Clearing a centuries-old confusion between Guy III, Guy IV and Guy V of Forez and speculating on a possible link to the village of Kondofrey in Bulgaria
"Kondofrey (Кондофрей)"! What a weird name! I still remember passing through this village when I was a kid, each time we paid a visit to my great grandmother in the next village. If you don't speak Bulgarian, it might not be that obvious, but to a native speaker, there can't be any doubt about the foreign nature of the name.
30 years later, and with a keen interest in the history of the Crusades, and with lots of spare time, I remembered that story and decided to try to match it to French history. A count who went on a crusade had surely left a written trace somewhere. My first naive attempt turned out to be a dead end - Fray or Frey was a very popular name in Northern France and Belgium - but it was a commoner name and there was no way a count was ever named de Fray or de Frey as no such county ever existed.
To my great surprise, there were already two scientific papers by serious researchers in peer-reviewed journals discussing the local legend and the eventual origin of the name. Thomas Tomov had already done most of the ground-breaking work - including exhausting the very limited Bulgarian sources.
I went rapidly through his list - Friaize, Flandre, ... Forez. Forez! Comte of Forez! As a native speaker of Bulgarian who had lived for most of his adult life in France, the similarity of the pronunciation to the Bulgarian Kondofre was striking.
Alas, it was impossible to match him - part of the Fourth Crusade - or his son - part of the Barons Crusade - to the legend given their biographies. Trying to find more information about him, led to my first discovery - that the biographies of Guy IV and Guy V were widely inconsistent and full of contradictions.
This paper has two main goals:
-
Completely rebuild the genealogy of the Forez family during the period of the Crusades entirely from primary sources and serve as a definite reference on this subject
-
Use this data to try to link one the crusading knights to the village of Kondodrey
As most of the confusion surrounding the Forez family can be attributed to using different numbering schemes, this paper sets a number of rules concerning naming and numbering:
- Use the vulgar name most likely to have been used during the lifetime of the considered individual, giving alternative names, including English translations in parentheses
- Always translate prepositions (French de to English of) except when the preposition is important (as for William de Forz)
- Use the numbering scheme most likely to have been used at their time - for the Forez family this is the numbering used in their family tomb in the church of Montbrison
It turns out that the main primary source used by most modern scholars is the seminal work of Jean-Marie de la Mure - a semi-modern work dating from 1675, with a corrected edition from 1860 [4]. It is precisely this text that is the real origin of the confusion between Guy III, Guy IV and Guy V. De la Mure work is based mostly on archival administrative documents - the royal charters - extracted from Trésor des Chartes du Roi - Thesaurus Chartarum - the Royal Treasury of Charters - created by King Philippe II Auguste of France in 1204 [12], [14]. Today this collection of documents is part of the French National Archives. When going back beyond this date, the amount of available data is drastically reduced. In particular, there are very few preserved documents from Forez dating before the 1220s.
While these royal charters tell the story about what happened in France, they do not contain any data from the crusades themselves. This paper tries to match a number of manuscripts to the available administrative acts [2], [3], [7], [21] and [22].
As throughout this paper, there will be a number of attempts to extrapolate deduce travel by occasional mentions of various figures at different locations, it should start with a note on medieval travel times. The subject has been extensively researched in [18].
It shall be noted that while sailing out of land's sight was theoretically possible, it was a very rare and expensive skill and might not have been available to everyone. The first historical record of a mechanical compass in Europe is from 1190 [19] in De naturis rerum. As the shortest route between Italy and the Holy Land requires extensive use of open sea navigation, it is very likely that most - if not all - crusaders did not take this route. Accounts of the Fourth Crusade make an explicit mention of the fact that the Marseille sailors were very skilled at open sea navigation and their record time from Marseille to Acre was 15 days [17]. It shall also be noted that sailing in the Mediterranean is with the prevailing winds when traveling East - towards the Holy Land - and against the prevailing winds when traveling West. Sailing against the prevailing winds can easily double the travel time. Realistic average sailing speed is estimated to be about 30 nautical miles per day against the wind and up to 60 nautical miles per day with favorable wind ([18], pages 492-500). The number of stops is usually the leading factor influencing this speed, and a large army is expected to be needing lots of stops in order to be frequently resupplied. There are recorded instances of speeds up to 100 nautical miles per day for messengers traveling day and night without stopping ([18], page 498). Although the cause was not understood at this time, it is precisely during the crusades that scurvy was described for the first time in Europe - meaning that there was occasions when travelers spent more than 1 month at sea ([20]).
| Route | Direct route | Coastal route | Travel time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marseille to Acre | 1500nm | 2000nm | 25 to 60 days |
| Acre to Marseille | 1500nm | 2000nm | 40 to 100 days |
| Acre to Constantinople | 850nm | 1000nm | 20 to 50 days |
The Barons' Crusade itself contains a very precise record of army travel times by land - as Baldwin of Courtenay's military campaign traveled from France - crossing the Holy Roman Empire and Hungary - to the western border of Bulgaria in about 3 months.
The counts of Forez were one of the most active crusading families of the Middle Ages. They took part in the First Crusade, the Fourth Crusade, the Barons Crusade and the Seventh Crusade.
Two successive houses held the County of Forez - a first one, the house of Forez from Lyon - which held it until 1107 - and a second one - the house of Albon from Grenoble and Grésivaudan. The house of Albon inherits Forez through a marriage between Guigues-Raymond of Albon and Ide of Forez in 1085. This new lineage is sometimes considered to be a cadet branch of the house of Albon and can be named either Albon-Forez or simply Forez - but it remains a distinct Forez from the previous one.
The coat of arms of the first house of Forez - Forez from Lyon - is a black lion on a golden shield ([4], page 74).
The coat of arms of Albon-Forez is a golden dolphin on a red shield ([4], page 207).
It is also worth noting that during the time of the First Crusade, Forez was not part of the Kingdom of France - it was part of the Kingdom of Burgundy which was itself part of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1167, Guigues II swore allegiance to the French king and Forez became part of France.
Forez is located right at the border between the langue d'oil and *langue d'oc language families. The vulgar language spoken by the local population was Franco-Provençal which is part of the langue d'oil family - however Occitan may also have been prevalent in the southern parts. The native language of the Forez family themselves is not certain, but it is likely that the first house may have been speaking Franco-Provençal, while the second one - given their origins - may have been speaking Occitan language - langue d'oc.
In this paper, we will focus on the crusading knights, and we will try to settle a number of problems and cases of mistaken identity between Guy III, Guy IV and Guy V, all of the second house, who went respectively on the Fourth Crusade, the Barons' Crusade and the Seventh Crusade. Traditionally these have been attributes to problems with the numbering scheme, but it seems that the confusion is centuries old and can be traced back to de la Mure's chronicles from 1675 and L'art de vérifier les dates... ([25]), a major and widely cited work from the 18th century.
Also, it is worth noting that another source of confusion stems from the fact that the most notable Forez - Count Guy IV of Forez and Nevers - was count of both Forez and Nevers - and is referred as count of Nevers in most crusaders sources. Nevers is a different - and also very prominent - crusading family.
There are two previous studies of the Forez family - the first one is the chronicles of Jean-Marie de la Mure from 1675, republished with annotated corrections in 1830 [4] and the second one is L’Art de vérifier les dates... from 1784 by Benedictine monks [25]. De la Mure did not have access to any crusader chronicles while the Benedictines cite the Villehardouin - Fourth Crusade - and Joinville - Seventh Crusade - chronicles. Both works contain a significant number of mistakes, omissions or confusions between the successive counts named Guigues.
This paper tries to stick to the numbering scheme used in Forez's own family church.
This paper uses a number of additional documents that were not available to them - [2], [3], [7], [21], [22], [27], [28] and [29].
Count Willelme (Gillin / Vuidelin / Guillaume) III of Lyon and Forez, nicknamed Willelme the Old (Guillaume l'Ancien)
10?? - 1097
De la Mure's account of Willelme is particularly confusing. According to the 1675 edition, there are two successive counts, Gillin (Vuildelin) and Willelme, but the authors of the 1860 conclude that this must be the same person ([4], page 106).
He inherits the title from his father, Artaud V in 1085 ([25], page 487).
He marries Vandelmonde of Beaujeu and has two sons - Guillaume and Eustache.
He is briefly succeeded by his two sons who die without children. The title is then inherited by his sister, which effectively ends the first house of Forez ([28], page 487). However another cadet branch related to this house survives in Flanders where their coat of arms is still used.
He founds one of the first hospitals in France in 1090 with 15 beds. Guy IV moves it next to the Notre-Dame-d'Espérance church which is still being constructed in 1220. This second building is still preserved in Montbrison.
He is one of the leaders of the First Crusade of Godfrey of Bouillon. He is a member of the first house. The other three successive crusading knights descend from him on their maternal side through Ide of Forez. Ide of Forez is Willelme's sister and Guy I of Forez's mother.
Willelme sets on the First Crusade under the leadership of Count Raymond of Toulouse ([25], page 487). On their way to the Holy Land, the group led by Godfrey of Bouillon crosses the Balkans on foot. The route they take is Belgrade - Nish - Sardica (Sofia) - Philippopolis (Plovdiv) - Adrianople (Edirne) which takes them if not right through Kondofrey, then at least very close. The ill-fated People's Crusade led by Peter the Hermit precedes the main professional army. There are lots of incidents and small engagements with the locals along the route - the worst of them is probably the pillaging of Belgrade. Generally, the passing of the professional army is much smoother - both because the soldiers tend to be more disciplined and because by the time they pass, most government officials have already understood that special preparations must be made for the passing of an army of this magnitude - even if it is friendly. However the group led by Raymond of Toulouse chooses a different route and crosses the Adriatic into modern day Albania before continuing to Thessaloniki ([26]). Most of the later crusades will travel by sea. At this time the Tzardom of Bulgaria is part of the Byzantine Empire.
Willelme is killed during the siege of Nicaea in 1097 ([25], page 487). He is mentioned twice in William of Tyre's Historia - once in the list of the departing nobles ([28], page 95) and once during the account of the siege of Nicaea. He is mortally wounded by an arrow during the second assault of the castle walls ([28], page 158). His relative, the Count of Lille, also perishes with him.
1152 - 1202
Count Guy III, nicknamed Guigues from Overseas (Guigues d'Outremer) was the last Forez to be count of both Forez and Lyon. The county of Lyon was ceded to the church after the Pope intervened to stop his war against his brother, Renaud, the archbishop of Lyon. It was agreed that he was to keep both titles until his death. After this treaty, the Papal bull Permutatio of 1173, he began to style himself Count of Forez and Lyon - Guido Comes Forensis atque Lugdunensis - instead of Count of Lyon and Forez as his predecessors - marking the shift of importance. Lyon became property of the Catholic church.
[23] mentions a nickname Brenda ([23], page 1603). The information in [23] seems to be full of errors and mistaken identities between Guy III, Guy IV and Guy V. The line for Guy III has Guy IV's birth year and Guy III's wife and children. Those mistakes can be traced back to [25]. The nickname Branda also appears in [25], page 493.
His first marriage ends with a divorce for unknown reasons. Although the primary sources are not very clear, Eléonor of Forez is certainly born out of this marriage ([25], page 493) because her son - Guillaume of Baffie is at the center of a inheritance dispute with Guy V of Forez ([4], page 245). He challenges the legality of the divorce between Guy III and Asiuraa, claiming that Eléonor is the only legitimate successor of Guy III. The king decides that Guillaume of Baffie is to renounce his claims on the County of Forez and he is to receive the castles of Pressieu, Jullieu, Villedieu and Cromels. This is certainly the same Guillaume of Pressieu mentioned in [15].
Guy III married Alix of Suilly. The exact year of this marriage is not clear ([4], page 183). This marriage produces a son, Guy, the future Guy IV of Forez, and three daughters - Marquise of Forez and Guigone of Forez.
Count Guy III of Forez was one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade. He is the first one in his family to set on a crusade for many generations - it was the brother of his great-grandmother who went on the First Crusade - a little bit over a century separates them. The Fourth Crusade is the first crusade to target Constantinople - the Barons Crusade is the next one. It remains the most controversial crusade, shifting the focus from the Holy Land - controlled by Muslims - to the Byzantine Empire - who are Orthodox Christians. The crusade consists of two separate miliary campaigns: one directed to Constantinople and another one in the Holy Land. The campaign to Constantinople is by far the more famous. The split ratio between the two forces is still a matter of debate [17].
The military campaign to Cosntantinople during the Fourth Crusade is very well documented as it is chronicled by one of its leaders - Villehardouin - but his chronicles are famous for being particularly one-sided and focused on the Constantinople campaign. Villehardouin was the only leader who escaped from the crushing defeat by the Bulgarian Tzar Kaloyan at Adrianople in 1205.
There is almost no primary data on the military campaign to Palestine.
Count Guy III of Forez was one of the main participants of the organizational meeting between the French knights at the Cîteaux Abbey in September 1200 or 1201 ([22], verse 45).
Parts of the army that went to the Holy Land left from Marseille while the bulk of the crusader force assembled in Venice. The group from Marseille was sailing on the Flemish fleet. Count Guy III of Forez took part in the military campaign in the Holy Land in the Marseille group ([22], verse 50) - decision which drew Villehardouin's ire. They left from Marseille in July or August 1202 ([17]) and reached Acre probably in September or October.
He died of illness during a military campaign near Jerusalem and his remains were transported back to Acre. There is little doubt about the circumstances of his death and his place of burial is well known - in the church of Hospitaller commandery of Saint-Jean-d'Acre.
Jean-Marie de la Mure cites November 28 1202 as date of his death ([4], page 186) and this is the date inscribed in the church of Montbrison built by his son.
He is not mentioned at all in Eracles or the Rothelin manuscript which is consistent with him dying shortly after his arrival.
He is also mentioned in Chronique d'Ernoul as having died almost immediately after disembarking in Acre ([27], page 340).
[25] states that he died while traveling - citing Villehardouin's chronicles ([25], page 493). This is not very accurate as Villehardouin's chronicles do not contain any information about the military campaign to the Holy Land after their departure from Marseille.
Although many modern source emit doubts about him dying in 1203 - during the outbreak of plague - or even 1204, all the primary sources agree that he died almost immediately after arriving.
1196 or 1199 - 1241
Count Guy IV was still a young child when his father set on the Fourth Crusade. His regent and tutor was his uncle, Renaud of Forez, archbishop of Lyon and younger brother of his father Guy III. According to de la Mure, he tutored him from 1205 to 1212 ([4], pages 203-204). However, in additional documents uncovered for the 1860 edition of the chronicles, indicate that he may have become of full legal age as late as 1217. This is the only direct source attesting his birth year - which must be either 1196 or 1199 ([4], pages 203-204).
It is his uncle who incited him to build the church Notre-Dame-d'Espérance in Montbrison and to make Montbrison the capital of the Forez county ([4], page 205).
De la Mure mentions that Count Guy IV of Forez was entrusted with leading an army unit by King Philippe II Auguste during a minor battle, part of his conflict with Count Ferrand of Flanders - culminating with the famous battle of Bouvines in 1214. Guy IV must have been no more than 20 years old at this time. De la Mure cites 1215 as the year, but the battle of Bouvines was in 1214 ([4], page 206). This account cannot be verified from other sources.
He is briefly engaged to one of Count Guy II of Auvergne's daughters, but the wedding does not take place as some of their peers oppose this new alliance ([4], page 204). His first marriage is to Philippie de Dampierre, daughter of Guy de Dampierre, Lord of Bourbon. The marriage is short-lived, as she dies soon after without producing any children ([4], page 208).
His second marriage is to Ermengarde (Arméniarde) d'Auvergne, daughter of Count Guy II of Auvergne. It is not clear if this is the same daughter as his initial engagement. This marriage produces two potential successors: Guigues (Guy) and Renaud ([4], page 211).
The construction of the church - major landmark of this town - starts in 1223 ([4], page 212).
His third marriage is to Princess Mahault (Matilda) of Courtenay, countess of Nevers. Princess Mahault is 38 years old and this marriage produces one daughter. It is mostly political, as it allows to merge the two counties - Forez and Nevers - creating a very large feudal domain - and making Guy IV one of the most prominent French counts.
The account of the personality of Guy IV in [11], although logical, does not seem to be based on any written primary sources ([11], page 133). The account of his marriage to Mahault is mostly fictional. The marriage had been arranged by Lord Humbert of Beaujeu ([4], page 221). Mahault, a remarkable woman and a very prominent character of her era, was one of the very few women who had taken part in a crusade herself - she had been in the Holy Land as part of the Fifth Crusade. A marriage between two powerful counts surely needed some kind of approval by the King of France, since it had significant implications for the power balance in France, creating a new very powerful count.
He takes part in a number of small feudal conflicts during the 1229 against his neighbors - including Prince Thibault IV of Champagne - the future leader of the Barons Crusade. Previously, they had been close allies. He is considered an accomplished military commander.
A song by the 13th century troubadour Eustache Le Peintre - Amours, coment porroie chançon faire - refers him and was likely related to his departure on a crusade ([24], page 258). The last couplet of what appears to be a love song is:
Va t'en chançon, sans nul atendement droit au bon conte, ou toute honor s'aairre, qui de Forois est sire essanplaire; di que ce chant de nouvel li present.
Go, oh song, without delay, to the good count, in whom all honor resides, who is an exemplary lord of Forez, tell him that this song is sung again.
Clearly, Count Guy IV of Forez is the most likely candidate to be the one that the song refers to. The again part indicates that he had already heard this song. Given the customs of the time, he might also have been the one who had it written in the first place.
The Barons Crusade is a relatively lesser known crusade that is considered to be a failure by most scholars. Militarily, it was very well prepared and consisted of a very sizeable and capable armed force. However because of various organizational problems, it failed to achieve any goals. It is studied very extensively by Lower in his 2005 book.
Preparations for the crusade started in November 17 1234 when Pope Gregory IX issued the papal bull Rachel suum videns. The bulk of the crusader force was composed of French knights joined by some English knights.
It consists of two separate and largely independent military campaigns - one to the Holy Lands and another one to the Latin Empire in Constantinople. Both armies shared the same funding and left about the same time. The diversion to Constantinople was largely the brainchild of Pope Gregory IX and it was a follow-up to the very controversial Fourth Crusade which ended with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. Pope Gregory IX continued with the policy of trying to reunite Christianity - by defeating the Orthodox Christians on the battlefield and imposing a Catholic Patriarch. It was him the driving force for diverting funds from the Holy Lands and trying to coerce the various European knights to switch their vows from Jerusalem to Constantinople.
Count Guy IV of Forez was probably the most influential count among the leaders of the crusade - and his army was second only to that of the princes themselves. Thus he can be considered to have been the 4th most senior French leader of the Crusade - and maybe the 5th overall since there was only one significant English noble - Earl Richard of Cornwall.
Tensions among the leaders of the Barons Crusade were very high. Many of the knights had been at war just a few years earlier - because of the failed attempt of Thibault IV to seize the throne of France from Louis. They quickly formed three factions, led by each of the princes and the three armies marched separately and never fought as a single unit ([1], page 51).
The army to the Holy Land is assembled in Marseille - a fact mentioned both by Eracles and [7].
Guy IV of Forez traveled in Thibault IV's group, but tensions between them led to further fragmentation of the crusader force once in the Holy Land. They used to be close allies, but because Guy of Forez's marriage in 1226 and Thibault's rebellion against the king, they fought a brief war in 1229.
As the conflict between Emperor Frederick II and Pope Gregoxy IX continued to develop throughout 1239, and with the prospect of a large European-wide war on the horizon, both of them tried to stop the crusade at the last moment. This fact is curiously absent from the pro-papal sources - Rothelin and Eracles - and it is mentionned only by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora ([21], page 242). In Rothelin, there is a vague reference to Frederick II proposing to join the crusade himself, if the crusaders accept to wait one more year ([3], Rothelin, chapter 20 1239). This causes further divisions among the crusaders, with some deciding to still depart, while others return to their homes before departing at a later date. In Rothelin ([3], Rothelin, chapter 20 1239), it is a large storm which scatters the crusader fleet and causes the French knights to arrive one by one in Acre. It is not clear if Guy IV returns home or not, but there is a very curious mention in de la Mure's account of Guy V's departure on the Seventh Crusade which mentions that he comes back from Marseille before leaving again. Given his consistent confusion of the two counts, this might be an indication that this was indeed the case.
Guy IV of Forez takes part in the organization of the Barons Crusade and it is eager to follow the steps of his father who he barely knew. However there might have been other, more Earthly reasons for his decision. As was the case for many crusader knights, the privileges of the special legal status that they enjoyed also played a major role. Some sources mention a possible - and very serious - sentence of excommunication for harboring heretics ([2], page 726, [3], page 416). Other sources cite large debts, for which a crusader did not have to pay interest ([3], page 546). The debt theory is further corroborated by administrative acts mentioned by de la Mure ([4], page 246). There are however no traces of any sentence of excommunication in the original sources.
According to Jean-Marie de la Mure, he dies on August 10 1239. In his chronicles from 1675, de la Mure asserts that Guy IV never had the chance to depart on the Crusade, as he died shortly before its departure. On the other side, in the 1860 revised edition of his manuscript, this most likely wrong statement is attributed to an administrative act - the execution of his will - dated May 8 1240.
There are factual documents - from "Trésor des Chartes du Roi" - which dispute him claims of Guy IV dying right before the crusade.
The presence of another will, dated August 10 1241 - the same date, but two years later - suggests that his is simply an error. The authors of the 1860 edition also cite a number of administrative acts from another archive - "Trésor des Chartes du Roi" - which contain a number of financial transactions made by his wife - and which indicate that Guy IV was absent during this period. The first mention of his death is in 1241 and the first administrative acts of Guy V are from 1242. ([4], pages 239-241).
This theory is also confirmed by another independent source - the Eracles chronicles. Book 33, chapter 44 mentions that a new great crusade had departed from France and was awaited in the Holy Land and proceeds to enumerate the knights taking part: "The count of Forez who was count of Nevers in right of his wife". [3]. Janet Shirley identifies this count as Guigues V, count of Forez (1203-1241) and Nevers (1239-1241) - and this is clearly Guigues IV according to this paper's numbering.
It is very likely that de la Mure concluded himself that Guigues never left on the crusade according to the erroneous year of death - 1239. De la Mure's work was written about 400 years after the events of the Barons Crusade. The main source of his work was the church and the administrative records - which are currently part of the French national archives and - certainly - orally transmitted tales. There were no written records about what happened in the East that were available to him. This can explain the fact that otherwise real events that happened during the Seventh Crusade are misattrbuted to the Barons Crusade. He must have proceeded to write an account, which currently seems to be completely fictitious, of his son, Guigues V, joining the crusade at a later date.
The relations very between Tzar Ivan Asen II and Pope Gregory IX during the buildup to the Barons Crusade are very complex and unstable. It shall only be noted that if Emperor Frederick II was Christianity worst heretic for the Pope, then Tzar Ivan Asen II was a close second. The Bulgarians had translated the Holy Bible, were preaching in Slavonic, and were using their newly created Cyrillic alphabet to write it down. They had incorporated many pagan traditions and beliefs into their new form of Christianity and were also the birthplace of Christinity's most dangerous heresy - Bogomilism. The Pope considered excommuncating him, but this act would have remained largely symbolical, since Ivan Asen II was not in a communion with the Pope. In theory, the head of Christian Orthodoxy was the Patriarch in Constantinople, however the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was autocephalic since 919. Thus, no one really was in position to excommunicate the Bulgarian Tzar. The very idea of a national autocephalic church was another very dangerous idea for the Pope. At one point in 1238, shortly before the Barons' Crusade, the Pope even called for a crusade against Tzar Ivan Asen II - however King Bela of Hungary - without whom this crusade was impossible - refused his call.
The shared conflict between the two monarchs with the Pope made them natural allies. This conflict was largely ideological - something very unusual for conflicts between Christians during this era - these tended to be mostly about titles, lands and inheritance. There were talks of an alliance between the two during the years preceding the crusade. But unlike Emperor Frederick II, Tzar Ivan Asen II was much more willing to make concessions and to mend his relations with the Pope - and allowing the crusader army safe passage was certainly part of this policy.
Both of the military campaigns during the Barons' Crusade are not very successful - despite the fact that the crusaders do not lose any significant battles. A potential crusader himself, Frederick II decides to not join the crusade because of his ongoing conflict with Pope Gregory IX. He is initially very hostile and refuses safe passage to the crusaders ([1], page 150). Finally, Louis IX of France secures permission for the crusade to pass and the main force leaves in July 1239 - at the same time as the one bound for the Holy Land. They cross Germany and Hungary and meet Tzar Ivan Asen II at the western border of Bulgaria ([1], page 156). At this moment Ivan Asen II was allied to Ioan Vatatzes of Nicaea against the Latin Empire. His predecessor - Tzar Kaloyan had successfully defeated the crusaders 35 years earlier. At this very moment, Tzar Ivan Asen II is willing to compromise with the Pope - he even briefly considers acknowledging the Papal primacy and switching to Catholicism. Thus allowing the crusader army safe passage - and even joining the crusade - is a natural continuation of his policy. Crusader sources ([1], page 76, pages 82-88) indicate that the crusaders definitely considered the option of meeting the combined Bulgarian and Greek armies on the battlefield - but quickly realized that they were hopelessly outnumbered. Finally, Tzar Ivan Asen II made one of the most significant contributions the Barons Crusade - a squadron of Cuman light cavalry for which the Bulgarians were famous - thus turning his back on the Greeks. It seems that the alliance between the Bulgarians and the Greeks against the Latin Empire was a very precarious one, since both sides coveted Constantinople.
He is mentioned as "Guigues V, count of Forez and Nevers" traveling from Lyon to Marseille - the port of departure for the crusade in ([10], page 312). The group of crusaders led by Thibault IV met in Lyon and traveled together to Marseille where they met with the rest of the French knights. This work, very similar to the one by de la Mure, is written at a much later date during the 19th century, with the author having access to the Eracles chronicles. There is one critical detail: Thibault IV left from Champagne in June 1239 and the group arrived in Marseille in August 1239. This is right before the earliest possible date of death of Guy IV - and one which is widely discounted as being a mistake ([4], page 240). Thus, we conclude, that this statement might have been influenced by the erroneous theory of de la Mure that Guy V took part in this crusade.
Another fact supporting this theory in [10], which describes the feudal conflicts of 1229 in great detail - which pitted Guy IV against Thibault IV - Guy IV is sometimes referred as the Count of Nevers. Nevers played an important role in those conflicts - as the marriage of 1226 made that it was not considered anymore part of Champagne ([10], page 252). The only Forez that was also count of Nevers is Guy IV.
In [2], page 118, there is also a list of the departing knights from Marseille that mentions "..., the count of Forez, the count of Nevers, ..." without a name and listing these as if they were two different persons:
...que l'en clamoit Piere Mauclerc, li cuens de Bretaigne, Johans de Dreues, cuens de Mascon, li cuens de Foroys, li cuens de Nevers, Henris, li cuens de Bar le duc, Amaury, li cuens de Monfort & autres plusors riches homes, des quels li cuens de Bar...
The author of the 1887 edition identifies him as Guy V - which should also be attributed to de la Mure's influence. Although one may be tempted to try to interpret this mistake as a sign that both Guy IV and Guy V might have been traveling together, this is not very likely, since Guy V could not have been referred as Count of Forez until the death of his father. As these two counts are the only ones that are not explicitly named, this is indicative of the author not really knowing their identities.
Also, according to [11], page 163, Guy of Forez point of departure for the crusade was Nevers and he was accompanied by the bishop of Nevers.
The first crusaders arrive in Acre on September 1 1239 ([2], page 118).
In book 33, chapter 44, Eracles mentions the count of Nevers as being in Jaffa with the Knights Templar in 1240 ([3], page 127), [9], page 481 which cites [10], page 315-316 as source, leads back to Eracles. This is the only direct mention in a primary source of Guy IV of Forez in the Holy Land.
[2], page 122 also includes an identical mention, naming him simply the Count of Nevers. As these texts are known to have been written independently, this is a very good indication of a reliable information.
All of these sources confirm the expected conflict between Guy of Forez and Thibault IV de Champagne. At this point of the campaign the command authority of Thibault IV must be significantly eroded and Guy of Forez is refusing to follow orders and the two cannot agree on a common defense plan. He and the Knights Templar sign a separate truce with the Saracens and stay in Jaffa, while Thibault IV de Champagne and the Knights Hospitaliers decide to leave and try to defend Acre. The fact that the Templars are siding with Guy of Forez is indicative of serious lack of command authority by Thibault IV.
This can also be interpreted as another sign that this must be in fact the old Forez - Guy IV. It is difficult to imagine a 19-year old count successfully challenging the military command of a king. Thibault IV was selected as a military leader of the crusade because he was the only knight holding a king-level title ([10], page 312) - being also king of Navarre. History remembers him as a great poet, but both his military campaigns ended in disaster. Still, challenging his leadership would have been possible only for a very experienced military commander.
[11], page 166 contains an account of Guy of Forez being taken prisoner and then ransomed in 1240, which seems to be a work of fiction and not mentioned in any examined primary sources. Or, it may be influenced by a similar event during Guy V life during the Seventh Crusade ([25], page 495) which also appears to be fictious - see the section the Seventh Crusade.
There are different conflicting accounts when it comes to the construction of the castle in Ascalon - some citing Guy of Forez ([9], page 481), others - Richard of Cornwall ([1], page 176).
The construction of a castle in Ascalon was one of the first decisions by the leaders of the crusade after setting foot in the Holy Land ([3], Rothelin, chapter 22, 1239 and chapter 31, 1239-1240), but the actual work was postponed until the very end - most of the French had already left on their way back when it started.
According to Eracles ([3], Eracles, chapter 51, 1240), Richard of Cornwall's men built the castle at the request of the Knights Templar in Jaffa. Richard of Cornwall arrived after Thibault IV had already left for Europe.
According to the Rothelin manuscript ([3], Rothelin, chapter 33, 1240), it was the French army who started the work on the castle, with Richard of Cornwall arriving while the construction was well in progress.
Gestes des Chiprois ([2], page 123) also attributes the work to Richard of Cornwall.
In Alberic of Trois-Fontaines ([32], page 577), the French forces built the castle in the presence of Richard of Cornwall. In his text, this statement is immediately before the mention of Guy of Forez' death in Apulia.
It shall be noted that all three sources say that Ascalon was fortified the same way that Richard of England had previously built it. The slight disrepancy can certainly be considered to be a classical problem of who did the most work, as the crusades were often a competition for glory between their participants. At least when it comes to Matthew Paris, his bias against the French and in favor of Richrd of Corwnall is noted among scholars ([32], page 289).
In all cases, there are no direct mentions of Guy of Forez as being present during the construction work in Ascalon - even if it is probable. Thus, it is very difficult to date the depart of Guy IV from the Holy Land - everything that is certain is that it happened after Thibault IV and most other French knights departed in September 1240 ([1], page 175). We also know that at least some French knights were still present on when Richard of Cornwall arrived.
When it comes to the exact dates of arrival and departure of Richard of Corwnall, Janeth Shirley gives October 8 1240 and May 3 1241 ([3], Rothelin, cahpter 26 1240). There are no exact dates in the original manuscript, but this statement can be traced back at least to [30], page 248 or maybe another common shared source.
Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora confirms that Richard of Corwnwall arrived after Thibault had left but gives Michaelmas Day 1240 as his date of arrive - this would be September 29 ([21], page 308). He also states that he leaves from the Holy Land on the Festival of the Finding of the Holy Cross - August 18 - and he arrives in Trapani, Sicily on Saint John the Baptist day - September 8 ([21], page 366). This interesting as it gives another, real, estimation of the sea travel times of the era.
The reason for the huge disrepancy between Rothelin and Chronica Majora are not very clear. Chronica Majora is quite inconsistent when it comes to the death of the Pope - it is mentioned as a separate, later, event than the negoatiations between him and Richard of Corwnwell ([21], page 382). The date that appears is the one known to modern scholars - August 22 1241. This means that Earl Richard probably traveled earlier, because of the two events, the date of the Pope's death is certainly the more reliable one.
This inconsitency of Chronica Majora also casts some doubts on its accuracy. Matthew Paris is the only pro-imperial source of its time, and while the others seem to try to maintain some degree of impartiality, he is openly anti-papal. As there is a number of events that are described only by him, there is some legitimate doubt that his account may be at least partially politically motivated.
The last crusaders to leave from Ascalon - and the Holy Land - were Duke Hugues IV of Burgundy and Earl Richard of Cornwall.
What is also worth noting is that Richard of Corwnall stay in Ascalon is very detailed in Chronica Majora and it mentions a number of French knights ([21], pages 362-368). Guy IV is not one them and it is very likely that he would have been mentioned if he was at Ascalon. After Thibault's departure for France, he is one of the most senior leaders left.
This mean that Guy IV of Forez departed after September 1240 but could have left anytime before his will in Apulia dated August 10 1241.
De la Mure mentions the adoption of a certain Guy of Acre, a squire. Born in the Holy Land, he traveled back to France with him. De la Mure mentions him twice - once during the account the Barons' Crusade and once as being adopted during the Seventh Crusade - with an almost identical narrative. This is a further indication for his confusion between Guy IV and Guy V ([4], page 231 and page 250).
The will of Guy IV mentions a certain Guillaume of Brienne ([14], page 1241 10 août). There was a Guillaume in the house of Brienne, but he died in 1200. De la Mure, in his account of the Barons' Crusade, that he misattrbutes to Guy V, mentions that immediately after his return from the Holy Land, Guy of Forez granted a domain to Alfonso of Brienne ([4], page 246). Some later texts imply that this event took place during the Barons Crusade and that the adoptive parent is Guy IV who never returned from it, with Guy of Acre being the adoptive name of Alfonso. Another often cited link between the two is that Alix of Chaceney was from the house of Brienne.
De la Mure mentions him for the first time in 1235 ([4], page 231), but there are no documents that attest it. This year can be found in many later works.
There are no mentions of Guy of Acre in the currently preserved part of the will - however this document was complete and well preserved at the time of de la Mure's writing. Was he mentioned in the currently missing last part of his will? Or did de la Mure make an error? Why or who is Guillaume of Brienne mentioned in the will? It is worth noting that the 1241 will is ordered by rank - and Guillaume of Brienne is near its very end, which indicates that he was probably a landowner without a title and definitely not a count.
And even if Alix of Chaceney can be linked to Guillaume of Brienne - which is doubtful, Guy of Acre is certainly a very real person who is distinct from Alfonoso of Brienne. There is another document in the archives, a decision by the Judge of Forez, dating from September 1286 which defines the legal powers held by Guillemet d'Acre. The decision is prompted by a dispute about the custody of a female prisoner and states that Guy of Acre has the right to dispense corporal punishment in his domain, the castle of Magneux - Haute-Rive, but it is not allowed to dispense capital punishment - in which case the accused is to be transferred to the count himself ([14], page 1286, septembre).
Guy of Acre is referred as domicellus - which is a landowner without a nobility title and filium quodant domini Guillelmi d'Acra - son of a certain Lord Guillaume of Acre. It is not clear if this is the son of the squire brought back from the Holy Land - or if this refers to his father in the Holy Land.
Another, much more controversial, administrative act is the donation of half of the castle of Magneux - Haute-Rive by Count Guy V of Forez to Guy of Acre. This act, originally dated from August 1260 is currently filed as being of August 1250 ([14], page 1250, août). The error is attributed to a mistake when copying the original document - as Guy V dies in 1259. However its actual year is impossible to determine. The original translation found in [14] says that Guy of Acre is referred as being a cousin - however the latin word used is consanguineus which is a much more general term for a relative (kinsman). It is this document which is the basis of the many theories that surround Guy of Acre - especially since Guy of Forez had cousins from the house of Brienne and the house of Brienne briefly held the title of the County of Acre. Some authors point also the existence of a village called Brienne near Anse - unrelated to the County of Brienne in Champagne. [14] mentions a very different coat of arms used by the two families - golden lion on azure shield for Brienne in Champagne - and a golden band shield for Acre - but this coat of arms is absent from the almanac of Forez ([34], page 24).
In that same document, Guillaume of Acre is also being referred as miles which litteraly means soldier, but it in texts of this era was generally used to mean a knight and not a squire. A knight usually implies nobility. Maybe it was Guy of Forez himself who decided to grant knighthood to Guillaume of Acre.
There is a separate act by Renaud from 1260 confirming the same donation which does not refer to Guy of Acre as being a kinsman.
What is somewhat puzzling is that the document also says that the castle is donated to Guillaume of Acre and his sons while also saying that if he was to die without a successor, the castle is to be inherited by Guy of Forez. This last part is a very common standard clause to be found in feudal grants of the time. Mentionning sons is somewhat more puzzling - as this act was certainly made shortly after coming back from the crusade - it is worth asking the question about the relative ages of Guy of Forez and Guillaume of Acre.
There are three distinct possibilites worth considering:
- Guy of Acre was adopted by Guy IV of Forez during the Barons' Crusade. This is the most likely scenario, as Guy IV spent significant amount of time in Acre. In this case the donation act could be from September 1241 and the copying error would be from MCCXLI to MCCLX.
- Guy of Acre was adopted by Guy V of Forez during the Seventh Crusade. This is less likely as Guy V never set foot in Acre. However during the Seventh Crusade there was a contingent of French troops based in Acre who joined King Louis in Egypt. As Guy V fought only a single battle during this campaign, this could have been the person who saved his life after he was unhorsed. In this case the act is probably from September 1250 and the copying error is from MCCL to MCCLX.
- Some authors point to the existence of similar family names in Forez - such as Acri - and that the Guy of Acre cited in those acts is someone who was simply already living there and had nothing to do with the crusades. Still, this appears unlikely, since the Judge explicitly refers him as "of Acre" and the donaction act - as part of the Forez family.
[13], page 204 contains a mention of Guy IV receiving a piece of the True Cross and then passing it to his son. The source cited is the 1241 will.
The will contains indeed such a mention:
... Ranaldo filio meo, clerico, snaraldinum meliorem et veram crucem quam magister militie Templi dedit mihi. ...
[14], page 1241, 10 août
... To Renaud, my son, [to join] the clergy, a very good emerald and the True Cross that the Master of the Temple militia gave me ...
This confirms his previous will of 1239, just before setting on the crusade, that Renaud, his younger son, is destined to join the clergy.
The master of the Templars is certainly Armand of Périgord. Analyzing the authenticity of the relic is beyond the scope of this article, but it is certainly debatable. The relic that the Knights Templar called the True Cross is one of Christianity's most precious and most controversial relics. There are recorded occasions of the Knights Templar gifting splinters to very important crusaders - such as the one gifted to King Sigurd I of Norway in 1110 - all of these happened before the main relic was lost after the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Its whereabouts - or ultimate fate - are still unknown to this date. On the other side, it is entirely possible that the Templars preserved a number of splinters before its loss and that they held Guy of Forez in very high esteem. As the item can be traced back at least to the Knights Templar in Jaffa - and possibly - to the relic carried during the Battle of Montgisard, its authenticiy is definitely far above the average for splinters of the True Cross found throughout Western Europe.
The relic - and its current casing dating from the XIXth century is currently indexed as item IM42002138 in the General Catalogue of the Cultural Legacy of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region in France [15]. The official notice refers it as having been gifted to the Saint-Thomas convent by Guy of Pressieu after being brought during the Seventh Crusade by Guy IV of Forez. The source cited is de la Mure [4] which we discount as being errenous. Guillaume of Pressieu is the title pretender of Guy V - it is unclear how the relic came to be into his possession - or whether this was the case at all.
The will also contains a mention of Emperor Frederick II. His inheritors being cited by rank, he is at the very top, before his sons:
In primo legavi domino imperatori Alemannie unum diamantum quem multum diligebam et unum cinctorium argenti dearauti
In the first place I bequeath to the Emperor of Germany one diamond, which I loved very much, on a ring of silver and gold*
*the exact nature of this jewel is debatable
This is a sign that Frederick II may have been Guy's host and that he died while being a guest at his court. Frederick II had agreed, before the start of the crusade, to allow all crusaders to use his ports in southern Italy ([1], page 159 traced back to [16]). Still, it is probably not enough to explain Guy of Forez passing his favorite ring to him.
Frederick II was a very controversial figure during his time. Europe's most powerful monarch, he was an unruly and eccentric souverain to his very rare friends, a dangerous heretic to his enemies and a visionary far ahead of his time to modern scholars. Despite him offering free use of his ports to the crusaders, both the French ([1], page 162) and the English ([1], page 148) avoided dealing with him. The Knights Templar completely refused to cooperate with him during his own crusades because of his excommuncation and military conflict with the Pope. Thus any potential relation between Guy of Forez and him is definitely worth noting.
The political context of this will is even more intruguing: at this very moment he is at war with Pope Gregory IX and his army is besieging Rome. The Holy Roman Emperor is excommuncated and starts his military campaign against the Pope around the same time the crusaders start to leave on their way back to Europe. Pope Gregory IX, the driving force of the Barons Crusade - and Guy of Forez financier, is Frederick's worst enemy. He had him excommunicated on four different occasions despite the fact that he had been a crusader himself - during the Fifth and the Sixth Crusades. He even declares him Preambulus Antichristi - predecessor of the Antichrist. Pope Gregory dies just two weeks later, on August 22 1241 and Frederick II lifts the siege and returns to Sicily. If Guy of Forez and Frederick II ever met personally, this must have happened at least some time before the will was written - or Guy must have accompanied Frederick II on his military campaign against the Pope - both of which seem difficult to explain.
At the moment of the Barons Crusade, Frederick II was also the main claimant of the title King of Jerusalem - but was not present there. As he was excommunicated just a few months prior to the start of the crusade, this caused much controversy and division throughout the Catholic world. From the primary sources cited in this article - Eracles and Gestes des Chiprois - as well as the Rothelin manuscript - are firmly in the Papal camp ([1], page 161), while Chronica Majora by Matthew Paris sides with the Emperor.
The beginning of his will reads:
In nomine sancte et individue trinitiatis, ego Guido comes nivern[ensis] et foren[sis], in bona et sana memoria mea, feci legatum meum anno Domini [millesimo] CCXL, primo, mense au augusti in festo beati Laurentii, in civitate que dicitur Castella[ne]tum, in terra Apulie, quando iacebam in lecto egritudinis, presentibus fratre Guillelmo de Vichiaco capellano meo, et fratre Guilleilmo de Divion[e], socio ejusdem, ordinis Fratrum minorum, Stephano, clerico meo, domino Hugone de Cicun[e], milite, Bernando, came ratio meo, Renaldo Pantin[o], magistro serviente meo.
In the name of the holy and individual Trinity, I, Guido, count of Nevers and Forez, in my good and sound memory, made my will in the year of our Lord one thousand two hundred and forty one, in the month of August on the feast of Saint Lawrence (August 10), in the city called Castellanetum, in the land of Apulia, when I lay on my dying bed, in the presence of Father Guillaume of Vichy, my chaplain, and Father Guillaume of Dijon, his companion, of the order of Friars Minor (the Franciscans), Stephan, my clerk, Lord Hugues of Cicune, knight, Bernard, my comrade, Renaldo Pantino, my master servant.
The will is dated August 10 1241. The official date of his death, as it appears on the sarcophagus in the church of Monbtrison, is October 29 1241. It is not clear what this date means - whether it is the actual date of his death, the date his coffin reaches Montbrison, or something else ([14], page 1241, 10 août).
The original document from 1241 is not well preserved and some parts of it are missing. One can find a partial transcription in [12], page 46 and [14], page 1241, 10 août. The extrapolated parts are marked with [].
As Guy IV of Forez is the only Forez who is also count of Nevers, this is clearly his will. The will also mentions being written Apulia with the town of Castellaneta being extrapolated from the missing text by the authors of the 1867 edition. The will is written on cotton paper which was widely used in Naples during this period ([12], page 47).
His death is mentioned by Alberic of Trois-Fontaines ([32], 577):
Comes Almaricus Montis fortis & Comes Guido forenfis & Nivernensis mortui funt cum attigissent in reditu fines Apulia.
Count Almaric of Montfort and Count Guigues of Forez and Nevers died upon reaching Apulia on their return.
According to [11], page 167, it is Princess Mahault who organizes the transport of his coffin from Italy, but this is probably a work of fiction.
Chronica Majora never mentions Count Guy of Forez - being focused mostly on English history - but contains a detailed account of the return trip of Earl Richard of Cornwall who, on his way back from the crusade, landed in Trapani and was received as an important guest of Frederick II who organized a celebration in his honor. It also mentions Earl Richard traveling to Rome in order to negotiate a truce with the Pope - a treaty which failed to materialize ([21], page 370). This is a very good indication that returning crusaders might have played a role in negotiations for Frederick II was ostracized by the rest of the Christian world. This account has chronological inconsistencies and there is some doubt about what actually happened.
1220-1222 - 1259
Guigues V was groomed for a military commander by his father. He accompanied his father during his campaigns in France "as soon as his age allowed him to bear arms" ([4], page, 244). Still, he must have been about 13 to 14 years old during this campaign and it is unlikely to have had significant combat experience before the Barons Crusade.
The marriage between Guy IV and Ermengarde lasts from 1220 to 1224 and Guy V has a younger brother, which means that he is probably born either in 1221 or in 1222.
According to Jean-Marie de la Mure, he leaves after the main crusader force had already departed - and finds the Christian army in very bad shape [4, page 245] - this statement is currently discounted as being completely fictitious.
He must be 18 to 20 years old at the time of his father death.
After the death of Guy IV of Forez, Princess Mahault of Courtenay retired from secular life and spent the rest of her days at the Fontevraud Abbey as a nun. She died there in 1257. She had a son, who died very young without marrying and a daughter from her first marriage - Agnes of Donzy - who died at the age of 24. She passed her title to Mahault of Borbon-Dampierre - her great grand-daughter ([11], page 205). Thus, the title Count of Nevers left the Forez family and the only Forez to ever hold it was Guy IV, by right of his marriage with his third wife.
According to Jean-Marie de la Mure, the one to fall sick in Apulia is Guy V and not Guy IV - and he does die from it, he returns in Europe alive. Still, while sick, he writes his will - this the will from 1241 that is subject to much controversy when it comes to its author - Guy IV or Guy V. However according to the 1860 edition, this will is actually written by Guy IV ([4], page 245).
According to de la Mure Guy V returns to Europe in 1242 ([4], page 246).
Most modern sources cite this illness as the cause of death of Guy IV and we also conclude that this must be the case. Guy V never took part in this crusade and the illness in Apulia is the cause of death of Guy IV.
According to de la Mure, he leaves for the Seventh Crusade in 1248 led by the French King Louis IX, but has to turn back in Marseille at stays in France until at least 1249 when he departs again ([4], page 247-248). This is likely linked to the confusion about him taking part in the Barons Crusade. Once again, in his 1675 manuscript, de la Mure cites facts deduced from years and dates found on documents in the archives. According to the authors of the 1860 edition, some of these dates might be mistakes and it is possible that Guy V left with the main force led by the King.
What is also interesting is that a similar event is described by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora - but it happens during the Barons' Crusade. It is not clear if this is the real reason for de la Mure's confusion.
King Louis IX of France leaves from France on August 25 1248 and arrives in Cyprus on September 17 1248 - a total sailing time of 22 days. They winter in Cyprus and do not leave for Egypt until May 13 1249.
It is precisely from this voyage that the first known mention in Europe of scurvy has been preserved ([29], chapter 60). The crusaders attribute this previously unknown sickness to be a poisoning from an unusual eel they ate shortly before - as the toxicity of bottom-feeding catch was well known at the time.
There are very few routes in the Mediterranean which are long enough for scurvy to develop - which is at least 4 weeks without any fresh produce - even when sailing at 4 knots. A direct crossing from Marseille to Cyprus, without resupplying, is one such route. Or this might also have been caused by the army not having access to fresh produce even before embarking on their sea voyage.
Guy V suffers a serious leg injury ([4], page 250 and [25] page 495) shortly shortly after the unopposed capture of Damietta in Egypt during the very first weeks of the crusade ([3], Eracles, book 34, chapter 1, 1248-1250 and [29], chapter 35).
As the army is preparing to cross the Nile river, they are attacked by the Saracens. Count Guy V of Forez is a cavalry leader in the group of Count Charles I of Anjou, future king of Sicily. He leads a cavalry charge when he is unhorsed. He has to be carried back to the camp by the other knights ([29], chapter 42). Damietta is captured on June 4 1249, this incident happens a few weeks later.
The account of him being taken prisoner and later ransomed ([25], page 495) is not corroborated by the Joinville chronicles ([29]).
Unable to recover, he is forced to return immediately to France.
His return trip to France is not documented.
After returning from the crusade, he is married to Alix of Chaceney in 1250 but this marriage does not produce any children.
He dies without issue in 1259 and he is succeeded by his brother, Renaud I of Forez ([4], page 254).
The local legend is already very well studied by Thomas Tomov ([6]) and it is unlikely that there will ever be more information about it.
The village appeared in historical records for the first time in the 13th century. There is an enduring local legend, passed from generation to generation, that the village was founded by a dying crusader on his way back. There are no physical artifacts preserved from this era and the present day village, part of an economically declining region, is at risk of becoming completely abandoned in the coming decades.
Its name during the Medieval era was Kondofre ([kondofre]) [6] - which is as close as a Bulgarian speaker can get to Count of Forez - Comte de Forez [kɔ̃ də fore] - prompting the current paper.
A Count of Forez took part in four crusades: Willelme duing the First Crusade, Guy III during the Fourth Crusade, Guy IV - during the Barons Crusade and Guy V - during the Seventh Crusade.
The only one to have died from illness while traveling was Guy IV. Guy III died next to Jerusalem and it is buried in the church in Acre. Guy V returned to France where he is buried. Guy IV's coffin was famously carried from Italy, which makes him a very probable candidate. Although the First Crusade also passes through the exact region of Kondofrey on his way to the Holy Land, Willelme is part of the group under the command of Count Raymond of Toulouse. He is the only Forez known to have died in battle - during the siege of Nicae.
Count Willelme III is, at least in theory, a possible candidate since parts of the First Crusade pass - if not right through Kondofrey - at least very close. Also Kondofrey sits at the route between Sardica (Sofia) and Thessaloniki - where two different groups of the crusade pass. His biography does not match the legend at all, but a legend is not a very reliable source of information.
The relations between the local authorities - the Byzantine Empire - and the crusaders during the First Crusade can only be defined as shaky [31]. As initially, no one expected them to succeed in their endeavour, they did not receive any significant help from the very empire they had come to help. Their religious zeal - which resulted the razing of a number of villages deemed to being heretical - did not help either. At one point, two of the army groups - the one led by Godfrey of Bouillon and the one led by Renauld of Toulouse - sought to establish a line of communication. One of the options they considered was waging war on the Byzantine emperor himself. The emperor had sent them escorts - whose missions was both to ensure that their passage happened smoothly - and to keep an eye on them. Their messengers were promptly intercepted by the Byzantines and dealt with ([26], pages 105-106). Such an attempt could explain why a crusader unit might have traveled from Serdica to Thessaloniki. Still, given the extreme distrust of the local authorities, it is unlikely that this could have resulted in the official naming of a local place.
Clearly, Count Guy IV of Forez is the most prominent crusader of the Forez family. His name is a perfect phonetic match, he dies from illness on his way back from a crusade and he does so during the exact time period when the village appears in historical records. The Barons' Crusade is the only crusade during which the crusaders were considered a military ally by the local authorities - which would have been Tzar Ivan Asen II. However his most likely return route does not pass through Bulgaria and this exact route appears quite certain.
Although some speculation is still possible, this theory remains somewhat far-fetched.
Are we missing some significant event from the last year of his life involving Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire? Is this event strictly personal or was there also a political element to it? Could Guy IV have visited Constantinople on his way back? Or Bulgaria?
There was definitely an information black-out in all pro-Papal sources concerning everything that could be interpreted as an act of goodwill by Frederick II, so if such an event did really happen, it is entirely plausible to assume that it would be absent from those sources.
During the buildup to the crusade, there were negotiations of an eventual alliance between Tzar Ivan Asen II and Emperor Frederick II - talks which failed because of the crusade and the siding of Tzar Ivan Asen II with the crusaders. Could the evolving situation in Italy - with the Pope losing its war - have been the cause for a renewed round of negotiations? Tzar Ivan Asen II also died around this time - in May or June 1241 - leaving his seven years old son with a regency council. His death marks the beginning of a slow decline of the Second Bulgarian Empire from which it will never recover. Bulgaria loses its status as a military super-power in the region - which may explain why the talks failed.
The choice of staying in Apulia may appear puzzling - Sicily should have been the choice for a transit through Italy - and this is where the Emperor's court was also situated. The ports in Apulia were the ports for crossing the Adriatic into Bulgaria.
In theory, there can be as much as 10 months - but as little as simply the sea travel time from Acre to Apulia - between his last mention in Jaffa - present in both the Rothelin manuscript and the Eracles chronicles - and his mysterious will that is signed in Apulia. In all cases - if Guy's visit to the HRE had any political or diplomatic objectives - it must have been a failure - since this is the only explanation how it has remained hidden.
Of course, there are alternative much more simple explanations - maybe Guy IV of Forez was among the last to leave from the Holy Land, maybe he was already too sick, and sailed slowly, making lots of stops before he simply decided to land in the nearest port in Italy - where he was being cared for by the Emperor - thus the personal gift.
Apulia was used as a point of departure to Palestine during the Fourth Crusade. And while Sicily is definitely the better choice for a transit to France, the ports of Apulia are much easier to reach when coming from the Holy Land for a ship not equipped with a compass - which was a rare novely at this time.
In any case, if Kondofre was indeed named after Count of Forez, it would likely been far more official than a simple case of the locals paying homage to a great foreign knight and military commander. It was much more likely an official royal charter by the Bulgarian Tzar himself to an important military ally - one that was maybe too sick to continue his journey.
As none of the Forez knights is the perfect match needed to consider the debate closed, a number of alternative theories should be considered.
-
If the name has been mangled phonetically - and the first part kond - is indeed indicative of a count level title in a Latin-derived vulgar language - most probably a French dialect - then making an exhaustive list is not a very difficult task. In particular, there is an excellent list in [7] which covers all French, Italian and Spanish family names from the Fourth Crusade and the subsequent Latin states until the conquest of the region by the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century ([7], volume 2, page 393). Forez - which is the only perfect phonetic match - is mentioned because this is a composite text that includes Villhardouin's chronicles as its first part. Additionally, the 1826 edition also includes Eracles. Aside from the Forez familiy, there are only two other very close matches:
- The English Forz family which was of French origin and kept their French preposition - Count William de Forz [kaʊnt də Foɹ] instead of Count William of Forz. Forz comes from the French village of Fors in Poitou and this family is completely unrelated to the Forez family. Only one Forz ever set on a crusade - it was Count William de Forz, 3rd Earl of Albermarle during the Barons' Crusade. The very limited amount of official sources on him state that he died at sea on his way there in March 26 1242 but this is not very consistent with the currently available information and it is certainly an error, as by this date all English forces had already returned. Matthew Paris calls him William de Forbes and mentions him as having died at sea while on his pilgrimage - without further indication if he was going there or coming back - in his Recapitulation of 1241 deaths list. The date is Friday before Easter ([21], page 391) - this would be March 29 1241 - and this is much more consistent with a death on the way back. A modern study concludes that he travelled with Earl Richard ([30], page 248). Still, his total absence from any written records in the Holy Land is worth noting.
- Count Roger de Flor of Malta, a mercenary - a condotierre - commander of the Great Catalan Company, who was pretender for the title Count of Malta, and who was adopted by the Byzantine Imperial Family. He married Maria Asenina, daughter of Tzar Ivan Asen III of Bulgaria. He was an Italian of mixed Sicilian and Catalan descent which explains the multiple ways to spell and pronounce his family name - including at least Flor, Fior and Fiore. Fluent in Greek, he spent the last part of his life in Byzantium. He seems to have been a very divisive figure during his day. He used to be a Knight Templar but was eventually relegated after being accused of theft - an accusation which some sources discount as politically motivated ([7], volume 2, page 51). Mostly known as a maritime commander, he also led an army through Thrace during the civil war in Bulgaria. He is vilified as a criminal in pro-Papal sources, but the very detailed account of his life in [7] is very positive. He was assasinated in Adrianople on the orders of Michael IX Palaiologos. The only problem is that he rose to prominence in Byzantium only during the very late 13th century - which means that, depending on the exact date on which Kondofrey appears - it might predate him.
-
If the name has been mangled phonetically - and the first part kond is simply part of the name - then Kontofre remains the most plausible choice [6].
-
If the name has been mangled by (successive) transcription(s) using different alphabets and languages - including Slavonic and Greek - then an exhaustive search becomes a far more challenging task. In this case Godefrey of Bouillon - who is known to have passed through the region - is also worth considering. However, no matter how tempting will be to link Godefrey himself to this village - Godefrey crosses Bulgaria very swiftly and never returns. This is partly because of the escort that Emperor Alexis has dispatched - in order to act as a buffer between the crusaders and the local population. Still, all the large early crusades crossed the Balkans on foot - the First Crusade, the 1101 Follow-up, the Second and the Third Crusades and this theory is worth considering in a separate paper.
A very strong argument against the kond part coming from comte de (French for Count of) is that it is unlikely that the Bulgarians did not understand it and did not use their local old Slavonic term komita (комита). The Greek term was komēs (kόμης). In modern Bulgarian the word is graf (граф), derived from the Greek grapheus (γραφεύς). All crusader leaders were certainly fluent in Latin and the many church officials who traveled with them spoke Latin and Greek. Latin must have been rarer among Bulgarian nobles, but Greek was widely spoken and Bulgarian church officials likely spoke Latin too. It is very likely that any communication between the crusaders forces and locals happened with the priests acting as translators and likely used either Greek or Latin.
On the other hand, a possible explanation could be that this was a case of a pretender with an unrecognized or at least unenforced claim who insisted on having it as part of his name. In this case, that person likely settled there and stayed for a prolonged period. There were many crusaders who were awarded new titles for the new counties in the East and who eventually lost them as these lands were progressively reconquered by their native populations. There were also crusaders who lost their titles in their own domains while on crusades - even if this was less common as their domains were under Papal protection for the duration of the crusades. And there were those who were never more than simply pretenders - such as Roger de Flor.
There is only one single pretender for the Forez title during this time period that has been identified - and this is Guillaume of Baffie who became Guillaume of Pressieu once he settled his claim. He has been accounted for and he has never beared the cross.
Although this paper fails to establish a definite link between the name of the village of Kondofrey and the Count of Forez, it adds many new potential candidates - the most probable of which is probably Roger de Flor.
It also clarifies the existing confusion about the numbering scheme for Counts of Forez, by linking mentions in all primary sources to a well-identified member of the Forez family - or discounting them as fictitious.
[2] Les gestes des Chiprois : recueil de chroniques françaises écrites en Orient aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Philippe de Navarre et Gérard de Monréal) / Gaston Raynaud, 1887 edition of the original manuscripts written from XIIIth to XVIth century
[3] Crusader Syria in the thirteenth century: the Rothelin continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre text / transl. by Janet Shirley
[4] Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne et les Comtes of Forez, Jean-Marie de la Mure, 1860 edition of the 1675 manuscript
[7] Histoire de l'empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs français jusqu'à la conquête des Turcs. / C. Du Fresne Du Cange, 1826 edition of the 1657 text
[12] Titres de la maison ducale de Bourbon, Volume 1 / H. Plon, 1867-1874
[14] Chartes du Forez antérieures au XIVe siècle. XV, Les Dîmes en Forez, Volume XI / le comte Guy de Courtin de Neufbourg et Marguerite Gonon, 1957
[21] English History / Matthew Paris, 1852 translation of the 1251 manuscript
[22] La conquête de Constantinople / texte de Geoffroi de Villehardouin, 2004 translation of the 1208-1212 manuscripts
[24] Le canzoni di Eustache le Peintre / Maria Luisa Gambini, 1997
[27] Chronique d'Ernoul / Ernoul, Bernard le Trésorier, 1871 edition of the XIIIth century manuscript
[28] A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea / William of Tyre, 1943 edition of the XIIth century manuscript
[29] Histoire de saint Louis / Jean de Joinville, 1868 translation of the XIIIth century manuscript
[32] Alberici monachi Trium Fontium Chronicon / Alberic de Troins-Fontaines, 1698 edition of the XIIIth century manuscript
[33] Crusade and Christendom: Annotated Documents in Translation from Innocent III to the Fall of Acre, 1187-1291 / Jessalyn Bird, Edward Peters and James Powell, 2013
[1]: The Barons' Crusade : a call to arms and its consequences / Michael Lower - 2005
[6] Who was the eponym of the village with the enigmatic name of Kondofrej in the valley of the Strymon? / Thomas Tomov 2014
[8] The Crusading Counts of Nevers / Elizabeth Siberry, Nottingham Medieval Studies 1990 34:, 64-70
[9] A History of the Crusades - Volume II: The Later Crusades 1189-1311 / Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard, 1962
[10] Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne : depuis le VIe siècle jusqu'à la fin du XIe. Tome 4, Partie 1 / Arbois de Jubainville, 1859-1869
[11] Mahaut de Courtenay : 1188-1257 : comtesse de Nevers, Auxerre et Tonnerre / Hubert Verneret, 2002
[13] Templar families : landowning families and the Order of the Temple in France, c.1120-1307 / Jochen Schenk, 2012
[15] IM42002138, Inventaire Général du Patrimone Culturel, Région Rhône-Alpes
[16] Historia Diplomatica Frederici secundi, H. Plon / 1852-61
[17] The Fourth Crusade: The Neglected Majority, Speculum, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 441-465 (25 pages)
[18] Origins of the European economy : communications and commerce AD 300-900 / Michael McCormick
[19] Mediterranean Contributions to the Medieval Mariner's Compass / Barbara M. Kreutz, Technology and Culture, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 367-383
[20] Scurvy Past and Present / Alfred Hess, 2016
[23] Trésor de chronologie, d'histoire et de géographie pour l'étude et l'emploi des documents du moyen-âge / Louis de Mas Latrie, 1889
[25] L'art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques, des chartes, des chroniques et autres anciens monuments, depuis la naissance de Notre-Seigneur - Volume X / François Clement, 1784
[26] The First Crusaders' Journey Across The Balkan Peninsula / Steven Runciman Byzantion, Vol. 19, Actes Du Viie Congrès Des Études Byzantines Bruxelles 1948. — I (1949), pp. 207-221
[30] William de Forz, Count of Aumale: An early thirteenth-century English baron / Turner, Ralph V, 1971, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 115 (3 (17 June)): 221-249
[31] Chronique de la haine (La troisième Croisade aux Balkans) / Gagova, Krasimira, 1998, In: Bulgarian historical review vol. 26, 3 (1998) p. 116-125
[34] Armorial général du Lyonnais, Forez et Beaujolais / André Steyert, 1860