Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem

Marriage?

so BAldwin married his mother? yes or no?

What are you referring to? Adam Bishop 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Baldwin IV, the Leper King, never married. During his lifetime, the prevailing view was that physical contact of any kind would cause the transfer of the disease. We now know this is not true. It would take considerable exposure over time. Presently, a course of antibitoics easily handles the disease but in some parts of the world such as India, the stigma is still so strong that people showing symptoms avoid treatment rather than reveal their status as infected. This is unfortunate since the longer it goes untreated, the more damage a person suffers. During King Baldwin's lifetime, there was no effective treatment of the disease, only treatments to try and relieve the discomfort of the symptoms. Baldwin IV was succeeded by his sister's son Baldwin V.LiPollis 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mask?

Did baldwin wear a metal mask?

I don't know of any source that says he did. I suppose it was cheaper than leper makeup, though. Adam Bishop 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reference in any contemporary source to how he concealed some of his affliction, or if he did. A metal mask is unlikely, though, for reasons of heat and weight. Silverwhistle 19:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The metal mask seen in the film The Kingdom is an invention of the screenwriter. In the last years of his life, Baldwin IV was blind and crippled from his affliction and not riding out to battle in armor and a pretty silver mask. He may well have covered his face, but there is no historical description of him doing so. I would assume that by the time his disease had progressed to the point of facial disfigurement, he would have been blind and crippled and therefore secluded and in no need of a disguise. LiPollis 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know weather he was a Norman or not, but are you sure it's not just an Anglo-Saxon Sutton Hoo helmet? I don't think that type of thing would be too antique for a king at that point to get his hands on if he felt so inclined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:902:0:0:0:10 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@2600:387:B:902:0:0:0:10 why would he be Norman ? He is issued from the French monarchy.. House of Anjou Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about the Templars

were the templar knights mere mercenaries,compared to todays thought that they were trusted knights,of some importance.and there to protect the royal house of baldwin

No, the Templars were a military monastic order, essentially the armed offshoot of the Cistercian order. They took monastic vows and were sworn to defend the holy places and protect pilgrims. Where did you get the idea they were mercenaries? Silverwhistle 19:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Raynald/Reynald

What is the correct spelling of Raynald or Reynald?

Either way..."Reginald" is also a possibility, or "Renaud". It has a lot of variants because it's a Germanic name that was spelled in numerous different ways in Latin and French. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Sacraments

Did Baldwin IV really refuse the Last Sacraments of the Catholic Church, as depicted in the Kingdom of Heaven movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.177 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From a quick search of Bernard Hamilton's "The Leper King and his Heirs", there is no mention of what happened on his deathbed. William of Tyre's chronicle doesn't go that far, but when I have a moment I can check the Old French continuations of the chronicle to see if they say anything. He was properly buried in the Holy Sepulchre, and he was otherwise as devoted to the church as any good king was expected to be; he founded a chapel on the site of the Battle of Montgisard, was a patron of the Patriarch Heraclius (to William of Tyre's apparent dismay), had the relic of the True Cross carried around in battle, and went through all the proper religious rituals to crown Baldwin V as co-king. People in the east loved him and if he did something as unexpected as that, someone would have mentioned it. People in the west weren't so keen on a leprous king, but I can't recall any of the English or French chroniclers mentioning this either. So that was one of the various made-up portions of the movie, like the mask. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the continuations of William's chronicle, all the nobles were present at Baldwin's death, and the next day he was buried in the Sepulchre. No mention of anything unusual happening. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

The date 16 March 1185 is footnoted to thepeerage.com, which isn't a reliable source. Other wikis have "March 1185" (e.g. the German) or just "1185" (e.g. the French). I propose to remove the precise date, because, unless I'm mistaken, there's no reliable source for that. Is there a reliable source for "March" or do we have to go back to "1185"? Andrew Dalby 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton's book seems to mention various possible dates on p 198 (I can't see that page on Google at the moment). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that doesn't help actually, although Hamilton does note that John L. La Monte says Baldwin died on March 16. La Monte is a better source than thepeerage.com, although Hamilton might have more info in the rest of the chapter, which I still can't see. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More from Hamilton, which I can now view on a different computer:

In The Leper King and His Heirs, p. 210, he says "Baldwin died at some time before 16 May 1185." Note 83 on that page says "Hiestand argued, citing the necrology of St Niçaise de Meulan, that Baldwin died on 15 April 1185: 'Chronologisches...2. Die Todesdaten König Balduins IV...', p. 551; but Thomas Vogtherr has shown that this evidence is not secure, 'Die Regierungsdten der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem', ZDVP 110 (1994), pp. 51-81 at pp. 65-7. Baldwin V had become sole king by 16 May 1185: Delaborde, no. 43, pp. 91-2; RRH, no 643, I, p. 170."

Earlier on p. 198, n. 45, "Lamonte writes, 'The ordering of the bailliage to Raymond was the last act of Baldwin IV. Consumed by leprosy [he died] on 16 March 1185...': Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), p. 33."

I don't know where Lamonte got that date; there is a footnote for that sentence on p. 33, but I can't see it on Google. Every other reference to 16 March seems to trace back to Lamonte. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for all that work, and for explaining how I got the date "15 April 1185" in my personal notes. I didn't mention that before because I'm not a reliable source!

So that's one "primary" source, which has been shown to be insecure, for the date "15 April 1185", and one "secondary" source that we would take as basically reliable for "16 March 1185", but we don't yet know how it arrived at that date, and it looks at though Hamilton doesn't trust it. And one certainty, "before 16 May 1185". It would be nice to know, wouldn't it, what Lamonte's footnote actually says ... Andrew Dalby 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that the footnote relates to some other part of the paragraph and not the 16 March date. Feudal Monarchy is on Questia, if you happen to have access to that. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile Setton's History of the Crusades, in a chapter written by Marshall W. Baldwin, says "March 1185", but it doesn't have a lot of footnotes and doesn't footnote this. (It's vol. 1 p. 604, repeated in the chronological outline on p. 625. Note that it abstains from giving a day of the month). Andrew Dalby 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hans Mayer (The Crusades, 133) also has 15 April (no footnote, but surely taken from Hiestand). Jonathan Riley-Smith (The Crusades: A History, 2nd ed., 101, and The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 109) goes with "March 1185". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The logical deduction from the title of Vogtherr's paper, and from Hamilton's note as you quote it, is that 15 April has to be discounted and no exact date is currently obtainable. Otherwise Vogtherr would have stated it and Hamilton would have quoted him on it. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. Also, I see that The Peerage webpage cited by this article itself cites "Dynasties of the World: a Chronological and Genealogical Handbook" by John Morby, but does not specifically cite the date of 16 March, and in any case Morby does not give the date, just the year 1185. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm now at the London Library with La Monte and Hamilton at my elbow. La Monte, on page 33, footnotes that sentence, as you say, but the footnote says nothing about the date. The text is firm about the date (as you know), saying "... the unfortunate king 'answered God's summons' on March 16, 1185 ...". The footnote is to Baha-ed-Din, Life of Salah-ed-Din (1898 transl.) p. 112, chapter 35 but it is really about Raymond, not Baldwin.

It's now clear, too, that Hamilton says nothing specific about the date except the passages you have already quoted. It is perhaps significant that on page 210 Hamilton doesn't even refer back to La Monte's firm date, which he had quoted in a footnote on page 198, but that's that.

So I think we should say "in early 1185, at some date before 16 May", citing Hamilton; we could add in a footnote that "16 March" (citing La Monte) is not accepted by recent scholars (citing Setton and Riley-Smith) and that "15 April" (citing Hiestand) has been shown to be unreliable (citing Vogtherr). It would be good to cite Vogtherr further if anyone can get to see it. Andrew Dalby 11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is "important" in the sense that his age at death in the infobox is correct, if the July date is correct for his birth and the early spring date of his death is also correct. 2600:1004:B16D:9933:18DD:12DF:512F:1C68 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Loyalty of Joscelin III

I found a source stating that Joscelin III and Sibylla "garrisoned Jerusalem with loyal troops and barred Raymond from the funeral". Would this be enough to put this as a citation for the one needed concerning Joscelin III's loyalty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobrion1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, the source I had found saying that was definitely not credible, I have now found a different one which I think I shall use. However, I only states that Joscelin was not in line for the throne, which is part of that sentence needing a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobrion1 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Saladin

Santasa99 The reason I made that edit was because Saladin was the sultan of both Egypt and Syria. The way it reads now:

  "Ayyubid ruler of  Egypt, sultan Saladin"

is both redundant and incomplete. I suggest: the Ayyubid sultan Saladin. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making this clear and for choosing this way to communicate it. I am not against your suggestion, the line will retain enough info, and life will continue speeding forward anyway, but I am really unable to see why is redundant and incomplete if includes "ruler of Egypt," - that bit of text was there before my intervention anyway. With it, we get three significant and interesting connections in one small line of text - namely, that person is of this particular dynasty, that he ruled Egypt in that moment of history, and it's Saladin - reader wouldn't have to go and search in his article to see if he was a ruler of something, or if his family was a dynasty or if he was just some fluke of history. Anyway, thanks again and happy holidays.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99 The reason I thought it redundant was the use of "ruler" and "sultan" in the same thought. And, as he was also sultan of Syria (which may be of more interest to the life of Baldwin IV) just referring to Egypt was incomplete. The closest thing I could find that covers both regions is Ayyubid sultan, but that's probably getting too picky. I tend to be sparse in my write-ups, others like to spread the information around like it is now. The subtleties I'm bringing up are definitely lost on most, so the current version is fine with me. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, OK, I understand. You decide how to proceed. As noted before, I am not opposed to your suggestion, and thanks for the explanation.---౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Mask?

O que leprosos usavam no rosto para encobrir as suas feridas, é possível que baldwin tenha usado algo para esconde-las? Abwiwjd82929we (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What language did baldwin speak

Idk 2A0D:6FC7:55E:E225:81CE:2D5F:C6A8:B644 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

He spoke French, and probably learned a little Latin as well. Some crusaders were able to speak Arabic fluently, but apparently none of the kings of Jerusalem did. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Armenian ancestry

In light of the recent edit-warring, I would say it's pretty easily to find discussion of his ancestry in his biography (Hamilton, pg. 57, mentions "Armenian great-grandmothers on both sides of his family"), but I also don't think this is particularly relevant for Baldwin IV. Why mention it here instead of in Amalric's article? Or Sibylla's? It's far more relevant for the articles about previous generations of his family. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

someone tell king peach to stop editing

bro you are yapping quit adding stuff 96.40.37.185 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Lady Karah

deleted a significant portion devoted to discussing a so called "Lady Karah" that I'm nearly certain is a fictional character. The entire section reads like someone's OC and had zero sources. 2601:CA:8280:880:B825:E31E:A729:FFC0 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, it was added by an anonymous user only yesterday. Belbury (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Baldwin IV and Pope Alexander III

Alexander III and other rulers in Europe (at least, Louis VII of France and Henry II of England) thought it was strange that a leper was allowed to be king of Jerusalem and they assumed Baldwin's physical leprosy was an outward sign of a spiritual disease. Perhaps, they believed, not just Baldwin but the entire kingdom of Jerusalem was being punished by God, so they were reluctant to send money or armies or any other kind of help, even when Jerusalem was threatened by Saladin, the sultan of Egypt and Syria.

It was discovered that Baldwin had leprosy when he was still very young, about 10 years old. His father King Amalric died in 1174 when Baldwin was only about 13. Just from his age alone, he needed a regent to rule for him, or a council of advisors to help him. But right away, it was believed that he would never be able to rule on his own, since a person with leprosy would be unfit to be king. As he aged, he sometimes became incapacitated, lost the use of his hands and feet, and his face became disfigured, so he had to leave the governance of the kingdom to his advisors.

Usually when medieval people say “leprosy” we can’t really be sure what they mean; they were thinking of “leprosy” in the Bible (lepra in Latin and Greek, and tzaraat in Hebrew), which could have been leprosy in the modern sense, but also any other unrelated skin disease. They had no idea how leprosy was contracted, but they assumed it was sexually transmitted, or transmitted by any contact at all no matter how brief. Otherwise, theologically it was considered a physical sign of sin or God’s disfavour.

There were a few famous lepers in the Bible, notably the two Lazaruses in the Gospels, who in the Middle Ages they were sort of conflated into one person with leprosy. In the Old Testament there was also a leper named Naaman who was cured by bathing in the Jordan River. Baldwin probably hoped people would see him as a Naaman rather than a Lazarus - when he was older, he even called himself “Naaman” in a letter to Louis VII of France.

Other than hoping for Naaman's miracle, there was no treatment at the time:

“The general approach to the treatment of those with leprosy complex disease in the crusader period was by modification of diet, bathing in hot springs, the use of drugs, bloodletting, avoidance of sexual activity and segregation in leprosaria.” (Mitchell, in Hamilton, pg. 254)

Consequently there was an enormous social stigma against people with obvious signs of leprosy. According to Biblical law, lepers were supposed to be segregated from society, and the same restrictions were repeated in medieval laws. If Baldwin IV had been born in Europe he probably would have been segregated entirely and not allowed to rule.

However, in the crusader world in the Near East, there were probably more lepers than there were back in Europe, so the stigma was not as strong. For example, the crusader military order of the Knights Hospitaller ran hospitals for lepers, and a sub-order, the Order of St. Lazarus, was founded for leprous knights.

Baldwin himself seems to have believed he was being punished, according to his letter to Louis VII around 1178:

"It is not fitting that a hand so weak as mine should hold power when fear of Arab aggression daily presses upon the Holy City and when my sickness increases the enemy’s daring..." (quoted in Hamilton, pg. 140)

Baldwin was at the point of begging the French king to send someone to take over the kingdom and rule for him, since he felt he could no longer govern on his own. But help was hard to get from France or anywhere else back in Europe, since they were suspicious of trying to prop up a leper king. If God afflicted him with leprosy, maybe sending help would make things worse?

In 1181, Pope Alexander III wrote that Baldwin

“…is so severely afflicted by the just judgment of God...that he is scarcely able to bear the continual torments of his body.” (quoted in Hamilton, pg. 164)

Alexander III had also introduced the Biblical restrictions on lepers into the canon law of the church at the Third Lateran Council in 1179. He was clearly not sympathetic to Baldwin.

The kingdom's Muslim neighbours were well aware of Baldwin's leprosy. Ibn al-Athir noted that he was

"king in name with no substance to his position. The conduct of affairs was undertaken by Count Raymond...” (Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, pg. 234)

This was Raymond of Tripoli, who was Baldwin's first regent, before Raynald. In the 1180s, when Baldwin was beginning to be incapacitated by the disease, he was apparently usually hidden from public view. The Andalusian pilgrim Ibn Jubayr passed through the kingdom around 1184 and remarked:

“This pig, the lord of Acre whom they call king, lives secluded and is not seen, for God has afflicted him with leprosy.” (Ibn Jubayr, pg. 344)

Nevertheless Baldwin proved to be quite capable as a king and military commander. He defeated Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard in 1177 (although the army was probably commanded by Baldwin's regent, Reynald of Chatillon). In 1183, when he could no longer walk, he was carried on a litter to break Saladin's siege of the castle of Kerak. Baldwin's arrival with the kingdom's army was enough to force Saladin to withdraw.

He eventually succumbed to his disease in 1185. The kingdom passed at first to his nephew Baldwin V, the son of his sister Sibylla and her first husband. Baldwin V died about a year later, still a very young child. Sibylla then became queen, along with her second husband Guy of Lusignan (who had also been one of Baldwin IV's regents). Guy, Raymond, and Reynald lost the battle of Hattin in 1187, after which Reynald was executed and Guy was taken prisoner. The crusader kingdom was almost entirely destroyed.

Help did come a few years later when the Third Crusade arrived in 1190. But could western Europe have sent help earlier in the 1170s and 1180s when Baldwin asked for it? Maybe, but at the time, they didn't want to be seen helping a king who, according to their understanding of the world, was clearly being punished by God. So it's not that Alexander III had any personal disdain for Baldwin, it's just that had no concept of bacteria and no idea how leprosy spread. The spiritual interpretation of leprosy was the best understanding they had at the time.

Sources:

Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs (Cambridge University Press, 2000), and especially Piers D. Mitchell’s appendix, “An evaluation of the leprosy of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem in the context of the medieval world”. Mitchell’s other works are also very useful:

Piers D. Mitchell, Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Piers D. Mitchell, “The myth of the spread of leprosy with the crusades”, in The Past and Present of Leprosy (Oxford, 2002), pp. 175-81.

Piers D. Mitchell, “Leprosy and the case of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: mycobacterial disease in the crusader states of the 12th and 13th centuries”, in International Journal of Leprosy and Other Mycobacterial Diseases 61 (2) (1993), pp. 283-291.

Susan B. Edgington, "Medicine and surgery in the Livre des Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois de Jérusalem", in Al-Masaq 17 (2005), pp. 87-97.

Malcolm Barber, "The Order of Saint Lazarus and the Crusades", in The Catholic Historical Review 80, no. 3 (1994), pp. 439-456.

Primary sources:

The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period, trans. Donald S. Richards, part 2 (Ashgate, 2007)

The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, trans. Roland Broadhurst (1952)

William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond The Sea, trans. E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey (Columbia University Press, 1943). INNOCENCElll (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is, but this is actually copied from an AskHistorians comment written by...me. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop Yes, that is correct. By the way, how can you contradict yourself in this manner, given that Roman Catholicism and the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, had influence in Jerusalem? The medieval Western family households were all Latin Catholic. Therefore, do not have the audacity to be anachronistic by denying the religion of a Catholic King. The Crusades were Catholic, the Latin Kingdom and Jerusalem were Catholic, and the churches in Jerusalem are Catholic. Thus, we can state beyond any doubt that Baldwin IV was Catholic, just as were Charlemagne, Clovis, Louis IX, and many other Catholic monarchs of the Middle Ages INNOCENCElll (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Middle Ages was established after Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in 1095, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming Jerusalem from Muslim rule. This crusade culminated in 1099 with the capture of Jerusalem and the founding of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The kingdom existed as a Crusader state for nearly two centuries until its fall in 1291, when the Mamluks seized Acre, the last stronghold of the Crusaders in the region. Pope Nicholas IV, who served from 1288 to 1292, was the last pope to hold influence over the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem during its decline.

The Pope's influence in Jerusalem was paramount during the Crusades. The papacy was not only the spiritual leader of Western Christendom but also an influential political force that shaped the destinies of the Crusader states. Popes were integral in calling for crusades, granting indulgences, and providing religious justification for military campaigns. Additionally, the papacy often provided financial and military support to the monarchs of the Latin Kingdom. The Pope's authority was critical in legitimizing the Crusader kings, and the monarchs, in turn, were expected to adhere to the papal directives in both religious and political matters.

According to historian Christopher Tyerman in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, "The papacy was the principal motivator and spiritual authority behind the Crusades, and its role in the Crusader states was fundamental to the kingdom’s establishment and survival." Similarly, Thomas Asbridge in The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land notes that "the papacy wielded immense political power, using its influence to direct and support the Crusades, thus shaping the trajectory of the Crusader states in the Holy Land."

The papacy's involvement was essential to the establishment and eventual downfall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, demonstrating its significant role in medieval geopolitics and the religious motivations that underpinned the Crusader movement.

---

Sources:

Tyerman, Christopher. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land. HarperCollins, 2010. INNOCENCElll (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well as you just said, they were Latin Catholic. No one is disputing that. "Roman" Catholic is something a bit different so we typically don't describe people like that if they lived before the Reformation. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop and what does the reformation have to do with a crusader kingdom of Jerusalem???? To be a Roman Catholic is to be a Latin Catholic, before the Reformation and after it, the church never changed and has always been the same. INNOCENCElll (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop there is no "bit difference" the church is always the same. INNOCENCElll (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Hello!

I've been working on getting this article to GA status for quite a bit of time now, and I think it's nearly ready to be submitted as a nominee for a second time. I'm posting here to see if anybody has feedback for improvements before I nominate the article, or if it should even be nominated at all at this time.

Thank you! Reverosie (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Update on this: Since I used the article's failed GA nomination to help, and ran it over many many times, I think it's time for me to submit it. Reverosie (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)