Dr. Schrader continues with her short biography and analysis of Guy de Lusignan with "Usurper and Destroyer of a Kingdom."
 |
| The Hollywood Guy - Also despicable but largely for the wrong reasons |
In
early 1185, King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, the so-called “Leper King” succumbed
to his debilitating illness and died. He was succeed by his nephew, a child of
eight. Raymond de Tripoli was named regent, and the Count of Edessa was made
the boy’s guardian. The fact that Tripoli was made regent — with the
consent of the High Court — and the Count of Edessa, the boy’s great uncle, was
made the boy's guardian are both
indications of the intensity of the animosity and suspicion the bishops and
barons of Jerusalem harbored against Guy de Lusignan by this time. There was,
after all, a precedent for a queen reigning for an under-aged son, Melisende
had reigned in her own right for her son Baldwin III.
At
the death of Baldwin V a little more than a year later, hostility to Guy had
not abated. As was usual following the death of a king, the
High Court was convened to elect the next monarch. Some modern historians have
made much of the fact that Tripoli summoned the High Court to Nablus rather
than convening in Jerusalem itself. This is interpreted as a sign of
disloyalty, but there is nothing inherently disloyal about meeting in another
city of the kingdom. High Courts also met in Acre and Tyre at various
times. Nablus was part of the royal domain, comparatively close to
Jerusalem, and the Templars under their new Master, Gerard de Ridefort (surely
the worst Master the Templars ever had), were said to have taken control of the
gates and streets of Jerusalem. The Templars did not have a seat in the High
Court, but they controlled 300 knights and the decision to hold the High Court
in Nablus can better be explained as the legitimate desire to avoid Templar
pressure than as disloyalty on the part of Tripoli.
In
any case, while the bulk of the High Court was meeting in Nablus, Sibylla
persuaded the Patriarch to crown her queen in the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher. In addition to the Patriarch (allegedly another former lover
of her mother) and the Templars (whose Grand Master had a personal feud with
Tripoli), Sibylla was supported by her uncle Joscelyn Count of Edessa and the
colorful and controversial Reynald de Chatillon, Lord of Oultrejourdan by right
of his wife. We know of no other supporters by name, but we know that
Reynald de Chatillon sought to increase Sibylla’s support by saying she would
be queen in her own right without mentioning Guy. Even Bernard Hamilton,
one of Guy’s modern apologists, admits that: "Benjamin Kedar has rightly
drawn attention to sources independent of the Eracles [e.g. Ernoul] and derived
from informants on the whole favorable to Guy de Lusignan, which relate
that Sibyl's supporters in 1186 required her to divorce Guy before they
would agree to recognize her as queen.” (The Leper King and His Heirs,
Cambridge University Press, 2000 p. 218).
According
to these sources, Sibylla promised to divorce Guy and choose another man for
her husband as her consort. Instead, once she was crowned, she chose Guy as her
consort — and crowned him herself when the Patriarch refused. Once again,
Sibylla had chosen Guy over not only the wishes of her subjects but in
violation of an oath/promise she had made to her supporters (not her enemies,
note, to her supporters).
The Church
of the Holy Sepulcher where Sibylla was Crowned
With
this dual coronation, Sibylla and Guy had usurped the throne of Jerusalem, but
without the Consent of the High Court they were just that — usurpers. The
High Court (or rather those members of it meeting at Nablus) was so outraged that,
despite the acute risk posed by Salah-ad-Din, they considered electing and
crowning Sibylla’s half-sister Isabella. To risk civil war when the country was
effectively surrounded by a powerful and united enemy is almost
incomprehensible — and highlights just how desperate the opposition to Guy de
Lusignan was. In retrospect, it seems like madness that men would even consider
fighting their fellow Christians when the forces of Islam were so powerful,
threatening and well-led.
Then
again, with the benefit of hind-sight, maybe it would have been better to depose of Guy de
Lusignan before he could lead the country to utter ruin at Hattin?
In
the event, Humphrey de Toron, Isabella’s young husband, didn’t have the
backbone to confront Guy de Lusignan. In the dark of night he fled Nablus to go
to Jerusalem in secret and pay homage to Guy. With this act, the High Court
lost their alternative monarch and capitulated — except for Ramla and Tripoli,
the most inveterate opponents of Lusignan. Ramla preferred to quit the
kingdom altogether, turning over his lucrative lordships to his younger brother
and seeking his fortune in Antioch. (He disappears from history and we don’t
know where or when he died.) Tripoli simply refused to recognize Guy as his
king and made a separate peace with Salah-ad-Din — until he was reconciled
after a tragic incident in May 1187.
Two
months later, Guy de Lusignan proved that Ramla, Tripoli and the majority of
the High Court had rightly assessed his character, capabilities and suitability
to rule. Guy led the Christian kingdom to an unnecessary but devastating defeat
which resulted in the loss of the holiest city in Christendom, Jerusalem, and
indeed the entire kingdom save the city of Tyre. Only a new crusade would
restore a fragment of the Kingdom and enable Christendom to hang on to the
coastline for another century.
With
all due respect to revisionism and the legitimate right of historians to question
familiar and popular interpretations of events, it is also wise to remember
that chronicles and other historical documents provide us with an imperfect and
incomplete picture. The actions and judgment of contemporaries, on the
other hand, were based on much more comprehensive knowledge and information than is available to us today. Based on the actions of Guy de Lusignan’s
contemporaries, I believe the Ernoul’s portrayal of Guy de Lusignan is closer
to the mark than the apologist image of modern historians.
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