The late 12th century saw internal instability and external pressure combine to undermine the survival of the crusader states in the face of rising Muslim unity.
The 1185 Succession Crisis and the Leadership Vacuum
The Death of Baldwin IV and the Fragile Regency
The crisis of 1185 was rooted in the gradual disintegration of political leadership in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Baldwin IV, known as the ‘leper king’, had ruled with notable strength despite his debilitating illness. However, as his health declined, he was compelled to plan for his succession. His only close male relative was his young nephew Baldwin V, a minor who could not govern alone.
Baldwin IV had crowned Baldwin V as co-king in 1183 to secure the succession.
Upon Baldwin IV’s death in 1185, Count Raymond of Tripoli was appointed regent for the child king.
Baldwin V died within a year (1186), allegedly poisoned, sparking a succession dispute that fractured the nobility.
The Rise of Guy of Lusignan
Following Baldwin V’s death, his mother, Sibylla, claimed the throne. Her controversial marriage to Guy of Lusignan caused further division.
Sibylla was crowned queen and immediately crowned Guy as king, bypassing the expected noble consensus.
This act alienated several barons who had supported alternative claimants, particularly Isabella, Sibylla’s half-sister, and her husband Humphrey of Toron.
The resulting split meant that Guy ruled without full support from the aristocracy, weakening central authority.
Political Fragmentation
The 1185 succession crisis left the Kingdom of Jerusalem deeply divided:
Noble factions pursued rival claims to power, undermining any possibility of unified leadership.
Key nobles, such as Raymond of Tripoli and the lords of the north, grew increasingly independent of royal command.
This internal disunity significantly reduced the kingdom’s ability to respond effectively to external threats, especially those posed by Saladin.
Raymond of Tripoli’s Truce with Saladin
Context and Motivation
In the midst of political uncertainty, Raymond III of Tripoli, a powerful and seasoned noble, opted for an independent diplomatic approach. In 1185, he negotiated a truce with Saladin, the powerful Sultan of Egypt and Syria, in what many contemporaries saw as a betrayal.
Reasons for the truce:
Distrust of Guy of Lusignan’s leadership, whom Raymond saw as incompetent and illegitimate.
Desire to protect his own lands in the north (Tripoli and Galilee) from immediate invasion.
Recognition of Saladin’s increasing military strength and the necessity to avoid direct confrontation.
Terms and Nature of the Truce
The truce allowed safe passage for Muslim forces through Raymond’s territory in Galilee.
It granted a temporary peace, enabling both parties to consolidate strength.
Raymond likely hoped this would allow him to outlast Guy politically and assert control over Jerusalem.
Short-Term Effects
The truce effectively exempted Raymond’s lands from Muslim attacks during a period of heightened risk.
It further undermined central authority, making clear that regional lords were acting independently of the monarchy.
Saladin used the breathing room to strengthen his forces and prepare for a larger campaign.
Long-Term Consequences
The truce shattered what remained of Christian unity in the Latin East.
Raymond’s cooperation with Saladin contributed to mistrust between nobles, especially as he allowed Muslim forces into Galilee.
While pragmatic in the short term, it made the kingdom appear vulnerable and encouraged Saladin’s confidence in launching a full-scale invasion.
It was seen by many as borderline treasonous, even though Raymond would later rejoin the Christian war effort.
The Broader Decline of the Crusader States
Structural Weaknesses and Internal Divisions
By the 1180s, the Crusader States—especially the Kingdom of Jerusalem—faced mounting internal challenges that eroded their resilience:
Feudal tensions between the monarchy and the great lords, with frequent disobedience and refusal to cooperate militarily.
Power struggles among nobles such as Raymond of Tripoli, Bohemond III of Antioch, and Reginald of Châtillon contributed to diplomatic disarray.
The military orders (the Templars and Hospitallers) increasingly operated as semi-independent forces, loyal more to their European patrons than to the Latin kings.
Many crusaders from Europe only stayed temporarily, leaving the region undermanned and under-defended once they returned home.
The Growing Threat of Saladin
The greatest external challenge came from the growing strength of Saladin (Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb), who had succeeded in uniting Egypt and Syria under his leadership:
After defeating Nur ad-Din’s successors, Saladin gradually extended his authority over Damascus, Aleppo, and Mosul.
He gained legitimacy across the Muslim world as the leader of jihad against the Franks, especially after taking control of Mecca and Medina.
His military and diplomatic acumen allowed him to build a formidable, ideologically unified coalition, while the crusaders remained splintered.
The Provocations of Reginald of Châtillon
Despite some attempts at diplomacy, reckless actions by certain crusader lords exacerbated tensions:
In 1187, Reginald of Châtillon—lord of Oultrejordain—broke the truce with Saladin by attacking a Muslim caravan bound for Mecca, reportedly containing members of Saladin’s family.
This blatant violation gave Saladin the justification to wage war against the crusaders.
The Battle of Hattin and Its Fallout
The culmination of the crusader decline came at the Battle of Hattin (4 July 1187), where Guy of Lusignan’s army suffered a catastrophic defeat:
Lured into arid terrain and cut off from water sources, the Christian army was surrounded by Saladin’s forces.
Key figures such as Guy, Raymond, and Reginald were captured. Saladin executed Reginald, citing his repeated violations of truces.
The True Cross, a major Christian relic, was lost in battle, symbolising the collapse of Christian morale.
Most of the Christian knights were killed or captured, crippling the military capabilities of the crusader states.
The Fall of Jerusalem
With the crusader army decimated, Saladin swiftly conquered key cities:
Acre, Nablus, Jaffa, and other strongholds fell quickly.
By October 1187, Jerusalem itself was surrendered after a short siege. Balian of Ibelin negotiated a peaceful evacuation, but the loss shocked Christendom.
Only Tyre, under Conrad of Montferrat, successfully resisted Saladin’s advance, becoming a crucial refuge for remaining Franks.
The broader decline of the crusader states in the late 12th century was not due solely to external pressure, but the interplay of internal disunity and external consolidation:
Political instability: Frequent succession crises and civil conflicts made effective central leadership impossible.
Diplomatic inconsistency: Some leaders pursued truces, others acts of aggression, confusing allies and enemies alike.
Fragmentation of authority: The autonomy of nobles, cities, and military orders created a disjointed response to growing threats.
Strategic errors: Poor planning, like the decision to fight at Hattin, sealed the military collapse of the kingdom.
Saladin’s strength: His ideological appeal, military skill, and consolidation of Muslim forces created an opponent too powerful for a divided Latin East.
The events of 1185–87 mark a critical turning point in the history of Outremer, ushering in the end of the first era of the crusader states and prompting the call for the Third Crusade.
FAQ
Guy of Lusignan’s leadership was widely criticised due to his perceived inexperience, lack of political acumen, and poor military judgement. Having risen to power through his marriage to Sibylla, his authority was seen as illegitimate by many barons who viewed his claim to the throne as weak. His failure to build consensus among the nobility alienated powerful figures like Raymond of Tripoli and the Ibelin family. His decision-making during military campaigns was also questioned—most notably his choice to confront Saladin at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, which led to a disastrous defeat for the crusader forces. Critics argued that Guy lacked the diplomatic skills and strategic foresight needed to manage a kingdom under existential threat. His inability to unify the fractious nobility or respond effectively to Saladin’s rise severely damaged the kingdom’s chances of survival. Even after being released from captivity, his continued attempts to assert royal authority only deepened divisions.
Baldwin IV’s death in 1185 was a critical blow to the stability of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Despite suffering from leprosy, Baldwin had maintained a firm grip on power and had effectively navigated the political landscape, balancing noble factions and resisting Saladin’s incursions. His death removed a rare figure of authority respected by most of the nobility. The subsequent coronation of his nephew, Baldwin V, a child-king, created a weak regency led by Count Raymond of Tripoli, which was riddled with distrust and factionalism. With no strong adult ruler, the kingdom quickly descended into political infighting. Upon Baldwin V’s early death in 1186, the kingdom was thrown into a succession crisis, with rival claims between Sibylla (and her husband Guy of Lusignan) and supporters of Isabella of Jerusalem. This power vacuum eroded the central authority, encouraged regional nobles to act independently, and left the kingdom fatally vulnerable to Saladin’s expanding power.
During the late 12th-century crisis, the military orders—particularly the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller—played complex roles as both defenders and, at times, political disruptors. Militarily, they were among the best-trained and best-equipped forces in the crusader states, operating frontier castles and providing a disciplined backbone to the Christian defence. However, their loyalty often lay more with their European patrons and their own institutional priorities than with the king of Jerusalem. The Templars in particular had close ties to Guy of Lusignan and supported his claim, thereby fuelling political divisions within the kingdom. Their refusal to cooperate with rival factions weakened the unity needed to respond to Saladin’s aggression. At the Battle of Hattin, the Templars fought valiantly but suffered devastating losses, severely weakening their presence. Overall, while the orders provided critical military support, their involvement in political disputes and their independent agendas limited their effectiveness in preserving the kingdom’s cohesion.
Saladin’s leadership was instrumental in uniting the fragmented Muslim world against the crusaders. Unlike previous Muslim leaders who were often divided by dynastic rivalry and regional loyalties, Saladin cultivated a strong ideological framework centred on jihad, which gave his campaigns religious legitimacy. He presented himself as the champion of Sunni Islam, carefully winning over key cities like Damascus and Aleppo and securing the symbolic religious centres of Mecca and Medina. His diplomacy was shrewd; he formed temporary truces with Christian leaders to buy time and used marriage alliances and calculated generosity to secure loyalty within his coalition. Saladin also maintained a disciplined and centralised military command, allowing for coordinated campaigns that the disorganised crusader states could not match. His restraint and honourable conduct, such as sparing many civilians after Jerusalem’s surrender, enhanced his reputation even among Christian chroniclers. His combination of religious zeal, political pragmatism, and strategic patience enabled him to forge a powerful front against a weakened Latin East.
The Battle of Hattin was strategically catastrophic not only for the loss of manpower but for its wider geopolitical implications. The crushing defeat destroyed the bulk of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s field army, including its knightly elite, and led to the capture or execution of most of its leaders. The fall of the relic of the True Cross, carried into battle as a divine symbol of Christian protection, dealt a severe psychological blow to crusader morale. Militarily, the loss meant the Franks no longer had a mobile force to defend key cities, opening the path for Saladin to conquer nearly all of the kingdom’s major strongholds within months, including Jerusalem. Politically, it confirmed the perception of Guy of Lusignan’s ineptitude and further destabilised the remaining noble structure. The battle also served as a powerful propaganda victory for Saladin, reinforcing his status across the Muslim world and encouraging broader support for his campaign. It marked the effective end of the first era of crusader dominance.
Practice Questions
How significant was the 1185 succession crisis in the decline of the Crusader States in the late 12th century?
The 1185 succession crisis was highly significant in weakening the Crusader States, as it triggered a damaging power vacuum and deepened noble rivalries. The death of Baldwin V and the controversial elevation of Guy of Lusignan alienated key nobles, such as Raymond of Tripoli, undermining internal unity. This instability prevented a cohesive response to external threats, particularly from Saladin. However, while the succession crisis contributed to the decline, broader factors—such as long-term feudal disunity and the rise of Muslim unity under Saladin—also played a central role, suggesting the crisis was a critical but not isolated cause of decline.
To what extent was Raymond of Tripoli’s truce with Saladin justified?
Raymond of Tripoli’s truce with Saladin was arguably justified given the kingdom’s leadership crisis and his mistrust of Guy of Lusignan’s competence. Seeking to protect Galilee and delay confrontation with a rising Muslim power, the truce offered short-term security. However, it fatally fractured Christian unity and emboldened Saladin. Raymond’s actions, though pragmatic, were seen by many as undermining collective defence efforts. In retrospect, while his fears were valid, the truce inadvertently contributed to disunity and the devastating defeat at Hattin, making it a controversial but partially understandable diplomatic manoeuvre in a time of desperation.
