Envoy of Jerusalem

by Helena P. Schrader

  Margaret, Balian’s younger daughter, married first Hugh of Tiberius, and later Walter of Caesarea.

  The Ibelin family was considered “semi-royal” for the next three hundred years, and Ibelins intermarried into the royal houses of Cyprus and Armenia.

  For those of you interested in following Balian, Maria Comnena, and their children in the decades following the Third Crusade, I plan two additional novels. The next, The Last Crusader Kingdom, will describe the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Cyprus. A second novel, Barons against the Emperor, will describe his son John’s struggle to defend the constitutional rights of the High Court against the despotic ambitions of Emperor Friedrich II.

  Historical Note

  BALIAN D’IBELIN WAS AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL figure whose name and deeds are depicted in the contemporary chronicles of both Christians and Muslims. Yet while his contributions to the politics of his age are part of the historical record, many of the facts about his personal life went unrecorded. We do not know the dates of either his birth or his death, and sources (or contemporary interpretations of contradictory medieval copies of lost sources) differ on other important facts.

  Given these gaps and contradictions, this novel has opted for a lucid story line that is not inconsistent with known facts and in no way violates the historical record, but condenses or alters the exact timing of some events to make the story more coherent and dramatically effective. Below is a summary of the historical facts that form the basis of this novel, noting any deviations made in the novel.

  • While it is recorded that Salah ad-Din sent an escort of fifty Mamlukes to accompany Maria Comnena from Jerusalem to safety in Christian territory, it is not recorded where she went. Some sources claim she went to Tripoli or even Antioch, but there is no compelling reason for her to go to either place. She is unlikely to have gone to Constantinople, as her own family had largely been exterminated by the Emperor Andronicus when he seized power, and the new Emperor Isaac II Angelus would have been unlikely to welcome a more prominent member of the imperial family. I have chosen to locate her in Tyre, as this is a convenient device to show what was happening in this city at a critical time in history and is not impossible. She was certainly recorded as present in Tyre a couple of years later.

  • Imam Ghazali was a Muslim theologian, jurist and philosopher, and author of The Revivifaction of Religious Sciences (Ihya’ Ulum al-Din or Ihya’u Ulumiddin). He lived from 1050 to 1111. The theses on women presented by Imad ad-Din and attributed to Ghazali were derived from the above work by Aisha Mernissi in her excellent analysis of sexual relations in Islam Beyond the Veil.

  • Imad ad-Din’s description of the fate of Christian women after the fall of Jerusalem, described in Chapter 2, is a direct quote from Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani’s account of the conquest of Jerusalem and the aftermath.

  • At the surrender of Jerusalem, the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre (aka the Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre) claims Ibelin offered to stand surety for all the Christians who could not pay their ransom and that he was turned down by the Sultan. Some sources report that Salah ad-Din’s brother, al-Adil, asked for a thousand slaves as a gift and was given them, followed by Ibelin, who asked for five hundred. According to these sources, the Patriarch was also present and also asked for five hundred slaves, but Imad ad-Din claims the Patriarch left the city with wagons laden full of treasure worth two hundred thousand dinars—in short, enough to pay for twenty thousand men, or much more than was needed to pay for the fifteen thousand mostly women and children going into slavery. I find it incredible that the Patriarch would have had the effrontery to ask Salah ad-Din to “give” him five hundred slaves when he could have purchased the freedom of all. I have therefore left the Patriarch out of this scene altogether.

  • The Christians were given forty days to raise their ransoms, which from October 2 would have been November 10. The Christian refugees would have needed ten to twelve days to cover the hundred miles from Jerusalem to Tyre, so Balian would have arrived in Tyre on or about November 20 or 21. However, the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre claims that Salah ad-Din’s siege of Tyre started on October 31. Ibn al-Athir, on the other hand, stressed that Salah ad-Din spent time in Jerusalem after taking control (i.e. after the Christians had evacuated), setting up madrassas and the like. Furthermore, Salah ad-Din spent time in Acre on his way from Jerusalem to Tyre. In consequence, Ibn al-Athir dates Salah ad-Din’s resumption of the siege of Tyre at November 26, which I find more probable.

  • Salah ad-Din sent for William Marquis de Montferrat and offered to release him in exchange for the surrender of Tyre. Not only did his son Conrad refuse, but the Arab chronicles claim that he fired a crossbow at his father to underline his point.

  • According to the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, Salah ad-Din sent Guy de Lusignan to Nablus after the Frankish surrender of Ascalon (September 1187), and Queen Sibylla was allowed to join him there because Salah ad-Din “did not want her in Jerusalem once he was besieging it.” The same chronicle reports, however, that in 1188, Sibylla is in Tripoli, admonishing Salah ad-Din to keep his word to release her husband. German sources report Sibylla trying to “flee from Tyre” by ship and being prevented from leaving by Conrad de Montferrat. It is difficult to reconcile these different accounts, so I have developed a plausible, but not recorded, sequence of events that incorporates all three reports. Sibylla’s pregnancy and miscarriage are pure fabrication.

  • Reginald de Sidon was given a safe-conduct by Salah ad-Din that was broken when he tried to leave the Sultan’s camp and return to his castle of Belfort (sometimes written as Beaufort). He was then tortured within sight of the men holding the castle until he ordered them to surrender. This behavior on Salah ad-Din’s part will surely come as a shock to those who hold fast to the romantic view of Salah ad-Din as a “chivalrous” Saracen who was consistently generous and gentle to his enemies—but it is, unfortunately, incontestable historical fact.

  • Allegedly “out of remorse,” Salah ad-Din gave Sidon back half his lordship as a iqta, but within a year, a Frankish force that tried to regain control of Sidon was repulsed. In the early thirteenth century, however, Salah ad-Din’s successor al-Adil allegedly granted the remaining half of the lordship to Reginald de Sidon’s son, Balian, and it was said that Sidon was the only lordship held from both the Sultan of Damascus and the King of Jerusalem.

  • Sometime after Hattin, Reginald de Sidon married Helvis d’Ibelin, Balian’s eldest daughter. The couple eventually had several children together, including a son, Balian, who was his father’s oldest surviving son and so his heir. Helvis could not have been born before 1178 and was not yet ten at Hattin, while Reginald de Sidon had previously been married to Agnes de Courtenay (as her third husband), so he was probably older than her father. The marriage must be seen as a political alliance between the only barons (besides Tripoli) to escape Hattin, both of whom undoubtedly felt vulnerable in the post-Hattin environment.

  • Gerard de Ridefort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was released from captivity in exchange for the surrender of Gaza, although this was explicitly against the Templar Rule.

  • The story of two Christian slaves falling into each other’s arms when one of their masters visited the other is recorded in Arab chronicles as proof of how many Christian slaves were taken. According to these accounts they were sisters who had not seen one another since the fall of Jerusalem.

  • The date of Guy de Lusignan’s release from Saracen captivity is variously given as May 10 or July, and he is said to have been reunited with Sibylla in either Tortosa or Tripoli on July 4. The former was in the County of Tripoli, so the term “Tripoli” may still relate to Tortosa. To reconcile the accounts, I have opted for a May release date but a long journey, putting him in Tripoli in early July, and a reunion with Sibylla in the city of Tripoli, in order to have them present during the dramatic arrival of the Sicilian fleet that ended Salah ad-Din�
�s siege of Tripoli. There is a moving account in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (Itinerarium) describing the citizens lining the wall and anxiously trying to determine whether the fleet was friendly or hostile. It describes how they cheered on recognizing “Christian symbols,” and the answering cheers of the sailors.

  • Geoffrey de Lusignan arrived in the Holy Land a year later, but I felt it was useful to introduce him sooner. He is said to have been the major impetus behind Guy’s leaving Antioch and setting up the siege of Acre. Showing him convincing Guy to break his oath is consistent with his later role as the most aggressive of the Lusignan brothers.

  • Kerak was surrendered in November 1188 and Montreal in May 1189; the date of Humphrey de Toron’s release is recorded as May 1189. For literary cohesion, I chose to treat the surrender of both castles and Humphrey’s release in a single episode.

  • The attempt by Frankish forces from Tyre to retake Sidon is historical fact. Although the names of the Frankish leaders are not recorded, Sidon himself had the most reason to want his lordship back and would have had the greatest local knowledge of the territory, making him the most logical choice for commander. Ibelin, on the other hand, was either already his father-in-law or soon to be so. He therefore likewise had an interest in securing control of Sidon for his daughter. The participation of Toron and Aimery de Lusignan was literary license.

  • The siege camp at Acre experienced extreme shortages in the winter of 1190-1191, for which the sources hostile to Montferrat melodramatically blame him. These sources are so biased, however, that I felt it made more sense to consider another possibility—namely, the simple fact that sailing south could be very difficult, especially in winter. An attempt to relieve Tyre from Tripoli, for example, ended in failure because of contrary winds, and Richard the Lionheart almost didn’t make it to Jaffa in time for the same reason.

  • Conrad de Montferrat was stabbed to death in April 1192 by two assassins. The most likely version of the murder is that Conrad had offended the leader of the Assassins, the “Old Man of the Mountain,” by seizing a ship belonging to the sect, murdering the crew, and refusing to pay compensation to the “Old Man.” This is why I inserted the incident with the ship into the narrative—to make the later assassination comprehensible.

  • Isabella was taken forcibly from Humphrey de Toron’s tent at the siege camp of Acre and turned over to an ecclesiastical court that ruled on the validity of her marriage. The clerics, unnamed except for the Archbishop of Pisa and the Archbishop of Canterbury, ruled that Isabella had been too young to consent at the time of her marriage and that she could marry whomever she wanted. Clerical chroniclers writing decades after the fact (and possibly more concerned with preventing claims to Champagne by the descendants of Isabella’s third husband, Henri de Champagne) try to argue that all the judges were corrupted by Montferrat. Given that Isabella’s age is indisputable, the vehement fulminations against Montferrat ring ridiculous. More interesting, according to the Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre, Maria Comnena told her daughter she would have to renounce Humphrey to gain her father’s inheritance. This is strong evidence that the High Court had chosen Montferrat as her husband—and was not going to fall for Sibylla’s trick of promising to set aside an unpopular husband only to marry him again once crowned.

  • Even the sources biased against Montferrat agree that a knight challenged Toron to judicial combat and that Toron just stared at the gage. The challenger is not named, only referred to as the Butler (in medieval times a powerful position usually held by a vassal) of Senlis, so I felt free to make it my fictional character, Henri d’Ibelin. All chronicles agree that Humphrey was “pretty” “like a girl,” “cowardly and effeminate.” Although not explicit, the implication is that Toron was homosexual and that the marriage had not been consummated. For a more detailed examination of this controversial incident, see my essay on “The Abduction of Isabella.”

  • King Richard’s fleet was scattered by a storm in which three ships wrecked on the Cypriot coast, and the vessel carrying Joanna Plantagenet and Richard’s betrothed, Berengaria of Navarre, was driven to Limassol. Isaac Comnenus plundered the ships, imprisoned the survivors, and threatened the two queens. Richard arrived dramatically just as Isaac Comnenus’ patience was wearing thin, and he responded to Richard’s requests for the return of his treasure with insults that provoked an assault.

  • Richard stormed the beach by Limassol in a dramatic amphibious assault without horses. He surprised Isaac Comnenus’ army outside the city the next dawn. His subsequent conquest of Cyprus was swift, largely due to the unpopularity of Isaac Comnenus.

  • Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan sailed for Cyprus to secure King Richard’s support for Guy, arriving on May 11. Although Aimery is not mentioned, he would almost certainly have been with his brothers. Furthermore, since historically Aimery would later become King of Cyprus and his role in pacifying and establishing a viable Latin kingdom on Cyprus is the subject of my next book, I wanted to foreshadow these events in this scene.

  • Richard is said to have gone out to meet the three ships, coming from the direction of Acre, in a skiff and then to have rushed back to make ready a suitable feast. Richard married Berengaria in Limassol on the next day. Shortly afterwards, Isaac agreed to join the crusade, only to then flee in the night. After that Richard set out to take control of the island, and within fifteen days he had secured the unconditional surrender of Isaac. He set up his own administration and then continued to Acre, arriving there June 8, roughly six weeks after Philip of France.

  • Although the Queens of England and Sicily traveled with Richard, they are not mentioned as being in the camp, only being settled in the royal palace after Acre is taken. I think it a reasonable assumption that they would have remained in comparative safety and comfort aboard one of the larger ships.

  • The accounts of the massacre of hostages at Acre sometimes imply that women and children were also killed, but the most reliable contemporary sources speak of hostages from the garrison, and these could only have been fighting men. The numbers also vary, but twenty-five hundred is the most reasonable figure given. The description of men awaiting the True Cross and their distress when, after three weeks of excuses from Salah ad-Din, it is not delivered is vividly described in the Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre. This document, which is almost certainly based on the firsthand account by someone from Outremer (possibly Ernoul) rather than accounts from crusaders alone, stresses the “great sorrow and tears.”

  • There is no evidence that Ibelin took part in the Battle of Arsuf, but poulain lords and troops did. Including him was a means of describing this critical and famous battle. To exclude it would have detracted from the overall value of the book.

  • According to English sources, Balian was seen leaving the Sultan’s camp by Stephen de Turnham, but later and in Arab sources Humphrey de Toron is named as one of Richard’s negotiators. Aside from the fact that the English may have simply confused Turnham (a familiar name) with Toron (an unfamiliar one), I have chosen, for greater cohesion and to keep the (already large) number of characters down, to make Toron Richard’s first envoy throughout.

  • The number of times, the locations, and the dates of the diplomatic contacts that took place between Richard and Salah ad-Din on one hand and Montferrat and Salah ad-Din on the other is unclear from the chronicles. There is agreement that there was considerable back- and-forth in late October and early November. I have simplified things in the text for coherence, clarity, and pace.

  • The Arab historian Baha ad-Din states explicitly that the suggestion of a marriage between al-Adil and Joanna Plantagenet was al-Adil’s idea, and that Salah ad-Din approved the proposal “as a joke” because he knew Richard would refuse. Baha ad-Din claims that Richard rejected it because “the Christians” could not accept the marriage of his sister to a Muslim without the Pope’s consent, which would take three months, but he could offer one of his nieces instead!
Both sides jocularly continued to refer to this offer from time to time, but neither side appears to have taken it too seriously.

  • In April 1192, Richard received news that his brother John was in rebellion, had expelled his chancellor from the Kingdom, and was besieging his supporters. The next day he announced his intention to return home, but was implored by the leaders of the army to first ensure that the Kingdom of Jerusalem had a king. He asked which of the two kings should be recognized, and the army “unanimously” chose Conrad de Montferrat—because Guy had done nothing to win back his kingdom (after losing it in the first place). Richard swallowed this decision and sanctioned it. It is unlikely that the entire “army” would be consulted, nor did the many crusades have any legal right to determine who should be King of Jerusalem. The High Court, on the other hand, did have that constitutional right and I believe it was the High Court, not the entire crusading force, that was consulted and which chose Montferrat.

  • King Richard sent Henri de Champagne and two other retainers (Otto de Transinges and William de Cayeu) to Tyre to bring Montferrat the news; to keep the number of characters down, I only refer to Henri de Champagne. Although he was not explicitly named, it seems logical that Balian would go with them, representing the poulains for two reasons: he was Isabella’s stepfather, and he had been largely responsible for her marriage to Montferrat in 1190.

  • The assassination of Conrad de Montferrat occurred as described, although allegedly he went to dine without Isabella because she was “late at the baths.” I doubt church chroniclers really knew why, and in any case the fight I describe in this novel was a literary device to reflect on their relationship. It was immediately rumored that the assassins had been hired by Salah ad-Din—or Richard. Richard was even charged with the assassination at his trial before the Imperial Diet after his arrest by the Holy Roman Emperor. But he had no motive for murder after acknowledging Conrad as King, and he was in a great hurry to get home. Nor did Salah ad-Din have any clear motive at this point. Other rumors suggested Humphrey de Toron was behind it. That Conrad had in some way offended the Old Man of the Mountain seems the most plausible explanation.