All this seems completely normal and respectable, yet William says that Amalric was ‘forced to put away his wife’ before Amalric of Nesle, the patriarch, would agree to the coronation, on the grounds that the couple were too closely related, that is, ‘within the fourth degree’. In this, the patriarch was following the stand taken by his predecessor, Fulcher, a man known to adopt a hard line on canonical matters whatever the political consequences. In fact, the couple had a common great-great-grandfather, but such a relatively distant kinship would not usually have been invoked unless it was demanded by extraneous political circumstances. Moreover, it was agreed that, the divorce notwithstanding, the couple's two children would retain full rights of succession. As it happened, John, cardinal-priest of SS. Giovanni e Paulo, the papal legate whose entry into the kingdom had previously caused so much controversy, was still in Jerusalem, and he lent his authority to these arrangements.9
This story is so unlikely that historians have been unwilling to accept it at face value. William was still studying in the West at this time and there was no contemporary chronicler in the Holy Land who could observe events at first hand. Even William himself was puzzled by the claim of consanguinity and later consulted Stephanie of Courtenay, abbess of the convent of St Mary the Great in Jerusalem, who was the daughter of Joscelin I and consequently Agnes's aunt, in order to clarify the exact relationship in his own mind. One possible reason for dissent may have been baronial objections to an influx of Edessan exiles associated with Agnes and her brother, Joscelin III, titular count of Edessa since the death of their father in 1159. Joscelin was indeed granted taxes and lands by Baldwin III in c.1158 and was arguably only the most prominent of those left with status but no patrimony when the county of Edessa collapsed. Baldwin's appointment of Joscelin as bailli of the fief of Harim in the principality of Antioch seems to indicate the king's awareness of discontent among the Jerusalem baronage.10
It may be, however, that Agnes's marital history presented further problems. William of Tyre says that after her divorce from Amalric, Agnes immediately married Hugh of Ibelin, the head of his family since the death of his father, Barisan, in 1150.11 The evidence of the late thirteenth-century Lignages d'Outremer suggests that Agnes was in fact already married to Hugh in 1157, and that therefore her marriage to Amalric was bigamous and perhaps even the result of an abduction.12 Thus consanguinity was only a cover for the scandal that came to a head in 1163, rather as the crisis of Baldwin I's illness had led to the repudiation of Adelaide of Sicily, even though the bigamy had been known for some time before. Toleration of such behaviour would have created a situation in which the barons’ own marriages could have been violated, with the consequent loss of any material and social advantages they might have gained from them. William of Tyre may well have known this, but was hardly likely to give it a public airing, although he hints at the problem when he says that Agnes was married to Amalric de facto and not de iure, as well as his more general comment that Amalric had a habit of seducing married women.13
A major objection to this explanation is that Amalric would not have been able to enter into a bigamous marriage in 1157 without incurring excommunication, even if Patriarch Fulcher was dead by the time the marriage actually took place.14 Moreover, even if Agnes was already betrothed to Hugh, when she arrived in the kingdom he may not have been available to marry her, having been captured at Jacob's Ford in June 1157; the marriage to Amalric took place after Hugh's disappearance.15 He was in fact released in late 1158 or early 1159, but sometimes such captivity could last for many years or, as can be seen in the case of Agnes's father, until death. In fact, there is no evidence of any objection to the marriage in 1157, except for that of Patriarch Fulcher. Indeed, it may be inferred that the influential hautes dames who were so important in the appointment of Amalric of Nesle as patriarch approved, given the choice of Sibylla as the name of the couple's first child.
In the end, even though there appears to have been no Edessan clique as such, baronial opposition does seem to have been aimed at Agnes and reflects the usual manoeuvring for position liable to take place with any change of regime. The barons were not proposing an alternative candidate to Amalric, but were concerned to prevent Agnes from becoming queen and thus gaining a position in which she could control patronage and power to their detriment. This is the more likely interpretation of Ernoul's enigmatic statement that the barons had told Amalric that Agnes ‘ought not to be queen of so high a city as Jerusalem’, rather than any oblique reference to her sexual morals.16 The papal legate understood this climate of opinion and fell in with the wishes of the leading barons.17
The personality and physical characteristics of the new king are better known than those of his predecessors. This is because William of Tyre was a direct witness, for he finally returned to the kingdom in 1166, when he began a career in the Church and in politics that brought him into close and regular contact with the king and the royal circle. This is not surprising, for William was highly educated and now in the prime of life, having left the kingdom for France perhaps in the autumn of 1146 to embark on a course of study that lasted for the next twenty years. He had initially gone to the liberal arts school at Chartres, before moving on to the higher subjects of theology in Paris and then canon and civil law in Bologna.18 As soon as he arrived back, he was given a prebend in the church of Acre by Bishop William, and two years later he was made archdeacon of Tyre by Archbishop Frederick. In 1174, he added the archdeaconry of Nazareth to this collection of benefices. These promotions were effectively arranged by the king with whom William had frequent conversations, often on an informal basis, since Amalric enjoyed serious discussions on a variety of topics, including matters of theology. William was sufficiently trusted to be sent on a mission to Manuel Comnenus in 1168 and, in 1170, he was appointed tutor to Baldwin, Amalric's son and heir. William says that it was Amalric who suggested that he write an account of the history of the kingdom since its foundation.19
As described by William, Amalric had a fair complexion with blond receding hair. He was taller than average and considerably overweight, so that he literally shook with laughter when something amused him. However, this cannot have been very often, since William says that he was taciturn and serious, in contrast to his brother's affability. Although William presents him as less well educated than Baldwin, it is evident that he had a very sharp mind and a powerful memory, and that he knew the value of obtaining the right information when he needed it. His piety was expressed by daily attendance at mass when circumstances allowed and, particularly meritorious in William's eyes, in ensuring that the Church received its tithes in full.
However, in keeping with his own self-imposed standards, William did not believe in sycophancy, so he could not ignore what he regarded as the king's faults. He was unrestrained in sexual matters and had affairs with married women. Moreover, he was what William calls ‘a vehement assailant of the liberty of the churches’, by which he meant that his exactions placed a heavy burden of debt upon them. This was part of his ‘lust for money’, which affected everyone, secular or ecclesiastical. Amalric justified his behaviour on the grounds that rulers needed money, especially if an unexpected contingency arose, which, of course, was a frequent occurrence in the crusader East. William seems to have accepted this, but he was less convinced by the king's claim that if a ruler were well provided for his subjects’ property would be safe. The king, he said, exhausted patrimonies, often on trivial pretexts.20 William is primarily concerned with the effects of Amalric's policies upon the upper classes, but there are signs that the king was also interested in maximising commercial revenues, since it appears that the proliferation of lesser courts in ports controlled by the king – most notably the Court of the Fonde or Market and the Court of the Chain – occurred during Amalric's reign. These probably formalised systems already in operation, but it is highly likely that their creation led to a more systematic collection of tolls and customs than in the past, with consequent i
ncreases in returns.21
William's portrait conveys a picture of a forceful and intelligent ruler, unlikely to brook much opposition, wherever it originated. Yet Amalric had been obliged to renounce his wife, not only because of patriarchal intransigence, but because a majority of the leading barons – without whom there could be no effective government – had left him with no alternative. There had been serious opposition in the past. Daibert of Pisa had clearly intended to subordinate Godfrey of Bouillon to his own authority and, when he died, to prevent his brother Baldwin from seizing the Crown. Baldwin II twice faced challenges to his legitimacy, both at the time of his accession in 1118 and while he was in captivity in 1123–4. It seems probable that the issue of a document known as the Etablissement de Baudouin de Borc, which made explicit the king's right to confiscate the fiefs of rebellious vassals, was a reaction to these problems.22 In 1134, Fulk only just avoided a major civil conflict when Hugh of Le Puiset revolted; even afterwards it is evident that his freedom of manoeuvre was considerably restricted by the need to conciliate Melisende and her supporters. Moreover, Amalric himself had had first-hand experience of the struggle for royal power in the conflict of 1152, from which he was fortunate to emerge relatively unscathed, despite choosing the wrong side.
During this period the leading baronial families had established a greater degree of dynastic continuity, a situation that contrasts with the volatility of the early years of the crusader states. Proof that these nobles were consolidating an increasingly privileged position can be seen in previous legislation, exemplified by assises prohibiting the arrest of nobles for debt and conceding the right of wreck to lords with coastal fiefs.23 At the same time the kings do not seem to have exercised rights of feudal overlordship commonly seen in contemporary monarchies in France and England, since there are no examples of taking reliefs on the succession of new heirs and few instances of profiting from rights of wardship over minors.24 Indeed, neither royal charters nor chronicles give any indication that the king entered the lordships of his great vassals except at times of war or rebellion, or if he wished to hold an assembly. When not otherwise on the move, the king was most frequently to be found in one of the four main administrative centres of his demesne at Jerusalem, Acre, Tyre or Nablus.25
This is the context of the assise sur la ligece, issued by Amalric, apparently near the beginning of the reign. This assise is drawn from the collection of law books known as the Assises de Jerusalem, which is a fourteenth-century compilation of works from different periods of the kingdom, none of which provides the exact wording of the assise.26 However, it does seem that the leading jurists of the second half of the thirteenth century, John of Ibelin and Philip of Novara, believed that it had arisen from what they describe as a war between Amalric and Gerard Grenier, lord of Sidon and Beaufort, one of the king's tenants-in-chief, because of the latter's unjust seizure of a fief held by one of his vassals. The assise was issued following the making of peace, and it obliged rear-vassals (that is, vassals of the tenants-in-chief) to pay liege homage to the king, as well as doing the homage they owed to their own lords.27 In theory this meant that, in the event of a conflict between the king and one of his tenants-in chief, the king took precedence.
The logical interpretation of this assise is that it is the action of a king attempting to limit the independence of his major fief-holders, perceived to have become too powerful, especially in the light of Amalric's conditional accession to the throne.28 However, there is no evidence to show that any rear-vassal ever did use the assise to act against his lord in the High Court, in contrast to the royal court in Paris; indeed, in the thirteenth century, the legislation was actually invoked against the Crown since it enabled the king himself to be judged in the High Court by the peers acting together.29 This is perhaps misleading, in that the assise appears to have been established not to provide a court of appeal for the rear-vassals, but as a vehicle for bringing action for treason against rebellious barons. In 1184, when Baldwin IV wished to begin a process for treason against Guy of Lusignan, count of Jaffa, he did so by convening a full session of the High Court at Acre.30 It is, of course, possible that the assise was forced on the king by an assertive baronage, but it seems unlikely in the 1160s, when neither Amalric nor his barons could have foreseen the future application of such legislation.
This view is reinforced by an examination of the preceding circumstances. These have all the appearance of forceful rulers acting to control a recalcitrant vassal. Two eastern chroniclers who were much nearer to the events than the jurists of the 1260s – Michael the Syrian and Ibn al-Athir – knew that towards the end of the reign there had been a confrontation between Baldwin III and the lord of Sidon, although their notices are too brief to form a comprehensive picture of what was happening. According to Michael the Syrian, the Franks wished to seize ‘a Frankish brigand, who was at Baghras’ and who had fled from there and gone to find Nur al-Din. Supplied with Turkish forces, he had returned to the region of Antioch where he had continued to act in the same way.31 ‘This year,’ says Ibn al-Athir, ‘the Frankish ruler of Sidon sought out Nr al-Dn Mahmd, ruler of Syria, to seek his protection. He gave him guarantees and also sent a force with him to protect him from the Franks. However a Frankish ambush overwhelmed them on their way and killed a number of the Muslims. The survivors fled.’32 This ambush was evidently organised by the king: a charter of 16 March 1160 shows Baldwin III at the siege of Belhacem, close to Sidon, supported by his leading vassals.33
This was a serious confrontation. Gerard was the grandson of Eustace Grenier, royal constable under Baldwin II, and he had married Agnes, niece of William of Bures, prince of Galilee, and Eustace's successor as constable. As a leading baron of the kingdom, he had been present at the assembly near Acre before the attack on Damascus in 1148 and he had commanded the royal fleet that had attempted to blockade Ascalon during the siege of 1153.34 If he really had allied with Nur al-Din his action was as treasonable as that of Hugh of Le Puiset in 1134, when he had called on Egyptian help. It may be that Gerard's truculence was the trigger for the assise, and that the accusation of failure to do justice was a pretext for its enactment. Moreover, if it is true that it was Gerard who had pointed out the consanguinity between Amalric and Agnes of Courtenay, the king would have had a very personal reason for enmity towards him.35
Amalric's strong personality was therefore bound to be the major determinant of policy in the kingdom of Jerusalem and, indeed, in the crusader states as whole. The centre of his ambitions was the conquest of Egypt. Between September 1163 and December 1169, he led five expeditions and, in 1167, even occupied Alexandria itself. Both the capture of Ascalon and the granting of anticipatory fiefs indicate that Baldwin had had similar aims, and the Egyptians had been sufficiently alarmed to agree to pay him an annual tribute.36 Amalric, as William of Tyre says, worked without cease to expand the kingdom, and the wealthy country of Egypt must have been especially attractive to him because of what the archbishop saw as his extreme cupidity.37 It was, though, more complicated than that. The upper echelons of the kingdom of Jerusalem formed a tight-knit little society in which the demand for land and patronage outstripped supply. Baldwin III's desire to capture Ascalon and his plans to invade Egypt may well have been partly driven by a need to find new lands. The dispossession of the Edessans added greatly to these problems, for the numbers may have been considerable; William of Tyre claims that Edessa was a productive land capable of supporting 500 knights, but the shrunken principality of Antioch offered little in the way of alternative outlets. Whatever Amalric's motives in attacking Egypt in the 1160s, he could not ignore the pressures upon his limited resources in the existing kingdom of Jerusalem. Moreover, the opportunity was obvious, for the Egyptian government was hardly functioning, as rival viziers, Dirgham, the chamberlain and former military commander, and Shawar, the governor of Upper Egypt, competed for control, unchecked by a caliph who wielded little real power.
As was to be expected, in 1163
the tribute was not paid and, in September, Amalric led a large army against Dirgham, the incumbent vizier, who, in desperation, opened the dykes on the Nile. In fact, Amalric came within 35 miles of Cairo and Dirgham agreed to pay an even larger tribute than before, providing guarantees in the form of hostages.38 On his return, Amalric wrote to Louis VII, telling him that they had put the enemy to flight and that, had not the annual Nile floods impeded them, they would have taken Bilbais. It only needed the king's help for success to be assured.39
In fact, Amalric knew well that it would not be so easy, for Nur al-Din was equally well informed about the situation in Egypt. Although Dirgham had driven out Shawar, it was a short-lived success, since Shawar appealed to Nur al-Din for help. He, in turn, sent Asad al-Din Shirkuh, a Kurd from Takrit, who was one of his most able and determined generals. William of Tyre gives an unflattering physical picture of Shirkuh – short and fat and already quite elderly, and suffering from a cataract on one eye – but is full of praise for his military skills and endurance.40 Neither ruler could afford to cede the field to the other, and the struggle became the defining feature of Amalric's reign. Even after the king's death in 1174, by which time Saladin had full control of Cairo, the Latins did not give up, unsuccessfully urging Philip, count of Flanders, who was on crusade in 1177–8, to lead a Franco-Byzantine expedition into the country.41
The Crusader States Page 33
