Talk:Raynald of Chatillon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	Middle Ages Portal Raynald of Chatillon is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	Crusades task force
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents 1 Conversion? 2 Pronunciation 3 Kingdom of Heaven 4 Saladin and water story 5 Imad 6 Modern parallels 7 Needs updating 8 From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 20

[edit] Conversion?

I am unable to find any convincing documentation that Saladin offered to spare Renauld's life in exchange for a conversion to Islam... Can anyone point me in the right direction?

I'll wait a few days, then I'm going to change it up based on the account given in Karen Armstrong's "Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today's World" (Anchor Books, 1988).

That part seems to have come from the 1911 Britannica article...Saladin offered to spare the lives of the Templars and Hospitallers he captures, if they converted (and some of them did), but he planned to execute Raynald all along. (This is according to al-Safadi's biographical dictionary, the al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, the relevant excerpt of which is in The Age of the Crusades by P.M. Holt.) Adam Bishop 19:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that squares with my understanding of the event. According to Maalouf's "The Crusade Though Arab Eyes", Saladin actually went out of his way to not offer Raynald anything that could qualify him for clemancy (inc. pointing out that *he* hadn't offered Raynald food or drink when Guy passed him some water).

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone tell me what is the correct pronunciation of Raynald of Chatillon's name, preferably in both English and French (which I assume was his native language, although this may not mean much)? -- Itai 01:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In English, as Raynald or Reynald, I would pronounce it basically the way it looks, rey-nahld, with the stress on the second syllable (and a long "a"). Let me see if I can transcribe it in SAMPA - reI.nAld I think. In French, I'm not exactly sure how to describe the sounds, but, in SAMPA: RE.nAld (with the stress again on the second syllable), or alternately in modern French without the L, RE.no or maybe RE.nod. Of course, in Latin, it's "Reginald", but I would prounounce in a horrible horrible English way, rather than in a Latin way :) I hope that helps! Adam Bishop 21:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! It sure does. Could you, by the way, also transcribe the correct pronunciation of Chatillon? (I'm assuming that "ch" is pronounced "sh", but I'm not sure.) Also - and I promise this is my last question - I suppose in French, the man's name is Raynald d'Chattilon. Is this correct? (This is mostly out of idle curiosity. I suppose the language Raynald spoke was very different from modern French, and am mainly concerned with pronouncing his name right in modern English – it does one little good to mention historical figures if nobody else understands what one means - the meaning of 1, as it were.) -- Itai 02:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the Ch in Chatillon is pronounced "sh", and the L's are silent, so it's something like "shat-ee-on". Actually the n is silent too, and the o is nasalized; Sat.i.O~ is my best guess in SAMPA (since it is a place in France with no real English significance, we pronounce it the French way). I think in French his name would be "Renaud de Chatillon." There was some discussion (on user talk pages, not on this talk page) months ago, about what form of his name to use - Reginald, Reynald, and Raynald are used in English sources, and Renaud is also used in French. I'm not sure how exactly he would have pronounced his own name in 12th century French, but there is only one noteworthy Reginald/Raynald/Reynald of Chatillon, so I think people will understand who you mean :) Adam Bishop 06:02, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Far too many silent letters, in my humble opinion, but I suppose little can be done about that now. Anyway, I am much obliged. Let us hope another Raynald of Chatillon doesn't turn up, which would make everybody's life a lot more complicated. -- Itai 09:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Arabs called him 'Brins Arnat', Prince Reynald. They also knew King Amaury I of Jerusalem as 'Morri', King Baldwin I as 'Bardawil', Tancred as 'Tankri', and Count Henry II of Champagne as 'al-kond Herri'.Missi 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Heaven

Why did the creators of the new movie Kingdom of Heaven feel compelled to associate Raynald and Guy de Lusignan with the Knights Templar? There is no evidence of such a connection, and through this association, the movie protrays the Templar Order as a bunch of power-mad lunatics.

The Templars and Hospitallers pretty much hated each other and often took sides with one or the other faction, sometimes only because the other order had taken a particular side. I guess they were trying to show that, with Guy and Raynald + Templars and Raymond and Balian + Hospitallers, which was probably the case sometimes. But I don't know...why did they also make Raynald literally crazy? (Like when he was dancing around his jail cell.) Adam Bishop 06:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of the movie is that religious dogmatism gets in the way of a truly harmonious "Kingdom Of Heaven," and the legends surrounding the Knights Templar have become more ingrained in the popular imagination in the last couple of years (I blame the Da Vinci Code for this). What better way to accentuate the disparity between word and deed by associating inveterate killers and opportunists with the most sanctimonious of all medieval holy orders? Apparently this makes for a better story.

Actually, most members of Hospitallers and Templars were eager to battle (and often newcomers in Levant), and perhaps equally in favor of Guy's and Reynald's party. Therefore I doubt that a relevant demarcation should be drawn re: guy+reynald being in same side as templars, balian+tiberias in same side as hospitallers. Please show me further evidence of incidents where Hospitallers were particularly attached with baronial party's interests. 62.78.126.61 18:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood, guys. It's just Hollywood. They know what they're doing. Augustulus 01:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

show me evidence of a baronial and i'll show you a link ;) there are far greater simplifications and misconceptions in that movie than for us to worry about 'they got the templars on the wrong side'. it's interesting that the question is why did the movie make the templars look power mad not why did the movie make guy and reynald look power mad. Veridis 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin and water story

It was interesting to read in Ernoul that Saladin didn't object to Raynald drinking the water, but Raynald refused, and then Saladin killed him anyway, unlike the story in the Muslim sources. I suppose the Muslim sources are more reliable, since whoever the original author was, he was probably there, while Ernoul (or whoever the author was) must have heard about that third- or fourth-hand (presumably from Guy through Balian). Should this be mentioned too? Adam Bishop 20:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imad

Mississippienne, where did you get that translation of Imad? So far I haven't been able to find one.

Sort of as a side comment, it's interesting that Imad says Raynald needed an interpreter. I always wondered about that, did he speak Arabic or not, after being in captivity for 17 years? I suppose he's the sort of person who would have stubbornly refused to learn a new language. Adam Bishop 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind...it's from Amin Maalouf's book, right? Why do I never look in the most obvious place :) Adam Bishop 03:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maalouf uses as his source for Imad the book Conquete de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin (Paris, 1972). As for the language, I wonder myself. Imad does say Reynald answered through an interpreter; perhaps he had an imperfect knowledge of Arabic, was able to understand but not speak fluently. Imad doesn't mention Guy needing a translator, he may have had a better grasp of Arabic than Reynald. Missi

[edit] Modern parallels

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive a newbie. Is there an appropriate place here (or related sites) for discussion of parallels between Raynald of Chatillon and various neo-cons (Richard Perle, for example), in terms of inciting a war against Islamic forces? Just curious. I know that opinions and POV are not allowed here. Are historical comparisons? This is a sincere question, again thank you for your tolerance of someone who is just learning the ropes here.

You could discuss that here on the talk page, if you think it would be useful to draw such a comparison...it definitely wouldn't fit in the article though. Adam Bishop 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these sort of comparisons and discussions are remotely helpful. Mediæval characters and their world-view can't be transplanted and shoe-horned into 21C narratives. It's a tendency that worries me, whoever's doing it. Silverwhistle 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to prove Raynald of Chatillon did incite war before making any parralells. Raynald was not part of the treaty with Saladin so couldn't break it and there's evidence that Raynalds raid on Mecca/Medina served a useful purpose in keeping Saladin from consolidating in northern Syria at a time when the crusader states were weak. But yes medieval world =/= 21st cent so comparisons are a bit misleading. Veridis 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, at least, the raid might have been intended to achieve that. In fact Saladin did consolidate soon afterwards. Andrew Dalby 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok. There is evidence that Raynalds raid on Mecca/Medina served a useful purpose in delaying Saladin's consolidation of northern Syria at a time when the crusader states were weak. I think given the forces Saladin had to mobilise in the peninsula it would be agreed that this did slow his progress in the north. But still the main point i was getting at is that this article(and many on wiki) takes the William of Tyre approach(probably the KoH approach now since the movie exaggerates even more), ie blame it all on Guy and Reynald. Veridis 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, we were getting off the main point. I agree with you completely that William of Tyre must not be treated as if he were objective. He was very close to the events, which is handy, but he was an interested party and he had scores to settle ... which, posthumously, he has very effectively done. Andrew Dalby 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I doubt this: "Raynald was not part of the treaty with Saladin so couldn't break it". I would have said he was a vassal, and therefore obliged to respect a treaty that his overlord had signed, until ordered to break it. But perhaps he was ordered or encouraged to break it, for the exact strategic reason that you have stated. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs updating

This article needs some major updating, using Hamilton... Again, my hair curls even more than normal when I see Maalouf and Reston cited in sources. I've dismantled the old chestnut about Saladin's sister, anyway - which is not attested by Arabic sources. Also, see Hamilton, p. 226, n. 65. Silverwhistle 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs weren't the only historians, you know. And I think you should lay off of all the historians you seem to hate so much. What have they ever done to you? -Augustulus

[edit] From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 20

The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis. Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement. If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual. His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom, that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.

It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms. In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all. He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus. To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch. According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeraed with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!

In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity. Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind. Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiresss of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak. It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.

By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles. But Raynald upset this delicate political balance. He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem. It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak. Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a cravan. Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom. In this Raynald had encompased his own death and the fall of Jerusalem. Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)