Kingdom of Heaven vs. A Knights Tale: Which is a better portrayal of the Medieval Era?
I was inspired to write this given some recent discussions on twitter. Which movie is better in terms of representing the Middle Ages? Kingdom of Heaven, or A Knights Tale? There were several reasons I saw that placed A Knights Tale on a higher level than Kingdom of Heaven, with the consensus being A Knights Tale was a better representation of the Middle Ages.
I don’t believe that’s a fair comparison, given the numerous dynamics at play, and wanted to analyze it more. Because aside from the Middle Ages, what is exactly being measured? The Middle Ages is a vast era with different political, religious, and cultural movements making it what it is. But you cannot put your finger on one singular piece of media and say “this is the middle ages”. Because it’s not. The Middle Ages are too vast to be captured in a signal movie.
In summary, the basis of this argument will be why the comparison between the two is not fair in terms of portrayal of the Middle Ages. The variables i’ll be briefly covering are timeline, knighthood, and portrayals of the Christians and Muslims.
If you want a longer, more in-depth look into any fo these variables, let me know :)
Timeline:
The medieval era is split up into three major eras: Early, High, and Late Middle Ages.
KoH takes place in the beginning of the High Middle Ages (1184), whereas AKT takes place in the later middle ages (1372, though also in the High Middle Ages). The difference between them both is 188 years. Additionally, both take place in vastly different territories.
While these are both in “The Middle Ages”, each era represents an entirely different time and culture. The comparison falls short when you understand this.
France & Jerusalem during the Crusades vs England during the beginning of the 100 Year War were vastly different places in the midst of vastly different political & extreme religious movements. Even the languages spoken were different.
Because both take place in different time periods within the Medieval Era, it is not as fair to claim one represents a certain time period better, especially when there’s a near 200 year difference between them both.
Knighthood:
Both movies center on what a chivalrous knight looks like, vs. what one doesn’t. Ultimately, AKT portrays a more positive, feel good version of Knighthood, with the Knight’s success being the success of the entire movie. Whereas in KoH, while the knight (Balian) succeeds, the Crusaderers lose. The latter portrays a more serious, somber tone, as compared to that of AKT.
It portrays a more realistic version of Knighthood, in both the “good” and the “bad” as well. While the portrayal of Templar Knights is inaccurate, Guy’s arrogance as a knight isn’t incorrect. And while the historical figure himself wasn’t known to be that arrogant, medieval knights weren’t all men in shining armor and horses who practiced chivalry (and even then, chivalry was understood to be practiced between those of the same class, not normal soldiers).
Eventually, Guy’s disastrous tenure as King loses the Crusaders the Kingdom of Jerusalem (though, they were bound to lose regardless of Guy’s leadership).
AKT does the opposite. In the most simplistic terms, it boils down “good” and “evil”. The good will always prevail with hard work and dedication, while the bad are always fated to lose. Count Admehar is the antagonist of the movie, who’s cold and callous personality is shown to be unknightly, especially in comparison to William and Edward the Black Prince. In reality, The Black Prince employed non chilvarious tactics in his fight against the French during the war. The reason for his success was because of his unorthodox ways of attacking the French, especially French peasants.
While mean, Admehar’s relationship with William isn’t unusual for a noble at the time. Nor is he wrong to brag about his wins in France. Admehar is fighting for the English King and succeeding. The bravado he brings with him makes sense.
That doesn’t excuse his other actions though, which directly harm William’s life.
Christians vs. Muslim Portrayals
I saw a few comments discussing how bad KoH made the Christians in comparison to the Muslims. A better way to rephrase that would be The Crusaders vs the Turks. This was a reasoning as to why people didn’t like KoH.
I think the portrayal of the Crusaders, in general, was fair. As was the portrayal of the Turks. Salahadin and Baldwin IV were known for their respect in fighting one another. Salahadin was known for his mercy when it came to his prisoners.
But these two don’t exactly speak for all Crusaders and Turks during the Crusades. And throughout the Crusades, both sides were known to have committed awful atrocities on each other and innocent parties. No side was “morally” better than the other, and blood was spilled in the name of religion
I don’t also believe the Crusaders were portrayed as bad. I think their desperation, and their reliance on religion during a time when they were losing made sense. Keep in mind that the Crusaders had held Jerusalem for years, and had repelled the various enemy armies for as long as they could. The Crusaders were coming to a natural end. This movie portrayed their losses. Not their wins.
It was not supposed to be a victory, because historically there was none. They weren’t stupid to believe they could win. They, just as Salahadin’s army did, believed God was on their side.
Christians vs. Muslim Portrayals (continued…)
This is vastly different in AKT, where the Christians are winning/portrayed positively by virtue of England and France being Christian countries. Keep in mind that the Crusades have ended, and Western Europe is now entering the 100 Year War between England and France. Thus, religion isn’t as strong of a focus. At least not in the same way it was in the KoH.
At the same time, the 100 Year War is a backdrop to constant jousting tournaments throughout the movie. Therefore, focus wasn’t on how heinous Christian armies could be to one another and innocent parties. In reality, raids on villages by Christian soldiers were heinous.
Misc.
They’re all historically inaccurate.
While both movies take place in the Middle Ages, they have very little in common. Both represent a different political conflict that sets the tone for the movie. One is incredibly character driven, while the other movie relies heavily on factors outside of the characters control (ie: The failing Crusader State).
Neither portrays the Middle Ages “better” or “worse”, because they don’t take place at the same time. They don’t really deal with the same subject matter or plot.
If you were to ask me, my favorite is Kingdom of Heaven, as Jerusalem itself is responsible for Christianity as we know it today (and in the Middle Ages). But A Knights Tale does a great job at showing the story of a Knight
Sources/some playlist to learn more:
(there is a very specific video I am looking for regarding the Crusades that isn't on here yet, but I sourced information from it. I just, for the life of me, cannot find it because the information for it is stored on another computer)
