Contrasting Crusader Kings: Frederick II vs. Louis IX in Arabic Accounts

 How did the contrasting crusader kings, Frederick II and Louis IX, shape the Holy Land through their unique approaches? Discover the diplomatic finesse of Frederick II and the zealous determination of Louis IX as seen through the eyes of Arabic historians

By Mohamad El-Merheb

Between 1228 and 1254, two crusades were launched from Western Europe against the Islamic Eastern Mediterranean. The first was led by Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1194-1250), Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily, and the second by King Louis IX of France (r. 1226-70), otherwise known as Saint Louis. In the kingdoms of Sicily and France, respectively, both monarchs took extremely harsh measures against Jews, Muslims, and various other groups that the Church considered heretical. Moreover, both “took the cross,” thus pledging to travel to the Holy Land to cleanse Jerusalem of the “Saracens.”

Yet the two also differed in many aspects, including piety, personal life, relations with the papacy, and, more crucially, attitudes towards religious conversion and the Islamic Eastern Mediterranean. As such, thirteenth-century Muslims were confronted with two very different “Frankish” (Latin-Christian) kings.

Frederick II: Admired and Reviled

Before embarking on his crusade, Frederick II corresponded with Sultan al-Kamil (r. 1218-1238), one of the most powerful Ayyubids to have ruled the Syro-Egyptian lands since the reign of his uncle, Saladin (1138-1193). The emperor and the sultan seemed equally keen on avoiding a costly war. After reaching the Holy Land, Frederick II and al-Kamil concluded the Treaty of Jaffa in 1229, a durable peace agreement that averted military conflict and forfeited Jerusalem to the Latin Christians while guaranteeing the Muslims access to the city and partial control over its religious quarter.

Despite the disparagement it occasionally receives from historians, this carefully planned treaty was one of the most brilliant diplomatic achievements in the history of medieval Mediterranean societies. These sceptical historians attribute Frederick II and al-Kamil’s amenability to peace to a variety of grave, internal threats that each had been facing, but isn’t the main aim of diplomacy to achieve peace and avoid war, especially in dire times?

Jerusalem, the city over which Latin Christians and Muslims had been fighting for over 130 years, was conceded amicably by the Muslim sultan to the Holy Roman Emperor. Unsurprisingly, many in the Muslim and Latin Christian camps objected to this deal, but pragmatism prevailed, and the two monarchs proceeded with what they considered to be in the best interest of their realms.

The emperor quickly gained the deep admiration of many Eastern Mediterranean Muslims. One contemporary Syrian historian claimed that during his short stay in Jerusalem, Frederick II reprimanded the Muslim chief judge for preventing the call for prayer as he wanted to hear the praise of God in Arabic in the night. Other Muslim chronicles were convinced that the emperor (anbarur) had mastered Arabic poetry, philosophy, logic, and other Islamic “rational sciences.”

Aided by the circulation of such anecdotes, Frederick II’s soft power captured the hearts and minds of Syro-Egyptian Muslim learned and political elites, who turned a blind eye to his harsh treatment of their Sicilian brethren. Frederick II had expelled the Sicilian Muslims and forcibly settled them in the city of Lucera on the Italian mainland, not too far from Rome; some anti-Hohenstaufen Western sources alleged that the emperor did this to irritate the pope.

Yet the favourable Muslim attitudes towards Frederick II and his Hohenstaufen line were not simply shaped by his longstanding enmity with the papacy. Over time, Frederick II’s friendship with Sultan al-Kamil had developed into a cast-iron alliance with the Ayyubid dynasty, which greatly benefited the Muslim side. For instance, the emperor warned the new Egyptian Sultan al-Salih Ayyub (r. in Egypt 1240-1249), son of his old friend al-Kamil, about Louis IX’s impending invasion.

Frederick II is even said to have offered to delay the French crusading army in Cyprus until the Egyptians were prepared to fend off the invaders. The Muslim fascination with the Hohenstaufen line continued with his sons, especially Manfred (d. 1266). Diplomats from Mamluk Egypt visited the latter’s court in Italy and returned praising his tolerance, erudition, and affection towards his Muslim subjects.

Louis IX: The Pious and the Fanatical

Louis IX’s crusade, on the other hand, aimed to invade Ayyubid Egypt and then go on to recapture Jerusalem. The French king was known for acquiring holy relics and for his piety; he was even styled “the most Christian king.” Following a serious illness in 1244, Louis IX took the cross and immediately started meticulous preparations for his campaign. In 1249, he sailed to Cyprus from where he attacked Egypt, seized the coastal city of Damietta, and slowly advanced towards Cairo.

Throughout his campaign, Louis IX ignored all Muslim peace proposals that offered Jerusalem in exchange for Damietta. In February 1250, Louis IX lost his brother, the Count of Artois, when his army recklessly attacked the city of al-Mansura. After a series of naval victories on the Nile, the Egyptian army inflicted a decisive defeat on the crusaders at the ground battle of Faraskur on 6 April 1250: Louis IX was captured and all his soldiers were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. He was later released in exchange for the payment of a ransom and the return of Damietta to Egyptian hands.

After his release, Louis IX stayed in the Eastern Mediterranean for four years trying to support the crusader lordships. During this time, Louis IX developed a reputation amongst Muslims for being courageous, but also obstinate and fanatical. He is contrasted in medieval Arabic sources to Frederick II, who is portrayed as tolerant, refined, and erudite.

The aftermath of the two crusades left its mark on Mediterranean history. Frederick II, whose crusade succeeded in returning Jerusalem to Latin Christian control without loss of Christian life, was – paradoxically – excommunicated by the pope. After his death in 1250, his line in Italy was exterminated by pro-papal armies led by Charles I of Anjou (r. 1266–1282), Louis IX’s brother. Frederick II’s son Manfred was killed in battle in 1266 and his grandson Conradine beheaded, aged 16, by Charles I in 1268.

As for Louis IX, he ignored the lessons of his captivity in Egypt and sailed on another crusade, this time against Tunis where he died from dysentery in 1270. The king’s body was quickly boiled to remove the flesh and his bones sent to the royal mausoleum of St Denis in northern Paris, possibly in anticipation of his sanctification. In 1297, Louis IX was canonised as a saint of the Roman Catholic Church.

When confronted with two very different Frankish kings, thirteenth-century Arabic historians greatly favoured Frederick II. According to their accounts of the period between 1228 and 1254, diplomacy and pragmatism were by far the better option in the Islamic Eastern Mediterranean.

Mohamad El-Merheb is Assistant Professor of Medieval History at the University of Groningen. He works on the history of Islamic political thought, professional mobility and the crusades of Louis IX and Frederick II. His monograph Political Thought in the Mamluk Period: The Unnecessary Caliphate was published in 2022. Mohamad is editor of Professional Mobility in Islamic Societies (700-1750), New Concepts and Approaches in 2021 and has several peer-reviewed publications including three articles on Louis IX and his crusade. Click here to view his university webpage.