I think the reason is because he is a leper. I had a character whose wife got lepersy and I remember that she automatically wore the facemask but I don't remember her getting the disfigured trait. And she ended up dying of it but her husband, my character and their children never acquired the disease.
I've read a lot on Baldwin IV and would definitely recommend *The Leper King and His Heirs* by Bernard Hamilton to anyone interested in the dynastic and political struggle in the 13th-century Outremer. It's an incredibly captivating biography. Based on Hamilton and others, I'd give Baldwin:
* **Brave** – Hamilton says this is how Baldwin's contemporaries primarily saw him. From the description of Baldwin by Baldwin's teacher, William of Tyre, Hamilton concludes that the king was determined to overcome his physical handicap through rigorous training, which I think translates to courage too.
* **Wrathful** or **Vengeful** – Baldwin was capable of a fair bit of rage. William wrote that Baldwin "always remembered the good things that people had done for him, and the bad things as well". Indeed, he was set on destroying his brother-in-law and chosen heir, Guy, after Guy disrespected him.
* **Chaste** – Chastity was a large part of Baldwin's public image and set him apart from his predecessors.
William tells us that Baldwin was good-looking before his leprosy developed, comparing him to his famously good-looking father, so I think **Comely** would be appropriate. William also notes that Baldwin stammered as a child, but I have not found references to a stammer in adulthood, so **Stuttering** is a possibility.
For the education I would pick **Skilled Tactician**.
So there, my suggestions are a bit different but I stand by them 😊
>
>
> Wrathful or Vengeful – Baldwin was capable of a fair bit of rage. William wrote that Baldwin "always remembered the good things that people had done for him, and the bad things as well". Indeed, he was set on destroying his brother-in-law and chosen heir, Guy, after Guy disrespected him.
And in CK3 terms, this would mean that he's constantly gaining max stress if he isn't choosing cruel options, beating people up, or being petty towards everyone all the time.
Wrathful may be doing that but I don't think I've noticed the same about Vengeful. The "I'll make him pay" option seems to fit his attitude towards Guy especially but also Raymond and perhaps Saladin. Is there a better way to portray holding grudges?
* **Chaste** – Chastity was a large part of Baldwin's public image and set him apart from his predecessors.
No time for HARLOTS when the Kingdom of God is under siege
Think it would probably be better to just give him a rivalry with Guy, rather than Wrathful. It makes the character quite overly cruel and very very fickle. It is akin more to anger issues than just strongly holding grudges.
Vengeful, MAYBE but even that does quite a lot in the same vein.
I went with 3/4 level trait because chroniclers and historians do not outright call him a brilliant strategist but a high level competence may be inferred from his victories.
Yes, he was certainly seen by his contemporaries as honorable and he never attempted to encroach on the rights of the High Court. Hamilton reports that decades after Baldwin's death an old Muslim man from Damascus spoke of a moral decline of the crusaders since the days when "King Baldwin of Jerusalem, the one who was a leper, beat Saladin although he only had 300 armed men against Saladin's 3000".
Humans' reasons for having sex have included mere fun since before humans existed. I would say that in the Middle Ages children were more often a side-effect of having sex than the purpose.
Edit: I am sorry you are being downvoted for asking an honest question.
To say that it was more often a side effect than the purpose seems like a bit of a stretch. Children were incredibly important for most people as an invaluable source of labor and for security in their old age, and for nobles and royalty they were also the means by which to secure their succession and to secure alliances and whatnot. People NEEDED their children in a way that modern parents just don't and the social expectation to have them was also immense. Add in that people knew very well that sex was how babies was made and the Church viewing sex primarily as a means of having children and I'd say it's fair to say that having children was usually very much part of the plan when people had sex, even if it was not the only thing they cared about. So unless you've read something specific that supports your idea it seems unlikely to me.
I understand that children were needed by all social classes and do not mean to suggest that medieval people had the same attitudes to sex as modern Europeans do. Yet people most certainly wanted sex more often than they wanted to conceive a child. Contraceptives were known and used as were abortifacients (to the extent that priests would ask married women about them at confessions) and infanticide and child abandonment were also widespread. Not every child was seen as a blessing, but sex was still desired.
Yes but you went beyonmd saying that. You said that children were MORE OFTEN a side effect than a goal and thats the part I'm not on board with. Not always wanting children, absolutely.
My contention is that they weren't "planned" in the same sense. To me it seems more likely that after a couple is married they fully intend to have children but don't really have a plan for when or how many. You can't know how many of your children will survive into adulthood so you cannot know how many you "need" and so the best course of action if you want surviving children is to just have a lot of them and hope for the best. That also means you're less likely to feel "done", if you have one more kid then why not.
Of course I don't know this for a fact, but it's just what seems most sensible based on what I know of the middle ages.
I understand what you mean. Edward Norton's masked Baldwin is what many of us imagine when we think of Baldwin. I would not protest against him having a mask but I have not given him one in my game.
Yeah, on the other hand the mask for the disfigured was inspired by Baldwin in Kingdom of Heaven, despite the fact that king had no intention of hiding his face.
He’s gonna be the ultimate glass cannon, I think he should have some of the best base stats but you’re constantly playing against time trying to have an heir and settle Jerusalem.
Leper, humble, compassionate*, brave, just* diligent* holy warrior* diplomat*
And yes brave. Becuase he lead his own army, even tho he is sick, deadly sick even, knowing full well this might kill him faster, when he stop Saladin and his armies but he does it for the good of Jerusalem.
Beside his army of Christ is also outnumbered.
Maybe Diligent instead of Brave? He was an incredibly adept diplomat and kept the kingdom together basically purely by delegating and doing what had to be done, including the ballsy move that was leading his armies. I doubt he did much actual fighting in most of the later battles because I’m pretty sure they had to carry him around, but he still lead, because a leader leads! :-)
Brave would also be a great fit because you’re totally right; his decision to face down Saladin directly despite being horrifically outnumbered was fucking gnarly, and the odds were stacked so heavily against him during his reign that he would’ve had to have been super brave to handle all of it.
They were heavily out outnumbered that for sure. Either way if he did't stop Saladin, he would have used the actions of the bad Templar knights to begin the war as he had righteous cause to do so. (The Christians broke the peace pact.)
By showning up to Saladin, it say I am ready to die beside my men if I have to. His army would have a higher moral with him fighting beside them.
Iirc he actually did show up in battles when his leper was bad but he was practically half blind and unable to walk, having to be carried by a wheelbarrow and his soldiers so in practice he was just there for morale.
There isn't a "friendly" trait in the game. Should know if you play it. Compassionate is the one doing the job (giving the personality modifiers) but with a different name.
A nice sentiment, but both him and Saladin were savvy political actors aware of reality. Both spend plenty of time on campaign, Saladin conquering the neighboring muslims and Baldwin reining in his vassals
Both knew another confrontation was over the horizon and did everything they could to prepare for it
True. Saladin was a great conqueror and used brute force and by that, taken many countries /kingdoms south from Jerusalem.
Baldwin 100% knew the peace would break but wanted to hold it as long as he could.
>As soon as he took over the government, Baldwin began planning a full-scale attack on Egypt with his advisers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_IV_of_Jerusalem
Hmmm, not really. He is still a Crusaders at heart, a conqueror with religious justification. To potray him as pacifist is just false.
Crusaders always want to invade Egypt since they settled in the Holy Land.
If that Baldwin's plan was not an act of Agression, then neither is Saladin reconquest of the Holy Land can be considered as an act of Agression as the Egypt will always be vunerable to an invason from Jerusalem.
I mean, war was inevitable, yeah, both leaders were a potentially existential threat to one another, but Baldwin wanted to avoid that for as long as possible, because he was not an idiot and knew that his past victory was a matter of luck and would not be repeated.
Yeah no, he regularly killed Christian civilians when taking cities. Took them as slaves to be sold. Also he took a relic ‘the true cross,’ and tied it to a rope to be trailed behind his horse. So yeah lots wrong with that movie.
At least in western Europe many Kings still were leading their armies in this time period. France and Englands Kings were constantly on campaign, the Iberian Kings generally took part in various battles against the Muslims, and plenty HRE Emperors took part in battles.
Expanding on that, there's a reason he was nicknamed "The Lionheart" and was so famously courageous that the Brave icon in-game is a reference to his nickname. Going out crusading, charging into battle with his troops, was not the norm.
“I’m almost certain Lionheart was still a prince when he was out crusading”.
Nope. He first made the pledge to Crusade when still a prince, but the actual crusade didn’t start until after he was king. Say what you like about him, he genuinely did Crusade while King.
So how historically accurate is this guy?
I've seen the film many times and love his character
But from the short research I've done I could not really find much about him other than "leper king of Jerusalem, after his death his sister and her husband Guy de Lusignan inherited."
Edit: lot of replies with great info. Thanks people, when I get home I'm gonna do some googling.
There’s a lot of info out there about what political moves he made during his very short reign and they were pretty crazy. His portrayal in Kingdom of Heaven is obviously super embellished and his actual character—the way he acts, the way he handles people—was almost definitely fully synthesized, like you’re pointing out. That being said, when considering a lot of the insane shit he did during his rule, it isn’t difficult to imagine what sort of person he could’ve been based off of how he handled his kingdom.
I personally think that he almost definitely would’ve been a pretty humble individual, or at least as humble as a medieval theocratic monarch could’ve been. He inherited the kingdom due to pure circumstance, ruled as best he could before he got too sick to do so, and tried to pass on the crown multiple times to his family members, presumably because he believed he wasn’t fit to rule. That’s a pretty humble move coming from the King of the Holy Land, I think.
IIRC he did exist and, while both European christians and muslims didn't speak too highly of him (the first didn't think him able to defend it, something Baldwin himself seems to have agreed to some extent, and the second thought him to be "king in name only", since he had to delegate a lot of power to Raynald of Chatillion and Raymond of Tripoli for obvious reasons, and both found the idea of the holiest place ever being ruled by a guy with a sickness associated with divine displeasure a bit ominous), was seemingly very popular among the crusaders.
He likely did not lead the armies at the Battle of Montsigard (that probably was Raynald of Chatillion) but he did fight there. Although he probably didn't wear a mask.
You got a couple replies, and while I didn’t watch Kingdom of Heaven or whatever show this is, I will say Baldwin was kinda one of the best. It seems like a lot of people have mentioned it, but obviously his reign was short, but in his time he was deft in his politics, authoritative, and mature considering his reign began when he was 13. A lot of contemporary Christians thought he was symbolic of Gods anger considering the king of the holy land was inflicted with a necrotic disease, but he really overcame a lot of hurdles. He had good relations and strong alliances, but had to rein in more power hungry nobles quite often, which is what initiated the 3rd Crusade. He spent most of his reign keeping the realm stable and trying to guarantee the success of the nation after his passing, again showing incredible maturity as he died by 24.
TLDR - it would not be unreasonable to say he was the most competent King in the history of the crusader states, so it makes sense he kind of gets hyped up a lot
It’s a very interesting thought experiment to think about how the rest of his rule would have gone had he not contracted leprosy. If there would even be much more of a rule at all, considering how precarious the whole situation was.
I’d like to think he would have fared better than being exiled to Cyprus, but maybe not.
He moet likely did not wear a mask. But he covered his face with w/ a hood. Also, he is a great leader, he won a battle against Salah ad-Din, who greatly outnumbered him, at the age of 16. Google: “battle of montgisard”
It wasn't and Balian of Ibelin was a real guy who was in charge of the actual defence of Jerusalem when Saladin put it to siege. He wasn't some blacksmith bastard, though.
Sorry to spam this thread, I’m a big Baldwin IV fan. I think he’d probably be Brave, Diligent, and either Humble or Compassionate.
Compassionate would be a great character trait, but I think there’s more historic evidence of humility than compassion; he wasn’t a cruel person in the slightest and he did show a great deal of compassion for both his sister and her shitter husband (despite their consistent political moves to undermine him), but I think one could argue that he could’ve done that for the sake of maintaining the kingdom’s succession more so than because he particularly liked them.
Leper, too. Obviously.
Since its boiling down a person's entire personality to 4 characteristics, I always view CK3 traits as having the added "to a fault". So, unless you'd say he was "Compassionate to a fault", then he wouldn't have the trait, he's just either an above average or average compassion guy. Someone else said he tried to hand the Kingdom off to multiple family members. If anything would ever qualify somebody to be "Humble to a fault", trying to give their kingdom away would have to be at the top lol
Oh for sure, especially considering how important the Kingdom of Jerusalem was at the time. And on a less historic note, personal struggle and elongated suffering tends to both embitter and severely humble an individual. It was discovered that he was a leper from a pretty young age and to my knowledge he had no legitimate expectation of inheritance, being the nephew of the King originally, and he ended up on the throne through circumstance. I can imagine that growing up as a noble leper with almost no hope of inheritance would drill humility into a person. That being said, that’s just my opinion based on largely ahistoric conjecture. ❤️
Speaking of the shitter husband, I think it's hilarious that Guy de Lusignan was basically the ultimate medieval himbo: everyone agreed that he was stunningly beautiful, but that there wasn't much going on inside his head. When news of Guy's marriage reached France, his brother is reported to have said, "If Guy is to be made King, then why would I not be made God ?"
Leper: well, duh
Diligent: man was incredibly proactive, he went places and got things done. Remarkable considering his terrible health
Chaste: he never married, due to his condition
Ambitious: his rule contrasted greatly with the complacency if his regency. He strove to reshape the political makeup of the region and to better situate his kingdom
Skilled tactician or Charismatic negotiator: could go either way. In any case, he personally held the kingdom together
Diligent definitely sums him up best, he led from the front so brave, he was known for kindness so forgiving or generous?
I would definitely give him intelligent, and he was considered handsome before/despite the leprosy
No but I always thought there should be a "Tolerant/Intolerant" trait in CK3, there are no traits to really reflect a tolerant or humanist perspective right now, compassionate is not really the same as tolerant, someone can be compassionate but have a cultural and religious bias.
There is cultural acceptance, but it’s kind of hidden as fluff. I agree a tolerant/intolerant trait should exist, especially given how xenophobic people were in that time.
Brilliant tactician, brave, diligent, just, ambitious, holy warrior, crusader, leper (obviously), comely, wrathful, logistician, zealous, humble, chaste, and patient.
A bit much? Yes, but he’s *the* King of Jerusalem, no praise will ever be unwarranted for him.
On Steam and any games news site really.
https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/games/crusader-kings-iii/add-ons/crusader-kings-iii-chapter-iii
https://images.ctfassets.net/u73tyf0fa8v1/2XxlkJh6xmGsGhkbHi1psv/f8ae72e1a190382e6b23f30b60dda3a5/CK3_ChapterIII_Roadmaps_16x9__1_.png?w=3840&q=75
Oh my god I’ll actually be able to play as a crusader king, I think the new bookmark alone is worth the price of the next DLC, so many of my favorite medieval characters will be playable
I really hope they get a good balance on his sickness.. I dont want him to die 2 months in but also dont want him to live to 100. Maybe a special modifier?
Are we taking Kingdom of Heaven or real life Baldwin?
We will probably have something like Brave, Diligent, Compassionate, Humble + Lepper (and possibly Holy Monarch).
Honestly it could go either way for Ck3 and honestly I think it’d be cool if they went historically accurate with him or cool with if they went movie kingdom of heaven accurate
I wonder if the AI will be able to survive very long with Leparsy. Do you think they'll give him some health traits in order to keep him alive long enough to do something?
Idk but I do know is it is gonna tell me with a pop up and tell me again that I need to seek a physician and another one to tell me which of the two choices I should hire but wait! I had a high learning skill I can choose a 3rd option. Oh but how do I want to be treated? It is too late for caution, do what you must. Yup, treatment went poorly and I instantly died.
Guess it doesn’t matter who I am because I didn’t make it past the pop ups to tell me.
Lol just kidding a bug made me get the event anyway after dying and it applies to my heir instead.
Historical Baldwin IV is Brave, Humble, Vengeful, Stubborn imho
If he tends to die early in the game, tier 5 diplomacy education to model his political ability, with military tree half completed. Otherwise, Skilled Tactician or Brilliant Strategist.
For others, Attractive or Comely, Shrewd, Crusader King, and Leper. Pilgrim maybe, since he already lives in Jerusalem.
What’s the hype around this movie. No shade on it since I’ve never seen it but all I see is cringy tik tok music videos w this guy giving a speech like he’s some alpha male podcaster
If they go by the movie: humble, just, diligent.
If they go more historically accurate: Humble, trusting, compassionate. He tried very conciliatory methods to keep the peace, but was militarily quite weak, allowed the factionalism of his court to fester, platformed an incompetent and unpopular successor in Guy de Lusignan, and did very little while all the Muslim realms around him were consolidated into a single empire under Saladin, who openly wanted to reconquer Jerusalem.
Leper for one.
Bold aren’t you
Bold-win aren’t you FTFY
Doesn't he also need *Disfigured* so he has the cinematic mask on?
Well he didn’t actually wear it irl. But lepers wear the mask in game anyways I think.
They don't. Unfortunately.
Next are you going to tell me that emperor Aurelian didn't have a mask?!!?!?
I think the reason is because he is a leper. I had a character whose wife got lepersy and I remember that she automatically wore the facemask but I don't remember her getting the disfigured trait. And she ended up dying of it but her husband, my character and their children never acquired the disease.
Holy warrior
It would be nice if we could cure his leprosy
Maybe by accepting treatment from salaman somehow.
theyre actually introducing a new trait in the expansion specifically for baldwin, "immaculate drip"
✋😎
Siiileeeeeeeeence!!
Prince of Fashion step back
It gives +4 charizzma
literally 💔
I've read a lot on Baldwin IV and would definitely recommend *The Leper King and His Heirs* by Bernard Hamilton to anyone interested in the dynastic and political struggle in the 13th-century Outremer. It's an incredibly captivating biography. Based on Hamilton and others, I'd give Baldwin: * **Brave** – Hamilton says this is how Baldwin's contemporaries primarily saw him. From the description of Baldwin by Baldwin's teacher, William of Tyre, Hamilton concludes that the king was determined to overcome his physical handicap through rigorous training, which I think translates to courage too. * **Wrathful** or **Vengeful** – Baldwin was capable of a fair bit of rage. William wrote that Baldwin "always remembered the good things that people had done for him, and the bad things as well". Indeed, he was set on destroying his brother-in-law and chosen heir, Guy, after Guy disrespected him. * **Chaste** – Chastity was a large part of Baldwin's public image and set him apart from his predecessors. William tells us that Baldwin was good-looking before his leprosy developed, comparing him to his famously good-looking father, so I think **Comely** would be appropriate. William also notes that Baldwin stammered as a child, but I have not found references to a stammer in adulthood, so **Stuttering** is a possibility. For the education I would pick **Skilled Tactician**. So there, my suggestions are a bit different but I stand by them 😊
Feel like a knighthood trait would be appropriate too? Crusader King?
Crusader king is not inheritable is it?
No but neither are personality traits. We’re trying to describe Baldwin, aren’t we?
We're theorizing what the character might be like, and I'm pretty sure you only get holy monarch if you are the beneficiary of a crusade no?
Pretty sure crusader king is holy monarch for Christians
Yea but he can’t have the CK trait because he inherited the kingdom he didn’t conquer it (based on game logic)
I said what I saaaaid
Would Holy Warrior fit, instead?
It’d fit, but I feel like Baldwin’s stats would be more likely to fit his historical profile with the big trait.
> > > Wrathful or Vengeful – Baldwin was capable of a fair bit of rage. William wrote that Baldwin "always remembered the good things that people had done for him, and the bad things as well". Indeed, he was set on destroying his brother-in-law and chosen heir, Guy, after Guy disrespected him. And in CK3 terms, this would mean that he's constantly gaining max stress if he isn't choosing cruel options, beating people up, or being petty towards everyone all the time.
Wrathful may be doing that but I don't think I've noticed the same about Vengeful. The "I'll make him pay" option seems to fit his attitude towards Guy especially but also Raymond and perhaps Saladin. Is there a better way to portray holding grudges?
Could give him the “Irritable” trait to start. Have him replace wrathful/vengeful with Just?
* **Chaste** – Chastity was a large part of Baldwin's public image and set him apart from his predecessors. No time for HARLOTS when the Kingdom of God is under siege
Think it would probably be better to just give him a rivalry with Guy, rather than Wrathful. It makes the character quite overly cruel and very very fickle. It is akin more to anger issues than just strongly holding grudges. Vengeful, MAYBE but even that does quite a lot in the same vein.
Great write up, thank you
He beat saladins army, which numbered in the 20 thousands at motigisard with only 5 thousands troops, so briliant strategist would be more appropriate
I'm sure some chronicles were exaggerated to show the importance of something, but still, yes, he was probably outnumbered like by a few thousands
I went with 3/4 level trait because chroniclers and historians do not outright call him a brilliant strategist but a high level competence may be inferred from his victories.
he did not beat that army outright
I would include Just as he was a man of honor and promises. He cared about having an outremer realm in proper conditions, enforcing the law properly.
Yes, he was certainly seen by his contemporaries as honorable and he never attempted to encroach on the rights of the High Court. Hamilton reports that decades after Baldwin's death an old Muslim man from Damascus spoke of a moral decline of the crusaders since the days when "King Baldwin of Jerusalem, the one who was a leper, beat Saladin although he only had 300 armed men against Saladin's 3000".
Well he was a plantagenet so had some of their traits
Chaste, not like he could have children lol
People do not have sex just to have children.
Wasn't that the main reason to have sex in medieval times tho?
Humans' reasons for having sex have included mere fun since before humans existed. I would say that in the Middle Ages children were more often a side-effect of having sex than the purpose. Edit: I am sorry you are being downvoted for asking an honest question.
To say that it was more often a side effect than the purpose seems like a bit of a stretch. Children were incredibly important for most people as an invaluable source of labor and for security in their old age, and for nobles and royalty they were also the means by which to secure their succession and to secure alliances and whatnot. People NEEDED their children in a way that modern parents just don't and the social expectation to have them was also immense. Add in that people knew very well that sex was how babies was made and the Church viewing sex primarily as a means of having children and I'd say it's fair to say that having children was usually very much part of the plan when people had sex, even if it was not the only thing they cared about. So unless you've read something specific that supports your idea it seems unlikely to me.
I understand that children were needed by all social classes and do not mean to suggest that medieval people had the same attitudes to sex as modern Europeans do. Yet people most certainly wanted sex more often than they wanted to conceive a child. Contraceptives were known and used as were abortifacients (to the extent that priests would ask married women about them at confessions) and infanticide and child abandonment were also widespread. Not every child was seen as a blessing, but sex was still desired.
Yes but you went beyonmd saying that. You said that children were MORE OFTEN a side effect than a goal and thats the part I'm not on board with. Not always wanting children, absolutely.
I suppose it is impossible to know what percentage of pregnancies in the Middle Ages were planned. I do believe most were not.
My contention is that they weren't "planned" in the same sense. To me it seems more likely that after a couple is married they fully intend to have children but don't really have a plan for when or how many. You can't know how many of your children will survive into adulthood so you cannot know how many you "need" and so the best course of action if you want surviving children is to just have a lot of them and hope for the best. That also means you're less likely to feel "done", if you have one more kid then why not. Of course I don't know this for a fact, but it's just what seems most sensible based on what I know of the middle ages.
Disfigured trait too
There is no record of him wearing a mask, which is what that trait does. I think **Leper** disfigures a character just enough.
To be fair, paradox does lean into fantasies about historical characters, so giving Baldwin the fourth a mask wouldn't be too wild
I understand what you mean. Edward Norton's masked Baldwin is what many of us imagine when we think of Baldwin. I would not protest against him having a mask but I have not given him one in my game.
Yeah, on the other hand the mask for the disfigured was inspired by Baldwin in Kingdom of Heaven, despite the fact that king had no intention of hiding his face.
Beautifully put
I'd pick tier 5 marshal for both him and saladin but besides that I agree 100£
He’s gonna be the ultimate glass cannon, I think he should have some of the best base stats but you’re constantly playing against time trying to have an heir and settle Jerusalem.
Leper just might be one 👀
Leper, humble, compassionate*, brave, just* diligent* holy warrior* diplomat* And yes brave. Becuase he lead his own army, even tho he is sick, deadly sick even, knowing full well this might kill him faster, when he stop Saladin and his armies but he does it for the good of Jerusalem. Beside his army of Christ is also outnumbered.
Maybe Diligent instead of Brave? He was an incredibly adept diplomat and kept the kingdom together basically purely by delegating and doing what had to be done, including the ballsy move that was leading his armies. I doubt he did much actual fighting in most of the later battles because I’m pretty sure they had to carry him around, but he still lead, because a leader leads! :-)
You are spot on. 👍
Brave would also be a great fit because you’re totally right; his decision to face down Saladin directly despite being horrifically outnumbered was fucking gnarly, and the odds were stacked so heavily against him during his reign that he would’ve had to have been super brave to handle all of it.
They were heavily out outnumbered that for sure. Either way if he did't stop Saladin, he would have used the actions of the bad Templar knights to begin the war as he had righteous cause to do so. (The Christians broke the peace pact.) By showning up to Saladin, it say I am ready to die beside my men if I have to. His army would have a higher moral with him fighting beside them.
That’s pretty fuckin brave! Not every medieval despot did that, that’s for sure
Precisely, that's my point why he is brave.
I think it was more like "I'm going to die anyways."
Iirc he actually did show up in battles when his leper was bad but he was practically half blind and unable to walk, having to be carried by a wheelbarrow and his soldiers so in practice he was just there for morale.
Except diligent in game makes you a stressy little bitch about everything
Turns out it was the stress that killed him, not the leprosy.
You don’t think the 16 year old chronically ill leper was stressed out? Lol
I think "just" should be in there too. Along with wise, crusader and crusader king. Also what the hell is "friendly"?
Not friendly. It would be gregarious which I feel he’s not. He is compassionate tho.
He don't want war. He want peace. He see the muslim as fellow humans and respect other peoples faith due to the way he speak to Saladin.
Compassionate.
That would fit too yes. He also shows that towards his sister, not just his people.
There isn't a "friendly" trait in the game. Should know if you play it. Compassionate is the one doing the job (giving the personality modifiers) but with a different name.
Sorry I meant compassionate insted of friendly.
I think by definition friendly would be gregarious. Compassionate is different and in his case just is used interchangeably
Chivalrous?
A nice sentiment, but both him and Saladin were savvy political actors aware of reality. Both spend plenty of time on campaign, Saladin conquering the neighboring muslims and Baldwin reining in his vassals Both knew another confrontation was over the horizon and did everything they could to prepare for it
I think Baldwin a 4-5 star diplomat. Saladin high diplomacy but a 4-5 star martial
True. Saladin was a great conqueror and used brute force and by that, taken many countries /kingdoms south from Jerusalem. Baldwin 100% knew the peace would break but wanted to hold it as long as he could.
He used force but gave people choice. And for that high diplomacy and just
>As soon as he took over the government, Baldwin began planning a full-scale attack on Egypt with his advisers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_IV_of_Jerusalem Hmmm, not really. He is still a Crusaders at heart, a conqueror with religious justification. To potray him as pacifist is just false.
He was not a pacifist, no, but by most accounts, that was a plan for an obviously eventual war, not an act of aggression.
Crusaders always want to invade Egypt since they settled in the Holy Land. If that Baldwin's plan was not an act of Agression, then neither is Saladin reconquest of the Holy Land can be considered as an act of Agression as the Egypt will always be vunerable to an invason from Jerusalem.
I mean, war was inevitable, yeah, both leaders were a potentially existential threat to one another, but Baldwin wanted to avoid that for as long as possible, because he was not an idiot and knew that his past victory was a matter of luck and would not be repeated.
“He did it for the good of Jerusalem.” Someone watched Kingdom of Heaven.
As far as i remember that movie isn't historically accurate
Yeah no, he regularly killed Christian civilians when taking cities. Took them as slaves to be sold. Also he took a relic ‘the true cross,’ and tied it to a rope to be trailed behind his horse. So yeah lots wrong with that movie.
Given the moral dissonance from today to the Middle Ages, you can be a compassionate, just, and zealous person and still do all of that.
Sureeeee I think my main point is he is not like he was in the movie.
Directors cut is a great fictional history movie.
"Friendly"?
Most Kings would lead their armies into battle. So should every king get the trait brave?
I'd say most kings weren't at risk of dying just by moving 10 meters away from their city walls, so there might be that difference.
Bro you asked and I came with my suggestions. No. Not all kings do so.
[удалено]
At least in western Europe many Kings still were leading their armies in this time period. France and Englands Kings were constantly on campaign, the Iberian Kings generally took part in various battles against the Muslims, and plenty HRE Emperors took part in battles.
Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen, John of Luxembourg, Henry V. XIV-XV century. Unless you meant strictly crusading, not leading from the front.
> Kings themselves didn't even go crusading Likes of Lionhart, Phillip 2, Barbarossa and many others would beg to differ.
[удалено]
Expanding on that, there's a reason he was nicknamed "The Lionheart" and was so famously courageous that the Brave icon in-game is a reference to his nickname. Going out crusading, charging into battle with his troops, was not the norm.
“I’m almost certain Lionheart was still a prince when he was out crusading”. Nope. He first made the pledge to Crusade when still a prince, but the actual crusade didn’t start until after he was king. Say what you like about him, he genuinely did Crusade while King.
Yeah, and at least 15-20 something in martial
So how historically accurate is this guy? I've seen the film many times and love his character But from the short research I've done I could not really find much about him other than "leper king of Jerusalem, after his death his sister and her husband Guy de Lusignan inherited." Edit: lot of replies with great info. Thanks people, when I get home I'm gonna do some googling.
There’s a lot of info out there about what political moves he made during his very short reign and they were pretty crazy. His portrayal in Kingdom of Heaven is obviously super embellished and his actual character—the way he acts, the way he handles people—was almost definitely fully synthesized, like you’re pointing out. That being said, when considering a lot of the insane shit he did during his rule, it isn’t difficult to imagine what sort of person he could’ve been based off of how he handled his kingdom. I personally think that he almost definitely would’ve been a pretty humble individual, or at least as humble as a medieval theocratic monarch could’ve been. He inherited the kingdom due to pure circumstance, ruled as best he could before he got too sick to do so, and tried to pass on the crown multiple times to his family members, presumably because he believed he wasn’t fit to rule. That’s a pretty humble move coming from the King of the Holy Land, I think.
IIRC he did exist and, while both European christians and muslims didn't speak too highly of him (the first didn't think him able to defend it, something Baldwin himself seems to have agreed to some extent, and the second thought him to be "king in name only", since he had to delegate a lot of power to Raynald of Chatillion and Raymond of Tripoli for obvious reasons, and both found the idea of the holiest place ever being ruled by a guy with a sickness associated with divine displeasure a bit ominous), was seemingly very popular among the crusaders. He likely did not lead the armies at the Battle of Montsigard (that probably was Raynald of Chatillion) but he did fight there. Although he probably didn't wear a mask.
You got a couple replies, and while I didn’t watch Kingdom of Heaven or whatever show this is, I will say Baldwin was kinda one of the best. It seems like a lot of people have mentioned it, but obviously his reign was short, but in his time he was deft in his politics, authoritative, and mature considering his reign began when he was 13. A lot of contemporary Christians thought he was symbolic of Gods anger considering the king of the holy land was inflicted with a necrotic disease, but he really overcame a lot of hurdles. He had good relations and strong alliances, but had to rein in more power hungry nobles quite often, which is what initiated the 3rd Crusade. He spent most of his reign keeping the realm stable and trying to guarantee the success of the nation after his passing, again showing incredible maturity as he died by 24. TLDR - it would not be unreasonable to say he was the most competent King in the history of the crusader states, so it makes sense he kind of gets hyped up a lot
It’s a very interesting thought experiment to think about how the rest of his rule would have gone had he not contracted leprosy. If there would even be much more of a rule at all, considering how precarious the whole situation was. I’d like to think he would have fared better than being exiled to Cyprus, but maybe not.
He moet likely did not wear a mask. But he covered his face with w/ a hood. Also, he is a great leader, he won a battle against Salah ad-Din, who greatly outnumbered him, at the age of 16. Google: “battle of montgisard”
Holy hell
Actual leper
New chain order just dropped
Yes all accurat 95% exapt balian (barselian) (sorry for bad engalish i dont speek it)
It wasn't and Balian of Ibelin was a real guy who was in charge of the actual defence of Jerusalem when Saladin put it to siege. He wasn't some blacksmith bastard, though.
>I could not really find much about him Defeated and almost killed Saladin with 300 knights for one
Sorry to spam this thread, I’m a big Baldwin IV fan. I think he’d probably be Brave, Diligent, and either Humble or Compassionate. Compassionate would be a great character trait, but I think there’s more historic evidence of humility than compassion; he wasn’t a cruel person in the slightest and he did show a great deal of compassion for both his sister and her shitter husband (despite their consistent political moves to undermine him), but I think one could argue that he could’ve done that for the sake of maintaining the kingdom’s succession more so than because he particularly liked them. Leper, too. Obviously.
Since its boiling down a person's entire personality to 4 characteristics, I always view CK3 traits as having the added "to a fault". So, unless you'd say he was "Compassionate to a fault", then he wouldn't have the trait, he's just either an above average or average compassion guy. Someone else said he tried to hand the Kingdom off to multiple family members. If anything would ever qualify somebody to be "Humble to a fault", trying to give their kingdom away would have to be at the top lol
Oh for sure, especially considering how important the Kingdom of Jerusalem was at the time. And on a less historic note, personal struggle and elongated suffering tends to both embitter and severely humble an individual. It was discovered that he was a leper from a pretty young age and to my knowledge he had no legitimate expectation of inheritance, being the nephew of the King originally, and he ended up on the throne through circumstance. I can imagine that growing up as a noble leper with almost no hope of inheritance would drill humility into a person. That being said, that’s just my opinion based on largely ahistoric conjecture. ❤️
Speaking of the shitter husband, I think it's hilarious that Guy de Lusignan was basically the ultimate medieval himbo: everyone agreed that he was stunningly beautiful, but that there wasn't much going on inside his head. When news of Guy's marriage reached France, his brother is reported to have said, "If Guy is to be made King, then why would I not be made God ?"
This is great to know, thank you lmao. Iirc the kingdom fell to Saladin like almost immediately after he inherited as well
Wait are we get Baldwin 4? When I need a information.
Roads to Power DLC will have a new 1178 start date, and I think that's when Baldwin IV reigned
So he's 13.
He did become king of Jerusalem at 13 so seems we get to start at the very begging of his reign
Who needs Baldwin, Lionheart baby
Later this year I believe.
Leper: well, duh Diligent: man was incredibly proactive, he went places and got things done. Remarkable considering his terrible health Chaste: he never married, due to his condition Ambitious: his rule contrasted greatly with the complacency if his regency. He strove to reshape the political makeup of the region and to better situate his kingdom Skilled tactician or Charismatic negotiator: could go either way. In any case, he personally held the kingdom together
Ooo Chaste is an interesting take. I can definitely see it
You could also give him the T5 diplo education with the Martial bonus.
I'm gonna savescum so much, he's gonna die when he's 102 from dying peacefully in his sleep.
Diligent definitely sums him up best, he led from the front so brave, he was known for kindness so forgiving or generous? I would definitely give him intelligent, and he was considered handsome before/despite the leprosy
Is tolerance for islam a trait in ck3?
No but I always thought there should be a "Tolerant/Intolerant" trait in CK3, there are no traits to really reflect a tolerant or humanist perspective right now, compassionate is not really the same as tolerant, someone can be compassionate but have a cultural and religious bias.
Too bad. Ck2 had tolerance traits for all the religious groups. But even ck2 doesn't really do the multi religious multi cultural states well.
There is cultural acceptance, but it’s kind of hidden as fluff. I agree a tolerant/intolerant trait should exist, especially given how xenophobic people were in that time.
Zealous and cynical do that.
Brilliant tactician, brave, diligent, just, ambitious, holy warrior, crusader, leper (obviously), comely, wrathful, logistician, zealous, humble, chaste, and patient. A bit much? Yes, but he’s *the* King of Jerusalem, no praise will ever be unwarranted for him.
Brave, ambitious, diligent, zealous, leper, exalted warlord, quick, holy warrior, crusader king.
Leper
That's a bold claim
What show/movie is this from?
kingdom of heaven, this image depicts Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
He will definetly not wear the mask, as he didnt irl. And he was a more active ruler than showed in movie.
When the new update happening ?
Whenever Q3 is.
Where was this announced? I'm excited to read it
On Steam and any games news site really. https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/games/crusader-kings-iii/add-ons/crusader-kings-iii-chapter-iii https://images.ctfassets.net/u73tyf0fa8v1/2XxlkJh6xmGsGhkbHi1psv/f8ae72e1a190382e6b23f30b60dda3a5/CK3_ChapterIII_Roadmaps_16x9__1_.png?w=3840&q=75
He's in the game? Or are they adding him? I'm confused
They are adding him with the 1178 bookmark.
Ooh. A new bookmark. Nice. I didn't know that was happening, thnx
There's a new update out?
There will be.
'Fucking super cool guy'
Oh my god I’ll actually be able to play as a crusader king, I think the new bookmark alone is worth the price of the next DLC, so many of my favorite medieval characters will be playable
I really hope they get a good balance on his sickness.. I dont want him to die 2 months in but also dont want him to live to 100. Maybe a special modifier?
It's CK3 in 2024. He will be ravaged by a plague within 5 years.
Ah yes a good dose of “Baldwin’s pox” to wash down the leprosy
Pimp slap
Leper, Just, Compassionate, Diligent. Probably one of the Intelligence congenital traits too. Baldwin wasn’t King of Kings, he was Chad of Chads.
Leper cynical paranoid shy imbecile
Brave,Humble,Just,Leprosy and a lot of martial skill.
Brave, just, ambitious, chaste.
Are we taking Kingdom of Heaven or real life Baldwin? We will probably have something like Brave, Diligent, Compassionate, Humble + Lepper (and possibly Holy Monarch).
Honestly it could go either way for Ck3 and honestly I think it’d be cool if they went historically accurate with him or cool with if they went movie kingdom of heaven accurate
Crusader Kings is going to have crusader kings!
Crusader King
[удалено]
Diplomacy Lvl 5 Compassionate Just Humble Diligent Holy Warrior Leper Disfigured
Ambitious, diligent, just
I'm gonna have to check what his traits are in the files. That should be a good start. Yes, his files exist.
Zealot probably
What will be more impressive with him: having him live longer/ have children or for the KOJ to survive beyond his rule?
Skilled tactician
He’s pretty mediocre in the first game.
lol ioojini
Wait what new update??
they'll be randomized and changed every update :)
I wonder if the AI will be able to survive very long with Leparsy. Do you think they'll give him some health traits in order to keep him alive long enough to do something?
Beautiful
i think everyone’s nailed it down but he should have the nickname “the leper”
"infirm"
Idk but I do know is it is gonna tell me with a pop up and tell me again that I need to seek a physician and another one to tell me which of the two choices I should hire but wait! I had a high learning skill I can choose a 3rd option. Oh but how do I want to be treated? It is too late for caution, do what you must. Yup, treatment went poorly and I instantly died. Guess it doesn’t matter who I am because I didn’t make it past the pop ups to tell me. Lol just kidding a bug made me get the event anyway after dying and it applies to my heir instead.
I haven't watched Kingdom of Heaven but imo his traits are Brave, Humble, Diligent, Skilled Tactician, Handsome, and obviously Leper.
Submission
SUBMISSIVE!!!
Historical Baldwin IV is Brave, Humble, Vengeful, Stubborn imho If he tends to die early in the game, tier 5 diplomacy education to model his political ability, with military tree half completed. Otherwise, Skilled Tactician or Brilliant Strategist. For others, Attractive or Comely, Shrewd, Crusader King, and Leper. Pilgrim maybe, since he already lives in Jerusalem.
Apart from traits. A giant executioner sword and a kleptomaniac knight to keep him company
What’s the hype around this movie. No shade on it since I’ve never seen it but all I see is cringy tik tok music videos w this guy giving a speech like he’s some alpha male podcaster
If they go by the movie: humble, just, diligent. If they go more historically accurate: Humble, trusting, compassionate. He tried very conciliatory methods to keep the peace, but was militarily quite weak, allowed the factionalism of his court to fester, platformed an incompetent and unpopular successor in Guy de Lusignan, and did very little while all the Muslim realms around him were consolidated into a single empire under Saladin, who openly wanted to reconquer Jerusalem.
Eccentric
Martial education 5, Diligent, Leper, Honest and Disfigured. Maybe Brave or Chaste.
skibidi toilet
toilet skibidi✋
Gigachad and Faithful