Frederick II spent little more than a month on Cyprus, but his short stop triggered a chain of events that ended with the Holy Roman Emperor losing this rich and valuable kingdom forever. While this was the result of the Emperor's disastrous policies, he also showed poor judgement in his choice of deputies or “baillies," who aggravated the situation and brought rebellion to a head.
The
fundamental mistake that Frederick II made with respect to Cyprus was
his refusal to recognize it as an independent and unique kingdom, rather
than simply “part of the Empire.” He took no account of the fact that
it had its own history and laws, and conveniently overlooked the fact
that his ancestors had had no role in the conquest or establishment of
the kingdom. Instead, as David Abulafia points out, he “insisted that,
as overlord of the king of Cyprus, he had full powers of intervention in
the island’s affairs.”[i]
Prof.
Peter Edbury suggests that, based on his actions, Frederick’s principle
interest in Cyprus was “getting his hands on the profits from the
regency for the previous decade.”[ii] Certainly,
when he sailed away never to return again in May 1229, his arrangements
for the regency of the kingdom were marked by greed; rather than
appointing a man (or men) of particular trustworthiness or ability, he
sold the regency for 10,000 marks. Indeed, one suspects — although we
have no proof of this — that the only reason he chose to appoint five equally
powerful baillies (a curious and inherently weak arrangement) was
because he could find no one man willing to meet his excessive demands
for cash.
Nevertheless,
having found five men willing to pay for the privilege of ruling,
Frederick appears to have expected no further problems in milking the
rich Cypriot cow. Because
the king was only 12 years old and it would be three years before he
reached the age of majority, Frederick assumed he could be ignored. As
for the king’s former regent, the troublesome and principled Lord of
Beirut, the Emperor believed he had been check-mated by being lured out
of Cyprus to take part in the Emperor’s “crusade.”
This is important. Based on the historical record it is clear that Frederick never intended to fight for
Jerusalem. We know now that he was negotiating for the peaceful return
of Jerusalem with al-Kamil before he ever set out on his non-crusade. In
light of this, it is equally clear that he did not need Beirut’s
knights and men to purse his objectives in Syria. We can conclude that
the only reason he wanted to ensure they accompanied him on his
“crusade” was to make sure they left Cyprus. Thus, when Frederick sailed away he left behind an island denuded of all of Beirut’s sons, kinsmen, vassals and fighting-men.
With
Ibelin out of the way, Frederick turned over control of Cyprus to the
five men willing to pay his price and do his bidding. He gave them
orders not to allow the Lord of Beirut or any of his partisans to return
to the island. The fact that he gave no legal justification for
dispossessing another king's vassals is another example of his
autocratic behavior, and completely in character with the rest of his
actions in the Holy Land.
So who were the five men Frederick II put in joint control of Cyprus?
The
names are given as: Sir Amaury Barlais, Sir Amaury of Bethsan, Sir Hugh
of Gibelet (also sometimes transcribed as Jubail), Sir William of
Rivet, and Sir Gauvain of Cheneché. All were the sons of men who had
been active on Cyprus since the establishment of the Lusignan dynasty on
the island. Barlais particularly was closely associated with the
Lusignans, which may explain why he emerged as the leader or most
forceful member of the Emperor’s “quintet.”
Curiously
yet significantly, however, the name Barlais is always listed without
the preface “of” or “de,” suggesting the family was not of noble
extraction. His
father, Renaud Barlais, is known to have come from Poitou to Outremer
in the train of one of the three Lusignan brothers (Guy, Aimery or
Geoffrey) sometime in the late 12th century. Renaud married
the heiress to two fiefs in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. However, it is
doubtful that either of these fiefs were still in possession of the lady
at the time of the marriage. In light of the fact that Barlais’ field
of action was exclusively Cyprus and he does not appear to have been
part of the High Court of Jerusalem, I’m inclined to believe his wife’s
lands had been lost in 1187 and her titles were nominal.
Amaury de Bethsan came of more exalted heritage, and his father was the uncle of Barlais’ mother, making them cousins. Bethsan was chamberlain of Cyprus 1218-1220. John La Monte describes the Bethsans as a noble house with an honorable reputation.[iii] Which nevertheless tells us nothing about Sir Amaury himself.
Gibelet was an even more important family in Outremer. Gibelet
was a major fief of the Count of Tripoli, indeed the fief closest to
the border with the Kingdom of Jerusalem and contiguous with the
Lordship of Beirut. It had a port and a major castle. Although it fell
to Saladin in 1187, it was back in Christian hands by the end of the 12th century. The
Lord of Gibelet at the time of the Sixth Crusade was Guy, who was not a
close relative of the Sir Hugh appointed Baillie of Cyprus. The latter
came from a cadet branch of the family, albeit not an insignificant
branch as his mother has been identified as a sister of King Leo of
Armenia. Perhaps the most curious fact about the Gibelet family,
however, is that it had a long tradition of good ties with the Ibelins.
Indeed, there is good reason to suspect that the author of the
pro-Ibelin Chronicle of Ernoul was a Gibelet. Hugh de Gibelet can be
said, therefore, to have come from one of the most powerful and
respected noble families of Outremer, although he himself may have been a
younger son of a cadet branch anxious to improve his personal standing.
The
Rivets and Chenechés were also established families in Outremer and Sir
Gauvain and Sir William were related to one another as Rivet’s brother
was married to the sister of Cheneché’s wife.
As
for the men themselves, we know virtually nothing about Sirs William de
Rivet, Hugh de Gibelet and Amaury de Bethsan. A hint of their looks or
character may be found in Philip de Novare’s satirical fable Le Roman de Renard, which
depicted the opponents of the Ibelins as respectively a fox (Barlais), a
badger (Bethsan), and a monkey (Gibelet). Unfortunately, I could not
find Novare’s characterization of Cheneché or Rivet.
We
do know, however, that Cheneché was accused of attacking a certain
knight, Sir William de la Tour (who latter served as an ambassador to
the court of the Emperor), treacherously at night. Sir William brought
charges against Cheneché before the High Court of Cyprus, then presided
over by the baillie Philip d’Ibelin. Cheneché demanded and received the
right to defend himself against his accuser in judicial combat. However,
Cheneché was bested in the ensuing joust, and had to accept terms which
he deemed humiliating. He therefore left Outremer and made his way to
the Kingdom of Sicily. According to Novare: “…he knew much concerning
birds and so was much honored in [the Emperor’s] court.”[iv] This
tidbit is interesting as Frederick II is known to have had a passion
for falconry, wrote an entire book about birds, and is often depicted
with birds of prey.
Aimery Barlais, as described in Seeds of Civil War,
was also involved in judicial combat that went poorly for him, however,
his grievances against the Ibelins were considerably more substantial.
He received the mandate to rule Cyprus from the Queen Mother and
recognized regent Alice of Champagne sometime between 1224 and 1227 but
was denied the right to exercise office by the High Court of Cyprus. Since the Ibelins were the beneficiaries, he blamed them.
Nevertheless,
regardless of their noble backgrounds and legitimate grievances, the
recorded actions of the five baillies do not redound to their credit. First,
they happily set about seizing the property of the Ibelins and their
supporters without due process. While this was perhaps understandable
given their grievances, it was not wise government. The
problem is that subjects tend to get nervous about breaches in the rule
of law. No matter what anyone thought of the Ibelins, they recognized
that without due process the next victim of unjustified executive action
might be anyone — including themselves. Second, the baillies needed to
find the money they had promised the Emperor, so they raised everyone’s
taxes. Few things are more guaranteed to provoke unpopularity and unrest
that levying new taxes. Third, they threatened violence to the women
and children of the Ibelins and their supporters. Indeed, they so
thoroughly intimidated and frightened them that hundreds of them took
refuge in the armed commanderies of the militant orders, particularly
the Hospital.
We
can also learn something about their character from an incident that
Novare describes. Obviously, his account is biased, but it unlikely to
have been completely fabricated. Novare claims when he was reluctant to
take an oath to the baillies, they ordered his immediate arrest. Fearing
for his life, Novare tells us, he appealed to the young king, but the
boy king was “much afraid” and did not intervene.[v] Next
Novare offered to face any of the baillies in judicial combat, but they
refused. He was arrested and placed in a pillory, then released for the
night and told to return the next day to face trial. Novare went
instead to the commandery of the Knights Hospitaller, where many Ibelin
women were already seeking sanctuary. That same night, men broke into
his lodgings, killed one of his servants and stabbed his bed many times. Novare
claims to have been warned of this intended murder “by one who cared
not whom it might displease” — apparently the young king himself, who
had overheard talk of the planned murder.
It
was from the Hospitaller commandery that Novare then penned a lengthy
appeal for help — in verse. The long poem is reproduced in full in his
memoirs, and is amusing, although it certainly loses much in
translation. His appeal appears to have been the final straw inducing
the Lord of Beirut to take action in defense of his house and those
loyal to it. Within just weeks of Novare’s bungled murder, the Ibelins
landed on Cyprus with an army prepared to challenge the Emperor’s men.
[i] Abulafia, David. Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor. Oxford University Press, 1988, p.232.
[ii] Edbury, Peter. John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Boydell Press, 1997, 40.
[iii] La Monte, John. The Wars of Frederick II against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus. Columbia University Press, 1936, p. 19.
[iv] Novare, Philip. The Wars of Frederick II against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus. Columbia University Press, 1936, p. 70.
[v] Novare, p. 94.
The five baillies appointed by Frederick II play an important role in:
Buy Now!
No comments:
Post a Comment