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"? And rew D alby 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 ... And rew D alby  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). And rew D alby  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. And rew D alby  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. And rew D alby  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
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)
 * 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)

king baldwin iv
a 31.153.109.225 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 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)