Surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187

The Damascus Gate of Jerusalem by which some of Saladin's troops would have entered the city.

On Oct. 2, 1187, the gates of Jerusalem opened to admit Salah ad-Din and his army. The most holy city in Christendom, site of Christ’s passion, had been surrendered to the Muslims after 88 years of Christian rule. The surrender of Jerusalem was the inevitable consequence of the devastating defeat of the feudal forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem at the Battle of Hattin three months earlier. That battle had left Jerusalem defenseless; all fighting men including the knights of the Temple and the Hospital had been called up to halt the invasion that ended in disaster at Hattin, leaving the city itself denuded of troops. Left behind in Jerusalem were non-combatants: women, children, the old and infirm and the clergy. Furthermore, by the time Jerusalem surrendered, these civilian residents of Jerusalem had been joined by as many as 60,000 to 80,000 refugees from other parts of the Kingdom overrun by Saladin’s troops. An estimated 100,000 Christians were in Jerusalem when it surrendered, predominantly women, children and clergy.

What is remarkable about the surrender of Jerusalem in 1187 was not that it surrendered under the circumstances, but that it did not surrender without a fight. Saladin had offered the inhabitants very generous terms. He said he did not want to risk damage to the holy sites in Jerusalem (as was nearly inevitable in a siege and assault) and therefore offered to let the inhabitants leave peacefully with all their portable goods if they would surrender peacefully. But the anonymous “burgesses” who represented the city of Jerusalem in the absence of any noblemen refused. According to the Old French continuation of the Chronicle of William Tyre (widely believed to be based on first-hand accounts) the “burgesses” replied “if it pleased God they would never surrender the city.” Saladin then offered to leave the city alone for roughly six months if they promised to surrender the city at the end of that time, if no reinforcements had arrived. They still refused, saying again “if it pleased God they would never surrender that city where God had shed His blood for them.” (Tyre, p. 55) This was a clear commitment to martyrdom rather than surrender — perhaps not such a surprising sentiment from a city that at this time must have been dominated by clergy as they would have been the only men of “authority” (read noble birth and education) left in the city.

The "Dome of the Rock" erected over the rock on which Mohammed allegedly ascended into Heaven; it was this monument sacred to Islam that Saladin did not want to risk damaging in a siege and assault.

But Saladin did not enter Jerusalem over the corpses of “martyrs” and their families. He entered it peacefully after a negotiated settlement that ended a week of ferocious fighting.  Ibn al-Athir writes: “Then began the fiercest struggle imaginable; each side looked on the fight as absolute religious obligation. There was no need for a superior authority to drive them on: they restrained the enemy without restraint, and drove them off without being driven off. Every morning the Frankish cavalry made sorties to fight and provoke the enemy to battle; several of both sides fell in these encounters.” (pp. 140-141.)   

Imad ad-Din’s report is (as always) even more melodramatic in his description. According to him, “They challenged [us] to combat and barred the pass, they came down into the lists like enemies, they slaughtered and drew blood, they blazed with fury and defended the city, they fumed and burned with wrath, they drove us back…. They fought grimly and struggled with all their energy, descending to the fray with absolute resolution… they blazed and set fire to things…they made themselves a target for arrows and called on death to stand by them.” (p.154) Turning to Christian sources, the source considered by scholars the most authentic claims that: “The Christians sallied forth and fought with the Saracens…. On two or three occasions the Christians pushed the Saracens back to their tents.” (Tyre, p. 56) Women, children and clergy did that? For eight days?

Clearly this was not merely a fanatical but a well-organized defense. Key to that is one man: Balian d’Ibelin. 

Balian, Baron of Ibelin, had been one of only four barons to escape the catastrophe at Hattin. At Hattin he had commanded the third largest contingent of troops after the King and the Count of Tripoli, and he, along with the Templars, had been charged with the thankless and gruesome task of commanding the rear-guard in a situation where it was under near continuous attack while on the march. The Templars suffered enormous losses during this march and we must assume that Ibelin did too. Certainly, when he broke out of the trap at Hattin it was with at most 3,000 infantry and a couple hundred knights. These troops, however, he had led to Tyre. 

His presence in Jerusalem, however, was solitary — the result of a safe-conduct granted him by Saladin so that he could remove his wife and children to safety. The terms of the safe-conduct were that he go to Jerusalem unarmed and remain only one night. On arrival, however, the citizens of Jerusalem and particularly the Patriarch begged him to remain and take command of the defense. This he did, although in so doing he believed he was condemning his wife and children to death.

The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Patriarch clearly recognized Ibelin’s value. He wasn’t just any baron, he was a man who had played a prominent role in the defeat of Saladin at Montgisard, and had fought at every major battle against Saladin since. Still, he was just one man. He brought not a single additional fighting man to the defense of Jerusalem, and -- on taking stock of what men he had in Jerusalem -- he discovered there was only one other knight in the entire city. This induced him to knight over eighty youths of “good birth,” which was undoubtedly a morale-booster to the individuals honored, but hardly a significant increase in the fighting strength of the defenders!

The Seal of Balian d'Ibelin's son John

So how did Ibelin put up such a ferocious and effective defense with women, children and clergy for 8 days?  We don’t know exactly, however, it is clear Ibelin must have had an exceptional organizational talent and also been a charismatic and inspirational leader. He would have had to organize civilians into improvised units, and then assign these units discrete tasks — whether it was defending a sector of the wall, putting out fires, or ensuring that the men and women doing the fighting were supplied with water, food and ammunition. Most astonishing, his improvised units not only repulsed assaults, they also sortied out several times, destroying some of Saladin’s siege engines, and “two or three times” chasing the Saracens all the way back to the palisades of their camp.

Ibelin must have relied heavily upon women in his defense of Jerusalem. The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre quotes the Patriarch of Jerusalem saying: “For every man that is in this city, there are fifty women and children.” (Tyre, p. 58) Furthermore, we know from sieges only a few decades later in the Languedoc (notably the siege of Toulouse in which Simon de Montfort was killed) that women could be very active in manning the walls. Unlike Victorian women, medieval women were not known for being delicate and prone to swooning. They were partners in crafts and trades, often had their own businesses, and when it came to this siege they understood perfectly what was at stake: their freedom.

Although hard to see in this medieval depiction, the siege engine that fired the fatal shot against Simon de Montfort was allegedly manned by women.

Notably, the Arab sources never acknowledge this simple fact. First of all, their own women were not in a position to contribute to the defense, so women manning siege engines, pouring boiling oil over the ramparts, or even exposing themselves to danger to bring men (strange men not their husbands, brothers or sons) water, food and ammunition was utterly inconceivable to them.  Secondly, it was considered dishonorable to be killed by a woman under any circumstances, so no one wanted to even contemplate this possibility; it would have disgraced the fallen. Instead, the Arab sources explained the surprisingly spirited and tenacious defense of Jerusalem to phantom survivors of Hattin. Imad ad-Din conjures up no less than “70,000 Frankish troops, both swordsmen and archers” (p. 154) — a fantastic figure more than double the total Frankish army deployed (and destroyed) at Hattin!

After five days of futile assaults on the northwest corner of the city from the Gate of St. Stephen to David's Gates, Saladin had nothing but casualties to show for his efforts. He therefore redeployed opposite the northeast corner of the city. More important, he deployed sappers to undermine the walls.  The sappers were protected by heavy wooden roofs and platforms as well as covering fire. Within three days they managed to dig tunnels under the city walls, and on September 29 a segment of the northern wall roughly 30 meters long collapsed. Although the Christians managed to beat-back the initial assaults sent through the breach, by nightfall it was clear that the city was now no longer defensible.

That night, Ibelin led a last desperate sortie out of the Jehosaphat Gate, probably directed at Saladin’s own tent, which had been set up on the Mount of Olives. The sortie was easily repulsed. As dawn broke on September 30, the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem, residents and refugees alike, were facing almost certain slaughter. Because they had rejected his generous terms earlier, Saladin had sworn before multiple witnesses that he would take the city by force and spare no one.

Nevertheless, under a flag of truce Ibelin sought a parlay with Saladin. The Sultan met with Ibelin outside the walls of the city, but flatly refused to negotiate. He reiterated his intention to take the city by force. Indeed, while Ibelin and Saladin were speaking, the Sultan’s banners were planted on the northeast corner of the city, and Saladin pointed out that no one negotiated for a city he already possessed. Fortunately for the Christians in the city, the Sultan’s banners were tossed down again; Ibelin could retort that Saladin did not yet possess the city. Ibelin then played his only trump. He told Saladin that if the defenders knew they would be granted no mercy, then they would fight all the harder. Not just that, he said, they would slaughter their own families, the Muslim prisoners/slaves inside Jerusalem, and the livestock, and then they would destroy the holy places — including the Rock sacred to Islam — before sallying forth to certain death intent on taking as many of the enemy to their graves with them as possible.

Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives Today; the Dome of the Rock is visible between the trees.

Saladin, who had already made his desire to preserve the holy places known, capitulated in face of this blackmail. After consulting with this emirs, he agreed to spare the lives of the Christians in Jerusalem, but only on the condition that they bought freedom. After much haggling, it was agreed that each man would have to pay 10 dinar, each woman 5 and each child 2. Those that could not pay this ransom would become the property of the Sultan, slaves.

Ibelin protested that the city was full of refugees, who had already lost everything. According to the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre he argued “In a city such as this there are only a few people apart from the burgesses who could manage [the ransom], and for every man who can pay the ransom there are a hundred who could not redeem themselves even for two bezants. For the city is full of ordinary people who have come from the surrounding area for protection.” (p.60)  After considerable haggling, the Sultan agreed to a lump-sum payment of 30,000 bezants for (varying by source) between 7, 000 and 18,000 Christian paupers.

The Medieval Working-Class would have had difficulty paying the ransom set by Saladin. 

These 30,000 bezants were paid by the Hospital with the money deposited by King Henry II of England, but even so when the 40 days granted the Christians to raise their ransoms were up, some 15,000 Christians were unable to pay and condemned to slavery. Ibelin, appalled, offered to stand surety for them while the ransom was raised, but Saladin refused, although he did “give” 1,000 slaves to his brother and 500 each to Balian and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so that 2,000 souls were freed at the last minute.

Allegedly, some non-Latin Christians also opted to pay the extra taxes imposed on Christians in Muslim states in order to remain in Jerusalem, but there is no indication that the non-Latin Christians undermined the defense of Jerusalem itself. On the contrary, they appear to have contributed substantially to the defense of Jerusalem as long as the fighting was going on. Only after the city became indefensible as a result of the breach in the wall, did they begin to seek a compromise with their assailants — a perfectly comprehensible reaction that does not imply fundamental hostility to the Latin rulers of Jerusalem.

On November 18, 1187, forty days after the surrender of Jerusalem, the Christians departed Jerusalem, leaving the city in Muslim hands. The news of the fall of Jerusalem allegedly killed Pope Urban III and so shocked the Christian kingdoms in the West that it set in motion the Third Crusade.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.

She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.

She is an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at: http://crusaderkingdoms.com

The siege and surrender of Jerusalem in 1187 is the climax and described in detail in award-winning:

                                                                     Buy now!

Tyre, William (Old French Continuation of). The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, translated  by Peter Edbury, .

Ibn al-Athir. Trans by Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades.

Imad ad Din. Trans by Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades

Review of "The Last Crusader Kingdom"

A Review by Reuben Steenson for the Online Book Club of

The Last Crusader Kingdom

by Helena P. Schrader 

 

Having reached the 30-page mark of The Last Crusader Kingdom by Helena P. Schrader, I knew I was hooked. With a few deft strokes, the main characters were expertly created and I wanted (no, needed) to know what would happen to them. My interest did not diminish across the 350+ pages, as the plot gathered in complexity and further intriguing characters were added to the mix. Because of its readability, the impressive quality of its research, its flawless editing, and its simple, engaging style I rate The Last Crusader Kingdom 4 out of 4 stars.
The main plot focuses on Aimery de Lusignan as he travels to Cyprus in the 12th century in an attempt to establish control of the island. I have always been interested in the medieval crusades, but knew very little about the time period (beyond having read Ivanhoe by Walter Scott and picked up various scraps from films). After reading this novel, I am keen to find out more, as Schrader brought the period to life and navigated her way through a confusing and tumultuous era with aplomb.
Certainly, I was impressed by the manner in which Schrader was able to fill the reader in with the necessary context without it ever seeming obtrusive or exterior to the plot. All of the rich detail was cunningly wrapped up in the action of the novel. Schrader's passion for history comes across in her ability to render historical events in an exciting and accessible manner. Her credentials are undeniable: she has a PhD in history and a string of fiction and non-fiction books under her belt. This experience is apparent in The Last Crusader Kingdom, which is an assured and perfectly executed historical novel.
I really enjoyed the introductory essay, in which Schrader explains her thesis based on original research and outlines exactly where her plot sticks to known historical fact and where she makes use of creative license. Even at this stage I was keen to read on, as the introduction did not read like a dry historical treatise, but as a persuasive and thrilling journey alongside Schrader as she uncovered new evidence and presented novel theories. This essay is supplemented by maps, a character list, historical notes and a glossary.
Beyond the authenticity of the story, Schrader excels in telling an interesting tale, and particularly in presenting relationships of all types. She explores family loyalties, power struggles, and the relationship between the church and the state, as well as capturing something of the ferment of the medieval Mediterranean - a real melting pot of languages, religions and social classes. I loved the way Schrader could portray the motivations and thoughts of a variety of (often antagonistic) characters with fairness and balance.
The characters which I grew most attached to were Maria Comnena, a wise and fiesty noblewoman, and John d'Ibelin, squire to Aimery, who matures and develops throughout the novel to reach manhood and knighthood. Each character was distinct and well-drawn, which was the main strength of this book for me. One of the main protagonists, Balian d'Ibelin (John's father) is the subject of a previous trilogy of novels by Schrader - a fact I only learned after reading The Last Crusader Kingdom. Prior knowledge of these is not needed, however: this definitely works as a stand-alone novel in its own right.
Lastly, Schrader's style was another strong point. She writes in a straightforward and unpretentious manner and yet manages to create vivid, believable scenes and an exciting plot. Her descriptions were economical yet entirely apt, and I found it easy to visualise each location. I highly recommend this book to any fans of historical fiction, as it is an outstanding book of its type. Schrader's knowledgeability, insight into human character, and pleasing narrative style all add up to a really great read. I definitely plan to read further novels by Schrader in the near future!

 

Buy Now!

Dragomen, Scribes and Ra’is: The Administrative Backbone of a Kingdom

Battles may win (and lose) kingdoms, but no kingdom can survive without an administrative apparatus that ensures taxes and customs dues are collected, coins are minted, weights and measures standardized, borders controlled, trade fostered, resources regulated, laws enforced and criminals brought to justice. Today I take a closer look at some of the unseen but vital servants of "good governance" in the crusader states.

The construction of great cities and a flourishing in crafts, industry and art is rarely (if ever) possible without a sophisticated administrative structure that allow raw materials materials and labor to be obtained, transported, and paid for, for example. Feudal kingdoms were no exception, and the twelfth and thirteen centuries were periods in which stronger, more centralized governments with more sophisticated royal administration were evolving in both England and France. 

In Western Europe the rise of centralized government generally entailed a strengthening of the crown at the expense of the feudal vassals. (Although Magna Charta and the Oxford Provisions provide examples of how the tensions between crown and vassals could be used to strengthen institutions of consultative government.) Because the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century was characterized by absentee kings (two in succession never once set foot in their kingdom) and strong, independent barons, it is often assumed that the Kingdom of Jerusalem lacked sophisticated administration.

In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. 

It could, indeed, be argued that the baronial movement, which successfully fought off all attempts by the Holy Roman Emperor to impose autocratic Imperial government, was only possible because the administrative apparatus in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was so sophisticated. How else could barons holding fiefs in two different kingdoms have had the time to engage in a protracted struggle with their overlord, defend their fiefs against the enemy, take part in crusades, and still find time to write legal tracts and other scholarly works? The mere fact of being dependent on income from two geographically dispersed kingdoms, made it essential for the leading men of the kingdom to have institutionalized deputies capable of acting in their absence and in their interests. Furthermore, warfare is expensive, and so impossible at a national -- or baronial -- level without a means of maintaining sources of income. 

Giving credit where it is due: the Franks possessed such sophisticated means of raising money and administering their fiefs as absentee landlords largely because they were able to take over existing structures left to them by their Arab and Greek predecessors. The Holy Land had, after all, been administrated by the ultimate bureaucracy, the Byzantine Empire, for over three hundred years! Arguably, few of the institutions that served the crusader states so well were their own, but the Franks must be given credit for adapting the legacy of the predecessors to their needs so effectively. 

Turning first to the sources of income, the Franks like their predecessors enriched their treasury by the following means:

·       Rents on land, i.e. tenant farmers paying to the lord rent for the right to work the land and retain three-quarters to two-thirds of the harvest;

·       Mills for grinding grain into flower;

·       Olive and wine presses;

·       Sugar factories;

·       Ovens (which were usually communal as it took a great deal of wood to heat one and it was more efficient to do this for large quantities of bread;

·       Taxes on garden produce and orchards;

·       Bath-houses;

·       Tolls on roads and at gates;

·       Import and export duties at the ports;

·       Anchorage and harbor fees;

·       Rights of salvage;

·       Rents for store-frontage;

·       Fees assessed by the courts on people found guilty of crimes and misdemeanors;

·       And more.

As this list demonstrates, there were many more ways of making money than “taxing peasants,” and rents of one quarter to one third of the harvest (or the monetary equivalent) was not excessive, particularly since it was not the practice in Outremer to require labor on the lord’s own domain as in the West. Merchants bore a higher burden ― and could well afford to because they were making money hand over fist selling high-value, luxury products like spices, silk, ivory, pharmaceuticals, glass, sugar, wine and olive-oil in the markets of the West at many times the cost for those products in Outremer.

To collect all those revenues, however, the kings and their vassals required a veritable army of lessor officials, who represented them, enforced their laws, and collected their fees, duties and taxes.

At the village level there was a local and resident “Head Man” known as the ra’is (also rays). He was a tenant, usually with a bigger house and somewhat more profitable land, e.g. olive orchards or vineyards, and he spoke the same language and shared the religion of the other inhabitants of the village because he was the descendant of the ra’is, who had been there before the Franks came. In new Frankish settlements, the function of the ra’is was performed by the lord’s agent, referred to variously as dispensator or locator.  The ra’is was an intermediary between the lord and his tenants and represented the interests of the community to the lord.

On the other side the lord employed a dragoman and a scribe to represent his interests and enforce his laws in the community. The dragoman was similar to the English sheriff or modern police chief, responsible for law and order, capturing outlaws/criminals, and carrying out the sentence of the responsible court. The scribe, far from being a mere note-taker, was responsible for collecting taxes, rents, duties etc. and recording their collection so that no one could be taxed twice etc. Both of these positions were usually held by Franks of the “sergeant” class (free burghers), but there are records of natives holding these offices. Since many native Christians at this time spoke Arabic and used Arabic names, however, we cannot know if the individuals entrusted with these important offices were Muslim, Orthodox Christians or converts to Catholicism. Notably, these men of the sergeant class also clearly needed to be literate to carry out their duties.

In addition to these officers who lived in the domain or territory (some scribes and dragomen served multiple villages) for which they were responsible, the king and the greater lords had household officials, who managed their affairs centrally. These officials oversaw the dragomen and scribes, kept central records, and the lord’s treasury. Various titles were used but common terms were “chancellors” for keeping charters and legal records, seneschals for maintaining financial records (CFO), and constables for military affairs assisted by the marshal for maintaining the vital horses. 

Finally, in the urban centers and ports, there large customs houses staffed by a bevy of customs officials who kept an eye and records of all the ships and their cargoes moving in and out of the port. There were customs officials at the gates to the city as well. Other officials were responsible for monitoring and checking on the weights and measures used in the markets. Others oversaw the removal of refuse and the rules of the wells, bakeries, and bath-houses. There were men who patrolled the streets to keep order, especially at night. All of these individuals were part of the sophisticated administrative system which enabled the Kingdom of Jerusalem to survive -- and relied heavily on the support of the native Christians, who had the greatest institutional memory. They are indicative of a well-functioning state, and particularly impressive when one considers just how weak the crown was in light of its near perpetual absenteeism.

Recommended Reading: Riley Smith, Jonathan, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem 1174 – 1277, MacMillan, 1973.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.

She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.

She is an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at: http://crusaderkingdoms.com

The complexity of life in the crusader states is reflected in the award-winning Jerusalem Trilogy: 
 

Buy now!                                         Buy now!                                         Buy now!

And: 

 

Buy Now!

Wound Treatment in the Crusader Era

Today guest blogger Fermin Person provides us an expert insight into injuries and their treatment during the crusader era.

A careful look at this medieval manuscript illustration shows a variety of battlefield injuries.

The most common types of injuries in the crusader era were fractures, cuts, puncture wounds, burns and head injuries. Below, is a look at the treatment of these injuries in the crusader era individually:

Fractures

Evidently fractures were quite common during the medieval period in peacetime as well as in wartime. If a long bone of the human body, like the upper arm bone (Humerus) is broken it is important that the broken bone is adjusted in a position so that the bone can heal straight, without forming an angle. To fixate the broken limb in such a position the arm or leg was put into a splint made from several wood sticks or into a plaster made from flour and egg white. Apparently this was considered a simple procedure, since the Laws of the Kingdom of Jerusalem punished the improper use of splints or plaster resulting in the crippling of the patient.

Cuts/Blade injuries

Blade injuries were probably very common during the crusading age.  According to Arabic texts such as Albucasis and its translation into western languages bleeding could be stopped by cauterisation or surgical sutures, however, it was not possible to suture fine structures like blood vessels. Afterwards bandages were applied. In some texts poultices soaked with wine and vinegar are also mentioned. 

In severe wounds or in case of infection, however, an amputation was considered necessary ― but only as a last resort. Albucasis describes a reasonable method. The limb was placed on a wooden block. Ligatures were placed above and under the site of the amputation. Afterwards the soft tissue was cut and the bleeding from the blood vessels was stopped. Thereafter the bone was sawn trough. Finally, the stump was bandaged and left to heal. There is no evidence regarding the length of time needed for amputation.

Spear or bow injuries

Individuals were often hit by several arrows during one engagement. Lances or spears could cause similar wounding patterns. If arrows could not be removed trough their initial point of entry it was recommended to push them through the tissue, completing their way out. 

If the arrow could not be removed immediately, it was possible to wait some days until the swelling around the wound went down.  A further complication resulted from parts of the armour being nailed to the body by the arrow. Afterward the removal of the missile, the wounds were cared for using bandages or poultices.

Burning

Burning was common in medieval warfare, particularly during sieges, and also due to accidents with fire, candles etc.. A source that was exceptional to the Middle East was Greek fire, which could not be extinguished by water, vinegar being needed. Medieval medical texts recommend keeping the wound from drying out by applying  oil, wax, fat or vinegar mixed with other ingredients such as opium or herbs. Additionally, the development of blisters was to be prohibited by applying oil, vinegar or rose oil.

Head injuries

Head injuries were common during medieval warfare. Medieval physicians were aware of seriousness of such wounds, and that many of the victims died. Still an adequate treatment was specified in the legal text of the Kingdom of Jerusalem Livre des Assis de la Cour des Bourgeois.  The phycisian/surgeon had to clean the head wound, search for bone fragments and remove them. From archaeological evidence, such as the skull finding in Jacobs Ford, we know that skull fractures were survived by some individuals.

Excurs: Was there exchange between medieval Arabic and Christian medicine during the crusades? It is not clear to what extent knowledge was transferred between the Islamic world and the Christian west during the crusades in the Holy Land. We do know, however,  there was extensive translation of medical texts in Sicily and Spain. Numerous medical and astrological works (the border between the two areas was in the medieval period fluent) were translated from Arabic into Latin. Several lost Greco-Roman works that had been lost to the West were re-discovered through their translation into Arabic. The actual impact on western medicine of these available translations is, however, difficult to trace or document. Regarding the standards of care there is also little knowledge, no survival rates are reported to compare the different health care standards. There are frequent stories in the literature of the time such as in the autobiography of Usama Ibn Munqidh. But they are often allegoric in nature and do not allow any certain conclusions. According to Edgington (1994), Eastern Roman, Muslim and Western Christian practitioners had a similar standard regarding the practical knowledge of surgery.

Sources

Mitchel, Piers D.  (2007) Medicine during the crusades, Cambridge University press

Tony Hunt (1999) The Medieval Surgery, Boydell & Brewer Inc

Edgington, S. (1994) Medical knowledge of the crusading armies: the evidence of Albert of Aachen and others. In M Barber, The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and caring for the Sick, (Aldershot, Ashgate)

Keda, B (1998) A twelfth century description of the Jerusalem Hospital, In H. Nicholson (ed.). The Military Orders. II Welfare and Warfare (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 3-26.

Guy de Lusignan Part II: Usurper and Destroyer of a Kingdom

Today I continue with my short biography of Guy de Lusignan:

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 we have 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 an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at: http://crusaderkingdoms.com

Guy is a major character in both "Defender of Jerusalem" and "Envoy of Jerusalem." 

Buy Now!

                                                             

                                                           Buy Now!