Horns Of Hattin

[unmerged(4303)]

I still dont understand why Gerard of Ridefort (templars) thought he could fight his way through to Tiberias. Raymond III of Tripoli, who had the most to lose, thought it was sure folly. If Raymond's advice had been followed, how would things have turned out.
Also, I dont understand at the death of the boy king, Baldwin V,
why was Raymond III still regent? I thought when Baldwin V died his regency automatically ended.

 

[P.Q. Varus]

Raymond III was regent of Jerusalem twice.

He was the regent of Baldwin IV (the thirteen year-old leper) from 1174 until 1177, when Baldwin IV came of age. (Raymond was Baldwin's first cousin once removed.)

Then Raymond fell out of favor with the court circle, and was even exiled from 1180 to 1182.

In 1183, Baldwin IV's three year-old nephew was crowned as Baldwin V, and the two Baldwins briefly shared the throne.

In 1184, as Baldwin IV's health continued to deteriorate, the court faction was persuaded to bring back the able and influential Raymond as regent again.

Baldwin IV finally died in 1185; Raymond again ceased to be regent. Baldwin V died in 1186, and the throne was (illegally) claimed by Baldwin V's mother and stepfather.

This court faction, composed mainly of relative newcomers to the Holy Land, was responsible for the fatal decision to march into the desert at the Battle of Hattin. The longtime residents of the crusader states, including Raymond III, were largely in an opposing faction, and so their more pragmatic strategies and tactics were often ignored.

After all, how could the crusaders be defeated? God was on their side.

(I double-checked my facts before posting an answer, but I would be willing to defer to some sage from the history forum.)

 

[P.Q. Varus]

Although the Encyclopaedia Britannica gave 1186 as the year of Baldwin V's death, I have just found it mentioned as 1185 in a book by Desmond Seward called "The Monks of War: The Military Religious Orders."

Otherwise, Seward's book backs up my previous post. He refers to Gerard de Ridefort as "a fanatic" of "pathological pride," and as a "berserker" who also had a personal grudge against Raymond. The usurper king of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, Seward calls "a brainless adventurer gifted with good looks" and "a penniless knight" who married a royal heiress.

Whether or not you may refer to Raymond as the regent in 1187 seems to depend on whether or not you accept the legitimacy of the coronation of Guy and Sibylla as rulers of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

 

[unmerged(5190)]

Originally posted by P.Q. Varus
Baldwin IV finally died in 1185; Raymond again ceased to be regent. Baldwin V died in 1186, and the throne was (illegally) claimed by Baldwin V's mother and stepfather.

Who was the legal heir then?

Also, how can Raymond III still be regent after Baldwin V's death?
I thought regencies lasted as long as the minority, or life of the coming ruler.

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by senex


Who was the legal heir then?

Also, how can Raymond III still be regent after Baldwin V's death?
I thought regencies lasted as long as the minority, or life of the coming ruler.

And if the Monarch is out of its Kingdom... far far away... so he can't govern its states.

Drakken

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Drakken


And if the Monarch is out of its Kingdom... far far away... so he can't govern its states.

Drakken

This was put up for discussion before; do you think this will be a part of CK?

 

[P.Q. Varus]

senex:

I believe that, under the terms of Baldwin IV's will, if Baldwin V died while still a child (which he did), then the next King of Jerusalem was to be chosen by the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of France and the King of England.

Gee, hard to believe that plan didn't work out.

If you consider a regent in such circumstances to remain the regent until the new, properly chosen heir is crowned, then you could argue that Raymond was technically still regent.

I don't know what official standing Raymond had under Guy and Sibylla. I only know that Count Raymond and his troops were still marching around in alliance with them, but that Gerard supposedly accused Raymond of being a traitor and thus convinced King Guy to ignore Raymond's advice (i.e., not to march into a desert battle without bringing along lots of water.)

 

[unmerged(9167)]

. If Raymond's advice had been followed, how would things have turned out.

Yeah, I wonder how CK would handles that. It would not surprise me if there are as much or more events for CK than there is for EU and EEP combined. I mean, the events would be more refined (I hope) and flexible.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by P.Q. Varus
Although the Encyclopaedia Britannica gave 1186 as the year of Baldwin V's death, I have just found it mentioned as 1185 in a book by Desmond Seward called "The Monks of War: The Military Religious Orders."

Baldwin V died in august 1186.

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Zhai


Yeah, I wonder how CK would handles that. It would not surprise me if there are as much or more events for CK than there is for EU and EEP combined. I mean, the events would be more refined (I hope) and flexible.

Yes, but do not forget that from 1066 onwards, as first generation characters are historical, second generation characters will not. So there are very strong chances that anything after 1066 will be historically authentic, yet non-factual what-ifs. So it is pretty safe to conclude that most events won't be precisely historical events à la eu2, but rather random events.

Drakken

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Sonny


This was put up for discussion before; do you think this will be a part of CK?

Prince John did exist, no?

Then it will surely be there logically.

Drakken

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by senex


Who was the legal heir then?

From earlier in the history of the KoJ we know that the crown could be inherited through women. In this case there were two possible heiresses:
- Sibyl, the mother of Baldwin V. She was a daughter of Amalric I and his second wife Agnes de Courtenay. After the death of her first husband (and father of Baldwin V) William of Montferrat she married Guy de Lusignan.

- Isabel, the aunt of Baldwin V. Sha was also a daughter of Amalric I, but through his first marriage to Maria Comnena. She was married four times; first to Humphrey, lord of Torun, later to Conrad of Montferrat (a brother of William above), Henri of Champagne and Aimery de Lusignan (brother of Guy).

I would say that Isabel was the "legal" heir since she was the elder. After the death of Baldwin there were nobes supporting both sides, but the plans of Isabel and her prime supporter Raymon of Tripoli was destroyed when Isabels husband Humphrey, "chickened out", ran away and submitted to Sibyl and Guy. Sibyl also had the support of the master of the Templars and the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Also, how can Raymond III still be regent after Baldwin V's death?
I thought regencies lasted as long as the minority, or life of the coming ruler.

He was elected regent, and I guess he would serve until a new king was crowned.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Drakken


Prince John did exist, no?

Then it will surely be there logically.

Drakken

He sure did exist. And he semi-ruled England while the monarch was away on the 3rd Crusade. Which was the point brought up - will the monarch be represented on the game map? And if so will a regent need to be appointed if he leaves his kingdom for some reason?

 

[unmerged(5664)]

A problem for any grand strategy game is that the limitation of information is difficult to simulate. In EU2 or HOI for example the real-life rulers wouldn't knows what happened at the battle until hours or months later, yet in the game you know instantly.

The concept that you are actually playing the individual, and that a regent is necessary if you leave the capital is fascinating, but my mind boggles at how that would be implemented...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
.........................

The concept that you are actually playing the individual, and that a regent is necessary if you leave the capital is fascinating, but my mind boggles at how that would be implemented...

It could be implemented very nicely by having the regent act just like any of your other AI dukes and counts - except the regent would run the demesne lands. Might not be a perfect solution, but it certainly would simulate Prince John running England while Richard was away and why Richard wanted to get back from the 3rd Crusade - he didn't want the AI running his country.

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by Sonny
- he didn't want the AI running his country.

You can't really blame him can you?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by kurtbrian


You can't really blame him can you?

Can't blame him at all. I wouldn't want the AI ru(i)ning my holdings - especially if he was in cahoots with an AI Philip II.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by laelius
I still dont understand why Gerard of Ridefort (templars) thought he could fight his way through to Tiberias. Raymond III of Tripoli, who had the most to lose, thought it was sure folly. If Raymond's advice had been followed, how would things have turned out.

As mentioned Raymond had really screwed Gerard over before, IIRC he reneged on a marriage deal they had set up, so Gerard would want to get even in some way.

Raymond had also, some years previously, tried to bust Guy's rep and depose him as a king citing Guy's inaction to respond to some smaller incursions, likely trying to elevate himself to the 'hot seat' again. This would give Gerard an exellent weapon, as all he had to say was 'He's just trying to make you do nothing, so he can claim you are a coward, and then take your title and lands' and it would sound like the truth. Actually this might even have been an added benefit in Raymonds mind.

Finally, and very importantly, AFAIK the only written description of the council comes from one of Raymonds supporters, and it will be biased, and might even be tampered with, and we could hardly tell.

All this aside, it would probably have been a good idea to at least bring some water along, but without good knowledge of logistics and current feelings in the forces arrayed I cannot say that they didn't have valid (if in retrospect stupid) reasons for doing so.

Examples would be;that the carts were (or the water was) too far away, or the carts would break down in the terrain, or the more likely: That if given that time to act, Raymond would have gathered support from other old-timer nobles and forced another reversal of the decision, seriously harming both Guy's and Gerard's prestige, with aforementioned possible benefits for Raymond.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by laelius
I still dont understand why Gerard of Ridefort (templars) thought he could fight his way through to Tiberias. Raymond III of Tripoli, who had the most to lose, thought it was sure folly. If Raymond's advice had been followed, how would things have turned out.
.........

The Templars were somewhat fanatic. And an egotistical fanatic at their head made it even worse.

The Templar rule stated that they were not to retreat from the field of battle unless outnumbered by more than 3-1. So you could see that they thought they were supermen and could carry the day.

 

[unmerged(4303)]

What modern day country are The Horns of Hattin in?