Henry II of
England is one of England’s most colorful, fascinating and controversial
kings. He is usually remembered for
forging the Angevin Empire, for his tempestuous relationship with his
strong-willed and powerful queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, for the murder of
Thomas Becket, and – among more serious scholars – for laying the foundations
of English Common Law. But he is not remembered as a crusader. Today Dr. Schrader looks at Henry II's ambivalent relationship with the Crusader States.
Henry II's Effigy on his Tomb at Frontevralt.
Although Henry II took crusader vows, he
never actually went to the Holy Land. Indeed, most historians credit Henry II
with disdaining crusading in preference to building an empire at home.
Certainly, his refusal to accept the keys of the Holy Sepulchre from the
Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1185, reflected a preference for holding on to what
he had over seeking glory and salvation “beyond the sea” in “Outremer.”
Yet a focus
on Henry’s legacy in the West obscures the fact that his ties to the Holy Land
were much closer than is commonly remembered. First of all, his grandfather,
Fulk d’Anjou, had turned over his inheritance to his son Geoffrey in order to
go to the Holy Land and marry the heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem,
Melisende. Geoffrey d’Anjou was thus the half-brother of Kings Baldwin III
(reigned 1143 – 1162) and Amalaric I (1162-1174) of Jerusalem. This made Henry
II first cousin to the ill-fated Baldwin IV of Jerusalem.
The
Arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Baldwin IV
suffered from leprosy and could not sire an heir. As his condition worsened and
the armies of Saladin drew stronger, he looked desperately for a successor
capable of defending his inheritance. He did not see this either in his five
year old nephew, or in the husbands of his sisters. It is before this incipient
succession crisis, with Saladin beating the drums of jihad at his doorstep, that
the mission of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Grand Masters of the Knights
Templar and Knights Hospitaller of 1185 must be seen. Baldwin IV sent these
emissaries to offer the keys to the Holy Sepulchre and the Tower of David first
to Philip II of France and then to Henry II of England. By all accounts, Baldwin’s
real hopes lay with Henry II – a powerful monarch, who had proved his abilities
on the battlefield again and again. The Patriarch’s plea was for Henry II – or
one of his sons – to come to Jerusalem and, implicitly, take the crown itself.
Baldwin IV, many historians believe, wanted Henry II to end the succession
crisis and restore the House of Anjou in the East.
The Tower of David in Jerusalem, Seat of the Kings of Jerusalem
Henry
II, as
I noted above, declined to follow in his grandfather’s footsteps and
surrender
his hereditary lands for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But he was far from
indifferent to the fate of his cousin or the Holy Land. As early as
1172, when Henry II had become reconciled with the Church
for his role in the murder of Thomas Becket, he had taken the cross and
started
accumulating “large sums” of money in Jerusalem. This money, historian
Malcolm
Barber writes in The Crusader States,
(Yale University Press, New Haven, 2012) was “intended for use when he
eventually traveled to the East.” In 1182, Henry II made a will which left an
additional 5,000 marks silver to both the Knights Templar and the Knights
Hospitaller for the defense of the Holy Land, and another 5,000 marks was
bequeathed for the general “defense of the Holy Land.” That is a total of
15,000 marks silver, an enormous sum, which he intended for the defense of the
Holy Land.
Manuscript
Illustration of a 12th Century King
Since he did
not die in 1182, this money never reached the crusader kingdom, but three years
later, although Henry felt he dare not leave his kingdom (at a time
when the French King and his sons were trying to tear it apart), he did agree to a
special tax (often referred to as the “Saladin Tax”) the proceeds of which were
also to go to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Finally, when
the news reached him in 1187 of the fall of Jerusalem and the desperate straits
of the Kingdom, Henry II again took a crusader vow. While many historians (and
even more novelists) disparage this as a ploy, it is just as possible that he
was sincere – so long as those who coveted his kingdom and threatened his
crown, Philip II of France and his son Richard – went on crusade with him! We
will never know how sincere his intentions were because he died before the
Third Crusade got underway.
Meanwhile,
however, his treasure had already played a crucial role in the history of
Jerusalem. There are no figures for just how large King Henry’s treasure was,
but it was undoubtedly more than the 15,000 silver marks mentioned in his will
of 1182 because there had been money deposited prior to this, and the “Saladin
Tax” that came afterwards. Significantly, the money had been entrusted to the
militant orders for safe keeping. This means that the money could be deposited
in London, and paid out in Jerusalem through the networks of the Templars and
Hospitallers. Furthermore, based on the testament of 1182, it would appear that
Henry carefully distributed the funds between the two militant orders, rather
than favoring one over the other. This, unintentionally, resulted in his
treasure having two very different uses.
In 1187, as
Saladin prepared to launch an all-out offensive against the Christian kingdom
of Jerusalem, King Guy had little choice but to call-up a levee en masse to put
the largest force possible in the way of the invaders. Against a force of
45,000 including some 12,000 cavalry, King Guy could muster only about 1,000
knights, 4,000 light horse and some 15,000 infantry. In light of this, the
Grand Master of the Templars, Gerard de Ridefort, handed over King Henry’s
treasure to finance more fighting men. It is unclear from the sources whether
these were mercenaries, light troops, or, as some say, the outfitting of 200
additional knights. In any case, Henry II’s money helped contribute to the army
that marched out to meet Saladin – and was destroyed on the Horns of Hattin on
July 4, 1187.
There are even some historians who postulate that it was because the Templar Grand Master had taken King Henry's money without authorization that made the Master so urge King Guy to advance toward Tiberias rather than wait at the Springs of Sephorie. The reasoning is that if the Frankish army just waited at Sephorie, the Grand Master would find it difficult to justify his illegal misappropriation of funds, but if there was a glorious victory over Saladin, Henry II would either forgive him or not dare to criticize. It this thesis is correct, than it could be said that the theft of King Henry's funds by Gerard de Ridefort led to the disaster at Hattin.
There are even some historians who postulate that it was because the Templar Grand Master had taken King Henry's money without authorization that made the Master so urge King Guy to advance toward Tiberias rather than wait at the Springs of Sephorie. The reasoning is that if the Frankish army just waited at Sephorie, the Grand Master would find it difficult to justify his illegal misappropriation of funds, but if there was a glorious victory over Saladin, Henry II would either forgive him or not dare to criticize. It this thesis is correct, than it could be said that the theft of King Henry's funds by Gerard de Ridefort led to the disaster at Hattin.
Leaving that speculation aside and turning to the second half of Henry's treasure, the Grand
Master of the Hospitallers, however, did not release King Henry’s treasure in
advance of the Battle of Hattin. The money Henry II had deposited with the
Hospitallers for the Holy Land was still in Jerusalem when the city surrendered
to Saladin in October 1187. The terms of the surrender allowed the residents 40
days to raise a ransom of 10 dinars per man, 5 dinars per woman and 2 dinars
per child. Those who failed to pay the ransom, became slaves by right of
conquest at the end of the 40 days.
At the time
these terms were negotiated, the Christian defender of Jerusalem, Balian
d’Ibelin, knew that there were some 40,000 (some sources say 100,000) Latin
Christian refugees in the city. He knew
that many of these were destitute, having lost all they owned to Saladin
already. They were in no position to pay their ransom. Ibelin therefore negotiated the
release of 18,000 poor for a lump sum of 30,000 dinars.
Sources
differ, however, on where this money came from. Some suggest that it
came from King Henry’s treasure, but others suggest the initial sum was paid
from the treasury of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but that it soon became evident
that there were many more poor in the city than Ibelin had estimated
– or had the resources to ransom. (He’d lost all his lands to Saladin already
too.) It was at this juncture, they say, that the Hospitallers handed over King
Henry’s treasure to ransom as many of the poor as they could. In the end, even
King Henry’s treasure was not enough and some 15,000 Christians were sold into
slavery. Nevertheless, King Henry of England played an important role in
ransoming thousands of Christians trapped in Jerusalem, minimizing the number
sold into slavery. His son, of course, played an even greater role in rescuing
the Kingdom from complete obliteration, but that is another story….
Dr Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.
She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.
She is the author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction, including a three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin.
No comments:
Post a Comment