Les films hollywoodiens à saveur historique influent sur la compréhension de l’histoire et la vision du monde du grand public. Le Royaume des Cieux de Ridley Scott (2005), même s’il constitue une excellente pièce de divertissement, s’avère être assez pauvre en termes de fidélité aux données historiques. Condensé de culpabilisation de l’Occident et de propagande antichrétienne, des corrections s’imposent…
Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, le parti pris est plutôt favorable à l’islam, versant dans un oecuménisme d’une touchante naïveté. Rien de surprenant donc.
Source : Jean DARTOIS, « Cinéma : « Kingdom of Heaven » », L’Héritage, Numéro 3, hiver 2006, p. 6.
L’interprétation partiale du cinéaste, sa façon de totalement disculper les musulmans dans les sources du conflit, nous laisse un goût amer. On ajoutera également qu’il aurait fallu un héros tonitruant or celui qu’il nous propose est trop mielleux et effacé pour incarner l’âme du chevalier du XIIème siècle. Les sentiments humanistes et les idéaux multiculturalistes déversés tout au long du film au téléspectateur sont des transferts de notre société moderne, totalement anachroniques pour l’époque. (…)
Balian a tué le prêtre qui avait enterré sa mère après avoir vu que celui-ci l’avait dépossédée d’un crucifix qu’elle portait autour du cou. (…) À ce moment du film, le décor est posé. L’église endosse déjà le mauvais rôle : le prêtre a volé le crucifix (?!) de la mère suicidée.
Source : Kingdom of Heaven : Une vision orientée des Croisades [Europae Gentes]
En ce temps-là, il était tout simplement impensable de tenir un discours relativiste concernant la religion. La caricature qu’offre Balian (Olrando Bloom) sur la place publique de Jérusalem est ineffable. Surtout lorsqu’il explique que la Terre sainte ne compte pas car la Jérusalem céleste est dans le cœur de chacun et que les religions causent plus de troubles qu’autres chose, et que finalement, l’idéal, ce serait encore un bon syncrétisme inspiré des droits de l’homme, et que c’est dommage que personne ne comprenne, car cette situation peut encore durer des siècles (clin d’oeil grossier et simpliste à l’actuel conflit israélo-palestinien). L’individualisme foncier, la foi relevant du domaine privé et s’apparentant plus à la philosophie qu’à l’ontologie sont des structures mentales qui échappaient tout simplement aux contemporains, chrétiens et musulmans… l’apothéose de ce leitmotiv est d’ailleurs atteinte lorsqu’en aparté, les deux grands sages du film, Balian et Saladin, se laissent comprendre, à mi-mots, que Jérusalem en tant que lieu de spiritualité n’a aucune importance réelle. De là, Saladin, finaud, insinue que la prise de Jérusalem est plus un objectif politique qu’autre chose. De même, il rejette publiquement l’influence d’Allah sur ses victoires et ne les attribue qu’à son mérite personnel. Ce qui est tout bonnement impensable, là encore.
Source : « Les Croisés en Terre Sainte », Histoire du Christianisme Magazine, Numéro 28, juin 2005, p. 76.
This is a True Story – Only the Facts Have Been Changed
Kingdom of Heaven also distorts history beyond all recognition. The “hundred-year truce” between the Christian and Muslim armies is a figment of their imagination. The warfare throughout the 12th Century was incessant.
The depiction of the Knight’s Templar as a band of religious fanatics trying to shatter the truce and provoke war with the Muslims by attacking caravans, is a total fabrication. (…) Attacking caravans is what the founder of Islam, Muhammad, engaged in regularly. As did his handpicked apostles, the Caliphas. The Knights Templar were formed primarily to protect travellers from the attacks of the Muslim army. In fact it was the slaughter of Christian pilgrims, by Muslim armies, in violation of earlier agreements of safe passage, that precipitated the crusades in the first place.
The central figure of this film, Sir Balian, is a historical figure, who did in fact play a critical role in the defence of Jerusalem in 1187, but the filmscript distorts his character and role beyond all recognition. First of all, Balian was not a blacksmith, nor did his wife commit suicide, nor was he illegitimate, nor raised as a commoner. His father, Balian the Old (not Godfrey as in the movie), had three sons, all legitimate : Hugh, Baldwin and Balian. Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land, because he grew up as part of the nobility there. Balian was married to royalty long before the events portrayed in the film, and he was not at all romantically involved with the Princess Sybilla.
In Kingdom of Heaven, Balian is portrayed as questioning whether God exists, although according to the historical records it is clear that Balian was a dedicated Christian who took his faith very seriously. Nor did Balian desert the defence of the Holy Land following the fall of Jerusalem. Far from returning to France, Balian proceeded to Beirut in Lebanon which he helped fortify against Muslim invasion. He was present with Richard the Lionhearted at the signing of the peace with Saladin, which secured safe passage for Christian pilgrims and recognised crusader control over the 90 mile stretch of coastline from Tyre to Jaffa.
According to Kingdom of Heaven, the real hero in the story is the famous Muslim general, Saladin. (…) The film has uncritically accepted, and embellished, the legends about Saladin beyond what the historical record would support. (…) Far from having war forced upon him, Saladin initiated the conflict by declaring a Jihad against the Christians. He swept throughout Palestine capturing more than 50 crusader castles in two years.
(…)
In the film, Saladin is portrayed as being most gracious in allowing the defenders of Jerusalem safe passage. In fact after the negotiated surrender of Jerusalem, which the Patriarch of Jerusalem initiated, Saladin demanded that every man, women and child in Jerusalem pay a ransom for his or her freedom or face the grim prospect of Islamic slavery.
(…)
Twisted Theology
The theology in Kingdom of Heaven is also all wrong. The film depicts some monk standing by the roadside repeating : “To kill an infidel is not murder it is the path to heaven !” As any student of the Bible would be able to tell you, neither the concept nor those words appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. However, as any student of the Quran should be able to inform you, that is exactly what the Islamic doctrine of Jihad teaches.
At one point early in the film as Muslims bow in prayer towards Mecca, Balian comments : “You allow them to pray ?” A knight sneers and answers : “As long as they pay their taxes !” In fact the crusaders never required any extra taxes of Muslims in order to allow them to pray. That is the Islamic doctrine and practice of Jizya. To this day Muslim governments require Jizya – tribute taxes – of dhimmi’s (Jews and Christians under their Islamic rule).
(…)
Insults to Intelligence
Here we are expected to believe that : Balian is grieving his wife’s death, yet he does not even attend to her burial ; that Balian raised a commoner, trained only as a blacksmith, from France, could within days of arriving in Palestine be teaching the local people how to practice agriculture and dig wells in the desert ; and that this blacksmith with no military training could know more about siege weapons and military strategy that all the knights and military professionals concentrated in the Holy Land put together !
(…)
The fictional, adulterous relationship depicted between Balian and Princess Sybilla strains all credibility. As does Balian’s presumed ethical objections against executing the venomous and bloodthirsty husband of his presumed adulterous interest ! Apparently justice and the avoiding of a disastrous war were not as important as his adulterous affections.
(…)
Crusade Against Christianity
Producer Ridley Scott, and scriptwriter William Monahan, obviously hate Christianity. But, just in case any viewers lack the discernment to detect the unveiled anti-Christian hostility and prejudice, which permeates the entire movie, Ridley Scott, has gone on record as stating : “Balian is an agnostic, just like me.” Of course there was no such thing as agnosticism in the 12th Century, especially not amongst crusaders. Just in case anyone misunderstood the motivations behind his movie, Ridley Scott has been quoted as saying : “If we could just take God out of the equation, there would be no fucking problem !”
Source : Kingdom of Heaven Film Review [Frontline Fellowship]
On en apprend sur le caractère colérique et cruel de Saladin et sur les véritables événements ayant entouré la reddition de Jérusalem en 1187 :
Après la bataille de Hattin, il fit exécuter les 300 moines-soldats de l’Ordre du Temple et de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers. Il épargna provisoirement le grand-maître Gérard de Ridefort. Celui-ci fut conduit sous la tente du sultan avec deux autres prisonniers de marque, le roi Guy de Lusignan et le prince d’Antioche Renaud de Châtillon (également seigneur d’Outre-Jourdain et d’Hébron, il avait été prisonnier pendant 15 ans à Alep).
Le sultan tendit une coupe à Lusignan, signifiant par ce geste d’hospitalité qu’il ne saurait tuer un roi. Lusignan tendit la coupe à son voisin, Renaud de Châtillon. Colère de Saladin qui n’entendit pas lui étendre son hospitalité. Le sultan tira son épée et brisa l’épaule du prince d’Antioche. Des soldats entraînèrent le prisonnier hors de la tente et le décapitèrent.
Là-dessus, le sultan gagna la côte avec son armée en vue de s’emparer des ports et de prévenir le débarquement d’une nouvelle croisade. Il échoua devant Tyr, sauvée par l’arrivée providentielle d’un croisé énergique, Conrad de Montferrat.
Le 20 septembre 1187, l’armée musulmane se présente devant les murailles de la ville sainte. Les habitants chrétiens se défendirent avec la force du désespoir deux semaines durant. Le baron Balian d’Ibelin sollicita alors des négiciations avec Saladin. Celui-ci affirma qu’il n’avait aucunement l’intention d’épargner la population civile.
Ce à quoi Balian répondit : « En ce cas, nous égorgerons nos fils et nos femmes, nous mettrons le feu à la ville, nous renverserons le Temple et tous ces sanctuaires qui sont aussi vos sanctuaires. Nous massacrerons les cinq mille captifs musulmans que nous détenons, puis nous sortirons en masse et aucun de nous ne succombera sans avoir abattu l’un des vôtres ! »
Contraint par cette menace, Saladin accorda la possibilité aux chrétiens de se racheter. Saladin se résolut à négocier la vie sauve pour l’ensemble des défenseurs et des habitants, avec le droit pour tous les chrétiens de quitter la ville et de se réfugier en terre chrétienne. Selon les mœurs du temps, il libèra les plus riches habitants contre une rançon appréciable. Il libèra aussi 7 000 pauvres contre une rançon collective de 30 000 écus.
(…)
Entré le 3 octobre dans la ville sainte, Saladin fit aussitôt abattre la croix dorée érigée 88 ans plus tôt au sommet du Dôme du Rocher sur le Mont du Temple. Gérard de Ridefort fut torturé et exécuté dans sa cellule sur ordre de Saladin.
Dans le film Kingdom of Heaven, Saladin (…) est montré comme la quintessence du croyant éclairé, alter ego du bon chrétien. (…) Or, l’objectif avoué de Saladin était d’exterminer les chrétiens et de les chasser de Terre sainte. Contrairement à ce que montre ce film, il ne s’est pas montré magnanime lors de la prise de Jéruslam. Même s’il a laissé partir les rescapés capables de payer une rançon, ceux qui n’avaient pas l’argent (entre 11 000 et 16 000 personnes) ont été tués ou envoyés en esclavage s’ils étaient assez jeunes.
Source : Collectif, « Les Croisés en Terre Sainte », Histoire du Christianisme Magazine, Numéro 28, juin 2005, p. 77.
Démolissons d’autres mythes…
Frustrated with the ways in which the Crusades have been used and distorted, a few historians are now attempting to close the yawning gap between the academy and general readers. (…)
Take, for example, what might be called the Myth of the Greedy Younger Son. This myth holds that an increase in population, the development of feudal primogeniture, and a series of bad harvests created a situation in medieval Europe where thousands of well-trained and land-hungry warriors were milling about with nothing to do. Rather than have them make trouble at home, Pope Urban II convinced them to carve out territories for themselves in the faraway Muslim world. (…) New research has definitively shown that Crusaders were predominantly the first sons of Europe : wealthy, privileged, and pious. Crusading was extremely expensive and more than a few noble families risked bankruptcy in order to take part. They did so for medieval, not modern, reasons. Crusading for them was an act of love and charity by which, like the Good Samaritan, they were aiding their neighbors in distress. Muslim warriors had conquered eastern Christians, taken their lands, and in some cases killed or enslaved them. The Crusader believed it was his duty to right that wrong.
The Greedy Younger Son is not the only myth historians have discarded. It may surprise some to learn that the Crusades were almost never profitable, since booty was so scarce. Or that the Christian settlers in the so-called Crusader Kingdom were not themselves Crusaders. Or that the Crusades met all the criteria of a just war, especially in their defensive nature. Or that the Crusades had nothing at all to do with colonialism. Or that the Crusades were in no way wars of conversion.If your image of Western civilization relies on a depiction of the Crusades as an insane and bloodthirsty attack on a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world, then you are not going to like what recent historians have to say.
Source : Thomas MADDEN, « Crusaders and Historians », First Things, juin-juillet 2005.
Myth # 3 : When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.
This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. Most recently, Bill Clinton in a speech at Georgetown cited this as one reason the United States is a victim of Muslim terrorism. It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. (…) It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
Source : Thomas MADDEN, « Crusade Myths », Catholic Dossier, Volume 8, Numéro 1, janvier-février 2002.
Un film sur le thème des croisades est sorti en 2007, Arn le Chevalier du Temple. Comme dans Le Royame des Cieux, Arn est plein de moralisme pro-arabe et anti-Église ennuyant… on dirait que ses producteurs suédois se sont directement inspiré de l’agnostique Ridley Scott pour plusieurs scènes.
Malgré les nombreux anachronismes, le film contient quelques bonnes scènes de bataille, comme celle de Montgisard le 25 novembre 1177 (hyperlien alternatif)…
Le Monarchomaque 
Commenter cet article du Monarchomaque