Talk:Balian of Ibelin

Real Balian v. Film Balian

Quite interesting how the 2005 Motion Picture "Kingdom of Heaven," screen writer, William Monahan II, twisted the actual historical facts to suit his dramatic requirements. Perhaps we can get some of his comments here.

He had to for plot reasons, but also to make the story as different from Ronald Welch's book, as possible. If you know how a plot for a book/film/drama starts off with a few broad brush strokes, you will see that the broad brush-strokes are pure Ronald Welch. And I can tell you why I am sure of this. You see, I had met Ridley Scott one night at Peppino's Restaurant when he was in Malta for Gladiator. He was having a few glasses of wine with a friend of mine, a real estate agent who was handling the film crew accommodation: Not sure of the exact time frame as I was too busy with Malta Rugby admin at the time what with joining the International Rugby Board and all that. I did not know about Gladiator at the time but the friend had introduced me as a history buff who liked Roman history (I rebuffed that I was no historian though, and not just Roman history). Mr. Scott suggested I'd like his next film (Gladiator). I did stress that fact or stories based on historical background are so much more interesting than fiction such as Alien and whatever. Talked briefly about Colleen McCollough's massive Masters of Rome series. Then, how, as a kid, I used to love historical novels, written by the likes of Henry Treece, Geoffrey Trease, Rosemary Sutcliffe and Ronald Welch - All available then at the Children's Public Library in Belt-is-Sebh, way back in the 80s, and the imagery of the cavalry charge as viewed through the main character's helmet eye slits in Welch's book immediately came vividly back to mind. I described this book about a 12th C. Christian Kingdom of Outremer in Jerusalem to Mr. Scott - even the bit about the charge, about land grabbing barons and noble-minded people trying to fight intolerance and balance the needs of the different faiths in the land. I mentioned Saladin's proper name pronunciation Saleh al(d)-Din, and the famous Kerak (or Krak De Chevalier) - names that one might expect in a Sci-Fi movie such as Dune, but are pure fact. He must have been quite engrossed because I remember him steepling his fingers together, varnished fingernail art and all, and seemed to be taking it all in. All these elements are elements in Welch's book. Including a link with Europe in the form of an heir returning to his dad in Jerusalem or going back to soft Europe after the Crusades (Welch's book was part of an English, not French, family saga stretching over 100s of years, Wilbur Smith style). Not many people know anything about Outremer, though the movie would have at least kindled some interest - surely not Ridley Scott at the time. His only previous work which involved history was a remake. This idea came to him as I described, whilst on the Med. island of Malta (of Hospitallier Knights, Great Siege vs Ottoman Turks 1565 fame), sitting at a wine bar and restaurant, a number of years after Rabin was assasinated with the Palestinian insurgency in full force and the winds of war in the Middle East about to start brewing once again. The story must have struck a chord and was filed away in his brain to re-emerge later in this movie. You can imagine how gob-smacked I was to read the movie review a number of years later. What I am truly impressed with is his memory (or secret note-taking) :-) For the record, I'm Maltese, so you know where to find me. Chris A. Martin 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Welch - yes. I have a copy. (The Kerak of the film is not Kerak of the Knights, however: different castle.) Monahan is also a long-term enthusiast of the period. It's just a pity they didn't look at more recent historiography, though: their interpretation of why people went East, & c., has been overtaken by the last 30-40 years' scholarship. They completely ignored the biography of Baldwin IV that came out in 2000. Silverwhistle 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, the broad story line must be totally based on the 1954 book and Monahan must have been constrained to follow the plot described, and that might have included leaving out the 30-40 years of scholarship. It was meant to be entertainment. It must have been Kerak (Moab/Wolf) in the book too else the timing would be wrong... I'm not too sure about that. It is over 20 years since I read the Welch book, and memory plays tricks on you after all that time and all those books. Whoever has a copy, so, feel free to check me out on this.--Chris A. Martin 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot does not follow the novel closely. Welch is more sympathetic to Guy de Lusignan. I think it may be part of the 'background reading', but from what Scott and Monahan have said, the film was a result of Monahan's interest in Baldwin IV from his own boyhood reading (Runciman and Payne, at a guess) being united with Scott's idea for a generic story about a peasant boy becoming a knight. (Welch's hero is aristocratic throughout.) I get the impression Monahan hasn't read any of the more recent historiography and was winging it on memory and outdated textbooks. What was disturbing was that in some of the commentaries/supporting material, they were taking the line, "Well, no-one knows anything about the real Balian before the siege of Jerusalem..." - which is patent nonsense. Silverwhistle 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted that the Welch book plot is different in its specific detail, though in the movie, Balian would ne'er have had a chance if it was not for his parentage, anyhow. But what you are missing is that I told Scott about Outremer and Welch around 2000... The fact that he met up with Monahan to come up with a plot would have been after a spate of reading inspired by a direct result of our chance meeting in Malta. I'd never spoken to him before nor ever will. Nonetheless, I agree with your comment "no-one knows anything about the real Balian before the siege of Jerusalem..." It is not everyday knowledge, but historical research unearthes new stuff every day. This is the great problem with historical novels and film. They tend to smudge borders 'tween fact and fiction, even mixing characters from different time periods... But that's another story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris A. Martin (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

do we know if the quote used for the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" - 'what man is a man who does not make the world better.'has any connection at all to Balian of Ibelin, and if not, where this quote may have come from??

Well Balian certainly never said that. Sounds like something Hollywood would say, though :) Adam Bishop 01:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

How can you be certain that Balian did not say that (perhaps in Latin or French)?

Well I suppose it's possible, since I don't know everything the guy ever said. But about 99% of the rest of the movie has no connection to the real Balian, so why would this be any different? Adam Bishop 20:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The DVD subtitles say that that quote was cooked up by the scriptwriter. -- Arwel (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is too bad that the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" is almost all fictional. I enjoyed the film and the dialogue. Was any of the wise advice given to Balian from his father and the leper king ever said? Also, did the king have leprosy? I suppose there was no adultery commited by Balian and the princess Sybila?

Sally from Alaska

Yup, King Baldwin IV was a leper. Balian was much older than Sibylla, and was actually married to her step-mother in real life, although Balian's elder brother (also named Baldwin) may have tried to offer himself as a possible husband for Sibylla. Adam Bishop 06:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

My impression was that the film character of Balian, maybe quite intentionally, combined features of Balian's and Baldwin's real biographies. That's a normal thing for film versions to do, I suppose. The odder point, to me, was that Balian figured as a newcomer from France, Guy as a member of the Jerusalem establishment, which seems to be the exact opposite of the truth! Andrew Dalby http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/ 09:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Even there, in fusing Balian with his older brother, they've gone for the Old French Continuation version, of which scholars are now rightly sceptical. Baldwin of Ibelin (who was considerably older than Sibylla) seems to have been put forward as a prospective husband by Raymond of Tripoli and Bohemond of Antioch to advance their political grouping; the story about him and Sibylla exchanging love-letters, and her dropping him when he was taken prisoner looks to be part of the 13C romance aspect of the OFC. As to Guy, perhaps they'd glued him to his older brother Amaury in the same way?

I did think the film was a botched opportunity: the real story is so much more interesting. The scriptwriter doesn't seem to have read anything published in the last 25 years... Silverwhistle 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the line about the "amicable exchange" between him and Richard is missing the larger point that the conversation takes place in France and Balian is again a blacksmith at this point in the film...so the fact that he and Richard speak "amicably" (which they don't, really) is pretty darn minor. Gonna fix that soon if nobody objects...(Lordjim13 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Right, did it. Watching the film's ending again (last night), it is slightly ambiguous about the future of Balian and Sibylla. Of course, the whole time he has wanted her "not to be a queen" and he seems to go back to his old life, but he cold actually be the Lord of the castle (which was his ageing uncle's, after all). Anyway, we see them riding away from the crossroads in the last shot. So, either they are just out for a ride, or they are off start a new life somewhere else, or they are going back to the Holy Land to rejoin their historical selves. Of course, that's not the story the director and scriptwriter would favour.Lordjim13 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

dowry

It is very unfortunate that someone who is certainly ignorant of medieval law and customs renamed Morgengab as dowry in the article. As Maria Komnena's Byzantine family was in no position to provide the territory of Nablus (in Palestine) as any sort of dowry to any of Maria's husbands, the person should have understood his mistake already on the spot. It is of course clear that Nablus was given by its former owner, a Palestinian. I.e, Amalric I. And because it went eventually to the rule of Maria's second husband, one could have thought of the inconsistency of the first husband giving DOWRY to the second husband. Thus, the person should have understood on the spot that the recipient was Maria herself, and not directly any of her husbands. And, after all these conclusions that require more cleverness than present in some, the person should have understood that it does not fit into the established definition of dowry, which is "from bride's family to the bridegroom".62.78.105.225 14:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, I should have used "morgengab", a word which I had never seen before and doesn't seem to exist in English...Adam Bishop 16:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The English word (or rather phrase) is "morning gift," which in principle was a gift given to the wife the morning after marriage as compensation for the loss of her virginity (from whence, supposedly, the term "morganatic", a morganatic wife being compensated solely by the morning gift). And 62.78.*, please be civil to Adam, who has contributed a great number of useful articles and cleaned up a number of your edits. Choess 18:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a single English word, and I suspect it may simply have been confused with "dowry", as it's "dower" - a gift from a husband to a wife which she is to retain in the event of her widowhood. A "dower house", for example, is a house on an estate for the proprietor's widow after her children inherit. Silverwhistle 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I learn something every day around here. Choess 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Further improvement

I had a couple of thoughts about improving this some more - first, should there be a picture? Since I can't find any suitable image, I thought maybe one of Orlando Bloom in character would do. But that's probably not a good idea. Second, should I include some quotes from Ernoul's chronicle? He gives Balian some good stuff to say when speaking to Guy and Saladin. Since it's in Old French, I'm not sure if translating it would count as "original research", even if it would be good practise for me! Any other suggestions would help too. I don't think this could get up to Featured Article level, there's probably not enough to say, but I'd like to have as complete an article as possible. Adam Bishop 03:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, there's a "critical translation" by Margaret Ruth Morgan of Ernoul's Chronicle, pub. 1973, ISBN 0198218516, which might help you dodge the issue. (IMO, what you suggest shouldn't be considered "original research", but that's just me.) Choess 04:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird, apparently it's in the library but I completely missed it. I've been doing all this work for nothing :) Thanks! Adam Bishop 05:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er...wait, I do have that. I should have looked at the pile on my floor before looking it up! Anyway, that's not a translation, that's just Morgan's thesis about the various manuscripts. Pretty useful, but not a translation unfortunately. Adam Bishop 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh man, I found a translation of it, it's in Peter Edbury's "The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation". I should have looked there before... Adam Bishop 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Hattin

In some accounts, at Hattin, Raymond of Tripoli led a breakthrough attempt that failed when Saladin's army simply opened up and let him through. This group was then outnumbered and forced to retreat. Was this the case, or did Raymond simply flee the battle in the manner that the article suggests? Being no expert, I leave it to others to edit (or not, as the case may be) the article, showing Raymond and Balian of Ibelin in a more favourable light.

No one is really sure what happened there. The only Christian eyewitness source is Ernoul, who was in the rear with Balian. I don't recall what the Arabic sources say...probably what happened is closer to what you mentioned, Raymond tried to break though, but then when they let him pass he didn't stick around to get slaughtered. Does that count as fleeing the battle? But there is also the story of some of Raymond's knights defecting to Saladin, and Raymond's previous alliance with Saladin, so maybe there is more to it. Adam Bishop 03:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ernoul's MS doesn't exist in its original form, but in fragments embedded in the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, all copies of which are from well into 13C, and we can't be sure who wrote which bits originally; so I would be wary of claiming 'him' as an "eyewitness". The reference to him, Raymond and Reynaud of Sidon and "ceteri Pullani" riding over the Christians (and Turks and the Cross) is from the anonymous De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, which, as Edbury points out, is anti-Polein. And there's the problem of the anti-Polein bias of all the Angevin sources (the Itinerarium, Roger of Howden, Ambroise, & c.) Raymond gets accused of all sorts: no wonder he was utterly broken and died shortly after... Silverwhistle 07:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC), updated Silverwhistle 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Seal

Does that seal say "Ibelirni"? Is that a copying error? Adam Bishop 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen a photo of the original of this one. Not sure if it's a copying error, but one does sometimes find odd spellings on seals, and Middle-Eastern placenames did often get mangled as they tried to turn them into declinable Latin! Silverwhistle 18:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is actually said on the seal anyway. Can anyone maybe translate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.117.234 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing exciting, just "Seal of Balian, lord of Ibelin." Adam Bishop (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible inconsstency?

The article says that "In 1179, Baldwin was captured by Saladin after the Battle of Jacob's Ford" but the article on Battle of Jacob's Ford says that "they were too late to save the 700 knights, architects, and construction workers who were killed and the other 800 who were taken captive. Baldwin and his reinforcements turned back towards Tiberias". It seems that one of the articles is wrong, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mablanco (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It just needs clarification - Baldwin of Ibelin was captured, King Baldwin IV came with reinforcements. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign my previous message. Adam, I've read again the concerning paragraph under the light you've thrown and it's now as clear as water. The paragraph starts talking about both brothers, so maybe there's no need for a clarification. My confusion came from the coincidence of reading both articles one after the other. --Mablanco (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Koh balian.jpg

The image Image:Koh balian.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST initial assessment

Good level of detail and range of sources but total lack of inline citation prevents an assessment above start class. If this were tackled, there is a good chance of B or higher. B class checklist inserted. Monstrelet (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)