Guy of Lusignan might reasonably be described as one of the most famous losers of the Middle Ages, responsible in the eyes of many contemporaries and subsequent historians for the defeat at Hattin and the subsequent loss of Jerusalem. His reputation however has been more nuanced than this might suggest. This paper looks at three approaches adopted by authors in depicting Guy not just at the time but stretching into the thirteenth century: criticism of what Guy did or did not do; deflection, whether by blaming others or by highlighting positively the actions/reactions of others; and silence, simply not mentioning Guy at all. It examines the evolution of these approaches during the thirteenth century and asks whether we can draw any conclusions about the portrayal of Guy compared to other prominent crusading figures.