View Full Version : Conrad of Montferrat
I've been reading about the Crusades in Zoe Oldenbourgs book, "The Crusades" and am in the middle of the Third Crusade.
I'm wondering about the death of Conrad of Montferrat (a few days after his election as King of Jerusalaem just so we're all thinking of the right person).
Four possibilities were suggested in the book.
1) King Richard had him killed
2) Saladin had him killed, because the Ismailians owed him a blood debt.
3) The Ismailians did it off their own bat, "to add to the discord among the Franks"
The first seems unlikely since Richard doesn't seem the type to collude with the enemy, he'd just have had a knight throw him off a tower or something.
So were left with the second two. What kind of blood debt did the Ismailis owe Saladin, the author mentions Saladins killing of Reynald of Chattilon as a simialar case?
Besides all this, the book is decades old, has anything read anything more recent, has any further evidence/theories come up?
Advo-san
09-19-2005, 21:27
I think you should reconsider the Richard senario.
Conrand had established his own authority inside the walls of Tyros, which means he owned nothing to Richard. And "Coeur de lion" certainly mustn't have liked it...
Even more, Conrad had directly insulted Guy de Lusignian, who was Richard's lakey and His Magesty's selection for the throne of Jerusalem. This must have also made Richard see Conrand as his enemy.
But, IMHO Richard couldn't "do" Conrand so easily, as to throw him off a tower. Conrand was a prince; even more, he was the popular leader of the last bastion of the Francish people in Palestine. Even if he wanted, Richard couldn't throw him off a tower... He needed a more elegant way to do the job.
I m not aware of the book you r reading but I am almost certain that Saladin killed Renault de Chatillion because of his disgusting character. This prince of Antioch was a murderer, a killer, a thief, the scum of the earth. Nobody liked him, the Byzantines, the Francs, Saladin, the Ismailits, nobody. Saladin did everyone a favor, but he did it for himself.
I tend to believe the Ismailits hated the Muslims more than they hated the Francs. I know this is a very long shot, but simply consider how many Muslims they killed and how little Francs, if they ever killed anyone. Besides that the Ismailits never killed in the dark, I think they preffered to do their killings in the daylight, in order to make a point and spread fear to their enemies.
Can you mention the fourth possibility suggested in the book?
P.S. This feels good...Trying to solve the murder of a prince who lived ten centuries ago!! :helmet: :policeman: :batman: :bobby:
I'm gonna quote the relevant peice. Anything in Italics is added by me.
He died from an Assassin's dagger a few days after his election. [This is the tail end of a paragraph about the election.]
According to Beha ed-Din, the murderers accused Richard of instigating the murder. Ibn al-Athir, however, expressly incriminates Saladin. The chroniclers of Frankish Syria beleived that this was the Ismailians' vengeance on their own account. Given the facts presented by al-Athir. the second theory seems the most plausible. From Saladin's point of view, this was not actually an assasination in the modern sense of the word: the Ismailians owed him the blood of an enemy of the Faith, [for the life of me I can't think of anything the Ismailis perpetrated against Saladin personally, maybe it was just for all the killing full stop?] and he was paying the heretics to perform a ritual murder of the kind that he himself had perpetrated upon the person of Reynald of Chatillon. He had every reason to fear the rule of a man like Conrad in Frankish Syria. The same act on Richard's part would have been surprising. It would have been easier for him to use as his instrument one of his own knights, among whom Conrad had no shortage of enemies. What is known of his charecter suggests that he was not a man to make the arrangements with Moslems for the killing of a Christian prince, and the evidence of the murderers means nothing in itself beyond the fact that the master of the Assasins had his reasons for wishing to add to the discord among the Franks. [This could mean that they did it for Saladin and sowed confusion after the deed or did it themselves solely to sow confusion}
Now just to point out, this peice does seem a little ingratiating of Richards charecter, but she doesn't shy from criticising him elsewhere. He suffers pretty badly in comparison to Tancred or other Norman princes in her book.
This peice at least implies that the killer was definetley an Ismaili, that this was known and it was only who ordered the killing that was an issue. Also, don't mind that she uses Assasin instead of Hahashin, she does it throughout the book and capitalises it to mark it as the Ismailis.
I had thought Saladin killed Reynald for a combination of the things that you mentioned, but also that he killed his sister and was gathering an army to march on Mecca.... At least in this he was credited for providing a stimulus to Islam when a lot of Emirs were ready to give up, sue for peace and go home.
Now I'm not saying that Richard wasn't happy about it, he most certainly, but so was Saladin....
There were only three possibilities, that I see anyway, I must've mistyped four.
Anyway, we know Richard had ample reason but what of the others?
What reason did the Ismailis have of their own, only to sow confusion?
What blood debt did the Ismailis owe Saladin?
And the plot thickens....
Found some more stuff on it.
The murder remains unsolved. Under torture, the surviving Hashshashin claimed that Richard was behind the killing, though this is impossible to prove. Another suspect was Humphrey IV of Toron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_IV_of_Toron), Isabella's first husband. Later, while returning from the crusade in disguise, Richard was recognised by Meinhard II of Görz (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meinhard_II_of_G%C3%B6rz&action=edit), who is described as Conrad's nephew (which suggests the identity of his first wife), and then imprisoned by his cousin Leopold V of Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_V_of_Austria). Conrad's murder was one of the charges against him. Richard requested that the Hashshashin vindicate him, and in a letter allegedly from their leader, Rashid al-Din Sinan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashid_al-Din_Sinan&action=edit), they appeared to do so. The letter claimed that in 1191 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1191), Conrad had captured a Hashshashin ship that had sought refuge in Tyre during a storm. He killed the captain, imprisoned the crew, and stripped the ship of its treasure. When Rashid al-Din Sinan requested that the ship's crew and treasure be returned, he was rebuffed, and so a death sentence was issued for Conrad of Montferrat. However, this letter is believed to have been forged: Sinan was already dead, and apart from this letter and the chronicle entries based upon it, there is no other evidence for the Hashashin being involved in shipping. The timing of the murder, and its consequences - the pregnant Isabella was married off within the week to Henry of Champagne, much to the disgust of Muslim commentators - suggest that the chief motive may be sought in Frankish politics. Saladin's involvement has also been alleged, but as Conrad seems to have been undertaking negotiations with him to secure the kingdom, this seems less likely; also, Saladin himself had little love for the Hashshashin.
Not that I trust Wiki further than I can throw it....
April 28, 1192 Conrad of Montferrat is murdered by two members of the sect of the Assassins who had, for the previous two months, posed as monks in order to gain his trust. The Assassins had not sided with Saladin (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_saladin.htm) against the Crusaders - instead, they were paying Conrad back for his capture of a shipload of Assassin treasure the year before. Because Conrad was dead and his rival Guy of Lusignan had already been deposed, the throne of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blxtn_jerusalem.htm) was now vacant.
So we have four suspects now!
Richard, for obvious reasons. Though I'm still not convinced he'd have used the Ismailis.
Saladin, again for obvious reasons, and again there's doubt he'd have used them (or that they'd deign to be used by him...).
The Ismailis for largely discredited reasons.
Humphrey of Toron who I can't find any reason for, maybe jealousy?
You're right, this is fun!
Advo-san
09-20-2005, 19:33
A real puzzle this is....
1) Even though I deeply respect Ibn al Athir, I believe his judgements on Saladin are not objective. Ibn al Athir was loyal to Zeggi and Nur ed Din, and all he ever saw in Saladin was a nothing but a traitor. So I m not surprized that Athir is ready to blame Saladin for every foul act that took place in Palestine.....
2) Humphrey of Toron.... An unworthy heir of a glorious House. He was gay, that is for sure, but this was not the problem. The problem was that this "mule" didn't want to be part of the power game that was being played. All he wanted was to sit back, and see the trains go by... He lost his wife, and did nothing. The throne of Jerusalem was offered to him, and he ran away like a schoolgirl to Guy de Lusignan saying "I m sorry, I m sorry, wasn't, Raymond made me do it!!" What a looser...
3) The truth is all had motive to kill Conrad. I ve heard that, when you have many or no suspects, you have to follow the money. And IMHO, the money leads straight to Guy de Lusignan... Saladin got rid of a potentially mighty enemy? Not really. Tyros was too weak to threaten his kingdom that streched from Egypt to Persia. The Ismailits took revenge? Only rumors of a ship being hijacked....
Where is the money, Where is the money.....
:thinking2:
Guy won himself a kingdom, if we can call Outremer a kingdom by then, since he was the only legitimate person to call himself King of Jerusalem. And Richard...Well, let us just say he had bet his money on the winner...Or should we say, he made sure he got the winning cards... With Guy on the throne and his ally Richard was certain that in case he was victorious, Outremer would become a satellite of England and that the French manipulation of the Holy Land would end. IMHO the money definitely leads to Guy, and through him to Richard... They won way too much for their hands to be clean from the blood of the marquis.....
You ve done some serious studying...Hmm... Mabe you are the reincarnation of Conrad... :curtain: :sneaky: So, I guess this tip will come in handy...A patron of the Guild named Sinan is probably the reincarnation of Saladin... :sultan: If you ever meet him on MP, mabe you can ask him, or even avenge your unfair death, IF Saladin was the killer.... ~D
1) Even though I deeply respect Ibn al Athir, I believe his judgements on Saladin are not objective. Ibn al Athir was loyal to Zeggi and Nur ed Din, and all he ever saw in Saladin was a nothing but a traitor. So I m not surprized that Athir is ready to blame Saladin for every foul act that took place in Palestine.....
Oh? He came across as a fiarly disinterested party, but I've only read the one proper book on the subject, next up are the original texts if I can get my hands on them. (I'm reading de Villehardouins account of the fourth crusade and de Joinville's account of the seventh after that)
2) Humphrey of Toron.... An unworthy heir of a glorious House. He was gay, that is for sure, but this was not the problem. The problem was that this "mule" didn't want to be part of the power game that was being played. All he wanted was to sit back, and see the trains go by... He lost his wife, and did nothing. The throne of Jerusalem was offered to him, and he ran away like a schoolgirl to Guy de Lusignan saying "I m sorry, I m sorry, wasn't, Raymond made me do it!!" What a looser...
I didn't know he was gay! I guess that crosses out vengeance for his wife being taken then...
Guy won himself a kingdom, if we can call Outremer a kingdom by then, since he was the only legitimate person to call himself King of Jerusalem. And Richard...Well, let us just say he had bet his money on the winner...Or should we say, he made sure he got the winning cards... With Guy on the throne and his ally Richard was certain that in case he was victorious, Outremer would become a satellite of England and that the French manipulation of the Holy Land would end. It didn't work out that way in the end though. Guy got Cyprus I know, but Cyprus could never have played more than a supporting role to Frankish Syria if it was recaptured. Mind you, Richard didn't seem to have as much heart for the Crusade once they moved south again, maybe because he had planned to have the Franks under his sway as you said, without the assurances of a vassal/ally on the throne, it was more like doing Philip of Frances work for him. Maybe anyway......
I want to get into MP definetley, just haven't gotten around to it yet :( I'll be sure to avenge myself though!
Advo-san
09-22-2005, 19:44
It didn't work out that way in the end though. Guy got Cyprus I know, but Cyprus could never have played more than a supporting role to Frankish Syria if it was recaptured. Mind you, Richard didn't seem to have as much heart for the Crusade once they moved south again, maybe because he had planned to have the Franks under his sway as you said, without the assurances of a vassal/ally on the throne, it was more like doing Philip of Frances work for him. Maybe anyway......
Correct, it didn't go Richard's way.. His plan was based on two pillars:1) He would throw Saladin out of Palestine and 2) He would put a local puppet King on the Throne, to assure his influence in Outremer, since he couldn't stay himself or leave behind a strong English ruler in order to bind Outremer to England's charriot. He had the puppet King ready, but missed the first pillar...
I have read the Muslim history of the Crusades, the Francish version and also the Greek-Byzantine version of the events, but haven't put my hands in any of the original documents. I m waiting to hear your progress. :book:
P.S. Good luck on your revenge!! ~D
Ok, let's say I thinbk it's more likely it was Richard and Guy!
Apparently the early crusades weren't very well documented, but I got a copy of de Villehardouins' account of the Fourth and de Joinvilles' of the Sixth and Seventh (St Louis')
It's good stuff, I don't know why they made a film of the fall of Jerusalaem, the fall of Constantinople is infinitely more interesting!
Advo-san
09-23-2005, 14:24
Ok, let's say I thinbk it's more likely it was Richard and Guy!
Apparently the early crusades weren't very well documented, but I got a copy of de Villehardouins' account of the Fourth and de Joinvilles' of the Sixth and Seventh (St Louis')
It's good stuff, I don't know why they made a film of the fall of Jerusalaem, the fall of Constantinople is infinitely more interesting!
Don't forget the Alexiad and Bishop Wilhelm of Thyr's chronicle, they should have a lot for the first two Crusades and the third aswell. The Muslims had the maniest chronicles on the events. I know the Alexiad is available online, I m not sure where though....
When you manage to complete your source examination make sure to let me know your final thoughts about the murderer..
You r correct, the first fall of Constantinople was more interesting and comparatively more important than the fall of Jerusalem...And it is a topic that really makes me sad...
A short off-topic thought about the manipulation of history:
In modern greek history books, you won't find but a page or two for the first fall of Constantinople, but you will find chapters and chapters about the second fall, about the Turkish brutalities, etc. Even though the first fall was more serious since it was the beginning of the end for the Byzantine state, and the massacres and pillaging were more severe, we preffere to ignore all this, since the West is now our ally while we share a hot borderline with the Turks... I guess history has nothing to do with the past, it is about the present and the future afterall....
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.html)http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.html That's the full text of the Alexiad.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html This is a collection of various original sources I just found. A lot of excerpts as well as full books I think. Some of Wilhelms work is mentioned, I haven't found his full chronicles yet though.
If course I never thought to check online until you mentioned it!
Ah, I never realised that about Greek history. I guess political motivations will always take precedence over scholarly ones. It's a pity :(
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.html)
Hurin_Rules
09-23-2005, 17:02
Don't trust Wikipedia. While it is reasonably good for some things, remember that it is written by pretty much anyone willing to submit a blurb. I have found several blatant errors in the articles.
Much better for crusading history is the online version of Setton's 6-volume work on the crusades, with articles by many leading crusade historians:
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&scope=HISTORY.HISTCRUSADES
For this crusade, see the end of volume I and the beginning of volume II:
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusTwo
If you want the real dope, this is a much better place to go than Wikipedia.
Yeah I don't trust it at all. It's ok for general stuff, but if it's something hwere the issue is disputed it's no use at all (Mind you everything is biased)
That link is amazing! I'm not going to be able to eat for weeks with so much to read.
Hurin_Rules
09-23-2005, 22:43
That link is amazing! I'm not going to be able to eat for weeks with so much to read.
Great, glad you like it.
~:cheers:
Advo-san
09-24-2005, 16:49
@lugh
Make sure you post your thoughts here!! I wish I had the time to read through it, but I have exams till mid October.
I will. Actually didn't get around to much on it yet though, the college had the cheek to give me a reading list, as if I didn't have more important things to do!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.