The Crusades, the Genoese and the Latin East - DSpace at ...

The Crusades, the Genoese and the Latin East - DSpace at ... The Crusades, the Genoese and the Latin East - DSpace at ...

dspace.cam.ac.uk
from dspace.cam.ac.uk More from this publisher
07.04.2013 Views

In any case, Pope Urban III wrote fourteen letters to the ecclesiastical and lay personnel of the crusader states, all of which concern Genoese properties and rights in the Latin East. Six of the letters specifically concern the unpaid debts for Gibelet over a period of seventeen years: We censu illo per annos decem et septem. ' Hugh II's reluctance to pay the census is described in the letter as an `act of rebellion, ' as the pope wrote in his letters that `sicut pater eius fecit solita rebellione. '476 These six letters are very similar to each other, which makes the small differences between them of some interest. The first two letters were written on 11 March 1186. The first was addressed to `dilecto filio Hugoni, filio Hugonis de Gibelleto, ' and the second was written to the patriarch of Antioch 477 The first letter was sent directly to Hugh III. The pope clearly avoided addressing Hugh or his late father as the lords of Gibelet, but simply used `Hugh of Gibelet'. He wrote that the church and the city of Genoa had asked him to act because Hugh's father had not paid his duty for Gibelet, which is property that he had held on Genoa's behalf. The pope bluntly stressed that Hugh III must pay because he is `his father's successor' 'tu debes ex eius successione.... P479 Finally, Urban entrusted further dealing on this matter with the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch and the bishops of Tripoli and Gibelet. The next letter was addressed to the patriarch of Antioch. The pope maintained his rather severe tone. Urban mentioned the letter that he had already written to Hugh III about his father's unpaid debts, using the same words and adding `sicut pater eius fecit, solita rebellione contempnat' [my emphasis]. The pope further mentioned that previous letters by the late popes Alexander III and Lucius III were ignored. Lucius III's letter is not available in the archives of the Vatican, but the reference to such a letter suggests that by 1186, the issue of the relationship and commitments between Genoa and Gibelet had already required papal involvement for over three generations. Urban concluded his own letter to the patriarch in the same rigid manner. He maintained that: `uolumus firmiterque precipiendo mandamus quatinus ipsum ad hoc exequendum moneas attentius et inducas. Quod si ad mandatum nostrum et monita tua facere forte neglexerit, tu eum appellatione remota ad hec ecclesiastica districtione compellas. X479 See Hans. E Mayer and Marie-Luise Favreau `Das Diplom Balduins I fur Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche', Quellen und Forschungen aus italianischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 55/56 (1976), 22-95; Benjamin Kedar, `Genoa's Golden Inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre', 7319. 61 Libri lurium, vol. 1/2, nos. 316-329; Letters 322,325-29 concern Gibelet. The latest edition of these letters is included in Rudolf Niestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande (Gottingen, 1985), letters 130-32,135-37. 477 Hiestand, Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande, the letter to the patriarch of Antioch, no. 131, pp. 308-9; the letter to Hugh of Gibelet, no. 130, pp. 307-8. s Niestand, no. 130, P. 308. 479 Hiestand, no. 131, p. 309. 133

On the following day, 12 March 1186, Urban III wrote two letters to the count of Tripoli 480 The first letter concerning Gibelet is almost a repetition of the letter to the patriarch of Antioch. The letters to the count includes a long list of flattering titles in the addressing line: Dilecto filio nobili uiro.. comiti Tripolitano, baiulo regni Ierosolimitani. 4ß1 This full title stands out in comparison to the lack of acknowledgment of Hugh's rights over Gibelet and the belittling reference to him plainly as `Hugo de Gibelleto'. On 13 March 1186, the pope wrote his final three letters on the matter to the bishops of Tripoli and Gibelet and to the patriarch of Jerusalem 482 In the letters he asked the three to cooperate and work together to ensure that the debt is paid. `si pro mandati nostri reuerentia non adimpleuerit, sine appellationis obstaculo ecclesiastica censura... compellas. ' On this unequivocal these letters end. The fall of the first kingdom of Jerusalem and the crusader states in 1187 made the question of authority and the independence of Byblos and the de Biblio irrelevant for quite some time. Interestingly, after 1186, the independence of Byblos was never questioned again: there is no sign that the de Biblio ever paid the duty due to their home town, or that such payment was requested. This odd change of attitude may be linked to the contribution of the de Biblio to the military efforts to save the kingdom of Jerusalem and the crusader states. Perhaps the fact that Byblos was not recovered for 10 years had contributed to that change of attitude. Hugh III fought in the battle of Hattin and was captured by Saladin together with the king of Jerusalem, the Master of the Temple, Humphrey of Toron and many other nobles of the crusader states. 483 The Continuation of William of Tyre describes how Hugh gained his freedom in exchange for the surrender of his city to Saladin. Shortly afterwards Saladin destroyed the walls of Gibelet, as he did in many other sea-port towns that were perceived as potential beach-heads for the advancing troops of the Third Crusade. In particular, he was worried about the approaching contingents of Frederick Barbarossa. 484 Hugh's son Guy was in Jerusalem among the young nobles who were with Queen Maria Komnena. When Jerusalem was besieged by Saladin, Balian of Ibelin reached an agreement with Saladin that allowed them passage to Tripoli485 The de Biblio family, therefore, had largely survived the war and later regained possession of their town. It is not clear exactly what happened during the Third Crusade. The Genoese armed forces had been in the Latin East from 1190. As was mentioned in Chapter One, the retired Genoese consul Nicola Embriaco was one of the leaders of this crusade. 480 Hiestand, nos. 132,134; pp. 309-10; 311-12. 481 This list of titles is from letter 321, which deals with Genoese property inside the kingdom of Jerusalem. 482 Hiestand, nos. 135-37, pp. 312-14.. 483 Ruth Morgan (ed. ), La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, Ch. 43. 4841bid, Ch. 45 and Ch. 95, translated by Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, pp. 50,89. RHC. Oc. Vol. 2, Ch. 2, p. 140 485 RHC. Oc, vol. 2, p. 84 There is a small variation of the story in this source accordingly it was not Guy son of Hugh III, but Guillemin fils de Reymont de Gibeleth, therefore, the nephew of Hugh Ill. Ruth Morgan (ed. ), La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, ch. 52. 134

On <strong>the</strong> following day, 12 March 1186, Urban III wrote two letters to <strong>the</strong> count of<br />

Tripoli 480 <strong>The</strong> first letter concerning Gibelet is almost a repetition of <strong>the</strong> letter to <strong>the</strong> p<strong>at</strong>riarch of<br />

Antioch. <strong>The</strong> letters to <strong>the</strong> count includes a long list of fl<strong>at</strong>tering titles in <strong>the</strong> addressing line:<br />

Dilecto filio nobili uiro.. comiti Tripolitano, baiulo regni Ierosolimitani. 4ß1<br />

This full title st<strong>and</strong>s<br />

out in comparison to <strong>the</strong> lack of acknowledgment of Hugh's rights over Gibelet <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> belittling<br />

reference to him plainly as `Hugo de Gibelleto'. On 13 March 1186, <strong>the</strong> pope wrote his final three<br />

letters on <strong>the</strong> m<strong>at</strong>ter to <strong>the</strong> bishops of Tripoli <strong>and</strong> Gibelet <strong>and</strong> to <strong>the</strong> p<strong>at</strong>riarch of<br />

Jerusalem 482<br />

In<br />

<strong>the</strong> letters he asked <strong>the</strong> three to cooper<strong>at</strong>e <strong>and</strong> work toge<strong>the</strong>r to ensure th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> debt is paid. `si pro<br />

m<strong>and</strong><strong>at</strong>i nostri reuerentia non adimpleuerit, sine appell<strong>at</strong>ionis obstaculo ecclesiastica censura...<br />

compellas. ' On this unequivocal <strong>the</strong>se letters end. <strong>The</strong> fall of <strong>the</strong> first kingdom of Jerusalem <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> crusader st<strong>at</strong>es in 1187 made <strong>the</strong> question of authority <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> independence of Byblos <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> de Biblio irrelevant for quite some time. Interestingly, after 1186, <strong>the</strong> independence<br />

of Byblos<br />

was never questioned again: <strong>the</strong>re is no sign th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> de Biblio ever paid <strong>the</strong> duty due to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

home town, or th<strong>at</strong> such payment was requested. This odd change of <strong>at</strong>titude may be linked to <strong>the</strong><br />

contribution of <strong>the</strong> de Biblio to <strong>the</strong> military efforts to save <strong>the</strong> kingdom of Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

crusader st<strong>at</strong>es. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> fact th<strong>at</strong> Byblos was not recovered for 10 years had contributed to<br />

th<strong>at</strong> change of <strong>at</strong>titude. Hugh III fought in <strong>the</strong> b<strong>at</strong>tle of H<strong>at</strong>tin <strong>and</strong> was captured by Saladin<br />

toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> king of Jerusalem, <strong>the</strong> Master of <strong>the</strong> Temple, Humphrey of Toron <strong>and</strong> many<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r nobles of <strong>the</strong> crusader st<strong>at</strong>es.<br />

483 <strong>The</strong> Continu<strong>at</strong>ion of William of Tyre describes how Hugh<br />

gained his freedom in exchange for <strong>the</strong> surrender of his city to Saladin. Shortly afterwards<br />

Saladin destroyed <strong>the</strong> walls of Gibelet, as he did in many o<strong>the</strong>r sea-port towns th<strong>at</strong> were<br />

perceived as potential beach-heads<br />

for <strong>the</strong> advancing troops of <strong>the</strong> Third Crusade. In particular,<br />

he was worried about <strong>the</strong> approaching contingents of Frederick Barbarossa. 484 Hugh's son Guy<br />

was in Jerusalem among <strong>the</strong> young nobles who were with Queen Maria Komnena. When<br />

Jerusalem was besieged by Saladin, Balian of Ibelin reached an agreement with Saladin th<strong>at</strong><br />

allowed <strong>the</strong>m passage to Tripoli485 <strong>The</strong> de Biblio family, <strong>the</strong>refore, had largely survived <strong>the</strong> war<br />

<strong>and</strong> l<strong>at</strong>er regained possession of <strong>the</strong>ir town. It is not clear exactly wh<strong>at</strong> happened during <strong>the</strong> Third<br />

Crusade. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Genoese</strong> armed forces had been in <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>at</strong>in</strong> <strong>East</strong> from 1190. As was mentioned in<br />

Chapter One, <strong>the</strong> retired <strong>Genoese</strong> consul Nicola Embriaco was one of <strong>the</strong> leaders of this crusade.<br />

480<br />

Hiest<strong>and</strong>, nos. 132,134; pp. 309-10; 311-12.<br />

481<br />

This list of titles is from letter 321, which deals with <strong>Genoese</strong> property inside <strong>the</strong> kingdom of Jerusalem.<br />

482<br />

Hiest<strong>and</strong>, nos. 135-37, pp. 312-14..<br />

483<br />

Ruth Morgan (ed. ), La Continu<strong>at</strong>ion de Guillaume de Tyr, Ch. 43.<br />

4841bid,<br />

Ch. 45 <strong>and</strong> Ch. 95, transl<strong>at</strong>ed by Edbury, <strong>The</strong> Conquest of Jerusalem, pp. 50,89. RHC. Oc. Vol. 2,<br />

Ch. 2, p. 140<br />

485 RHC. Oc, vol. 2, p. 84 <strong>The</strong>re is a small vari<strong>at</strong>ion of <strong>the</strong> story in this source accordingly it was not Guy<br />

son of Hugh III, but Guillemin fils de Reymont de Gibeleth, <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> nephew of Hugh Ill. Ruth<br />

Morgan (ed. ), La Continu<strong>at</strong>ion de Guillaume de Tyr, ch. 52.<br />

134

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!