Emperor Frederick II
spent less than a year in the Holy Land. Yet despite being absent, attempts by
the Hohenstaufen Emperors to impose their will upon the crusader states lasted
for a total of 43 years. The
Hohenstaufens tried to rule their distant kingdoms through proxies
without reference to the respective constitution of the kingdoms
involved. This sparked tenacious
resistance from the local barons which ultimately resulted in civil war.
Throughout those 43
years, a minority faction among the local barons supported the Imperial cause.
Indeed, it could be argued that while Frederick II used the disaffection of
some individuals for his purposes, they used his hubris and arrogance for
theirs. Indeed, pre-existing hostility to the entrenched leadership in Outremer
was instrumental in encouraging and fostering imperial contempt for the constitutional
order in the crusader states. Today I look at the tensions and factions within
the ruling elite of Outremer that pre-dated the arrival of Frederick II.
The opposition to
the Holy Roman Emperor was led by John d’Ibelin, Lord of Beirut, supported his
large kinship network, the majority of the local barons and knights, the
Templars, Genoese and the common people of Acre. The imperial faction was led
most forcefully by Sicilian nobles appointed by the Emperor, notably his
admiral Richard Filangieri, and supported by the Pisans, Hospitallers, and a minority faction in Outremer.
While local support
for the Emperor in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was fluid and declined over time as
Filangieri alienated more and more of the Franks, on Cyprus the Emperor enjoyed
strong support from a minority faction of local lords and knights led by Sir
Amaury Barlais, Gauvain de Cheneche, Amaury de Bethsan, William de Rivet, and
Hugh de Gibelet. These five men were briefly appointed joint regents (baillies) of Cyprus by Frederick II and are
widely referred to as “the five baillies.” They commanded the loyalty of 80
knights, or effectively 20% of the Cypriot feudal elite.
What explains the
difference between Jerusalem and Cyprus? Where did the local opposition on Cyprus
come from and why?
Philip de Novare explains
the bitter divide in Cypriot society entirely in terms of personal jealousies
and resentment. He tells a colorful tale of Sir Amaury Barlais trying to murder
a knight he accused of cheating in a joust.
According to Novare, although he failed and was pardoned for the
attempt, the hostility and mutual suspicions between Barlais and the Ibelins started
with this incident and festered thereafter.
Certainly Amaury
Barlais’ attempted to oust Philip d’Ibelin as “baillie” of Cyprus sometime after
1224 and before 1227. (The exact date is unknown.) The sequence of events is as
follows. In 1218, King Hugh I died, leaving as his heir a nine-month-old son,
Henry, and a widow, Alice de Champagne, who was a niece of the Ibelin brothers
John and Philip. According to the constitution of the kingdom, Alice, as the
king’s closest blood relative, was recognized as the regent of the kingdom. However, Alice (for whatever reason) chose not to take up the reins of government.
Instead, she contented herself with the bulk of the revenues while turning the
business of ruling over to her uncle Philip d’Ibelin. Significantly, this
choice of actual (as opposed to nominal) regent was agreed to in the High Court
of Cyprus, and the members of the High Court (i.e. the knights and nobles of
Cyprus) took an oath to support Philip until King Henry came of age at 15.
Sometime in 1224,
Alice had a falling out with Philip d’Ibelin (probably over money) and decided
to marry a second time (she was roughly 30 years old at this time). She chose
as her second husband Prince Bohemond of Antioch, and moved to Antioch, leaving
her children by her first marriage behind. Sometime thereafter she appointed
Amaury Barlais as her “baillie,” presumably on the expectation that he would be
more amenable to her demands.
Her appointment of
Barlais, however, lacked the consent and approval of the High Court. This was unconstitutional
(even if the members had not sworn allegiance to Philip “until Henry came of
age”) and so the High Court rejected Barlais’ claim to be regent for Alice of
Champagne. This probably had less to do with preferring Philip d’Ibelin over
Amaury Barlais than with preserving the privileges of the High Court itself;
the members could not accept Barlais without surrendering their own prerogative
to designate regents/baillies.
However, at this
point, one of the knights in the High Court and a relative of the Ibelins, a
certain Anseau de Brie, took things a step farther and accused Barlais of
treason for accepting and attempting to claim the appointment. Brie challenged
Barlais to judicial combat. Brie was a large and powerful man; Barlais was
slight of stature. The latter fled back to Syria.
This is where the
rivalries of Cyprus became entwined with the policies of the Holy Roman
Emperor. This accusation of treason apparently occurred near to the time when
Yolanda of Jerusalem married Frederick II. Barlais recognized that the Emperor
Frederick could be a very powerful ally in his struggle with the Ibelins, and
he set about winning the Emperor’s favor.
It may also have
been at this point that Barlais became allied with Sir Gauvain de Cheneche, who
had already gone to the Emperor’s court from Cyprus after a judicial combat
that went poorly for him. Cheneche was reputedly very good with falconry, a
passion of Frederick II, and had thereby won the Emperor’s favor. Together
Cheneche and Barlais complained about the Ibelins to the Emperor.
The Ibelins,
although uncles of the Emperor’s new wife Yolanda, had already earned Frederick
II’s disfavor by crowning Henry king of Cyprus, while the latter was still a
child of seven. Based on German law (not the law of Outremer), Frederick II
claimed that he (not Alice de
Champagne) was the rightful regent of Cyprus and viewed the crowning of the
young king as an attempt to pre-empt him. The coronation very probably was an
attempt to check-mate the Emperor, but it was at least based on the law of the
land rather than the law of the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, it meant that
Barlais’ complaints about the abuse of power by the Ibelins fell on open ears. It
did not help the Ibelin cause that Frederick II apparently had no respect or
affection for his wife, their niece, Yolanda.
Again according to
Novare, in anticipation of the Emperor’s immanent arrival Barlais returned to
Cyprus and accepted judicial combat with Brie. What he thought to achieve by
this is unclear, but the resulting trial by combat is described in detail by
Novare. Barlais won an early advantage when he succeeded in prying Brie’s visor
open. He stabbed Brie three times in the face before Brie managed to wrest the
lance from Barlais’ hand and fling him to the ground, injuring him. Brie, who
was still mounted, should have been able to dispatch Barlais, but when the
latter ran to the perimeter barriers, his loyal horse again and again put
himself between Brie and his master so Brie could not deliver the coup de grace.
Eventually, the judges – the Lord of Beirut and his brother-in-law the Lord of
Caesarea, who was also Constable of Cyprus -- intervened to prevent Barlais’
death. Yet Barlais felt he had been humiliated a second time and returned to
the Emperor’s court full of yet more bitterness against the Ibelins.
Historians, notably
Peter Edbury, are reluctant to accept Novare’s account and explanation of the
conflict. Edbury points to the fact that the five baillies all came from the
second generation of families that had helped establish Lusignan control over
Cyprus. He argues that these men opposed the Ibelins because the latter were
perceived as “parvenus” in Cyprus. (See Edbury’s The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades 1191 – 1374 and his John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.)
He suggests they legitimately resented Ibelin prominence in the reign of Henry
I because the Ibelins had not set foot on Cyprus before 1210 and been inveterate
opponents of Guy de Lusignan in the previous century.
While there are
legitimate grounds for doubting the Ibelins were “late-comers” to Cyprus (see: https://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-creation-of-kingdom-of-cyprus.html and https://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-rise-of-house-of-ibelin.html), resentment of Ibelin prominence remains the most reasonable explanation
of the hostility of this minority.
This does not mean that Novare’s detailed descriptions of duels and violent arguments were fabricated. Rather, he has described events that reflected more than caused the tensions. Yet while Edbury is right to point out that the Ibelins were not universally popular, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Ibelins retained the support of the overwhelming majority (80%) of Cypriot knights and nobles. Perhaps even more telling, they retained the affection and favor of their young lord, King Henry I of Cyprus right until his death decades later.
This does not mean that Novare’s detailed descriptions of duels and violent arguments were fabricated. Rather, he has described events that reflected more than caused the tensions. Yet while Edbury is right to point out that the Ibelins were not universally popular, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Ibelins retained the support of the overwhelming majority (80%) of Cypriot knights and nobles. Perhaps even more telling, they retained the affection and favor of their young lord, King Henry I of Cyprus right until his death decades later.
Philip
de Novare's account of the Emperor's crusade and the civil war in the
crusader states is the primary source for the events described in a new
series of novels set in Outremer in the early 13th century.
Buy Now!
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
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
Pettiness knows no bounds. Especially in politics. And greed seems to have been the motivation of Frederick II. Typical.
ReplyDelete