John
d'Ibelin, 1179 - 1236, has gone down in history as "the Old Lord of
Beirut." The description originates with 13th century historian and
jurist Philip de Novare, who makes "the Old Lord of Beirut" the hero in
his account of the baronial revolt against Emperor Fredrick II. While
modern historians warn that Novare was a vassal of the Ibelins and
obviously a biased observer, he nevertheless provides a first-hand
account of events that are rarely contradicted outright by other
sources. Rather, it is the invariable positive "spin" on the motives and
actions of the Ibelins that modern historians object to. Furthermore,
none can deny that John d'Ibelin, Lord of Beirut, was a towering figure
of the early 13th century, a man admired for his learning, wisdom
and influence.
John was the eldest son of Balian d’Ibelin and the Byzantine princess Maria Comnena. He was
probably born in 1179, the second of their four children. He was
presumably a child of eight when the Battle of Hattin destroyed the
world into which he had been born. He was certainly in Jerusalem when
father came to the city to rescue his family―only to remain in the city
and organize the defense. John, along with his siblings and his mother,
however, was escorted from the apparently doomed city by Saladin’s own body-guard in a profoundly generous gesture on the part of the Sultan before the siege.
The
next time John is mentioned in the historical record is in 1198, when
he is named Constable of Jerusalem by King Aimery de Lusignan. He would
have been only 19 at the time, and historians, balking at the idea of
such a young man might have been capable of fulfilling the duties of
Constable, hypothesize that the appointment was nominal, a means of
providing for him materially. Yet, as his father’s eldest son, he would
have already inherited the barony of Caymont, if (as historians assume)
his father was already dead. Furthermore, historians appear to overlook
the fact that young noblemen and kings came of age at 15 in the Holy
Land, so a noblemen of 19 would have been young but not viewed as
immature. If kings could command at 15, why shouldn’t a constable at 19?
Last but not least, John witnessed all existing charters of King
Aimery, suggesting a close relationship between the two men.
John was still quite
young, 24, when he was named Regent of Jerusalem first for his
half-sister Isabella (following the death of her fourth husband, King
Aimery), and then for his niece, Isabella's eldest daughter and heir,
Maria de Montferrat, after Isabella’s death a few months later. As
regent he arranged a marriage between his niece Alice of Champagne
(Isabella’s daughter by her third husband, Henri de Champagne) with the
heir to the Cypriot throne, Hugh de Lusignan. In addition, he was
influential in the marriage of Maria de Montferrat to John de Brienne.
Meanwhile, sometime between 1198 and 1205, he had traded the position of
Constable for the lordship of Beirut. It was as Lord of Beirut that he
has gone down into history.
Beirut
was retaken for Christendom by German crusaders in 1198, but was so
badly destroyed in the process (either by the retreating Saracens or the
advancing Germans or both) that it was allegedly an uninhabitable
ruin. Despite
that, it was an immensely valuable prize because of its harbor, the
fertile surrounding coastal territory, and the proximity to Antioch and
Damascus. It was clearly a mark of great favor and trust that John d'Ibelin was granted the lordship of Beirut.
John
d’Ibelin resettled the city and rebuilt the fortifications. He also
built a palace that won the admiration of visitors for its elegance and
luxury. It included polychrome marble walls, frescoes, painted ceilings,
fountains, gardens, and large, glazed windows offering splendid views
to the sea.
John
first married (presumably in 1198 or 1199) a certain Helvis of Nephin,
about whom nothing is known beyond that she delivered to him five sons,
all of whom died as infants. Helvis herself died before 1207, when John
married the widowed heiress of Arsur, Melisende. By Melisende, John had
another five sons and a single daughter, all of whom survived to
adulthood.
In
1210, Maria de Montferrat came of age, married John de Brienne, and the
couple were crowned Queen and King of Jerusalem; John’s regency was
over. Furthermore, he completely disappeared from the witness lists of
the kingdom, suggesting he had withdrawn to Beirut rather than remaining
in attendance on the new king and queen―whether voluntarily, or after
some dispute is unknown.
While
nothing is known for sure about John’s whereabouts between 1210 and
1217, by the latter date John and his younger brother Philip headed the
list of witness to all existing charters of King Hugh I of Cyprus. This
suggests that at some unknown point before 1217 he had acquired
important fiefs on Cyprus. In 1227, he was named regent for the orphaned
heir to the Cypriot crown, Henry I.
Only
a year later, however, the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II
Hohenstaufen arrived at the head of the Fifth crusade, and John
immediately found himself on a collision course. At
stake was the constitution of the Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus,
with John defending the traditional pre-eminent role of the High Court
against the Holy Roman Emperor's attempt to impose absolute monarchy on
both kingdoms. In the long-run, the
Hohenstaufen suffered a complete defeat, eventually losing his
suzerainty over Cyprus altogether, while neither he nor his heirs were
ever able to exercise his royal authority throughout the Kingdom of
Jerusalem. But the cost was high: a civil war that dragged out over a
quarter century.
John
has been accused by historians of defending only the parochial
interests of his family and the leading baronial families. Certainly,
his stance undermined central authority in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and
ultimately weakened it. Against this argument stands the fact that his
rebellion actually strengthened the position of the Kings of Cyprus.
Furthermore, Frederick II’s heavy handed attempts to disinherit men
without due process and run rough-shod over local laws and customs meant
John was fighting as much for the rule of law as for personal
interests.
The
fact that John was strongly supported by the commons of Acre further
underlines the fact that he was not solely self-interested. John had no problem accepting the authority of John de Brienne and Henri de Lusignan, after all. I believe, therefore, a strong case can be made for John opposing not the concept of central authority but rather the individual ― Frederick II, who even his admirers describe as arrogant and authoritarian. Frederick
II believed that, like a Roman Emperor, he was God’s representative on
earth. Frederick II provoked revolts in the West as well as the East,
and was excommunicated several times. John d'Ibelin, on the other hand,
was widely admired in his own lifetime and has been compared to St.
Louis of France by later historians.
He
died from injuries obtained fighting against the Saracens on the
eastern border of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1236. On his deathbed he
joined the Knights Templar.
Dr.
Helena P. Schrader is also the author of six books set in the Holy Land
in the Era of the Crusades. John of Beirut is one of the main characters in The Last Crusader Kingdom, Rebels against Tyranny and The Emperor Strikes Back.
Buy Now! Buy Now! Buy Now!
For more about the Ibelins and the world they lived in read:
Modern "historians" tend to equate the youths of yesteryear with the youths of today. And that's absolutely stupid.
ReplyDeleteAs for Philip de Novare; if your Lord and friend are standing up to a tyrant when no one else will, then you have every reason to brag . . . and even embellish, a little.
So "modern historians" need to stick their collective heads into a bucket of cold water.
As for John, himself: Balian was "old school." He mae the boy pay attention in class. :-)