即位初期，的黎波里伯爵雷蒙德被選為攝政，王國(guó)內(nèi)分為兩派。以雷蒙德、醫(yī)院騎士團(tuán)、西頓的雷納德、伊貝林（Ibelin）家族和托倫的杰弗里等本地騎士為一方，以圣殿騎士團(tuán)和庫(kù)爾特奈（Courtenay）和呂西尼昂家族（Lusignan）等新來(lái)的騎士為另一方，1175年，安條克的雷納爾德和喬瑟林從阿勒頗被釋放回來(lái)，也加入了這一方�；悸榀偛〉孽U德溫在兩派之間調(diào)停，保持著王國(guó)的穩(wěn)定。

1177年，埃及人于是年侵入法蘭克人的敘利亞，他們將鮑德溫四世封鎖在阿斯卡隆，提爾的威廉所說(shuō)，埃及軍隊(duì)最初擁有超過(guò)26000名壯士（8000名塔辛（Toassin）和18000名花喇古拉姆（Qaraghulams），他們都是騎兵，加上騎駱駝和騾的步兵），他們四散劫掠，認(rèn)為在他們到耶路撒冷之間沒(méi)有敵軍。但鮑德溫四世成功地集中了375至500名騎士（包括80名來(lái)自加沙的圣殿騎士）以及低于3000人的步兵，他們避開(kāi)了小股的埃及攔截部隊(duì)，越過(guò)山谷（此山谷臨近蒙吉薩要塞），使薩拉丁的大部隊(duì)震驚。

　　許多埃及軍隊(duì)正在劫掠，其他人則在營(yíng)帳中，法蘭克人的襲擊完全是出其不意的。他們只有組織松散的戰(zhàn)陣的時(shí)間，他們的軍隊(duì)陷入全面混亂，人們四處亂轉(zhuǎn)，甚至試圖在法蘭克人的沖鋒之下改組他們的編隊(duì)。在這樣的境況之下，不可避免的是，一些部隊(duì)甚至在與法蘭克人交鋒之前便潰敗并逃走了，那些待著的部隊(duì)幾乎全被殲滅。薩拉丁自己則在他的個(gè)人衛(wèi)隊(duì)（一千名馬穆魯克）的掩護(hù)下逃脫了。

　　法蘭克人取得了完全的勝利，埃及軍隊(duì)遺棄了他們的戰(zhàn)利品、輜重和俘虜。除此之外，埃及軍隊(duì)在戰(zhàn)役中損失慘重，并在撤退的時(shí)候受到貝都因人的騷擾，造成了更大的損失。

　　法蘭克人也損失巨大，醫(yī)院騎士團(tuán)的團(tuán)長(zhǎng)記錄道，【法蘭克人】損失了1100人，至少有750人受傷。

　　在鮑德溫四世的率領(lǐng)下，法蘭克軍隊(duì)舉得了勝利，但這次勝利無(wú)法挽救他們的悲慘命運(yùn)，對(duì)薩拉丁產(chǎn)生的不利影響甚微，而且，有意思的是，薩拉丁手下的原法蒂瑪王朝的將官多半在此役中陣亡，其位多為薩拉丁所親信的馬穆魯克所取代。

在1179年，薩拉丁入侵了班尼亞思和西頓地區(qū)，一支鮑德溫四世和的黎波里的雷蒙德伯爵指揮的法蘭克軍隊(duì)出發(fā)去截?fù)羲_拉丁。登上高地之后，他們眺望泉水谷，能夠看到薩拉丁在遠(yuǎn)處的班亞思的營(yíng)帳，之后他們決定馬上下山至平原，然而這樣做很輕率，軍中的大部分步兵已因長(zhǎng)途跋涉而筋疲力盡，不能隨著軍隊(duì)快速沿陡坡直下。面對(duì)薩拉丁先行的散兵部隊(duì)，法蘭克人向平原進(jìn)軍需數(shù)小時(shí)的時(shí)間（假定大部分步兵能夠跟上），這些散兵部隊(duì)剛劫掠歸來(lái)并進(jìn)一步向西行進(jìn)，他們被法蘭克人襲擊并被擊敗，留下了許多尸體。法蘭克人為自己的成功所鼓舞，許多在圣殿騎士團(tuán)團(tuán)長(zhǎng)和雷蒙德伯爵指揮下的法蘭克騎兵匆忙前去追趕，不料他們面對(duì)的是薩拉丁和穆斯林的大部隊(duì)，飛奔而逃的散兵重新聚合在大部隊(duì)周圍。面對(duì)嚴(yán)陣以待的穆斯林，法蘭克人沒(méi)有時(shí)間去排整隊(duì)列，但即便部隊(duì)陷入混亂，他們?nèi)栽O(shè)法在薩拉丁的人海壓倒并擊破他們之前堅(jiān)持一小會(huì)兒，薩拉丁擊潰了他們，鮑德溫的大部隊(duì)則仍在收集戰(zhàn)利品并休息。

　　在追擊戰(zhàn)中，更多的法蘭克人被殺或被俘，雖然一些人（包括國(guó)王自身）設(shè)法逃到比福特堡。其他于夜晚藏到巖石和洞穴中的人則被窮追直至抓獲，于次日淪為俘虜。需為這場(chǎng)災(zāi)難負(fù)責(zé)的圣殿騎士團(tuán)團(tuán)長(zhǎng)也在那些俘虜當(dāng)中。

除此之外，法蘭克人還在哈里姆之戰(zhàn)中戰(zhàn)敗；埃及船隊(duì)甚至開(kāi)進(jìn)了阿克港。法蘭克人四面受敵，鮑德溫四世對(duì)此無(wú)能為力，不得不與薩拉丁于1180年停戰(zhàn)。然而，臭名昭著的沙蒂永的雷納爾德?lián)尳倭怂_拉丁的商隊(duì)，得到20萬(wàn)的金幣，鮑德溫四世命他將這筆巨款歸還，然而雷納爾德公然違抗他的命令，于是，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)再度爆發(fā)。

　　薩拉丁進(jìn)攻加利利地區(qū)和薩馬里亞，使之淪為廢墟，而法蘭克人占據(jù)哈馬，威脅著大馬士革。薩拉丁展開(kāi)了毀滅性的反擊，他于1183年6月占領(lǐng)阿萊普，法蘭克人援助曾吉派以制約薩拉丁的算盤(pán)徹底落空。

　　法蘭克人疲于應(yīng)戰(zhàn)，他們?cè)谕鯂?guó)里征收地產(chǎn)稅和所得稅。1184年，耶路撒冷主教、圣殿騎士團(tuán)和醫(yī)院騎士團(tuán)的總團(tuán)長(zhǎng)回到西方，向神圣羅馬帝國(guó)、英格蘭、法國(guó)國(guó)王示警，但無(wú)人回應(yīng)。任何一個(gè)法蘭克人都知道他們將面對(duì)什么。

由于鮑德溫的病情惡化，騎士們決定給他的姐姐西比拉（Sibylla）找一個(gè)丈夫，作為王位繼承人。他們選擇了蒙特費(fèi)拉特的威廉，但威廉未能成婚，就于1177年初死了。1180年，西比拉愛(ài)上了一個(gè)來(lái)東方冒險(xiǎn)的年輕法國(guó)騎士、呂西尼昂的居伊（Guy of Lusignan），二人于復(fù)活節(jié)完婚。由于攝政王雷蒙德反對(duì)這門(mén)婚事，居伊作為王儲(chǔ)，加入了另一派。

然而鮑德溫國(guó)王的病情不斷惡化，他失明了，時(shí)常發(fā)燒，身體也在不斷腐爛。1183年，他將攝政權(quán)交給了他的姐夫居伊。1183年居伊開(kāi)始公開(kāi)不服從國(guó)王。鮑德溫剝奪了居伊在雅法和阿斯卡隆的領(lǐng)地，1185年他指定自己年幼的外甥，西比拉和蒙特費(fèi)拉特的威廉之子蒙特費(fèi)拉特的鮑德溫為王儲(chǔ)，雷蒙德伯爵為攝政，并禁止居伊參與權(quán)力，3月鮑德溫四世去世。

當(dāng)鮑德溫四世生下來(lái)接受洗禮之時(shí)，當(dāng)時(shí)他的叔父鮑德溫三世作為孩子的教父參與主持洗禮。有一位議廳的貴族笑著問(wèn)國(guó)王除了把自己名字給予這個(gè)孩子之外，還正式準(zhǔn)備了什么洗禮的禮物.

結(jié)果鮑德溫三世看著圣十字架，大笑回答：u2018圣地王國(guó)�。═he Kingdom of Jerusalem！）所有在場(chǎng)的人都記下這刻。當(dāng)時(shí)正當(dāng)盛年的國(guó)王根本就沒(méi)有想過(guò)自己后嗣的問(wèn)題。

但是事實(shí)確實(shí)是，一年之后當(dāng)鮑德溫三世國(guó)王忽然去世，他兄弟后來(lái)的阿馬里克一世之所以能獲得王位，除了因?yàn)樗�本身地位，最高議廷也因?yàn)樯性隈唏僦型踝印�—他被前任�?guó)王所給予許諾和王國(guó)繼承人的地位。

王子幼年時(shí)和伙伴玩征戰(zhàn)游戲，結(jié)果就被他老師威廉（William of Tyre） 發(fā)現(xiàn)左手臂毫無(wú)痛覺(jué)，經(jīng)過(guò)醫(yī)治診斷后確認(rèn)是麻風(fēng)病，如果說(shuō)剛開(kāi)始為了安定人心，尚且還保密，但十歲時(shí)，這些最高議廳的所有人員甚至全部貴族都很清楚！而且他十三歲即位時(shí)，他的病癥已經(jīng)很明顯了。

但即使這樣，當(dāng)初阿馬里克國(guó)王遠(yuǎn)征埃及，染上瘟疫。沒(méi)等回到圣地就去世了，他當(dāng)時(shí)也沒(méi)有留下明確的遺言。消息傳來(lái)，最高議廳馬上舉行了會(huì)議，提議鮑德溫王子繼承王位。根據(jù)當(dāng)時(shí)記載無(wú)一人反對(duì)。

所以阿莫利國(guó)王去世僅僅四天，就為鮑德溫王子舉行了加冕儀式。當(dāng)時(shí)王子只有十三歲，連王國(guó)中不成文規(guī)定十五才能繼承爵位的年紀(jì)都不到。

做為羅馬教廷那邊，考慮到一個(gè)患有神靈懲罰之癥的少年成為圣地的君主？那它還有什么言辭來(lái)勸告信徒？當(dāng)然爭(zhēng)論很大，并把這種壓力傳回王國(guó)，但是圣地王國(guó)除了最高議廳根本不加理會(huì)，連當(dāng)?shù)馗鞔笾鹘蹋ㄌ釥柎笾鹘蹋┒蓟貜?fù)說(shuō)國(guó)王已經(jīng)是涂圣油之王，請(qǐng)不要置疑主的世間權(quán)威和決定！”

因?yàn)閯偧次坏膰?guó)王未到法定的年紀(jì)，所以只得任命攝政王，先后兩位，尤其是雷蒙德伯爵攝政之前時(shí)，他還專門(mén)和最高議廷簽了一紙保證的文書(shū)。除了宣誓自己忠誠(chéng)之外，因?yàn)閾?dān)心伯爵效仿他國(guó)對(duì)于麻風(fēng)的習(xí)俗，作出失禮的行為。其中還附加了一條，不得在在國(guó)王面前提及他的病癥！

所以鮑德溫四世加冕時(shí)，最高議廷、各大教區(qū)、所有貴族百姓，都知道鮑德溫四世過(guò)于年幼無(wú)法執(zhí)政，即便執(zhí)政了也會(huì)被麻風(fēng)腐蝕身體，會(huì)毀容，會(huì)殘疾，會(huì)失明，虛弱之下連簽署公文都無(wú)法，甚至不會(huì)有后嗣。可他們都不曾有過(guò)猶豫地確認(rèn)對(duì)他的效忠。

在鮑德溫四世統(tǒng)治期間，法蘭克人屢遭重創(chuàng)，而且內(nèi)部分裂嚴(yán)重。耶路撒冷王國(guó)分裂成好幾個(gè)派別，互不相讓，爭(zhēng)權(quán)奪利，向國(guó)王施壓。為首的是敘利亞和巴勒斯坦的貴族，信來(lái)的人稱之為“小馬”，嘲笑他們的某些東方習(xí)俗；另一派則是支持君主制度的“宮廷派”，由剛剛來(lái)自西方的貴族組成；此外，還有圣殿騎士團(tuán)和醫(yī)院騎士團(tuán)等軍事修派。他們相互傾軋、爭(zhēng)斗，置國(guó)家于危險(xiǎn)的境地，然而鮑德溫四世對(duì)此卻無(wú)能為力。正如《阿拉伯人眼中的十字軍東征》里所說(shuō)的：“有趣的是阿拉伯世界的崛起，并沒(méi)有刺激法蘭克人進(jìn)一步的團(tuán)結(jié)，相反的，當(dāng)耶路撒冷之王不幸得上可怕的麻風(fēng)病變成無(wú)能后，倆個(gè)對(duì)立派立刻惡斗起來(lái)，一派由的黎波里伯爵雷蒙德主掌，傾向于跟薩拉丁聯(lián)合；另一派是極端分子，前安條克統(tǒng)帥——沙蒂永的雷納爾德�！�

《阿拉伯人眼中的十字軍東征》的評(píng)價(jià)：“西元1184年，鮑德溫四世的麻風(fēng)已到了末期，手腳萎縮，視線模糊，這個(gè)一向既無(wú)勇氣又無(wú)定見(jiàn)的人，將國(guó)政托付給的黎波里伯爵，也就是致力于與薩拉丁謀好的雷蒙德�！�

《羅馬帝國(guó)衰亡史》所述：“阿毛里的兒子鮑德溫四世患有麻風(fēng)，這種病在十字軍當(dāng)中很普遍，使得他無(wú)論是心理或生理都被剝奪了正常的機(jī)能……這些人就是圣城的守衛(wèi)者：一個(gè)麻風(fēng)患者、一個(gè)黃口小兒、一個(gè)柔弱婦女、一個(gè)紈绔懦夫、一個(gè)變節(jié)分子�！�

Baldwin IV, king of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem is largely - and unfairly - unknown in the west today. But, as Bernard Hamilton details in The Leper King and his Heirs, he deserves so much better. For a start, he accomplished so much more than his famous Crusading near contemporary Richard the Lionheart, and under infinitely more trying conditions.

Not only was his childhood troubled - his father Amalric had been forced to disown his mother Agnes when Baldwin was two years old before the aristocracy would accept him as king, and Baldwin was only 13 when Amalric died and he took the throne - he contracted leprosy at a young age (Baldwin’s symptoms are discussed in a useful appendix by Piers Mitchell).

The disease could not be hidden; “It grew more serious each day, specially injuring his hands and feet and his face, so that his subjects were distressed whenever they looked at him,” William of Tyre, chief contemporary chronicler of the day, relates.

A lesser person would have quickly broken under such circumstances. But Baldwin was animated by both a bold spirit and a tremendous sense of duty, of his obligation to his people. One of the most human touches is William of Tyreu2019s depiction of Baldwin as “a good looking child for his age“ who grew up ”full of hope“ and ”more skilled than men who were older than himself in controlling horses and in riding them at a gallop,” (p 43). Baldwin had taught himself this skill, vital to a knight, despite already losing feeling in his right hand. And he continued to ride at the head of his men into battle when there was no way he could have remounted had he been unhorsed. Determination and courage were to be the hallmarks of his all too brief career.

For Baldwin was by any measure a successful king - considering his circumstances and limited resources, a great one. Though his people were massively outnumbered and surrounded on three sides, this boy, who took the throne in 1164 and died aged not quite 24 in 1185, for 11 years frustrated the ambition of Saladin, the greatest warrior of the age, to forge unity among the Arab people and drive the Christians from the Holy Places.

Despite being significantly outnumbered, he defeated Saladin in two major battles, Mont Gisard in 1177 and Le Forbelet in 1182, and forced him to raise the siege of Beirut in 1182 and the major fortress of Kerak twice, in 1183 and 1184. On the latter occasions he was blind and so debilitated he had to be slung in a litter between two horses.

Hamilton also helps untangle the intricate web of domestic and international relations in which Jerusalem, the center of the world for three faiths, was ensnared. Baldwin had to balance the conflicting jealousies and agendas of his own nobility, always maneuvering to secure their positions first in the event of a regency, then at the succession; the knightly orders that were within his kingdom but not of it; the neighboring Crusader states; the attitude of the Papacy; the interests of Byzantium; and the distant and fickle responses of the western European powers. And overshadowing all this was ever-present menace of the Islamic counterattack that could come anytime, anyplace. Given this ever-precarious situation, Baldwin perhaps emerges with even greater credit for his diplomacy than for his skills with the sword. Certainly, he made no fatal mistakes and left the kingdom in no weaker condition than he found it.

Hamilton makes no great departures in his work, but goes some way towards rehabilitating Reynald of Chatillon from his characteristic depiction as loose cannon psychopath. Following Michael Lyons and David Jackson’s Saladin: The Politics of Holy War, he also demythologizes the Crusader’s nemesis, emphasizing the traditional argument that the Christian state unnecessarily provoked Saladin into war is flawed: The great leader of the Muslim world had been working towards the cleansing Jihad his entire career.

This is a book as much about an era as an individual, and at times, Baldwin as a personality tends to disappear inside it. Even considering the limitations of the sources, one wishes there was more representing his perspective in his voice. But we are limited to a heartfelt letter he wrote to Louis VII of France, humbly recognizing his limitations and offering to hand the kingdom over to a candidate as noble, and more healthy, than he: “To be deprived of one is limbs is of little help to one in carrying out the work of government... It is not fitting that a hand so weak as mine should hold power when fear of Arab aggression daily presses upon the Holy City and when my sickness increases the enemyu2018s daring.” (p 140).

It was fortunate for the Kingdom of Jerusalem that this offer was refused. It is significant that just two years after Baldwin’s death Saladin won his great victory at Hattin, fatally wounding the Crusader presence in the Middle East and setting in motion the chain of events that would culminate in their expulsion in 1291.

Few rulers have remained executive heads of state when handicapped by such severe physical disabilities or sacrificed themselves more totally to the needs of their people,” (p 210) Hamilton concludes. Baldwin is accomplishments would seem to be the stuff of myth, but he was quite real, a testament to human courage and endurance, and Hamilton does a fine job of putting his life and times in perspective.

The Leper King and his Heirs

副標(biāo)題: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem

作者: Bernard Hamilton

出版社: Cambridge University Press

出版年: 2005-07-07

定價(jià): USD 43.00

裝幀: Paperback

ISBN: 9780521017473

The reign of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (1174-85) has traditionally been seen as a period of decline when, because of the king’s illness, power came to be held by those who made the wrong policy decisions. Notably, they ignored the advice of Raymond of Tripoli and attacked Saladin. This book challenges that view, arguing that peace with Saladin was not a viable option; and that the young king, despite suffering from lepromatous leprosy, presided over a society that was (contrary to what is often said) vigorous and self-confident.

Bernard Hamilton is Professor Emeritus of Crusading History at the University of Nottingham.