# Talk:Guy of Lusignan

The same here as in page of Sibylla of Jerusalem, see Talk there.

I notice that in popular fiction, Guy is usually portrayed as being forced on Sibylla as a husband. But the Arab chronicler Ibn Al-Athir says that Sibylla had "fallen in love with a man named Guy, a Frank recently arrived from the West. She married him, and when [Baldwin V] died, she gave the throne to her husband." Missi 10:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute!  I don't recall Saladin knocking the cup away!  Didn't he just let Reynald drink, and then declare that he had not given Reynald permission to drink when he had finished?  Other Wikipedia articles (such as Reynald's article) make no mention of Saladin interfering before Reynald had quenched his thirst.  Did this really happen or not? Roy Al Blue 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he either let Raynald drink, then killed him, or didn't let him drink, then killed him, or Raynald refused to drink, then Saladin killed him anyway...depends on the source. I think what we have on Raynald's page currently is probably the most accurate. Adam Bishop 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not documentation can be found, offering water is hospitality, with all that implies. If he had let Raynald drink, it would have been against the rules of hospitality to execute him. - Tenebris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.138 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have edited to make the date of Guy's arrival more doubtful. It is only modern historians (and the makers of the film Kingdom of Heaven) who think he was established in Jerusalem long before 1180. I see from the note above that Ibn al-Athir supports Ernoul (whom many dismiss) in suggesting that he was a newcomer there at the time of his marriage. Andrew Dalby 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine! We simply don't know for sure when he arrived, certainly after his brother. There doesn't seem to be any reference to where he was/what he was doing in the meantime! Silverwhistle 18:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, who are we to argue with modern historians? :) I saw Andrew ask elsewhere if Guy ever witnessed anything before 1180 - that should be a simple matter of looking him up on Rohricht's collection of charters, right?. Adam Bishop 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got quite a lot of that photocopied, so will check tonight...Silverwhistle 07:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Checked - no Guy pre-marriage. Neither of the Lusignan brothers does witnessing & c., even when we know Amalric was around. Silverwhistle, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm glad I tempted you to check that, because I really wanted to know ... Quote Adam Bishop, "who are we to argue with modern historians ...?" When we write or edit articles like this, we /are/ modern historians, I guess. I suppose I feel that encyclopedia articles ought to have a smaller proportion of speculation than historical monographs (or films); and I had the feeling that Guy's putative arrival some years before his marriage was speculation, against the evidence, which seems to be all in favour of his being a recent arrival. But, yes, who knows? Andrew Dalby 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the speed with which the marriage was brought on suggests he was already around, and didn't have to be shipped in from France. Baldwin IV seems to have been quick off the mark to marry Sibylla off to him to counter Raymond, Bohemond and the Ibelins. (I think Hamilton's analysis in The Leper King & his Heirs, comparing William of Tyre and the Old French Continuation, is sound.) I think, also, he simply wasn't important enough beforehand to crop up in major documentation.
Ibn al-Athir's "recent" doesn't give a clear time-frame: it could mean anything up to a couple of years! In conclusion, I'd say he arrived after Amalric had established himself, but didn't have to be sent for especially in 1180. Silverwhistle 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Rohricht has him at the top of a witness list from March 26, 1173, at Acre, on a charter of Amalric I giving some land (etc) to some Germans. It's number 496, on page 130-31 in volume 1. It's signed by "Guy, count of Jaffa and Ascalon", Reginald of Sidon, the Ibelin brothers, William of Tyre, and various others, but most notably Miles of Plancy, who was dead in 1174. Rohricht's note for Guy says "Guy, who eventually became count of Jaffa and Ascalon through a marriage contracted with Sibylla in Easter, 1180, because of which this charter seemed to be spurious to Strehlke [a previous editor], but he errors, along with William of Tyre, saying that Miles of Plancy, who is a witness to a charter of the king in April 1174, was already dead in October 1173." (The Latin, if you would like to take a better stab at it than me, is "Qui demum 1180 per nuptias infra paschalia cum Sibylla contractas comes Joppensis et Ascalonitanus factus est, qua de causa privelegium nostrum jam Strehlkio spurium esse videbatur, sed idem errat cum Guill. de Tyro dicens, Milonem de Planci Octob. 1173 jam mortuum esse, qui April. 1174 chartae regis testis est.") This is pretty strange! Sibylla hadn't even married William yet...Guy appears again, as Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, in 1177 (no. 548), but this seems to be similar to no. 496, and both zombie Amalric I and zombie Miles of Plancy are on it too (and Strehlke and Rohricht both agree that it is spurious, heh). Both Guy (as Count of Jaffa) and his brother (as constable) are on a charter of 1181 (no. 601), and Guy appears more frequently after that, with Sibylla finally in March 1183 (no. 626). Then nothing, presumably because he was out of favour, until March of 1186 when he and Sibylla appear as king and queen (no. 650). There are some after that where he still claims to be king of Jerusalem, and some where he is king of Cyprus. So what's going on in that 1173 charter? Adam Bishop 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I spotted 548 (my photocopies run pp. 142-47, then 164-91,  and Additions pp. 32-47, so I don't have no. 496), but felt it was too doubtful to mention. One of the problematic aspects of Rohricht is that most of the charters listed are not the actual charters, but citations of them in other documents. It is possible, re: 496,  that someone after 1180, quoting a charter witnessed by Guy back in the 1170s, may have referred to him by his present-day title. But there's a real problem of religious houses and merchant bodies claiming privileges based on false charter claims. Silverwhistle 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that's what Rohricht was doing. Has anyone ever attempted to do a better job with all these crusade charters? Have I stumbled across a possible thesis topic? :) Adam Bishop 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just that due to the exigencies of history, very few original Outremer charters survive (just as we only have one letter by Baldwin IV surviving in a later copy, when he must have written or dictated lots, and none of the surviving texts of the Old French Continuation is earlier than about mid-13C), so we only know about a lot of them where they've been copied down or mentioned elsewhere. Silverwhistle 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If I have it right, then, the two charters that Guy apparently signed before 1180 have him as count of Jaffa and Ascalon, which we are certain he wasn't; therefore they have been adjusted (or forged outright) after 1180, and in either case cannot serve, unsupported, as evidence of his presence. The two narrative sources that mention his arrival (one late and romanticized, the other from outside the kingdom) say (1) that Amalric went and fetched him for this 1180 marriage, (2) that he was a recent arrival -- but, yes, what is recent? --, (1+2) that Sibylla wanted him. And the one thing we do know about his relations with Sibylla is that, whenever she did first take to him, she stuck with him against all opposition afterwards. Now, if we assume that he was present in Jerusalem in good time, I suppose we also assume that he was overlooked when Baldwin sent his one surviving letter to Louis VII, asking for a chap to come and marry Sibylla; and that he was overlooked throughout the period when Hugh of Burgundy was expected to answer the call. So he was very easy to overlook. And yet we argue that he was important enough, as a vassal of the Plantagenets, to be a good dynastic choice. Do I have it right? If so, Guy performed a remarkable silent balancing act in the 1170s. Andrew Dalby 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"If I have it right, then, the two charters that Guy apparently signed before 1180 have him as count of Jaffa and Ascalon, which we are certain he wasn't; therefore they have been adjusted (or forged outright) after 1180" - Quotes from/copies of charters are not necessarily forgeries - if a chronicler is citing an earlier document, they may well refer to a signatory by his present-day title. Plus, bear in mind a lot of documentation has probably been lost.
"So he was very easy to overlook. And yet we argue that he was important enough, as a vassal of the Plantagenets, to be a good dynastic choice. Do I have it right?" - In an emergency, he was: the Hugh of Burgundy plan had stalled; Raymond and Bohemond were attempting a coup to force a local candidate from their grouping on to Sibylla. Guy - who had a useful Angevin link, and whose brother seems to have been well-regarded - was handy to seize upon in such an emergency.Silverwhistle 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Silverwhistle! Just wanting to think it through, really ... Andrew Dalby 20:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have this comic vision of him walking along a palace corridor and the king hooking him around the neck with his walking-stick (like a shepherd hooking a sheep with his crook) and dragging him into a side-room: "Get in here! You're marrying my sister!" -"What, right now?" - "Yes! You're single, aren't you? Otherwise, she's going to end up with your big brother's father-in-law!" Silverwhistle 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Philip, Count of Flanders also tried to have Sibylla married to one of his own men, but apparently everyone else was opposed to that. (And Philip himself was Sibylla's cousin.) Adam Bishop 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes - it would have been a disparagement for her to marry a vassal of Philip. (As was marrying Guy, but that was an emergency - ditto marrying Baldwin of Ibelin, for that matter.) Phil's Mum was one of Amaury I's half-sisters. Silverwhistle 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a few words to clarify the "already" in "must have been already in the kingdom". Take them out again if I have misunderstood something. In the following sentence, "it was vital for Sibylla to marry someone who could rally external help to the kingdom" would no doubt have been a good reason. Is there any evidence that he could? Andrew Dalby 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, the preference for that reason would have been for her to marry another prominent prince from abroad (as per the Hugh of Burgundy plan), but with Raymond and Bohemond threatening to bring troops into the kingdom, a handy Angevin vassal was the nearest best thing. As Hamilton points out, the situation in France was not favourable at this time, and cousin Henry owed the Pope over Becket. Silverwhistle 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Still the same issue, sorry folks. The first para now says "rose to prominence within the royal courts of Baldwin IV before marrying Sybilla" but the rest of the text doesn't justify that (moreover, Silverwhistle's search, reported above, throws strong doubt on it, and the sources deny it). One can of course say "he must have! The evidence must be wrong!" Maybe: but that's a poor basis for our introductory paragraph.
Also, I did previously object to "it was vital for Sibylla to marry someone who could rally external help to the kingdom". Maybe it was, but this clause seems to be there as an explanation for her marrying Guy. Well, did he? Could he? If not, the clause is misleading and should be taken out. Andrew Dalby 11:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, since no one objected, I am now taking out "rose to prominence within the royal courts of Baldwin IV before marrying Sybilla" from the introduction because, as far as I can see, it's pure mashed potatoes. Hamilton in The Leper King and His Heirs suggests that Guy arrived in a party of Crusaders in 1179, which has the advantage of support from the sources: I will say that with a footnote at the appropriate point in the main text.
My objection to "it was vital for Sibylla to marry someone who could rally external help to the kingdom" (as said above) is that, however true it may be, it's irrelevant to this article, because Guy was not such a person. Therefore, what demonstrates that in permitting the marriage "the King ... was considering the international implications"? Nothing. So I'm inclined to take that out too. If someone wants to put them back, I think they should be footnoted. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, further to the discussion above from 2006, in case anyone is wondering, there is indeed a new edition of royal charters, by Hans Mayer (Die Urkunden der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Image error?
The image captioned "A 17th century interpretation of Saladin, ... holding Guy of Lusignan" appears to be in fact a detail from one of Rubens' Adoration of the Magi (date unknown), in the Musées Royaux de Beaux-Artes de Belquique, see e.g. http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/adoration-of-the-magi-by-peter-paul-rubens-oil-on-canvas-news-photo/534970245#adoration-of-the-magi-by-peter-paul-rubens-oil-on-canvas-384x280-cm-picture-id534970245 © GettyImages.  This possibly mistaken attribution also occurs in the article King of Jerusalem, where another editor has also disputed the description & attributed it to the same Rubens. As I have only one image of the Rubens painting to go by at present this needs confirmation, hopefully from an art expert (which I am not). 
As I am not familiar with the protocol for removing/re-describing an image that appears in more than one place, I will leave this note for a while & watch the page. I have added a Disputed note to the image caption. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad about this -- I could never quite believe it. The image is also used at Kingdom of Jerusalem; several other wikis use it in the same mistaken context; and the Commons filename is misleading and ought to be changed as well.
I'd say you should now remove the image from all three English pages, with an explanation on the other two talk pages. The next step would be to get the Commons information changed, after which, when the image is removed on other wikis, there would be no reason for dispute. It requires a request to change the filename at Commons, which in these circumstances will probably be readily agreed.  If you're not familiar with Commons, I could do that bit. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad as well, I kept trying to remove that image whenever it was added, but I must have missed it the last time. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems possible that the attribution to Jan Lievens is correct, although the paining to my eye is a faithful copy of Rubens' original - painters do copy masters works! At high magnification, some details do seem to be different, but with JPGs it's hard to be sure. I'll do some more research before I delete anything, but if an art expert can help, please preempt me. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The museum images of the original "adoration" (found here) show much more detail in the brushwork, hence resembling the copy closely to my eyes, though the copy certainly has a different background. In the museum description the two figures we're looking at are identified as "le roi noir éthiopien au turban blanc" and "le roi assyrien, les mains croisées sur la poitrine". Therefore, the identification of the figures in the copy as Saladin and Guy is counter-intuitive, and our caption, focusing on the chain and the religious significance of the colours of their garments, is misleading since the preceding depiction of the magi has the same details. Andrew Dalby 12:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I add his mother name in the infobox, but user Surtsicna undo it. I add an Ahnentafel (ancestors tree), but also Surtsicna remove it. Additionaly, she makes ungry comments. Her arguments are wrong (e.g. she said the ahnentafel has only males); what I do is similar to what exists in other pages here in WP. I cannot understand why she deletes all this stuff. Do we interested to improve the texts or not? Aris de Methymna (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

King Guy is also mention in the 1963 movie epic titled “Saladin, the Victorious”.   King Guy had a arsehole that married Isabella.  But King Guy was the good guy, from the Muslim film community.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin_the_Victorious
User:egberts Egberts (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Every generation of Lusignans in France had a Guy. Given the setting and the time period, I imagine the character in Ironclad and its sequel is intended to be one of them, not Guy the king of Jerusalem (if he is intended to be a real person at all). Should we remove this section? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that. Very happy to have a second opinion here. I'm deleting the section. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about why he attempted this kidnapping or what preceded it. Context would be nice. 2600:4040:3118:E800:74EF:DC63:299D:2AA1 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It is sourced to Bernard Hamilton who says "Roger of Howden relates that in 1168 the Lusignan brothers had ambushed Eleanor of Aquitaine as she was on her way to Poitiers and Guy had killed the commander of her escort, Patrick, earl of Salisbury." But tracing Hamilton's footnote back to Howden, it says only that Guy killed Patrick, who was on his way back from a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Eleanor is not mentioned at all. The ultimate source is actually the poem L'Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal (William Marshal was present during the attack). Henry had left Patrick of Salisbury with Eleanor in Poitiers as her military advisor while he was off fighting rebellious barons in the rest of Poitou (including the Lusignans) and negotiating with the king of France. Patrick and Eleanor were returning to Poitiers although it is not known where they had been or what they were doing. They were ambushed on the road by the Lusignans. Thomas Asbridge says "the exact causes of the sudden confrontation remain unclear and would later be hotly contested. Perhaps enraged by Henry’s recent campaign, the Lusignans were probably hoping to capture some valuable hostages, thereby securing ransoms and gaining leverage in future negotiations. They may well have imagined that Queen Eleanor herself could be taken prisoner." (Asbridge, The Greatest Knight: The Remarkable Life of William Marshal, Simon & Schuster, 2015, p. 82) Eleanor managed to escape back to Poitiers but Patrick was killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see Asbridge was already used as a source, so I changed this citation to his book instead. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Я тут посмотрел последний комментарий был написан в 2005 году ого уже 20 лет прошло ~2025-35575-49 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)