Baldwin IV had shown remarkable resilience and courage in the circumstances, but his health was visibly deteriorating. William of Tyre says that each day there were more and more signs of his leprosy. Yet the problem of the kingship had not been resolved, despite the fact that he had now been on the throne for nearly seven years. The king knew that he needed to find another husband for Sibylla and, in October 1178, he had deputed Joscius, bishop of Acre, who was part of the kingdom's delegation to the Third Lateran Council, to approach Hugh III, duke of Burgundy. Hugh was already known in Jerusalem, for he had visited the Holy Land in the summer of 1171 at the same time as his uncle, Stephen, count of Saône, and, William says, the decision to make the offer was unanimous.60
However, although it was believed that the duke had sworn an oath to marry Sibylla, he had still not appeared by the spring of 1180. William of Tyre says that he does not know why, but it was probably because of the succession crisis in France caused by the paralysis of King Louis VII, who eventually died in September, a circumstance that made it difficult for the duke to leave his lands.61 Baldwin must have been aware that such a situation could drag on for months, and in Holy Week he suddenly married Sibylla to Guy of Lusignan, a Poitevin who was a relative newcomer to the kingdom. As husband of Sibylla, Guy now became count of Jaffa and Ascalon.62 He was the younger brother of Aimery of Lusignan, who had recently replaced the late Humphrey of Toron as constable. The brothers came from a crusading family, participants in eastern campaigns since the crusade of 1101. Their grandfather, Hugh VII, had been on the Second Crusade, and their father, Hugh VIII, had died in one of Nur al-Din's prisons.63 Aimery had been in the kingdom since at least 1173 and probably earlier and, as constable, was evidently an influential figure. Nevertheless, the marriage was quite unexpected and, in some quarters, by no means welcome.
William of Tyre was not present during these events – he did not land at Saint Simeon en route from Italy and Constantinople until May – but his whole narrative makes clear his disapproval of Guy of Lusignan. When Guy became bailli in 1183, he condemned him as a man who possessed neither the strength of character nor the judgement required for such a role.64 He may have been influenced by Guy's reputation as a rebel and troublemaker. The English chroniclers Roger of Howden and William of Newburgh record that he had been exiled from England and Poitou by King Henry II because of his behaviour, which, according to Howden, included the killing of Patrick, earl of Salisbury, while he was returning from a pilgrimage to Compostela. Guy had therefore taken the Cross and sailed to the East.65 Nevertheless, whatever his reasons for his dislike of Sibylla's new husband, William of Tyre's explanation of Baldwin's apparently precipitate action appears quite plausible, which is that Raymond of Tripoli and Bohemond of Antioch had arrived in the kingdom ostensibly for the celebration of Easter on 20 April but, in the king's eyes, they had actually come with the aim of deposing him and seizing power for themselves. If such a plan existed, Sibylla's marriage blocked it and, after completing their devotions, they retreated to Tiberias.66
The problems caused by Baldwin's leprosy were now fully exposed. Raymond of Tripoli, whose support the kingdom could ill-afford to lose, did not return for two years. Moreover, Baldwin of Ramla, the oldest surviving brother of the very ambitious Ibelin family, became alienated since, according to Ernoul, who was more or less the family's house chronicler, he had hoped to marry Sibylla himself and believed that he had obtained her agreement. Indeed, Baldwin seems to have been the husband intended for Sibylla by Raymond and Bohemond. Ernoul is not a sober writer in the manner of William of Tyre and, in keeping with the genre in which he wrote, he chose to weave an elaborate and romantic story around this rejection; nevertheless, the fact remains that Baldwin's exclusion created another disgruntled baron in the kingdom.67
Baldwin's hasty decision to marry Guy to Sibylla inadvertently established a focal point for a ‘court party’, clustered around the king's maternal kin, which excluded his relatives descended from Queen Melisende's sisters, Raymond of Tripoli and Bohemond of Antioch, as well as the powerful and ambitious Ibelin family.68 Moreover, the dowager queen, Maria Comnena, mother of Isabella, Sibylla's half-sister, and, since 1177, wife of Balian of Ibelin, Baldwin's younger brother, had seen her place usurped by Agnes of Courtenay.69 Her position was further undermined in the autumn when Reynald of Châtillon secured the betrothal of Isabella, then aged eight, to Humphrey IV of Toron.70 This tied the second sister into the ruling group since Humphrey was the son of Stephanie, now Reynald's wife, and Humphrey III of Toron, who had died in c.1173. Soon after, Baldwin IV secured the exchange of Humphrey's hereditary lands of Toron, Chastel Neuf and Banyas for a large money fief, a move that gave the king greater control over the defences to the north-east of the kingdom, but which may also have been intended to create a buffer against Raymond of Tripoli, preventing direct access to his Galilean lands.71
In the autumn the Church became involved, for Amalric of Nesle, patriarch of Jerusalem, died in October. He was replaced by Eraclius, archbishop of Caesarea since 1175. He had originated in Gévaudan in Provence, and had studied at Bologna before emigrating to the East, where, in 1169, he became archdeacon of Jerusalem. Although William of Tyre records his appointment without comment, Ernoul claims that the archbishop of Tyre had been a candidate for the patriarchate but that through the process of dual postulation, which left the king to choose between two candidates, Agnes of Courtenay had ensured that Eraclius became patriarch, even though William was the preferred choice of the clergy. In Ernoul's presentation, corruption was manifest, for he alleges that Eraclius was the lover of the queen mother, as well as keeping a mistress called Pasque of Rivieri, wife of a mercer from Nablus, by whom he had a daughter. This matter was so well known that Pasque was referred to as the ‘patriarchess’.72 It has been shown that Ernoul had ‘defamatory intent’, but that in itself suggests that he regarded Eraclius as belonging to a group hostile to the Ibelins.73 At a time when they should have been concentrating on thwarting Saladin, the leaders of the Latin states allowed themselves to become preoccupied with the politics of faction.74
In retrospect, the year 1180 can be seen as a major turning point. Thereafter there were no more victories like Mont Gisard, while the castle at Jacob's Ford was never rebuilt. Although Saladin made a truce soon after, it was, William of Tyre notes, the first ever in which the Latins were in no position to set conditions. Indeed, William thinks that Saladin's main reason for making the truce had nothing to do with the Christians, but was because the Damascus region had suffered five successive years of drought.75 With the notable exception of the attacks made by Reynald of Châtillon from his base at Kerak between 1180 and 1187, Latin military activity was now almost entirely reactive; the rebuilding of castles like Belvoir, Kerak, Montréal, Safad and Crac des Chevaliers in concentric form, already being undertaken during the 1170s, reflects this attitude, for improved Muslim siege techniques had led to significant losses even while Amalric was pursuing his expansive plans (see plate 13).76
The events of the summer illustrate the point. The truce did not cover the county of Tripoli, and Saladin took the opportunity to invade the coastal plain, burning the harvest and depopulating the area. He was not opposed, for neither the Hospitallers nor the Templars ventured out of their castles, while Count Raymond retreated to the city of Arqa, near the coast. Communication between the parts of the elaborately constructed defensive system of the county broke down completely. This way the strongholds at least remained intact, but the economic base upon which they depended was devastated. Saladin was even able to deploy galleys off the coast of Beirut and, in June, he seized the island of Ruad, off Tortosa. He eventually retreated, having done immense damage, and made a truce with Raymond of Tripoli.77
In recent years the feasibility of the Egyptian plans had depended upon the alliance with Byzantium, but on 24 September, Emperor Manuel died, leaving Alexius II, aged only eleven, as his successor, under the regency of his mother, Maria o
f Antioch, Bohemond III's sister. William of Tyre had made his return journey from the Third Lateran Council through Constantinople because he had been empowered to renew the alliance and, indeed, soon afterwards Baldwin sent Joscelin of Courtenay, his seneschal, and Baldwin of Ramla to finalise the arrangements. Manuel's death occurred while Joscelin was still in Constantinople and, although this did not in itself change the policy, the accession of a minor meant that the government was vulnerable. When Andronicus Comnenus seized power in April 1182, exploiting anti-Latin feeling in the capital to overthrow the existing regime, the Franks in the East knew they could expect no more help from the Greeks.78
Relations in Antioch were no more harmonious. Bohemond III took advantage of Manuel's death to leave his wife, Theodora, the emperor's great-niece, in order to marry a Frankish noblewoman called Sibylla, an act for which he was excommunicated by Aimery of Limoges, the patriarch.79 The schism in the north was potentially very dangerous; William of Tyre describes Bohemond's behaviour as ‘madness’. Bohemond besieged Aimery and the clergy in a fortress of the Church, presumably al-Qusair, which led to the imposition of an interdict. The king sent a delegation to mediate, led by Patriarch Eraclius and Reynald of Châtillon, and joined by Raymond of Tripoli en route on the basis that his friendship with Bohemond would make the envoys more acceptable. After a meeting at Latakia they departed in the belief that they had reached a settlement, for Bohemond agreed to restore the possessions of the Church and accepted that if he did not take back Theodora he would remain excommunicate. But once they had gone he ignored the agreement, creating further conflict by driving out some of the nobles who opposed him and obliging them to take refuge in Cilicia.80
The Franks were fortunate that the truce with Saladin held during this time, since William of Tyre conveys a strong sense that Baldwin had difficulty keeping them together. According to William, one reason for such a high-level delegation to Bohemond was the fear that news of such behaviour would alienate the pope and western rulers. Even so, when Raymond of Tripoli tried to visit Tiberias in the spring of 1182, the king was worried that he would attempt another coup, and prevented him from entering the kingdom. William of Tyre blames this on the malicious advice of Agnes of Courtenay and her brother, Joscelin, supported by what he calls a few of their followers. In this instance, William makes no attempt to conceal his opinions, denying that Raymond had any such intention and calling Agnes of Courtenay ‘a woman completely odious to God’. In the end, the king reluctantly relented, persuaded by other leading barons that the exposure of such divisions could only make the land more vulnerable. In fact, the king's health was deteriorating by the day, and he was less and less able to cope.81
However, when fighting broke out again in the summer of 1182, in what must have been a singular effort of will, Baldwin forced himself to lead out the army to counter a series of attacks by Saladin against different parts of the kingdom. The advantages of possessing both Cairo and Damascus now became very evident. While Baldwin faced Saladin near Kerak in Transjordan, Turkish forces from Damascus, Bostrum, Baalbek and Homs captured 500 villagers from Dabburiya near Mount Tabor and then seized the cave fortress of Habis Jaldak (Sawad), set in the cliffs south of the Yarmuk River, about 20 miles east of Tiberias, in a region where previously there had been a division of authority between the Franks and the Muslims. William of Tyre blames Syrian disaffection for the fall of the fortress, which may be indicative of the effects these attacks were having upon the local population.82 Although there was no battle at Kerak, Saladin intensified the pressure on Galilee, which forced Baldwin to keep an army in the field and provoked a series of quite serious confrontations. In an exceptionally hot summer, the fighting was even more painful than usual, with many deaths from heatstroke on both sides.
At the same time Saladin had been attempting to revive Egyptian sea power, largely moribund since the fall of Ascalon in 1153. He already held a large pilgrim ship which had been forced south towards Damietta by the prevailing winds. In August, he was sufficiently confident to send ships to blockade Beirut. A simultaneous attack by his brother, al-Adil, in the south-west of the kingdom was intended to divert the Franks, while Saladin himself moved in from the Beqa valley to besiege Beirut on its landward side. Baldwin and the barons, encamped at Saffuriya, chose to defend the place they regarded as being in the greatest danger, and turned the army towards the relief of Beirut, while at the same time a fleet of thirty-three ships was sent out from Acre and Tyre.83 These moves were enough to persuade Saladin to retreat, but he does seem to have been serious in his intention to take Beirut, since he seldom undertook sieges unless he thought he could succeed.84
These attacks were intended to inflict economic damage on the crusader states as well as to undermine morale. They may well, too, have been undertaken for their propaganda value, underlining Saladin's commitment to the jihad against the Christians in the eyes of both the caliph and the Muslim world as a whole. Saladin may have thought it necessary to send out such a message, since in the autumn of 1182 he switched his attention to the north-east, setting off without even making a truce with the Franks in a campaign to extend and consolidate his power into the Zengid heartlands. He crossed the Euphrates into the Jazira and in the following months seized Edessa, Harran and Sinjar, although Mosul proved too strong for him to take. Although Raymond of Tripoli and King Baldwin took advantage of his absence to conduct destructive campaigns to the east and south of Damascus, and even regained control of Habis Jaldak, they could not do enough damage to divert Saladin from his campaign in the Jazira.85
The Franks were well aware of this. A measure of their anxiety can be seen in the calling of a general council in February 1183, where it was agreed to make a census or survey of the whole kingdom, as a preliminary to the levy of an extraordinary tax ‘for the common benefit of the kingdom’. Consent was obtained from the upper classes, and assent from ‘the people’, although it is not clear in what form.86 The tax was universal, encompassing all social classes, from the prelates and high barons to the peasantry. Four men were chosen from each city to collect the money, taking account of ability to pay. Owners of urban property would pay 1 besant on every 100 besants’ worth of property or on money owed to them and 2 besants on every 100 of revenue. Those with an income below this level paid a hearth tax of a besant (or a proportion of a besant). All churches and monasteries, nobles and their vassals, and others holding rents were to pay 2 besants for every 100 of rental income. All those who held casalia were liable for the equivalent of 1 besant per hearth, which they could recover from the peasantry, having taken into account differentials in income among the rural population. The money was to be deposited in two boxes, in Jerusalem and Haifa, for which there were to be three separate keyholders, and was to be used exclusively for ‘the defence of the land’.
Such a levy had never previously been taken in the crusader states and, indeed, the decree states explicitly that the tax was once only, and could not be used as a precedent. However, there were examples in the West: Henry II and Louis VII had levied general taxes for the defence of the Holy Land in 1166 and, given the frequent contact between Jerusalem and these two monarchies, these seem the most likely models. Certainly the Franks could have learned about the methods used to collect Louis VII's tax from Stephen of Sancerre when he visited the Holy Land in 1170, since he brought some of the proceeds with him.87
It may have been at about this time that Patriarch Eraclius sent a general encyclical to all the ecclesiastical and secular leaders in the West and to ‘all the sons of the Church’. The letter is undated, but it must have been written before the battle of Hattin in 1187. Whatever the precise details, the patriarch's attempt to persuade individuals to provide material help is in keeping with the mood that prompted the special levy of 1183. Eraclius describes a land surrounded by enemies, which the Christians would be forced to abandon unless they received help. He was therefore sending a delegation of canons from the Holy Sepulchre, whose aim was to
gather whatever support they could through offers of remission of sins and of confraternity with the Holy Sepulchre community. If their present situation prevented them from coming in person, ‘may you give these utterly reliable men the means of support from the wealth God bestowed on you’. In return, such donors would receive the same remission of sins as those who actually made the journey to the East. Moreover, anybody who sent a horse, mule or any other mount, weapons and armour, or ecclesiastical ornaments, books or vestments would receive remission of a third of the penance imposed on them. He was supported in this by Aimery of Limoges, patriarch of Antioch, and seventeen archbishops and bishops in the kingdom of Jerusalem, who each offered forty days of absolution.88
At the same time the patriarch was offering inducements to join the confraternity of the canons in return for an annual donation. This brought not only a quarter remission of penance, but also an additional range of privileges, including burial in areas under interdict, individual masses for the dying, and annual offerings on the anniversary of the death of those in the confraternity. The patriarch was anxious to garner as much support as possible: even if vows already taken could not be fulfilled because of illness, infirmity ‘or some other serious reason’, they could be absolved in exchange for the money that had been saved for the journey.89 In principle, such offers were not unprecedented: the canons of the Holy Sepulchre had been constructing a fraternal network since the 1130s, while in 1155 Patriarch Fulcher had offered possible commutation of vows in return for financial support. But Eraclius was making more sweeping promises in keeping with what the Franks in the East perceived to be a highly perilous situation.90
The Christians were right to be alarmed for, on 11 June 1183, Saladin had achieved his last great goal in Muslim Syria when Aleppo surrendered to him. Its ruler, ‘Imad al-Din Zengi, agreed to exchange it for Sinjar and some lesser cities and towns. Members of Saladin's entourage were contemptuous. The qadi, al-Fadil, said: ‘We gave him for Aleppo such-and-such places. This is an exchange in truth! We took dinars from him and gave him dirhams. We gave up villages and acquired major cities.’91 William of Tyre no doubt reflects the general perception when he says that in practice the Christians were now surrounded, leaving them almost besieged.92
The Crusader States Page 39
