Knightfall (2017-). Historical fantasy at its best and worst.

Steph P. Bianchini November 16, 2018 2 Comments

I had just finished watching the first series of Knightfall (now on Netflix) when I heard History Channel renewed it for a second season. Ugh, I thought, not sure it’s a brilliant idea. While I love historical fiction (people reading this blog know it already), I am pretty finicky with it, and the capital sin is not been historical enough. Now, you would expect that something showing up on this channel should fit it well with high standards accuracy-wise. It turns out, not that much.

The series plot: “In 1306, the Knights Templar are winding down their run as one of the most powerful organizations in the Christian world. Acre, the Templars’ last stronghold, has fallen and years later a rumour is heard that the lost Grail is still in that area. The Templars, led by the courageous, headstrong, but noble Templar Knight Landry have shifted their attention to regaining a foothold in the Holy Land. They take their battle back to the Holy Land and their battles become the Crusades. The Templars are now losing allies and gaining new and powerful enemies, including the King of France. The legendary, wealthy and secretive military order of warrior monks are entrusted with protecting the Holy Grail and any secrets that are capable of destroying the Church.“

The Templars, contrary to other half-forgotten monk-warriors to fight in the Holy Land (I’m thinking of the Teutonic Knights and the Hospitallers) are pretty (in)famous (due to their spectacular demise), so I won’t spend words here. However, there’s of crap out there about them, so for a historically accurate treatment of this much-maligned order, get yourself a copy of  Malcolm Barber’s The New Knighthood, or have a look here.

The good things: the series actually gets right a lot of details in terms of settings and scenario, such as the siege of Acre (1291). As the historical consultant to the series declared, “the detail of the Siege of Acre 1291, which opens the first episode, for example, is drawn extensively from the so-called Templar of Tyre’s eyewitness account of that amazing urban battle.” 

Also, the series offers some nice snippets of the life in 1300 France, which can be better understood watching this a series of videos on History website.

The not-so-good things: the story line, which is not historical at all. On paper this could pass as a prequel of The Accursed Kings, the celebrated Maurice Druon’s series of books that starts with the fall of Templars, initiated by a diabolic (intended as a super-nasty) plot of Philip IV the Fair’s daughter Isabella. But no: things are quite different here, and when I say quite, I mean it. Now, while Druon has always declared his books were fiction, not history, they’re nonetheless more historically accurate, for a start because they don’t resuscitate characters for plot purposes, like the Queen Joan, long dead when Knightfall happens. On the TV series, not only Joan is alive, but so full of life to have a steamy, forbidden affair with the Templar hero Landry (not a historical character of course, but this is not important). Moreover, and this disturbed me even more, the characters are so less intriguing than Druon’s. Philip the Fair is not the cold, canny sovereign history remembers, but a cuckolded idiot who can’t see what’s going on under his very eyes not even when presented with evidence. De Nogaret, another historical figure of a certain depth (and intelligence), suffers a fate even worse. And I’ll stop here, for spoilers’ sake.

The bad: all that Grail stuff, which seems to come straight from an Arthurian legend. While there’s no doubt the Holy Grail was an enduring myth (others would say obsession) of the Medieval Man, and the Templars were no different from the others, putting a monk called Parsifal seems a bit too much to my ears in a supposedly history-based show.

Let’s see how the second season goes. For the moment, this is the trailer for the first. Happy watching.