I'm not Christian but having read Gibbon's account of the crusades, I was annoyed at this film's portrayal of the Bishop of Jerusalem, being depicted as a selfish coward, whereas he was recorded as being one of the principal defenders of the Holy City.

28:37 I always thought the black character in and among Crusaders from western Europe was strange, out of place, and highly unlikely. It struck me as an injection of modern day multiculturalism by the film makers, and not historically correct. It would have been nice to hear the historians comment on the likelihood of, to put it simply, a "black Crusader."

Despite the inaccuracies that I'm now aware of, I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven when I first watched it. It and the first Assassins Creed game were what sparked my fascination in the Crusades.

Kingdom of Heaven is pretty typical of Ridley Scott. Its a total misrepresentation of the European Middle Ages, and praises secularism. As someone who's seen a lot of his stuff, its a pretty common thread.

One reason for the bare, bleak castle interiors is that modern producers of historical films want to do it on the cheap, compared to their counterparts in the 1950s and 60s. That is also why the armies are often unhistorically small: fewer extras to pay.

This is by far the most interesting and informative video I've watched today (and I've watched many). This completely shatters my Hollywood beliefs in the Middle Ages. I've heard some of those stuffy "that ain't historically correct" dudes before, but damn ... this runs deep! This is foundational to understanding our past and development of our civilization. Thank you all!

The portrayal of medieval Europe is quite Monty-Pythonesque, in this film, where you can tell who is the king because he's the only one without shit all over him.... Total travesty. Turning a historical Franco-Levantine aristocrat into a blacksmith from France seemed a bit strange anyway. It's like making a biopic of Winston Churchill and introducing him as an American motor mechanic. 'Exodus Gods and Kings' was worse, in terms of blatant historical screw-ups. They had Ramesses wearing a queen's headdress as a war helmet at the Battle of Kadesh! They had the New Kingdom Egyptians building royal pyramids, several millennia after the Pharaohs abandoned the custom. They had the battle of Qadesh taking place during the wrong reign, and they lots of regular cavalry as opposed to the chariot squadrons that the Egyptians preferred.

This movie had about twice the budget of Game of Thrones, they could have transformed this into a awesome series with politics and intrigue but no of course not, lets make Legolas defend Jerusalem

If you're disappointed with Kingdom of Heaven I recommend reading Helena's historical novel trilogy on Balian of Ibelin. They really didn't need to butcher the story so much to make a compelling movie. This film just comes across as though it has an ahistorical agenda.

Knowledge vs. Propaganda. Good talk.

I had finally watched this movie a week ago. I was very disappointed in the silly inaccuracies marring what could have been a good movie.

Just listening through this, I think what we have here (and to some extent from the two experts) is the Post-Reformation Protestant "Whiggish" view of Catholic Europe; backward, oppressed, corrupt, ungodly, etc. This seems to be the standard portrayal. It was only when some years ago I started studying Christian history myself that I came to believe that this is a very biased view. Here in Anglo countries, this anti-Catholic view is very powerful. I myself grew up accepting it without any question at all. The standard Catholic churchman is obese, swathed in crimson and has a prostitute in his bed, the people are mired in superstition, and everything is covered in sh*t, to echo Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Every large organisation is corrupt (look at modern government). There was certainly corruption in the Catholic Church, inevitably. But the interpretation for instance of Luther as an anti-corruption campaigner misses the point; the 95 Theses are a complaint by a fundamentalist that the Chuch is not pious enough and the sale of Indulgences is letting sinners off lightly. It seems to me we automatically see pre-Reformation Europe through the eyes of a zealous Protestant of the 17th century, or the like. The Catholics are always the bad guys; to the extent that such people would prefer to side with non-Christians than show any admiration for the Catholic Church from which, in the narrative, the Protestant saved Europe.

One thing Hollywood always does, and they do it on purpose. They make a historic movie, the women will wear period dresses, but ones that show cleavage. They were so pius the women kept their hair covered, but breasts exposed? Any paintings from the time show their dresses came up above the breasts and even covered the lower neck. Some dresses had hoops in them to hide the shape of the woman under the dress. Hollywood will have the hooped dresses with the cleavage exposed. Also everyone is "hooking up" with everyone in every Hollywood historical movie.

It would be very interesting if you would you do a review on Arn the Knight Templar..

Great series on this movie! I’m no theologian, but I definitely know enough of the Faith to be dangerous . I disagree with your guest’s description of an indulgence. An indulgence is removal of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven in purgatory. It’s something done outside of the Sacrament of Penance. Correctly stated the Pope or a Bishop can grant one if certain requirements are met by the faithful. Also, Protestants accuse us Catholics of having a work’s focused salvation. I think Scott was using that line from Balian to show Balian is not catechised and to perpetuate the erroneous accusation we have a works based salvation theology.

In Sweden we have had bathhouses a long time. Right infront of our parlament in Stockholm they dug up a bathhouse and many other buildings from medieval times that had been hidden under ground for centuries, [swe - badhus]. Which became bastu which is the same as a Finnish Sauna. In the Icelandic movie "When the Raven Flies" (from 1986) them make peace by swetting together in "steaming tent", if I remember correctly. The move is a "Viking action" movie and I highly recommend that and the sequal "The Shadow of the Raven" (from 1988)

I just want to express my appreciation for you work and time to point out the differences between what the movie portrays and what history tells us through research.

The indulgence does not forgive sin. An indulgence eliminates or reduces the temporal punishment due to sin. In another words the indulgence reduces the time the sinner must spend it Purgatory.

Blacksmiths, especially in a time of war or conflict, would have been busy turning out weapons, armor , etc. , depending on their specialty. There apprentices were highly skilled as well. They would be support during conflict, and not directly involved in combat.

[*EDIT: sorry, just got to the point where you also say this] Suicide within the Catholic church has also always been seen as one of the greatest sins one could commit. When one does it they can no longer be buried on consecrated ground (n.b. the opposite of what is done in the movie), and have condemned their soul. Their family would also then often refuse to even acknowledge their past existence, out of shame at even being associated with such an act so antithetical to their notion of existentialism.

I'd just like to correct something that came up in the analysis regarding indulgences. At 27:51 Paul is talking about plenary indulgences. I'm not sure how faithful a Catholic is, but his description is a little off. As a devout and learned Catholic, here's a better description: When a sin is committed, it is either mortal or venial. Mortal sin kills the life of grace within a man, fully detaching him from God. One cannot receive Holy Eucharist as a result. A venial sin damages, but does not destroy a man's relationship to God. (Evidence for this is in 1 John 5:16-18 for those interested). Anyway, to be reconciled to God (i.e. forgiven), one must confess all mortal sins in the Sacrament of Confession. This forgives all sin. However, one must make reparations for the sins committed. This is in the form of good works. Acts of Penance is one way of making reparations. Indulgences, however, are good works that remove the temporal punishment due to sin. Indulgenced acts are so commendable that the make up for past sins already forgiven. Plenary indulgences remove all punishment due for forgiven sins. Partial indulgences only partially. However, indulgences are useless unless one is in a state of grace (opposite of mortal sin). The conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence are as follows: 1) Confession on the day itself or within some days of the act 2) Eucharist on the day itself or within some days of the act 3) Prayer for the intention of the Pope. (one Pater and one Ave suffice) Indulgences can only be applied to oneself or the dead. If one has not confessed the sin in the Sacrament of Confession, the indulgence does not remove the temporal punishment due for that sin.

Anyone know of any historically accurate movies on the Crusades? Doubt there are any sadly.

I found your comment about how castles and the attire of nobles and peasants are portrayed by contemporary Hollywood as drab, dull, dark and depressing interesting and correct. Back in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s Medieval films such as El Cid, Beckett, Lion in Winter, Robin Hood etc the castles and attire were bright, colorful and cheerful. Banners and heraldry abounded. What do you think changed in Hollywood to account for this change in portrayal? My theory is that during the period of The Code, backed by Catholic boycotts Hollywood was kept honest. When The Code was abolished this kind of bigoted work became acceptable.

Black Nubian Christians fought against Saladin , so it may be possible that some of them joined the crusaders. Popular medieval representations of saint Morrice as a black worrior saint, like in the cathedral of Magdeburg or in the painting of Matthias Grünewald, may be also a reminder of balck christian knights fighting with the crusaders.

It's sad that today I would consider anti-european propaganda in this movie not so bad.

Side note, _in Svithod/Sweden we never had surfdom and slavery was banned in 1335._

you know a movie is full of shit when the debunking of its inaccuracies thakes 3 times the length of the movie....

Scott needs to stick to sci-fi and stay away from bullshit historical revisionism . . .

a note about the quote in balian's shop. In one of the bonus features to the film it's mentioned the quote was made up by the producer.

I wonder if you can do another review like this for El Sid.

12th century Europe was warmer than the climate even today. It is very unlikely great poverty plague the land. The little ice age started by starting of 14th century, then follows famines and the black death.

Two questions if I may good Sir. Is there any truth to the stories about the Templars Instituting the first international banking system and monetary notes so that they could bank their gold in Europe to avoid the risks of traveling with the large amount of coin it might require and to pay for travel, food, lodging, etc? I heard somewhere that the deposit receipts they carried were an ancestor to our currency today because they contained a cipher to negate fraud at could be used like money at any major stop along the way for provisions and travel expenses. Also did England play a big role, or any at all in the first crusade? I was thinking that with the political turmoil in Britain in and around 1066 ad when William the Great crossed the channel from Normandy and took the throne. It seems like it's a hundred years or so before England fully incorporated Wales, but even then they were waring with France and the Scots for years to come. I'd like to know more about the political climate in Europe leading upto and prior to the first crusade, and how the continent was changed as a result... This is still an extremely informative video, even more so than what I was expecting. I was thinking you'd do a boring, direct point by point picking apart the historical inaccuracies. Instead I gained insight on the mindset of the "Crusader Class," if I may coin a term. It honestly never occured to me that there would be so many tradesmen and craftsmen among the knights, but now that I consider it I don't see the armies of Europe being able to get too far without, hunters. cooks, blacksmiths, armorers, doctors they called barbers unless I've been misinformed, and whatever their equivalent of veterinary technicians to care for the horses. Hell I can imagine every wealthy French and Brittish knight of high nobility taking a squire and an entourage to carry all the gear such a trip would imply. Over the last three days I've probably watched

Could you do a review of Ironclad and also the movie of Martin Luther.

As an avid camper and fly fishing enthusiast, it's just common knowledge if you urinate in the stream, you go downstream from the camp. However behind a tree is even better. In 40+ years of fly fishing I can only think of 2 occasions where I urinated in the stream we were fishing.

The knight who wipes his hair is supposed to be German, but he's right out of Tacitus' Germania, and 1,000 years out of his time period. :D Also, just to point out that Fitz(from the Normans/Norsemen) was originally to denote 'son of', and didn't take on the meaning of 'bastard son of' until the 1600s(the term became so common that it was abolished to avoid confusion and had been revived centuries later)

Is this the one where Legolas dies and then becomes a pirate?

We watched this movie in 10th grade history class. No one mentioned any inaccuracies, just talked about how evil Raynald was and how he'd just say "God wills it" to justify it.

Where is part 2 and they have always tried to make the European look like a dope in movies set during the middle ages even in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves they do that

Norman Knights or Germanic Knights, all had Motto's. Latin "no one is a man who does not render the world better. "

I'm going to watch this film even if it's inaccurate, I'll watch all these videos first though, I don't mind spoilers. By the way what is the best crusade film?

Just one question regarding suicide: at what point did the western Church develop its concept of mortal sin as part of its official doctrine? Was it as early as the time period discussed here? I ask because I've noticed that in film and television, things get ascribed to the medieval Church that weren't actually doctrine or dogma till much later (eg the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, clerical celibacy, etc). Really fascinating series, thanks for the time and effort you've put into these!

Hi Jay Stephen. Did you have raw audio of the background track. I really enjoy RCH theme/rift.

Stephan, your explication of 12th century Europe and its cultural and intellectual development is interesting. I've read that the main impetus for it was the result of the Crusaders returning from the East and that much of it is founded on knowledge and customs that they were introduced to there. What do you think of that?

24:15 If I remember correctly, Balian's mother was a married woman during Godfrey's affair with her. Maybe that's why he never publically acknowledged Balian.

I really enjoy this review

Great review of "Kingdom of Heaven" - thank you ☺⛪.

I'm disappointed in the audio quality on this, but putting that aside very informative content.

Shame that this doesn't get as many views as that guy, 'History Buffs'. Maybe you should use a catchy classical number at the beginning. Great Job!

Which version of the movie are you watching? I LOVE this movie (not for accuracy, mind) but already half the scenes you are talking about are not in the DVD I have.

When the Dr. References King Baldwin I is she referring to Godfrey's youngest brother that ruled eventually in Edessa? If not can you please differentiate the baldwins? I understand Baldwin IV ruled in Jerusalem.

Great video showing the inaccuracies and accuracies. I agree with all your comments but at same time Kingdom of Heaven is one of my favorite movies and in fact the movie kindled my interest in the crusades and research into the middle ages. I am also aware that hollywood is entertainment and its goals to entertain and hyperbolate is subserviant to any academic goals to portray history or be a primer for history. Once you accept that fact then one learns to compromise both expectations and hold back conclusions. I am from India and thanks to internet these days I am rediscovering my entire history all the way to claims as we in India are impoverished slaves of thousand years and our own endemic view that we are this godforsaken third world. Only now I realize that that never the case and one has to painfully and objectively piece together facts and fictions as noone is going to give us the correct objective history on a platter. That is why its important that these movies be made with full liberty to show what they want and your video is equally important that counters it with valid facts. Its the best way to educate people like me and I thank you for you this video from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

Seeing as I can't recall even half of this, it would seem that I have seen the 'standard' version and you are commenting on an extended special edition, right?

Great video - thanks. Would love it if you also did a video pointing out the inaccuracies in Terry Jone's documentary about the crusades.

Thank you very much, I have been waiting for the day that this, one of my favorite movies to be dissected for the truth.

I wish her voice was more clear. Bad connection? Great commentary.

25:40, I thought the prefix "Fitz" only meant "Son of..." in Norman french

The one issue I have is the 'poor Thomas of Becket' line that was used here. 'Poor Thomas' was an absolute nuisance to Henry II in the end. Becket lived more richly than the king, in fact people often mistook him for King Henry because he was so richly dressed and attended. While I obviously believe Henry's motives for elevating Thomas to Archbishop were less than pure, Thomas took it to a whole other level and lived way above his means and his station. Almost as if he were a mini Pope in England.

Hey maan u are fantastic!!! Love it and im very interested

I actually stormed out of the cinema back in 2005 when this was released. I think I lasted about an hour before I'd had enough of the nonsense. The woman who I was with at that time probably knew what was coming as I'd also done the same during the film Troy. :D I've actually just watched it all the way through today(it was quite a challenge to get through), to remind me again of what pure nonsense it is, and in preparation for your series on this. Starting........................now.

The weapon discussion has some inaccuracies .

From the video 10:15. "Using the kingdom of heaven as evidence." I call this cartoon physics mentality. "Fig-Newton's" first law of gravity, "Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation." I would love to see a poll done on how many people actually believe movies no matter how made up it is taken as fact. The key to making people believe is repetition the more times they hear the same non-sense the more they believe.

Surprised that none of the scholars pointed out or questioned the legal legitimacy of Balian's cousin attempting to arrest him after he had joined the Crusaders in penance for his sins. Did not the many Papal bulls on the Crusades grant immunity from prosecution for ecclesiastical crimes such as killing priests.

What's the deal with blasphemous slander regarding Richard the Lionheart on the part of board game designers!?

robin hood could be seen as a followup to KOH.

Thank you for this valuable education.

Kingdom of Heaven is Ridley Scotts 2h long apology to Hollywood for making Black Hawk Down

Odo the knight that wipes his mouth with his hair was German or Nordic wasnt he?

People stopped using shields with the heavy armors introduction. Check Metraton (to everone that reads my comment) youtube channel. He's great! Italian guy but speaks very well english.

What about the situation that Godfrey and his men were ambushed by men serving his nephew, who was intent on murdering Godfrey so his father and he could claim Godfrey's land and title? Did such betrayals happen? And in such a situation, if the defender overcame ambushers, would he still chivalrously allow ransom of captives? It's not exactly a chivalrous conflict to begin with.

I still love this film. :{

...but a high guard is a legitimate guard.

Awesome review thanks. Scott is literally and metaphorically a Tool!

is this 2015 version of history.

Thank you for the painstaking approach with historical accuracy for this movie. You have accurately also depicted the anti-Christian and pro-Muslim sentiment in this film. I do not know if you are aware of the fact that this movie was tainted. By that I mean Ridley Scott was threatened and subsequently rewrote the script by the terrorist organization CAIR. Scott also allowed CAIR a pre-screening of the movie after rewrite. This appeasement by Scott in the face of recurring Muslim intimidation is disgusting.

Tbh I knew when starting this that the film wouldnt be a "documentary". I just watched it and I loved it! The actors , the story, the costumes :)

So, any good crusader movies to watch ?

Great.

I thought it was mostly boring! It could've been done in less time, with more dialogue and much more historical accuracy. What a waste of talent and time. Their talent and my time!

Mic is super bad

The saddest part is that the impossibly handsome and beautiful O. Bloom and E. Green, and fine actors J. Irons and L. Neeson, were wasted in their prime in his little regarded movie, and now it's too late.

good

if you haven't seen the directors cut, its a must.

The sack of Constantinople by the Western Crusades is an example of the true reasons for the enterprise intentions. The Venetians, " the wolves under a sheep cloth " of the Mediterranean did mastermind the tragedy. After that Byzantium will never be the same beacon of knowledge and light as before.

Thanks for this- one of my favorite movies but also extreme fiction!

I found the film entertaining but it misrepresents medival perspects a lot and it isn't very accurate.

35:00 you guys are citing sources that are 150-200years after the time in the movie. Was the concept of Ransom as prevalent in 1184 as it was in 1350? Certainly it was for kings, but was it so for a minor noble such as the one shown? The looks on the actors faces show the knights obviously give pause because they know they could ransom him. But the leader gives the nod and the rest know that they aren't doing ransom this time. Perhaps they think the ransom amount would be too little? Or the nature of previous fight being an arrest party means that if they go back to ransom then they could have to fight again. I would like to hear your thoughts, even if this video is 2 years old. And any sources, I love the source quotes.

...and all this happened during a grand solar minimum. The End.

the magyars havent became hungarians, as the latter is just a name given to them by some europeans. magyars still call themselves magyars as ever.

GEEZ MANG, SUCH BAD AUDIO, i really want to watch and listen but the hissing and pops are making it hard.

I know its not really accurate but I still liked it *gets trampled by cavalry*.

The comments here are disheartening. Where is the middle ground between acknowledging that the Director's Cut of the movie is deeply inaccurate, but the film itself in a vacuum is a fantastic historical epic? The DC of this movie is what introduced me to the era and got me interested in the time period. The vitriol is pretty upsetting. Oh well.

Wait, the black guy was supposed to be a Muslim? I always thought he was either a Beta Israeli or Ethiopian.

Crusades!

Please do a historical accuracy of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter............joke!

It's a shame that i can't hear the woman talking, too bad, i was enjoying the video

Haha lindybeige!!

Great documentary, but if you have an opportunity, please give us an expose of the outrageous inaccuracies of Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."

Can people stop hatting on this movie? Its not a documentary. Thanks for your analysis, its a intresting format to teach history.

Defense of religious faith has demonstrated throughout history that the more unprovable a belief the more savagely men will fight to defend it.