Saba Malaspina accuses Charles of hinting to Louis IX that the Emir of Tunis could be converted, thus deceiving him into sending the Crusade against Tunis. Runciman masterfully twists the story:
Charles skilfully directed King Louis’s attention to Tunis. He pointed out how valuable the control of Tunis would be for an attack on Egypt and the Muslim East. He indicated that Mustansir [the Emir of Tunis] was trembling on the brink of adopting Christianity but was afraid of the opposition of his generals and his imams. A slight show of force would enable him to defy them and make up his mind for himself. It is doubtful whether Charles really believed in the convertibility of the Tunisian king. But it would suit him to have a docile client ruling in Tunis; and it would suit him still better to conquer the country and add it to his Empire.10
The accusation that Charles diverted the Crusade does not entertain the possibility that Louis himself chose a target that could benefit from his brother’s rule in Sicily. The single most important development in Crusading in the 13th century was its expansion into places other than the Holy Land – Constantinople, Egypt, southern France, Italy, the Baltic, Spain and, in this case, Tunisia. There had been a definitive break from the idea that a Crusade by definition included a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, so Louis’s decision is not as extraordinary as some would claim. Based on their previous relationship, it also seems clear that Louis was not so easily swayed by his brother as this position assumes.
As the Crusade limped home the disasters continued. In addition to the shipwrecks suffered by the fleet, as the French army made its way back through Italy the new queen of France was killed in a riding accident. Alphonse of Poitiers survived the Crusade, but his health was so damaged that he died in 1271. Unsurprisingly, Charles tried to claim Alphonse’s apanage, which now included all of Aquitaine except Gascony, plus Toulouse and part of Provence. This would have given Charles more land in France than the king, and the Parlement of Paris refused his claim.11
Complications in the East and West
Although Louis’s second Crusade had interrupted Charles’s plans, within another year he was ready to proceed again. Charles consolidated his position in Dalmatia, and his son Philip married the heiress to Achaea in May 1271. In February 1272, momentously, Charles declared himself King of Albania, but just when he seemed poised to dominate the east he allowed himself to be drawn into a war with Genoa. This seriously undermined his position in northern Italy and occupied his fleet and manpower.12
Even worse for Charles, the entire political balance in Europe also changed quickly. On the way back from the Crusade, Philip III of France insisted on stopping at Viterbo to encourage the cardinals to elect a new pope, and Charles accompanied him, bringing the authority of two kings to bear. The cardinals finally reached a compromise, and in September 1271 elected an Italian, Tebaldo Visconti, but one who had spent most of his career north of the Alps and had been in Palestine when he was elected. He took the name Gregory X.
Gregory immediately set out his priorities, one of which was to resolve the chaos in the Empire. Richard of Cornwall, although never Emperor, remained King of the Romans and while he lived no one else could be elected to the title. Fortunately for Gregory, Richard died in April 1272. Having had enough of foreign princes who sought the Empire as a prize rather than a German prince who might actually rule, Gregory skilfully saw off the claims of various contenders and made it clear to the electors that they should choose a German ruler. They were careful not to choose anyone too powerful, and settled on Rudolf of Habsburg, the Landgrave of Alsace, who was respected and rich, but not a particularly notable figure. This marked the entrance on the historical stage of a family who would one day dominate much of Europe and surpass even the Angevins in the breadth of their possessions (though I would note that on the extinction of the Habsburg dynasty in Spain in the 18th century, who should become king but the Duke of Anjou, to this day providing the coat of arms of Spain with an inset shield showing the arms of Anjou. Plus ça change …). Rudolf was elected King of the Romans in October 1273. Villani notes that since the former Duke of Austria had been executed with Conradin by Charles of Anjou, Rudolf gave the title to his son Albert, establishing the Habsburgs in Vienna and incidentally adding to Angevin ubiquity by having them (inadvertently) launch the Habsburgs in their future capital.13
Gregory summoned a council at Lyons in 1273 to ratify all these policies and, more importantly, declare a Crusade to rescue the desperately imperilled Crusader States. He invited most of the kings of Europe, including Charles, but the only one who attended was James of Aragon, who quickly became disillusioned with the pope’s schemes and left, and the idea of a Crusade was stillborn. The pope also invited leading theologians to put forward reasons for the Greek church to submit to Rome, including the most famous of all, Thomas Aquinas. Thomas was from southern Italy, and resided in Naples, where he had encountered Charles of Anjou and been critical of him. When Thomas, who was already ill, died not far from Naples on his journey to the council, gossip suggested that he had been poisoned, and more particularly that he had been poisoned by Charles of Anjou.14
Dante absolutely believed this and laid the crime at Charles’s door in the Purgatorio. This begs the question of why Charles wasn’t placed in hell if he were a murderer, though Dante couldn’t quite consign the king who had been the main papal champion to the Inferno. There is no evidence whatsoever that Charles did poison Aquinas, and there was no reason for him to do so. It is only another example of how myths swirled around the Angevins and any significant event or crime came to be laid at their door.
Gregory was more successful in achieving the union of the Greek and Latin churches. Michael Paleologus was desperate for support and, ignoring the distaste for this policy by practically everyone else in the Greek world, decided that he would agree to the union. His representatives accepted the form of the Creed used in the Latin church and the primacy of Rome, though in a somewhat vague way and with enough reservations that the union seemed more of a formality than a reality. Still, it was a triumph for Gregory. It was also a considerable complication for Charles, who could not now attack the newly reconciled Greek Emperor in the guise of a Crusade. Gregory arranged a truce between Charles, the titular Latin Emperor Philip and Michael Paleologus, which was agreed for a year in 1275. Although this forestalled Charles from any assault on Constantinople, the truce did not cover Greece or Albania, and in 1274 Michael Paleologus had attempted to conquer Achaea.15
At the Council of Lyons Gregory had also secured support for Rudolf of Habsburg as King of the Romans. As Charles’s war with Genoa spiralled into a general northern Italian war with the Ghibellines, rather than receiving papal assistance he instead faced a prospective Emperor with real power who would resume imperial authority over northern Italy, Tuscany and Provence. The situation infinitely worsened when Margaret of Provence, widow of Louis IX and mother of King Philip III, wrote to Rudolf and again claimed that she had been denied her share of the inheritance of Provence. The pope’s chief aim was to keep Rudolf and Charles on friendly terms, so he discouraged Rudolf from acting on this request, but it underlined the difficulties a strong Emperor could make for Charles, as would soon be demonstrated.
Charles was now hindered on all sides and must have been annoyed that the new pope’s policy should disadvantage him so much. Fortunately for him, the promotion of one of Gregory X’s policies actually worked in Charles’s favour. After Conradin’s death, there had been a disputed succession to the crown of Jerusalem, and the losing contender, Maria of Antioch, had gone to Lyons to request the pope’s assistance. The throne had been taken by the Lusignan king of Cyprus, Hugh III, on the grounds that the ‘kingdom’, which now consisted only of the beleaguered city of Acre plus a few coastal towns and castles, needed a military leader. The pope convinced Maria to sell her claim to the kingdom to Charles since it was no use to her, and Charles was much better able to launch an expedition to support Acre than she was. More importantly for th
e pope, having such a direct interest in the Holy Land should prompt Charles to rescue Acre rather than attack Constantinople. Although Gregory died in January 1276, an agreement was finally reached in March 1277 and Charles took the title King of Jerusalem.16
Charles sent a small force to Acre to demand recognition of his claim. Aside from growing Mamluk power in Egypt, the main problem with the pitifully small Crusader States was that they were in a position of constant feud between the Templars and the Hospitallers as well as the Venetians and the Genoese. Hugh III had abandoned the ungovernable kingdom and gone back to Cyprus, but as he was still king, Charles’s representative had no right to demand the kingdom’s submission. The Templars and the Venetians supported Charles’s claim, and after Hugh III refused to respond when asked for instructions, the barons officially recognized Charles as king.
The new pope, Innocent V, was sympathetic to Charles and confirmed him as Senator of Rome and imperial vicar in Tuscany, though Rudolf of Habsburg complained that it was his right to grant this title. However, since Rudolf had still not become Emperor, he was in no position to antagonize the pope. Innocent promptly died and another new pope was elected, who died before he was even consecrated. Next, John XXI was elected and reigned just long enough to confirm Innocent’s policies, namely that Charles remained Senator and vicar of Tuscany, and that Rudolf was forbidden to come to Rome for his coronation until arguments over imperial sovereignty in various bits of Italy had been resolved. Rudolf was fully occupied with affairs in the Empire, and was gradually building the block of power in Austria and eastern Germany that would be the foundation of Habsburg fortunes, so he was content for the moment to leave Italy alone. John was then killed in a bizarre accident when the roof of a newly built wing of the papal palace in Viterbo collapsed on him, and a new pope, the Roman Nicholas III succeeded.
He immediately had to deal with what in one sense was a petty land squabble, but in another struck at the heart of Italian politics. Margaret of Provence again approached Rudolf of Habsburg, this time to arrange a marriage alliance between his son Hartmann and Edward I of England’s daughter Joanna. The couple were to be given the old imperial domains of Arles, Vienne and, most importantly, Provence, dispossessing Charles of Anjou. This was completely unacceptable to Charles and risked a major conflict with the Empire, but the pope navigated a way through the difficulties. Fortunately for Nicholas, Hartmann died. Nicholas then made a counter offer, that Charles should keep Provence after doing homage to Rudolf, but that his grandson Charles Martel should marry Rudolf’s daughter Clementia, and this couple should take the Kingdom of Arles.17
Nicholas further asked Charles to give up the Senatorship of Rome and the vicarate of Tuscany, as he had previously agreed. This went a long way to sorting out relations between Charles and Rudolf, though it reduced Charles’s standing in Italy. However, it might also free him to deal with matters in the east.
Although there was officially a truce between Michael Paleologus and Charles while the union of the churches agreed at the Council of Lyons took effect, it only stopped Charles attacking Constantinople, and Michael repeatedly sent forces against Albania, Achaea and Athens, as well as his local Greek rivals. The Byzantines didn’t win any overwhelming victories, but they gained control of the sea and were putting increasing pressure on the Latin states. In 1278 the deaths of William of Achaea and Charles’s son Philip meant that Achaea reverted to Charles, and he sent a vicar to rule in his name.
The time now seemed right for a final push against Constantinople. Charles initially planned to launch the attack from Durazzo and take the Via Egnatia, the old Roman road to Constantinople. He sent a commander with a considerable army to besiege the Byzantine stronghold of Berat nearby, but by 1281 Michael Paleologus had heavily defeated the Angevin force and driven them back to Durazzo. This is what determined Charles to launch a seaborne attack on Constantinople.18
In a replay of the Fourth Crusade, Charles agreed a treaty with the Venetians to provide the fleet to reconquer Constantinople. As the Crusaders had found in 1204, the costs of preparing such a fleet were enormous and Charles pushed his subjects to the limits to pay for the new campaign. Given the failed land assault in 1281 and the costs of defending Achaea, Charles’s revenues were stretched to breaking point. From the point of view of his subjects, his reign had been one of constant warfare and the heavy taxes imposed to pay for it. He had already faced a massive revolt in Sicily and southern Italy when Conradin invaded, in which members of the Castilian royal family had been involved. Now everything came to a head, in the event that would define Charles of Anjou forever.
The Sicilian Vespers
The ‘Sicilian Vespers’ is the name given to a revolt that began in Palermo in 1282 and rapidly spread throughout Sicily and into southern Italy, nearly toppling Charles from power, though ultimately after Charles’s death the Angevin dynasty remained and ruled a truncated kingdom from Naples. The causes of the revolt are complex and disputed. Certainly Sicily, and the rest of Charles’s domains, had been punitively taxed and were fed up with the financial burdens forced on them by Charles’s endless Crusading and expansionist policies. Sicily itself had also retained a distinctive identity and constantly harked back to the days of Frederick II’s charismatic court based in Palermo and even further to the days of ‘Good King William’ in the 12th century.
There was more to the story than Sicilian dissatisfaction. The royal houses of Castile and Aragon have repeatedly been involved in Charles of Anjou’s story, and it may be that Aragon, in conjunction with Michael Paleologus, formed a grand coalition of Charles’s enemies to bring him down. Manfred’s daughter Constance had married Peter, the heir to Aragon, and Peter became king in 1276. His interests overlapped with Charles in Sardinia and Tunisia, and Hohenstaufen supporters definitely went to Aragon to meet Constance. A legend quickly arose that John of Procida, a doctor who had been Frederick II’s personal physician, then served Manfred and joined Conradin, and was now chancellor of Aragon, was the mastermind behind the plot. Legends tell of him travelling around the Mediterranean disguised as a Franciscan, bringing bribes from Michael Paleologus and distributing them to rebel Sicilian barons, and rallying the Ghibellines across Italy.19
It is a fabulous story in both senses of the word – a disguised agent patiently building up a network of support, the imperilled Byzantine Emperor using guile and bribes to overcome military force, and most importantly of all, the revenge of the Hohenstaufen. Certainly Hohenstaufen loyalists had gone to Aragon, and there are suggestions that there genuinely was an attempt by Charles’s various enemies to join forces and find some way to resist him. However, there is an overall lack of evidence, plus a few distinct pieces of contradictory evidence, and the ‘grand conspiracy’ led by John of Procida seems to be a romantic fiction.
Villani can’t quite make up his mind whether the Vespers arose because of an organized plot by John of Procida or if the revolt grew from an incident when a French knight insulted a Sicilian woman, so he includes both:
In the year of Christ 1282, on Easter Monday of the Resurrection, which was the 30th day of March, as had been purposed by M. John of Procita, all the barons and chiefs which had a hand in the plot were in the city of Palermo for Easter, and the inhabitants of Palermo, men and women, going in a body, on horse and on foot, to the festival at Monreale, three miles outside the city (and as those of Palermo went, so also went the Frenchmen, and the captain of King Charles, for their disport), it came to pass, as was purposed by the enemy of God, that a Frenchman in his insolence laid hold of a woman of Palermo to do her villainy; she beginning to cry out, and the people being already sore and all moved with indignation against the French, the retainers of the barons of the island began to defend the woman, whence arose a great battle between the French and the Sicilians, and many were wounded and slain on either side; but those of Palermo came off worst.
Straightway, all the people returned in flight to the city, and the men flew to arm
s, crying, ‘Death to the French.’ They gathered together in the market place, as had been ordained by the leaders of the plot; and the justiciary, which was for the king, fighting at the castle, was taken and slain, and as many Frenchmen as were in the city were slain in the houses and in the churches, without any mercy … This plague spread through all the island, whence King Charles and his people received great hurt both in person and in goods.20
This middle ground seems most persuasive: Charles’s enemies were in contact with the Aragonese and there had been attempts by the court of Aragon to stir up resistance to Charles in Sicily, and when a local revolt was sparked by an incident between Angevin forces and local people, the rebellion quickly gained momentum. What is also true is that Peter of Aragon had prepared his own fleet, ostensibly for a Crusade against Tunis, and was ready to capitalize on Angevin problems in Sicily.
The aftermath of the revolt also showed that there were much longer-standing problems in the island than the actions of Charles of Anjou. Modern historical analysis has shown repeatedly that in most cases Charles was continuing Hohenstaufen financial policy and was no more rapacious than Frederick II, but this was irrelevant when the Sicilians were actually protesting against decades of financial oppression. The Vespers can just as easily be seen as a continuation of the fall of Frederick II, who had also come unstuck through having too many distractions in the rest of Italy and had been forced to be too demanding in Sicily.21
Angevin Dynasties of Europe 900-1500 Page 32