Truth is the First Victim
Kingdom of Heaven has got it dramatically wrong, according to a professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge
Reprinted from the U.K. Times, Timesonline May 5, 2005- Click here for a link to the original article
These attitudes passed into the Muslim world after the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II, under pressure from Russia, Austria, Britain and France, publicised in the 1890s his conviction that the West had re-embarked on the crusades. His argument was picked up by Arab nationalism, and in the past 30 years by a pan-Islamist revival which has globalised the nationalist conception of crusading. For jihadis like Osama bin Laden “crusaderism”, the ambition of the old Christian enemy to destroy the faithful, has been manipulating even surrogate aggression from Zionists and Marxists.
The actuality was different. If crusades to the Levant were imperialistic, they were expressing a form of imperialism very different from the 19th-century variety, because it was governed by the need to regain or hold the ruined fragments of a cave in the middle of Jerusalem. For most crusaders there was no prospect of material gain, only great expenditure on enterprises that were arduous and dangerous. Christian holy war is abhorrent to us, but we have to accept that fact that our ancestors were attracted by a vibrant ideology, based on a coherent theology which to some extent constrained it. Crusades cannot be defined solely in terms of inter-faith relations as many of them were waged against opponents who were not Muslim, but, what- ever the theatre of war, an expedition could not be launched to spread Christianity or Christian rule, but had to be a defensive reaction to an injury perpetrated by another.
Some of the arguments used by the propagandists look specious to us, but the fact remains that they had to make a good case, because crusading depended on the recruitment of volunteers and the public had to be convinced that a particular cause was worth while. No one could have got away with a justification as thin as that presented for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The makers of the Kingdom of Heaven follow a modified version of the constructs of Scott and Michaud. A cruel, avaricious and cowardly Christian clergy preaches hatred against the Muslims and most of the crusaders and settlers are equally stupid and fanatical. At the same time the Holy Land is portrayed as a kind of early America, a New World welcoming enterprising immigrants from an impoverished and repressive Europe. And in the midst of all the bigotry a brotherhood of liberal-minded men has vowed to create an environment in which all religions will co-exist in harmony and is in touch with Saladin, who shares its aim of peace.
This is invention. There was no brotherhood of free thinkers. There did not need to be, because within a decade or two of their occupation of Palestine the crusaders had adopted a policy of toleration, based on the Muslim treatment of subject Christians and Jews. Muslim and Jewish shrines, mosques and synagogues were open. Muslims worshipped even in Christian shrines and churches and there was at least one mosque-church. Of course the toleration was necessary if the natives were to be kept quiet, but it is a different reality from that portrayed in the film.
No one can object to romantic fiction, but the film-makers have boasted that “authenticity coloured every facet of the production”. If so, they have not had good advice; not even the city of Jerusalem is sacrosanct, with a non-existent mountain, supposedly denoting Calvary, rising incongruously out of the town. Worse, where they could have created fictional characters they have opted for real historical personalities whom they have distorted ruthlessly. The characters and careers of the hero, his lover, her husband, the king and Saladin have been re-manufactured to suit the needs of the script.
Kingdom of Heaven will feed the preconceptions of Arab nationalists and Islamists. The words and actions of the liberal brotherhood and the picture of Palestine as a Western frontier will confirm for the nationalists that medieval crusading was fundamentally about colonialism. On the other hand the fanaticism of most of the Christians in the film and their hatred of Islam is what the Islamists want to believe. At a time of inter-faith tension, nonsense like this will only reinforce existing myths.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem
Fact: by the year 1186, when Kingdom of Heaven takes place, the crusaders had been in control of Jerusalem since 1099.
Fiction: The film opens with Muslims and crusaders coexisting in a fragile peace, but skirmishes were continuing in the region.
Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom)
Fact: Balian served King Baldwin IV and helped to organise the city’s defence against Saladin.
Fiction: Balian is first depicted as a humble artisan, but he was an established lord. There is no evidence that he fell in love with Sibylla, played by Eva Green.
Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson)
Fact: Many French noblemen travelled to the Holy Land to make their fortune during the crusades.
Fiction: The man who is supposed to be Balian’s real father never actually existed.
King Baldwin IV (Edward Norton)
Fact: The ailing King of Jerusalem did indeed suffer from leprosy from childhood.
Fiction: Not only did Baldwin not cover his face in public, but he died a year before the events of the film take place.
Saladin (Ghassan Massoud)
Fact: The Muslim leader was generous to the enemies he respected, including Richard I.
Fiction: That didn’t stop him hacking off the heads of his Christian foes when it suited.