#but i could rant about my boy raymond for two hours without running out of steam

[incorrect-koh-posts]

My favourite medievalist professor told me that KoH "has Orlando Bloom!"... who cares about Legolas when Jeremy bloody Irons and Alexander fucking Siddig are in one movie!?!?!?!

Also, why is it not made clear who they actually are?? I have read about Raymond, and I have also read Isfahani's works, and I had to learn both facts through Ao3.

Why are you like this, Mr. Scott.

A medievalist watching KoH for Orlando Bloom?? Owww. My heart. That would make me lose faith in humanity, too. 😂 Though, to be fair, my thesis supervisor (I'm writing about medieval literature, bc duh) recently told me that she liked Clive Owen in that abominable King Arthur movie, so ... I feel you 😂

As for Raymond and Imad: Well, obviously I wholeheartedly agree with you 😁 They're my faves in KoH (which means you will be subjected to a longer rant now, haha), I like the actors a lot, and while both historical figures were a bit shady in some ways, I find them absolutely fascinating. It is a fucking shame they didn't really get to shine in the movie.

The Imad-Rant

I think with Imad, it is quite clear why Scott chose to present a heavily fictionalised version of the character. Kingdom of Heaven was made in the aftermath of 9/11, after all, and the influences of that zeitgeist are written all over the film: how all organised religion is presented as fanaticism, how all crusaders who actually believe in the cause are shown to be uncivilised bigots, how Scott takes special care to show the Muslim characters as honourable, wise, and cultured - much more so than the 'bad guys' from the Christian side - to avoid tapping into the then-prevalent, 9/11-fueled racist stereotypes of Muslims being seen as backward religious fanatics with a penchant for violence.

It is this general cultural climate, I suppose, that affected the character of Imad - because Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, also called al-Kātib ("the scribe"), didn't quite fit the role of 'good, wise Muslim' in his historical form. For that, I'm afraid, he comes across as a bit too enthusiastic when writing about thousands of Christian women being "deflowered", "stripped of their modesty", "tamed", "dishonoured", "forced to yield themselves" etc. at Salah ad-Din's re-taking of Jerusalem. You get the gist. (And don't get me wrong: the crusaders did all of those things too, and probably with just as much glee.)

But such a depiction of a Muslim character would have been deadly in the early 2000s - and still would be nowadays, tbh. So the writers likely stripped the historical figure of all its potentially questionable attributes to make it more digestible to a mass audience. Why they didn't make Imad a completely fictional character instead we'll never know - my guess would be they didn't want to lose their ... um, arguable claim to 'historical accuracy'. Whatever that's supposed to be.

I'd say, therefore, that I'm not too bothered with what Scott and his team did to Imad - at least in terms of entertainment value. The historical Imad ad-Din would probably not have made for a very sympathetic movie character. Sure, it would have made things more nuanced and interesting on the Saracen side, but overall, I don't think that would have done anyone a favour at the time of the film's release. So I try to be happy with what we have, which is, admittedly, a bit difficult because the script does the character so dirty. Alexander Siddig's performance was fabulous and definitely deserves more love; sometimes I cannot help but wonder what we could have had if KoH had focused a bit more on the Muslim characters and explored their motivations and backstories instead of Balian's. I think - if handled competently - that would have been nothing short of awesome.

So yeah, thank God for Ao3 and FFnet. 😉

The Raymond-Rant

As for why Scott made all those changes to Raymond III of Tripoli though, I have no idea. I'd speculate that he probably tried to simplify the whole thing a bit, since it would've taken an awful lot of screentime to accurately explain Raymond's role in the kingdom: e.g. that Tripoli was its own sovereign state, but that Raymond was nonetheless subject to the Kingdom of Jerusalem through his marriage to the Countess of Tiberias, yadda, yadda. So I think it was easier, in the end, to make him Lord Marshal and advisor to the king and be done with it. I must say I'm not too salty about the name change (though what idiot would confuse 'Raymond' and 'Reynald'??) because it at least hints at the fact that he was Count of Tiberias. What makes me far angrier is that they left out his wife, who would actually have been vital to make the whole Hattin episode make sense and would've given it some emotional heft. Ridley, my dude, I hate to break it to you - but women existed in that era, too.

Anyway. I know some people probably question my sanity on a regular basis whenever I start making heart eyes at Tiberias. Which, I admit, does happen a fair amount, lol. I partly blame my age-inappropriate yet persistent crush on Jeremy Irons for that. The man tends to be like catnip to me, even when he isn't battle-scarred, world-weary, and wearing chainmail. But I digress.

Because the point is: Even though they changed so much, his performance still fits so well with Raymond's actual backstory. From the way Irons plays it, you'd believe that this no-nonsense lord spent ten years in captivity in Aleppo and that - instead of turning angry and bitter at his captors like Reynald of Châtillon - he used the time to learn Arabic and acquaint himself with the ways of his Muslim neighbours. You'd believe that he was regent for both Baldwin IV and Baldwin V, and that he has four stepsons at home that he likes to shepherd around a bit but is actually very fond of. But you also wouldn't think it impossible that he'd make a private truce with Salah ad-Din to protect his own people and lands, even if that agreement was effectively treason to the crown, leading to the absolute carnage at the Springs of Cresson and doing great damage to both the kingdom and Raymond's own reputation.

He wasn't some coward who hauled his scrawny ass to Cyprus (that was Guy, btw, in 1190 or so) when he didn't like the vibe in Jerusalem anymore and left his friend to pick up the pieces. He had his reasons; and saintly bloody Balian actually fled the Battle of Hattin with him. Together, they went to Tyre to wait whether some help for the kingdom would arrive. (It did, eventually, in the form of Conrad of Montferrat.) However, at that point, Raymond had already lost all hope and returned to Tripoli to die of pleurisy, guilt, and - as some chroniclers wrote - "a broken heart". Yes. I'll never forgive Scott for depriving me of all that drama. *shakes fist*

Just look how sad the poor boy is. 😥

I mean, if anybody could pull off dying in such a painful and tragic manner, thinking it was all his fault that the kingdom was lost, it would be this beautiful man. Because no other actor dies on-screen with quite the same intensely wistful, guilt-ridden, and tortured energy as Jeremy Irons, and you can pry that opinion from my cold dead hands. He was perfect for Raymond of Tripoli. I just wish Scott had given him more to do.

Cyprus, my ass. 🙄