The Portal for Public History. Please read the rules before participating, as we remove all comments which break the rules. Answers must be in-depth and comprehensive, or they will be removed.
This is my first time posting here so I apologize if there are any mistakes. I'm curios regarding the historical accuracy of the movie "Kingdoms of heaven", is it purely based around the early middle ages? What things have been added or taken out to make the movie better? such things.
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
In wine tasting (and other culinary arts) there is a concept of mouthfeel. The idea that independent of taste a wine should feel a certain way in the mouth. A port should feel thick and syrupy. A champagne should feel light and bubbly. Movies have a similar thing, where a lot of details have to be done correctly to create an appropriate setting. In certain aspects Kingdom of Heaven does "mouthfeel" exceptionally well. Large parts of the movie have the setting down, and things like costuming are generally excellent. The movie captures the feel of the place and time really well. Not that there aren't some missteps. It was filmed in North Africa, and as such looks quite a bit different in parts than any part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately beyond "feeling" right the movie gets a lot wrong. There were definitely some scenes taken right from historical records. Salah-ad-Din did have Reynald de Chatillon slain in front of Guy de Lusignan after Reynald took a cup of water that was meant for Guy to drink. Most of the characters are historical. But the story as told is pretty much all made up.
Balian d’Ibelin was a real figure. But he was born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem as a younger son to Barison d'Ibelin. He wasn't a blacksmith, he didn't have a dead wife, nor was he ever shipwrecked. At the time of the film he was married to Maria Komnene, the dowager queen and King Baldwin III's former stepmother. He had four children with her, and was never romantically linked to Sybilla, although his brother Baldwin was. There was a battle of Hattin. Although in real history Balian was present for the battle and was one of a lucky few to get away. Instead of running for home he ran to Jerusalem. His wife and children were there you see. And so he ended up being in charge when Salah-ad-Din arrived. He was the senior surviving member (by marriage) of the royal family present at the time after all. And he did negotiate the city's surrender. So there was a man with that name, who did the one thing, but was otherwise completely unlike the movie character. The same is true of most characters
The movie's focus on tolerance and religious questioning was largely absent from the period. Balian was not likely not an atheist/agnostic. And Salah-ad-Din was not particularly tolerant. There's a scene at the end of the movie where he rights a cross showing his admiration and tolerance for christians. In reality he is supposed to have tied the relic known as the True Cross to the tail of his horse and dragged it through the streets of Jerusalem after the siege. In other sieges he happily killed christian residents, although in general he just demanded a ransom be paid or to sell the christians as slaves. In Jerusalem about 18-20,000 Franks were ransomed and about 15,000 were enslaved.
All in all, the movie is roughly as accurate as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer. Lincoln did exist and some of the events shown did happen. But in general the movies spend most of their time depicting things differently than reality.
For Balian's real story and the Fall of Jerusalem, there's Stanley Lane-Poole's classic Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem but it is over a century old now.
Peter W. Edbury also has several good books including The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation and John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
I agree with all of u/QuickSpore's points although I might question the numerical scale involved, which leads me to what I would comment on which is that I think the biggest thing that stands out to me is just how exaggerated the scale of Kingdom of Heaven is.
The current walls of Jerusalem were built by Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century and it's my understanding that they were and are the most extensive walls to have protected the city in its history, both in scale and in the area of city that they protect. With that in mind though, the old walled city of Jerusalem is tiny. At it's widest, it's less than a mile across.
While the surrounding area certainly has hills and valleys, including the Mount of Olives, the topography of the old city itself is not extreme. In other words, there is no time in history as far as I'm aware when you would have entered Jerusalem and been met with this. Also if I'm remembering correctly Balian like, climbs a mountain to see calvary and like meditates on a mountain? The church of the holy sepulchre was a thing that existed in the 12th century, but iirc he doesn't visit it and it isn't shown. You do not need to climb a mountain to access it. It's about a 5 minute walk from Jaffa Gate.
The battle scenes make these scale issues clear. Based on this scene, or the depiction of Karak (which in real life is certainly an imposing structure but this appears to be maybe 10x the height of the outer walls making it a damned skyscraper), it seems clear to me that Ridley Scott wanted Jerusalem in his movie to more closely resemble Minas Tirith than reality.