How accurate was Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven? What were the outstanding mistakes, besides Guy de Lusignan?

>our
there's this word again

See This map is the most dishonest and wrong thing that ever existed. Christian lords had conquest wars literally all the time. The discussion is about the reasoning for the crusades which included a distinct religious murder notion.

>feudal

Imagine LARPing this hard

The sack wasn't the pope's goal tho, the venetian jews tricked him

Why not both?
Just because Muslims were expansionists doesn't mean European Christians weren't. Pretty sure it's just human nature, but y'know, let's divide by religious lines because you're obviously partial to one.

why dafuqui the viking looking guy is with a Seax?

This map should also mark Spanish reconquista and Albigensian campaign tbqh. And don't forget religious wars further north.

Why not?
It´s the Maedieval League of Justice.

>they didn't spend most of their time burning jewish ghetto on the way to venice

Here we go again

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the crusaders were christian versions of gandhi, i'm just saying the crusades weren't an unjustified excuse for bloodbath as they are presented

They weren't a massive response to Islamic aggression either. It was a land grab on both sides. No more, no less.

>What were the outstanding mistakes

Templars speaking English for one

All the plebs in this thread not realising the Crusades began two popes prior to Urban II.

The Crusades were not expansionist from a cultural view, the actions of the individual commanders was very different to the vision of Urban, and Alexios, who though wanted to reclaim his lost lands, didn't want French people setting up new nations.

It looks like it was a representation of Islam and Christianity. To demonstrate Islamic expansion via conquest we'd have to have a world map with more Asia and Africa

Also watch the Extended Cut, everything is else is a waste of time

>still waiting for Pope Francis to call for another Crusade

Feels bad.

Where are the invasions of egypt and Tunisia by the crusaders?

>The talmud isn't worse than the Quran

Brainlet.jpg

Exactly. We didn't even seize n Africa ffs

this is so inaccurate and dishonest i'm sure it was made by a /pol/ster

The Crusader's own justifications (or at least Pope Urban's) were 1) help the Byzantines win back some land so that 2) they would maybe convert back to Roman Catholicism and besides 3) the Franks are murdering the entire population might as well do it out of Christendom.

If Islamic aggression were the reason, why wasn't a Crusade called when Jerusalem first fell centuries before? Why not after Hispania fell?

Not saying it wasn't a Religious thing at all, just that its many causes had roots in religious matters on occasion, and only one tiny fraction of which directly involved the Muslims.

You may as well expand it to a world map if you want to document Christian and Muslim expansion through conquest, mate.

>>our lands

Family loom?

>If Islamic aggression were the reason, why wasn't a Crusade called when Jerusalem first fell centuries before? Why not after Hispania fell?

Because the Catholic church is the one that designed the inquisition and crusades. All of them from Albigensian onward. The Catholic church was ultimately the result of a schism between the patriarch of Rome and the other patriarchs in Orthodoxy. The original church was less prone to defending it's interests to the point of suicide. I'm not a cathobro either it's just a point of fact that they got trod on up until that point, relying on converting nation's through rulers(like they did in Slavic and Scandinavian lands).

Christianity had expanded as far as southwestern China through the Manichaean influence. Islam purged all of that and left nothing but Islam. Before Islam, there was even paganism throughout the region. The lack of paganism in Eurasia is mostly due to the intense period of escalation between Catholicism reacting to Islamic fundamental teachings. If it were up to me, I'd paint the map with crosses.

It's an excellent movie, but it is not a documentary about medieval Levant.

>blacksmith looks like twink fuckboy
They even failed at simple things.

relevant

youtube.com/watch?v=kMsoGZyZ1Pg

>Butchering Balian's origin story
>No Hugh or Baldwin de Ibelin!
>No Conrad de Montferrat but he probably wouldn't have meant much for the segment of the story covered in the film
>Raynald de Chatillon unfairly represented and Guy de Lusignan even worsely represented, perhaps accurately to how other nobles felt of them but not fairly reflecting their natures/histories
>Romance between Balian and Sybilla...?!
>"Tiberias" character, probably supposed to be Raymond. Why not put him in properly?
>Teutonic knights travel in time three years before their order was founded to assassinate Balian
>Balian doesn't attend Hattin in the movie, when in reality he distinguished himself in battle there!
>Patriarch is represented as baddie who wants to abandon Jerusalem, when in fact he was the one who suggested the idea to Balian! This was intentionally done due to...
>...The edgy anti-religious sentiment the movie carries

A few story inaccuracies I'm aware of, I cannot comment on the props in the movie however. As far as I'm aware, that's what redeems the film.

>The original church was less prone to defending it's interests to the point of suicide.
You know jack shit about early medieval history

What is Jerusalem worth

Nothing

>You know jack shit about early medieval history

I don't know if you've noticed, but Christianity is a millennia older than the middle ages. The fact you think early church means a millennia after it began is self incriminating.

Good share, still watching it,thanks mate

something

The early church didn’t have the centralisation for that shit. The Catholics didn’t consolidate effective authority until well after Islam did.

This

What user? What was it worth?!

>muh European dark ages
>It's literally dark outside

>The fact you think early church means a millennia after it began is self incriminating.
What is this sophistry. Were talking about islam and christianity and the esrly western church’s ability to navigate crises, which by all accounts was successful. Your argument is totally unrelated to what i said.

Centralization =/= good or effective at achieving ones goals.

>Centralization =/= good or effective at achieving ones goals.
Well we were talking about the reason a crusade wasn’t called earlier and that’s something you can’t do very effectively without a central authority capable of declaring a crusade.

Turning everyone ranging from the figures in the Kingdom of Jerusalem to Saladin to secular, disbelieving humanists for starters.

Balian of Ibelin was a legitimate son, not some random blacksmith in France.

Among a plethora of other terrible errors.

>11th century Church
>centralized

Negro they were constantly split and undermined by reforms, anti-popes, and predatory feudal lords.

Literally do an youtube search on traditional blacksmiths living in traditional environments (for instance the guys who still make kukris and kris daggers in the middle of mountains or jungles) and you'll see they are very lean and twinky

Historical people were generally not big it just did not happen. If they got to be big by overeating they would be only fat, not muscular. Nobody was lifting 300lbs from the ground 5x5 with rest days

Implying that killing jews is a bad thing...christianity used to be based....i want it back.

I'm sure you do, /leftypol/.

Others than the ones others have already pointed out:
>blacksmith from France explaining how fucking irrigation works to people that should be well aware of it
>XIIth century Europe being a dark, grey, dirty place
>just the strereotypical portrayal of Catholicism, especially with the Gollum like priest at the beginning

“Haha, gotcha, I cut your wife’s head and stole her cross, she can’t get to heaven now, you just HAVE to go crusading”. Just wtf: sure, they were corrupt priests, but come on. And she killed herself anyway, heaven is going to have to wait a bit.

>IT WAS DA JOOOOOOZ
Fucking broken record brainlet.

So imagine how bad it was before when the Scandinavians and English and Toulousians and Arians and a lot of other people didn’t respect the authority of the pope. A lot of crusaders came from Scandinavia, England, Germany, etc.

>sophistry
It literally isn't and you failed to explain how. You're like an 80 iq Stefan Molymeme, so basically normal Molymeme.
This guy knew:

2/10 at least they tried

Everything

>Lol no
Islam conquered half the Christian world centuries before the first crusade you tard.
Including Spain and even half of France at one point.

The events of the movie should be taken as a fanciful re-imagining. If you want authenticity then costumes and sets are probably where you'll find it. The rest of it is a fable, loosely based on real events, with a very modern social message laid overtop.

Also, if you liked this movie and haven't seen Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, check that shit out. As a fan of this period of history it is full of fun characters right out of history that usually get totally overlooked, like William Marshall.

The historical Balian was a middle-aged man who lived his entire life as a nobleman in the Holy Land.

He was basically Liam Neeson's character.

You forgot the Muslims killing pilgrims and sacking the church of the holy sepulchre. And Pope Urban II might have had some other reasons. But anyone who joined the crusade joined because they wanted their sins forgiven and they wanted to protect christians against Muslims in the Holy land. The concept that it was a "land grab" is fucking retarded. Anyone who joined the crusade was prepared to take a net loss in money, power, and land.
>If Islamic aggression were the reason, why wasn't a Crusade called when Jerusalem first fell centuries before? Why not after Hispania fell?
The reconquista had been going on ever since Tours. Only recently had Christian pilgrims started getting murdered and the church of the holy sepulcher desecrated. And Europe was a shit hole in the centuries before so they weren't capable of even communicating effectively with each other.

not sure if bait or not but the crusades only happened because Europeans were able to agree that they're all similar because they're Christians. So "our lands" would mean Christian lands

We're talking about the crusades and christian-muslim relations bub

Imagine the Muslims larping this hard....

>Go and kill some heathens and your sins will all be forgiven!
...you're kidding right?

The guy who did those massacres was a bit of a loonie prat and the exception to the rule. Generally the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem liked taking money from Christians more than they liked killing them. By the time the crusader army even reached the Levant, he was long dead.

The crusades into the holy lands were strictly religious in nature...the reconquista and the teutonic crusades in the north were definitely expansionist though

>Templars speaking English for one
Don't forget the fact that they weren't played by actual Templar's from 700 years ago....so fucking inaccurate

In the middle ages, the pope wouldn't have known that. All he needed to hear was that his people were getting killed. The Muslims probably could have avoided the crusades if they'd sent an envoy to the pope with an apology or something

Isn’t modern Germany basically the child of the tuetonic order?

Not even close to being the same thing

Indirectly. The Teutons, well after they'd finished crusading, became protestant and transformed into Prussia, which over time did most of the heavy-lifting to unite Germany.

It`s crazy to think that only central Europe was never conquered by the islams

Most of their wars and conquering were in what is now Poland and latvia

...until now

>You forgot the Muslims killing pilgrims and sacking the church of the holy sepulchre.

This is an old idea from the last century when Crusades historians were making guesses left and right for a reasoning using only Latin sources. Since then there's been plenty of work done with non-Latin sources to say this isn't what drove anyone on Crusade. It's not even in any speech by Urban II at Clermont. The only time pilgrims are mentioned at all by him is when he's warning his listeners to not bother them, and the only time the Sepulchre is mentioned is as a destination - never anything about it being sacked or destroyed. Even the violence is distinctly located in Western Asia Minor, and Jerusalem's main issue is that the wrong people are owning it and nothing more.

And Charlemagne was as powerful as a Western European monarch had ever been, and rather than stage an invasion of the East he decided to open diplomatic ties with the Abbasids and open a wayfarer's inn for Frankish pilgrims in Jerusalem. Even so, Urban II mentions him as a model for the Franks to take Jerusalem like he and his son Louis had taken pagan lands.

There were many reasons for joining the First Crusade, but not everyone was out solely for remission of sins or protecting Christians. Taking out large sums of money for little return on investment doesn't mean there weren't people out for land either, and this is an oversimplification of Riley-Smith who included entire generations and several Crusades. Many were out to see the coming end-times that all the violence in the East foretold. Plenty of the First Crusade leadership were certainly out for eastern lands and titles, just as their immediate predecessors had been during the heyday of Latin pilgrim-mercenaries just decades before. And for a lot, there was no contradiction in fighting for all of the above at the same time.

By the call of the First Crusade, Latin Christian kings had been conquering pagan (they didn't really differentiate at this time) lands in all directions. The crusade was launched at a zenith of Latin Christian expansionism, not as a push-back against Islamic expansion in the Western Mediterranean - which is why it wasn't aimed at Spain or Italy or France.

There were Muslims living in Central Europe around this time, actually. They were mostly there as merchants and nomadic tribes.

>400 years of Islamic aggression
You mean 20 years of Turkonigger aggression.

I`m almost positive urban mentioned the pilgrims and church in both contemporary accounts of his speech a Clermont. And I don`t doubt there were crusaders who joined just for money and power but that's a reason I think is too overplayed especially considering just how fanatically religious people were back then

>the Turks conquered spain

>Latin Christian expansionism...
you realize most of the Christian world at that point (that wasn't previously part of the Christian Roman empire) had willingly converted to christianity. Christian Normans drove the Muslims out of Italy and the reconquista was already in full swing. And it was Muslim expansionism in the east against the Byzantines which led them to ask the pope for help

>The rest of Europe gave a shit about Spain
>Europe gave a shit about the Levant until the Turks started beating the shit out of everyone there, including other Muslims

Did you know that the Turks were only islamisized about a century before the first crusade

>this biased list

Yes. Did you know that calls for the first crusade was a direct result of the Byzantines getting shattered at Manzikert and Alexios begging the Pope for help? Did you also know that, apart from the more radical members of the Church, that both the Popes and Emperors/Patriarchs had little problem with the Fatimids administering Jerusalem?

IIRC he's supposed to be a Teutonic knight, dunno why he looks like that.

>Presenting the Crusaders as deus vulting bloodthirsty warmongers
If you watched the movie, you'll know that not all crusaders in the movie are portrayed as warmongers and only a small faction of them were. The guy who attacked civilian muslim caravans were later punished by the king of Jerusalem

>the Crusades were an answer to 400 years of Islamic aggression
That's what the pope wanted you to believe

Muslims conquered the entire levant, north Africa, Asia Minor, Spain, ... from Christendom before the first crusade ever began. That was the land grab.
The crusader kingdoms were minute little land REgrabs by comparison.

>That's what the pope wanted you to believe
That's literally what happened.
See

This very much covers it.

So rebut it.

kek

>Latin Christian kings had been conquering pagan (they didn't really differentiate at this time) lands in all directions.
What are you even talking about?