Guy de Lusignan
has the distinction of being the man who lost the Kingdom of Jerusalem by
leading the Christian army to an unnecessary but utterly devastating defeat at
the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Such noted
modern historians such as Malcolm Barber, Bernard Hamilton and W.B. Bartlett argue
Lusignan’s disastrous decision to abandon the Springs of Sephoria and march to
the relief of the garrison of Tiberius in July 1187 can be explained by the fact that he was
criticized for not taking the offense
in the campaign of 1183. Guy they argue
was in a difficult psychological position and had every reason to doubt the Count of Tripoli’s loyalty. They generally portray Guy more as a victim of circumstances than the cause of disaster. Indeed, it has become popular to blame the “disloyalty”
of other lords rather than Guy for the loss of his kingdom. Guy’s contemporaries saw it differently.
So who has
the right of it? A brief resume of Guy de Lusignan’s career.

Guy de Lusignan in Ridley Scott's Film "The Kingdom of Heaven"
Guy de Lusignan
enters history with his marriage to Sibylla of Jerusalem, King Amalric’s
first-born child and older sister too King Baldwin IV. Or does he?
In the spring of
1168, the Earl of Salisbury was escorting Queen Eleanor of England to Poitiers
with a small escort when the party was ambushed by “the Lusignans.” The
Lusignans had recently been dispossessed of their lands for rebelling against
Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. They hoped
by capturing Eleanor to gain a bargaining chip for the restoration of their
fortunes. The Earl of Salisbury turned over his own horse, which was stronger
and faster, to Eleanor so she could escape, but while he was remounting he was
fatally pierced from behind by a lance. Salisbury’s nephew William Marshal (later
famous as tutor of the Henry the Young King, Earl of Pembroke and Regent of England) was
in Salisbury’s entourage. According to
the 13th century biography of William Marshal, commissioned by his
eldest son and based on the accounts of many of Marshal’s contemporaries, this
ambush was led by Guy de Lusignan and his brother Geoffrey. Some sources claim that
Guy himself wielded the murderous lance. Allegedly, this act made Guy persona non
grata in the courts of the Plantagenets and induced him to seek his fortune in
Outremer.
Maybe, but there was a gap of some 12 years, so maybe not.
Nevertheless, when considering Guy de Lusignan’s later reputation, it is
important to remember that he was accused of a profoundly unchivalrous murder
by contemporaries — before he ever set
foot in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

A Blow from Behind -- Here with a Sword
Guy appears to have
arrived in Jerusalem in late 1179 or early 1180 at the invitation of his elder
brother Aimery. Aimery was making a career in Jerusalem, according to some, by
sleeping with the Queen Mother Agnes de Courtney. At the time Guy arrived in
the Holy Land, Baldwin IV was king — and clearly dying of leprosy. Since it was
also clear that Baldwin IV would not sire heirs of his body, his nephew Baldwin
was his heir apparent. This boy had been born to his elder sister Sibylla after
the death of her first husband, William of Montferrat. Sibylla herself was thus
a young (20 year old) widow. There were rumors, however, that she had pledged
herself to the Baron of Ramla and Mirabel. The rumors were widespread enough
for Salah-ad-Din to demand a king’s ransom when Ramla was taken captive on the Litani in 1179 (apparently in anticipation of Ramla
becoming King of Jerusalem) —
and for the Byzantine Emperor to pay that exorbitant ransom (since Ramla could
not possibly pay it from his own resources) in anticipation of the same event.
But suddenly at
Easter of 1180, Sibylla married not Ramla (who was on his way back from
Constantinople) but the virtually unknown and landless Guy de Lusignan. The wedding was concluded in a hasty ceremony
lacking preparation and pomp. According to the most reliable contemporary
source, the Archbishop of Tyre (who was also Chancellor at the time and so an “insider,”)
Baldwin rushed his sister into the marriage with the obscure, landless and
discredited Guy because the Prince of Antioch, the Count of Tripoli and the
Baron of Ramla were planning to depose him and place Ramla on the throne as
Sibylla’s consort.
Allegedly a Depiction of a Royal Wedding in Jerusalem
Perhaps, but there is no other evidence of Tripoli’s
disloyalty, and Ramla’s hopes of marrying Sibylla had been known for a long
time — and all the way to Damascus and Constantinople. Why did that marriage
suddenly seem threatening to Baldwin IV?
Another
contemporary source, Ernoul, suggests another reason for the hasty and
unsuitable (for there is no way the third son of a Poitevin baron could be
considered a suitable match for a Princess of Jerusalem) marriage: that Guy had
seduced Sibylla. Aside from the fact that this had happened more than once in
history, the greatest evidence for a love match is Sibylla’s steadfast — almost
hysterical — attachment to Guy, as we shall see. Meanwhile, however, the marriage alienated
not only the jilted Baron of Ramla, but the Count of Tripoli as well. In short, it was not a
very wise political move and thus hard to explain as a political decision. Last but not least, even the Archbishop of
Tyre admits the King soon regretted the decision. All these factors point to
Ernoul’s explanation of a seduction, a scandal and an attempt to “put things
right” by a King who was devoted to his sister.
Guy was named
Count of Jaffa and Ascalon and appears to have been accepted by the Barons of
Jerusalem as a fait accompli that could no longer be changed — until, in
September 1183, King Baldwin became so ill that he named his brother-in-law Regent. As such, Guy took command of the Christian
forces during Salah-ad-Din’s fourth invasion of the Kingdom. What happened next
is obscure. Although Saladin managed to burn some monasteries and there were some bitterly
fought skirmishes, ultimately the Saracens were forced to withdraw; an apparent
Christian victory (and certainly better than what happened four years later, the
next time Guy was in command!)
Yet something more must have happened on this campaign because just
two months later, when word reached Jerusalem that the vital castle of Kerak
was besieged by Saladin, the barons of Jerusalem “unanimously” refused to
follow Guy. They flat out refused to come to the relief of an important border
fortress in which both royal princesses (Sibylla and Isabella), the Queen
Mother and the Dowager Queen were all trapped (because of a wedding) until Guy was
stripped of the regency.
That is an incredibly strong statement. The fact that the historical record is too
patchy to enable us to explain it does not negate the importance of the event.
The collective barons of Outremer were not dolts, cowards or fools. They had accepted Guy’s command two months
earlier. Even Tripoli and Ramla, who both detested him, had mustered under Guy’s
command to face Salah-ad-Din in September, putting the welfare of the kingdom
ahead of their personal feelings. But two months later even men who had
previously shown no particular animosity toward Lusignan refused to accept his
leadership. King Baldwin had no choice but to take back the reins of government,
command of his army and have his nephew crowned as co-king. The latter was to
reassure the barons that even if he died in the near term (as he expected),
they would not have to pay homage to Guy.

After Kerak had
been successfully relieved, Baldwin IV sought desperately to have his sister’s
marriage to Guy annulled. This had nothing to do with personal grievances
against Guy (although he had those too); it was necessary in order to find a
long-term solution to the succession crisis. His nephew was a sickly boy, and
the kingdom needed a vigorous and militarily competent leader. Baldwin’s
efforts to replace the discredited Guy were thwarted by Sibylla, who refused to
consider a divorce — something she is hardly likely to have done, if the
marriage had been political in the first place. If Sibylla had married for
reasons of state, she would have divorced for reasons of state. Less than a decade later, her half-sister
Isabella put the kingdom ahead of her affections when she divorced the
ineffectual Humphrey de Toron to marry the man around whom the barons had
rallied, Conrad de Montferrat.
Baldwin IV died
in 1185 and was succeed by his nephew with Raymond de Tripoli as regent. The fact that Tripoli was made regent — with
the consent of the High Court — and the Count of Edessa was made the boy's
guardian are both indications of the intensity of the animosity and suspicion
the bishops and barons of Jerusalem still harbored for Guy de Lusignan. There
was, after all, a precedent for a queen reigning for an
under-aged son, Melisende a had reigned in their own right for her son Baldwin III.
At the death of
Baldwin V roughly one year later, hostility to Guy had not substantially
weakened. 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 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). I repeat: this is not the behavior of a woman who had
been forced in to a hasty and demeaning marriage by her brother out of
political expediency; it is consistent with a woman who was passionately in love
with the man who she had foisted upon her brother and her subjects against
their wishes.
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 to 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
latter, 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 is 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.
Guy de Lusignan plays an important role in my three-part biographical novel of Balian d'Ibelin.
Learn more about Guy and the Kingdom of Jerusalem at: Balian d'Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.