for Sibylla as queen. Muslim historians name him “one of the greatest of the Franks”

He died after Hattin, not merely for the incident portrayed in film over the cup of water offered Guy then given to him (which did happen) but after that Saladin offered him his life if he converted to Islam which Raynald flatly refused, and was executed.

Although some did see him as the brigand he was portrayed as, this was again part of the Saladin point of view. Some Christians saw him as a martyr, and as an experienced commander and the only one brave and bold enough to fight the enemies of Christendom. D.

End of thread. Merry Christmas. Christ is Born!