Representation of Combat
Another massive portion of the film is engaged in the depiction of medieval combat. This is a historical area where Kingdom of Heaven succeeds; arms, armor, and siege equipment are recreated with particularly acute attention to detail, while the pitched battle and siege scenes are accurate to what records tell us. The brutality of combat involving steel weaponry is never shied away from, with ghastly wounds and ruthless deaths to be found aplenty. Medieval principles of chivalry are represented well, and give viewers an excellent perception of how the European system worked. There are a few areas where the film flags, chiefly with the stunning rapidity in which the “blacksmith” Balian masters the art of sword fighting and in the trebuchet bombardment during the siege of Jerusalem.
A very important part of “Kingdom of Heaven” revolves around the accurate recreation of the time periods weapons and armor. Much as Madeleine Cosman and Linda Jones state that “Much of medieval social life and history revolved around the central pivot point of warfare,” so too does the central plot of the film (Cosman). Thus, crafting precise models of arms and armor was key in making the film as in-depth as it is. Throughout the film, numerous different weapons can be seen, from monstrous gravity-powered trebuchets to simple swords and maces. Armor is worn by just about everyone, coming in chain mail, plate, and leather varieties. All look authentic and are shown to have the advantages and disadvantages they would have had in history, with heavy armor weighing down combatants and short weapons being much faster than hefty battle-axes.
The punishing reality of medieval combat is something that the film does especially well. Throughout the movie’s numerous battle scenes, characters give and receive terrific wounds, and the wicked methods used to kill in those days are shown with gritty authenticity. The ruthless nature of medieval weapon design is clearly show, as well as the difficulty of treating injuries incurred from the weapons. Balian’s father provides an excellent example of the relative inefficiency of medieval medicine; a simple arrow wound eventually brings the healthy warrior down. It is these simple touches of reality that make “Kingdom of Heaven” such a compelling watch, despite some of its historical shortcomings.
Several large-scale battles occur in the film, and the commanding prowess of figures such as Saladin and Reginald of Châtillon is shown with deft filmmaking. In history, these men were seasoned campaigners, with considerable experience leading vast armies. Their varying strategies can be seen throughout, with the crusaders reliance on heavy horse contrasting the Saracen’s lightly armed and armored forces. The advantages and disadvantages of the different leaders are fully realized throughout the film, ensuring a rich militaristic influence that is accurate and enjoyable to watch.
A large component of medieval warfare, at least in Europe, was the principles of chivalry. The regulatory aspects of the knight’s chivalrous code ruled over them in combat. But in fighting a foreign enemy much different from themselves, the rules changed. “Kingdom of Heaven” touches on the issues, especially in detailing the atrocities committed by the infamous Reginald of Châtillon, whom indiscriminately slaughtered Muslims and raided towns and caravans in peacetime. His indiscretion was a leading factor in the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
There are two areas in the film where the recreation of historic combat details falls short, namely with Balian’s sudden militaristic prowess and in the catapult bombardment of Jerusalem. The movie introduces Balian as a simple blacksmith with no previous military experience, but after a roughly fifteen-second sword lesson from his father he is chopping up baddies like a seasoned warrior. His defense of Jerusalem later in the movie shows him laying large-scale defenses with absolute precision. In reality, Balian was a knight whom could have executed said actions, but the movie changing him to a smith for the sake of interest makes them improbable. The second militaristic fallacy is in Saladin’s siege of Jersualem, where his trebuchet barrage looks more like a World War I artillery strike. The counterargument would be that it really does look fantastic on the big screen. Plus, in contemporary moviemaking, the more explosions the better.
A very important part of “Kingdom of Heaven” revolves around the accurate recreation of the time periods weapons and armor. Much as Madeleine Cosman and Linda Jones state that “Much of medieval social life and history revolved around the central pivot point of warfare,” so too does the central plot of the film (Cosman). Thus, crafting precise models of arms and armor was key in making the film as in-depth as it is. Throughout the film, numerous different weapons can be seen, from monstrous gravity-powered trebuchets to simple swords and maces. Armor is worn by just about everyone, coming in chain mail, plate, and leather varieties. All look authentic and are shown to have the advantages and disadvantages they would have had in history, with heavy armor weighing down combatants and short weapons being much faster than hefty battle-axes.
The punishing reality of medieval combat is something that the film does especially well. Throughout the movie’s numerous battle scenes, characters give and receive terrific wounds, and the wicked methods used to kill in those days are shown with gritty authenticity. The ruthless nature of medieval weapon design is clearly show, as well as the difficulty of treating injuries incurred from the weapons. Balian’s father provides an excellent example of the relative inefficiency of medieval medicine; a simple arrow wound eventually brings the healthy warrior down. It is these simple touches of reality that make “Kingdom of Heaven” such a compelling watch, despite some of its historical shortcomings.
Several large-scale battles occur in the film, and the commanding prowess of figures such as Saladin and Reginald of Châtillon is shown with deft filmmaking. In history, these men were seasoned campaigners, with considerable experience leading vast armies. Their varying strategies can be seen throughout, with the crusaders reliance on heavy horse contrasting the Saracen’s lightly armed and armored forces. The advantages and disadvantages of the different leaders are fully realized throughout the film, ensuring a rich militaristic influence that is accurate and enjoyable to watch.
A large component of medieval warfare, at least in Europe, was the principles of chivalry. The regulatory aspects of the knight’s chivalrous code ruled over them in combat. But in fighting a foreign enemy much different from themselves, the rules changed. “Kingdom of Heaven” touches on the issues, especially in detailing the atrocities committed by the infamous Reginald of Châtillon, whom indiscriminately slaughtered Muslims and raided towns and caravans in peacetime. His indiscretion was a leading factor in the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
There are two areas in the film where the recreation of historic combat details falls short, namely with Balian’s sudden militaristic prowess and in the catapult bombardment of Jerusalem. The movie introduces Balian as a simple blacksmith with no previous military experience, but after a roughly fifteen-second sword lesson from his father he is chopping up baddies like a seasoned warrior. His defense of Jerusalem later in the movie shows him laying large-scale defenses with absolute precision. In reality, Balian was a knight whom could have executed said actions, but the movie changing him to a smith for the sake of interest makes them improbable. The second militaristic fallacy is in Saladin’s siege of Jersualem, where his trebuchet barrage looks more like a World War I artillery strike. The counterargument would be that it really does look fantastic on the big screen. Plus, in contemporary moviemaking, the more explosions the better.