Kingdom of Heaven, like most Hollywood movies, make learning about history both informational and entertaining at the same time. However, like all things they have their flaws. Despite the outstanding battle scenes, not all aspects are historically, or even realistically accurate. If you know anything about history, watching movies like these, you are bound to find many inaccurate things, but as we all know Hollywood is not graded on its accuracy, but on its ability to entertain their audience. You may be wondering why they change the movie, but this answer is quiet simple. They not only change it to appear more intense, but also to make it more understandable by making things more modern. Enhancing the movie can cause inaccuracy, this improves
…show more content…
The battle scene, as awesome as this may seem, they have remade history in this area, giving them a more advanced piece of weaponry, the long bow. During this time period in the Middle East, longbows had not yet been brought over towards Jerusalem. However, during the One Hundred Years’ War, the longbow was a very well know, and used weapon. According to World Book Advanced “The longbow ranked as the chief weapon of the English army when the Hundred Years' War began in 1337” (1). Up until the Battle of Crecy, the longbow had not been discovered in the Middle East, this then creates a flaw. Now, of course, this is not a major flaw, some may not even notice it. Up until someone mentioned it I did not notice this, actually I thought that the crossbow was more advanced than the long bow. Realistically, the crossbow had been popularly used since the 1100’s. This provides that even by changing some aspects, Hollywood still leaves other things historically accurate, and have the ability to teach you something, as it did for …show more content…
“But Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land—as he does in the movie—because he was already part of the nobility there” (Christianity Today 1). This proves that Balian was in fact from Jerusalem, not France. Also, according to the movie, Balian was an illegitimate child, and didn’t know of his father, Godfrey. According to history, there are two flaws to that. Balian had lived with his father, Balian the Old, not Godfrey, meaning he knew him. Another thing about his background is that he had no siblings, nor knew them either. However, he lived with them, their names: Hugh and Baldwin. All were legitimate children. For changing some of these things they had a good reason, like his father’s name. If there had been two Balians in the story, it would have been a little more confusing for the viewers to stay caught up, and tell the difference between what was happening to which
The battle scene, as awesome as this may seem, they have remade history in this area, giving them a more advanced piece of weaponry, the long bow. During this time period in the Middle East, longbows had not yet been brought over towards Jerusalem. However, during the One Hundred Years’ War, the longbow was a very well know, and used weapon. According to World Book Advanced “The longbow ranked as the chief weapon of the English army when the Hundred Years' War began in 1337” (1). Up until the Battle of Crecy, the longbow had not been discovered in the Middle East, this then creates a flaw. Now, of course, this is not a major flaw, some may not even notice it. Up until someone mentioned it I did not notice this, actually I thought that the crossbow was more advanced than the long bow. Realistically, the crossbow had been popularly used since the 1100’s. This provides that even by changing some aspects, Hollywood still leaves other things historically accurate, and have the ability to teach you something, as it did for …show more content…
“But Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land—as he does in the movie—because he was already part of the nobility there” (Christianity Today 1). This proves that Balian was in fact from Jerusalem, not France. Also, according to the movie, Balian was an illegitimate child, and didn’t know of his father, Godfrey. According to history, there are two flaws to that. Balian had lived with his father, Balian the Old, not Godfrey, meaning he knew him. Another thing about his background is that he had no siblings, nor knew them either. However, he lived with them, their names: Hugh and Baldwin. All were legitimate children. For changing some of these things they had a good reason, like his father’s name. If there had been two Balians in the story, it would have been a little more confusing for the viewers to stay caught up, and tell the difference between what was happening to which