While the Grand
Master’s accusations can largely be dismissed as self-serving (the two men
detested one another), and Scott’s portrayal is far from fact, even the most
reliable and credible chronicler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in this period,
William Archbishop of Tyre, has left an ambiguous image. On the whole the
Archbishop of Tyre portrays Tripoli in a positive light, yet he also suggests offhandely that Tripoli was plotting a coup against Baldwin IV in 1180. More recently, revisionist historians intent on challenging the still prevalent portrayal of Reyald de Chatillon as a madman, brute and self-interested rogue, have forcefully come out calling Raymond of Tripoli a "traitor" and the architect of the disaster at Hattin. In
their zeal to rehabilitate Chatillon, I believe they overshoot the mark, however. Here is my analysis starting with some background.
The County of
Tripoli was created after the liberation of Jerusalem by Raymond Count of
Toulouse, one of the most important leaders of the First Crusade. Toulouse was
widely believed to have coveted the crown of Jerusalem. When it fell to
Godfrey de Bouillon instead, he set about conquering his own kingdom eventually
capturing the entire coastal area between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the
Principality of Antioch. This gave the Latins control of three contiguous
states along the shore of the Eastern Mediterranean. Although de jure autonomous,
in reality the County of Tripoli did not have the resources to defend itself
and so it was always quasi-dependent on the larger, more prosperous neighbors,
Antioch and Jerusalem. In return, the Counts of Tripoli usually brought their
knights, turcopoles and sergeants to the feudal muster of Jerusalem.
The Raymond of
Tripoli under discussion here was the third by that name. His father
Raymond II of Tripoli had been Count of Tripoli from 1137 and his mother,
Hodiera, was a Princess of Jerusalem, the younger sister of Queen Melisende.
However, the marriage was so notoriously turbulent that Queen Melisinde
intervened and recommended an amicable separation. In 1152, Raymond II was
assassinated, leaving his minor son Raymond III, his heir. The King of
Jerusalem served as regent until Raymond came of age, and not long after this,
in 1164, Raymond was taken captive by the Saracen leader Nur ad-Din. He was not
released for eight years, and became proficient in Arabic while in captivity. It is often imputed by his enemies that it was during this period in captivity that he was "converted" or "coopted" by the the Muslims and in effect became as Saracen "mole" or "sleeper" in the Frankish camp.
When
he was set free, it was for a ransom largely contributed by the Knights of St. John,
and in exchange for the ransom he gave the Order considerable territory on his western border. Here the Hospitallers built a series of castles including the famous Krak de Chevaliers.
So far, Raymond’s career had not been very auspicious.
In 1174, however,
King Amalric died suddenly, leaving his 13 year old son Baldwin as his
heir. As the closest male relative of
the young king, Raymond of Tripoli was elected, although not immediately, regent.
William of Tyre describes him as follows:
He
was a slight-built, thin man. He was not very tall and he had dark skin. He had
straight hair of medium color and piercing eyes. He carried himself stiffly. He
had an orderly mind, was cautious, but acted with vigor.
Contemporary Arab
chronicles noted he was highly intelligent, and this was borne out by his
sophisticated diplomatic policies in the coming 15 years.
Shortly after
becoming regent, Raymond also married for the first time, taking to wife the
greatest heiress in the Kingdom, Eschiva, princess of Galilee. She was a widow
with four sons by her previous marriage, but William of Tyre explicitly states
it was a happy marriage and that Tripoli was on excellent terms with his
step-sons. More important, however, the marriage made Tripoli the greatest nobleman inside the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a baron owing 200 knights to the crown. Thus, even after he
stepped down as regent when Baldwin IV came of age in 1176, he remained a
powerful figure in the kingdom as well as in his own right as
Count of Tripoli.
By now, however,
it was evident that Baldwin IV was suffering from leprosy and was not going to
sire an heir — or live very long. The need to find a replacement was acute.
Baldwin had two sisters, the elder of which, Sibylla, was the heir apparent to
the throne, but the constitution of Jerusalem dictated that a female heir could
only rule jointly with a consort. Sibylla was duly married to a suitable
candidate (William Marquis de Montferrat), but he promptly died of malaria,
leaving her a young (and pregnant) widow. In 1180, she made a surprise and
hasty marriage to a young nobleman only recently arrived in the Holy Land, Guy
de Lusignan. There are various versions about why she married Guy (see Sibylla
and Guy). The version provided by William of Tyre is that the Prince of
Antioch, the Baron of Ramla and Mirabel, and Raymond of Tripoli had been
planning to marry Ramla to Sibylla and then depose Baldwin IV, so he married
his sister off in great haste — only to regret it latter.
Because Tyre is
considered such a knowledgeable insider and sober historian, most modern
historians accept this version uncritically. I find it flawed in many ways.
First, if Tripoli had been intent on power, he was in a far better position to seize
it after becoming regent. Secondly, Tyre admits that the trio of lords came to
Jerusalem as if to attend Easter Mass at the Holy Sepulcher, and when they
found Sibylla already married they went away peaceably — which hardly sounds
like the behavior of men intent on a coup d’etat. Most important, Sibylla’s
behavior from this point until her death ten years later was that of a woman
passionately in love with her husband. Had she in fact been married in haste
against her will to a man far beneath her station by a panicked brother, she
would probably have been resentful. She also would have been receptive to the idea of setting the
unwanted husband aside the minute her brother changed his mind. Instead, she clung tenaciously to Guy even when her brother pressed her to divorce him, and later went
to great lengths to get her husband crowned king despite the opposition of the
entire High Court.
Meanwhile,
Baldwin IV was getting weaker. He briefly made Guy his regent in the hope of
being able to retire from the world and prepare to face God, but Guy was such
an unmitigated disaster that Baldwin was forced to take the reins of government back into his
decaying hands. He then took the precaution of having his nephew (Sibylla’s son
by William de Montferrat) crowned co-king as Baldwin V, and the High Court
(i.e. his peers) selected Raymond of Tripoli to be regent after Baldwin IV’s
death. The latter occurred in 1185, and Raymond duly became regent of Jerusalem
a second time. He explicitly refused to be the guardian of the young king,
however, arguing that if anything happened to the boy he would be accused of
have done away with him.
Clearly some
people thought him capable of murdering the young king, and Arab sources suggest that he already coveted
the crown, but no one suggests that, in fact, he did murder the young king, who
was in Sibylla’s not Raymond’s custody when he died in August 1186. What followed
instead was not Tripoli's usurpation by Sibylla's, which left the crusader states in the hands of a completely incompetent man -- her husband Guy.
Raymond’s refusal to pay homage to Guy de Lusignan was completely
comprehensible under the circumstances. His separate peace with Saladin, on the
other hand, was just as clearly treason because it endangered not just he
usurper Guy but every man, woman and child in the crusader states. This separate peace is what modern historians point to when calling Tripoli a traitor. But it is not the end of the story.
In Tripoli's defense, however, he soon saw the
error of his ways. When Saladin requested a "safe-conduct" for a “reconnaissance patrol” to pass through Tripoli's lands of Galilee, Tripoli felt compelled to grant the request -- but warned his fellow Franks to leave the patrol in peace. The Saracen "reconnaissance patrol" was, however, a provocation that the Master of the Knights Templar felt honor-bound to meet. A combined attack by Templar, Hospitaller and civilian knights led by the Templar Grand Master resulted in a Frankish defeat from which only three Templars escaped. The sight of
Templar and Hospitaller heads spiked on the tips of Saracen lances so distressed Raymond that
he acceded to the pleas of the Baron of Ibelin and made peace with Guy de
Lusignan. He did homage to the usurper as his king, and was received the kiss
of peace from Guy. This is a very significant concession on both parts, and underlines how great Tripoli's remorse was.
The problem was
that while Raymond’s action (and the abrogation of his treaty with Saladin)
healed the fracture of the kingdom, it did not transform Guy de Lusignan into a
competent leader. Raymond of Tripoli dutifully brought his troops to the feudal
muster called by Lusignan in late June 1187, and he followed Lusignan’s orders,
even though he vehemently disagreed with them. The catastrophe of Hattin was not
of Raymond’s making; it was Guy de Lusignan and Grand Master of the Temple
between them who had engineered the unnecessary defeat. (See Hattin.)
Trapped on the
Horns of Hattin, Raymond of Tripoli led a successful charge through the Saracen
lines. There is nothing even faintly cowardly or treacherous about this action.
On the contrary, a massed charge of heavy cavalry was the most effective tactic the Franks had against the Saracens. It was the tactic used by Richard the Lionheart to
win at Arsuf. It was not the charge that discredited Tripoli, but the fact that
so few men broke out with him, and apparently no infantry was able to reinforce the breakout. That, however, was hardly
Tripoli’s fault. He spearheaded the attack with is knights. It was the duty of
the King to reinforce his shock-troops. Something Guy de Lusignan singularly
failed to do.
So the Kingdom of
Jerusalem was lost, and Raymond of Tripoli retreated to his own county to die
within a few months by all accounts a broken man.
In summary,
Raymond of Tripoli was a highly intelligent, well-educated and competent man,
who as regent and Count of Tripoli ruled prudently and effectively. Yet he was
condemned to watch as a parvenu usurper led the crusader states into an
avoidable disaster. It is hardly any wonder that he harbored thoughts of
seizing the throne himself when the alternative, as history was to show, was to leave it in the hands of a man so
totally unsuited to wear a crown. If Tripoli was a traitor, it was for the
right reasons: to save the kingdom from destruction. For me he more a tragic
figure than a traitorous one.
Tripoli is a character in my Jerusalem Trilogy, particularly Book II: "Defender of Jerusalem"
Tripoli is a character in my Jerusalem Trilogy, particularly Book II: "Defender of Jerusalem"
It would seem that I am at odds with "revisionist historians" concerning Raymond.
ReplyDeleteYou're in good company -- mine!
ReplyDelete