Film Kingdom Of Heaven Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

04:01:47 PM Nov 25th 2016
edited by KarstenO
Isn't there a trope for how it's horrible what Jerusalem's queen did? Leprosy is not *that* bad in real life. Especially as a noble, you can live with it with enough care. In hindsight, she just blatantly killed her son for almost no reason.
07:19:41 AM Mar 15th 2015
Pulled this. Reynauld of Chatillon is a historical figure, so there is no reason to look for a meaning behind the name. Reynauld does also not act very clever (= like a fox) in the movie. The example about Godfrey is self-contradictory and even says that Godfrey of Ibelin is not at all like Godfrey of Bouillon. Maybe it's not a Meaningful Name after all.
  • Meaningful Name:
    • Reynauld is old French name for "Fox" (via memetic mutation from a popular folklore character) (could be mere coincidence, as Reynauld of Chatillon was a real person).
    • Godfrey of Ibelin might be named after Godfrey of Bouillon, a famous leader of the First Crusade who was also the complete opposite sort of character. A seemingly contradictory interpretation is that he was named Godfrey because that sounds like "God-free", tentatively hinting that he's an atheist.
06:15:04 AM Feb 8th 2014
Recently one editor changed the image caption from "The Box Office le veult!" to "Arca purgula vult!" Does anyone understand this? I sure don't.
06:48:19 AM Feb 8th 2014
I've got no clue. Remove it and message the editor adding it - obscure captions like that are undesirable.
09:08:03 AM Feb 8th 2014
10:11:29 AM Dec 12th 2013
edited by
Pulled the following example because it implies Saladin is evil. But Saladin is really portrayed positively in the movie. The villains are Guy and Reynald, not Saladin.
  • Affably Evil: Evil is pushing it with him, but Saladin is very respectful and reasonable. After the fall of the city, he allows the citizens of Jerusalem to leave in peace after the carnage is over.
12:37:41 PM Jul 29th 2013
About Artistic License - Geography,

The Point about it being Artistic license with geography is because Kerak lies on the same side of the Jordan river as Damascus. If Saladin were to go straight from Damascus to Kerak he'd cross several rivers, but not one of them being the Jordan. It has nothing to do with it being personal or one city being closer or not, It's the fact that he would have to go out of his way to cross the Jordan, and would even have to cross it twice, or double back, or go considerably farther south then back north to get to Kerak.
08:59:55 AM Dec 12th 2013
You're right, and you have every right to fix such stuff (the comment is gone now).
08:17:45 AM Jul 30th 2012
edited by LordGro
We don't usually list aversions. The trope described here is "Armor Is Useful", or something to that effect. Feel free to go to YKTTW with it.
  • Armor Is Useless: Averted. During the Siege of Jerusalem, Balian gets cut on his arm and gets a nasty scar, but without the mail he was wearing his whole arm would've been cut off.
    • Balian and his knights avert this hard at the Battle of Kerak where their heavy chain mail and shields lead to them killing far more in a dozens-to-one battle than they would have any right to (and in Balian's case, surviving several blows well enough to fight at Jerusalem later).

More cuts: Hollywood History is an index, not a trope. Maybe someone can still extract tropes from this.
  • Hollywood History: Depends on what version you see: The Crusades were a cynical land grab by European second sons dressed up in religious sophistries, and the film makes a pretty good case of communicating that through the contempt of the main characters for the fanatics and glory seekers. The real situation was of course more complex, as both societies were feudal and had their own internal strife and cross-alliances, as suggested here.
    • Only a few characters actually view it as a religious war at all, and the major characters (except Guy and Reynold) on both sides clearly have little respect for this outlook. And Guy is mostly an ambitious noble and Raynald is mostly a psycopathic maniac, so their professed religious commitment is...questionable.
01:49:20 PM Sep 17th 2011
discussion method was installed. You Fail History Forever indeed! The pity of it is the real story is certainly cinematic enough - but less Politically Correct.

The real Sibylla of Jerusalem was deeply in love with her second husband Guy de Lusignan - who btw was both young and good looking. When she suceeded her son she agreed to divorce Guy on the condition she was allowed to choose her new husband. Then at ther coronation she personally crowned Guy as her consort and co-ruler - a Crowning Moment Of Awesome if ever there was one.

The political infighting of the Crusader Kingdom is incredibly complex (you thought the Wars of Roses were bad? They're clear as crystal compared to the intrigues of the Court of Jerusalem!). Historians have traditionally followed William of Tyre in making diplomatic engagement as opposed to aggressive military action the key issue between the 'Court Party' who favored the latter led by Sibylla and Guy, and the 'Country Party' pushing for the former led by Raymond of Tripoli, the Ibelins, et-al. Modern research questions this but if there was indeed any truth to it then Guy had a point. Saladin both as an imperialist and a good Muslim was about as interested in peaceful co-existence with the Crusader states as his 21st c. successors are with coming to terms with Israel.

It was of course this very division that gave Saladin his opportunity. And if Guy's strategy was right his tactics were woeful. Those who opposed him as King-consort had damn good reason apart from policy disagreements, he was not a very able or effective leader.

Interestingly Balian of Ibelin WAS indeed married to a Queen of Jerusalem, but it was Sybilla's stepmother Maria Comnena, widow of Amaury I. He was also a middle aged nobleman born and raised in the Kingdom not a 'blacksmith' fresh from Europe.

Far from running away after the fall of Jerusalem both Sibylla and Balian stayed and fought, each other unfortunately, trying in their different ways to save the Kingdom.

As for Saladin, he seems to have deserved the respect he got from his enemies and have been as chivalrous and generous as his reputation BUT his virtues most certainly did not include relgious tolerance - which was NOT considered a virtue at all in his time by either side.

He executed all the Templars captured at Hattin out of hand after offering them the alternative of conversion to Islam (a few are said to have accepted). Had a Christian monarch done the same, forced a choice between conversion and death on his captives, it would have been an atrocity seeing however that it was Saladin it becomes an act of mercy. On the other hand Saladin's ire towards Raynald de Chatillon was fully justified - though Raynald wasn't the monster portrayed but simply a jerkass opportunist. The Soldan's lack of hostility towards Balian after the surrender of Jerusalem strongly implies that the story of Balian swearing to forgo further resistance in exchange for his freedom is untrue as some historians argue.

Balian and the Patriarch Heraclius made tremendous efforts to raise the money to ransom the entire Christian population of Jerusalem. When they fell short they offered themselves as exchange hostages but Saladin preferred to sell the remaining captives into slavery. Presumably he needed the cash more than he needed to eliminate two Crusader leaders. Of course he was also interested in encouraging the conflict between the parties and to that end released Guy. Sibylla was probably the only person on the Christian side happy about that. She died in 1189 while she and Guy were besieging Acre, leaving her half-sister Isabella heir to the Kingdom - or such as was left of it.

And finally Saladin's bloodless retaking of Jerusalem, oft contrasted with the City's blood soaked fall to the Crusaders, reflects the difference between a city taken by negotiated surrender and one taken by storm NOT any exceptional humanity on the part of the Soldan or brutality of the First Crusaders. Saladin was quite capable of slaughtering both armed foes and civilians if and when called for.

As inaccurate as this movie is, I have to speak up in defense of Godfrey's swordfighting lessons. I'm learning how to fight with a longsword and high guard is acutally a very good guard for a beginner to learn. It enables very fast and powerful attacks from several different angles that are tricky to block and is easier to master than some other, more defensive guards.

•berr: As the history goes, (as told by the lord of Tiberias' IRL sympathetic chronicler) Balian sent word to Saladin asking to be released from his promise not to put up a defense; seeing as how there were only three knights left in the city, Saladin agreed.

Of course, under this story it's notable Balian was captured and not killed in Hattin as all the rest of the knights ransomed fled to the coast. Saladin must have had some ire for the Templars... then again, the vast majority of the soldiers at Hattin were massacred.

03:38:26 PM Sep 9th 2012
Imperialist? Lol wut. Don't think you can really use that term for anyone back then, whether they be Franks or Saracens.
Collapse/Expand Topics