In the Western European Christian tradition, a Crusade was a kind of holy war sanctioned by the Catholic Church, in which Western Europeans could gain salvation by fighting on behalf of God and the Church to protect the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. This article will discuss the Seventh Crusade, which was fought between the years 1248 and 1254.

King Louis IX of France’s Crusader Heritage

King Louis IX ruled France between the years 1226 and 1270. He was only twelve years old when his father, King Louis VIII, died while on the Albigensian Crusade. King Louis IX has gone down in history as a devoutly pious king, with a passion for justice and peacemaking. However, one of the great goals of his reign was to be a successful Crusader king.

Louis was not the first of the Capetian Kings of France to go on Crusade. His great-grandfather, King Louis VII, had led a French Army on the Second Crusade in the years 1146-1148. This Crusade had been a disaster, but it began the tradition of French monarchs leading Crusading expeditions.

Phillip Augustus, the son of King Louis VII and the grandfather of King Louis IX, had led another army to the Holy Land as part of the Third Crusade in the years 1189-1190. Later in 1226, King Louis VIII, the father of Louis IX, led an expedition into Languedoc in what is now Southern France as part of the Albigensian Crusade.

Louis IX Vows to Go On Crusade

In December 1244, King Louis IX of France was seriously ill, and the court feared for his life. One day, while he was in a coma, and two maidservants were arguing over whether he was dead, the king woke up and asked for the cross.

In asking for a cross, he was making a vow to go on Crusade, and in making this vow, he was acting in opposition to many in his kingdom who increasingly questioned the practicality of a king abandoning his kingdom to go on Crusade, as well as its value in obtaining salvation.

The king’s mother, Queen Blanche of Castile, opposed her son’s Crusade and tried to persuade him to give up his vow, but he was adamant about his decision. Crusading continued to hold value and resonance for people, including the king, despite the doubts of many.

Considering the great influence that Queen Blanche had exerted over the king in the years since he had ascended the throne at the young age of twelve, there may well have been an aspect of rebellion and personal emancipation to the king’s determination to go on Crusade.

As it happened, this vow was made at the perfect moment, for earlier that fall, Khwarezmian Turks had conquered the city of Jerusalem. They then destroyed the Crusader army and their local Muslim allies at the Battle of La Forbie.

The news of this defeat had not yet reached France when Louis made his vow, although these events would have made his departure on the Crusade the more pressing.

Preparing for the Crusade

King Louis IX spent over three years preparing for his expedition. In 1245, he met with Pope Innocent IV, who sent a legate to preach the Crusade in France, and the pope also granted the king a tenth of the revenues of all the bishoprics, churches, and monasteries in France, for the Crusade. The king also levied tailles, or arbitrary payments, from the cities of France.

The revenues of the church and the towns of France sufficed to cover most of the cost of the Crusade. He used this money to recruit an army of around 15,000-25,000 troops.

Aside from nobles from the royal demesne who would have had the king as their direct lord, the king was also able to convince his brothers, Robert Count of Artois, Alphonse, Count of Poitiers, and Charles of Anjou to come with contingents of soldiers from their appanages, and he was able to recruit troops from the Counties of Champagne and Flanders because their Counts were sympathetic to Louis IX.

Furthermore, William Longuespee, Earl of Salisbury, a great English nobleman, brought a small force of English knights to join the expedition, and once the king arrived in Cyprus, many knights from there, and the other Crusader principalities in the Holy Land and Greece, as well as a force of Knights Templars, joined him.

To take his army to the Holy Land, Pisa and Genoa provided ships in return for promises of commercial favors in the Holy Land.

The Capture of Damietta

King Louis IX finally set out for his expedition in the summer of 1248. On August 25, the king and his fleet embarked for the Island of Cyprus. Cyprus by this time was a Crusader kingdom ruled by a dynasty of Kings of French origin called the Lusignans.

Because it was September when King Louis IX arrived in Cyprus, it was too late in the year for the invasion to begin. So, he and his army spent the winter of 1248-1249 in Cyprus planning their campaign and preparing to attack.

Rather than land in Palestine directly, Louis IX and the other French barons were convinced by the Crusader Barons to attack Egypt.

Egypt was a wealthy and populous country that threatened Palestine from the south, and as long as it was held by the Muslims, the Crusaders could never hope to hold the Holy Land for long. The Crusaders had learned this from hard experience. Because of the failure of the King of Jerusalem, Amaury, to conquer Egypt for the Crusaders in the 12th century, Nur al-Din and his nephew, Saladin, had conquered it.

Realizing the importance of Egypt, the Fifth Crusade in 1217-1221 had tried to conquer Egypt but had done no more than capture Damietta after a year-long siege, before their army was bogged down and destroyed in the Nile delta.

Now, with Louis IX and his forces massing in Cyprus, it seemed like an excellent opportunity to renew the old plan to conquer Egypt to regain and secure their hold on Palestine.

By May of 1250, a fleet of 1,800 ships had been gathered at the Port of Limassol on Cyprus to take the Crusader army to Egypt. Unfortunately, a storm soon scattered much of the fleet, and so when in early June of 1249 Saint Louis and his flagship the Montjoie arrived off the Egyptian port city of Damietta, he had no more than one-third of his army with him.

The troops of the Egyptian Sultan Ayub, meanwhile, waited on the shore to repel the Crusaders. As the French troops began disembarking from their ships to attack, King Louis himself, against advice, jumped into the sea armed with his shield and his lance and rushed to the shore with his first wave of knights. They were soon able to clear the shore and secure a beachhead.

The Sultan’s troops became discouraged, so they retreated and left Damietta to be occupied by King Louis and the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, the French army could not yet move inland to attack Cairo because the floods were starting and would bog down any advance until October or November. So, the French army stayed outside Damietta, biding its time. In October of 1249, however, reinforcements led by Alphonse, Count of Poitou, arrived, and the floods began to recede, so Louis met with his council to plan the next stage of the campaign.

A Pyrrhic Victory at Al Mansourah

At the end of October 1249, the French army moved out. They planned to march down the Nile valley and capture Cairo, thereby conquering and securing Egypt for the Crusaders.

They marched south through the Nile Valley, crossing the many streams and canals in their path, and engaging in occasional skirmishes with the Egyptian army. Finally, they arrived at a tributary of the Nile called the Bahr Es Seghir, where they faced the Egyptian army encamped across the river, and shortly beyond the Egyptian camp lay the city of Al Mansourah, whose capture was the next goal of the Crusade.

The Crusaders spent the next month and a half or so unsuccessfully trying to cross the Bahr es Seghir in the face of Egyptian resistance. However, in early February, the Crusaders were able to bribe a local to show them a ford downstream, which they could cross.

The vanguard was under orders not to engage in battle without the permission of King Louis. However, once they had crossed the river, they found that they had taken the Egyptian encampment off guard. Despite the caution of the Master of the Templars, they attacked.

The Egyptian camp was soon overrun, many Egyptians were killed before they could get their weapons, and the Vizier, Fakhr Ad Din, was killed after rushing to arms from his bath. Refugees from the camp soon fled to the town of Al Mansourah.

Against the advice of the Templars, Count Robert of Artois led the Vanguard in pursuit and soon rode into the town. They were then ambushed and almost completely wiped out by the Egyptian troops garrisoned in the town, led by their general, Baibars Al Bundukdari.

In all, over 500 Knights were killed, a serious loss of leadership and elite troops in an army that contained only about 2,500-2,600 knights. The Count of Brittany was among those few who managed to escape, and he was able to warn Louis as he crossed the ford with the bulk of the Crusader army.

King Louis now formed the main body of his army to face an Egyptian counterattack. The force of this counterattack soon pushed Louis and the Crusaders back, but the king was soon able to rally his troops and regain his lost ground. The battle remained undecided until evening, when a pontoon bridge over the Bahr Es Seghir was completed, and crossbowmen were rushed across the river, at which point the Egyptians finally retreated into Al Mansourah, and King Louis and his army kept the field.

Unfortunately, Louis had lost more troops than he could afford, and so he was unable to attack the town of Al Mansourah. Louis had word that the Sultan of Egypt, Ayub, had died, and there was strife between his son and heir, Turanshah, and the Mamluk slave commanders raised by his father. So Louis and his army remained, hoping that soon there would be a palace revolution that would throw Egypt into chaos and give him the advantage again.

Meanwhile, a few days after the Battle of Al Mansourah, the Egyptian army attacked again, and after another long and hard-fought battle, they were repulsed.

The Disastrous Retreat

By now, the new Egyptian Sultan Turanshah had arrived, and so a new effort was made to force the Crusaders to retreat by having boats brought by camel and launched in the Nile River above the Crusaders’ camp. This was done to cut the Crusaders’ supply link with Damietta.

The Egyptians captured many boats bringing supplies to the Crusader camp, so the Crusader army was soon short of food, and disease began to ravage them. With the army severely weakened, the Egyptians becoming stronger, and with no evident opportunities coming from discord within the Egyptian ranks, King Louis IX and his barons decided it was time to retreat.

Most of the army marched along the banks of the Nile, while the sick and wounded Crusaders were loaded onto boats. The Crusaders started up the Nile, hoping to return to Damietta and regroup.

The Christians had neglected to destroy the bridge that they had thrown across the Bahr Es Seghir, and so the Egyptian army soon followed and began attacking the retreating Crusaders. The king had to flee to a nearby village, where he took shelter in a house, with only a few knights to guard him, and chased off Egyptian soldiers.

The Duke of Brittany was sent to negotiate terms with the Egyptians to allow the army to escape. Meanwhile, however, a soldier named Marcel, who had probably been bribed by the Egyptians, spread word that the king had surrendered, and they all had to drop their arms, thus ending the negotiations.

The ships carrying the sick and wounded were soon captured, and the sick and wounded prisoners were unloaded and beheaded by the hundreds.

Many of the prisoners on land were offered conversion or death, and many refused to be converted and so were put to death with the sword. The Egyptians, however, on further reflection, decided that they ought to spare the rest of the prisoners and use them as a bargaining chip to get concessions.

Meanwhile, Louis IX himself was soon captured. Louis was very sick, but Muslim doctors were sent in to care for him, and he soon began to mend.

The Egyptian sultan demanded that all the Crusader holdings in the Levant be turned over to him. Louis IX, however, said that he did not have the authority to do so, because Emperor Frederick II held the title King of Jerusalem. However, they soon made a deal that Damietta would be given back in exchange for King Louis, and 800,000 bezants, or 400,000 livres of Paris, would be paid for the surviving prisoners and captured supplies.

After a deal had been concluded, the Sultan Turanshah was finally overthrown and murdered by the Mamluk officers who made one of their number, Aibek, the new sultan.

The new ruler of Egypt decided to keep the deal that his predecessor had reached with Louis IX and the other crusaders, and in May, the down payment of 200,000 livres of Paris was paid to the Egyptians. Damietta was also handed over, and Louis IX and his brothers were freed. They then sailed to the city of Acre.

The Decision to Stay

Louis IX had to now decide if he would return home to France or stay a little longer and see if he could repair some of the damage that his failure had caused.

The loss of so many knights from the Crusader principalities had weakened them and left them vulnerable to attack. As a result, the Barons of the Crusader states implored the king to remain for a time. However, the kingdom of France itself was in peril, because given that King Henry III of England might attack.

As a result, most of the French barons advised the king to return to France. However, King Louis decided he would remain in the Holy Land for a time because his kingdom would be fine with his mother and regent Blanche of Castille still there, while if he left the Holy Land, then the Crusader principalities would certainly fall.

Most of the French barons, including the king’s two brothers, Alphonse of Poitiers and Charles of Anjou, went home to assist the queen mother and regent Blanche of Castille and to send money and reinforcements. Louis and a small force remained behind.

Getting the Captured Crusaders Freed

Because of the palace revolution in Egypt, in which the Mamluk commanders had overthrown and murdered their sultan, the Egyptian Mamluks and the Ayyubid rulers of Damascus were now in a state of war. The cousins of the Ayyubid rulers of Damascus had been the Ayyubid rulers of Egypt, who had now been overthrown and killed by the Mamluks.

This state of things allowed King Louis IX to gain concessions by playing the Egyptian Mamluks and the Ayyubid rulers of Damascus against each other. An initial offer by the rulers of Damascus of an alliance between them and the Crusaders had to be rejected by Louis IX because his men were still prisoners in Egypt. However, because of this offer, King Louis was able to pressure the Egyptian Mamluks to free many prisoners, and they soon were able to make an agreement in which the rest of the Crusader prisoners were freed, and the rest of the ransom was cancelled.

In return, Louis would lead his forces to support the Mamluk attack on the Sultanate of Damascus, and after Damascus was defeated, the Christians would get Jerusalem and other lands in Palestine. Their forces ended up unable to combine for their attack, and the Mamluks and Ayyubids made peace, thus nullifying the alliance with the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, King Louis IX began an extensive project of repairing the walls of the coastal Crusader cities. He spent the first year, 1250-1251, repairing the walls of the city of Acre, which at this time was the capital and chief port city of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. He also went on to repair the fortifications of the cities of Caesarea, Jaffa, and Sidon.

At Sidon, the workmen on the fortifications were surprised and massacred by the Damascene army before they could finish repairing the walls. King Louis subsequently came to the city and personally helped bury the bodies of the slain Christian workmen, after which he built a new series of fortifications around the city.

The Return Home

Meanwhile, in the summer of 1252, Blanche of Castille, the mother of King Louis IX, who had been left as regent, died, leaving a leadership vacuum. King Louis IX heard of her death the following year. After her death, King Louis knew he needed to return to France as soon as possible.

The barons and churchmen of the Kingdom of Jerusalem agreed that the king could now go home, as he had done everything he could to strengthen the kingdom after the failed Egyptian expedition, and now he could do more good back home.

In July 1254, King Louis IX and his family and entourage landed at the port of Hyeres, after six years of absence and four months at sea.

The heroic last stand of King Leonidas of Sparta and his elite bodyguard of 300 men against the Persian army at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC is one of the best known episodes from the history of ancient Greece. Despite Leonidas’s fame, most of what we know of his life comes from a few short passages in the Histories of Herodotus. Many details of his life and kingship before his climactic death at Thermopylae have to be inferred from the context of Spartan politics and the Graeco-Persian Wars.

A Spartan Prince

Leonidas was born in c. 540 BC into the Agiad dynasty, one of the two royal dynasties in the city-state of Sparta. For hundreds of years, Sparta was jointly ruled by two kings from the Agiad and Eurypontid dynasties. This unusual arrangement avoided the excesses of an autocratic regime, but often encouraged competition and rivalry between the two kings.

Leonidas was the third son of King Anaxandridas II of Sparta, who reigned for approximately four decades between c. 560 BC and c. 520 BC. According to Herodotus, Anaxandridas had initially been married to a niece who remained childless for several years. He refused demands to divorce his wife but agreed to take a second wife while remaining married to the first. After his second wife bore him a son named Cleomenes, Anaxandridas’s first wife gave him three more children: Dorieus, Leonidas, and Cleombrotus.

As the third son of Anaxandridas, Leonidas was not expected to succeed to the kingship. Like all boys of the Spartan citizenry, at the age of seven he would have been separated from his family to undergo the Agoge, an arduous physical training regime to prepare Spartan men for military service. At the age of 18, the most accomplished young men would join an elite body that included senior army officers and members of the 300-strong royal body guard.

The Age of Cleomenes

Following the death of Anaxandridas in around 520, the Spartans recognized his eldest son as King Cleomenes I. The succession was challenged by Dorieus, who claimed seniority by virtue of being the eldest son of Anaxandridas’s first wife. After being forced into exile, Dorieus attempted to set up his own power base in North Africa and later Sicily, but was killed in battle in around 510. While Leonidas was now the heir of the childless Cleomenes, little is known about his life during his half-brother’s reign. However, Cleomenes’s reign would have profound consequences for Leonidas’s reign decades later.

After vanquishing Dorieus, Cleomenes proved to be one of Sparta’s most ambitious kings. In 510, Cleomenes led a Spartan invasion of Athens to overthrow the Athenian tyrant Hippias. While the Spartans hoped to install a pro-Spartan oligarchy, the Athenian statesman Cleisthenes introduced democratic reforms, prompting Cleomenes to consider further intervention in Athens.

In 506, the Spartan kings Cleomenes and Demaratus launched a campaign against Athens at the head of a large Peloponnesian army. However, the alliance soon disintegrated after the Corinthians withdrew from the coalition, prompting Demaratus to follow suit and abandon the campaign. The disintegration of the Spartan alliance may have been due to a news of a recent Athenian alliance with the Persian Empire, but the incident fatally undermined relations between the two Spartan kings.

At the turn of the century, Cleomenes refused to join the Ionian Revolt against Persian rule. Instead, Sparta went to war against Argos in 494 and destroyed the Argive army in battle. However, after returning to Sparta, Cleomenes was put on trial for failing to occupy the city. Although he was acquitted, the trial may have been an attempt by Demaratus to undermine him.

King of Sparta

In 491, following another disagreement between the joint kings, Cleomenes deposed Demaratus after bribing the oracle in Delphi to pronounce Demaratus illegitimate. Demaratus fled Sparta and was granted refuge in the Persian Empire. Cleomenes’s corruption was soon exposed, and Herodotus claims that the king became insane and fled the city. He was captured and imprisoned in 490 and subsequently took his own life in prison.

Modern historians such as Paul Cartledge suggest that Cleomenes may have been killed by his half-brothers Leonidas and Cleombrotus. In any case, Cleomenes’s death elevated Leonidas to the Spartan kingship alongside Leotychidas, the Eurypontid king whom Cleomenes had installed as Demaratus’s successor. To consolidate his position, Leonidas married Cleomenes’s daughter Gorgo.

Leonidas came to the throne during the Greco-Persian Wars, although it is unclear if he was already king when Athens requested Spartan assistance against the Persians in 490 BC. The fact that the Persians were harboring the deposed Demaratus engendered Spartan hostility towards the Persians, and Sparta was prepared to march to Athenians’ aid once they finished celebrating the Karneia festival. In the event, the Athenians defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon without Spartan assistance.

The Battle of Marathon forced the Persians to abandon their first invasion of Greece. The death of King Darius I in 486 BC and his son Xerxes’s efforts to consolidate his rule in response to a series of uprisings across the Persian Empire allowed the Greeks some respite from further Persian invasion.

The Anti-Persian Coalition

By the late 480s, once Xerxes had restored order in his empire, the Persian king began preparations for a second invasion of Greece. According to Herodotus, the Spartans received advance warning of the Persian invasion from the exiled Demaratus, who sent a secret message in a tablet covered in wax. The Spartan men were initially confused by the blank tablet, and it was only after Leonidas’s queen Gorgo suggested burning off the wax that the secret message was revealed.

The Spartans responded by inviting the 30-odd Greek city-states committed to resisting the Persians to a meeting at the Isthmus of Corinth to consider the military response. While Sparta and Athens were the leading powers in the coalition, around half of the city-states were members of the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League. This ensured that Spartans would command Greek forces on both land and sea.

As King of Sparta, Leonidas would have played a major part in formulating the coalition strategy. The Greek allies identified a series of three defensive positions where they could expect to resist larger enemy numbers on equal terms. The first was the Vale of Tempe in Thessaly in Northern Greece. The second was the narrow pass of Thermopylae at the Malian Gulf. The third was the Isthmus of Corinth itself, which connected the Peloponnese to the rest of Greece.

Xerxes’s invasion force crossed the Hellespont in the spring of 480 BC and slowly progressed southwards towards the Vale of Tempe. A Greek force of 10,000 was initially deployed to defend the position, but withdrew after being informed by King Alexander I of Macedon that that the position could be outflanked.

Thermopylae

During the summer, the Greek city-states were prevented from mobilizing their full manpower since they had religious obligations to celebrate the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus. Meanwhile, the Spartans were also due to celebrate the Karneia festival dedicated to Apollo that had prevented them from fighting at Marathon a decade earlier.

At this critical juncture, the Spartans sought guidance from the famous oracle at the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, which informed them that either Sparta would be occupied, or they would be mourning the death of a king.

After receiving the oracle’s answer, King Leonidas left for Thermopylae with his elite royal bodyguard of 300 hoplites. The Spartan contingent also included 1,000 enslaved Helots and a similar number of Perioikoi, free men recruited from the Spartan hinterland. Including various allied contingents, Leonidas marched to Thermopylae with some 4,000 men.

At Thermopylae, they were joined by around a thousand Boeotians, Locrians, and Phocians each. Leonidas’s 7,000-strong army was still a fraction of Xerxes’s invasion force, which modern historians estimate in the tens of thousands. Although he knew there was no prospect of defeating the Persians, Leonidas hoped that he could delay them long enough for the other Greek states to mobilize their forces at the end of the festivities.

Upon arrival at Thermopylae, Leonidas fortified an old Phocian wall while Xerxes offered him various inducements to surrender. When a Persian envoy asked the Greeks to hand over their weapons, Leonidas challenged them, “Come and take them!”

For two days, the Persians suffered heavy losses as wave after wave of infantry failed to break through the wall. Even Xerxes’s famous Immortals could make no headway and were forced to retreat. Meanwhile the Greek fleet held the Persian navy at bay at Artemisium to prevent any Persian landing in Leonidas’s rear.

After nightfall on the second day of battle, a local man named Ephialtes informed the Persians of a narrow mountain pass to the rear of the Spartan position. Leonidas had known about this prior to the battle and deployed the 1,000 Phocians to defend the pass. However, they were no match for Xerxes’s Immortals, who overwhelmed them on the morning of the third day of battle.

Recognizing that his position was untenable, Leonidas intended to continue fighting to the death with his Spartans but offered the allies the opportunity to withdraw. Most of the allies agreed, but the 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans in the Boeotian force remained with the Spartans.

Leonidas ordered his men to sally forth beyond the wall, where they engaged in bitter hand-to-hand combat with the Persians. In the midst of the melee, as the Greeks sought to sell their lives as dearly as possible, Leonidas fell in combat. Nearly all the Greeks fought to the death, apart from a small number of Thebans who surrendered. For the loss of some 4,000 men, the Greeks killed 20,000 Persians in response.

Leonidas was succeeded by his young son Pleistarchus, but the new king was still a child, so Leonidas’s brother Cleombrotus assumed command of the Spartan army and prepared to resist the Persians at the Isthmus of Corinth, while the Greek fleet withdrew from Artemisium and sailed to the island of Salamis in the Saronic Gulf to prevent the Persians from landing at the isthmus.

Although the Athenians abandoned their city to the Persians, the Athenian commander Themistocles defeated the Persian fleet at Salamis and forced Xerxes to abandon his invasion. In 479 BC, Cleombrotus’s son Pausanias decisively defeated a Persian army at Plataea, bringing an end to the Graeco-Persian Wars.

Leonidas the Legend

In the decades after his death, Leonidas’s last stand at Thermopylae acquired legendary proportions. A monument of a stone lion was raised near the spot where Leonidas fell in battle, and some 40 years after the battle the Spartans recovered Leonidas’s remains from the Thermopylae battlefield. They may have been placed in a building known as the Leonidaion, which served as the focal point of public veneration for the king.

Leonidas’s legacy has endured over the centuries, and he has often been hailed as a defender of freedom against the tyranny of Persian despotism, even though Sparta itself was one of the most oppressive societies in Greece. The 16th century French essayist Michel de Montgaine argued that Thermopylae was a finer demonstration of Greek military prowess than the victories at Salamis and Plataea.

In 1814, after Napoleon fought a brilliant but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against the armies of the Sixth Coalition, French neoclassical artist Jacques-Louis David painted his grand canvas Leonidas at Thermopylae, depicting the king and his Spartans preparing to sacrifice themselves in a noble cause.

More recently, the 2006 historical action film 300 has reignited popular interest in Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae. Like many retellings of the battle, it does not account for the contribution of the Helots and the perioikoi in the Spartan army, nor the allied Greek city-states, particularly the 700 Thespians who fought and died alongside the Spartans.

In his short 24-year life, Baldwin IV celebrated many victories against his long-standing rival, Saladin. But his victory at the Battle of Montgisard is undoubtedly his most famous victory. Still recalled by witnesses 80 years later, Baldwin faced impossible odds. Yet his courage and fortitude ensured the 16-year-old Leper King delivered a crushing blow to his opponent.

Baldwin IV, The Leper King

King Baldwin IV came to the throne in 1174, a mere 13-year-old boy following the death of his father, King Amalric. Like the other Crusader States, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a frontier kingdom, surrounded by hostile Muslim enemies. Warfare and conflict were a fundamental part of life, and kings were required to lead their troops into battle regularly.

King Amalric had offered the kingdom strong leadership and had been, in many ways, an ideal king. The accession of a boy untested in warfare was a huge blow to the kingdom. But youth was not the only hindrance to Baldwin’s reign. Shortly after his coronation, Baldwin was diagnosed with leprosy, his illness discovered by his tutor and friend, the chronicler William, Archbishop of Tyre.

Saladin, Sultan of Egypt and Syria

The start of Baldwin’s reign coincided with the rise of the greatest threat to the Crusader States: Saladin. Saladin was the ambitious sultan of both Egypt and Syria and sought to unite the fractured Muslim kingdoms under one ruler before striking a decisive blow against the Christians residing in Syria. Ultimately, recapturing Jerusalem was his goal.

Saladin was ruthless and had secured a series of victories in Syria, defeating his Muslim opponents. Seizing Damascus, his growing influence in the region was a cause for concern for Baldwin. His victories in Hama and Homs, followed by gains in northern Syria, emboldened him further. In 1177, Saladin ended his campaigns in Syria and returned to Egypt to plan his next invasion. This time, his target would not be Muslim rulers who opposed him; he now turned his attention to the Crusader States.

The Arrival of Count Philip of Flanders

Count Philip of Flanders arrived in Jerusalem in August 1177 with a significant retinue. His arrival was met with enthusiasm, as it was hoped he would join Baldwin’s ambitious plan to launch an invasion of Egypt. With Byzantine support already secured, the proposed expedition would have seen substantial forces enter Egypt. If victorious, the invasion would have struck a crippling blow to Saladin’s base of power. However, the lack of enthusiasm from Philip of Flanders and other nobles in the Crusader States meant Baldwin’s ambitious plan came to nothing.

Philip decided to focus his energies elsewhere and joined Raymond III of Tripoli in attacking Harim, a Muslim-held stronghold in northern Syria. To strengthen this expedition, Baldwin sent 100 of his best knights from Jerusalem to join Philip. A substantial crusader army, perhaps numbering as many as 2,000 infantry, also departed, along with many Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller. Philip’s departure in September 1177 left Jerusalem weak, vulnerable, and ripe for attack.

Jerusalem Left Vulnerable

Saladin became aware of the vulnerability of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and took advantage of this fortuitous circumstance. He assembled a large force and made his way from Egypt, heading north towards Gaza in November 1177, intending to invade the southern part of the kingdom.

Saladin’s motives are unclear; he may have wished to distract the forces attacking Harim, or he may have sought to deal a critical blow to Baldwin and Jerusalem directly. Whatever his intentions, Saladin, spurred on by his knowledge of Baldwin’s vulnerability, was rash and overconfident. He made the decision to leave his heavy baggage at al-Arish, taking only his lightly armed troops, and then marched towards Ascalon, a Christian stronghold.

Baldwin Responds to Saladin’s Threat

Baldwin was recovering from an illness brought on by leprosy when he learned of Saladin’s invasion. All that could be found within the entire kingdom were 600 knights, not nearly enough to face the might of Saladin. The situation seemed dire. Nevertheless, Baldwin mustered the few troops he had and marched to Ascalon to confront his rival.

At Ascalon, Baldwin issued an arrière-ban, a royal proclamation calling all able-bodied men to arms. Such proclamations were rare and used only in the most extreme circumstances. Baldwin waited within the city walls, anticipating Saladin’s arrival.

The sultan reached Ascalon on November 22, 1177, emboldened by his superior numbers. Baldwin led a force outside the city to assess his opposition. Saladin’s forces dwarfed his own, and after a short engagement, Baldwin retreated into the fortress of Ascalon. The king could only watch as reinforcements arrived to swell Saladin’s already large army.

Reinforcements also arrived for Baldwin in response to his arrière-ban. However, as they attempted to reach Ascalon, Saladin’s men seized many of them, strapped them to camels, and sold them into slavery. Baldwin could only watch in despair. The situation seemed hopeless, and the outcome appeared to be a foregone conclusion.

The Road to Montgisard

Saladin then did something unexpected: he divided his army. Feeling no threat from Baldwin, he separated his troops into detachments to pillage the surrounding areas. Saladin himself led a detachment north. He arrived at Ramla, and the Christian inhabitants fled to Jaffa. His men burned villages in their wake. They then moved on to Lydda, causing destruction and mayhem as they advanced.

Baldwin learned of the destruction and suffering of his people, and a sense of honor prevented him from remaining within the walls of Ascalon. His duty, his lineage, and his office compelled him to act.

Foolishly, Saladin did not expect Baldwin to leave the confines of the fortress and failed to leave a detachment to monitor the city and the king’s movements. This oversight allowed Baldwin to coordinate with a group of Templars stationed at Gaza and plan an attack.

Saladin, emboldened by his victories and superior numbers, reached the hill of Montgisard on November 25, 1177. The sultan had dispersed his men to raid the nearby countryside. He and his troops were preparing to cross a stream when he was caught off guard.

Baldwin and his host appeared before Saladin, severely outnumbered but filled with courage and emboldened by faith. Albert, Bishop of Bethlehem, carried the True Cross before the army. This relic had previously secured victory for the Crusaders and the Kings of Jerusalem; it was now needed more than ever.

Baldwin took a moment for prayer and reflection before rousing his troops for the forthcoming battle. Weakened by illness caused by leprosy, the 16-year-old Leper King who defied a death sentence, stood before his men. Despite his youth, his relative inexperience in warfare, and his disfiguring condition, his troops trusted him implicitly.

The Battle at Montgisard

Baldwin was the overall commander at Montgisard, but he benefited from the military experience of others, in particular Reynald of Châtillon, a seasoned warrior recently released from Muslim captivity after 15 years. If Baldwin’s courage faltered, Reynald’s desire for vengeance would have spurred him forward. But Baldwin’s courage did not fail; his desire to protect his people, his kingdom, and his crown was paramount.

Saladin sent out messengers ordering his scattered troops to return. Trumpets sounded, and drums rolled, calling his men to arms. As Saladin’s troops regrouped, Baldwin formed his battle lines and prepared to attack. The cavalry was placed at the front, with the infantry forming a line behind them.

Saladin’s troops were still in disarray when Baldwin launched his surprise attack in the afternoon. William of Tyre wrote that at first the battle was indecisive, but Saladin’s lines were soon broken by Baldwin’s forces, emboldened by faith.

Saladin’s great-nephew was killed in the battle. One of the Franks nearly reached Saladin himself but was slain before he could land a blow on the sultan. The region was then plagued by relentless winter rains for the next ten days, making it impossible for Saladin to regroup his forces.

A Victory for Baldwin

After Baldwin’s troops slaughtered many of Saladin’s forces, the Muslims retreated twelve miles to a swamp when night fell. They were relentlessly pursued by the Christians. Many fell to the sword; others were captured and sold into slavery.

The only men in Saladin’s army who did not flee were his Mamluk guard. Dressed in yellow, this 1,000-strong force acted as Saladin’s personal bodyguard. They clashed fiercely with the Frankish troops as Saladin dismounted his horse and mounted a racing camel. The Mamluks did not cease their desperate fighting until their sultan had escaped.

Saladin was stunned by this surprise Frankish attack and the swiftness of Baldwin’s victory. The 16-year-old king had achieved his first significant triumph. His reputation as a heroic warrior, in the manner of his forefathers, was born at Montgisard. This was no standard battlefield victory. Baldwin had defeated the mighty Saladin against formidable odds. His triumph was seen as an affirmation of divine approval for his kingship and for his kingdom.

William of Tyre estimates Baldwin’s forces at 375 knights against Saladin’s combined force of 26,000 light cavalry. This figure must be treated cautiously, as it likely emphasizes the odds Baldwin faced, especially when other contemporary sources claim Baldwin lost over 1,000 men. Nevertheless, Baldwin was severely outnumbered, perhaps by as much as three-to-one. He may have commanded around 3,000 infantry and 580 cavalry against Saladin’s 6,000 light cavalry and 2,660 heavy cavalry.

The Aftermath of Montgisard

The Hospitallers cared for the wounded, who numbered around 750. These were carried back to Jerusalem, while Baldwin returned to Ascalon to await those troops who had pursued Saladin’s men far from their original objective. Baldwin distributed the collected booty and celebrated his great victory.

The Battle at Montgisard was memorialized by its victor in the construction of a Benedictine monastery on the site of the battle, dedicated to St Catherine of Alexandria.

Baldwin knew that this victory was not decisive and that Saladin would return with renewed determination. In preparation, he ordered the construction of a new castle of Chastelet at Jacob’s Ford in 1178.

Fresh attacks from Saladin were launched throughout the Leper King’s reign, but the Battle of Montgisard held a special place in Frankish memory. Eighty years later, during the Seventh Crusade, there were still those who recalled Baldwin’s victory at Montgisard, the Leper King who defeated the mighty Saladin against seemingly impossible odds.

According to Arabic sources, Saladin sent a letter of condolence to Baldwin IV after the death of his father, King Amalric, in 1174. The letter appears to have been an attempt to establish peaceful relations with his new Frankish rival. Its tone was friendly, expressing hope that Baldwin might regard him as a friend, as Amalric had done.

This cordial exchange contrasts sharply with the fierce rivalry that later defined Saladin vs Baldwin IV and reveals the diplomatic courtesy between Christian and Muslim rulers alongside their ongoing conflict.

The Rise of Saladin

Saladin was born into a prominent Kurdish family around 1138. His birth name was Yusuf (Joseph), a figure who features prominently in both the Bible and the Qur’an as the son of Jacob, sent by God to save Egypt. The connection to Joseph was no doubt emphasized by Saladin’s supporters once he found himself in Egypt as the nephew of Shirkuh, a mercenary in the service of Nur al-Din.

Saladin was appointed vizier of Egypt in 1169 and immediately began consolidating his position. This task was made much easier following the death of his lord, Nur al-Din, in 1171. Saladin had ambitions in Syria and entered Damascus in 1174, taking the city from his Muslim foes. He defeated his rivals at the Battle of the Horns of Hama in 1175 and was proclaimed the first sultan of both Egypt and Syria.

These acquisitions were merely stepping stones, bringing Saladin closer to his ultimate goal. His grand ambition was to unite the Muslims in Syria under his rule and deliver a fatal blow to the Crusader States. It was this ambition that would bring Saladin and Baldwin IV into direct and dramatic confrontation.

The Accession of Baldwin IV

Baldwin IV descended from the Frankish knights of the First Crusade who seized Jerusalem in 1099 and established the Crusader States. He assumed the kingship of Jerusalem in 1174 following the death of his father, King Amalric. Amalric was a celebrated military commander who, like Saladin, had ambitions in Egypt.

Baldwin’s accession coincided with the rise of Saladin, and a strong leader and competent commander was required to meet this dangerous threat.

Unfortunately, Baldwin was a mere boy, just 13 years of age, when he became king. Moreover, shortly after his coronation, it was discovered that he was suffering from leprosy. Impeded by both his youth and his illness, a succession of regents ruled in Baldwin’s stead. Nevertheless, once he came of age in 1176 at the age of 15, Baldwin took full control of his government and relinquished authority only when his illness became too severe.

Saladin undoubtedly rejoiced at the prospect of facing a minor and ailing king. However, Baldwin would prove to be a surprisingly formidable opponent. The stage was set for Saladin vs Baldwin IV, a contest that would test both rulers repeatedly over the next decade.

The Battle of Montgisard

Aside from a few skirmishes, Baldwin was first truly tested against Saladin in 1177 at the Battle of Montgisard. Taking advantage of Jerusalem’s vulnerability after its troops had been sent north by Baldwin to support the forces of Philip of Flanders, Saladin launched an invasion of the kingdom. Knowing that Jerusalem was largely undefended, Saladin marched towards Ascalon, where Baldwin intercepted him with a small force.

The 16-year-old Baldwin was about to face his toughest challenge to date. Severely outnumbered, Baldwin decided not to engage immediately and remained within the walls of Ascalon. An emboldened Saladin failed to take proper precautions, believing Baldwin would not dare leave the fortress, and divided his troops into raiding parties. These detachments devastated the surrounding countryside.

A furious Baldwin met Saladin at Montgisard and, despite being heavily outnumbered by as much as three to one, ordered his army to charge. The result was catastrophic for Saladin. The sultan narrowly avoided being killed and escaped on a camel, forced to watch as his men were slaughtered.

In this first significant engagement, Saladin learned much about his opponent. Despite his crippling illness, Baldwin was courageous, resolute, and a worthy descendant of his heroic forefathers.

The Aftermath of Montgisard

Following Baldwin’s victory at Montgisard, the relationship between the two rulers was dominated by conflict. In April 1179, Baldwin’s constable, Humphrey of Toron, was killed by Saladin’s forces while Baldwin was leading a raid into Banyas. Then, in June 1179, Baldwin suffered a crushing defeat at Marj Ayun as he attempted to halt Saladin’s attacks on Christian territory east of Sidon.

These were minor engagements in the broader struggle, and the shifting fortunes of battle had little lasting impact on the region’s geography. They were, however, opportunities for each leader to test his opponent on the battlefield and inflict significant damage upon his enemy’s retinue.

The Construction of Chastelet Castle

Baldwin intended to fortify his borders lest Saladin launch another attack. He ordered the construction of a castle called Chastelet overlooking Jacob’s Ford, which lay on the border between Christian and Muslim territories. Jacob’s Ford was strategically significant and used by both Christians and Muslims, as it sat on the main road between Acre and Damascus.

Saladin considered the castle an infringement upon Muslim territory and ultimately disrespectful. This was not how one ruler ought to treat another. Saladin wanted to avoid a confrontation and attempted diplomacy, treating Baldwin courteously as a fellow ruler. Saladin initially offered Baldwin 60,000 dinars, later increasing the offer to 100,000 dinars to demolish the castle. Baldwin refused. Saladin responded by raiding the surrounding area, and in August 1179, he launched an assault on the castle itself. After five days, Saladin breached the defenses and tore them down. More than 700 soldiers and laborers were taken prisoner, and many more were killed during the Siege of Jacob’s Ford.

Baldwin was in Tiberias at the time of the attack. By the time he reached the castle with reinforcements, he was too late. His ambitious project lay in smoldering ruins.

A Truce is Made

Persistent warfare was costly and time-consuming for both sides. It was often deemed preferable to live in harmony alongside one’s enemies than to live in perpetual warfare. As much as Baldwin and Saladin fought, they also both understood the value of peace. In 1180, a two-year truce was agreed between the two rulers. For Saladin, the truce enabled him to devote his attention to campaigns in northern Syria. Baldwin, however, needed the treaty more urgently. His health had begun to deteriorate significantly, and he needed to address the pressing matter of succession.

Baldwin married his sister, Sibylla, to a Poitevin knight, Guy of Lusignan, hoping that he would serve as Baldwin’s successor and military commander when the king became too ill to exercise his powers.

Baldwin’s decision to marry his sister to Guy was unpopular in certain circles at court and caused division within the kingdom. A significant party of nobles refused to follow Guy. Ultimately, Baldwin proved unable to relinquish effective control to Guy. As a result, the Leper King continued to rule despite his increasingly severe physical limitations.

The Truce is Broken

The treaty between Baldwin and Saladin was broken in less than two years. Although the two rulers demonstrated a mutual respect to such an extent that peace between the pair was relatively easy to establish, others did not. In November 1181 Reynald of Châtillon attacked a Muslim caravan traveling between Egypt and Syria that passed near his lands. Reynald seized their goods and imprisoned the travelers. A furious Baldwin, attempting to restore the terms of the truce, ordered his vassal to return the stolen booty and release the prisoners. Reynald refused.

Saladin himself, however, had little appetite for lasting peace with the Christians and did not intend to honor the treaty fully. In the spring of 1182, a Christian ship ran aground in Egypt, whereupon Saladin imprisoned its 1,600 passengers and seized their goods. Baldwin attempted to secure their release but to no avail, as Saladin wished to resume hostilities with his Frankish neighbors.

The Battle of Le Forbelet

By 1182, Baldwin’s suffering had greatly increased. He was now blind, and his hands and feet had begun to deteriorate. Ulcers covered his body, and the dressing of these wounds often aggravated infection and pain. Riding had become nearly impossible, and for this reason, the king was frequently carried in a litter. Nevertheless, he did not relent. Whatever his condition, Baldwin continued to appear at the head of his army, leading from the front.

In July 1182, Saladin felt confident enough to attack the Kingdom of Jerusalem directly. He gathered an immense force and marched into the kingdom. His troops laid siege to the castle of Bethsan in Galilee. Baldwin marched to relieve the siege with his own host but found himself severely outnumbered.

In the blistering summer heat, the two forces clashed at Le Forbelet on July 15, 1182. Baldwin’s men stood firm, determined to follow their leper king wherever he led them.

On that day, more men died from sunstroke and heat exhaustion than by the sword. The battle was sweltering and brutal, but ultimately Baldwin emerged victorious.

Once again, the Leper King demonstrated to Saladin that superior numbers did not necessarily guarantee victory. As at Montgisard, Baldwin’s abilities as a military leader matched the strength of Saladin’s host.

Baldwin Succumbs to Leprosy

By this stage, Saladin’s rivalry with Baldwin IV had become more than a military contest; it was a test of endurance and leadership. Baldwin’s final years were marked by excruciating pain. His inability to devolve power to his brother-in-law, Guy of Lusignan, meant that Baldwin continued to shoulder these burdens himself.

In late November 1183, Saladin besieged the fortress of Kerak. The bombardment was intense and required a personal response from the ailing king. Carried in a litter drawn by two horses, Baldwin made his way towards Kerak.

Saladin had drawn many of his forces from Egypt and feared for the security of his realm. He therefore abandoned the siege of Kerak on December 4, avoiding an open pitched battle with Baldwin, and returned to Egypt. Baldwin entered Kerak in triumph in what would be his last major success against Saladin.

Baldwin’s condition continued to deteriorate, and the king finally succumbed to his illness in May 1185. Although the rivalry between Baldwin and Saladin ended in 1185, Saladin continued to challenge Baldwin’s successors. He captured Jerusalem in 1187 following the disastrous Christian defeat at the Battle of Hattin.

The two men were, in many ways, evenly matched in military skill and political leadership. However, Baldwin’s illness earned him the respect and admiration of both friend and foe, and his determination in the defense of Jerusalem distinguished him as one of the most remarkable rulers of his age. Saladin himself would enjoy a reputation among Christians as a paragon of chivalric virtue. Time and again, Baldwin’s resolve compelled Saladin to treat him as a serious and capable opponent. After Montgisard, neither ruler underestimated the other. Their conflict demonstrates that even during a religious war, admiration and respect could exist between enemies bound by an aristocratic code of honor.

In the wild, violent decade of the 1870s, the James-Younger Gang stood out amongst Wild West outlaws. These hardened men differed from the rest with their Confederate bushwhacker experience from the American Civil War. Postwar, they settled in war-torn Missouri. But they returned to the outlaw life, committing a series of bank robberies between 1867 and the mid 1870s across several states. The two sets of brothers expanded their range (Iowa), robbing trains or stagecoaches.

Before the Fateful Raid

As ex-guerrillas, Frank and Jesse James, along with the Younger brothers (Cole, Jim, Bob), relied on discipline, wartime experience, and mobility. Their robberies reflected their skillset: fast, coordinated, and violent. Their numerous escapes made the gang look uncatchable. 

The gang made headlines in the 1873 high-profile Rock Island train robbery in Iowa. The members left a press release during the 1874 Gads Hill train robbery. By 1876, whether good or bad, the gang’s reputation was established.

A Disaster Unfolds

For the Northfield Bank Raid, the James-Younger Gang used proven tactics. Five men remained mounted in the street controlling the approaches, watching for lawmen, and providing coverage. These were Jesse James, Jim and Cole Younger, Clell Miller, and Bill Chadwell. Frank James, Bob Younger, and Charlie Pitts entered the First National Bank. But here their signature methods failed with fatal results.

From the get-go, things went awry. Outside, a suspicious J.S. Allen approached, but Clell Miller grabbed him. Breaking free, Allen shouted the famous “Get your guns, boys! They’re robbing the bank!” warning residents of the raid. The outlaws opened fire seconds later, galloping around to discourage bystanders. 

Inside the bank, Joseph Lee Heywood stalled, stating that the vault was time-locked. The outlaws believed Heyward, just as residents reacted. They grabbed their guns and ran to the scene; storekeepers handed out weapons to arm others. All found spots to fire at the bandits.

A Ferocious Defense, Deadly Decimation

At Northfield, the gang members encountered something new: unintimidated, aggressive residents running towards gunfire. Within moments of the alarm, the townspeople reacted. From Bill Heywood’s bluff to the townspeople’s shooting, events spiraled out of the James-Younger Gang’s control. From rooftops, store fronts, and alleys, Northfield residents fired at the exposed robbers. Several townspeople, such as Henry Wheeler and Anselm Manning, were Civil War veterans unfazed by gunfire. A gun battle like this had never occurred in Minnesota frontier history.

The crisscrossing slugfest claimed victims rapidly. In only minutes, Clell Miller and Bill Chadwell died, shot by Wheeler and Manning, respectively. A shocked Cole called out to his comrades inside, urging them to hurry. Frank repeated his order again. Heywood still refused. Frustrated, the bandits fled with little money. As they left, Frank James spun, fired, and killed Heywood with a headshot. The gang next fled Northfield under fire. 

Manhunt

Shattered, the outlaws fled Northfield but not easily. All three Younger brothers had suffered multiple gunshot wounds, which slowed their flight. Aware they’d be hunted men soon, the James brothers established a fast pace, which the injured Youngers and Charlie Pitts tried to match. They waited until the others caught up and rode together. Soon, the James brothers knew staying with their injured comrades meant capture. Within a day, they split, with the James brothers heading southwest into the deep forest. The others kept moving west, albeit painfully, marking the outlaw gang’s downfall. 

Behind them, like angry hornets, the Minnesota manhunt gathered steam. Within minutes, riders galloped, and telegraph lines buzzed across the state. Before nightfall, armed posses flooded the countryside. For two weeks, they scoured the state, knowing they pursued injured bandits.

In the end, the James brothers escaped, utilizing their bushwhacking skills. The cornered Younger brothers surrendered to a posse, which fatally shot Charlie Pitts. 

The Raid’s Legacy and Changed Perceptions

In American history, the Northfield raid stood out. This crushing of the James-Younger Gang created several lasting effects. First, this fed into a general decline in large, multistate gangs. Law enforcement communicated better, possessed better firearms, and reduced the frontier. Tackling towns became too risky. Gangs took to operating in smaller, more elusive groups. Robbing banks became difficult. In response, gangs attacked trains in isolated areas.

For the James-Younger Gang, defeat came at Northfield. Despite the gang’s experience and tactics, the residents didn’t flinch. The Bank held their livelihoods, which they refused to part with.

Baldwin IV, known as the ‘Leper King’ of Jerusalem, ruled his fragile kingdom with unexpected strength for over a decade. Afflicted by leprosy from a young age, he nevertheless held together a realm threatened externally by Saladin and internally by factional rivalries. His authority, resilience, and political control kept powerful nobles in check and invasion at bay. Yet when Baldwin died in 1185 aged just 24, the delicate balance he had maintained collapsed, exposing deep divisions that would soon cost Jerusalem its survival.

The Death of Baldwin IV

Crippled by leprosy since his teens, Baldwin IV had been a surprisingly effective king. His illness elicited compassion from his subjects, and their loyalty to their sick king was a key factor in the success of his kingship.

In 1185, Baldwin finally succumbed to his illness and died. He was buried close to his father in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Within two years of Baldwin’s death, the kingdom he had striven so hard to defend had fallen into the hands of his longstanding Muslim rival, Saladin.

Events leading up to the Leper King’s death help explain why, after his passing, the kingdom fell, and the city was lost to Christendom forever.

Baldwin IV and Guy of Lusignan

Baldwin IV, the Leper King who defied a death sentence, was diagnosed shortly after his coronation in 1174. It was understood that he would not father any children to succeed him. His elder sister, Sybilla, and his younger half-sister, Isabella, were therefore central to the succession.

Sybilla married William of Montferrat in 1177, and by him she bore a son named Baldwin. Montferrat died shortly before the child’s birth, and Sybilla later married a second husband, Guy of Lusignan.

By 1183, Baldwin became too ill to rule and needed a regent to govern alongside him. Guy, as his brother-in-law and the husband of the heiress to the kingdom, was the natural choice. Guy proved to be a poor military commander whom the nobles refused to follow, and Baldwin removed him from his post within weeks of his appointment.

Guy’s unpopularity meant that the prospect of him succeeding to his brother-in-law’s throne was deeply contentious. Most vocal amongst those in opposition to Guy was Raymond III of Tripoli, a cousin of Baldwin IV and a man who served as his regent on several occasions.

To ensure Guy would not succeed him and thus tear the kingdom apart, Baldwin attempted to have Guy’s marriage to Sybilla annulled. But Guy’s disobedience, along with Sybilla’s refusal to leave the husband she loved, thwarted Baldwin’s plans.

King Baldwin V, the King’s Nephew

With Guy out of the picture, the desperately ill Baldwin IV had to reconsider his succession. Agnes of Courtenay, Baldwin’s mother, was a strong influence over her son. She suggested that Baldwin appoint his nephew, Sybilla’s son, as his successor.

Acting on his mother’s advice, Baldwin addressed the matter by having his nephew crowned as his co-ruler. It also denied Guy the throne and was welcomed by the nobility. In November 1183, the coronation was celebrated in Jerusalem, and both kings appeared in their crowns.

Baldwin V would rule alongside a regent, Raymond III of Tripoli, who would once again relieve the burden of kingship from Baldwin IV until his death. Although Baldwin IV knew that it was not ideal for his young nephew to rule as sole king, he hoped that Raymond’s competence and experience would allow the kingdom to survive until Baldwin V came of age.

Although Baldwin IV’s plans did come to fruition, they would not last long. Baldwin V died in August 1186, a mere 17 months after his uncle.

Guy Becomes King

Upon the boy’s death, the throne passed to his mother, Sybilla. The nobles, however, still opposed Guy. They agreed to crown her only on the condition that she divorce him. Sybilla agreed, but only if she could choose her next husband to rule alongside her.

With the divorce agreed, Sybilla celebrated her coronation in September 1186. When asked whom she chose to rule alongside her, she remarried Guy and had him crowned alongside her.

A disgruntled Raymond left Jerusalem. He failed to garner enough support to mount a concerted effort to challenge Sybilla and Guy’s rule, since most of the nobles reluctantly agreed to work with Guy. Undoubtedly, they wanted to avoid civil war, but it was difficult to remove an anointed and crowned king.

Guy began his reign in the same way Baldwin IV’s had begun, with the looming threat of Saladin. But in 1186, Saladin was in a much stronger position and had serious designs on Jerusalem. Having acquired the crown, Guy was about to face his greatest and most challenging test.

The Muslims Unify Under Saladin

Saladin, the first sultan of both Egypt and Syria, had spent much of Baldwin IV’s reign establishing and consolidating his position. He waged war not only against Baldwin IV but also against fellow Muslims in Syria. Saladin made significant conquests at the expense of his Muslim rivals, including the prominent cities of Damascus and Aleppo.

Saladin had the added advantage of being able to call upon reinforcements from Egypt for his Syrian campaigns. Egypt was immensely wealthy and the envy of the Christians.

Saladin claimed he had been sent by God and that his victories against the Crusaders and fellow Muslims were evidence of divine approval. He began uniting the Muslims in Syria under his leadership with the intention of removing the Franks from Jerusalem and the remaining Crusader States, including Antioch and Tripoli. He convinced his co-religionists that he could expel the Franks from Syria once and for all.

When the Crusaders embarked on the First Crusade (1096–1099), they faced a divided Islam. By 1187, Saladin had created a sense of unity among the Muslims in Syria and could now move against the new king of Jerusalem, unpopular among his own people and ruling over a divided kingdom.

The Road to Hattin

In early 1187, Reynald of Châtillon gave Saladin a perfect pretext for invading the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Reynald attacked a Muslim pilgrim caravan, breaking a fragile peace that had been established with Saladin.

Saladin sought revenge and vowed to kill Reynald for this insult. He entered the kingdom and sent raiding parties to ravage the lands around Frankish-held Acre. Gerard de Ridefort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, went out with a small force to meet the invaders. The Battle of Cresson took place in May 1187 and saw the Templar force decimated by a numerically superior Muslim army. Only Gerard and a handful of knights survived.

In response, King Guy assembled the Frankish forces at the Springs of Sepphoris, demoralized by this recent disaster. The Muslim army then turned towards Tiberias to besiege the castle there, commanded by Eschiva, the wife of Raymond of Tripoli. Guy called an assembly and decided to march to relieve her, beginning the 26-kilometer march to Tiberias. Unbeknownst to Guy, the Crusader army had fallen into Saladin’s trap.

The Battle of Hattin, July 4, 1187

The march from the Springs of Sepphoris removed Guy’s army from an abundant water supply. Their march in the blistering summer sun was arduous and dry. As they made their way on July 3, it became clear they would not reach Tiberias by nightfall. The most important necessity for an army is water, and they had none.

It was decided to detour towards the Springs of Kafr Hattin, camp overnight, and march to Tiberias the following day. However, Saladin thwarted their plans. The Muslims blocked the route to the water source, and Guy’s dehydrated army was forced to camp near the village of Meskenah. Desperate for water, their Muslim foes taunted the Franks, pouring water onto the ground before their eyes and lighting fires to intensify their thirst.

On the morning of July 4, 1187, Guy drew up his battle lines. Pelted by arrows and smoke from burning fires, the Franks were weakened by thirst.

Raymond of Tripoli, no friend of Guy, led an unsuccessful charge early in the battle. Rather than returning to reform his lines, Raymond fled and headed for Tripoli.

Guy’s troops were massacred at the Battle of Hattin, and the king himself was captured. Had he been able to garner greater support from the nobles, including Raymond of Tripoli, the outcome may have been different. But Guy’s unpopularity meant he was unable to fully unify the nobles under his leadership.

The Fall of Jerusalem 1187

With most of its army destroyed at Hattin, the kingdom was defended by a small garrison. Saladin marched to Jerusalem and laid siege to the city. On October 2, 1187, he secured its surrender.

Balian of Ibelin led the defense and agreed to surrender the city only if Saladin allowed the inhabitants to ransom themselves. He threatened to destroy Islamic holy sites and kill Muslim hostages should the sultan refuse. The pragmatic sultan accepted Balian’s conditions.

Only around 18,000 Christian inhabitants were able to pay their ransom, many thanks to financial contributions from Balian and the Church. Approximately 15,000 Christians were taken into slavery.

Saladin was able to take advantage first of a minor king and then of an unpopular king on Jerusalem’s throne. Guy had called for reinforcements before Hattin, but these failed to materialize. His unpopularity and inability to secure the nobles’ cooperation ultimately cost him his throne.

Baldwin IV’s death did not simply remove a king; it removed the authority that had held a fragile kingdom together. Under his rule, rival factions were restrained, and Saladin’s advances checked. Without him, the unity fractured. Guy of Lusignan proved unable to command the loyalty of the nobles or unite them under his leadership, while Saladin had forged a powerful and unified Muslim force in Syria. When Jerusalem fell in 1187, it was the result not only of external strength but of internal division and failed leadership.

In the comfort of the royal palace, Prince Baldwin played an innocent, boyish game with his peers. This incident would reveal something that would change the course not only of the prince’s life, but also that of his kingdom. A leper king from a young age, Baldwin IV’s story is a remarkable chapter in the history of the Jerusalemite dynasty. Unrivaled in his courageous attempts to protect his kingdom, Baldwin’s throne would pass to lesser men, but his legacy and his example endured throughout the centuries.

A Childhood Game Reveals Tragedy

While Baldwin was a young prince, his tutor William of Tyre discovered something that would shake the Jerusalemite dynasty to its core. William relates that Baldwin:

“was playing one day with his companions of noble rank, when they began, as playful boys often do, to pinch each other’s arms and hands with their nails. The other boys gave evidence of pain by their outcries, but Baldwin, although his comrades did not spare him, endured it altogether too patiently, as if he felt nothing. After this had occurred several times, it was reported to me. At first I supposed that it proceeded from his capacity for endurance and not from lack of sensitiveness. But when I called him and began to inquire what it meant, I discovered that his right arm and hand were partially numb, so that he did not feel pinching or even biting in the least.”

William suggests that at first, he assumed Baldwin’s strength and stamina were the cause of his unusual ability to endure the pinching from his peers. Yet upon further investigation, Baldwin’s numbness became a cause for grave concern.

William of Tyre

William, later Archbishop of Tyre, was born in Jerusalem around the year 1130. Most of what we know about him comes from his chronicle known as The Historia, in which he includes few details about himself. Probably born to Frankish parents, William’s intellectual talents were recognized early, and he was sent to Western Europe to study in preparation for a career in the Church. He returned to the Holy Land in 1165.

King Amalric soon recognized William’s abilities, and in 1167, appointed him Archdeacon and later Archbishop of Tyre. After the two men discovered they shared a love of history, the king asked William to compile a history of the Jerusalemite dynasty. In 1170, in a further mark of trust, Amalric appointed William as tutor to his young son, Prince Baldwin. William undertook this task with care and diligence and took great delight in his new pupil.

For the next four years, William remained constantly in the prince’s company. This exalted position also gave him regular access to the king and members of the royal court. His presence there provided valuable opportunities to gather information and testimony for the chronicle he was composing.

Tutor to Prince Baldwin

Baldwin proved to be an astute student who demonstrated a keen intellect. William instructed him in reading and writing, as well as in the liberal arts. He discovered that, like his father, Baldwin shared a love of history and enjoyed listening to historical tales, no doubt recounted to him by William as he compiled his chronicle.

William’s task would also have been to prepare Baldwin for his future role as king. This preparation involved developing essential skills, including ensuring he acquired a working knowledge of legal matters. Significantly, Baldwin’s education also included cultivating the social skills necessary for kingship, enabling him to converse easily with his nobles and subjects of all ranks.

It was in this intimate role as tutor that William made his devastating discovery.

A Grim Diagnosis

William informed the king of Baldwin’s numbness, and physicians were consulted. He continues:

“Repeated fomentations, oil rubs, and even poisonous remedies were employed without result in the attempt to help him. For, as we recognized in process of time, these were the premonitory symptoms of a most serious and incurable disease which later became plainly apparent… For, as he began to reach years of maturity, it was evident that he was suffering from the terrible disease of leprosy.”

William’s account indicates that a formal diagnosis was not made until Baldwin “began to reach years of maturity.” This suggests that Baldwin suffered from lepromatous leprosy, the most severe form of the disease, which typically becomes fully apparent during adolescence. It would appear, therefore, that Baldwin was only definitively diagnosed with leprosy after his father’s death in 1174, when he became king aged 13.

William’s close relationship with Baldwin is revealed in his emotional response to the diagnosis: “It is impossible to refrain from tears while speaking of this great misfortune.” William grieved not only for the suffering of his pupil but also for the future of the kingdom. This moment was monumental. It shaped the fate not only of the Jerusalemite dynasty but of Jerusalem itself. Baldwin’s short life meant he was unlikely to emulate the accomplishments of many of his predecessors. Most significantly, he would not marry or produce children to succeed him. William likely feared that the throne would eventually pass to less capable hands, unworthy of the kingship.

Medieval Attitudes Towards Leprosy

In the medieval West, leprosy was considered highly contagious. For this reason, sufferers were often shunned. They were deemed unclean, and the disease from which they suffered was regarded as a physical manifestation of moral corruption. It was perceived as a punishment from God. Lepers were considered sinners and depraved individuals, and they were frequently banished from society lest they contaminate others with their incurable condition.

In the East, however, leprosy was better understood and not considered as highly contagious as in the West, a view closer to modern medical understanding. Flight from or shunning of the leper was not advocated in the same way. Indeed, a military order in the Holy Land, the Order of St Lazarus, was composed mostly of lepers.

Despite these differing attitudes, leprosy remained incompatible with kingship.

Baldwin IV, Leprosy and Kingship

We might ask how Baldwin contracted leprosy. Certainly, those around him were not recorded as lepers. If there had been any known sufferers within the royal household, they would surely have been kept away from the court.

Only a small percentage of the population is susceptible to leprosy. The disease spreads only to those who are vulnerable and typically requires prolonged, close contact with an infected individual. It is therefore likely that someone in close proximity to the young prince passed the disease on to him. This was probably his wet nurse or another individual responsible for his personal care during childhood.

Medieval kings were duty-bound to marry and produce heirs to continue the dynasty. Because leprosy was widely believed to be highly contagious, marriage was unlikely to have been seriously considered for Baldwin once his diagnosis became clear. Instead, the continuation of the dynasty would depend upon his elder sister, Sibylla.

There were also physical limitations to consider. Baldwin’s particular form of leprosy would render him increasingly disabled throughout his short adult life. Yet he was determined to rule and refused to allow his debilitating illness to prevent him from exercising effective kingship in Jerusalem.

As leprosy rendered Baldwin’s right arm useless, a riding tutor was appointed to teach him how to control a horse using only his knees. This adaptation allowed his left arm to remain free to wield a sword.

Baldwin the Warrior

Baldwin’s horsemanship enabled him to lead his troops into battle, and he did so from a remarkably young age. At 14 and 15, he participated in several raids against Damascus. In 1177, he led his forces to victory against Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard. Baldwin was only 16 years old at the time, yet he commanded a small force and defeated a numerically superior Muslim army. This extraordinary triumph secured his reputation as a formidable military king.

His courage was again evident in 1182, when he mustered an army to confront Saladin during an invasion of the kingdom. The following year, he led a force to relieve Christians besieged by Saladin at Kerak.

Baldwin demonstrated that illness did not equate to weakness. Despite his condition, he proved himself a worthy successor to his forefathers, the heroic leaders of the First Crusade.

The Leper King’s Body

Leprosy placed an enormous burden on Baldwin’s body. Ulcers would have caused severe pain in his arms and legs, and these wounds were prone to infection. The continual cleaning and dressing of them must have been agonizing for an already fragile body.

Leprosy attacks the extremities, and Baldwin’s nose, fingers, and toes would eventually have been destroyed by the disease. William of Tyre records that from 1182, “his sight failed and his extremities became completely deadened so that his hands and feet refused to perform their office.”

Although blind and with hands and feet that no longer functioned properly, Baldwin refused to retire. When he could no longer ride, he was carried in a litter, still appearing at the head of his forces. When important dignitaries arrived in the kingdom, Baldwin refused to receive them from his sickbed. During one severe episode of illness, he traveled in a litter from the relative comfort of Ascalon to Jerusalem to meet Count Philip of Flanders.

Baldwin’s endurance earned him widespread loyalty. There is no evidence to suggest that his subjects, or indeed others in the East, questioned his legitimacy as king. William writes: “The extremities and the face were especially attacked, so that his faithful followers were moved with compassion when they looked at him.” His face was likely disfigured from an early stage of the disease, yet despite his altered appearance and growing physical limitations, Baldwin retained his crown until his death in 1185.

Baldwin’s Legacy

William of Tyre’s emotional account of discovering Baldwin IV’s leprosy offers a rare glimpse into an intimate historical moment, one that would change the fortunes of Jerusalem and the Crusader States. Baldwin’s illness marked the beginning of the end for the kingdom, as his declining health contributed to internal division and a succession crisis following his death.

After Baldwin’s passing, the kingdom eventually fell into the hands of a less capable successor, Guy of Lusignan, whose military decisions culminated in disaster at the Battle of Hattin in 1187 and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem.

Baldwin, the Leper King who defied a death sentence for over a decade, eventually succumbed to his illness and died in 1185 at the age of 24, yet his legacy has endured for centuries. Burdened by extreme pain and physical deterioration, he nevertheless achieved remarkable feats within his short lifetime and is remembered as one of the most extraordinary rulers of the Middle Ages.

Fannie Lou Hamer was one of the Civil Rights Movement’s most influential figures. Born in rural Mississippi, she faced severe poverty and discrimination. Hamer was determined to secure voting rights for Black Americans, co-founding the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. She risked her life organizing voter registration drives and speaking out against oppression. Although she passed away in 1977, her tireless efforts in the fight for equality continue to inspire generations.

1. She Was the Youngest of 20 Children

Fannie Lou Hamer was born on October 16, 1917, in Montgomery County, Mississippi. Hamer was the last of 20 children born to James and Lou Ella Townsend. From a very early age, Hamer worked with her family on W.D. Marlow’s plantation in Rueville, Mississippi, in a process known as sharecropping. This system kept Hamer and her family in poverty as her father “rented” a portion of Marlow’s plantation to farm. Plantation owners provided everything needed for the sharecropper in return for a portion of their crop. Unfortunately, the interest was high enough that sharecroppers often found themselves in debt year after year, as was the case with Hamer’s family.

Hamer was a strong student and was said to have a strong grasp of reading and writing. However, after the third grade, Hamer needed to spend more time at home planting and picking the cotton crop. This meant that she no longer could attend school. Hamer continued to educate herself outside of the classroom. During the day, Hamer picked roughly 200 pounds of cotton despite suffering from polio, and at night, she read the bible and other books to continue her education.

2. She Survived a Forced Sterilization

As the years progressed, Hamer remained on the Marlow plantation as a sharecropper. In 1944, Marlow discovered Hamer had a basic grasp of reading and writing. Following this discovery, Hamer was removed from picking cotton in the field and made the records keeper for the entire plantation. The next year, she met and later married Perry “Pap” Hamer, who also worked on the Marlow plantation as a tractor driver. The two married and would continue to live on the Marlow plantation for the next 18 years.

Like many other couples, the Hamers wanted to start a family. Unfortunately, in 1961, Hamer had her reproductive organs removed against her will. Hamer had gone to the doctor to have a tumor removed in her uterus. Like many others before and after, Hamer fell victim to forced sterilization, a common practice by white doctors in Mississippi at the time to prevent African Americans from reproducing.

Despite this, the Hamers would go on to adopt four children. One of those children, Dorothy Jean Hamer, died at the age of 22 from internal bleeding. Dorothy Jean was taken to the hospital but was refused to be seen due to the work her mother was doing for Civil Rights.

3. She Faced Violence for Simply Trying to Vote

By 1962, Fannie Lou Hamer felt that registering to vote was the next step in her journey for equality. Determined to see it through, she boarded a bus alongside other Black Mississippians headed to the county courthouse. When they arrived, Hamer and a few others were able to pass all the barriers government officials had put in place to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. As they began the journey back home, local police stopped the bus as an intimidation tactic for what those on board had done.

When Hamer returned home, news had already reached Marlow that Hamer had attempted to register. Marlow immediately fired Hamer and evicted her from the only home she had ever known.

The worst violence she would face came a year later. On another trip promoting voter registration, Hamer was arrested in Winona, Mississippi. In jail, she faced a brutal beating at the hands of the officers, leaving her with permanent injuries.

For the remainder of her life, Hamer was partially blind in one eye and had damage to a lung and a kidney. As Hamer sat in the jail cell that evening, suffering from her injuries, the jailer’s wife stepped in, offering her a cup of water and saying she couldn’t stand to see another human treated so cruelly. Even after her immense suffering at the hands of the woman’s husband, Hamer showed compassion to her.

4. She Co-Founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

By 1964, Hamer had made a significant name for herself in the Civil Rights Movement. Alongside others, Hamer co-founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). Hamer and other Civil Rights workers felt the Democratic Party did not have their best interests in mind when it came to local and national elections. Together, they organized grassroots campaigns, held their own conventions, and collected testimonies from Black citizens who had been shut out of the voting process.

The MFDP’s efforts climaxed at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City. Here, Hamer delivered a powerful televised testimony detailing the cruelty she faced in Mississippi over the course of her life from forced sterilization to being beaten for nothing more than attempting to register to vote.

“Is this America” is Hamer’s most famous speech and includes the phrase “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.” This quote sums up the African American experience in the South during this era.

As Hamer spoke, President Lyndon B. Johnson quickly called a press conference during her speech in an attempt to limit the number of news stations that televised her speech. While this worked at the moment, news outlets broadcasted Hamer’s speech later in the evening and in the coming days. The work of the MFDP during its short existence paved the way for the monumental Civil Rights legislation of the coming years.

5. She Ran For Congress

Having co-created the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, Hamer decided to run for Congress. Campaigning in Mississippi during that era was not easy, for a Black woman. It took a woman like Hamer with a fierce determination to do the unthinkable.

Despite only having a third-grade education, Hamer’s efforts energized her neighbors and showed them that political power could be accessible to everyone. Though she didn’t win, her run for office sent a clear message that women, especially Black women, belonged in political office.

Even in defeat, Hamer’s bold step reshaped the conversation on political representation, paving the way for future women to do the unthinkable in the political arena, such as Shirley Chisolm who became the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1968.

6. She Used Music to Inspire Action

Music has been a foundational part of the African American experience. Slaves often sang in the fields to pass the time and used the words as code to pass along information to those who planned on escaping. The African American church is built upon gospel songs, and blues music was created by African Americans to deal with the harsh conditions of the Jim Crow Era.

Hamer was known to have a loud and boisterous singing voice and she realized that music could be used to inspire action. No matter the location, before the speakers began, Hamer would strike up a familiar freedom song. Before long, the room would fill with voices echoing her call for justice. This collective energy built a sense of unity that went far beyond the music. Hamer’s songs turned everyday gatherings into powerful statements, reminding everyone that courage and hope could outlast the oppression they faced in their daily lives.

7. She Continues to Inspire Others

Fannie Lou Hamer passed away in 1977, from a combination of breast cancer and the lingering effects of the jailhouse attack she received from police officers in 1963. Her impact remains a guiding force for those committed to civil rights and social justice. Over the years, she’s been honored numerous times for her groundbreaking activism. In 1993, she was posthumously inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame, acknowledging the massive contribution she made to American democracy.

In the waning days of his presidency, Joe Biden awarded Fannie Lou Hamer the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts during the Civil Rights Era. Hamer became the 11th Mississippian to receive the highest award a civilian can receive.

America was founded on the premise of freedom and human rights for all. In the face of a constitution that promised equality, many in America have continually fought to exercise these rights. Numerous marginalized groups have fought for their civil rights in America over the centuries, especially after the conclusion of the Civil War.

In addition to African Americans, women and those of varying races, religions, and preferences have been forced to seek legal help to defend their rights. Congressional legislation has made slow but evident progress in protecting American equality, most notably during the “Civil Rights Era” of the 1960s, and continues to have a lasting impact on modern lives.

Early Civil Rights Actions

The tenets of the United States promise its citizens rights to political, social, and other freedoms, along with the right to be treated equally. These ideas can be summarized under the term “civil rights.” While civil rights apply to all citizens, certain groups have had to fight to receive and exercise these rights.

Perhaps most notably, African American citizens fought for these freedoms, especially after the conclusion of the Civil War and the banning of slavery in the United States. Congress first took action in this area in 1866, when the first “Civil Rights Act” was passed. “An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights and furnish the Means of their Vindication” was introduced by Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull. The purpose of this act was to strengthen the application of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery.

The 1866 act declared all persons in the US to be citizens, regardless of race or color, and guaranteed the rights to make contracts, sue in a court of law, serve as a witness in court, and own property. The bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but Congress overrode his veto, and the language became law.

An 1871 act strengthened the 1866 act, allowing for action in federal court for the interference with an individual’s civil rights. Further expansion in 1875, sponsored by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, guaranteed all citizens access to accommodations, theaters, schools, churches, and cemeteries regardless of race or color. The bill also refers to the free ability to serve on a jury regardless of race.

Moving Backward

Unfortunately, the progress in the civil rights arena made by Congress during the Reconstruction Era was quashed in 1883, when the 1875 Act was overturned. The reversal by the US Supreme Court cited that the lawmaking was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s authority. Despite ongoing efforts to further Reconstruction and promote equality throughout the country, little progress was made in the way of Civil Rights legislation after the repeal of the 1875 law.

As the United States confronted fascism in the Second World War, the American people were also forced to consider equality and democracy in their own country. Jim Crow laws were still in place in many locations throughout the country, yet more than a million African Americans served with distinction in World War II, willing to lay down their life for a country that saw them as less than their compatriots of other ethnicities.

Women were also starting to demand more equality in society, launching the start of the feminist movement in the late 40s. In 1945, the US Congress considered a civil rights bill for the first time in 70 years. This legislation was unable to advance, but the movement was not extinguished. A civil rights bill was introduced every year for the next 12 years before legislation moved forward.

The Eisenhower Justice Department Steps In

In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Department of Justice submitted a proposal for civil rights legislation and forwarded it to Congress. This bill was approved, resulting in the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This act established a Civil Rights Section within the Department of Justice. It largely focused on voting rights, allowing federal prosecutors to intervene with court injunctions to protect against interference with voting. In addition, a Civil Rights Commission was established, which had the authority to investigate discriminatory practices. While the final bill was weakened due to a lack of support among Congress’s Southern Democrats, it was forward action, the first legislation of its kind since Reconstruction.

Landmark Legislation: The 1960s

America was on a trajectory to continue the progress made by Eisenhower’s bill. In 1960, an act was passed that expanded the 1957 bill, requiring election officials to make voter registration records available to the Department of Justice. The longest filibuster in Senate history, lasting over 43 hours, impeded the movement of the bill, but in the end, it passed with some edits.

Civil rights became a primary focus of the country as the 1960s progressed. America saw what is now referred to as the “Civil Rights Era.” Figures like Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Thurgood Marshall made their mark on America, forcing the conversation America had long tried to suppress into the spotlight. Events such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington promoted discourse and action. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed, a civil rights measure that helped protect the rights of women in the workplace.

However, the major boon for civil rights legislation took place in 1964 with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now considered a landmark piece of law. This bill banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin within the United States in relation to employment, public accommodations, and receiving federal funding. The act, introduced by John F. Kennedy before his assassination and signed into law by his successor, Lyndon Johnson, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the new law.

In 1965, the act was followed up with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One noticeable flaw of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that it failed to address voting rights. Even after the Eisenhower administration’s work in 1957, there were several legal and illegal measures being used throughout the country to prevent Black citizens from voting.

Rounding out the essential civil rights legislation of the 1960s was the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which addressed fair housing practices. It outlawed discrimination in relation to housing and was paired with the Architectural Barriers Act, also in 1968, to further improve housing accessibility to another frequently underrepresented group: people with disabilities.

Continuing the Fight

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, several laws related to civil rights advanced, including the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1975), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967, amended in 1975), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). In 1991, another Civil Rights Act was passed. This act amended the 1964 act, strengthening the original law and how it is applied in the workplace. It clarifies the definition of discrimination in the workplace and suggests appropriate remedies for such situations.

Furthering Future Rights?

Though tremendous progress has been made since the humble beginnings of civil rights legislation, concerns still exist. The country is still struggling to fulfill promises of equality for all, and new challenges have arisen. In some situations, it appears that the country has eroded its protections, with divisive rhetoric largely contributing to this trend. In recent years and moving into 2025, migrants, refugees, and LGBTQI+ communities were targets of disproportionate discrimination, and people of color continue to remain marginalized on the federal legal level. Reproductive rights were restricted in 2022, with the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion bans in several states.

Despite the frustrations that these political and legal actions have presented, numerous groups and organizations remain committed to advancing civil rights legislation. There are efforts underway to expand the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include and protect more classes of citizens. The true application of equality and civil rights for all American citizens does not seem to be a reality anytime soon, but a hope for the future.

Manila was considered one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Asia before the Second World War. In 1945, after several years of Japanese occupation, Manila suffered a terrible fate when it was faced with a combination of Japanese cruelty and American firepower. By the time the Americans and their Filipino allies gained control of the city, it was completely devastated and would take years to rebuild. The battle was one of the most devastating instances of urban warfare during WWII.

Manila Under Japanese Occupation

One day after Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese began launching air raids over major sites throughout the Philippines. Tokyo aimed to conquer the Philippines, set up a puppet regime, and seize control of natural resources throughout the islands. This was part of Japan’s plan to create the so-called “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere,” a euphemism for its Asian empire. After landing tens of thousands of men across the archipelago, Japanese forces seized Manila on January 2, 1942. They subsequently defeated the rest of the Allied garrisons on the islands within a couple of months.

Japan’s military administration of the Philippines was headquartered in Manila, making it the center of power for Japan in the Philippines. For the rest of the war, Japan garrisoned Manila with a mixture of army and navy units to keep order. Members of the Kempetai, Japan’s secret police, worked with local collaborators to hunt down anyone deemed a threat to the Japanese. Citizens of Allied countries were locked up in prisons or internment camps like Santo Tomas, along with American POWs captured during the initial seizure of the islands. Even though Japan granted the Philippines “independence,” it maintained control and employed vicious methods of repression.

Filipinos were used to fighting outside occupiers; they had spent years fighting against Spanish and American imperialism. Now, they sought to work with Americans who escaped the fall of Bataan to fight Japan from the shadows. In addition to spy rings in the city, a group of guerrilla fighters called Hunters ROTC operated near the city and attacked Japanese targets. They waited patiently for the US military to return.

American Landing on Luzon and Advance to Manila

When General Douglas MacArthur arrived in Australia in 1942 after fleeing the Philippines, he vowed that he would return at the head of an army to liberate the islands. In 1944, he landed on Leyte with the US Sixth Army. Once Japan was defeated there and on Mindoro island, MacArthur’s command, called Southwest Pacific Area Command (SWPA), prepared for the invasion of Luzon. General Walter Krueger’s Sixth Army, initially consisting of the I Corps (6th and 43rd Infantry Divisions) and the XIV Corps (37th and 40th Infantry Divisions), was assigned to land on a stretch of beaches on the Lingayen Gulf in northern Luzon. Afterwards, they would strike south and east to defeat Japanese forces. One of the priority objectives for the Sixth Army was retaking Manila.

On January 9, 1945, the Sixth Army landed at the Lingayen Gulf and proceeded to move inland. Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita, commander of the 14th Area Army, had three groups of troops defending the whole island: the Shobu, Shimbu, and Kembo groups. He sought to concentrate his forces in the north of the island and ordered his men to fight a delaying action. Under pressure from American forces and Filipino guerillas, Japanese infantry and armored units withdrew to the center of the island.

General Oscar Griswold’s XIV Corps pushed south from the beaches towards Clark Field, the largest airfield in the Philippines. By the end of the month, they seized it from the Kembo group and advanced to the northern outskirts of the city to link up with American forces that had landed south of Manila.

Japanese Defenses and the Start of the Battle

General Yamashita became concerned that Japanese forces in the Manila area would be cut off by the American advance. When paratroopers of the 11th Airborne Division landed south of Manila, Yamashita ordered the Shimbu Group commander, General Shizuo Yokoyama, to destroy infrastructure and weapons dumps in the city and retreat east. Yokoyama complied, but Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi announced he would remain in the city with over 16,000 sailors and marines to defend the city. Three army engineer battalions remained in the city and joined preparations to defend it.

Admiral Iwabuchi’s Manila Naval Defense Force had eight army and navy battalions in the city and its outskirts. Much of the garrison consisted of crews of sunken ships and did not have training for an urban battle. They did have large stockpiles of weapons and engineering equipment. Multiple lines of defense were dug north and south of the city and buildings were turned into fortresses. Iwabuchi hoped to make the battle as costly as possible for the Americans.

From the north, the 37th Infantry and newly arrived 1st Cavalry Division pushed south on MacArthur’s personal orders. General Joseph Swing’s 11th Airborne Division transferred from the Eighth Army and joined the Sixth Army’s advance. They began to break through the southern Japanese defenses. Griswold’s forces pushed south and liberated the Bilibid and Santo Tomas prison camps by early February. They were joined by Filipino guerilla units including Hunter’s ROTC. By this point, three American divisions with nearly 40,000 men surrounded the city. Iwabuchi’s garrison was cut off.

Crossing the Pasig River and Capturing Nichols Field

General Griswold’s GIs found themselves facing tougher resistance as they continued deeper into the city. Despite having successfully liberated two prison camps, the Americans still had a long way to go. Japanese defenses north of the Pasig River were meant to be a trip wire but were formidable nonetheless. When American forces secured the north bank by February 6, MacArthur declared total victory prematurely. The 37th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions still had to enter the main areas of the city.

When troops of the 148th and 129th Infantry Regiments attempted to cross the Pasig in small boats, they found themselves under heavy fire from Japanese sailors on Provisor Island. Within a couple of days, they managed to seize the island and create a foothold on the south bank, but resistance was fierce. Admiral Iwabuchi had concentrated elements of five battalions south of the river and Japanese fortifications were strong. The 37th Division pushed slowly southward while the 1st Cavalry Division carried out an envelopment maneuver around the city to meet the paratroopers from the south.

The 11th Airborne Division was not tasked with entering Manila proper. Instead, it was ordered to drive the garrison out of Nichols Field. The 187th and 188th Glider Infantry Regiments advanced along the runways and overran the dug-in defenders. The Japanese had so many naval guns at the airfield that one company commander radioed to his superiors “Tell Halsey to stop looking for the Jap Fleet. It’s dug in on Nichols Field.” By February 12, the Airborne had secured the airfield.

Street Fighting and Clearing Intramuros

The area south of the river witnessed brutal house-to-house fighting. Japanese forces, surrounded without hope of relief, were determined to fight to the death. They set ambushes for advancing American troops and forced the Americans to turn to heavy firepower. MacArthur restricted the use of air power but consented to artillery and mortars being used in areas with a heavy Japanese presence. American forces destroyed every Japanese position they could with tanks, artillery, mortars, and flamethrowers. The fighting resembled battles in Europe such as Aachen and Berlin.

By February 17 and 18, General Griswold’s forces secured the Rizal Baseball Stadium and the Philippine General Hospital, both of which were major Japanese strongpoints. Reinforced by 1st Cavalry Division troopers, the 37th Infantry Division managed to keep the Japanese pinned in Manila’s old Walled City, known as the Intramuros district. Admiral Iwabuchi unsuccessfully attempted to break out of his encirclement on February 18, leaving 6,000 men trapped in the pocket.

On February 23, American artillery pounded Japanese positions in Intramuros. For the next three days, American troops moved into the district, battling Japanese on every corner. When it became clear that the Japanese were defeated, Admiral Iwabuchi and his subordinates committed suicide. American forces secured major government buildings, including MacArthur’s headquarters from before the war, and ended the battle on March 3 by capturing the rest of the district. For the rest of March, American troops and Filipino guerrillas patrolled the rubble for Japanese stragglers before turning north and east to finish off the rest of Yamashita’s forces.

The Manila Massacre

Amidst the heavy fighting between American/Filipino and Japanese forces, the civilian population of Manila paid a horrible price during the destruction of their city. Of all the Allied cities fought over in WWII, Manila was one of the most heavily damaged, on par with Warsaw. It is estimated that over 100,000 Manileros died during the battle, mostly due to Japanese actions but also due to American firepower. The scale of Japan’s atrocities in the city ranks among the worst war crimes committed by any party during WWII.

Japanese forces had long believed that Filipinos were overwhelmingly hostile to their presence and that they passed information to the Americans. This environment of distrust was compounded by Japanese racism towards non-Japanese. Throughout the battle, Japanese forces gangraped and murdered Filipino civilians in the areas they controlled. In Fort Santiago, Manila Cathedral, and other prominent locations in the city, civilians were gunned down, bayoneted, or beheaded by the Japanese. There is evidence that Japanese officers commanded their men to commit atrocities by claiming every Filipino in the battle zone was a guerilla. For these atrocities, General Yamashita was sentenced to execution by hanging by an American military court after the war.

While American forces did not commit atrocities like these, their firepower devastated entire neighborhoods and killed thousands of civilians in the process. Despite efforts by MacArthur to restrict American firepower, the formidable Japanese defenses meant that the use of heavy weapons was inevitable. As a result, Manila was one of the most destroyed cities on Earth and a textbook case of urbicide. The reconstruction of the city took several years, and while Manila is now a thriving and dynamic city, the legacy of its destruction remains apparent.