"Kingdom of Heaven" almost fails to conform to the real history, which is not only reflected in the changes in characters and events, but also in the fact that the world it shows is completely different from the world at the time. In The Holy Land in the twelfth century, no king or nobleman would have sought peace or the lives of the people, and no Christian in the twelfth century would have said, "I put no stock in religion...I've seen too much religion." in the eyes of too many murderers...What god desires is here (to the head) and here (to the heart)". Movies are full of moral values similar to Rousseau and Kant, people should take reason as their guide, not religion, and people should take the moral code judged by reason as the only norm for their behavior - and the Enlightenment is still five years old. It only started after a century. But I think this is precisely the most successful point of the adaptation of history in Kingdom of Heaven. The face of human society changed almost completely from the 12th century to the 21st, when the values, religions and morals of the Crusaders and their Muslim enemies may have been completely foreign (and barbaric) to us. One of the fascinating things about history is how different people can really be. And "Kingdom of Heaven" does not tell the story of the Crusaders, but uses an alternate story to completely and perfectly express a value and morality that is of great significance in modern times.
Here are some of the films I've noted that differ from history, mostly for entertainment purposes. My main source is The leper King and his Heirs by Bernard Hamilton.
1. Reynald de Chatillon was not actually a reckless fool, he was an important general during the reign of Baldwin IV. Baldwin is ill, and in the face of enemies around the kingdom, Reynald is a man he relies on in war, diplomacy and politics. It is mentioned in the movie that his raids during the truce directly led to Saladin's siege of Kerak, which was a major strategic mistake. But in fact, Reynald's attack, including the team he sent to the Red Sea at the same time, played an important role in containing Saladin and maintaining the security of the crusader states.
The Raid mentioned in the movie should be an aggression against Tarbuk, which was indeed carried out during the truce, but this offensive by Reynald seriously disrupted Saladin's strategic deployment, curbed Saladin's aggression against Aleppo, and was critical to protecting the country. Safety plays an important role. That is, in this invasion, Reynald attacked a caravan from Egypt to Damascus, imprisoned the caravan, and refused to release them or make compensation when the king asked, which is in the movie. That scene. The film's position isn't out of nowhere either, with The Chronicle of Ernoul blaming Reynald for the war and subsequent failures. But it is very likely that no matter what, Saladin will not continue the truce, which is related to the situation in Saladin's own country.
Raynald was captured at The Battle of Hattin, refused Saladin's demands to convert him to Muslims, and was executed.
The negative image of Reynald de Chatillon in history is mainly related to the historical narrator, and one of the most important records of this history is the book written by William of Tyre, who was a political enemy of Reynald and therefore hardly mentioned him. But in Muslim history, Reynald played a central role in the Jerusalem kingdom's struggle against Saladin.
2. In the movie, Reynald de Chatillon attacks the Muslim caravan, causing Saladin to send troops to Kerak. Actually Saladin was just passing Kerak a little on his way back to Damascus and didn't want to fight them at the time (so this is true). At that time, Jerusalem did not send troops to protect Kerak, but Reynald wanted to stop Saladin's army from returning to Damascus.
3. The Balian of Ibelin has a good reputation in descendants, and is related to the recorders of the history at that time. The most important historical sources for the reign of Baldwin IV up to the fall of Jerusalem are two books, one by William of Tyre and the other by Chronicle of Ernoul. The author of the Chronicle of Ernoul was probably a child during the reign of Baldwin iv and had no personal experience of these events, so his sources of information are likely to be primarily his patrons, the Balian of Ibelin and his wife Maria Comnena. This book is very vivid and full of romance, so it has always been popular, but it is a history that is completely from Balian's point of view.
4. The Balian of Ibelin probably really hates Guy de Lusignon, but Sibylla actually has a good relationship with Guy. Balian of Ibelin married Baldwin IV's stepmother Maria Comnena. This relationship is a bit complicated, but it is very important, because it has an important connection with the distribution of forces in the kingdom's internal struggle at that time. Baldwin's father was forced to divorce Baldwin's mother, Agnes of Courtnay, when he ascended the throne, before marrying Maria Comnena (a member of the Byzantine royal family). Baldwin and Sibylla were both children of Agnes, but Maria Comnene and their father also had a girl, Isabella, not shown in the movie. Agnes, being Baldwin iv's biological mother, especially since Baldwin was ill, she had an important political position during his reign and was also directly involved in many things. Agnes of Courtnay and Maria Comnene can be said to represent two important and opposing forces in the DPRK at that time, one is the relatives of Baldwin's biological mother (including his mother Agnes, his sister Sibylla and the Lusignon family), and the other is Baldwin's father. Relatives (Maria Comnene, his half-sister Isabel, the Ibelin family, Raymond of Tripoli, etc.).
5. Not to mention the character of Guy of Lusignon, it's pretty useless anyway. Guy's marriage to Sibylla is the biggest mistake Baldwin has ever made. Baldwin has no and cannot have descendants due to illness, so the heir to the throne is Sibylla's son, but her son is very small, so in fact, after Baldwin abdicates or dies, Sibylla's husband is in power. The problem is, Sibylla wasn't married at the time. Sibylla's marriage was important and tricky, and whoever became her husband would almost certainly be the next king, tasked with protecting and ruling Jerusalem, but at that time the various Crusaders (Tripoli, Acre, Edessa, Antioch, etc.) The royal family kept marrying internally, resulting in Sibylla and almost all members of the royal family being relatives, and being forbidden to marry by the church (the rule at that time was that no intermarriage was allowed within 7 generations, which was not strictly followed, but at that time forcing Sibylla’s mother to divorce her father was to They are relatives); on the other hand, the internal forces of the court fight against each other, and it is necessary to maintain their balance in order to unite all forces to defend against foreign enemies, so Sibylla cannot marry one party; therefore, the best choice for Sibylla's husband is to be in France Germany and Britain looked for a prince or nobleman, and then they looked for two in a row, but they either died or they couldn't come to Jerusalem.
Then, two important dignitaries at the time, Raymond of Tripoli and Bohemond of Antioch, wanted to force Baldwin to abdicate and seize power (at least Baldwin thought so), and then planned to force Sibylla to marry. Baldwin urgently married Sibylla to Guy de Lusignon. The Lusignon family is a British dignitary in Europe, and this decision must have taken this into account, wanting to obtain the assistance and support of the British King Henry II in the future. (They did achieve this, because when Richard the Lionheart later led the Crusades, he supported Guy as king of Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem had fallen by then.)
Then this broke the balance between the dynasty and China. Guy de Lusignon could never unite the various forces in the country. The Ibelian brothers and Raymond of Tripoli always opposed him. Therefore, the country has always been in such a split trend, only because Baldwin IV as king stay together. After the death of Baldwin IV, all aspects are completely divided, which is very dangerous to the current country of foreign enemies. Baldwin did later try to annul Guy and Sibylla's marriage, but ultimately failed to do so.
But Sibylla always supported her husband, including making him king, and Guy went with Guy when he went to besiege Acre long after Jerusalem fell, and Sibylla eventually died while besieging Acre.
6. The man who was considered as Sibylla's husband at that time was not Balian of Ibelin, but his brother Baldwin of Ibelin. In the court infighting, Baldwin of Ibelin was the choice supported by Raymond and Bohemond (relatives on the father's side of the king), while Guy de Lusignon was the choice supported by the Courtnay family (relatives on the mother's side of the king).
7. Baldwin IV certainly did not actually think that the Latin Christian Crusader States could coexist peacefully with the surrounding Muslim forces. Muslim forces have always held great hostility towards them. Even if there is a truce from time to time, the war has never really stopped, not to mention that one of Saladin's "goals in life" is to carry out Jihad and destroy the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, at least this is the case. It was one of the rhetoric he used to unify his own domestic divisions.
But the Christian rulers at the time were indeed quite open to people of all religions (compared to that era!), they allowed the existence of various religions, and allowed followers of other religions to perform religious ceremonies. But don't forget that when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem a hundred years ago, they killed all the Muslims in Jerusalem, and even Christians were not spared when they massacred the city. Moreover, although there was religious freedom in Jerusalem at that time, it didn't matter what religious freedom was in the war, whether it was Franks (Christians from Western Europe) or Muslims who did cruel things to each other.
8. Could the king of Jerusalem really execute members of the Knights Templar? In the movie, the Knights Templar attacked Muslims, violated the truce, and were executed. But the Knights of the Templars were actually independent from the royal family, they were not under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem royal family. They themselves were powerful forces in the Crusaders' territory, and their leaders had great power. They did the same thing, attacking aliens (bedouin or muslim I forgot) under the protection of the king, and then condemned, but not punished. (Revision: Yes... King Amalric executed 12 Templars in 1166)
View more about Kingdom of Heaven reviews
