The Crusades: Conflict Between Christendom and Islam 9781463211158

Citation preview

The Crusades Conflict between Christendom and Islam

Publications of the Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the Eastern United States 5 Editor-in-Chief

MOR CYRIL APHREM KARIM

The Crusades Conflict between Christendom and Islam

MATTI MOOSA

GORGIAS PRESS 2008

First Edition, 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC and Beth Antioch Press All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC and Beth Antioch Press, New Jersey. ISBN 978-1-59333-366-9

GORGIAS PRESS 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moosa, Matti. The Crusades / Matti Moosa. -- 1st ed. p. cm. -- (Publications of the Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the eastern United States ; 5) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59333-366-9 (alk. paper) 1. Crusades. I. Title. D157.M67 2008 909.07--dc22 2008017308

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America.

This volume was made possible in part by the generous support of the following donors: H. E. Mor Cyril Ephrem Karim and the Syriac Orthodox Archdiocese of the Eastern United States Mr. Bahjat Yousif Dr. Maurice Elias Ms. Evelina Younan Mr. Malak Younan Mr. Hanna Issa Touma Mr. Fadi Halabi

[\

The Crusades are rather to be understood as one great portion of the struggle of two world religions, Christendom and Islam, a conflict which began in the seventh century on the borders of Arabia and Syria. Heinrich von Sybel Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer, 1881; first published, 1841).

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents....................................................................................................v Introduction .............................................................................................................7 1 Modern Scholars on the Crusades...................................................................11 2 Islam and Christianity: Jihad and Holy War ...................................................33 3 The East Before the Crusaders’ Arrival..........................................................55 4 Pope Urban II and the Start of the Crusades ................................................97 5 Pilgrimage to the Holy Land ..........................................................................131 6 The Reconquest of Spain................................................................................165 7 The Conquest of Sicily ....................................................................................205 8 False Start: The Peasants’ Crusade ................................................................243 9 The Seigneurial Crusade..................................................................................269 10 The Crusaders Take the Offensive .............................................................299 11 Antioch ............................................................................................................341 12 The Holy Lance and the March to Jerusalem............................................381 13 Jerusalem: Conquest and Conflict ...............................................................429 14 The Franks As Rulers....................................................................................477 15 The Rise of the Zangids and the Fall of Edessa .......................................533 16 The Second Crusade (1146–1148)...............................................................575 The Expedition Against the Slavs (Wends)............................................594 The Conquest of Lisbon ...........................................................................598 The Conquest of Almeria..........................................................................609 The Conquest of Tortosa..........................................................................614 17 The Expedition to the East of Kings Conrad III and Louis VII: Failure and Consequences.........................................................................619 Aftermath of the Second Crusade: The Struggle for Syria ..................641

v

vi

THE CRUSADES

18 The Franks and the Syrian Christians.........................................................657 19 The Christians under Turkish Rule .............................................................681 20 The Rise of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin).............................................713 21 Conquest and Consolidation........................................................................741 22 Saladin Unites the Muslims ..........................................................................785 23 Muslim Victory: The Battle of Hittin..........................................................813 24 The Aftermath of Hittin ...............................................................................855 25 Saladin’s March on Jerusalem ......................................................................883 26 The Siege of Acre...........................................................................................909 27 The Origin of the Third Crusade ................................................................935 28 A New Campaign: Philip II Augustus and Richard the Lion-Heart......961 29 Richard, Saladin, and the Marquis ...............................................................999 30 Richard and Saladin: The Last Campaign ............................................... 1043 Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 1093 Index................................................................................................................... 1139

INTRODUCTION No matter how many mundane explanations are offered for the Crusades, launched in 1095, the fact remains that the major cause of the Crusades was religious, and Jerusalem, which housed the Holy Sepulcher, was at its center. This book treats the Crusades as a culmination of the conflict between Christendom and Islam after the latter emerged from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century. Christian Europe had no choice but to stem the tide of Islam or succumb to this new menace, which would have dominated it and turned, it as it did with the East, to a dhimmi (poll-tax paying) region ruled by a Shari’a completely incompatible with its Christian culture and traditions. We will show how Christian Europe undertook to liberate the countries which had been occupied by the Muslims, especially Spain and Sicily, as a preliminary step toward the liberation of Jerusalem. This approach was confirmed by the Muslim chronicler Izz al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn al–Athir (1160–1234) in his book al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh. We shall also examine the ideas of contemporary Muslim writers on the Crusades. While many Western writers see the Crusades primarily as a religious struggle to recover the holy places from Muslim hands, to contemporary Muslim writers the Crusades are nothing but an imperialistic assault by the West against the Muslim East, one they maintain has continued until this day in different guises. These writers assert that in their struggle against the West, Muslim fundamentalists have been nurtured and inspired by the Crusades to lash out against Western countries, especially the United States, as the enemy of their culture, religion, and way of life. Even to this day many Muslim writers consider Western ascendancy in the Arab world as a continuation of the Crusades. Their attitude makes clear that the words of Heinrich von Sybel are as relevant today as they were nearly two centuries ago. Though the Franks’ establishment of principalities in the East may seem at cross purposes with their stated objective of liberating the Christian holy places from the Muslims, nevertheless their actions in the Middle East were motivated by religious zeal. A current idea in some quarters of both East and West is that the Crusaders were a band of ruffians who responded to the call of Pope Urban II 7

8

THE CRUSADES

to attack the East and satisfy their greed and mitigate their poverty by capturing its land and possessions. Thus, these barbarian Crusaders marched to the East, whose people were living in peace and enjoying prosperity, and killed them in cold blood. There can be no more fallacious idea than this. The East was not basking in peace before the Franks arrived in the latter part of the eleventh century. The native Syrians and Armenians were suffering from oppression by their Byzantine and Muslim overlords. In order to show that the East before the advent of the Crusaders was a very turbulent region riven by conflict and strife, we shall examine in Chapter 3 the conditions of the East before the Crusaders arrived in Syria in 1097. We shall also describe the maltreatment of the Armenians and the Syrian Orthodox by the Byzantine Church and state, due largely to their rejection of the doctrines propagated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The disastrous policy of many Byzantine emperors toward Armenia weakened that Christian country, which had served as a buffer between Byzantium and its enemies the Seljuk Turks, who had already controlled Persia in the early eleventh century. To extend their reach over Armenia, these Byzantine emperors expelled many Armenians from their own country and moved them to southern Asia Minor, where they formed several principalities. The Seljuk Turks found Armenia proper to be a weak spot and attacked it, starting in the eleventh century. These Turks had already been converted to Sunnite Islam, and as defenders of that faith they placed the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad under their authority. Following the dictates of their new religion, they attempted to subdue the Christian Byzantine Empire, just as the Muslim Arabs had tried earlier, without success. The final disaster took place in 1071, when the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantine army at Manzikert in Armenia and their hordes occupied all of Asia Minor. A number of Turkish atabegs (lords) had carved out for themselves small principalities, mostly consisting of a city and its environs. They were independent of the decaying Abbasid caliphate and were constantly engaged in internecine wars to extend their domain or preserve their own authority. This state of affairs greatly facilitated the Crusaders’ efforts to defeat them. Many of them even sought the assistance of the Crusaders against their own kind. We shall see the conflicts of the Turkish chiefs among themselves and with the Byzantines. The author believes that the period from the launching of the Crusades in 1095 by Pope Urban II until shortly after the death of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) in 1193 is historically most important. More than eight decades after establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099, the Crusaders lost the city to Saladin in 1187. Although the Christians succeeded in regain-

INTRODUCTION

9

ing authority over Jerusalem in the thirteenth century, their ascendancy was short-lived and the Mamluks of Egypt finally drove them out of the Holy Land. With the destruction of the Templar castle of ‘Athlith (Castrum Peregrinorum) in the middle of August 1291, the dramatic saga of the Crusades in Syria ended. The Western peoples had no notion of a crusade until they faced the challenge of Islam. From its inception, Islam had been antagonistic to Christianity, whose lands and people it sought to subjugate. The Byzantine Empire was its first major target. After gaining control of the major strategic parts of the Mediterranean region in the seventh century, the Muslims made several assaults on Constantinople, the center of Eastern Christendom. After failing to capture the city, they shifted their attention to southern Europe, where they reached the Vatican, desecrated the tombs of the popes, and forced some popes to pay them tribute. In the eighth century they occupied Spain and then crossed into France, where Charles Martel finally defeated them at Tours in 732. They then attacked Sicily, occupying it at the beginning of the ninth century. In the face of this threat, Western Christendom had to fight back against the Muslims in order to defend its way of life. The Crusades were the culmination of the Christians’ struggle against Islam, a struggle that in the eleventh century became military as well as spiritual. Separate chapters here discuss the recapture of both Spain and Sicily, showing how the Europeans liberated each region. Since the Crusaders’ main objective was to liberate the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the hands of the Muslims, we must understand how the Western concept of pilgrimage to Jerusalem was related to the Crusades. Although Western peoples did not undertake the Crusades in order to be able to make this journey, the same spirit that motivated the pilgrims also inspired the Crusaders. The primary cause of the Crusades was religious, not economic or political or (as some writers suggest) a result of greed and/or desire for adventure. This volume also presents the Crusaders’ treatment of the native Christian Syrian and Armenian communities, relying on the work of such Syrian writers as the Patriarch Michael Rabo, referred to by the French scholar Rev. J. B. Chabot as Michael the Syrian (d. 1199); the early thirteenth-century writer known as the Anonymous Edessan; and the Prelate of the East, Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286). These Syrian Christian writers show that the Franks were not always benevolent toward the Syrian Christians; indeed, they frequently oppressed them and even plundered their monasteries. Patriarch Michael Rabo and the Anonymous Edessan enhance our knowledge about the capture of Edessa by the Zangids and the fall of Jeru-

10

THE CRUSADES

salem to Saladin in 1187 with useful information not found in other sources. They also discuss the persecution of the Christians, especially by Nur al-Din, son of Imad al-Din Zangi, a subject seldom treated by Western writers on the Crusades. Despite the difficulties of examining this vast, multifaceted period of human history, one can approach the subject with objectivity, occasionally agreeing to disagree with other scholars in the field. For example, while some historians see Saladin as a man of high moral character and political skill, others see him as an ambitious opportunist whose objective was to capture the domain of his master and benefactor Nur al-Din Zangi in order to become the master of the East. The author extends his sincere thanks to the many friends and colleagues who have given of their time and effort to help make this work possible. He wishes to recognize his indebtedness to Professor George Welch, Jr., of The Ohio State University/Newark for his indefatigable effort to edit this manuscript. He would like also to thank his sister Adeeba Moosa, his daughter Petra Beck, and Dr. Khalil Semaan, Professor Emeritus at New York Binghamton University, and Professir Homer Mershon and Lance Strasser for their support. The author extends his special thanks to Reference Librarian Susan Hennip and Technology Specialist Ralph Boyles, both of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, and to Rob Mellesh of Nash Library, Gannon University. He also appreciates deeply the enthusiastic moral and material support of his friend Bahjat Zayya Yousif, who recognized the importance of this project. He wishes also to thank his friend and colleague Dr. Richard Dekmejian of the University of Southern California for locating several Armenian sources. Last but not least, the author thanks his brother-in-law Claus Jensen for urging him to write about the Crusades. To his wife Inge the author extends utmost thanks for her boundless patience and endurance, without which this book would have never been written.

1 MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES We should note that neither Western nor Eastern writers in the medieval period used the term “Crusades.” Western writers used such words as iter, expeditio, peregrinatio, or Passagium (voyage or pilgrimage),1 while Eastern writers used the term Hurub al-Ifranj or al-Firanja (wars of the Franks). The anonymous Latin writers, among the first to write on the topic, called the Crusades the “Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims.”2 The use of these terms complicates any attempt to define the concept of crusade. The term “Crusades,” as Marshall W. Baldwin maintains, “is modern, and its meaning inevitably reflects the attitudes of the decades and centuries following the initial venture.”3 The task of the historian who undertakes to interpret the causes and the vicissitudes of the Crusades is daunting. Historians have difJonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades? (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1977), 12; J. G. Davies, “Pilgrimage and Crusade Literature,” in Journey Towards God: Pilgrimage and Crusade, Barbara N. Sargent-Baur, ed. (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1992), 1–30; Giles Constable, “Medieval Charters As a Source of History of the Crusades,” in Crusades and Settlement, P. W. Edbury, ed. (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985) 74. 2 See the anonymous Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum [The Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem], trans. Rosalind Hill (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), cited hereafter as Gesta Francorum. For analysis of the Gesta as a valid historical source see Colin Morris, “The Gesta Francorum as Narrative History,” Reading Medieval Studies 19 (1993): 55–71. For the Gesta Francorum as a source for the First Crusade see John France, “The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum in the Early Twelfth-Century Sources for the First Crusade 1095–1500,” in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, Alan V. Murray, ed., International Medieval Research Series 3 (Turnhour: Brepols, 1998), 29–42. 3 M. W. Baldwin, “Foreword” in Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and Walter Goffart (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), xv; Ernest O. Blake, “The Formation of the Crusade Idea,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970): 11–31. 1

11

12

THE CRUSADES

ferent opinions on the subject and in many instances reach different conclusions, depending on how their attitudinal propensity leads them to understand and evaluate the historical facts available to them. The history of the Crusades is indeed an important subject, although one Western historian has observed that different fields of medieval history bearing on the Crusades have been overworked.4 The subject is complex, and this complexity is intensified because the Crusades have multiple religious, economic, political, and social facets which in many cases are hard to harmonize. To the highly educated Byzantine Princess Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexius Comnenus, the descent upon her country of the Frankish multitudes with their arms, horses, women, and children seemed to be a barbarian invasion. She likens them to a swarm of locusts which invaded her country before the Westerners’ arrival, as if to presage events to come.5 Modern historians have their own interpretation of the origin and impact of the Crusades. In Carl Erdmann’s view, the first Crusade was a holy war sanctioned by the church for sacred causes; he concludes that it was not an outgrowth of eleventh-century conditions, but had its roots deep in Christianity’s past. It went through stages of development, from the spiritual idea of “soldier of Christ” to the temporal defender of the church, and to the pope, who represents the highest authority of the church.6 Recently, John Gilchrist has thoroughly examined the subject of war in connection with the papacy. Referring extensively to scholarly literature, he argues that the attitude of popes regarding war (i.e., holy war) did not change drastically in the middle of the eleventh century. From the late eighth century onwards, he says, the papacy conducted an aggressive war against its enemies in Italy, especially those who blocked its territorial ambition, and in the late eleventh century Rome ardently espoused war against the Muslims throughout the Mediterranean. In this respect Gilchrist seems (although he maintains otherwise) to substantiate Erdmann’s thesis.7 Count Paul Riant John L. La Monte, “Some Problems in Crusading Historiography,” Speculum 15 (1940), 57–75. 5 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928), 249. 6 Baldwin, “Foreword”, xix–xx, and “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations of Pope Urban II’s Eastern Policy,” Catholic Historical Review 25 (1940): 459–466. 7 John Gilchrist, “The Papacy and War Against the Saracens 795–1216,” International History Review 10 (1988): 174–197; “The Erdmann Thesis and the Canon Law, 1083–1141,” in Crusade and Settlement, 37–45; John France, “Christianity, Violence and the Origin of Crusading: à Propos of a Recent Study,” Revue Belge De Philologie 4

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

13

describes the Crusades as a purely religious war whose purpose was to recapture, directly or indirectly, the Holy Places.8 W. B. Stevenson holds a different opinion, contending that the leaders of the Crusades saw their cause as “an enterprise for the conquest and partition of Syria.”9 Other writers likewise argue that the Crusades’ main causes were economic, hidden behind a religious pretext. Treating the Crusades from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism, the modern Russian writer Mikhail Abramovich Zaborov says that MarxistLeninist writers used the term “Crusades” with a derisive and negative connotation. These writers explicitly presented the Crusades as a consequence of the class struggle, a manifestation of the reactionary actions of the European bourgeoisie against the proletariat. In Zaborov’s view, historical events from the eleventh century onward, including the two World Wars, are evidence of the avaricious bourgeoisie’s intention to dominate the common people and deprive them of their rights and the fruit of their labor. In the final section of the book, titled “Political-Religious Fables and Historical Reality,” he says the Crusaders were no more than highway robbers, using religion as a veil for their political ambition to own lands in the East.10 Several historians saw the Crusades in a much wider context and connected their origin to the time of Charlemagne or the Byzantines, or to the religious reform movement of Cluny and the actions of Popes Gregory VII and Urban II. Others saw the cause of the Crusades in Europe’s economic crisis in the second half of the eleventh century.11 At least in part, the Crusades may be plausibly attributed to the theocratic ideals and the ascetic spirit of eleventh-century Europe. They may also have been rooted in the love of travel and adventure, in the notion of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in the overpopulation of the West, in the rise of chivalry, in the internecine wars between the nobles and knights, or in the church’s Truce of God (inEt D’ Histoire 80 (2002): 593–598. 8 Comte Paul E. Riant, “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des Croisades,” in Archives de l’Orient Latin, 1 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1881), 2; Louis Bréhier, L’Église et l’Orient au moyen age, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1907), 49. 9 W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 1–17. 10 Mikhail A. Zaborov, al-Salibiyyun fi al-Sharq, Elias Shahin, trans. (Moscow: Dar al-Taqaddum, 1986), 6–12, 339–346. 11 W. Wilhelm Heyd, Geschichte des Levantehandel im Mittelalter, 1 (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen, 1879), 145; W. Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 1 (NewYork: Frederick Ungar, 1959), 392.

14

THE CRUSADES

tended to divert the energies of the warring factions to serve a better cause) and its appeal to a life of spiritual piety, following on the defeat of the Muslims in Spain and the Normans’ occupation of Sicily. Bishop Stubbs says the Crusades “were the first great effort of medieval life to go beyond the pursuit of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of the young world, essaying to use, to glory of God and the benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood.”12 It was in a spiritual sense that Pope Urban II called upon those present at Clermont, both clergy and laymen, to stop the practice of wickedness and lead a righteous life, so that the Catholic Church might be pure in faith and free from servitude before it encouraged an expedition against the Turks.13 Rosalind Hill summarizes the complexity of the study of the Crusades thus: “Any attempt to explain the Crusades in terms of one motive, such as religious zeal, desire for economic advantages by Western traders, land-hunger on the part of the crusading leaders or rivalry between Franks and Greeks, is bound to fail, although every one of these motives was apparent in it.”14 Nevertheless, it appears the primary and overwhelming motive of the Crusades was religious, although quite often this motive was overshadowed by economic and political considerations or by sheer adventure.15 Joshua Prawer correctly says, “One can hardly speak about a single motive or motivation where hundreds of thousands of people are concerned. Yet it cannot be doubted that the dominant motive behind the crusade was a religious one.” This idea is further emphasized by John France who has no doubt that “Religious enthusiasm was fundamental to the success of the First Crusade.”16 Although the English historian Arnold J. Toynbee writes, George Lincoln Burr, “The Year 1000 and the Antecedents of the Crusades,” The American Historical Review 6 (1901): 439. 13 William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, Rev. John Sharpe, trans. (London, 1815), 408–410, cited hereafter as William of Malmesbury. 14 Gesta Francorum, Introduction, xx. 15 Nicolas Iorga, Breve Histoire des Croisades (Paris, 1924), 1–2, and Jean Richard, The Crusades 1071–1291, Jean Birrell, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 24–27. 16 Joshua Prawer, The World of the Crusaders (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972), 16; John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 24–25; “Patronage and the Appeal of the First Crusade,” in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, Jonathan Phillips, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 5–20. 12

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

15

“The Crusades were assaults made by medieval Western Christian aggressors on the contemporary domains of their living Muslim and Orthodox Christian neighbors,” he associates the Crusades with pilgrimage, plainly a religious motivation. He says that the Crusaders sought to occupy Palestine not because of its strategic position or economic value, but mostly for “the sake of those historical associations with the origins and antecedents of Christianity that had long since made Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem the goals of pacific Christian pilgrims.”17 The task of the historian dealing with the Crusades is especially difficult because the perspective of Eastern writers differs from that of Western writers. The Muslim sources often give an entirely different account and analysis of identical events, and, as we shall see throughout this study, Syriac sources provide testimony not offered by either Western or Muslim sources. The history of the Crusades is hard to reconstruct from the accounts of ancient historians; whether they were eyewitnesses or not, their accounts are in many cases inconsistent, and modern historians find it difficult to fit them into one systematic pattern. Rosalind Hill aptly notes that in describing the Crusades, one should begin with the undisputed historical fact that “it was the first large-scale attempt by the Franks of the West to drive the Muslims out of Jerusalem.”18 In an effort to transcend the ambiguity among modern historians, Jonathan Riley-Smith appropriately said the Crusades “ . . . were a holy war authorized by the pope, who proclaimed it in the name of God or Christ to recover Christian territories lost to the infidels [Muslims].”19 Otherwise, the whole history and tradition of the Crusades would lose its purpose and meaning. But a decade later, Riley-Smith observed that it is not easy to define crusading; the movement lasted a long time, involved men and women from every part of Western Europe, and appealed to both common people and intellectuals. Refuting the idea common among historians, that a crusade was a holy war proclaimed by the Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 100, cited in Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (Image Books, 1961), 17: “It was the pilgrimage to St. Michael of Monte Gargano that brought the Normans to Southern Italy before the Italian merchants crossed the Alps, and it was the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and not the Levant trade of Pisa and Genoa, that inspired the crusading movement.” 18 Gesta Francorum, Introduction, xxi. 19 Jonathan Riley-Smith and L. Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274 (London, 1981), 12; Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), vii. 17

16

THE CRUSADES

pope on Christ’s behalf to restore the Holy Land, he argued that it might take other forms: there were crusades against Muslims, against pagans, heretics and schismatics, and even against opponents within the Catholic Church. He says that the understanding of the Crusades has changed with time: “While the prevailing interest in the Crusades used to be economic, proto-colonial, and military, now they are religious, legal, and social, and there is a growing emphasis on the origins and endurance of the impulse to crusading.”20 Although in his monumental work Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens Carl Erdmann does not discuss historical details of the Crusades, he offers us an illuminating account, arguing that the “Holy War” against the heathens and Muslims in Charlemagne’s time eventually developed into an armed attack against the Muslims in the eleventh century.21 Since the start of the Crusades in the eleventh century, Western writers have been uncertain about how to define them or determine their causes. Eastern scholars have likewise been concerned with these questions, because the Crusades were directed against the East and affected the life and fortunes of many peoples in that region. But did the spirit of the Crusades die out after 1187, when Saladin defeated the Crusaders and put an end to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem? Many Western historians contend that the final expulsion of the Latins from the Holy Land in the thirteenth century marks the end of the crusading movement. The late Egyptian Professor Aziz Atiya rejected this view, stating that despite the defeat of the Christian forces, the crusading impulse remained as “one of the vital forces of European politics,” and that the vitality of the crusading ideal was shown by the plethora of crusading propaganda and the literature written from the early fourteenth century onward about the epic achievements of the military expeditions dispatched to the Near or Middle East, culminating in the battle of Nicopolis in 1396.24 Elizabeth Siberry, who has presented a summary of Atiya’s challenge to the thesis of Western writers, concludes that the crusading spirit was still alive in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.25 She says Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Crusading Movement and Historians,” in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, ed. J. Riley-Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995),1–12. 21 C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1935), 86–106, English, 95–113. 22 Aziz Atiya, The Crusades in the Later Middle Ages (London: Methuen and Company, 1938), 10. 23 Elizabeth Siberry, “Criticism of Crusading in Fourteenth Century England,” in Crusade and Settlement , 127; and Criticism of Crusading, 217–220. 20

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

17

that until the middle of the thirteenth century, ordinary people flocked to join the Crusades, noting, “Over 75 percent of the passengers on board the crusade ship St. Victor in 1250 were commoners. . . . As late as 1267 the Patriarch of Jerusalem appealed to the Master of Temple in France to persuade the lay and ecclesiastical authorities to prevent the poor, the old and the weak from taking the cross, for they always provided a burden to the army.”26 From a historical point of view, the ideas of Atiya and Siberry are very significant, for they show that the crusading spirit did not die after the capture of Jerusalem in the twelfth century, but lasted for centuries later. The crusading spirit, however evanescent, has been kept alive down to the present. It was manifested in the expressions and attitudes of some European generals who led their armies into Syria and Palestine during World War I. Middle Eastern writers, both Muslim and Christian, say that when Britain’s General Edmund Allenby entered Jerusalem on December 11, 1917, he declared, “Now the Crusades have come to an end.” The statement is still quoted by some Eastern and Western writers and in the press media.25 The Egyptian writer Anwar al-Jundi says this statement (if Allenby ever made it) shows that modern imperialism in the Western view represents a later stage of the Crusades.26 It is also said that when the French General Gouraud defeated the Arab army at Maysalun on July 24, 1920, and entered Damascus the next day, he went right away to the tomb of Salah al-Din (Saladin), revered by Muslims as the hero who recaptured Jerusalem from the Franks in 1187. Standing at the tomb, Gouraud uttered the inflammatory words, “Saladin! We have returned,” implying that he and

Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, 197–198. Siberry, The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries (Ashgate, 2000), 95, writes, “[Allenby] himself said, ‘Today the wars of the crusades are completed.’” A cartoon published in Punch in December 1917, showing Richard the Lionheart gazing down at Jerusalem, with the caption, “At last, my dream come true,” also appears in Riley-Smith, ed., Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, 383. On Allenby’s statement, see David Blank, “Let my right hand forget her cunning,” al-Ahram Weekly (July 15–21, 1999); Stephen Salisbury, “President Bush’s ‘crusade’ draws fire around globe,” in Philadelphia Inquirer, September 30, 2001; Muhammad Zaman Malik, “The Inevitable Denouement,” in Defence Journal (Karachi, April 4, 2001); Andrew Curry, “The First Holy War,” in U. S. News & World Report (April 8, 2002), 39. Peculiarly, Malik calls Allenby “Jewish.” 26 Al-Jundi, al-Islam wa al-Gharb (Sayda-Beirut: Manshurat al-‘Asriyya, 1982), 115. 24 25

18

THE CRUSADES

his army were crusaders who had returned to avenge that defeat.27 In speeches as the French governor of Syria and Lebanon, General Gouraud always characterized himself as a crusader.28 He took great pride in being a Frank, ever mindful that the first crusading army was Frankish and the Crusades were essentially French in their inception and in their execution.29 Ironically, less than thirty-two years before Gouraud stood at Saladin’s grave, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany had stood at the same site in 1898. After laying a wreath on the grave, the Kaiser assured the Muslims, “The German emperor will eternally be your friend,” leading the Dutch Islamologist C. Snouck Hurgronje to remark that faith was “an attribute well suited to political friendship.”30 Though one may infer from the reported statements of Allenby and Gouraud that the postwar occupation of Syria and Palestine was a continuation of the Crusades, some contemporary Muslim writers see the occupation of the Muslim East by European powers in a different light. They maintain that the Crusades represented either a conspiracy against the Muslims or the beginning of a policy of Western imperialism whose goal was to dominate the Muslim world. Mustafa Khalidi and Omar Farrukh, the authors of al-Tabshir wa al-Ist’imar, say in a section titled “al-Hurub alSalibiyya” (The Crusades) that while it appears outwardly that the cause of the Crusades was religious, i.e., to recover Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslims, in fact the Crusades “were the means to control the Muslim East

Abd al-Fattah Maqsud, Salibiyya ila al-Abad (Beirut: Maktabat al-Irfan, n.d.), 32; George Jabbur, Risala ila Qadasat al-Papa bi Munasabat al-Dhikra al-900 li I’lan Hurub al-Firanja (Beirut: Dar al-Kunuz al-Adabiyya, 1995), 43–44. 28 Jabbur, Risala, 43–44. 29 T.A. Archer, “The Council of Clermont and the First Crusade,” The Scottish Review 25 (1895): 274–276. The Latin writer Robert the Monk (Robert of Reims), Historia Hierosolimitana, in R.H.C. Occ., 3: 741, says that on hearing of the Crusades while he was in southern Italy, the Norman prince Bohemond declared that all the Normans were of Frankish stock and said it was a disgrace that “all our bloodrelatives and brothers go to martyrdom and indeed to paradise without us.” Robert the Monk, 3: 723, 727, goes further, calling the Franks the chosen people blessed by God. It is widely said Pope Urban II preached about the Crusades in France because the Franks were the most warlike of the Western peoples. The First Crusade began with them and was forever associated with them. 30 C. Snouck Hurgronje, The Holy War “Made in Germany,” Joseph Gillet trans. (London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), 70–71. 27

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

19

and all its economic resources and military posts.”31 They go on to connect the Crusades with Western religious missions and missionaries sent to the East for the purpose of destroying Islam and controlling Muslim lands: When the European powers failed through the Crusades to subjugate [the Muslim East] by the sword, they determined to wage against the Muslims a new Crusade through missions and missionaries. They used for this purpose churches, schools and hospitals, and scattered missionaries all over the world. Thus, these European powers adopted missions and missionaries for their political and economic ambition. In 1299, Raymond Lull (the first European missionary to the Muslim world) obtained permission from Jacob, prince of Aragon, to preach in the mosques of Barcelona under the protection of the Christian authority in Spain.32

The authors add that for a long time the church strove to Christianize the Mongols. But when the Mongols voluntarily adopted Islam, the European powers abandoned their hope of dominating the East through religion. For this reason, they say, all European wars against the Ottoman state were basically religious, i.e., crusades. This religious attack continued until modern times, despite human and intellectual progress. This is evident in the authors’ following passage: The Jesuits are not even ashamed to treat this point in a resplendent and sparkling manner when they say, “Are we not heirs of the Crusaders? Did we not return under the banner of the cross to resume the infiltration of the Christian missions and civilization (of the Muslim East) and to restore the kingdom of Christ under the French flag and in the name of the church?”33

In essence, the work of Khalidi and Farrukh is simply a rejection of Christian missions and missionaries, whom they consider as a new tool used to serve Western imperialism and destroy Islam and the Muslim East. It is hardly surprising that Muslim writers should regard Orientalism and Christian missionary activities in the Muslim world as an extension of the Crusades, undertaken with the intention of destroying Islam.34 31 Mustafa Khalidi and Omar Farrukh, al-Tabshir wa al-Ist’imar (Beirut: alMaktaba al-Asriyya, 1982), 114. 32 Khalidi and Farrukh, al-Tabshir, 115. 33 Khalidi and Farrukh, al-Tabshir, 115–116. 34 See the anonymous pamphlet Al-Tabshir al-Salibi: al-Wasai’l wa al-Ahdaf [The Crusading Missionary Activity: Its Methods and Objectives] (The United Arab

20

THE CRUSADES

The Egyptian historian Hasan Habashi states, “The First Crusade is truly considered the seed of Western European imperialism of the Near East under cover of religion.”35 Similarly, Anwar al-Jundi says Western imperialism began with the Industrial Age in Europe. The West planned to encircle the Muslim world and subjugate it for raw materials and mineral resources. Even in what Westerners call “the age of exploration,” (in the 15th century), navigating around the southern tip of Africa was in reality “a Crusade movement whose objective was to destroy the Muslim influence in the many ports of Africa and Asia.” Al-Jundi says the imperialistic movement continued for four centuries until finally the West gained control of the Muslim world with the downfall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. After 1918 Western imperialism was transformed from a military attack to “an intellectual, social and educational imperialism, with the intention of melting the Muslim world in the crucible of Universal Internationalism in order to destroy Islam.”36 Thus, the modern imperialistic movement is a continuation of the Crusades. Abd al-Fattah Maqsud is more militant than al-Jundi. The thesis of his 490-page Salibiyya ila al-Abd (Crusades Forever) is that the West is still fighting the Crusades against the Islamic world. Page after page, the author tries to show that the campaign of Western imperialism has been one long crusade, citing as evidence the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the end of the Islamic caliphate, and the establishment of the state of Israel. Maqsud seems to ignore the fact that the caliphate was terminated by Mustafa Kamal Ataturk in 1924. He regards as Crusaders everyone whose actions adversely affected the Arabs or other Muslims – not only Western statesmen but Zionist leaders. Nothing escapes his scathing language, particularly in the closing pages.37 Yet another Muslim writer, Ibrahim Sulayman al-Jabhan, outdoes alMaqsud in his attacks on Christianity and the West. His Ma’awil al-Tadmir fi Emirates: The Society of Reform and Social Guidance, n.d.), quoting Abd al-Halim Mahmud, al-Rasul wa Sunntauh al-Mutahhara [The Messenger (Muhammad) and his Sanctified Tradition]. This pamphlet is an abridgement of a work by the former Egyptian Christian minister Ibrahim Khalil, a graduate of Princeton University with a Ph.D. degree in Philosophy and Theology, who converted to Islam in the 1950’s. 35 Hasan Habashi, al-Harb al-Salibiyya al-Ula (Cairo: al-Matba'a al-Arabiyya, 1958), preface, 1. 36 Jundi, al-Islam, 115. He devotes 115–136 to Western imperialism. 37 Maqsud, Salibiyya ila al-Abad, 407–490. One must read the book in its entirety to fully understand the author’s viewpoint.

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

21

al-Nasraniyya wa al-Tabshir (Axes to Destroy Christianity and Evangelism) is devoted to the destruction of the beliefs and traditions of Christianity, which he considers false. He calls the Crusades “a filthy movement and the darkest page history has ever recorded,” declaring mankind has never been afflicted to the very core as it was in the Crusades. The dedication of his book “To the Martyrs of Islam, the Victims of the Crusades’ Venom,” is indicative of his purpose. He devotes many pages to the Crusades, copying freely from Abd al-Maqsud’s book, and cites the loss of Palestine and the conflict in Lebanon as evidence of the intrigues of the present-day crusaders.38 The Egyptian writers Muhammad Sa’id al-Uryan and Jamal al-Din alShayyal devote an entire book to the Arabs’ struggle against imperialism, treating the Crusades at length as part of that struggle.39 They maintain that all the wars the Arabs have fought from the time of Muhammad to the Suez crisis of 1956, including the Crusades, were wars of liberation rather than aggression, meant to emancipate the Arabs and their land from tyrants and oppressive rulers (including the Crusaders).40 They do not mention any such tyrants by name, but the North African writer Taysir Bin Musa does. He says that in the seventh century the Muslim Arabs went forth with their armies into Iraq, al-Sham (Syria) and North Africa, not as conquerors but as liberators, to free these lands and their inhabitants from the tyranny of the Persian Kisra and the Roman (Byzantine) Caesar. To justify the occupation of these countries, he alleges that their inhabitants were descended from people who had migrated from the Arabian Peninsula long before the rise of Islam. And when the Muslim Arabs overran these countries, they mingled with the inhabitants and became fused in the melting pot of Arab nationalism.41 Bin Musa’s idea is at best historically fallacious. Except for the Ghassanid Christian Arabs who lived in southern Syria and the Lakhmids or the Manadhira Christian Arabs of al-Hira in southern Iraq, there were no Arabs in the countries he mentions. Moreover, history shows that the Muslim Arabs liberated no one. Instead, they conquered the countries of the Ibrahim Sulayman al-Jabhan, Ma’awil al-Tadmir fi al-Nasraniyya wa al-Tabshir, ed. (Al-Riyad, Saudi Arabia: al-Rail Press, 1978), 38–45. 39 Muhammad Sa’id al-Uryan and Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, Qissat al-Kifah bayn alArab wa al-Isti’mar (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif bi Misr, 1960), 21–88. 40 Al-Uryan and al-Shayyal, Qissat, 6. 41 Taysir Bin Musa, Nazra Arabiyya ala Ghazawat al-Ifranj min Bidayat al-Hurub alSalibiyya hatta Wafat Nur al-Din (Zangi) (Tunis: al-Dar al-Arabiyya li al-Kitab, 1979), 31, n. 1. 38

2nd

22

THE CRUSADES

Middle East and North Africa by the sword, colonized and lived in them, and imposed on the inhabitants their own language and religion. Those who did not convert to Islam voluntarily were burdened with taxes so unbearably heavy that many of them converted simply to escape these taxes. In brief, the inhabitants of the countries occupied by the Muslim Arabs found that they had merely exchanged their old rulers for new ones. 42 Surprisingly, Muslim authors make no charge of imperialism regarding the Ottomans’ tyranny over the Arab countries of the Middle East, which they occupied beginning in the sixteenth century. To this day, the people of these countries blame their cultural backwardness on the Ottomans’ misrule. The Egyptian historian Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, who wrote a comprehensive history of the Crusades in Arabic, says that the Arab countries were already in decline, but the Crusades exhausted whatever strength and energy they had left, causing them to fall prey to the Ottomans’ unjust and reactionary rule.43 After discussing the background and origin of the Crusades, he concludes: The Crusades were a great movement emanating from the European Christian West in the Middle Ages. It assumed the form of an imperialistic military assault against the lands of the Muslims, especially the Near East, for the purpose of dominating them. This movement was the result of the intellectual, social, economic and religious conditions which prevailed in Western Europe in the eleventh century. It used the cry for help of the Christians in the East against the Muslims as a religious cover to offer itself a pragmatic and far-reaching connotation.44

Jad al-Haqq Ali Jad al-Haqq, Rector of the Azhar Mosque, calls the Crusades “imperialistic wars which used religion as a pretext” and adds, “The Crusades have nothing to do with Christianity; they were imperialistic barbaric wars which the Muslim world resisted because they were an overambitious assault and iniquitous aggression.”45 Another Muslim writer calls the Crusades “the major phenomenon of European aggression against the Arab-Islamic region of the Near East, which dates back to the tenth century

Taysir Bin Musa, Nazra, 31. Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya: Safha Mushriqa fi Tarikh alJihad al-Arabi fi al-Usur al-Wusta, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 4. 44 Ashur, al-Haraka, 1:25. 45 Jad al-Haqq Ali Jad al-Haqq, 800 Hittin Salah al-Din wa al-Amal al-Arabi alMuwahhad (Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1989), 18–19. 42 43

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

23

under the Byzantine emperors, especially John Tzimisces.”46 The dustjacket on the work of another Muslim writer, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, describes Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) as “that hero and mujahid (holy warrior) against the imperialists.”47 Fikrat Ishiltan, chair of the history department at the University of Istanbul, recognizes that the history of the Crusades and the establishment of the Latin principalities in Syria and Palestine is an important chapter in the history of Islam, but has been neglected by Muslim writers while Western writers gave it attention. For this reason, he says, the Christian world has regarded the Crusades as a logical response to prior events rather than an imperialistic movement intended to dominate the East. Ishiltan is right in saying that Western writers on the Crusades, who knew little or no Arabic, did not see the Latin East from the Islamic perspective. But, he adds, the Muslim writers themselves are to blame for marginalizing the history of the Crusades and the Latin kingdoms in the East.48 Ishiltan’s view at first seems moderate, but this impression changes abruptly when he argues that one can understand the historical value of writings on the Crusades only by considering them in relation to the imperialistic movement directed against the Muslim world for generations. Thus, he is no different from other Muslim writers. He contends that if the Muslim countries unite and fight their enemies (Western imperialists) with profound faith, the problems that began with the Crusades will be solved. Ishiltan concludes that the Muslim world, which is currently fighting for the cause of truth (i.e., Muslim truth), must not fail to look at its history and draw a lesson from it.49 Like the other Muslim writers mentioned, Ishiltan does not acknowledge that the Arab invasion of the Eastern countries in the seventh century was no different from Western imperialism. As history has shown, the Ar46 Umar Kamal Tawfiq, Muqaddimat al-Udwan al-Salibi (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1966), 1. 47 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, ed. Muhammad Mahmud Subh (Cairo, 1965). 48 Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. M. Shatzmiller (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 4–5. 49 Fikrat Ishiltan, “Introduction to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani,” in Sana al-Barq alShami, ed. Ramazan Sheshen (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1971), 5–7. Another Muslim writer whose ideas are close to those of Ishiltan says that the “Crusades are Allah’s affliction against the Muslims in order they might wake up from their slumber and rise to defend their religion.” See Adnan Ali Rida al-Nahawi, al-Ta’amul ma’ Mujtama’ Ghayr Muslim (Riyad: Dar al-Nahawi, 1997), 37.

24

THE CRUSADES

abs colonized countries that did not belong to them and destroyed the ancient culture of the people of the Middle East, who had to embrace Islam to escape the heavy burden of paying their new masters the jizya (poll tax) and kharaj (land tax). This colonization also effected a drastic demographic change of the entire Middle East, which had been neither Arab nor Muslim, except for small Christian Arab communities in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Ottoman occupation of the Arab countries from 1516 until the end of World War I in 1918 left some Arab countries in shambles. It is instructive to see what the prominent writer-statesman Muhammad Kurd Ali (d. 1953), who surpasses other Muslim writers in defending Islam and Arab civilization, says about the Ottoman Turks. He describes the Crusaders as ignorant men bent on killing the inhabitants of every place they occupied in Syria and destroying books and possessions. He says the greatest proof of their destruction is that they burned the House of Wisdom in Tripoli, whose library contained about 100,000 volumes. He goes on to compare the savagery of the Crusaders with the mercy and compassion of the Muslims, especially the benevolent treatment by Saladin.50 But he inadvertently reveals the destruction of Arab and Islamic civilization by the Mongols, and especially by the Ottoman Turks. He says that before the Turks seized Damascus in 1516, it had over 150 Islamic religious schools of jurisprudence where the Quran and the Hadith were taught. When they left in 1918, there were only a few insignificant schools in the city; most had been turned into barns or depots. Kurd Ali says that when the Turks occupied Syria, the Arabic language was thriving, but the Ottomans “weakened it and extinguished its flame.” He laments their destruction of civilization in the cities of Syria and Iraq, as well as Mecca and San’a (the capital of Yemen), “whose inhabitants were left in tears compelling ignorance.”51 He once asked Sulayman Nazif, an Ottoman man of letters and governor of Mosul shortly before World War I, to name the scientific books the Ottomans had composed. Nazif answered that the Ottomans were men of literature rather than science, though in truth what literature the Ottomans possessed was received in the form of translation of Western poems and epics.52 Kurd Ali goes on to show that after controlling Constantinople in 50 Muhammad Kurd Ali, Al-Islam wa al-Hadara al-Arabiyya, 1 (Cairo: Matba’at Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, 1934), 278–280. 51 Kurd Ali, Al-Islam, 1: 308. See Muhammad As’ad Tlass, ‘Asr al-Inhidar (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1963), 76–82, 112–120, 131–142, 184–192. 52 Kurd Ali, Al-Islam, 1: 310, n. 1.

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

25

1492, the Ottomans persecuted Byzantine scientists, who fled to Italy and other European countries, where they contributed tremendously to the growth of the Renaissance.53 The Muslim world continued to suffer from the Turks’ militaristic rigidity and their hostility toward the West until the nineteenth century, when Sultan Mahmud II attempted to open the gates to the West. But it was too late for the Middle East to catch up with the progressive civilization of the Western world. In World War I the Ottoman Empire, called “the sick man of Europe,” breathed its last, leaving the Arab countries in shambles. Muslim fundamentalists have viewed the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel and the Arab-Israeli wars as a continuation of the Crusades, despite Arab nationalists’ efforts to place these events in a non-religious perspective. Karen Armstrong notes that even today, “some Muslim fundamentalists still call Western imperialism and Western Christianity by the same name: al-Salibiyya—“the Crusades.”54 Some Arab writers say that one of the many sources from which the Islamic fundamentalist movement derives its sustenance is the recollection of the Crusades.55 The Egyptian historian Husayn Mu’nis draws an analogy between the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the eleventh century and the state of Israel today. To him, both of them represent toeholds in the heart of Arab lands. Both were protected by the West because they symbolized its power and dominance. Whenever the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem became weak, Mu’nis says, Western fanatics who harbored a grudge against Islam called for a new Crusade to defend it. Likewise, whenever Israel felt weak or suffered a lack of money, its defenders in the West rushed in to provide it with arms and money. And when Jamal Abd al-Nasir defied the West, the Western powers rushed to crush him and humiliate him as they did in 1956. Mu’nis laments, “How much today resembles yesterday.”56 The Egyptian historian of the Crusades, Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, does not precisely equate the state of Israel with the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. But like Husayn Mu’nis, he sees a similarity between the conditions in the Muslim East in the eleventh century that permitted the Crusaders to establish a kingdom in Syria and Palestine and those which led to the preKurd Ali, Al-Islam, 1: 311. Karen Armstrong, “The Crusades Even Now,” The New York Times Magazine (September 19, 1999), 74–75. 55 Jabbur, Risala, 45–46. 56 Husayn Mu’nis, Nur al-Din Mahmud: Sirat Mujahid Sadiq (Cairo: al-Sharika al‘Arabiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1959), 106–108. 53 54

26

THE CRUSADES

sent state of Israel. The Arabs and Muslims today find themselves facing danger from Israel, which Western imperialists established in Palestine and which the West continues to support with money, arms, and men, allowing it to continue its intrusion and aggression; likewise, he says, the Muslims at the end of the eleventh century found themselves facing an alien state established in the same place, which the West supported with men and arms to insure its permanence.57 He condemns the treachery of some Arab kings and heads of state who succumbed to Western imperialism and plotted against Palestine, helping Israel stand on its feet. Similarly, he continues, history will never forgive the Muslim rulers of Egypt, Syria and Iraq who collaborated with the Franks or were indifferent to the peril they posed. What Israel and its Western supporters fear most is the rise of an Arab force with unity of purpose, just as the Crusaders tried desperately to prevent unity among their adversaries. After Nur al-Din Zangi captured Damascus, uniting Syria with Iraq, the Crusaders tried to forestall any alliance of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, which would have decimated their own power and presence in the East. Before establishing the state of Israel, he says, Western imperialists created a sham state under their control called “The Kingdom of Jordan,” to separate Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Egypt, leaving the Middle East fragmented and allowing themselves and Israel to control the destiny of the Arab peoples. Likewise, no sooner did the Crusaders establish themselves in Palestine than their King Baldwin built the Fortress of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal) south of the Dead Sea and began to dominate Jordan and the Araba Valley. Thus, says Ashur, the trials the Arab nations experience today are not new; they are derived from the same stratagems that worked during the time of the Crusades. He argues that the Muslims of the East must study the Crusades and learn from them, “to overcome the most serious danger facing the Arab nation today – the danger of Israel and its imperialistic and reactionary supporters.”58 The historian Suhayl Zakkar, writing on the Crusades and the battle of Hittin, follows the same line of thought. He sees the similarity between the condition of the countries of the Middle East in Saladin’s time and their condition today, with only a difference of nomenclature. Israel’s occupation of Palestine is no different from the Crusaders’ occupation of the same country nine centuries ago. Both were grounded in Scripture—the Book of Deuteronomy and the commentaries on the Talmud—and their leaders 57 58

Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 6. Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 7–8.

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

27

claimed they were fighting a holy war. Zakkar points out that the Arab countries today, as in Saladin’s time, suffer from division, whereas Israel lives in the midst of this morass of fragmentation. Looking at this abnormal situation, one wonders how this thing ever happened, who planted this foreign object (Israel), who is enabling it to survive, and why this Arab division is still continuing. According to Zakkar, history does not repeat itself but acts as a teacher and a guide for the wise, and a means for leaders to avoid mistakes.59 The Muslims of the Middle East, Zakkar implies, should have learned a lesson from the past, when Saladin defeated the Franks and captured Jerusalem in 1187, but they did not; today, fragmented and disunited, they have lost Palestine and Jerusalem. The Muslim writer Rajab Muhammad al-Bayyumi follows the same line of reasoning. Like other Muslim writers, he regards the Crusades as aggression by the West against the Muslim East. Although the Crusades are past and have not been continued, one who contemplates the present sees that the spirit of the Crusaders is still burning fiercely. To al-Bayyumi, the West is still the same; only the methods and results are different: If the ancient Crusades, whose armies invaded and pillaged [the East], are duly exposed, we will see that the present assault is warfare cloaked with shrewdness, cunning, and opportunism. This present warfare sets its snares through a mighty, sly, deceiving force with the same results as those of the ancient Crusades. Indeed, the present warfare is more grievous and calamitous because its crooked strategies deceive some unaware people [Muslims] who, like a bird, fall into its snares. Therefore, the present-day people should know what has happened in the past in order to see that their pathway is clear. They should wake up and learn a lesson.60

Still, there are some moderate Muslim writers like the Syrian Wahba alZuhayli, Professor of Islamic Law at the University of Damascus, who maintains that the Muslims should be ready to play their part as a matter of duty in order to demonstrate the amicable, peaceful and human perspective for all the peoples of the world. Jews and Arabs can live side by side in

Suhayl Zakkar, Hittin: Masirat al-Tahrir min al-Dimashq ila al-Quds (Damascus: Dar Hassan, 1984), 11–12. 60 Muhammad Rajab al-Bayyumi, Salah al-Din Qahir al-Udwan al-Salibi (Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1998), 13. 59

28

THE CRUSADES

peace, he says, but only if the Catholic Church will acknowledge that “the Muslims and Arabs were wronged by the Crusades.”61 Although many contemporary Muslim writers and even the eminent historian Arnold Toynbee regard the Crusades as “aggression” by the West against the East, this view is not borne out by the historical facts. Certainly, the Crusaders did not see themselves as committing an act of “aggression” against the Muslim East. Rather they saw that for too long the Muslims had attacked and devastated their lands and converted their churches into mosques. They further believed that the Muslims intended to make Europe a part of the Muslim world, as was demonstrated by their occupation of Spain, southern Italy, and Sicily. Western Christians felt that their religion and way of life were at stake. Although the Muslims had not conquered Constantinople, the heart of the Byzantine Empire and culture, the Seljuk Turks had spread through Asia Minor and defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, threatening the Christians in the East. The Crusaders believed that they were ordained by God to save Christianity and the holy places in Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims, who had unjustly usurped what did not belong to them. One writer says, “They were repairing an injustice, using violence only to reconquer what had been torn from them by violence, and bringing to an end the oppression endured by those populations which had remained Christian.”62 As the French historian Louis Bréhier has rightly maintained, “The Westerners could not remain indifferent to this catastrophe, which threatened to lay low the Byzantine Empire and which marked a new offensive of Islam against Christianity.”63 Those writers, Muslim and Western, who call the Crusades “aggression” should in all fairness apply the same term to the Muslims’ actions against the East and against Europe since the seventh century. In the last several years, the Muslims of the Middle East have vehemently pressured Pope John Paul II (d. 2005) to apologize for the atrocities the Crusaders committed against the Muslims when they took Jerusalem in 1099. During 1999 and 2000, many newspapers in both East and West focused on the 900th anniversary of the Crusaders’ sacking of Jerusalem and called for an apology. Alasdair Palmer, a journalist writing for the Sunday 61 Wahba Zuhayli, “Alaqat al-Alam al-Islami bi al-Alam al-Masihi,” Nahj alIslam, No. 57, 15 (Damascus, 1994): 25. 62 Régine Pernoud, ed., The Crusades, trans. Enid McLeod (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1962), 17. 63 Louis Bréhier, L’Orient au Moyen Age: Les Croisades, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1907), 50– 54.

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

29

Telegraph, described the Crusaders as cannibals and said there is plenty to apologize for in their atrocities against Muslims and Jews, who were “slaughtered in bloodshed that disgusted even more some of the Crusaders.”64 Despite a plethora of similar reports by the press, there is no sign that Pope John Paul II has apologized for the Crusaders’ actions, although the Vatican addressed the issues in a 40-page document titled Memory And Reconciliation: The Church And The Faults Of The Past in December 1999. But Palmer and his fellow journalists are not scholars whose knowledge of the Crusades qualifies them to make pronouncements on events of such historical magnitude. They use platitudes and cliches in condemning the Crusades and the Crusaders. It is easy for them to call the Crusaders barbarians whose intention was to kill and pillage throughout the Muslim countries of the East, but they forget (or perhaps do not know) what the Arab invaders did to the same countries. If Muslims desire an apology from the pope for the killing of Muslims by the Crusaders in the eleventh century, should the Christians of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt not demand an apology from the Arab Muslims for invading their countries in the seventh century, massacring many of them, and reducing the survivors to the status of tax-paying dhimmis with no rights in the Muslim state? Should they not demand an apology from the Arabs for destroying the Aramaic language and culture of Iraq and Syria (including Palestine), and the language of the Christian Copts of Egypt?65 If, as many 64 Alasdair Palmer, The Sunday Telegraph, July 11, 1999. For similar comments see Bruce Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, September 25, 1998; Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 11, 1999; The Ottawa Citizen, July 12, 1999; Christopher Hudson, The Evening Standard (London, July 15, 1999); Jeannine Mercer, The Jerusalem Post, July 18, 1999; Roy Foster, The Independent (London, July 18, 1999); al-Safir (Beirut, August 25, 1999); alDiyar (Beirut, September 2, 1999); Alexander Chancellor, The Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2000; Matt Rees, The Scotsman, February 11, 2000; Rory Carroll, The Observer, March 12, 2000; John Leo, The San Diego Union-Tribune, March 22, 2000; and Bruno Bartoloni, Agence France Presse, March 30, 2000. 65 Of more immediate importance, the government of Turkey should apologize for the cold-blooded murder of over two million Armenians and Syrian Orthodox Christians by Ottoman troops or by bands of ruffian Arabs and Kurds unleashed against them by the Ottoman government from 1896 to 1915. The Muslims have always been intolerant; even today they persecute the Christians of southern Sudan and Indonesia because of their religion. See Nina Shea, In the Lion’s Den (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997). The government of Saudi Arabia refused to let American troops stationed on its soil hold Christian services in their camps. Several Europeans and Americans on charitable missions to Afghanistan were detained and

30

THE CRUSADES

Muslim writers claim, the Crusaders used religion as a pretext to dominate the East, on what basis can they justify the Muslim Arabs’ invasion of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Sicily, and other regions in the seventh and eighth centuries? Although al-Uryan and al-Shayyal assert that those who say the Arabs conquered other lands and spread their religion by the sword are either deceivers or deceived, they seem to be motivated more by emotionalism than by objective investigation.66 One cannot categorize the Crusaders as “imperialists” (a modern political term) without saying the same of the Muslims. Nor can one characterize the Turks’ invasion of Asia Minor after they had dominated Persia as having any purpose except to carry Islam into Christian lands and pillage their treasures. Their eagerness for battle was stimulated by the Islamic ideal of jihad against non-Muslims. Tughrul Beg (Bey) himself used Islam as a pretext to assist the Sunnite Abbasid caliph in Baghdad against the Shi’ite Fatimids of Egypt, who intended to occupy his country and terminate his caliphate, which from their own Islamic perspective was illegitimate. Acting in the name of Islam, the Seljuks became de facto rulers and heirs to the Abbasid state. And when the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, the ghazis (frontier warriors) were again in the vanguard of the Turkish armies to spread Islam.67 The Danishmends of Sebastea (Siwas) led the ghazis in spreading Islam throughout Anatolia. One may rightly conclude that the Turkish invasion of Asia Minor, although motivated by religious fervor, was more than an imperialistic movement: it was a violent attack against Byzantium that Islamized its people and colonized its territory. History shows that the main motivation of Imad al-Din Zangi, his son Nur al-Din Zangi, and the latter’s lieutenant Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) was the jihad (holy war) against the Christian Frankish infidels.68 When Saladin occupied Jerusalem in 1187 after much bloodshed, the Muslims were frenzied in their jubilation because Allah had given them victory over tried by the Taliban government on charges of spreading Christianity, i.e., their crime was being Christians. This spiritual persecution is as damaging as physical assaults. 66 Al-Uryan and al-Shayyal, Qissat al-Kifah, 4. 67 See Anthony Bryer and Michael Ursinus, eds., “Manzikert to Lepanto: The Byzantine World and the Turks, 1071–1571,” Byzantinische Forschungen, 16 (Amsterdam, 1991). 68 Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1999), 89–167, 171–251, treats Jihad under the Zangids and Saladin.

MODERN SCHOLARS ON THE CRUSADES

31

the enemies of Islam.69 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says of this victory, “Allah put an end to Shirk (Christian Trinitarianism, regarded by Muslims as polytheism). He ordained that the blood of the infidels be spilled. The state of Saladin has triumphed, the Christians are defeated, and Tawhid (Muslim belief in the absolute unity of God) has taken revenge against the Tathlith (Christian Trinitarianism).”70 If the Franks were motivated by religion in occupying Jerusalem, Saladin likewise was motivated by religion when he evicted them. In essence, the Muslim jihad (holy war) and the Crusades as “holy war” had different objectives. The latter, as J. J. Saunders has rightly observed, “was no conscious imitation of the Muslim jihad.” Saunders correctly asserts that the aim of the jihad was expansion, whereas the Crusades aimed at the recovery of Jerusalem, though the notion of fighting for God appeared in both of them.71 In sum, the actions of the Arabs (and later the Turks) in capturing lands that did not belong to them and making their inhabitants accept Islam in the name of Allah were no different from those of the European invaders who recovered Jerusalem in the name of God. Both groups were “crusaders.”

Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or. 3: 4, 23–24, 25–26, 48, 92, 94, 106, 142 which shall be cited as such throughout the whole book; Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj Bar Hebraeus, trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge, 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 329. 70 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar alDawlatayn, 2 (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1871): 75–76. 71 Saunders, Aspects of the Crusades (Christchurch, 1962), 17–21. 69

2 ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: JIHAD AND HOLY WAR In order to understand the components and the objectives of the Crusades, historians should begin with the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Failing to do so yields only an inchoate and historically inadequate process with invalid conclusions. Once historians begin with the rise of Islam, all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and the idea of the Crusades and their implementation becomes more comprehensible. Heinrich von Sybel was perhaps the first to view the Crusades as a religious conflict, stating that they must be regarded as “one great portion of the struggle between Christianity and Muhammadanism since the seventh century.”1 Ernest Barker observes that the peculiarity of the Crusades when they began in the eleventh century is that Latin Christianity of the West moved into the East to fight against Islam. This fight is seen as the “culmination of a long course of hostilities between Christian and Muslim in the western Mediterranean, and this is a large element in the historical background against which we must set the Crusades.”2 Barker traces the inception of the Crusades to the battle of Yarmuk in 636, when the Muslim Arab forces defeated the Byzantines in Syria, but instead of pursuing this idea to its logical end, he digresses, discussing the interaction of the Crusades and the Muslim East. It is more appropriate from a historian’s point of view to begin not with Yarmuk, which signaled the emergence of a new power in the East, but with the rise of Islam. We must also recognize that the conflict between

1 Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer, 1881), 145. See Bernhard Kugler, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1880), 3. 2 Ernest Barker, “The Crusades,” in The Legacy of Islam, Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaume, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 42.

33

34

THE CRUSADES

Christendom and Islam was not merely religious; it was motivated to a great extent by national and racial considerations. William B. Stevenson sees the Crusades as “the second stage in a long-continued and still unfinished military struggle between Christendom and Islam, between Asia and Europe, which began when the hardy tribes of Arabia swept through Syria, and north Africa into Spain in the seventh and eighth centuries.”3 Stevenson maintains that to approach the history of the crusading movement correctly, one must first survey the Muslims’ attack on Western Europe, following their great military upsurge in the seventh century.4 The Seljuk Turks, who had embraced Islam and taken control of the Abbasid caliphate in the eleventh century, and who occupied Asia Minor and established many states there, caused tremendous upheaval in Christian Europe and set the stage for the Crusaders to save Byzantium and Jerusalem from these invaders. Although the French historian Louis Bréhier did not trace the Crusades back to the rise of Islam in the seventh century, he emphasized that recognizing the threat posed by the Seljuk Turks to the West is essential to understanding the Crusades, declaring, “If one misunderstands the value of this past, it is impossible to explain the origin of the Crusades.”5 Two distinct but similar events, one in the fifth century and the other two centuries later, led to the Crusades and dramatically altered the course of world history to this day. The first was the final victory of the Germanic tribes in 476, which ended the Roman Empire in the West; the other was the Muslim Arab invasion of the East, which eventually destroyed the Byzantine Empire. Although the Byzantines lost most of their territory to the Turks at the battle of Manzikert in 1071, they held Constantinople until 1492. While the Germanic tribes were absorbed into the civilization and the church in the West, thus becoming a source of strength for Europe and the church, the case in the East was totally different. The Muslim Arabs, who invaded the Eastern territories of the Byzantine Empire (Syria, Palestine and Egypt), spread their new religion and their language, thus Islamizing and Arabizing the people of these countries. Henri Pirenne correctly says that “the German became Romanized as soon as he entered ‘Romania’, while the Roman became Arabized as soon 3 William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 265. 4 Stevenson “The First Crusade,” 266. 5 Louis Bréhier, “The Recovery of the Holy Land,” in The Crusades: Motives and Achievements, James A. Brundage, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964), 29.

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

35

as he was conquered by Islam.”6 These two invasions had a tremendous impact on the history of both East and West. The consequence was “a conflict between the church, the civilization, and the peoples of Western Christianity and the faith, the civilization, and the peoples of Islam.”7 Islam shattered the Mediterranean unity which the Germanic invasion had kept intact. The West became cut off from the East. Thus, Byzantium became the center of the Greek Empire, whose far Western outposts were Naples, Venice, Gatea, and Amalfi. Its fleet preserved communications with these cities and kept the Eastern part of the Mediterranean from becoming a Muslim lake. Pirenne calls the Germanic invasion of the Roman Empire in the west and the Muslim invasion in the east “the most essential event of European history since the Punic wars. It was the end of the classic tradition. It was the beginning of the Middle Ages, and it happened at the very moment when Europe was on the way to becoming Byzantinized.”8 Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, considered the domination of Islam over other religions a divine mission ordained by Allah. He wrote letters to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, the Persian King Yezdegird III, al-Muqawqis (Cyril), governor of Alexandria, and Neges, king of Abyssinia, inviting them to embrace Islam and “become safe,” meaning they had no choice but to accept Islam or fight Muhammad and be vanquished.9 He also sent letters to the Arab tribes, the people of Yemen, the citizens of Hamadan, and the Christians of Najran in Yemen, (now part of Saudi Arabia), ordering them to embrace Islam or pay the jizya (poll tax) as an act of abject submission. The ninth-century Muslim historian al-Yaqubi (d. 897/904?) reports that Muhammad charged some of his companions to kill a number of mushrikin (polytheists) and People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians), including Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, Yasir ibn Razzam, and Sallam ibn Abi alHuqayq, and other Jewish officials. Among the men who carried out these murders was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law (later Caliph) Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661), held with great reverence by the Shi’ites, who exalted him to the level of deity. On Muhammad’s orders, Ali killed Mu’awiya ibn al-

6 Henri Pirenne, Mohammad and Charlemagne (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), 147, 152. On the Mediterranean as a boundary between powers prior to the Crusades and even in the pre-Christian era, see Barker, “The Crusades,” 43, n. 1. 7 Barker, “The Crusades,” 40. 8 Pirenne, Mohammad, 164. 9 Ahmad ibn Yaqub ibn Wadih, Tarikh al-Yaqubi (hereafter cited as al-Yaqubi), 2 (Al-Najaf, Iraq: Matba’at al-Ghari, 1939), 61–63.

36

THE CRUSADES

Mughira ibn Abi al-‘Aas ibn Umayya.10 These actions foreshadowed Muhammad’s plan to send a military expedition under Usama ibn Zayd ibn Haritha against Syria and Palestine, with Abu Bakr and Umar ibn alKhattab, both of whom succeeded Muhammad as his Khalifas (Caliphs), also taking part. Although Muhammad died in 632 after a two-week illness, during his final days he reportedly kept urging his companions to send Usama on this mission.11 After his death the mission was carried out with force and enthusiasm by his successor, the first Caliph Abu Bakr (632–634), and continued by Abu Bakr’s successors.12 Like a whirlwind, the Arab armies swept the Byzantine forces in the region, and like a house of cardboard Syria, Palestine, and Egypt fell into their hands. Two years after the death of Muhammad the Arabs occupied Bosra, beyond the Jordan. In the next year Damascus fell. In 636 at the Battle of Yarmuk, the Byzantine army lost Syria and the Emperor Heraclius departed, never to see it again. Ernest Barker traces the conflict between Christianity and Islam to the defeat of Heraclius, whom he calls “the first of the Crusaders,” then asks, “who shall a give a date to its end? . . . One of its chapters is the Crusades.”13 In 637 or 638, Jerusalem surrendered to the Muslim Arabs after a two-year siege. Patriarch Sophronius handed the key to the city to the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 644), but the Christians of Jerusalem removed the Holy Cross to Constantinople. At the time of Heraclius’s death in 641, the Arabs occupied Egypt; by 650, they possessed Syria, Palestine, Upper Mesopotamia, Egypt, part of Asia Minor, and some provinces in North Africa.1 The Mediterranean, which before the Muslim invasion had been a “Christian lake,” dividing the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire, became mostly a “Muslim lake.” The Arabs controlled its eastern and southern shores, from which they could attack Constantinople and southern Europe. The rise of Islam had created a new world hostile both to Byzantium, the center of Eastern Christendom, and to Europe, the base of Western Christendom. Thus, two hostile civilizations, Christian Al-Yaqubi, 2: 62–67. Al-Yaqubi, 2: 93. 12 Abu Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi, Futuh al-Sham, 1 (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Ahliyya, 1966), 7–17, quotes Abu Bakr’s letters to the Arab chiefs of Yemen and to the people of Makka (Mecca) and his exhortation. 13 Barker, “The Crusades,” 41. 1 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: Macmillan-St. Martin’s Press, 1970), 139–168; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 1: 211–212. 10 11

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

37

and Muslim, existed on the shores of Mare Nostrum.2 The Mediterranean, once the center of Christianity, had become its frontier, and, worse still, its unity was shattered. The result, as Pirenne has aptly noted, was that the Christians of the East were assimilated into the main body of Islam, but the Muslims who were under Christian Western powers in the modern era have never been assimilated into Christianity or Western culture.3 The failure of Western powers in this regard is not hard to understand. While the Muslims in the seventh century offered the vanquished Christians of Syria, Palestine and Egypt the choice of the sword, conversion to Islam, or paying the jizya (poll tax), the European powers did not use such aggressive methods against their Muslim subjects. Had they done so, the fate of Islam and its adherents today would be different. History supports this author when he says that no one has protected the Muslims of India against the Hindus more than the British authorities. The British pursued a similar policy in Iraq, supporting the Muslims and their kingship while relegating the Jews and the Christians to the status of aqaliyyat (minorities). The Arab Muslim invaders did not stop after they had occupied the countries of the East. Their main target was Constantinople, the center of Eastern Christendom. In 661, the Umayyad Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who under Muhammad’s successors Omar and Uthman had ruled in Damascus as governor of Syria, outwitted the Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was assassinated in Kufa, Iraq, and seized power from the weak and worthless alHasan, who had succeeded his father as caliph. Mu’waiya had already declared himself a caliph in Jerusalem. The main supporters of his power were the mostly Orthodox Christian Syrians, also called Jacobites. A consummate and shrewd politician with a deep sense of finesse politique, Mu’awiya married Maysun, a Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) young woman, to win the affection and support of the Syrians.4 But his real ambition was to dominate Bilad alRum (The Land of the Romans), i.e., the Byzantine lands. Mu’awiya realized that although the conquest of Syria and Egypt had brought the Arabs to the Mediterranean shores, they were at a disadvantage because they had no fleet and they were not familiar with maritime conditions or wars. His solution was to build ships in order to counter the Byzantine maritime power, and Alexandria in Egypt and Acre in Palestine were perfect places for this activPirenne, Mohammad, 152; Norman Daniel, The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe, 2nd ed. (London and New York: Longman, 1975), 5–10. 3 Pirenne, Mohammad, 152. 4 Hitti, History of the Arabs, 196–198. 2

38

THE CRUSADES

ity.5 As early as 649, when Mu’awiya was governor of Syria, his fleet seized Cyprus, an important Byzantine naval base. The next year the Muslims captured the island of Arwad (Aradus), close to the Syrian coast.6 The first major Muslim maritime victory came in 655, at the battle Arab historians call Dhat al-Sawari [that of the masts], when Mu’awiya’s Syro-Egyptian fleet destroyed a 500-ship Byzantine fleet commanded by the Emperor Constans II (sometimes called Constans III, ruled 641–668), who barely escaped with his life. The Arabs’ victory represented a real threat to Byzantine naval supremacy, but they failed to use their advantage and attack Constantinople, their main target, because of dissension within their ranks. In 668–669 the Arabs, sailing from Alexandria with 200 ships, seized the island of Rhodes and destroyed its famous Colossus. They also attacked Crete and Sicily, which they had attacked and pillaged once before in 652. Their raids were not only a danger on the Aegean Sea but a prelude to their attempt to capture Constantinople.7 Between 668 and August 716–September 717, the Arabs conducted three major attacks against Constantinople. In 668–669, Mu’awiya sent his son Yazid against the royal city to support the land campaign of Fadala ibn Ubayd al-Ansari, who had wintered in Chalcedon, the Asiatic suburb of Constantinople where the Fourth Ecumenical Council had met in 451. The Arab forces besieged the capital but were forced to lift the siege by the tactics of the energetic new Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus (668–685). Yazid had brought with him the aged companion of Muhammad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, hoping his presence might bring a blessing. More likely the presence of this aged companion of the Prophet in such a hazardous situation was intended to symbolize the holy war the Arabs were fighting against the Byzantines. Al-Ansari did not survive the difficult campaign; he died of dysentery and was buried before the walls of Constantinople.8 In 674–680, 5 Paul Kahle, “Zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Alexandria,” Der Islam 12 (1922): 32–35; C. Becker, Vom Verden und Wesen des Islamischen Welt: Islamstudien, 1 (Leipzig, 1924), 96, and by the same author, “The Expansion of the Saracens—the East,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 352–353; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 212. 6 Hitti, History, 167; Ibrahim al-Adawi, al-Imperatoriyya al-Byzantiyya wa al-Dawla al-Islamiyya, 52–53; Asad J. Rustum, Al-Rum: fi Siyasatihim wa Hadaratihim wa Dinihim wa Thaqafatihim wa Silatihim bi al-Arab, 1 (Beirut: Dar al-Makshuf, 1955), 255–256. 7 M. Canard, “Les Expéditions des Arabes contra Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la légende,” Journal Asiatique 128 (1926): 63–80; Vasiliev, History, 1: 212. 8 Hitti, History, 200–202.

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

39

the Arabs attacked Constantinople and succeeded in securing a naval base in the Sea of Marmara on the peninsula of Cyzicus, but met with disaster. Their ships were destroyed by an incendiary weapon (“Greek fire”) invented by Callinicus, a Syrian native of Ba’lbak.9 Defeated, the Arabs turned southwards and occupied Rhodes, which they had already pillaged in 654. In 717 they again attacked Constantinople with reinforcement from Egyptian ships, but they were repulsed by the Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717– 741), from Mar’ash (Germanicia) in Syria, who outwitted the Arab commander Maslama and saved Constantinople. The Arab ships reportedly withdrew under heavy Greek fire, and chains across the Golden Horn prevented them from penetrating the strait leading to the capital. As they withdrew, gale winds destroyed their fleet; only five Arab vessels out of 1,800 survived.10 A final Arab assault came in 782, when the future Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, then still a prince, marched against Constantinople, reaching as far as Scutary (Chrysopolis), but the Empress Irene (798–802) arranged peace with al-Rashid and agreed to pay tribute. Thereafter, no Muslim force saw the “City of Constantine” until 1452, when the city fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Failing to capture Constantinople, which they could have used as a base to storm Europe, the Muslims turned to southwestern Europe. They found a weak spot in Spain, which they attacked in 711, and a century later they invaded Sicily in 827. It is not our intention here to detail the conquest of Spain, which has been treated by other historians.11 Within three years, the Muslims occupied most of Spain, and in 717–718 al-Hurr ibn Abd alRahman al-Thaqafi became the first Muslim army commander to cross the Pyrenees into France. In 720 al-Thaqafi’s successor, al-Samh ibn Malik, lured by the prospect of booty and the treasures of the churches in southern France, and encouraged by the dissension between the Merovingians and the dukes of Aquitaine, continued the raids against southern France and succeeded in capturing Septimania and Narbonne. In 731–732, Abd alTheophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1885). 356; Kahle, “Zur Geschichte,” 12: 33; Canard, “Les Expéditions des Arabes,” 63–80; Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., 2 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 206, 209–210; Vasiliev, History, 1: 214; Hitti, History, 202. 10 Theophanes, Chronographia, 395, 399. 11 See Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd al-Hakam (d.870), Dhikr Fath al-Andalus, trans. John Harris Jones as History of the Conquest of Spain (New York: Burt Franklin, 1969, a reprint of the original published in 1858), 1–28 of the Arabic text and 18–81 of the English translation; Hitti, History, 493–511. 9

40

THE CRUSADES

Rahman al-Ghafiqi entered France by the valleys of Bigorre and Béarn and reached Poitiers, causing a great deal of destruction. The Muslims attacked Tours ferociously, burning the Monastery of Saint Emilien and the Church of Saint Hilaire in the town. They eyed the Monastery of Saint Martin in Tours, hoping to plunder its famed treasures. But al-Ghafiqi and the Arabs could not achieve this aim because the forces of Charles Martel (d. 741), Mayor of the Palace, opposed the Muslim forces and inflicted a tremendous defeat on them at Poitiers (Tours) in 732.12 The Muslims, never again to conduct a great military expedition against France, retreated to Spain. As they left, they destroyed and burned everything on their way and put many to the sword. They razed the abbeys of St. Savin near Tarbe and Saint-Sever-de-Rustan in Bigorre. Aire, Bazas, Oléron and Béarn were ruined, and the abbey of St. Croix Bordeaux was consigned to flames.13 Despite their defeat, the Arabs carried out sporadic raids against southern France. In 734 they crossed the Rhone and captured the city of Arles, plundered the Convents of the Apostles and the Virgin Mary, and demolished the tomb of Saint Césaires. They advanced to the middle of Provence, captured the town of Fretta (modern St. Remy), and soon seized Avignon.14 Nine years later they pillaged Lyons and ravaged the country, causing incredible devastation throughout the region.15 The Muslims were chased by Charles Martel, who recaptured Avignon and then attacked Narbonne, but despite defeating the Muslim force was unable to recapture the city.16 Not until 759 did his son Pepin the Short (ruled 752– 768) succeed in recapturing Narbonne.17 By this action Pepin revived the Joseph Reinaud, Invasion Des Sarrazins en France et de France en Savoie, en Piémont et dans La Suisse Pendant les huitième, neuvième et dixième siécles de notre ère, D’aprés les Auteurs Chrétiens et Mahométans, (Paris, 1836), trans. Haroon Sherwani (Lahore: Sh. Nuhammad Ashraf, rev. ed., 1964), 49. See the loose Arabic translation by Shakib Arslan, titled Tarikh Ghazawat al-Arab fi Faransa, Sewisra, Italia wa Jaza’ir al-Bahr alMutawassit (Cairo: Isa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1933), 99–100. Arslan adds information from other sources and footnotes to the text, but for the most part adheres to the original French work. 13 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 48. 14 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 57, and trans. Arslan, 104. Pirenne, Mohammad, 156, gives 737 as the date of the Arabs’ capture of Avignon; Hitti, History, 501, places that event in 734. 15 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 59; trans. Arslan, 106. 16 Pirenne, Mohammad, 156–157. 17 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 81; trans. Arslan, 113; Derek W. Lomax, The Recon12

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

41

process of reconquering Christian territory, which would lead the Franks across the Pyrenees into the Iberian Peninsula.18 Even so, the Arab marauders continued attacking Provence throughout the ninth century. In 869 they raided the island of Camargue, formed by the waters of the Rhône, where Archbishop Roland of Arles owned some land. They killed 300 of the archbishop’s men, arrested the archbishop himself, and forced him onto one of their ships. When his congregation sought to ransom him, the Muslims demanded 150 gold pieces, 150 garments, 150 swords, and 150 slaves. The Christians agreed to this demand, but the unfortunate archbishop had already died of fear. His Muslim captors concealed his death, and after receiving everything they had demanded, they brought the archbishop’s body from the ship, dressed in the same garments he had worn while alive, and left. When the Christians rushed to congratulate the archbishop on his safe return, they found only a corpse, and their joy turned to mourning.19 The point here is clear: the Muslims’ intention in invading France was not simply to capture the country and convert it to Islam, but first and foremost to dominate all of Europe, turning it into another Muslim area of control, like the other countries they had already seized since the seventh century. It is significant that all of the Muslim military leaders who conducted the raids against France, southern Italy, and other parts of Europe were from the Arabian Peninsula and Syria, the centers of their religious power. After their stunning victories in the Middle East, they found it within their reach to expand their conquest into Europe, which in many ways was as weak as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Persia.20 The Muslim Arabs were determined, by conquering Europe, to extend their religion to the lands of the Kuffar (infidels) and convert it to Islam, in accordance with the exhortation of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. Like the Middle Eastern countries, Europe was suffering from disunity and dissension among its different leaders, particularly following the death of Charlemagne in 814 and the division of his empire. Moreover, the church was weakened, suffering from the incompetence and immorality of the clergy. Not until the tenth century, when the Cluniacs began their comquest of Spain (London and New York: Longman, 1978), 15. Pirenne gives 759 as the date of the recapture of Narbonne by Pepin. 18 Lomax, Reconquest, 15. 19 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 127; trans. Arslan, 159. 20 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 129–130; trans. Arslan, 114–115.

42

THE CRUSADES

prehensive plan of reform, did anyone breathe new life into the church. By then the Franks had also gained power, and Europe was now able to defend itself and expel the Muslims. Meanwhile, the Arabs had begun suffering from dissension after the creation of a new Umayyad caliphate in Andalusia. Slowly but surely the tables turned, especially in southern France and Spain. Though the Muslims of Spain had once attacked and devastated France, they eventually became a target for the Christian Franks. In attacking the countries of the Middle East and later Europe, the Muslim Arabs carried the sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. They conquered and plundered in the name of Allah. They offered the vanquished people three choices: converting to Islam, paying a heavy tribute, or dying by the sword. Predictably, most chose conversion. Even if they saved their lives by paying the tax, they had few rights in the Muslim state and generally lived in servitude. Thus, while the Crusaders invaded the countries of the East crying out, “Deus vult!” (God wills it), the Muslims had invaded the same countries in the name of Allah. There are striking similarities between the Arabs’ invasion of the Middle East in the seventh century and the Crusaders’ attack at the end of the eleventh century, but there is one fundamental difference: while the Muslims embarked upon their conquest in accordance with the divine decree of Allah sanctioned by the Quran, the Crusaders violated the divine teaching of Jesus Christ and the spirit of the Gospel. And this difference brings us to the concept of jihad. In the Arabic language, jihad denotes struggle or the exertion of individual effort to follow the laws of Allah. But in the Quran and the Islamic Shari’a (law), its meaning transcends that definition, connoting a struggle or warfare against non-Muslims, considered as Kuffar (infidels) be they pagans, Jews or Christians.21 To modify this concept or explain it in a relativistic manner is to convolute one of the essential religious principles of Islam. In Islam, jihad is a religious obligation, the duty of every Muslim believer to subdue non-Muslims and make them embrace Islam. The concept is presented in the Quran, 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you although it be hateful to you.” Quran 9:36 urges the faithful to “fight against the idolaters in all these months (during which fighting is banned), since they themselves 21 For an interesting analysis of this and other points on Jihad in Islam, see Robert Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades, 1096–1699,” in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 217–259. On the characteristics of Jihad, see Albrecht Noth, Heiliger Krieg und Heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum (Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, 1966), 47–61.

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

43

fight against you in all of them.” Every Muslim book of fiqh (jurisprudence) contains one or more chapters on jihad.22 In fact, jihad was so strongly considered a divine obligation that one sect, the Khawarij (Kharijites, or Seceders) exalted it to the dignity of a sixth pillar of Islam. Muhammad personally sanctioned jihad against those who did not accept his message, saying, “I have been commanded (by Allah) to fight all people until they say ‘There is no Allah but Allah’ and believe in me and my message. If they do so, they and their possessions will be safe.”36 In other words, the People of the Book had little choice. They could convert to Islam, pay the tribute, or suffer jihad (Holy War) against them. If they chose Islam, they would enjoy freedom like other Muslims living in a Muslim state. If they paid the tribute, they would be safe but would lose many of their rights. But if they chose jihad, they would be regarded as polytheist infidels and would be subdued.37 Muhammad’s attacking and massacring some Jewish tribes was a manifestation of jihad for the cause of Allah. According to a Hadith (tradition), Muhammad by the divine command of Allah fought against the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza, killed its men (except those who embraced Islam), and divided its women, children and property among his followers. Returning from a campaign against the pagan tribe of Quraysh, which he defeated at the battle of the Khandaq (Trench), Muhammad laid down his arms and bathed himself. The angel Jabril (Gabriel) immediately appeared to him, flicking the dust from his hair, and said, “Why did you lay down your arms? We (Allah and Gabriel) have not done so. Go out against them.” Muhammad asked, “And who are those against whom I should go?” The tribe of See Sahih Muslim [The Most Correct Compendium of Traditions], 5 (Cairo: Maktabat wa Matbaat Muhammad Sabih wa Awladuh, 1915), 139–200; Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baz, ed., Sahih al-Bukhari, 3 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr li al-Tibaa wa al-Nashr, 1991), 266–308; al-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, 4 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr li al-Tibaa wa al-Nashr, 3rd ed., 1981), 35–62; Abd al-Baqi Ramdun, al-Jihad Sabiluna [Islam is Our Pathway] (Beirut, Mu’assasat al-Risala, 1990), especially 23–53, in which the author elaborates the right of Jihad against the infidels and the People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians; Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam (Leyden: Brill, 1977); Antoine J. Abraham and George Haddad, The Warriors of God: Jihad and the Fundamentalists of Islam (Bristol, Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press, 1989); Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); the anonymous pamphlet al-Irhab al-Islami wa Ahl al-Kitab [Islamic Terrorism and the People of the Book] (n.p., n.d.); Irwin, 225–231. 36 Sahih Muslim, 1: 39, Al-Yaqubi, 2: 92. 37 Abraham and Haddad, The Warriors of God, 36–37. 22

44

THE CRUSADES

the Banu Qurayza, Gabriel indicated. So the Apostle of Allah attacked the Banu Qurayza and killed six hundred able-bodied men and took the women and children captives and divided them among his companions.38 According to another tradition, Muhammad said “Al-Sa’a (The Last Hour or the Day of Resurrection) shall not come until you fight the Jews so fiercely that when a Jew hides behind a rock, the rock will cry out to a fighting Muslim, ‘O, Muslim! Behind me a Jew is hiding. Kill him’.”39 Muhammad also evicted the Jews from his city of Medina. Finally, to keep the Arabian peninsula exclusively Islamic, he expelled all the Jews and Christians from it, swearing that he would never allow anyone in it except Muslims.40 According to a modern Muslim writer, Dr. Fayid Hammad Muhammad Ashur, jihad is one of the fundamental principles of Islamic civilization, and Islam should have dominion over other religions. The kinds and methods of jihad are well known but the most sublime of them all is religious war, because by fighting, the Muslim offers his soul and property for the cause of Allah. In the Islamic community jihad is the criterion that distinguishes between good and bad Muslims. According to a tradition of the Prophet of Islam, “The highest point in Islam is jihad for the cause of Allah.” For this reason jihad has become the banner of Muslims since the time of the Prophet. Jihad is a religious obligation performed exclusively by Muslims, leading to a status of honor that the Quran applies to those who believe in the message of Islam. Thus, it is a pride and glory for the Muslim. He who tries to raise another trait above jihad, says Ashur, is in fact reducing this great honor to the level of the paganism of Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic Arab society) and making Islam secondary . . . The imperialist states (Western states) labeled as pirates the Muslim Mujahidin (holy warriors) in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, the Arab (Persian) Gulf, and the Indian Ocean, while these noble Mujahidin were fighting against the imperialistic powers. Today we see the same phenomenon recurring after the power of imperialism has allegedly waned. The imperialistic powers are still combating the Mujahidin and preventing them from fighting for the cause of Allah. They label them as bigots, extremists, terrorists, backward, and sometimes, as Israel says, fundamentalists. These labels are evidence of great honor to

Sahih Muslim, 5: 159–161. Hadith 2926, in Sahih al-Bukhari, 2: 305. 40 Sahih Muslim, 5: 159–160; Hitti, History of the Arabs, 10th ed., 117. 38 39

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

45

the Muslims. Unfortunately, they are also used in many Islamic countries to calumniate Islam.41 Thus, jihad has become an Islamic virtue and a spiritual way of life. Violence and pillaging, taking non-Muslims captive and dividing their property, and even killing are not merely lawful but have become marks of religious honor and bravery. Says the anonymous author of the treatise Bahr alFawa’id (Sea of Precious Virtues), “Shedding of the blood of a heretic is the equal of seventy holy wars.”42 The spirit of jihad has not died even to this day. There are people still living in both East and West who remember that in November 1914, the Muslim Ottoman Sultan-Caliph Muhammad Rashad V declared jihad against the infidel Allies while allying his government with yet another infidel nation, Germany.43 Thus, jihad has been the primary force driving all Muslim wars. Philip Hitti rightly says, “To it (jihad) Islam owes its unparalleled expansion as a worldly power.”44 One may ask why Islam is so militant, having striven since its inception in the seventh century to dominate. The Quran is very clear in emphasizing that Islam is the only “Truth” that ever existed, the only plan for mankind. Quran 9:33 states, “It is He (Allah) who hath sent His Apostle (Muhammad) with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to proclaim it over all religions, even though the pagans may detest it.” Remarking on this passage, one Muslim scholar says, “Other religions may have a glimpse of Truth. But Islam is the perfect light of Truth . . . so Islam outshines all [other religions].”45 With such a mindset, Muslims believe their religion will conquer the whole world, whether peacefully or by war. And since the Fayid Hammad Muhammad Ashur, al-Jihad al-Islami didd al-Salibiyyin wa alMaghul [Islamic Jihad Against the Crusaders and Mongols] (Tripoli, Lebanon: Jarrus Press, 1995), 5–7. Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 1999), 92–108, gives a detailed account of Jihad since the early Islamic period and mentions Ashur briefly, 4. 42 Quoted in Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades,” 227. Irwin says this pugnacious attitude emanates from the belief that those who follow religions other than Islam are infidels or heretics who must be converted to Islam as the only true faith, and eventually the whole world must be brought under the sway of Islam. 43 C. Snouck Hurgronje, a Dutch scholar and expert on Islam, described the futility of this action in his pamphlet The Holy War “Made in Germany” (London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915). 44 Hitti, History, 136. 45 Abdallah Yousuf Ali, The Glorious Ku’ran: Translation and Commentary (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), 449, n. 1290. 41

46

THE CRUSADES

Western world including America is predominantly Christian, it is seen as a polytheistic infidel world that will finally succumb to the will of Islam. Thus Muslims in Europe and America are busy building mosques, in order to convert the Western people to Islam. They see the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 as a manifestation of Islam’s power against the infidel West.46 As historian J.J. Saunders has correctly said, “Of all the three great religions, Islam is the only one which was born militant.” He asserts that when Muhammad was driven from Mecca and sought refuge in Medina, it was natural that he should use the enmity between the two cities to overcome his pagan foes (the tribe of Quraysh) by force.47 Islamic history bears out this statement. Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, personally conducted about twenty-nine raids against his enemies. But according to Muslim writers, Allah actually instigated the Muslim believers to fight, and Muhammad was merely an instrument of this divine command. (See Quran 8:65 and 48: 16–17.) According to al-Yaqubi, it was Allah who assisted Muhammad in fighting his own people, the pagan Arabs. He says that Allah caused a sword with a sheath to descend to Muhammad from heaven, carried by the angel Jabril (Gabriel). Gabriel told him, “Allah commands you to fight your own people until they confess that there is no Allah but Allah and that you are his Apostle. If they do not, you are absolved of shedding their blood and capturing their possessions.”48 The prominent Iraqi sociologist Ali alWardi justifies Muhammad’s wars against his enemies as aspects of a social revolution similar to those carried out by revolutionaries in every age. In the beginning, he says, these revolutionaries propagated their message by peaceful means, but after winning a sufficient number of followers, they resorted to military force.49 The German historian Carl Erdmann, however, maintains that the purpose of jihad was to turn the subjugated people into tributaries. Muhammad’s intent, he says, was to enlarge the temporal sway of the Muslim community, not to convert unbelievers. Though the Muslims’ conquests of other peoples resulted eventually in their conversion to Islam, that result was not the purpose of the Muslim holy war.50 Nevertheless, the con46

1–24.

For more on Islam’s plan to dominate the world, see Abraham and Haddad,

J. J. Saunders, Aspects of the Crusades (Christchurch, 1962), 17–21. Al-Yaqubi, 2: 33. 49 Ali al-Wardi, Mahzalat al-Aql al-Bashari [The Comedy of the Human Mind], (London: Kuffan Publishing, 1994), 187. 50 Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, Marshall W. Baldwin and Wal47 48

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

47

version of non-Muslims, called for in the Quran, was always foremost in the mind of Muhammad and his successors as an essential part of serving the cause of Allah. Historian Thomas F. Madden observes that holy war has no place in Christianity, nor did early Christians have any idea about crusading.51 The German historian Hans Prutz overstates the case when he says that at the root of the crusading idea was the belief that Christianity was destined to dominate the world.52 Prutz apparently forgets that from the beginning Christianity was a universal and missionary rather than militant religion. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told the disciples, “Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Matthew 16:15) Preaching, not killing, was the way to carry God’s message to mankind. Jesus’s invitation to the people of the earth to accept His teaching by peaceful means is a far cry from the intention of Allah, who urged the Muslim believers to fight and kill for his cause.53 Allah sanctions the use of force against the enemies of Islam; Quran Sura 2:194 clearly states, “If anyone commits aggression against you, fight him with the same aggression.” This divine dictum cannot be reconciled with the words of Jesus, who said, “Do not resist evil,” and “Love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44, 6:38; Luke 6:27, 35.) Although throughout time Christians have fought one another, they did so mostly for political or economic reasons; such action, says the German scholar Martin Hartman, represents a violation of the fifth commandment, not to mention the second great commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”54 Indeed, most Crusaders came to hate the Byzantines more than the Muslims, coveting the wealth they flaunted. Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch, and King Henry IV of Germany crusaded against the Byzantines; Bohemond particularly challenged the authority of the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus in Italy.55 In the Fourth Crusade, knights and seamen overcame ter Coffart, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 4. 51 Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999), 1. 52 Hans Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mitter und Sohn, 1883), 12–13; see Erdmann, Origin, 3–4. 53 Quran, 2: 216–217, 244; 3: 121; 4: 76; 8: 12–13, 39, 60, 65, 67; 9: 29, 41, 73, 111; 47: 4. 54 Quoted in Hurgronje, Holy War, 81. Hartman cites Leviticus 19:18: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord,” and Matthew 19:18, 22:39. 55 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton Uni-

48

THE CRUSADES

their antipathies in order to subdue the Byzantines.56 But these actions, which violate the very spirit of Christianity, were exceptions to the rule. Defending Islam against Western writers, the Egyptian historian of the Crusades Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur says they exaggerated a few isolated cases of action against the Jews and Christians in some Islamic countries. Ashur argues that although Muslims sometimes were responsible for oppression and persecution of Jews and Christians, these instances were an exception to the fundamental rule of absolute tolerance of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and Sabians), whom Islam always strove to protect. He contends that such action is comparable to what the successors of Emperor Constantine I did to force the pagans to embrace Christianity. Ashur here is most likely referring to the Emperor Theodosius I (379–395), an ardent champion of Christianity who, to preserve the empire and maintain the Nicene Creed as the only orthodox faith, tried to stamp out the Arian heresy. For the same reasons, Theodosius oppressed the pagans and curtailed their practice of worship. In his long and contentious struggle against the heretics, he subjected them to harsh penalties, forbidding them to hold assemblies, either public or private, and curtailing their right to bequeath and inherit property. He did not marshal armies to kill them if they refused to embrace Christianity or confess the orthodox faith of Nicaea.57 Likewise, he did not use force to convert the pagans to Christianity.58 One point should be made clear. Theodosius fought against the Arians not because they espoused heresy but because their teachings were disturbing both the church and the state, and he fought against the pagans for the same reason. But Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, fought not only against the pagan Arabs but also against the Jews and the Christians, whom he considered blasphemers, although he was greatly influenced by their religious doctrines, which appear distorted in the Quran because he did not understand them or found them abhorrent. Ashur further says Charlemagne imposed Christianity on the Bavarians, the Avars, and the Saxons, of whom he killed over four thousand at

versity Press, 1924), 25–33. 56 R. S. Lopez, “Fulfillment and Diversion in the Eight Crusades,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail, eds. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 19–20. 57 Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 1: 80. 58 Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 270–274.

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

49

Verden alone.59 Like Emperor Theodosius I, who fought to preserve the unity of the empire, Charlemagne fought against the Saxons and Avars to preserve his own kingdom. His biographer Einhard says the Saxons, like the other tribes of Germany, were fierce and unruly, given to devil worship, and hostile to Christianity. They were pagans who saw no dishonor in the violation of laws, human or divine. Charlemagne fought furiously against them for thirty-three years (772–804), and they never kept the terms of any peace he made with them. When they finally realized that their futile struggle against Charlemagne had weakened them tremendously, they promised to renounce the worship of devils and to adopt Christianity. Einhard says nothing to indicate that Charlemagne used force to convert them.60 Charlemagne’s execution of the Saxons at Verden was an inhuman, indefensible act. Mombert, the nineteenth-century biographer, says, “There are many horrors recorded in history, but hardly one more horrible than that butchery at Verden, which is and must ever remain the indelible stain on the name of [Charlemagne] and the foulest blot on his life.”61 We should remember that this action was not intended to effect the Saxons’ conversion to Christianity; rather, it was a punishment inflicted upon them for rebelling against Charlemagne. In 782 the Saxons, led by Wittikind (Widukind), revolted against Charlemagne, threatening the stability of his kingdom. He saw no other way to deal with these treacherous, ruthless, murderous people, who would surrender one day and revolt on the next..62 Charlemagne most likely believed that the only way to stop the onslaught of these pagan tribes, who had killed and pillaged his domain for over thirty years, was to civilize them by having them embrace Christian-

Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1: 30. Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964), 30–32; Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, Lewis Thorpe, trans. (New York: Penguin Books, 1969), 68–70; Gustave Masson, Charlemagne and the Carlovingians (London: S. Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1880), 4– 6 (this last is adapted from M. Guizot’s History of France.); Helmold of Bosau, The Chronicle of the Slavs, Francis Joseph Tschan, trans. (New York: Octagon Books, 1966), 53; and Gerhard Seeliger, “Conquest and Imperial Coronation of Charles the Great,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 610–612. 61 Richard Winston, Charlemagne: From the Hammer to the Cross (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954), 161; Seeliger, 612. 62 Winston, Charlemagne, 159–161. 59 60

50

THE CRUSADES

ity.63 Although many of them were eventually baptized, their motivation to become Christians was far from sincere.64 When Charlemagne began his campaigns against the Saxons and other tribes, he did not command his armies to give them a choice between facing the sword and embracing Christianity. He had sent missionaries earlier to convert the Saxons, but they were slain. If that task had been foremost in his mind, he would have not waited thirty years to finish it. Charlemagne was simply fighting a secular war to defend his own state. He was obligated to do so, for the papacy had been allied to his father Pepin, and the kings of the Franks had assumed the duty of fighting for the Roman church. The alliance, strongest under Charlemagne, shows that the Christian state exonerated those who fought against its enemies. And Charlemagne, as a Christian, evidently perceived the defense of Christendom as his first and foremost duty.65 He was not only an avenger but an ardent propagator of the Christian faith.66 One may argue that Muhammad and his successors fought against pagan Arab tribes much as Charlemagne fought against the pagans. But Muhammad’s successors also fought against the Syrians, Egyptians, and Persians, who had no animosity toward Muhammad and his religion. And Muhammad extended the scope of his wars, fighting not only against pagans, but also against Jews and Christians who refused to accept his message. By stating that Charlemagne converted the Saxons and other tribes by force or had them killed if they refused to embrace Christianity, Ashur implies a similarity between the actions of the Prophet and his successors and those of Charlemagne.67 But the analogy is tenuous. Charlemagne’s actions against the pagan tribes of Germany were not in conformity with the spirit and teachings of Christ. They were exclusively secular actions, based on his perception that it was his duty to fight for Christianity to preserve the church and his state. But Muhammad and his successors fought to subdue both pagans and adherents of other religions, particularly Jews and Christians, according to the commands of Allah as sanctioned by the Quran. Warren O. Ault, Europe in the Middle Ages (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1946), 170– 172; see J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West, 400–1000 (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1961), 102. 64 Masson, Charlemagne, 6; Helmold of Bosau, 52. 65 Erdmann, Origin, 22–23. 66 Joseph François Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robson, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1973), Appendix 6, 358. 67 Ashur, al-Jihad, 1: 29–30. 63

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

51

Even if one accepts the view of Muslim writers that the purpose of the Crusades was primarily economic, i.e., to capture the wealth of the Muslim East, he cannot overlook the fact that the Muslim Arab hordes who invaded and occupied other countries in the seventh century were motivated not by religion alone but by the prospect of booty. This was made clear by Abu Bakr (632–634), the first caliph and successor of Muhammad, in his attempt to recruit Arab men for his campaign against Syria, then under Byzantine rule. He wrote to the Arabs of Mecca, Ta’if, and Yemen, in Najd and in Hijaz, and throughout the Arabian Peninsula, calling on them to join in a jihad against the Byzantines and luring them with a promise of booty. The ninth century Muslim historian Ahmad al-Baladhuri (d. 892) says that these people, whether expecting rewards in the afterlife or motivated by sheer greed, responded and came from every direction to Medina.68 When the Arabs occupied Alexandria, their commander Amr ibn al-Aas wrote to the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab in Medina, “I have captured a city from whose description I shall refrain. Suffice it to say that I have seized therein 400 villas with 4,000 baths, 40,000 poll-taxing paying Jews and 400 places of entertainment for the royalty.” 69 And when they occupied Spain in 711, imposing the jizya (poll-tax) on their new subjects took precedence over converting them to Islam; indeed, many Arabs opposed converting the Spanish Christians, contending that doing so would put the heavy financial burden of financing the state on those who had been born Muslim. The conquest of Spain was not so much a religious matter as an economic venture.70 Muhammad himself set the precedent for his followers to exact taxes from the pagans, Jews, and Christians if they refused to embrace Islam. In Quran Sura 9:29, entitled al-Tawba [Repentance], Allah commands Muhammad, “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah and in the Last 68 Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1956), 128, also ed. Ridwan Muhammad Ridwan (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1991), 115; Hitti, History of the Arabs, 144; Walter Besant, Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin, 4th ed. (London: Chatto and Windus, 1899), 73–74. On the view that the causes of the Crusades were economic, see Aziz S. Atiya, Crusades, Commerce and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). 69 Hitti, History, 164–165. 70 Charles E. Chapman, A History of Spain (New York: Macmillan, 1930), 40–41. Parts of Chapman’s book are based on Rafael Altamira, Historia de España y de la Civilizacion Española.

52

THE CRUSADES

Day, and do not forbid what Allah and his apostle have forbidden and do not uphold the true religion of those people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya (poll tax) out of hand in utter subjection.” Thus, Islam made no distinction between pagans and the People of the Book. They were all targets for the Muslims, who were commanded to fight against them until they converted to Islam or paid tribute under duress.71 But the holy war against the Jews was broadened to include plundering their property and taking them captive. Quran Sura 33:25–27, titled al-Ahzab [The Confederate Tribes], states, “He (Allah) brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book (the Jews of Banu Qurayza) and cast terror into their hearts, so that some of them you slew and others you took captive. He made you masters of their land, their houses, and their goods, and of yet another land (of the Jews of Banu Khaybar) on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.” This statement makes clear that the People of the Book, their property, and their lives were cold prey for the Muslims. Throughout their history, Muslim leaders were as interested in converting non-Muslims as in collecting taxes from them or plundering their properties. But since new converts were relieved of paying the jizya, the leaders discouraged conversion to Islam to keep money pouring into their coffers. Many of the converts were onetime farmers from Iraq and Khurasan (in present-day Iran) who had joined the army to escape the poll tax and obtain subsidies from the state. The state’s treasury lost so much income that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi (661–714), the Umayyad governor of Iraq, sent the farmers back to their villages and reimposed the high taxes they had paid before their conversion. The Umayyad Caliph Umar II ibn Abd al-Aziz (717–720) reestablished the principle laid down by the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (634–644), that no Muslim should pay tribute, but he insisted that if the owner of a kharaj (taxed land) was a convert to Islam, his property should revert to the village community, and he could then lease it.72 In 699–700 al-Hajjaj had to subdue the Turkish governor of Kabul, Afghanistan, because he refused to pay the tribute (poll tax).73 According to the Syrian Patriarch Dionysius Tall Mahre (d. 845), his friend the Abbasid

Al-Yaqubi, 2: 62–67. Hitti, History, 219. 73 Julius Wellhausen, Das arabischen Reich und sein Sturz (Berlin, 1902), 144. 71 72

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

53

Caliph al-Mamun (d. 833) used to say that he did not care what religion his subjects embraced, so long as they paid the tribute.74

Dionysius Tall Mahre, in Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, translated into Arabic by Bishop Gregorius Saliba Shamoun, 3 (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 21. 74

3 THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL Before the Crusades, the region known today as the Middle East was plagued with constant warfare among the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Seljuk Turks, the Armenians, and others, with a great deal of violence, devastation and bloodshed. The Muslims in the East were mostly divided into two groups, Sunnites and Shi’ites, each of which considered the other as heretics. The Sunnites took their name from the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet of Islam. This Sunna, containing everything that Muhammad said, did, or sanctioned, had the same spiritual authority as the Quran, except when it stood in contradiction to the holy book. The Shi’ites, on the other hand, denounced the Sunna and recognized Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law Ali as his only legitimate successor in leading the community of Islam. They based their claim on a tradition of Muhammad which the Sunnites consider fraudulent or dubious.1 Thus, the succession to Muhammad has been a religious issue dividing the Muslim community throughout the ages. When the Franks (called Ifranji by ancient Arabic sources) and other Crusaders (called Pilgrims or Christians in Latin sources) arrived in the East late in the eleventh century, there were two caliphs – a Sunnite in Baghdad and a Shi’ite Fatimid in Egypt. For most of that century the Shi’ite Fatimids had controlled most of Syria, and late in the century they consolidated their power in Egypt. These two caliphs were in deadly conflict with each other not only over religious matters but over control of the Muslim East. The struggle between them was intensified by the rise of another non-Arab Muslim power, the Seljuk Turks, who converted to Sunnite Islam, occupied Baghdad in 1055, and eventually became the masters of the East. The balance of political power thus tipped in favor of the Turks. It was chiefly the Seljuk Turks that the Crusaders had to face and fight against. In brief, Syria was politically divided, and the dissension among the different Turkish ata1 On this subject, see Matti Moosa, Extremist Shi’ites: The Ghulat Sects (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988).

55

56

THE CRUSADES

begs (teachers of the children of the sultan, later given broader power as governors) and the schism between the Sunnite and Shi’ites made it possible for the Crusaders to overwhelm the Muslims.2 Before discussing the Franks’ arrival in the Middle East, the Syrian chronicler Patriarch Michael Rabo (d. 1199) gives a detailed account of the turmoil and devastation caused by the Turks’ penetration of the region.3 The Turks, originally from the steppes of Asia, seized control of Persia, Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia), Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Cilicia (“Kilikia”), and all the territory up to Egypt. Basing his ideas on the now-lost history of the Syrian writer Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), he says the Turks are descendants of Japheth, son of Noah, and the people of Gog and Magog named by the prophet Ezekiel (38: 2, 39: 1) and the Book of Revelation (20: 8). He discusses their social mores, their departure from their homeland, their ac2 For more information see H. A. R. Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle of the East (London: Luzac and Company, 1967), 14–40, and “The Caliphate and the Arab States,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed. 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 81–98; Claude Cahen, La Syrie du Nord á l’Epoque des Croisades (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1940), 193–196; Harold S. Fink, “The Role of Damascus in the Crusades,” The Muslim World 49 (1959): 43, Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, John Gillingham, trans. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 4–6; Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 1–16. There were at least ten different petty states in the Jazira and Mosul, Syria including parts of Lebanon, and one Kurdish petty state in Miyafarqin (Diyarbakr). See Wafa Juni, Dimashq wa al-Mamlaka al-Latiniyya mundhu Awakhir al-Qarn al-Hadi Ashar hatta Awakhir al-Qarn al-Thani Ashar alMiladiyyayn 1089–1174 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1997), 38. 3 Michael Rabo (the surname means “the Great” or “the Elder”), Patriarch of Antioch from 1166 to his death in 1199, is best known for his history, which extended from the creation of the world to his lifetime. There is only one copy of the manuscript, transcribed in 1598 by Bishop Mikha’il al-Urbishi, in the Syrian library of al-Ruha (Edessa), with nineteen pages lost. The manuscript was discovered by a French scholar, Rev. J. B. Chabot, who translated it into French and published it as Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199, 4 volumes (Paris, 1899–1910). The term Syrien is an interpolation; the manuscript is titled Khtobo d’Makthabanuth Zabne d’Seem l’Mor Mikha’il Rabo Phatriarcho (The book of the chronicle written by Mar Mikha’il the Great, the Patriarch). Bishop Gregorius Saliba Shamoun published an Arabic translation, Tarikh Mar Mikhail al-Suryani alKabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1966). Unless otherwise noted, all references here are to the Syriac text (in Volume 3); references to the French translation will be indicated by a capital “F.”

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

57

ceptance of Islam, and their rise to power in the Middle East.4 Michael Rabo mentions another more decisive penetration of the region by the Turks in the eleventh century, but does not discuss it in detail. Still, his information on this topic is important to our understanding of the Turks’ rise and their domination of Asia Minor, as well as the conflict between the Turks and the Byzantines, the weakening of Armenia by the Byzantine emperor, and the collapse of Byzantine power at Manzikert in 1071, which set the stage for the battle between the Turks and the Crusaders for dominance in the region. In Book XIII, Chapter V, Michael Rabo first mentions the Armenians’ leaving their country in the time of Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus (“the Bulgar-slayer,” ruled 976–1025).5 He says that in 989 Emperor Basil seized the regions under the control of King Senek’erim and instead offered the Armenians places to live in Cappadocia. They began to leave their homeland and settle in Cappadocia, from which they spread to Cilicia and Syria. In Book XV, Chapter XI he states that early in the eleventh century, when the Greeks (Byzantines) wrested from the Arabs some cities in Cappadocia, Armenia and Syria, they brought a great number of people from Greater Armenia to settle these regions. Their numbers increased, and some of them went to live in Constantinople while others went to Egypt. When the Turks emigrated from Khurasan and filled these regions, as the Greeks became extremely weak and lost their powerhold, some Armenians infiltrated these regions and fortified themselves in virtually impregnable mountain strongholds. The two sons of Constantine, son of Rafan (also called Roupen or Reuben), established themselves in the mountains of Cilicia, in southeast Asia Minor.6 Michael touches briefly upon one of the most important events in the history of the Middle East in the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Turks’ penetration and settlement of Asia Minor, which became known as Turkey. As we shall see, the Seljuk Turks entered the Byzantine territory of Asia Minor not from the East but through Armenia, in the northeastern part of the country. They found in Armenia a weak spot from which to launch their attacks, beginning early in the eleventh century. If the Byzantine emMichael Rabo, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, 3: 566–571 (149–159F). Michael Rabo, 558–559 (133F), repeated in Book XV, Chapter VIII, 589 (187–188F). 6 Michael Rabo, 594–595 (198F). Michael Rabo frequently refers to the Byzantines as “Greeks.” 4 5

58

THE CRUSADES

perors had kept Armenia strong, the Seljuk Turks would have had difficulty in overrunning it and later all of Asia Minor. As the Byzantine emperors’ neglect of Armenia allowed the Seljuk Turks to penetrate the country, the Armenians migrated to Cilicia, where they settled and founded Armenian principalities. This sequence of events requires some elaboration, for it presaged the waning of the Byzantine Empire’s power and hastened the rise of the Turks, who established principalities all over Asia Minor and would by the end of the eleventh century find themselves in direct conflict with the Crusaders and the Armenians, who had long espoused Christianity. Although Christianity had been introduced into Armenia in the first century, it did not establish a firm foothold till the fourth century. Because Armenia was predominantly Christian, the Byzantine emperors used it as a buffer state between themselves and Persia, their formidable enemy. Of all the ethnic groups within the Byzantine Empire, the Armenians were the strongest.7 For centuries Armenia had been the center of conflict between the Roman Empire and Persia. To settle the matter peacefully, Rome and Persia divided Armenia between them at the end of the fourth century. The Sassanid Persians took the larger part, which became known as Persamenia. Rome took the smaller part, including the city of Theodosiopolis (Erzerum in modern Turkey). The partition of Armenia disrupted the cultural life of its people, since Rome and Persia had different cultures. In the sixth century, Emperor Justinian I (527–565) introduced reforms with the intention of destroying some surviving local customs and transforming Armenia into a Byzantine province.8 The situation changed when the Arabs invaded Armenia in October 640 under the Caliph Umar (reigned 634–644). The same caliph led another raid in 642–43, and a third one in 648 under Uthman ibn Affan (644–656) captured the capital city of Dvin (Dwin).9 The Arabs killed every man they 7 Peter Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon: Livraria Bertrand, 1963), 12. 8 A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964): 313. 9 Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan [Conquest of Countries], Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, ed. 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1956), 234–242. According to the eighth-century Syriac Chronicle written by a Syrian monk from the Monastery of Zuqnin, the Arabs in the time of the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab besieged the city of Dvin, a few miles south-east of Yerevan. See The Chronicle of Zuqnin Parts III and IV A. D. 448–775, translated from the Syriac into English with notes and introduction by Amir Harrak (Toronto: Pontifical In-

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

59

could find and took 35,000 women and children into captivity and marched them to Syria; they slaughtered priests, desecrated churches, and beat and whipped many women. In the face of such calamities, the Armenians were incapable of resisting and were finally subdued by the Arabs in 652.10 The Arabs ruled Armenia for the next two centuries. The Armenians attempted periodically to overthrow the Arabs, but their revolts were suppressed with a vengeance that caused a great deal of devastation. By the close of the seventh century the Armenians had submitted completely to the Umayyads. Their Catholicos Sahak IV was sent to prison in Damascus, and some of their princes were tortured or put to death.11 Although the Byzantine Empire lost its control over Armenia, it kept some territories where Armenian was spoken.12 We should note here that despite their religious differences with the Byzantines over the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Armenians supported them against the Arabs who invaded Syria. Several military detachments led by Armenian commanders fought alongside the Byzantines valiantly but unsuccessfully at Yarmuk in 636. One of these commanders, Vahan or Baanes, was proclaimed an emperor by his troops, but after the defeat at Yarmuk his desire to be emperor vanished, and he retired from military service to become a monk in Sinai.13 Shortly after the Arabs occupied their country, the Armenians turned to the Byzantines for support. In 653, the Armenian Prince Theodore Rashtuni sought and finally obtained peace with the Arabs. During the time of Prince Ashot Bagratuni (685–688), the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II Rhistitute of Medieval Studies, 1999), 143. 10 On the calamities the Armenians suffered in these Arab invasions, see The History of Lewond (Ghevond), The Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, trans. Rev. Zaven Arzoumanian (Philadelphia, 1982), 51–52 (Lewond, a seventh-century writer, witnessed these invasions). See also Yovhannes Drasxanakertc’i, History of Armenia, Krikor H. Maksoudian, trans. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 107–108; H. Francois Tournebize, Histoire Politique et Religieuse de Armennie (Paris, 1900), 96. 11 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 107; Frédéric Macler, “Armenia,” in The Cambridge Mediaeval History, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), 156. 12 Charanis, The Armenians, 12; M. Canard, “Arminiya,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, 1 (1960): 635–636; K. L. Astarjian, Tarikh al-Umma al-Armaniyya (Mosul: Matba’at al-Ittihad al-Jadida, 1951), 162–164; Abd al-Rahman Mahmud al-Abd al-Ghani, Armenia wa Alaqatuha al-Siyasiyya bi kul min al-Byzantiyyin wa al-Muslimin 653–664 (AlKuwait, 1989), 74–80. The latter two works elaborate on the Muslims’ invasion of Armenia and discuss various source materials on the subject. 13 David Marshall Lang, The Armenians: A People in Exile (London: Allen & Unwin, 1981), 52; Armenia: Cradle of Civilization (London: Allen & Unwin, 1970), 175.

60

THE CRUSADES

notmetus (685–695) sent an army against both the Armenians and the Arabs, but it withdrew after causing a great deal of destruction. The Armenians were in a bad situation, caught between the Byzantines and the Arabs. The Arab ruler Muhammad treated the Armenians badly, and Abd Allah, who succeeded him as governor in 703, proved even worse. Abd Allah, wicked, impudent, and extremely malicious, tortured the Armenian princes and plundered the possessions of many people.14 He attacked the Armenians with an army of 8,000 men, but they defeated him with a much smaller force. After hearing of this defeat, the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik (685– 705) ordered an invasion of Armenia. The Armenians sent their Catholicos Sahak III to negotiate with the caliph, but he died before he could fulfill this mission.15 The Armenians somehow delivered the message to the caliph, who on receiving it calmed down and called off the invasion. When al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (705–715) became caliph, he decided to take revenge against Smbat Bagratuni, who unsuccessfully sought the Byzantines’ aid; Smbat lost, and the Armenians were treated cruelly. In 705 Qasim, the Arab governor of Nakhjawan, summoned the Armenian leaders to the church in that province, supposedly to consult with them, but after they gathered there, Qasim had them all burned to death. The caliph abhorred Qasim’s actions and promptly replaced him as governor.16 By the beginning of the eighth century the Arabs had completely ruined Armenia, eliminated many of its feudal lords, and destroyed much of its architecture. One writer notes, “The fruit of all the cultural efforts of the preceding centuries was reduced to nothing.”17 Armenia enjoyed relative peace and prosperity under Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717–720), whom Lewond calls the noblest among the men of his race, and under the last Umayyad Caliph, Marwan ibn Muhammad (745–750), whose brief reign ended when he lost power to the Abbasids.18 Marwan offered another Bagratuni leader, Ashot, the title of “Prince of Princes” on the condition that he cease rebelling against the Arabs. Although Ashot refused to do so while the Arabs’ tyr-

14 Drasxanakertc’i,

History, 107. History of Lewond, 62–63. 16 History of Lewond, 64–65. 17 N. Marr, “The Caucasian Cultural World and Armenia,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, 57 (1915): 313–314; see Vasiliev, History, 1: 314. 18 History of Lewond, 70, 113–117; Thomas Artsruni, History of the House of the Artsrunik, Robert W. Thomson,, trans. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985), 171. 15

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

61

anny against Armenia continued, his compatriots doubted his loyalty because of his negotiations with the Arabs and had him blinded.19 The Arabs’ precarious rule over Armenia began to wane as the Abbasid state (750–1252) started to decay in the ninth century. The Abbasid rule of Armenia was characterized by cruelty and violence. Like their Umayyad predecessors, the Abbasid caliphs were always greedy for revenues. The first Abbasid Caliph, Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah (750–754), appointed as governor his brother Abu Jafar Abd Allah ibn Muhammad (later Caliph al-Mansur), who treated the Armenians brutally.20 After Abu Jafar, the caliph chose another governor, Yazid ibn Usyad al-Sulami, who laid even heavier taxes on the Armenians.21 Their complaints about his cruelty and ill treatment forced the caliph to replace him with Bakkr ibn Muslim alUqayli.22 Caliph Abu Jafar al-Mansur (754–775) treated the Armenians with extreme cruelty and ordered that those who evaded the tax should be branded with lead on the neck; he even levied taxes on the dead.23 The Abbasid governors did not collect taxes personally, but entrusted the task to agents who often pocketed most of the money, with the result that the Armenians fell victim to both the agents and the governors who ignored their complaints.24 Because of this oppression the Armenian people, led by Artawazd Mamikonian, revolted in 771 and killed the Abbasid governors and their Arab employees throughout Armenia. The Abbasids responded by sending armies into southern Armenia to put down the rebellion, and many Armenian chiefs lost their lives in the ensuing battle. The Arab forces counterattacked after their garrison in Dvin received men and ammunition from Baghdad. In the spring of 772 Caliph al-Mansur decided to crush the Armenian revolt with 30,000 troops, led by crack detachments from Khurasan under the command of Amir ibn Isma’il. On April 25, 775, the Abbasid and Macler, “Armenia,” 4: 157–158; Astarjian, Tarikh, 164–166. History of Lewond, 122–128, 134, and Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 246, 21 History of Lewond, 123–128; Drasxanakertc’i, History, 260; Baladhuri, Futuh alBuldan,1: 246. 22 History of Lewond, 128; Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 247; Astarjian, Tarikh, 166. 23 History of Lewond, 122–123. 24 J. Laurent, L’Armée entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la Conquête Arabe en 886, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1980), 207. Ghani, Armenia, 82, n. 5, says Armenian writers have exaggerated the high-handedness of the Abbasids’ policy on collecting taxes from the Armenians. 19 20

62

THE CRUSADES

Armenian forces fought at Bagravend; the Armenians were badly beaten and lost over 1,500 men, including their commanders Mushigh Mamikonian and Smbat Bagratuni.25 The Abbasid governor al-Hasan ibn Qahtaba al-Ta’i used this revolt as a pretext to impose still heavier taxes on Armenia.26 Despite this defeat the Armenians revolted against Abbasid rule again, notably in the reign of Caliph al-Wathiq bi Allah (842–847), who dispatched his commander Khalid ibn Yazid al-Shaybani not only to vanquish the Armenians, but also to subdue several Muslim Arab amirs who were beginning to show their independence of the government in Baghdad. Khalid died before completing his mission and was succeeded by his son Muhammad ibn Khalid, who managed to suppress some of these amirs, including Ishaq ibn Ismael, the lord of Tiflis, who rebelled in 843.27 Muhammad not only treated the Armenians with great cruelty but also tried to convert them to Islam by force, but they resisted, preferring death to abandoning their faith. Unable to convert the Armenians, in 844 he brought many foreign Muslims and settled them in the province of Kadzak to dilute the Armenian population.28 The Armenians continued to rebel, and this time the Caliph al-Mutawakkil sent Abu Said al-Marwazi, who resorted to force to collect taxes. The princes of Vaspurakan bravely resisted, leading al-Marwazi in 850 to send his deputy Muhammad al-Sawafi and then another Arab chief, Musa ibn Zurara, governor of Arzun, but both failed. Al-Marwazi returned to Baghdad to inform the caliph of the situation in Armenia and the prosperity and power the Artsruni clan enjoyed in Vaspurakan, and urged him to eliminate their power because of their enmity toward the Muslims.29 In 851 al-Mutawakkil again sent al-Marwazi to subdue the rebellious Armenian chiefs Ashot, prince of Vaspurakan, and Bagrat Artsruni, but alMarwazi died suddenly before achieving his aim. The caliph named his son Yusuf to replace him, promising that if he captured these rebellious Arme-

History of Lewond, 134–135; Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan,1: 247; R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Armenie des Origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947), 326. Astarjian, Tarikh, 167, puts the Armenian losses at 3,000 men. 26 Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 237; Grousset, Histoire, 325; Laurent, L’Armée, 128; Ghani, Armenia, 85. 27 Ahmad ibn Yaqub ibn Wadih, Tarikh al-Yaqubi (hereafter cited as al-Yaqubi), 3 (Al-Najaf, Iraq: Matba’at al-Ghari, 1939), 206. 28 Grousset, Histoire, 355; Ghani, Armenia, 113. 29 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 118–119; Laurent, L’Armée, 128; M. Ghazarian, Armenien unter der Arabischen Herrschaft (Marburg, 1903), 51; Ghani, Armenia, 114. 25

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

63

nian chiefs, he would give him their estates.30 Yusuf summoned the two men and asked them to pay the back taxes peacefully. Ashot refused to see him and instead sent his mother, who urged Yusuf to take the hostages her son had given as a guarantee. Yusuf accepted and avoided fighting Ashot but, not trusting Bagrat, captured him and sent him to Samarra in chains. His cruel treatment of Bagrat enraged the Armenians, who attacked and drove him to hide in a church in Mush (in the province of Khwith) and murdered him in March 851.31 Another reason given for Yusuf’s murder is that one of his commanders, al-Ala ibn Ahmad al-Azdi, pillaged the Armenian Aqdah Monastery in Sisakan, in the mountainous district of Khwith, and tormented its monks; in response, their chief clergy roused the people of the district to seek vengeance.32 These events angered al-Mutawakkil, who decided to crush the Armenian rebels and convert them to Islam.33 In 851–852, he sent his Turkish general Bugha the Elder to subdue the Armenians. Bugha killed many people in the district of Khwith, and by 855 he had subdued most of Armenia and returned to Baghdad with a great number of captives.34 The caliph subjected these captives to all kinds of torture, trying to force them to embrace Islam, but most of them died rather than renounce their Christian faith.35 Grousset, Histoire, 375; Laurent, L’Armée, 175. Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 248; M. Canard, “L’Arménie et le Califate Arabe de Tur-Levonian,” Revue des Études Byzantines 13 (1978–1979): 387–407. Astarjian, Tarikh, 167–168, gives a similar account, saying Yusuf treacherously invited Ashot and Bagrat to an excursion and then arrested them, but then Ashot escaped, and the enraged Armenians annihilated Yusuf’s army and murdered him as he hid. 32 Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 248; Ghazarian, Armenian, 51; Grousset, Histoire, 358; Laurent, L’Armée, 201; Ghani, Armenia, 116; Macler, “Armenia,” 160. 33 Ghani, Armenia, 117, relies on Armenian sources but expresses doubt about their statements that al-Mutawakkil planned to convert the Armenians. His position is understandable; as a Muslim, he would naturally seek to portray the caliph in a favorable light. But al-Yaqubi, 3: 212, states that al-Mutawakkil was known for his persecution of the Christians. He ordered that no Muslim should seek the help of a Christian and that the newly built churches should be demolished. 34 Vladimir Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1953), 118. This book is a partial translation of the Arabic history Jami alDuwal by the twelfth-century writer Ahmad ibn Lutf Allah Munajjim Bashi. 35 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 119–124; Artsruni, History, 189–194, 215–218; Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, 1: 248; Laurent, L’Armée, 36; Grousset, Histoire, 362; J. Catholicos, Histoire de Arménie, M. J. Saint Martin, trans. (Paris, 1841), 108–110; Ghani, Armenia, 119. Al-Ghani’s defense of al-Mutawakkil on this matter is tenu30 31

64

THE CRUSADES

Despite their best efforts, the Abbasids found it difficult to protect and preserve their authority over Armenia. In the middle of the ninth century, the Abbasid state was plagued by many problems that encouraged its opponents to challenge its authority.36 Realizing that Armenia was very important to the preservation of their power and self-interest, the Abbasids cajoled the Armenian leaders by offering titles and precious gifts, while the Byzantines used similar tactics in an effort to win Armenia.37 Thus, in 861 al-Mutawakkil softened his policy and recognized Ashot as Armenia’s chief prince, but on December 10 of that year a group of Turkish commanders assassinated al-Mutawakkil and seized control of the Abbasid state, which fell into complete political, military, and economic chaos.38 The governors of the provinces, including Armenia, were constantly rebelling against the caliphs in Baghdad. The situation encouraged the Byzantine Emperor Michael III (842–867) to invade the Abbasid territory near the Upper Euphrates in 863. The Abbasid governor of Armenia, Ali ibn Yahya al-Armani, appointed in 862 by the Caliph al-Musta’in bi Allah (862–866), opposed him but lost his life in the battle.39 The Abbasid caliphs, forced to be lenient, released the Armenian captives in the prisons of Baghdad and Samarra and allowed them to return to their country. Reportedly, most of the Armenians who had embraced Islam renounced it and returned to Christianity.40 Near the end of his reign, Caliph al-Musta’in proclaimed Ashot (“Ashot the Great,” 859–890) the Prince of Princes of Armenia, Georgia, and the lands of the Caucasus.41 Ashot buttressed his new position by marous. Faruq Umar, al-Khilafa al-Abasiyya fi Asral-Fuda al-Askariyya, 2nd ed. (Baghdad: Matba’at al-Muhanna, 1977), 66. 37 Ghani, Armenia, 121. 38 Al-Yaqubi, 3: 216. 39 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 125; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 2nd ed., 5 (Beirut, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, 1967), 231–232. Throughput this work, all other quotations from this source will be drawn from H. R. C. Or., 1 and 2; Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, 7 (Cairo: Matba’at al-Istiqama, 1939), 420; Grousset, Histoire, 378; Laurent, L’Armée, 250– 253. 40 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 125–126; M. Canard, “L’Arménie et le Califate Arabe,” 13: 397; Catholicos, Histoire, 121–122; Grousset, Histoire, 369. 41 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 128; Minorsky, Studies, 118; Vasiliev, History, 1:314; D. Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 187–188, and The Armenians, 53; Astarjian, Tarikh, 113–114, 170; Catholicos, Histoire, 122. 36

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

65

rying his daughters to princes of the ruling families of Soniates (Siouni) and Vaspurakan. He also won the support of the Catholicos and other Armenian leaders who endorsed his policy of circumspection toward both the Abbasids and the Byzantines.42 Under Ashot, Armenia was in the enviable position of being courted by both the Abbasids and the Byzantines.43 In recognition of his unusual character and abilities, the Armenian princes urged the Caliph al-Mu’tamid (870–892) to proclaim Ashot their king, assuring him that they would remain his subjects and pay tribute. The caliph assented, and in 885 King Ashot I was formally crowned in the Armenian cathedral by the Catholicos Krikor II, establishing a new Armenia ruled by the Bagratid dynasty. The caliph was represented by his governor Isa ibn Shaykh al-Shaybani, who brought a crown and many expensive gifts.44 The Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867–886), an Armenian by birth, likewise recognized Ashot’s suzerainty, sent him a royal crown similar to that sent by the caliph, and concluded an alliance with him. Basil wanted to insure that Armenia would always remain a close ally of the Byzantine Empire and called Ashot “his beloved son.”45 The recognition of Ashot I by both the caliph and the emperor was an important event; it asserted the national identity of Armenia and assured its expansion under the Bagratuni dynasty.46 Armenian power reached its zenith early in the tenth century under Ashot II, the “Iron King” (914–929), who ruled north Armenia with Dvin as his capital. With Byzantine help, he managed to rid his country of the threat of Muslim onslaughts. When he visited Constantinople, the Emperor Romanus I Lecapenus (919–944) received him with great pomp and honor, and he became the first Armenian sovereign to bear the title of Shahanshah (King of Kings) of Armenia.47 He also succeeded in becoming independent of both the Abbasid caliph and

42 Astarjian,

Tarikh, 170; Laurent, L’Armée, 107; Catholicos, Histoire, 120. J. de Morgan, Histoire du peuple Arménien depuis les temps plus reculeis de des annals jusq’ae nos jours (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1919), 123–125; Ghani, Armenia, 125. 44 Drasxanakertc’i, History, 128; Vasiliev, History, 1: 314; Catholicos, Histoire, 123; de Morgan, Histoire, 416. 45 Catholicos, Histoire, 126; Grousset, Histoire, 395–396; Vasiliev, History, 1: 314; Canard, “Arminiya,” 637; Lang, Armenia, 188; Ghani, Armenia, 125. 46 George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Joan Hussey, trans. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957), 211. 47 Minorsky, Studies, 119; Tournebize, Histoire, 113. 43

66

THE CRUSADES

the Byzantine emperor.48 In southern Armenia, the Artsrunis ruled over the much smaller area of Vaspurakan, with Van as its capital.49 The situation changed in the second half of the tenth century as the Byzantine emperors, seeing that the Muslims’ power was decaying, began attacking to regain the territories they had lost to the Arabs in the seventh century. In 943 John Curcuas, a general serving Emperor Constantine VII, invaded and occupied Miyafarqin (Amid, or Diyarbakr), Dara and al-Ruha (Edessa). Mar’ash, Samosata and Anazarba were retaken between 958 and 961.50 The restoration of Byzantine territories continued under Emperor Nicephorus Phocas (963–969) and then John Tzimisces, who led four expeditions against the Muslims between 969 and 976 and caused so much fear in Muslim lands that the governors of Miyafarqin and Mosul were forced to pay tribute to the emperor. In 975 he led his fourth campaign into central Syria to crush Muslim power and restore Jerusalem to Byzantine hands. In a letter to the Armenian King Ashot III (952–977), whom he addresses as “Shahanshah of the illustrious Armenians and my illustrious son,” Tzimisces reports on his military feats in these campaigns.51 Ashot moved his capital to Ani, which under him and his successor Smbat II (977–989) became a flourishing city.52 With many towns and fortresses in northern Syria and Cilicia, including Melitene, Edessa and Antioch, again in Christian hands, the Muslim residents were expelled and Christians, including many Armenians, moved to settle them.53 So many Armenians settled these towns and fortresses that they installed bishops at Tarsus and Antioch.54 Steven Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign: A Study of Tenth-Century Byzantium (Cambridge, 1929), 125–133, 151–174; Catholicos, Histoire, 283–284; Nicolas Adontz, “Asot Erkat ou de fer Roi d’Arménie de 913 à 929,” Byzantion (1935): 22–24; Vasiliev, History, 1: 314; Astarjian, Tarikh, 171. 49 Canard, “Arminiya,” 1:636. 50 Ostrogorsky, History, 245–246. 51 Ara Edmond Dostourian, trans., Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Latham, New York: University Press of America, 1993), cited hereafter as Matthew of Edessa, 28–33; Ostrogorsky, History, 252–257, 260–264. For a detailed account of Tzimisces’s fourth campaign into Syria, see Umar Kamal Tawfiq, Muqaddimat al-Udwan al-Salibi (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1966), 141–160; Tournebize, Histoire, 118–119. 52 Astarjian, Tarikh, 185–190; Tournebize, Histoire, 119–120. 53 Nicolas Iorga, L’Arménie Cilicienne (Paris: J. Gamber, 1930), 87–88. 54 Sirapie Der Nersessian, The Armenians (New York: Praeger, 1970), 44. 48

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

67

In the first quarter of the eleventh century, the demography of the Armenian homeland changed dramatically due to the Turkish invasion and the expansionist policy of Emperor Basil II. Matthew of Edessa writes, “The savage nation of infidels called Turks gathered their forces and penetrated Armenia in the province of Vaspurakan in 1011–1012. They mercilessly slaughtered the Christian faithful with the edge of the sword.”55 The Armenian King John Senek’erim (1003–1021), the last Artsruni, sent his son David to fight the Turks, but despite David’s valor and the bravery of his men, he was no match for the Turks and was forced to retreat. In this distressing situation, King Senek'erim sought help from Emperor Basil, who saw an opportunity to bring Armenia under his authority. Basil offered an agreement under which Senek’erim would hand over the territory of Vaspurakan, including 72 fortresses, 4,400 villages, and a number of monasteries; Basil in return would give Sebastea to Senek’erim. Thus, Armenia’s kings and princes abandoned it.56 Basil’s successors were equally aggressive against Armenia. In 1041 the Emperor Michael IV (the Paphlagonian, 1034–1041) decided to incorporate all of Armenia into his domain but was defeated, and the next year the Armenian nobles proclaimed as king the seventeen-year-old Gagik II (1042– 1045).57 In 1045, Constantine Monomachus (co-emperor, 1042–1050, and emperor, 1050–1054) invaded Armenia and annexed the kingdom of Ani. He followed a policy of resettling Armenians in Cappadocia and Cilicia.58 He had planned to install a eunuch named Nicholas to rule Armenia in place of Gagik II, but the Armenians resisted Constantine’s forces and turned them back. Matthew of Edessa says some perfidious Armenians, including “the wicked Sargis,” collaborated with the Byzantines to deliver Armenia to the emperor. They sent the keys of Ani with a letter to the emperor, saying the city and the surrounding region were his. Monomachus invited Gagik to Constantinople and showed him the keys of the city and the letter he had received from these perfidious men. Gagik accused the emperor of deceit and vowed that he would never deliver his country to the emperor. Realizing, however, that his efforts were in vain, he abdicated and Matthew of Edessa, 44. Matthew of Edessa, 45–46; Tournebize, Histoire, 124–125. 57 Matthew of Edessa, 62–63, says Gagik was fifteen. See Canard, “Arminiya,” 1: 638. 58 Ostrogorsky, History, 294; T. S. R. Boase, “The History of the Kingdom,” in The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, T. S. R. Boase, ed. (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1978), 2. 55 56

68

THE CRUSADES

ceded Ani to the emperor and was compensated with estates in Cappadocia.59 Between 968 and 1045, Byzantine emperors carried out the process of annexing Armenia, believing that was the most effective way of extending their frontiers eastward and simultaneously integrating the disgruntled elements, mostly Armenians, into the military and political life of the empire. The process may actually have begun under Emperor Basil I (867–886) when the Armenian Kourtikios was given a military position in the empire’s government. Under Leo VI (“the Philosopher,” 886–912), the Armenian chieftain Manuel ceded Tekis to the empire and moved to Constantinople, where he was given honors. He received new holdings in the province of Trebizond, and his two sons received high military positions. The district of Taron was annexed in similar fashion in 966. Such actions did not always please the dispossessed Armenian princes, but they had no choice under pressure from the Byzantine emperors.60 Annexation continued on a large scale during the reign of Basil II, when nearly all of the Armenian provinces in the Upper Euphrates area were annexed. Before 1022 the vast region of Taik, extending from Manzikert, north of Lake Van, to Erzerum on the upper Euphrates and Artans, northwest of Kars, was annexed. It was followed by Vaspurakan, which extended from Lake Van to the mountain range which separates present-day Turkey from Iran. Thus, when Gagik was forced to surrender Ani and his kingdom to the Byzantine Empire, the power of the Bagratid dynasty collapsed.61 Although the displaced Armenian princes received other regions as compensation, they were dispersed, and whatever unity they had was shattered. They took with them their families and nobility, leaving Armenia almost empty of its most valiant men. We do not know how many Armenians left their homes for other regions, but the number must have been large. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks at the beginning of the eleventh century induced the Armenians, who had no protection, to leave. The thousands of Armenians who left their homes settled in Cappadocia, Cilicia, and northern Syria, where they established principalities and (at the end of 59 Matthew of Edessa, 70–73, 76; R. Grousset, L’Empire du Levant d’Orient: Histoire de la Question (Paris, 1964), 157; Astarjian, Tarikh, 197–198; Ghani, Armenia, 211. On the eunuch Nicholas, see Matthew of Edessa, 72, n. 1, and Canard, “Arminiya,” 1: 638; Tournebize, Histoire, 126–129. 60 Charanis, The Armenians, 48. 61 Matthew of Edessa, 73.

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

69

the twelfth century) the feudal kingdom of Little Armenia.62 We must emphasize that these people did not leave their country voluntarily, but rather because of either force or enticement on the part of the Byzantine emperors. Starting in the mid-tenth century, these emperors succeeded in recapturing vast territories from the Abbasids, particularly in Cilicia and northern Syria, which lost many of their Muslim inhabitants. Over the next century, the flight or voluntary movement of Muslims to other areas led the Byzantine emperors to bring Christian Armenians to settle in these regions. This resettlement policy may have worked temporarily, but in the end it proved disastrous. It marked the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor. It tremendously weakened a great stronghold which the Byzantines depended on to serve as a buffer state between themselves and the Turks. Armenia was too weak to withstand the Byzantines or the hordes of Seljuk Turks who appeared on its eastern borders. And when Armenia was attacked, Byzantine territory was attacked.63 Armenia’s difficult situation was compounded by a religious factor that is of great relevance to the Byzantines’ dealings with the Armenians and the Syrians. Like the great majority of the Syrian church, the Armenian Christians were believers in “One Nature of the God-Logos,” wrongly called “monophysites” because they rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), while many of the natives of the region of Cappadocia, Cilicia and northern Syria were adherents of the Byzantine Church, which embraced the decisions of that council. A rift and even animosity developed between the two peoples, for the Armenians were distrustful of the Byzantines and their expansion.64 Moreover, the Armenian culture and language differed from those of the other peoples of these regions, as did the liturgy and the administration of their churches.65 The Byzantines, extremely intolerant, aimed to destroy the attitudes and lifestyle of the Armenians both in Armenia proper and in Lesser Armenia in Cilicia.66 The Byzantine Church, Greek by culture and language, tried but failed to bring the Armenians into its fold. The Armenian people, who had become dominant in the regions Charanis, The Armenians, 51. Vasiliev, History, 1: 355. 64 Minorsky, Studies, 52. 65 Jacques De Vitry, The History of Jerusalem (London, 1896), 81; James H. Forse, “Armenians and the First Crusade,” Journal of Medieval History 16 (1991): 13–32, esp. 17–20; V. Kurkijian, A History of Armenia (New York, 1958), 52, 231, 235, 311–316. 66 Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610–1071 (New York, 1969), 333–336. 62 63

70

THE CRUSADES

where they had settled, were always the object of suspicion, for the Byzantine state was not sure of their loyalty. Michael Rabo, the patriarch of the Syrian Church, writes that at Manzikert the Armenian contingents rebelled because the Byzantines pressured them to accept their heresy (the faith of Chalcedon), and so “the Turks defeated the Rum” (Byzantines).67 Armenia faced two foes—the Byzantines and the Seljuk Turks, whose raids against Armenia constituted a real and present danger. King John Senek’erim surrendered Vaspurakan to the Emperor Basil II and accepted some Byzantine provinces in exchange, perhaps hoping to live a more peaceful life.68 The sons of Seljuk became the lords of Khurasan by 1038 and of Baghdad in 1055, making the Abbasid state and caliphs their vassals. Their proximity to the Armenian-Byzantine frontier enticed them to carry out their ghazi (religious activity) against the infidels. To enhance their power and prestige, the sons of Seljuk had to find an outlet for the Turkomans to conquer other lands, find pastures for their cattle, and channel their warlike activity. Armenia was theirs for the taking. When the Turks invaded Armenia, they knew the entire country was abandoned and unprotected. The Byzantines had removed the brave and mighty men from Armenia and the East, installing eunuchs in their place.69 Armenia lost its independence, but not its national spirit. Its adherence to the Orthodox faith preserved its identity, despite the continuous efforts of the Byzantine emperors and church to convert its people. In 1038 the Seljuk Turkish chief Tughrul Beg (Bey) (1038–1063), seeking new fields to conquer after establishing his rule in Khurasan, dispatched troops against Armenia, then under Byzantine control, and ravaged it. Over the next few years the Seljuks repeatedly attacked Armenia without meeting serious opposition. In 1045–1046, Tughrul conducted further raids there, though these were aimed mainly at the Muslims of northern Mesopotamia around Mosul.70 Returning to Persia after ravaging the Mosul area, his men passed through the Armenian town of Archis (Arqa), which had a Byzantine garrison. The Turks asked the Byzantine governor, Stephen, to allow them safe passage to their homeland in Khurasan but he refused. They engaged him in battle and defeated him, then flayed his skin and stuffed his Michael Rabo, 578 ( 169F). Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie, 153–154. 69 Matthew of Edessa, 76. 70 Minorsky, Studies, 54; Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1968), 20–47, and 68–69. 67 68

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

71

body with grass.71 In 1048 Ibrahim Inal (Yinal), the half-brother of Tughrul Beg, attacked Armenia, sacked Erzerum, and put the magnificent and populous Armenian town of Artsn to the sword.72 The Seljuks penetrated Byzantine lands and reached Manzikert, Arzun, and even Trebizond on the Black Sea, killed a great number of Byzantines, and took many of their patricians captives.73 Tughrul had a strong interest in Armenia, believing that the capture of this once autonomous state was crucial to checking Byzantine expansion. When he invaded it in 1048, he faced opposition from the prince of the province of Vanant (Kars), but the prince finally fell before the enormous Turkish force. Thirty young princes lost their lives, along with a great number of Armenians. In the fray Tatoul, son of the prince of Asuran, was wounded and captured by the Turks; Tughrul cut off his right arm and sent him back to Asuran.74 In 1050, Tughrul sent an envoy to the Arab governor of Armenia, Ibn Marwan, ordering him to submit and become his subject, but Ibn Marwan shrewdly gained peace by offering him plenty of expensive gifts.75 In the same year the Turks wrought havoc on the city of Melitene, killing so many people that some escaped death by hiding among the corpses. They took some captives and forced them, under threat of torture, to lead them to where the treasures of the city were hidden. They tortured many people to death, including Master Deacon Peter, who was captured while transcribing a fanqith (Syriac prayer book). When the Turks found he had many books, they thought he was a leader of the city’s Christians and ordered him to tread upon the cross. When he refused, they beat him and 71 Matthew

of Edessa, 74; Tournebize, Histoire, 129. Matthew of Edessa, 76. 73 Claude Cahen, “The Turkish Invasion: The Selchukids,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed., 1: 144; Macler, “Armenia,” 166–167; Vasiliev, History, 1: 355. 74 Astarjian, Tarikh, 199. 75 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 72. This work was translated by Ernest A. Wallis Budge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932, 2 vols.). Volume I contains the English translation, and Volume II the Syriac text, based on the Syriac MS in the Bodleian Library, Huntington No. 52, which shall be cited here throughout. In a Note to the Editor in Volume I, Budge says that he based his translation not on this MS but on another version written in Nestorian script and edited by Rev. Paul Bedjan. Thus, his page references to the Syriac text, inserted in parentheses in his English translation, may not coincide with the Bodleian MS. References here to the English translation will be indicated by a capital “E.” 72

72

THE CRUSADES

threw him into fire, then poured boiling tar on his head until he died. Michael Rabo says that the Turks stayed ten days in Melitene, ravaging and destroying the city before burning it. They destroyed the Monastery of Ibn Jaji (founded by Iliyya ibn Jaji of Takrit in 960) and the whole countryside, during the reign of the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1050– 1054).76 In 1054–1055 Tughrul attacked Armenia in an invasion called “a venomous and deadly windstorm.”77 He assaulted Berkri, devastating it and massacring its people. He destroyed the villages and farms between Lake Van and Georgia and Arzun. For eight days he besieged Archesh (Arjish), whose weary inhabitants finally submitted, offering him gifts of gold and silver, horses and mules. They begged him to go and capture Manzikert, saying then all Armenia would submit to him. He agreed, and came to Manzikert like “a serpent filled with every conceivable wickedness.”78 Matthew of Edessa relates at length how the city was saved by one brave man who ventured into Tughrul’s camp and burned a huge catapult he had erected. The inhabitants of Manzikert defied Tughrul by placing a pig on a catapult and hurling it into his camp, shouting, “O Sultan, take this pig for your wife and we will give you Manzikert as a dowry!” Enraged, Tughrul had the offenders decapitated. He left the city and went home in humiliation.79 Realizing he could not capture Manzikert, Tughrul had to be satisfied with pillaging and destroying the surrounding region.80 The Turks continued to harass the Byzantines during the brief reign of the meek, kindly, aged Emperor Michael IV (1056–1057). In 1058, the Seljuks returned to the offensive against the Armenian province of Taron. Tughrul’s nephew Alp Arslan succeeded him as sultan of the Seljuks in 1063, and soon afterwards he captured the Armenian city of Ani. Bar Hebraeus says the city was so well fortified that the Turks despaired of capturing it, but by a freak accident, one of its towers collapsed and the Turks laid a bridge across the River Aras and stormed the city. Hence, Alp Arslan was called Abu al-Fath.81 Ani must have been a glorious city, for it had Michael Rabo, 3: 572–574 (159–160F). Matthew of Edessa, 86. 78 Matthew of Edessa, 86; Cahen, 1:144; Minorsky, Studies, 54, n. 1. 79 Matthew of Edessa, 88. 80 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 8: 67. 81 Bar Hebraeus, 75 ( 216E), gives the date as 1063. Matthew of Edessa, 107– 108, also relates the fall of Ani. Chronicle of the Anonymous Edessan, in Anonymi Auctori Chronicon Ad Annum Christi Pertinens, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Oriental76 77

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

73

700,000 houses and a thousand churches.82 Reportedly Alp Arslan ordered the churches and mansions in Ani destroyed. Matthew of Edessa says his men slaughtered the inhabitants mercilessly, mowing them down like green grass and piling them atop one another, filling the city with blood. A number of Armenian noblemen and officials were brought in chains before the sultan, while innumerable respectable ladies and their children were taken as captives to Persia. Priests were burned to death, and others flayed alive from head to toe.83 King Gagik-Abas II (1029–1064) attempted to save his Bagratid kingdom of Kars by surrendering it to Emperor Constantine X Ducas (1059–1067), but the Seljuk Turks soon captured it. Alp Arslan conquered Armenia and devastated Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. The Turks also attacked Caesarea, capital of Cappadocia, and pillaged its spiritual centers, especially the Church of St. Basil the Great, which contained the relics of the saint.84 Thus, the Seljuk Turks penetrated the boundary of Byzantium proper through Armenia in the northeastern part of the country. They had found a weak spot, largely the result of the Byzantine emperors’ ill treatment of the Armenians and their neglect to fortify Armenia, the buffer that separated them from the Seljuk Turks. Weak and unprepared, the Byzantines finally lost to the Turks, and Byzantium became Turkey. In 1071 Alp Arslan defeated the army of Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes at the Armenian town of Mantskert (Manzikert), near Lake Van.85 The battle of Manzikert was a catastrophe for the ium, Vol. 15, ed. J. B. Chabot (Louvain, 1916), 47, seems to confuse Malikshah, the son of Alp Arslan, whom he calls Abu al-Fath, with Sulayman ibn Kutulmish, a cousin of Tughrul. According to the late Syrian Church Patriarch Aphram Barsoum, the Anonymous Edessan was a monk from the Mar Barsoum Monastery near Melitene, probably born at Edessa in 1160; his Chronicle is especially valuable because he was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes. The section on the Crusades, partially translated by A. S. Tritton and annotated by H. A. R. Gibb, was published as “The First and Second Crusades from an Anonymous Syriac Chronicle,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1933), 1: 69–101, 2: 273–305. Rev. Albert Abouna published an Arabic translation with copious and useful notes as Tarikh al-Ruhawi al-Majhul, Vol. 2 (Baghdad, 1986); Tournebize, Histoire, 133–134. 82 Matthew of Edessa, 102–103. 83 Matthew of Edessa, 103–104. 84 Vasiliev, History, 1: 355. 85 On the capture of Romanus Diogenes, his conversation with Alp Arslan, and his fate when he was released, see Matthew of Edessa, 86–88. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 76–78 (219–223E), says he drew his information from two manuscripts, one Arabic and the other Persian, but does not identify them. See Os-

74

THE CRUSADES

Byzantines, marking the beginning of the end of their empire; moreover, it brought an end to the great role the Armenians had played in the political and military life of the empire since the sixth century, although they continued to live within its borders.86 After Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks spread throughout the eastern provinces of Asia Minor, forcing many Armenians to leave their homeland and settle in Cilicia or in the Taurus Mountains near Antioch, where they established several principalities. Some of those who settled in the Taurus region remained loyal to the emperor and even defended Byzantium against the incursions of the Turks, but those who settled in Cilicia desired independence from Byzantium. With the Byzantine power now broken, the Turks expanded into the interior of Asia Minor. The Seljuk chief Sulayman, son of Kutulmish (1077– 1085), established the state of Rum at Iconium, in the heart of Byzantine territory. His authority extended to Cappadocia and even Nicaea, on the south side of the Bosphorus opposite Constantinople. Michael Rabo says that after their defeat, the Byzantines could no longer challenge the Turks; this statement leads us to conclude that after Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was no more.87 Asia Minor was thus torn up between the Byzantines and the Turks, among whom the Seljuk were predominant. After the disaster at Manzikert other Turkish hordes rushed to settle in many parts of the Byzantine territory, creating havoc for the Christians. They not only took the land but ravaged it so badly that the inhabitants could not plant or harvest crops. These Muslim Turkish hordes hated Christianity so much that they used the churches as stables for their horses. They immolated priests during the Holy Communion service and carried people into slavery, without regard for their age or position. They defiled virgins, took infants away, and forced the youth to be circumcised according to the rules of Islam. One writer summarized the situation with the words of the Prophet Jeremiah: “The children of Zion, never put to the test by misfortunes, now voyaged as slaves on foreign roads. The tender mothers, in place of preparing with their hands the nourishment of the sons, were themselves nourished from

trogorsky, History, 304, and Christopher J. Walker, Armenia: The Survival of a Nation (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1980), 30–31. 86 Charanis, The Armenians, 54, says when Henry of Flanders invaded Asia Minor after Constantinople fell in 1204, the Armenians (who neither liked nor trusted the Byzantines) offered him support and helped him take Abydus, which had been entrusted to an Armenian garrison. 87 Michael Rabo, 575, 577–579 (165, 168–172F).

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

75

the corpses of these dearly loved. Such and worse was the situation at that time.”88 Between 1083 and 1125, the Turkish hordes established permanent settlements in Asia Minor. Among these hordes were the Danishmend, who in 1085 captured Sebastea, Caesarea, Amasea, and other northern regions. Some other adventurous Turks, mainly Chaka, captured Smyrna (Izmir) and the Aegean littoral, while the Menguchek controlled Erzinjan and Colonea.89 While these events were taking place, a gang of fifty Armenian robbers had surreptitiously entered the region with the Turks and plied their trade. In the region of Mar'ash they met a young Armenian from the village of Shirka named Piladros (Philaretus), about whom we shall have more to say later.90 Thus, for over a century, the interaction of the Greeks, Turks, and Armenians dominated the entire Middle East, and the arrival of the Crusaders would add another dimension to the turbulence in the area.91 Michael Rabo’s treatment of the Byzantines and their conflict with the Turks is brief but fair. He calls the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1050–1054) generous and magnanimous.92 Of Emperor Michael VI Stratioticus (1056–1057), he says that this meek old man reigned only for one

88 M. Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’antiquité jusqu-au XIXe siècle, 1 (St. Petersburg: MM Eggers et companie, 1849), 349–350, cited in Speros Vryonis, Jr., “The Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975): 51. 89 Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 1 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 72. 90 Michael Rabo, 3: 580 (173F). 91 On the Armenians’ treatment by the Byzantine emperors and their migration to the western and southern regions of Asia Minor due to the expansion of the Seljuk Turks, see Runciman, Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 125–133, 151–174; Macler, “Armenia,” 167–182; Canard, “Arminiya,” 1: 636; Matthew of Edessa, 28–33; Ostrogorsky, 252–257; Tawfiq, Muqaddimat al-Udwan al-Salibi, 141–160; Iorga, L’Arménie, 87–88; Nersessian, The Armenians, 44; Lang, The Armenians, 52–57, and Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 196–201; Vasiliev, History, 1: 355; Grousset, 1: 620– 622; Aliyya Abd al-Sami al-Janzuri, Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya (Cairo, 1975), 37. On Manzikert, see Claude Cahen, “La Campagne de Manzikert d’aprés les sources musulmanes,” Byzantion 9 (1934): 613–642, and “The Turkish Invasion,” 1: 148– 149; Peter Charanis, “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century,” in A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years M. W. Baldwin, ed., 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 192–193. 92 Michael Rabo, 571 (152F).

76

THE CRUSADES

year, living off the sale of spoons he secretly made.93 He has nothing good to say about the Emperor Isaac Comnenus Sebastocrator (1057–1059), calling him tyrannical, arrogant and avaricious. He briefly relates how Isaac marched with an army against Constantinople and seized power from Michael VI, who then left Constantinople to enter the monastery he had built for himself, shaved off his hair, and became a monk.94 He praises Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118) as a mighty and wise man who saved Constantinople from the Franks. He fought the Franks, the Comans and the Egyptians (Fatimids), and administered his kingdom “for twenty-nine years” with skill.95 On the negative side, he points out that the emperor ordered the burning of two churches, one Syrian and the other Armenian, but does not condemn him for this action. Until Alexius’ time, he says, the Syrian and Armenian churches both had congregations in Constantinople, each served by a single priest who saw to the needs of his congregation, mostly merchants. One day a priest from Syria visited Constantinople and, apparently offended at his reception by the Syrian priest there, told the Byzantines that the Syrians and the Armenians in their capital were in league with the Turks. The emperor angrily ordered that both churches be burned and expelled the priests; the congregations, left without a shepherd of their own, joined the “heretics”, i.e., the Byzantine church.96 Michael Rabo writes at length about the Byzantines’ ill treatment of his church and community, resulting from a Christological controversy that the members of the Council of Chalcedon (451) thought they had settled once and for all. Unfortunately, that council split the universal church into two camps which remain divided to this day. The Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Church, and part of the Syrian Church of Antioch adopted the decisions of the council, while the Coptic Church (the church of Egypt), along with another part of the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, and the Armenian Church rejected Chalcedon. Unless one understands the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries that culminated in the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and their effect on the different churches and communities in the following centuries, it is easy to state without qualification (as Runciman does) that Michael Rabo’s treatment of Michael Rabo, 574 (160F). Michael Rabo, 575–576 (165F). 95 Michael Rabo, 598 (204F). In fact, Alexius Comnenus reigned for thirtyseven years. 96 Michael Rabo, 585–586 (185F). 93 94

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

77

the Byzantines is prejudiced.97 The truth is that Michael Rabo did not hate the Byzantines as individuals or as a nation. He detested them for persecuting his own church and community over doctrinal matters dating back to the fifth century. Thus, an explanation of the doctrinal differences between the Byzantines and the Syrians is in order. The dispute between the Byzantines and the Syrian Church centers on the manner of the union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine, in the Incarnation. Until the late fourth and early fifth centuries, theologians in both East and West had little interest in the union of the two natures. They were more concerned with the Egyptian priest Arius, who maintained that the Son (Jesus Christ) was not of the same being or substance with the Father. The Arian heresy was condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, which formulated what came to be called the Nicene Creed. Then came the heresy of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428–431), who stated that the Virgin Mary had given birth not to a divine being, but to a mere man who later became Christ by adoption. Nestorius came from the theological school of Antioch, which emphasized the human aspect of Christ, whereas the school of Alexandria emphasized His divine aspect. In the language of the time, Nestorius said that the Virgin Mary was not Theotokos (Bearer/Mother of God) but Christotokos, that is, the mother of the man Christ. The controversy was ignited by a sermon by the presbyter Anastasius, whom Nestorius had brought with him from Antioch to administer his diocese. Anastasius, an exponent of the theology of the School of Antioch, argued that no man should call Mary Theotokos because it was impossible that God should be born of woman. This statement would have created little controversy if it had not been endorsed by Nestorius. Once Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (d. 444), heard that Nestorius held the same belief as his presbyter, he accused Nestorius of promoting an unbiblical doctrine. The Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorius’ belief that Mary was not Theotokos, was meant to end the controversy, which had created a rift between Antioch, Rome and Constantinople on the one hand and Alexandria on the other. At the center of the controversy was the doctrine that in His Incarnation, God the word (Christ) became flesh by being born to a woman under human conditions. Thus, in the womb of Mary God the Word became man, and His divine nature was united with His human nature, which he took from Mary to form One Nature, or mia physis (the formula employed by St. Cyril of Alexandria, who said he borrowed it 97

Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 489, Appendix 1 of the Syriac sources.

78

THE CRUSADES

from St. Athanasius of Alexandria, defender of the faith against the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicaea). The dispute over One Nature versus Two Natures intensified, to the detriment of the church, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) was called to resolve it. This was mere wishful thinking, for politics, egotism, and the self-interest of church leaders, especially Leo I, bishop of Rome, had a powerful but pernicious influence on the determination of doctrinal issues. Motivated by his desire for revenge and his contempt for the high prestige of the See of Alexandria, Leo hoped to punish and humiliate Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria, and curtail the supremacy of his See. The Council of Chalcedon was merely the instrument by which he could achieve his goal, disguised by a theological veneer. The Council formulated the doctrine that in the Incarnation the two natures of Christ were united in One Person. This notion was rejected by the Egyptian and Syrian members of the council, who stood by Cyril’s formula of faith. Surprisingly Dioscorus, who was at the center of the controversy, was condemned not for his beliefs but for his refusal to allow a letter by Leo of Rome, known as the Tome, to be read at the Second Council of Ephesus (449), at which he had presided. The formula of faith proposed by the Council of Chalcedon was endorsed by Rome and Constantinople but rejected by Alexandria and a great majority of the See of Antioch. Shortly afterward, it was also rejected by the Armenian Church.98 The rift within the church universal, now irreconcilable, brought a great deal of trouble to the church. The Byzantine emperors caused much of the trouble, injecting politics and self-interest into the doctrinal controversy by supporting one faction against the other. The Byzantine church and emperors began to persecute those who rejected the formula of faith of Chalcedon, labeling them “Monophysites,” i.e., adherents of the One Nature doctrine. The Syrian Church was so persecuted by the Chalcedonians that in the sixth century only two Syrian bishops were left to administer their flock. The story of this persecution is vividly told by the Syrian historian John of Ephesus (d. 585), who himself experienced it.99 At this point 98 On the opposing views at the Council of Chalcedon, see R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: SPCK, 1953), and Two Ancient Christologies (London: SPCK, 1954); A. Grillmeir and H. Bacht, Das Konzil Von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart (Würzburg, 1954); V. C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch (Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1977), and The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (Madras: The Senate of Serampore College, 1977). 99 R. Payne Smith, trans., The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

79

the great Jacob Baradaeus (d. 578) revived the Syrian and Egyptian churches and saved them from utter annihilation. In the next century, when their homelands fell into the hands of the marauding Muslim Arabs, the Syrians, Copts, and Armenians found themselves under the heels of new masters who not only had a different religion but were determined to reduce them to the status of dhimmis, subjects who would be protected if they paid taxes. The idea that the Christians of Syria and Egypt opened their gates for the Muslim Arabs to save themselves from their Byzantine persecutors is sheer historical fallacy, promoted by ancient Muslim chroniclers and propagated by Muslim and some Christian writers to this day. Historian Philip Hitti says that Damascus, Syria’s capital, surrendered to the army commander Khalid ibn al-Walid in September 635 “through treachery on the part of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, who included the father of the celebrated St. John of Damascus,” but gives no documentation for this assertion. His statement, “The people of Shyzar (Larissa) went out to meet him [Khalid ibn al-Walid] accompanied by players on the tambourines and singers and bowed down before him,” is based on a sole Muslim source, the ninth-century historian Ahmad al-Baladhuri.100 As for the Arabs’ conquest of Egypt, the Egyptian historian Jacques Tajir has proved that no Christian Copt collaborated with the Arabs to enable them to occupy Egypt, although some welcomed the tolerance of their new masters after suffering the intolerance of their Byzantine masters.101 This is not the place to challenge these fallacies. Suffice it to say that the Muslim Arabs conquered Syria and Egypt by the sword, and there is no tenable substantive evidence that they did so (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1860), 1–49. See also the work by an anonymous eighth-century monk, The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV, A.D. 488–775, trans. Amir Harrak (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999). 100 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, 10th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1970), 150–152. See Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan,1: 156. 101 Jacques Tajir, Aqbat wa Muslimun mundhu al-Fath al-Arabi ila Am 1922 [Copts and Muslims From the Arab conquest to the year 1922] (Jersey City: The American, Canadian, and Australian Coptic Association, 1984), 40–51. This work, which Tajir presented to the Sorbonne University in Paris as a doctoral dissertation in 1948, was published in French and Arabic in Egypt in 1952, but the Egyptian government to this day has banned it. I apologize for having written earlier in a short article that the Copts welcomed the Arabs. I had no access then to Tajir’s book. See Matti Moosa, “Origins of the Christian Minorities in the Middle East,” Bibliophilus 1: 2 (Spring 1982): 85.

80

THE CRUSADES

with the consent or treachery of some of their people. The Byzantines were so weak that the Muslim Arabs would have prevailed with or without such assistance. The only direct testimony by a Syriac source on the Arab conquest of Syria comes from Patriarch Dionysius of Tall Mahre (d. 845), who was quite familiar with the Muslims and their affairs. He was a friend of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun (d. 833), who sent him to Egypt to pacify a Coptic rebellion against the Abbasids. In his history, which is lost to us (fortunately, Michael Rabo preserved parts and incorporated them into his own work), Tall Mahre relates the dissension caused within his community by the Emperor Heraclius (610–641), who tried to win the Syrians to the Byzantine fold by forcing them to accept the decision of the Council of Chalcedon. They refused, and Heraclius, enraged, issued an order that anyone who did not accept Chalcedon have his nose and ears cut off and his house looted. Out of fear many monks, including those of the Monastery of Marun, endorsed the Council of Chalcedon. The people of Homs and the southern parts of Syria also embraced Chalcedon and seized many Syrian churches and monasteries. Tall Mahre laments this persecution of the Syrian church and community: “When God, the Lord of vengeance, who alone has the control of everything, and who offers sovereignty to whom He wills and takes it away from whom He wills, and who establishes the weak in this sovereignty, saw the perfidy of the Rum (Byzantines) who plundered our churches and monasteries whenever they became powerful and treated us without mercy, He brought the sons of Ishmael (allegedly the Arabs) from the south, that through them we might have salvation from the hands of the Rum.”102 Evidently, Tall Mahre considers the Arab conquest of Syria a divine act of God meant to save the Syrians from their Byzantine persecutors. He says nothing of any Syrian collaboration with the conquering Arabs or betrayal of the country by the native civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Much to the benefit of the Muslims and to the detriment of the Byzantines, the persecution of the Syrians by the Byzantine state and church continued up to the time of the Crusades. Michael Rabo’s description of the Byzantine emperors’ vicious treatment of his own church and community is not based on prejudice but rather is a statement of historical fact. The Byzantines did not see that by persecuting their fellow Christians, the Syrians and the Armenians, they were weakening themselves and offering the Turks 102 Michael Rabo, 409–410 (412–413F), also in Gregorius Saliba Shamoun, trans., Tarikh Mar Mikhail al-Suryani al-Kabir (Aleppo: Dar Mardin, 1966), 2: 302.

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

81

a great opportunity to fight them and devastate their lands. As the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire had once been occupied by the Muslim Arabs, in the eleventh century it fell to another Muslim force, the Seljuk Turks. When the Turks began their assault on Armenia and Byzantine territories, Michael Rabo writes, Emperor Romanus III Argyrus (1028–1034) fought against them but was defeated and fled. After ravaging the area, the Muslims took control of Aleppo, which the Greeks (Byzantines) had already evacuated. Less concerned about the fall of Aleppo than about the Byzantines' persecution of the Christians, Michael says: It never occurred to the Greek (Byzantine) tyrants that the ancestors of this king (Emperor Romanus) never stopped persecuting the Christians everywhere. Today they returned to their old habits. They banished the patriarch and the bishops. Thus, God defeated them by their enemies and placed them under the control of their haters.103

He goes on to relate at length the story of the Chalcedonians’ persecution of the Syrian Patriarch Yuhanna VIII Bar Abdun (John son of Abdun) and the involvement of Emperor Romanus in doctrinal affairs. Yuhanna bar Abdun was a simple but righteous man known for his miracles, having once healed the Chalcedonian governor of Melitene of leprosy. But Nicephorus, the bishop of Melitene, was very jealous of Yuhanna bar Abdun, who he thought had attracted many Chalcedonian followers in the city, and complained to the authorities in Constantinople that he could not manage the affairs of his diocese while “that sorcerer” was in it. Emperor Romanus, who was a schoolmate of Yuhanna bar Abdun, urged the leaders of Melitene to move him to the Muslims’ territory for safety. But his enemies prevailed; the emperor finally summoned Bar Abdun to appear before him in Constantinople. Accompanied by six bishops and abbots, he arrived in mid-June 1028. As it happened, there were two hundred Chalcedonian bishops there, assembled in the church of Hagia Sophia, waiting for an audience with the emperor (the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch was not present). When they asked why Yuhanna bar Abdun and his clerics were there, they were told that, like the Greeks, they were Christians. Realizing that he had no case against them, Nicephorus asked someone to go through the streets crying out that these clerics did not confess Mary as the Mother of God. This false accusation apparently succeeded; people spat at Yuhanna and his companions and even hurled trash at them. 103 Michael Rabo, 559–560 (136–137F), erroneously gives the date of Romanus’s battle against the Muslims as 1037 rather than 1030.

82

THE CRUSADES

The bishops kept Bar Abdun and Iliyya, bishop of Semando, on their feet all day long, questioning them on their faith. Yuhanna bar Abdun gave them two documents about the faith of his church. After reading these, the Chalcedonian bishops said they had brought him and the others here to teach them the faith, not to learn what their faith was. Through an interpreter, the bishops asked them to embrace the belief in “two natures of Christ after the union, which is the faith of Chalcedon.” Bar Abdun replied, “We will never admit two natures after the union, nor will we alter the faith of our fathers.” Nicephorus asked, “Don't you accept the faith of the emperor?” The patriarch said, “We obey the command of the pious emperor in everything. As to changing our faith, this is impossible.” Instantly, Nicephorus stretched his hand and slapped the patriarch, who turned the other cheek. When those present saw what had happened, they were grieved and wept. One of them said, “I cannot sit in this assembly and see Christ slapped on his face and humiliated.” Other bishops likewise expressed their resentment, and thus the first meeting ended. Patriarch Abdun and his companions were then moved to the Mina Monastery, and on the next day to the Monastery of St. Gregory. In a second meeting, the Chalcedonian bishops engaged the Syrians in a lengthy debate but failed to change their faith. Then they asked them not to add olive oil to the Communion bread, and to sign the cross not with one finger (indicating the union of the two Natures of Christ in One Nature), as was their custom, but with two fingers (indicating that the two Natures of Christ remained distinct after their union). The Syrian clerics refused, and the Chalcedonians separated them, placing the patriarch Bar Abdun and Bishop Dionysius in a monastery. Emperor Romanus called four of the Syrian bishops and through an interpreter asked them to accept the faith of Chalcedon. One of them, Iwannis, replied, “We will never change our faith. Release us, or we are ready to die for the sake of Christ.” The emperor then ordered them thrown into the Numera prison, where they were tortured for two months. He was angry at Nicephorus for having brought the patriarch and his bishops to Constantinople, but there is no evidence that he rebuked him or punished him for his action. Meanwhile, Nicephorus succeeded in getting some of the bishops to proclaim the faith of Chalcedon, saying he did not want them to change their faith but only to offer honor and homage to the emperor; he had them sign their change of faith and brought their signatures to the emperor. The emperor sent a messenger to offer Patriarch Yuhanna Bar Abdun the See of Antioch if he would embrace the faith of Chalcedon. The patriarch answered, “I have a see in both earth and heaven and do not want any other.

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

83

If you want me to change my faith in order to gain a see rich with money and a great congregation, know that I will never change my faith even if you offer me your throne.” The emperor then asked about the other bishops’ admission of the faith of Chalcedon, but they said they could not make any statement while the old man (Patriarch Yuhanna Bar Abdun) was present. Nicephorus ordered the patriarch transferred from prison to his residence in Constantinople. He spat in his face and insulted him, saying, “Where are those who thronged around you in Melitene? I am the one who brought you here, O hypocrite.” He hoped to provoke the patriarch to condemn the recreant bishops, thinking such action would convince the emperor to issue a death sentence against Abdun. The patriarch said, “My Lord has not ordered me to curse my persecutors, but according to the law He established, I should love my enemies. If your Lord has ordered you to hate and persecute, you should know better.” After insulting and humiliating him, Nicephorus sent the patriarch to the Monastery of Gaius in Bulgaria, where he died on February 22, 1031, the festival day of the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple.104 The persecution of the Syrian clerics did not end with the death of Yuhanna bar Abdun but extended to his successor Dionysius Haya (1032– 1042). Haya, abbot of the Monastery of Lazarus in the district of Jubas, was chosen as patriarch and ordained at the Monastery of Mar Demete. The Chalcedonian congregation of Melitene then sent word of his ordination to Constantinople, and the emperor ordered him arrested and taken to the capital. Some prominent Syrians of Melitene, members of Haya’s church, warned him, and he immediately crossed the Euphrates river to the city of Amid in the Muslims’ region. The Byzantine governor of Melitene sent gifts to the governor of Amid, urging him to execute the emperor’s order and deliver Haya to the Byzantine authorities. The governor replied, “Our laws do not permit us to arrest those who find refuge with us and deliver them to their enemies. Nor do they allow us to force anyone to embrace any docMichael Rabo, 560–565 (136–145F). In his biography of Yuhanna Bar Abdun, Bar Hebraeus gives the date of his death as February 2, 1034; Michael Rabo, listing the names of the patriarchs of the Syrian Church to his lifetime at the end of his Chronicle, gives 1004 as the date of Bar Abdun’s ordination as patriarch and 1031 as the date of his death, which is more plausible. On the question of dates, see Chabot’s French translation, 139, n. 1. Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki, Tarikh Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki (Beirut: Matba’at al-Aba al-Yasu’iyyin, 1909), 252, discusses the persecution of Patriarch Yuhanna and the six bishops in the time of Emperor Romanus III Argyrus. 104

84

THE CRUSADES

trine.” The Byzantines were ashamed, although generally they knew no shame or reproach. Haya spent the rest of his life in Amid, where he died and was buried.105 Michael Rabo says the persecution of the Syrians continued under Emperor Constantine X Ducas (1059–1067), when the Chalcedonians also acted against the Armenians under the rule of the Rum (Byzantines). He calls this persecution more cruel than that carried out by ancient pagans against the Christians. Although the Christians had suffered attacks and loss of property at the hands of the Turks, their oppression by the Chalcedonians was harsher. The Patriarch of Constantinople—probably John VIII Xiphilin (1063–1075), although Michael Rabo does not name him—decided to persecute the Syrians and the Armenians in Constantinople who refused to embrace the “heresy” of the Greeks, i.e., the faith of Chalcedon, but without avail. Finally Mari, one of the patriarch’s assistants, gathered the books and vessels from the Syrian and Armenian churches and burned them. His men poured the Holy Body and Blood (of the Eucharist) and the Holy Chrism on the floor and trod upon them. Immediately, says Michael Rabo, divine justice came upon this patriarch, who died in his bed without being sick.106 Meanwhile the Turks, taking advantage of the quest for power of Isaac Comnenus (1057–1059), attacked Byzantine territory, looting, destroying, and burning many regions. They attacked Melitene without resistance. But the Byzantines’ political problems and their humiliation by the Turks did not stop them from persecuting the Syrians. Soon they attacked Patriarch Athanasius V Haya and some of his bishops, including his nephew, Bishop Ignatius III of Melitene (d. 1094). The patriarch, meek and inclined to asceticism, was renowned for his profound knowledge of philosophy, rhetoric, logic, and Biblical studies. He and some bishops were arrested by the Byzantine authorities and imprisoned for five months in the Matran Monastery (the Monastery of Saint Ebdocos [Eudocos] of the Rum, near Melitene), then transferred to Constantinople. When they reached Arqa, west of Melitene, Patriarch Athanasius died, and his body was returned for burial at the Monastery of St, Harun (Aaron) al-Shaghr in the Blessed Mountain near Melitene. His nephew Bishop Ignatius, sent to Constantinople to be questioned about his faith, wrote a ten-page tract summarizing the faith of Michael Rabo, 565–566 (147F). In his Ecclesiastical History, Bar Hebraeus gives the dates of Haya’s patriarchate as 1034–1044. 106 Michael Rabo, 576 (166F). 105

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

85

his church and describing the distress he had suffered because of his arrest. In this tract (parts of which Michael Rabo incorporated into his Chronicle), Ignatius says the Greek authorities took him with other bishops to Constantinople and they appeared like common criminals before the Greek Patriarch, who accused them of upholding an opposing doctrine. Nicolaus, the Greek bishop of Melitene, pointed to Ignatius, saying, “This is the one who will win the whole city of Melitene to his doctrine because he is learned and discerning.” The patriarch asked Ignatius and his colleagues to teach him about their faith, and after stating the Nicene Creed, Ignatius explained the doctrine of his church about the Oneness of the Natures of Christ after the Incarnation. He said that Christ is one nature made from two, the divine and the human, both of which are perfect, as the holy Fathers had said. These two natures constitute One Nature of the Incarnate Word and One Person, without change and confusion. He added that his church recognized only three universal Councils (those of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Constantinople) and did not accept the Chalcedonian definition of the faith purporting two Natures, two Essences, two Activities and two Wills of the Incarnate Word. Ignatius laments that although he and the other bishops with him did not yield on any point of faith to the Greeks, they were exiled to Agaius in Macedonia, where they remained for three years and were insulted and humiliated for no reason except their faith. Upon Emperor Ducas’s death in 1067, Queen Eudocia, intent on consolidating power, ordered that all prisoners and exiles be released. Accordingly, Ignatius and his colleagues were freed and returned to Melitene, unknown to the Chalcedonian patriarch. Ignatius thanks God that he did not yield to the Chalcedonians, despite their tempting propositions: “By God’s grace we have kept our Orthodox faith and did not mingle with the heretics.”107 Some emperors, notably Justinian I and then Heraclius in the seventh century, tried but failed to win the Syrians to the Chalcedonian fold. Instead of unity and peace, Heraclius caused more dissension, which led to Monothelitism and the rise of the Maronite Church and community.108 Five centuries later, Emperor Manuel I (1143–1180) made a similar effort; when 107 Michael Rabo, 576 (166–168F). For a short biography of Ignatius III, bishop of Melitene, see Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab al-Syrianiyya (Aleppo, 1956), 459, n. 1, and Moosa, 138. 108 Moosa, The Maronites in History (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005), especially chapter 12.

86

THE CRUSADES

Michael Rabo visited Antioch in 1172–1173, the Byzantines used the opportunity to begin a debate with him regarding the faith.109 Michael Rabo wrote down his confession of faith and handed it to the Byzantines, who sent it to Constantinople. The emperor asked a learned man named Christophorus to write a response to the patriarch, and in 1173 he sent an emissary named Theorianus to Nersis, the Armenian Catholicos, and to Michael Rabo. On reaching the Roman citadel, Theorianus sent word to Michael Rabo that the emperor wanted him to come to Syria because for various reasons he could not go to Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia), but the patriarch declined. Theorianus returned to Constantinople and soon came back with another message from the emperor, asking Michael Rabo to set the time and place for a meeting. Michael sent his disciple the monk Tadrus (Theodore) bar Wahbun to meet with Theorianus; Theodore was detained after reaching Melitene, but Christophorus carried his letters to Constantinople.110 When the two sides met, Bar Wahbun defended the orthodoxy of his church’s belief in the ‘One Incarnate Nature of God the Word’ by citing Aristotle’s philosophy, especially regarding the division (whether intrinsic or accidental) of essences into corporeal and incorporeal. Theorianus asked, “What business have we with this pagan Aristotle?” Nersis, the Armenian Catholicos, replied, “You tried to attack us with your riddles, thinking that we are ignorant and have no answer. Now that we have presented proofs to refute you, you attempt to dodge the issue and find excuses.” On returning to Constantinople, Theorianus wrote Michael Rabo that the emperor wanted him to agree to ten points, five on doctrine and the rest concerning rituals. From this letter, reported by Bar Hebraeus in his biography of Michael Rabo, it appears the emperor presented nothing new. He wanted the patriarch to accept the Chalcedonian view on “the Unity of the Two Natures of Christ in One Person” and (among other things) to stop adding to the Trisagion the phrase, “Thou who were crucified for us have mercy on us.”111 Naturally, the patriarch was not willing to concede on these points. Michael Rabo does not discuss his communication and subsequent debate with Manuel I, but they are treated briefly by the Anonymous Edessan, 311 (352A), and thoroughly by Bar Hebraeus in the biography of Michael Rabo in his Ecclesiastical History, translated into Arabic by Aphram Barsoum. This translation, handwritten by Barsoum as a monk in 1909, is now in my possession. 110 The Anonymous Edessan, 311–314 (350–352A), gives the text of the letter that Michael Rabo wrote about the faith and asked Theodore bar Wahbun to deliver. 111 For an explanation of the Trisagion and the controversy it created, see 109

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

87

In a gracious gesture, the emperor invited the patriarch to Constantinople to discuss matters of faith. He gave him a choice, either to accept the doctrine of Chalcedon or to remain faithful to his own doctrine. The patriarch answered, “We are desirous to achieve unity of faith with anyone who keeps without change the belief of Athanasius and Cyril in the One Incarnate Nature of God the Word.”112 This whole episode shows clearly that the Byzantines regarded the Syrians and Armenians, who rejected Chalcedon, as recalcitrant and even antagonistic to their church and state. They never understood that these doctrinal differences and the controversies resulting from them were instrumental in the downfall of their state in the East, which they lost first to the Muslim Arabs and later to the Muslim Turks. Indeed, as late as the thirteenth century, Jacques De Vitry (d. 1240), bishop of Acre and later of Jerusalem, wrote that there were irreconcilable disputes between the Armenians and the Greeks (Byzantines) regarding their rites and practices.113 We should note here that Emperor Manuel’s real motive in communicating with the Syrian Patriarch Michael Rabo and the Armenian Catholicos Nersis was to effect unity of the Syrians and the Armenians with Constantinople, because he needed their cooperation against the Turks. But this effort was too little and too late, for the two groups had been divided since the fifth century. The Byzantines’ ill treatment of the Armenian church and people because they rejected the faith of Chalcedon made Armenia a cold prey for the hordes of Seljuk Turks. This was especially crucial to the Byzantines, for the Armenians had their own state and principalities in Cilicia, whereas the Syrians had neither. As Emperor John I Tzimisces (969–976) added territories in Syria to his empire, the Byzantines continued persecuting the nonChalcedonian churches and communities even after the Armenians moved their capital to Ani. They made trouble for several Armenian kings, especially Gagik I of Ani (989–1020), whom they tried to force to accept their faith.114 Matthew of Edessa vividly relates the effort of Emperor ConstanMoosa, The Maronites, chapter 8, especially 69–73. 112 Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Mar Michael Rabo. Commenting briefly on this episode, the Anonymous Edessan, 311 (350A), asks, “How could the Chalcedonians be expected to agree to the creed of the faith of the Orthodox?” 113 Vitry, History of Jerusalem, 81. 114 Gustave Leon Schlumberger, Recits de Byzance et des Croisades, 1 (Paris: PlonNourrit, 1917), 127.

88

THE CRUSADES

tine X Ducas (1059–1067) and the Patriarch John VIII Xiphilin (1063– 1075) “to destroy the faith of the Armenians,” i.e., to make them embrace the Chalcedonian faith. The emperor hoped that Atom and Abu Sahl, sons of King Gagik I, and the vardapet (monk) James of Sanahin, who had accompanied them to the capital, would recognize the faith of Chalcedon and receive baptism according to the Roman faith, bur they refused. They told the emperor that they were unable to do anything of this sort without their former king Gagik II (1042–1045).115 The emperor did not want Gagik II to come to Constantinople because he knew that he was a brilliant philosopher and formidable theological debater. Instead, he debated regarding the two natures of Christ with the vardapet James, who seemed somewhat inclined toward accepting the Chalcedonian faith. James drew up a document of reunion of faith between the Armenian and Byzantine churches, which the emperor ordered deposited at the Church of Saint Sophia. In 1065 or 1066, Gagik II hastened to Constantinople to meet with the emperor, asked to see the document James had drafted, and tore it in two and threw it at the emperor’s feet. Pointing at James, he said this man was only a monk who knew little about the true faith of the Armenian Church, and there were many Armenians who would not accept the compromise he had drafted. He then reprimanded James: “How dare you write this document and get yourself involved in such nonsense?” Turning again to the emperor, Gagik said, “I am king and a son of kings of Armenia, and all Armenians obey my commands. I am well versed in the Old and New Testaments, and all the Armenians are witnesses to the truth of my words. I shall present a discourse concerning the faith to the Romans (Byzantines) and to the emperor and patriarch.” He then proceeded to deliver a brilliant and decisive Christological discourse before the emperor and the Greek learned men and rhetoricians, convincing them of the orthodoxy of the faith of the Armenian Church. Pleased with his arguments, the emperor established peace and friendly relations with the Arme-

Dostourian, Matthew of Edessa, 2: 314, n. 6, says Gagik II (1042–1045) married the daughter of David, the eldest brother of Atom and Abu Sahl. The Byzantine Emperor Michael IV claimed that King John-Smbat of Ani, who died childless in 1040, had named him as successor to the Armenian throne, but the patriotic Armenians chose the king’s nephew Gagik instead. In 1043–1044 the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042–1055) claimed authority over Armenia, and in 1045 Gagik abdicated and went into exile. See Matthew of Edessa, 144–145; Lang, The Armenians, 56. 115

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

89

nians. He bestowed many gifts on Gagik II, Atom and Abu Sahl, and the Armenian clergy exalted Gagik for his vigorous defense of their faith.116 The abuse of the Armenians and their faith did not stop with Gagik’s discourse in Constantinople. Leaving the capital with his retinue, Gagik came to the city of Caesarea in Cappadocia. There he heard that the Chalcedonian bishop Mark had a dog which he had named ‘Armen,’ clearly insulting the Armenians. Gagik requested and received an invitation to be the bishop’s guest. While at the house, he asked the bishop to call his dog, but the dog did not respond because he did not call it by name. At Gagik’s insistence, the bishop called out “Armen, Armen!” and the dog immediately responded. Outraged, Gagik asked his men to place both the bishop and his dog in a bag. They did so and began calling the dog by name. Angered at being confined in the bag, the dog attacked the bishop and tore his flesh, killing him.117 The Byzantines never forgave Gagik II. In 1097 they ambushed him as he went to pay a friendly visit to the Armenian Prince Abu al-Gharib in Tarsus. Three Byzantine brothers treacherously knocked him off his horse and took him prisoner, strangled him with a rope, and hung him from the ramparts. Philaretus (Brakhamius, or Varham), the Armenian ruler in Anatolia, who had professed the Byzantines’ faith to further his political career, had a hand in his murder.118 The Byzantines’ alienation of Armenia and its people worked to the decided advantage of the Seljuk Turks. Canard rightly says, “The favor the Byzantines granted to the Chalcedonian clergy explains in part the success of the Seljukids in Armenia.”119 It is ironic that despite their doctrinal differences, the Byzantine emperors relied on the Armenians, particularly Philaretus, to ward off the Seljuks’ attacks.120 But they acted too late to survive the onslaught of the Turkish hordes. The final calamity came in 1071, when Alp Arslan defeated and captured the Emperor Romanus Diogenes at Manzikert, north of Lake Van. No one has explained the enormity of this disaster and its impact on the Christian population of the East so well as the Matthew of Edessa, 111–120. Matthew of Edessa, 121–123. Steven Runciman, Byzantine Civilization (London, 1933), 288–289, says, “Gagik caused a scandal when he invited Bishop Mark of Caesarea to dinner and murdered him by tying him up in a sack with his dog, all because the Bishop, feeling about the Armenians much as eighteenth-century Englishmen felt about Scots, had called that dog ‘Armenian.’” 118 Matthew of Edessa, 144–145; Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie, 1: 620–622. 119 Canard, “Arminiya,” 1: 638. 120 Iorga, L’Arménie Ciliciénne, 89. 116 117

90

THE CRUSADES

Byzantine chronicler Michaelis Attaliotae. Writing under the emperor Michael Parapinakes (1071–1077), he says, “Under this emperor almost the whole world, on land and sea, occupied by the impious barbarians (Turks) has been destroyed and has become empty of population, for all Christians have been slain by them in the whole East, completely crushed and reduced to nothing.”121 The Seljuk Turks moved through Anatolia without resistance and in 1077 set up their state of Rum, i.e., Byzantium. Some of the Armenians left their homeland to seek refuge in other parts of Asia Minor, mainly Cilicia; others moved to Egypt, where the Armenian Badr al-Jamali (1074–1194), rose to eminence in the Fatimid state. The defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert was a blow to the Armenians, who for years had resisted Muslim raids on their country and defended the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire. But the Byzantines, unable or unwilling to defend the Armenians against the Turks, destroyed their national entity and demolished the strong wall of partition built by their courageous and valiant warriors. Thus, when Byzantium collapsed under the Turks’ attack at Manzikert, they suffered what has been called the worst disaster in European history.122 Michael Rabo relates the actions of two Armenian rulers, Philaretus and Gabriel, who interfered in the affairs of both the Syrians and the Armenians. Both men were politically ambitious, willing to do anything to further their power, even to reject the faith of their church. They were opportunists, pure and simple. They ingratiated themselves with the Byzantine emperors when they appeared powerful, but defected to support the Seljuk Turks when they were on the rise. Not only did they embrace the Chalcedonian faith of the Byzantines, but one of them, Philaretus, recanted Christianity altogether and became a Muslim. The ambitious Philaretus was an army general in the service of the Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, who reportedly raised him to the rank of Domestic for his bravery and sagacity.123 In the chaos after the Byzantines’ loss at Manzikert in 1071, Philaretus joined a gang of robbers who recognized his talents and chose him as their leader. As they established strong121 Vasiliev,

History, 1: 355. Grousset, L’Empire du Levant, 119, and The Epic of the Crusades, trans. Noel Lindsay (New York: Orion Press, 1970), 3. 123 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928), 153. For a sober evaluation of the Alexiad see James Howard Johnson, “Anna Komnena and the Alexiad,” in Alexios I Komnenos, ed. Margaret Mullet and Dion Smythes (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises), 1996, entire chapter 13, 260–302. 122

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

91

holds in Cilicia, their numbers grew. Philaretus assembled an army of mercenaries, including Armenians, Byzantines, and even Persians and Turks. In relating the events of 1073–1074, Matthew of Edessa says, “the impious and most wicked Philaretus, who was the very offspring of Satan, began his tyrannical rule,” adding that when the Emperor Romanus Diogenes fell, “this perfidious man, who was a precursor of the abominable Antichrist, and possessed by demonic and extremely monstrous character, tyrannically ruled over the land.”124 Aiming to be independent of the Byzantine state, he refused to recognize the new Emperor Michael VII Ducas Parapinakes (1071–1078) and carved out for himself a small state around Mar’ash, Ra’ban, and Ablistain. In 1077 Philaretus took control of Edessa, sending one of his officers, Basil, to seize the city and become its governor. Basil, whose father Abu Ka’b had lived in Edessa and built up its defenses, assembled a cavalry force and marched against the city, besieged it for six months, and captured it after the residents killed their Byzantine governor Leon.125 When the last Byzantine governor of Antioch was murdered in 1078, the city’s Armenian majority, fearing the Seljuk Turks might occupy it, handed it over to Philaretus.126 By 1084–1085, he became a power to be reckoned with. Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, aware of his exploits and his control of many fortresses in Cilicia, tried to win his allegiance with gifts. Philaretus visited Constantinople and was received warmly by the emperor, who presented him with gold and arms and appointed him Sebastus.127 The emperor relied on him to protect his domain, which extended from Kharput to Tarsus, including Melitene, Mopsuestia (al-Mississa), and Ayn Zarba (Anazarba).128 Matthew of Edessa, 137, openly criticizes Philaretus for warring against the Christian faithful and for forsaking the faith of his church and embracing the faith of the Romans (Byzantines), calling him “a superficial Christian disavowed by both Armenians and Romans.” Indeed, to Matthew he was not a true Armenian. 125 Matthew of Edessa, 142–143; L. Bréhier, L’Eglise et l’Orient au Moyen Age: Les Croisades, 6th ed. (Paris: Lecoffred, J. Gabalda, 1928), 285. 126 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 153, says that Philaretus could not bear the humiliation of the Emperor Romanus Diogenes, whom he exceedingly loved, and so instigated a rebellion and made himself master of the province of Antioch. Matthew of Edessa, 141, appears to agree, saying that Philaretus gathered 700 perfidious apostate Romans (Byzantines) on the pretext of starting a campaign, but his purpose was to capture Antioch. 127 Bar Hebraeus, 81 (229E). 128 On Ayn Zarba and other towns in the region, see Robert W. Edwards, The 124

92

THE CRUSADES

Meanwhile, Philaretus lost support in Edessa by abandoning the Orthodox faith of its Syrian and Armenian citizens and embracing the Byzantine faith. After the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah took control of Armenia and most of the Byzantine Empire in 1086–1087, Philaretus tried to ingratiate himself with the sultan by soliciting his benevolence and peace on behalf of the Christian population. Leaving a Byzantine deputy in his stead, he took a great quantity of gold, silver, choice horses and mules, and precious garments and went to meet Malikshah in Persia. In his absence, one of his officers, Parsama, murdered Philaretus’s deputy and seized control of Edessa. On learning of this incident, Malikshah refused to see Philaretus and treated him with contempt. Desperate, Philaretus recanted his Christian faith, which “he had not held in pure manner to begin with, and he became cursed by both God and man.”129 Evidence from various sources suggests that as the Turks laid waste the territory surrounding Antioch, so that he had no peace, Philaretus contemplated circumcision and a conversion to Islam. Ibn al-Adim states that when Malikshah reached Edessa, Philardos (Philaretus) handed the city over, embraced Islam at the hands of the sultan, and went with him to the fortress of Ja’bar.130 Bar Hebraeus substantiates this sequence of events and says ‘Pilardos’ promised to pay Jizya (poll-tax) and proclaim the authority of the Abbasid Caliph al-Muqtadi (1075–1094), but adds that the sultan gave him Mar’ash instead of Edessa.131 Ibn al-Athir says that Philaretus (whom he calls Qaladros and al-Firadros) ruled Hisn Ziyad, Edessa and Antioch, and Sultan Malikshah allowed him to keep Edessa until his death in 1090, when he gave it to the amir Buzan.132 Philaretus was clearly a shrewd politiFortifications of Armenian Cilicia (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, 1949). 129 Matthew of Edessa, 152–153; J. Laurent, “Byzance et Antioche sous le curopalate Philarète,” in Revue des études arméniennes, 9 (1929): 61–72; Boase, “The History of the Kingdom,” 4. 130 Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, ed. Sami alDahhan, 2 (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 100. 131 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 81 (231E), adds, “This wretched man finally perished. It is said that he believed once again in Christ and died a Christian.” See the Anonymous Edessan, 49 (68E); Rubens Duval, Histoire Politique, Religieuse, et Littéraire D’Édesse (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1892), 277; J. B. Segal, Edessa The Blessed City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 221–223. 132 See Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 237, 244, and, by the same author, al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya, ed. Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

93

cian and tactician. Ready to sacrifice his faith and even his men to stay in power, he collaborated with both the Turks and the Byzantines when the time was right and thus managed to control a vast region of Lesser Armenia, although the state he had founded was ephemeral and began to crumble even before his death in 1090.133 Philaretus several times interfered in the affairs of the Syrian Church by supporting rebellious bishops who tried to usurp the office of the patriarchate. The first was a cleric named Abdun, a relative of Patriarch Yuhanna bar Abdun and an abbot of the Monastery of Ibn Jaji, near Melitene. Ambitious and troublesome, he sought the patriarchate after the death of Patriarch Yuhanna Ibn Shushan in 1072. But the bishops detested him because of his imprudence and chose Basil, deputy abbot of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum. Basil, a kind and meek person, made Abdun bishop of Semando, perhaps to appease him and rid the church of his annoyance. When Basil died in 1076, Abdun again sought to become patriarch. He offered an enormous bribe to Philaretus, who arrested ten bishops in the region of Melitene and imprisoned them to force them to accept the wretched Abdun as patriarch. He paid each bishop a hundred dinars, but they continued to reject Abdun. Finally the bishops yielded to Philaretus’s pressure and named Abdun patriarch, although they still considered him illegitimate. But as soon as they escaped Philaretus’s presence, they met and ordained Lazarus, abbot of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, who became known as Patriarch Dionysius Lazarus.134 The avaricious Philaretus again meddled in the affairs of the Syrian Church when Mark, abbot of al-Barid Monastery in the province of Melitene, coveted the patriarchate. Like Abdun, he sought the support of Philaretus to achieve his ambition, offering him two thousand dinars of his own and a thousand more from the monastery’s treasury. Mark put pressure on two bishops (one the bishop of Arqa) and, at Philaretus’s comHaditha, 1963), 6–7; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, ed. Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, 1 (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad alAwwal, 1953): 19. 133 Grousset, L’Empire du Levant, 177–197; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya: Safha Mushriqa fi Tarikh al-Jihad al-Arabi fit al-Usur al-Wusta (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 98–100; Janzuri, Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya, 39–42. 134 Michael Rabo, 581–582 (174–175F); Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biographies of the patriarchs Basil, Abdun and Dionysius Lazarus, covering the years 1074–1077. On Philaretus’s support of Abdun, see The Anonymous Edessan, 294 (332A).

94

THE CRUSADES

mand, they accepted him as patriarch in 1084. But other bishops rejected Mark, who (along with Abdun) continued to stir rebellion within the church. To end the turmoil, the bishops met and chose the lesser evil, ordaining Mark as patriarch and calling him Dionysius. After Mark’s death in 1090, Abdun again attempted to usurp the patriarchate, but the bishops rejected him and chose Athanasius Abu al-Faraj Bar Camra, a monk from the Monastery of Mar Barsoum. But when they summoned him to be ordained, he refused for nine months because of the turmoil created by the unruly Abdun. They finally sought the help of Gabriel (Khoril), the Armenian governor of Melitene, who ordered that Athanasius be ordained. Realizing that he had lost his chance to be patriarch, Abdun called on Gabriel and offered him two thousand dirhams (drachmas) to annul the ordination of Athanasius Abu al-Faraj and make himself patriarch instead. Gabriel refused because the ceremony had been performed in his city. The greedy Gabriel expected the new patriarch to bring him money and gifts as a gesture of thanks, but when this did not happen, he summoned Athanasius from his residence in Mar Barsoum Monastery. When the patriarch arrived, Gabriel welcomed him and asked his blessing. The patriarch scorned Gabriel’s welcome, saying, “We have nothing to do with you. You are Greek (Chalcedonian) and we are Syrians.” Angry and intent on humiliating the patriarch, Gabriel ordered him detained in the house of a prostitute. In response, the patriarch ordered that all churches be closed and church bells silenced until he was released. To end the dilemma, the Syrian faithful collected four hundred gold dinars and paid the “accursed” Gabriel, who then ordered the patriarch released.135 Gabriel was no less opportunistic and avaricious than his lord, Philaretus, whom he succeeded as governor of Melitene. Like Philaretus, he deserted the Armenian Church and embraced the Byzantine faith to promote his political ambition. William of Tyre rightly observes that Gabriel was Armenian by birth, language, and habit, but Greek in faith, but erroneously calls him a Greek nobleman.136 Gabriel had no allegiance to the Greeks or the Turks, only to himself. He too interfered in the affairs of the Syrian Church, most notably by having Bishop Sa’id Bar Sabuni murdered forty 135 Michael Rabo, 583–585 (180–181F); Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Athanasius Abu al-Faraj Bar Camra; the Anonymous Edessan, 292–294 (329–332A). 136 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 450, 522.

THE EAST BEFORE THE CRUSADERS’ ARRIVAL

95

days after his ordination, while Melitene was under attack by Kilij Arslan I, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1072–1107). After Metropolitan Ignatius of Melitene died in September 1095, he was succeeded by Sa’id Bar Sabuni, an erudite man well-versed in both Syriac and Greek. He was ordained a bishop on Assumption Day in the town of Qanqart in the district of Amid (Diyarbakr) and took the name Yuhanna (John). Significantly, Gabriel had approved of his ordination, apparently hoping to appeal to the people of Melitene despite his new Byzantine faith. But the Syrians of Melitene criticized his rule, considering him an apostate for having abandoned the belief in One Nature of Christ after the Incarnation.137 In 1095, the year the Crusades were launched, while the Turks under the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan I were attacking Melitene, Gabriel entered the city and had the gates locked. He asked the bishop (Sa’id bar Sabuni) to stand beside him and watch the guards. The bishop took the situation seriously and encouraged the people to defend the city. Meanwhile, Kilij Arslan sent a deacon to negotiate with the bishop, and with Gabriel’s permission, the bishop received the deacon. Gabriel hid and listened as the deacon delivered Kilij Arslan’s message: “If you deliver the city to the sultan, he is ready to grant you safety and bounty. Otherwise, he will take the city by the sword. Blood will be shed, and God will take revenge on you for the shedding of blood.” The bishop replied, “Have no delusion. No one has ever conquered this city, and no one will ever be able to do so. There is enough food stored in it for more than ten years.” He then dismissed the deacon and said to Gabriel, “My Lord, you have heard what was said. It is better to deliver the city of our own free will than to lose it by the sword.” Soon afterwards, on Friday, July 4, 1095, as Bishop Sa’id Bar Sabuni conducted the service of the Third Hour at the wall of the city, Gabriel and the Byzantines saw how devoted the congregation was to him and decided to kill him. As the bishop descended from the wall, he was told that Gabriel had ordered the killing of one of the faithful. The bishop and a priest hastened to intercede on behalf of the wronged man. They found Gabriel on a horse, surrounded by infantrymen. The bishop implored him, “Blessed Sultan, have mercy on this poor man. It is not appropriate to have a killing 137 Michael Rabo, 384 (179–181F). The Anonymous Edessan, 49 (67A), calls Gabriel a Chalcedonian who administered the affairs of Melitene. See Bar Hebraeus, 83 (236–237E); Runciman, History, 1: 195–196, 202, 320–322; Cahen, “The Turkish Invasion,” 164; Harold S. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099–1118,” in Baldwin, 1: 380; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 2: 868, and L’Empire du Levant, 184.

96

THE CRUSADES

inside and outside the city.” But then the ignoble Gabriel asked, “And do not you yourself want to deliver the city to the Turks?” Burning with rage, he ordered an armor-bearer to strike the bishop with an arrow, but he refused. Gabriel then grabbed the bow from him and struck the bishop dead. The priests scattered and the city shook. Out of fear, the people hid among the reeds of the field where the bishop had been martyred. Two days later they brought him to his final resting place, in the Great Church of alSa’id.138 Justice ultimately prevailed over Gabriel. The Turks tortured him violently, and some Christians beat him, seeking revenge for the murder of the righteous Bishop (Sa’id Bar Sabuni) and other crimes he had committed. They insulted him profusely, and made him swill bitterness. They took him to an isolated stronghold (the Qati’a fortress), where his wife had given birth. The Turks told him to ask his wife to deliver the fortress to them, but he tried to double-cross them by sending a message saying exactly the opposite. On discovering his deception, the Turks killed him and threw his body to the dogs.139

138 Michael Rabo, 586–587 (185–186F). The Anonymous Edessan, 63–64 (75E, 83A), says Satan entered this accursed man (Gabriel) who maliciously murdered the bishop (Ibn Sabuni). Gabriel was finally killed and his household exterminated. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 81 (233E), says this accursed governor harbored a bitter feeling in his heart against the holy man and became mightily furious when he saw him. He reviled him, smote him with a spear, and killed him. 139 Michael Rabo, 590 (189F).

4 POPE URBAN II AND THE START OF THE CRUSADES Amid the plethora of materials and studies on the Crusades, there is unanimity among Western writers that the Crusades were launched by Pope Urban II (Odo of Lagery, pope from March 12, 1088, to July 29, 1099) in his discourse at Clermont on November 27, 1095. This speech is of paramount importance, for all the hypotheses of Western writers as to the causes and backgrounds of the Crusades are essentially based on it. The pope’s speech was not the beginning of the Crusades, but rather the culmination of developments dating back to the start of the eleventh century. The church’s primary objective was to recover the Holy Sepulcher and Jerusalem from the Muslims’ hands in order to encourage the pilgrimage of western people. In the year 1000, when Gerbert became Pope Silvester II, a curious document was found among his papers. The document, which bears no date or place, begins with the fervid phrase, “She who is Jerusalem . . . ” A cursory reading suggests that it was a call to arms against the Muslims who had spoiled the Holy City, leading some scholars to regard it as the earliest manifesto of the Crusades. But in 1889 Julien Havet, who had edited the letters of Gerbert, argued convincingly that it was not a call to arms but “a sort of circular, meant to be carried about by a collector of alms for the Christian establishment at Jerusalem.” Havet thought that the document might have been written by Gerbert, probably in the spring of 984, before his papacy.1 Another event that precipitated the Crusades was the destruction in 1009 of the Holy Sepulcher (The Church of the Resurrection) by the melancholic-maniac Shi’ite Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi Amr Allah of Egypt Julien Havet, ed., Lettres de Gerbert, 983–987 (Paris: A. Picard, 1889), 22. George Lancelot Burr, “The Year 1000 and the Antecedents of the Crusades,” The American Historical Review 6 (1901): 438, calls this document “one of the most famous of the antecedents of the Crusades.” 1

97

98

THE CRUSADES

(996–1021), an egregious profanity the Western Christians could not tolerate.2 Al-Hakim, whose mother was Christian, was eccentric, even irrational. The Syriac Prelate of the East, Bar Hebraeus, writes that at his command, the Temple of the Resurrection in Jerusalem was dug up from its foundation and all its furnishings were looted. Al-Hakim continued to persecute the Christians; after a certain man who hated the Christians told him many falsehoods about how they celebrated the festival of Easter in the temple, al-Hakim had him destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.3 Two different Latin chronicles charge that the Jews of France sent slanderous reports to Egypt indicating that the Christians intended to dispatch an expedition against the Muslims of East, thereby arousing the anger and fear of alHakim, who retaliated by destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.4 Whether this rumor was well-founded or not, the destruction of this church caused Pope Sergius IV (1009–1012) to summon the princes and prelates of Catholic Christendom and urge them to form a joint expedition to save the holy places in Jerusalem.5 Yet the initiative came not from the pope but from the Italian coastal cities of Pisa, Genoa and Venice, whose

2 On al-Hakim’s destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, see William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, 1, trans. E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943: hereafter William of Tyre), 66; Gregorias Abu al-Faraj Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, trans. E. W. Budge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 65 of the Syriac text, 184 of the English translation. Tarikh Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki (Beirut: Matba’at al-Aba alYasu’iyyin, 1909), 195–196, and in the Appendix by Baron Carra de Vaux, according to the Paris Arabic codex 288, 298, gives the date of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as 400 A.H. (September 1009 A.D.). Abu Ya’la Hamza ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 66–67, gives it as 398 A.H. (September 1007 A.D.). See William B. Stevenson, “Islam in Syria and Egypt 750–1100,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 254, n. 1. Al-Antaki, 218–219, attributes al-Hakim’s destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and other irrational actions to melancholy, which had afflicted him since his childhood. See Ahmad ibn Yusuf ibn Ali ibn al-Azraq al-Fariqi, Tarikh al-Fariqi, ed. Badawi Abd al-Latif Awad (Cairo, 1959), 71–72. 3 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 65 of the Syriac text, 184 of the English translation. 4 Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton: Princeton.University Press, 1977), 113–114. 5 Burr, “The Year 1000,” 438–439.

POPE URBAN II

99

inhabitants assembled a fleet of 1,000 ships and then informed the pope of their intention to march against the East. Since the Muslims were still in Sicily, these men may have thought of liberating Sicily before proceeding to take “revenge for Jerusalem.” According to this plan, Pope Sergius IV was to join the expedition and make the crossing in person in order to kill the “Hagarenes” (Muslims who claimed descent from Hagar, the bondmaid of Sarah, wife of the Old Testament patriarch Abraham). Apparently, the pope intended to travel to Palestine to avenge the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher and recover it from Muslim hands. The pope reportedly issued an encyclical that reached as far as France, appealing to the faithful to rise and participate in the “battle of the Lord” and reminding them of the suffering of Christ, as well as the suffering of the pilgrims who had gone to Jerusalem to offer penance at the Holy Sepulcher. He cited the recent destruction of the Holy Sepulcher and offered a spiritual reward—plenary remission of sins—to the faithful for their participation in the campaign against the enemies of God (the Muslims). The pope added that they would be fighting not for a wretched earthly kingdom, but for the eternal God and a heavenly kingdom. Interestingly, Pope Sergius IV likened the battle for Jerusalem to the one waged by the Romans Titus and Vespasian in 70 A.D. I hope, I believe, and most certainly I hold true that through the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ victory will be ours as it was in the days of Vespasian and Titus, who avenged the death of the Son of God even though at that time they had not received baptism, but when after, through victory, they attained the imperial honor of the Romans, they received a pardon for their sins. And we, if we will do likewise, without a doubt may remain in eternal life.6

Carl Erdmann says of this encyclical, “The allusion to this legend, which is surely odd in the mouth of a pope, contrasts with the fully formed crusading propaganda of Urban II.”7 Burr and other Western writers contend that this document ascribed to Pope Sergius exists in a single manuscript and most probably was a clumsy forgery produced in the days of the First Crusade.8 Alexander Gieysztor seems to share this opinion.9 Even if the encyc6 For the text of Pope Sergius’s encyclical, see Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 298–302, and Erdmann, Origin, 115–116. 7 Erdmann, Origin, 115–116. 8 Burr, “The Year 1000,” 439.

100

THE CRUSADES

lical is authentic, we should soberly remind ourselves that Europe was not ready to contemplate any military expedition against the Muslim East until the last decades of the eleventh century. It was not until then that the Christians retook many parts of Spain and the Normans cleared the Muslims out of southern Italy and occupied Sicily, rendering the Mediterranean once more a Christian lake. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009, outrageous as it was, cannot be considered as a direct cause of the Crusades, but it may have aroused the resentment of Christendom to the Muslim danger and caused Pope Sergius IV to formulate a plan to save the Holy Sepulcher.10 A wild cry for vengeance raised by many Catholics spurred the desire to rescue the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslims’ hands, and this movement gathered strength over the next few decades until it burst up in 1096 in the First Crusade.11 Pope Sergius’s plan for a crusade preceded that of Pope Urban II, but it was never carried out; the Muslims learned of the plan and the preparation of the Italian coastal cities, especially Pisa, whose harbor they attacked and destroyed. William B. Stevenson maintains that the Italian cities could not yet furnish such a huge armada as the pope proposed, and asserts the Holy Sepulcher was partially destroyed but soon was restored by al-Hakim without Western intervention.12 He directly contradicts Ibn al-Qalanisi, who says the buildings of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher “were ruined and uprooted stone by stone.”13 The plan also failed because the time was not propitious to arouse the religious sentiment of the French and the Germans to engage in a holy war against the infidel Muslims. Nevertheless, while Pope Urban II actually launched the Crusades, his predecessors, from Sergius IV to Gregory VII, should be credited with developing the idea.14 Urban’s fight against the Muslims was seen as a part of God’s economy. The 9 Alexander Gieysztor, “The Genesis of the Crusades: The Encyclical of Sergius IV (1009–1012),” Medievalia et Humanistica 5 (1948): 3–23, 6 (1949): 3–34; James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 23. 10 William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 268–269. 11 C. Raymond Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, 2 (New York: Peter Smith, 1949), 126. 12 Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” 269. 13 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 67, also trans. Stevenson “Islam in Syria and Egypt,” 254, n. 1. 14 Erdmann, Origin, 117.

POPE URBAN II

101

twelfth-century Anglo-Norman chronicler Ordericus Vitalis says, “The God of Israel appointed him (Urban II) as a mighty leader against the allophilos (the adorers of Allah, i.e., Muslims), and set him up as the tower of David with its armories to oppose Damascus.”15 Although Pope Urban II proclaimed the Crusade at Clermont in 1095, no doubt he spoke about it on other occasions while he was in his native France from August 1095 to September 1096, devoting his time to the reform of the church.16 He consecrated the altar of St. Peter at the abbey of Cluny and dedicated many churches, granting them privileges to the honor of Christ.17 He met with Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, and Raymond of Saint Gilles, count of Toulouse, and may have discussed with them his plan to proclaim a crusade.18 On November 18, 1095, at Clermont, a town in Auvergne, he opened a great council attended by lay dignitaries and clergymen from France and Spain, including Dalmas, bishop of Compostela. Over the next eleven days, the pope discussed some church problems and proposed reforms. To stop infighting among the princes and feudal lords, Pope Urban proclaimed the Peace of God and the Truce of God, which declared that monks, clerics, nuns, and those who dealt with them should remain in peace every day.19 But clearly his announcement of the Crusade was the most important development at this council. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, Book VIII, Chapter VII, trans. Thomas Forester, 2 (AMS Press, New York, 1968), 463. See Marjorie Chibnall, trans., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 167, and Peters, The First Crusade, 18. 16 William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, trans. John Sharpe (London: W. Bulmer and Col, 1815; hereafter cited as William of Malmesbury), 408–410, refers to Adhémar as “Aimar”. The twelfth-century English chronicler Henry of Huntingdon says that the great movement (the First Crusade) began in 1097 on the preaching of Pope Urban. See Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, trans. and ed. Thomas Forester (London: Hanry G. Bohn, 1853), 226. 17 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 63, 5: 10–11. For the pope’s itinerary, see Alfonso Becker, Papst Urban II, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 2 (Stuttgart, 1988): 435–458; R. Crozet, Revue Historique 179 (1937): 272–278. Ivan Gobry, Deux papes champenois: Urbain II, Urbain IV (Troyes, 1994), 9–122, offers a brief biography of the pope. 18 William of Malmesbury, 415, 417; Alfred Richard, Histoire des Comtes de Poitu, in Archives Departmentals de Poitiers (778–1204), 1 (Paris: A. Picard, 1903), 407–416. 19 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 63, and trans. Chibnall, 2: 295, 6: 263. See Thomas Head and Richard Landes, eds., The Peace of God: Social Violence and 15

102

THE CRUSADES

Traveling throughout France for most of the next year, he may have preached the Crusade at places like Limoges, Angers and Le Mans, and at a council held at Nîmes. He arrived at Toulouse on March 7, 1096, and after a brief stay moved northward to visit the Cluniac monastery of Moissac, where he found great interest in both Jerusalem and the holy war in Spain.20 At another council at Tours in Lent 1096 he affirmed the acts of the Council of Clermont.21 By the time he left France, the Crusaders’ expedition had already begun, and it appeared that his plan for invading the Muslim East was going to materialize.22 After returning to Italy, the pope sent two bishops to preach at Genoa, and many of those who heard them took up the cross; the city prepared thirteen ships, which set sail for the East in July 1097. In November 1096, before marching to ports on the Adriatic, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and Stephen of Blois stopped with their armies at Lucca to obtain his blessing.23 Frederic Duncalf says “the sight of their armies on the way to rescue the Holy Sepulcher assured Urban that his carefully prepared plan for the crusade was going to be carried out.”24 Pope Urban II’s speech at Clermont was not an isolated occurrence. It had a precedent in the Council of Piacenza, convened during the first week of March 1095. Did the pope receive an appeal for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I at Piacenza, and did he then incite the Christian nations to recover the Holy Sepulcher from the paynim? If so, one may argue that he launched the Crusades there rather than at Clermont.25 A. C. Krey asReligious Reform in France Around the year 1000 (Ithaca, NY, 1992); Robert Somerville, “The French Councils of Pope Urban II,” in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 2 (1970), 73, reproduced in Peters, The First Crusade, 41. For more on the Council of Clermont, see Somerville, “The Council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian Society,” in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 12 (1974): 55–90. 20 Frederic Duncalf, “The Councils of Piacenza and Clermont,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. M. W. Baldwin, ed., 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 250–251. 21 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 74, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 29. 22 Erdmann, Origin, 306–354; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 13. 23 William of Malmesbury, 419. 24 Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 252, and “The Pope’s Plan for the First Crusade,” in Louis J. Paetow, ed., The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro (New York, 1928), 44–56, rpt. James A. Brundage, ed., The Crusades: Motives and Achievements (Lexington, MA, 1964), 22–27. 25 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 61, n. 2; D. C. Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius I Ask for Aid at the Council of Piacenza, 1095?” The American Historical

POPE URBAN II

103

serts that in 1092 Urban sent a small amount of military aid in response to Alexius’s request, and says that this action, as well as the presence of Alexius’s envoys at the Council of Piacenza, about which too little is known, “must be counted as important evidence in establishing a probability of some friendly understanding between Urban and Alexius before the First Crusade.”26 Bernold of St. Blasien (“Bernold of Constance”) says that while presiding at Piacenza, the pope received an embassy from Emperor Alexius Comnenus imploring him and all the faithful of Christ for assistance against the pagans (Muslim Turks) in the defense of the holy church, which had been destroyed in Asia Minor and Syria by the infidels, whose conquests extended as far as the walls of Constantinople. The emperor urged that those called upon to render this service swear an oath to him and bring their most faithful aid against the pagans, to the limits of their power.27 Some Western scholars accept Bernold’s statement as genuine. Heinrich von Sybel says Alexius’s appeal “was the final impulse which caused the first Crusade.”28 But Alexius did not dream of the support of an invading army, and he surely did not expect a Crusade. His main purpose in appealing for aid at Piacenza was to obtain mercenaries or reinforcements to help him fight the Turks, who had advanced as far as Nicaea, threatening the existence of his kingdom.29 Erdmann states emphatically, “The [effect of the] Byzantine appeals for help in initiating the crusading propaganda of 1095–1096 can no longer be doubted. Bernold’s report of the Council of Piacenza (March 1095) has successfully withstood all modern attacks.”30 Other historians reject Bernold’s statement, saying he was the only contemporary writer to assert that Pope Urban preached the Crusades at Review 27 (1922): 731–733. 26 A. C. Krey, “Urban’s Crusades–Success or Failure?” The American Historical Review 52 (January, 1948): 230, rpt. in Brundage, The Crusades: Motives and Achievements, 12–21. 27 Bernold of Blasien, Monumenta Germaniae, Scriptores, 5: 462, quoted in Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius,” 371; Erdmann, Origin, 325, gives a translation of Bernold’s statement; see Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 61, n. 2. 28 Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1881), 182. On iv of the Introduction, the author indicates that the book was originally published at Düsseldorf in 1841. See Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius,” 731. 29 Ernest Barker, The Crusades (New York, 1923), 10. 30 Erdmann, Origin, 325; Baldwin, “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations of Pope Urban II’s Eastern Policy,” Catholic Historical Review 25 (1940): 459–466, esp. 460.

104

THE CRUSADES

Piacenza.31 These writers are unaware of another source, the monk Martin, who affirms Bernold’s statement, saying that Pope Urban appealed to the people and nations of Christ and those of pious souls to take away the Sepulcher of the Lord and the holy places of the church from the hands of the unjust [heathens]. Martin adds that after making these statements at Piacenza in Italy, the same venerable pope crossed the Alps and reached the city of Arvenia, also called Clarus-Mons, and began to preach the same message.32 Thus, there appears to be a strong connection between what the pope said at Piacenza and what he said at Clermont. Constantinople, Alexius’s appeal for aid, and the preaching of the crusade were on Urban’s mind when he spoke at both places. He may also have wished to effect a union between the Byzantine and Latin Christians.33 After all, the great schism of 1054 had not completely destroyed their relations, and both Alexius and his Latin counterparts endeavored hard to restore them.34 Although Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk, and Guibert of Nogent do not mention Piacenza specifically, they indicate that Pope Urban’s speech at Clermont was consistent with what he had said there, and they seem to affirm the statements of Bernold and the monk Martin.35 In the final analysis, the pope’s statements at Piacenza and Clermont proclaimed war against the infidels (Muslims), who controlled most of the 31 Munro,

“Did the Emperor Alexius,” 731. Martin, Historia Monasterii Novi Pictavinsis, in Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius,” 732. There is further support for Bernold’s statement about Piacenza in Baldrici episcopi Dolensis (Baldric of Dol), Historia Jherosolimitana, in R. H. C. Occ. 4 (Paris, 1879), 12. 33 Krey, “Urban’s Crusades,” 236. 34 Jonathan Shepard, “Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy Towards the West in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in Byzantium and the West, 850–1200, ed. J. D. Howard-Johnston, Byzantinische Frochungen 13 (Amsterdam, 1988), 66– 118; Shepard, “Cross-Purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusades,” in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. Jonathan Philips (Manchester, 1997), 107–129; Peters, The First Crusade, 6. 35 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 65–66; Robert the Monk, in R. H. C. Occ., 3: 727–728; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, trans. Robert Levine under the title The Deeds of God through the Franks (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), 36; Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius,” 732. 32 Monk

POPE URBAN II

105

Byzantine territory in the East and had reached as far as the walls of Constantinople. But his immediate objective was to extend the frontiers of Asia Minor still in Christian hands, thus liberating the Christian population in those regions. The counterattack against the Turks would eventually lead to the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher. Quite possibly at Piacenza Pope Urban mentioned the Holy Sepulcher, as Pope Gregory VII had mentioned it in passing earlier.36 If, as von Sybel says, the pope’s aim was not the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher but the liberation of the Eastern Church or of all Christendom, these lofty notions must nevertheless have gripped the minds and souls of the Crusaders, who believed that their actions would offer them salvation.37 The strongest argument against the notion that Emperor Alexius sought the pope’s aid against the Turks is advanced by Edward Tuthil, who does not mention the testimony of the monk Martin. Tuthil says that Bernold was the only writer who mentioned the appeal carried by the emperor’s ambassadors to the pope, and that as a strong supporter of Urban II and Gregory VII in the investiture dispute, he was inclined to magnify the prestige of Pope Urban II as against Guibert, the anti-pope, whenever an opportunity presented itself. More significantly, Tuthil says that Bernold was not an eyewitness to the presentation of the emperor’s ambassadors, nor was he present at the Council of Piacenza. Consequently, his statement comes into serious doubt because of the testimony of another writer, Donizo, a friend (and later biographer) of Countess Matilda of Tuscany, who accompanied Pope Urban II to the council. Donizo, who attended the council as part of Matilda’s retinue, does not mention the appeal by Alexius or the presentation of the Byzantine envoys. Tuthil also challenges the writings of Latin historians of the Crusades like Guibert of Nogent, who he says did not even allude to any council convened by Pope Urban II in Italy. He argues that although Ekkehard of Aura says Alexius sent many letters to Urban asking the entire West to hasten to his relief and promising the necessary supplies for all both on land and sea, Ekkehard does not say whether he himself saw these letters, nor does he furnish information about them. He could not have seen them in Rome, nor could he have learned about Erdmann, Origin, 330. Von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 169, cannot be completely right on this point. Pope Urban’s speech at Clermont called for the liberation of all the territory captured by the Muslims, including the Holy Sepulcher. See William of Malmesbury, 410–415; Erdmann, Origin, 330. 36 37

106

THE CRUSADES

them from Urban, who died in 1099, three years before Ekkehard visited Italy. Tuthil concludes that no contemporary chronicler, no Crusader who passed near Piacenza, no contemporary Latin historian, no Greek contemporary, no official document (Latin or Greek), and no event within the Byzantine empire itself corroborates Bernold’s story. What he finds most telling is that Anna Comnena, Alexius’s daughter, who wrote her father’s life story, does not mention his appeal to Pope Urban II for aid. Tuthil says the German historian Friedrich von Raumer felt misgivings about the supposed appeal by Alexius, but concealed his opinion in a footnote. He says Count Riant also questioned the account but confined his criticism to the omission in Italian writers. He argues that Reinhold Röhricht admitted his inability to reconcile the agenda of the Council of Piacenza (which does not mention Jerusalem) with that of Clermont, thinking the easiest way to escape this dilemma was to ignore Bernold. Tuthil closes by saying that his study does not prove completely that Alexius’s appeal was an invention, but demonstrates the improbability of Bernold’s story in the light of all the evidence extant.38 The problem with all these writers, whatever they conclude about Alexius’s appeal for aid, is that they view the question narrowly, relying solely on the testimony of Bernold or other writers like the monk Martin. Instead, we must view Alexius’s actions in the light of his need for help from the West to combat the Seljuk Turks and recover the territory they had seized in Asia Minor, and of the council he convened in Constantinople in 1089 to resolve some doctrinal issues and smooth his relations with Rome before seeking aid from the pope. Alexius was not the first emperor to appeal to the West for help, for Emperor Michael VII Ducas Parapinakes (1071–1078) had made a similar request under difficult circumstances.39 In the year of his accession to the throne, the Byzantine Empire suffered a crushing defeat by the Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert, opening Anatolia to the raids of Turkish nomadic tribes. Moreover, since 1042 great numbers of Normans had been moving from western France to southern Italy, which had been under Byzantine dominion. The greatest threat to the Byzantine emperor came from 38 Edward Tuthil, “The Appeal of Alexius For Aid In 1095,” University of Colorado Studies IV, No. 3 (1906–1907): 135–143; Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Papacy and the Levant During the Twelfth Century,” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 3 (1945): 278–279. 39 A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 395.

POPE URBAN II

107

Robert Guiscard, who in 1059 invaded southern Italy and proclaimed himself duke of Apulia and Calabria. In 1071 he occupied Bari, the last Byzantine bastion in southern Italy.40 The ambitious Guiscard did not stop there. He moved to occupy Sicily and even dreamed of one day capturing Constantinople and seizing the imperial crown. The emperor tried to avert the threat to his rule through intermarriage. Guiscard at first refused any such arrangement but then yielded and married his young daughter Helen to the emperor’s son. This marriage did not help Michael VII, who in 1078 was deposed by Nicephorus III Botaniates (1078–1081). But the villainous Guiscard furthered his ambition to gain control of southern Italy through secret plots.41 In his desperation, disregarding the great schism of 1054 between the Greek Church and the Church of Rome, Michael VII appealed for aid to Hildebrand (who in 1073 became Pope Gregory VII).42 The reunion of the two churches was one of Gregory’s chief concerns in his first years as pope, and the emperor’s appeal offered a hope of achieving this union.43 Pope Gregory’s correspondence reveals that he had in mind an “Eastern Plan,” a kind of crusade in which he himself and all the faithful who responded to his call would extend aid to the embattled Byzantine Empire, especially after its crushing defeat at Manzikert. The appeal for aid offered him a great opportunity to carry out this plan and bring the Byzantine Church and the other churches of the east under his own authority.44 In a letter to Emperor Michael VII Ducas, dated July 9, 1073, Pope Gregory, 40 Charles Homer Haskins, The Normans in European History (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1966), 201–202; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 1: 360; Peter Charanis, “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century,” in A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years, ed. M. W. Baldwin, 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 187; Robert S. Lopez, “The Norman Conquest of Sicily,” in Baldwin, A History, 1: 65; Einar Joranson, “The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy: Legend and History,” Speculum 23 (1948): 353–397. 41 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. K. A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 31–32; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 1 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 67–68. 42 Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 223; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 395. See Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 1– 54. 43 Paul Riant, “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des croisades,” Archives de l’Orient Latin, 1 (1881): 59–60; Julia Gaus, Ost und West in der Kirchen-und Papastgeschichte des 11. Jahrhunderts (Zurich, 1967), 41–68; Cambridge Medieval History, 5: 270. 44 Erdmann, Origin, 164–169.

108

THE CRUSADES

who had already voiced concern over the possible destruction of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks, acknowledged a letter and a verbal message from the emperor carried by two eastern monks, Thomas and Nicholas, and hinted at the reunion of the two churches. He expressed a wish to reinstate the ancient custom by which each church recognized the other’s leader by inserting his name in its diptychs. He also promised to send Patriarch Dominicus to discuss some issues the emperor had raised, but nothing is known about his embassy or subsequent negotiations.45 In another letter dated February 2, 1074, he asked William, count of Burgundy, to fulfill his obligation to defend the possessions of St. Peter, and to urge Raymond of St. Gilles, father-in-law of Richard, prince of Capua, and Amadeus, son of Adelaide of Turin, and others whom he knew to be loyal to St. Peter to do the same. The pope added that his purpose in calling for an expedition of fighting men was not to sacrifice Christian blood, but to intimidate the enemy and make it easier to win him over. After the rebellious Normans were pacified, he said, “We may cross over to Constantinople in aid to the Christians who, oppressed by frequent attacks of the Saracens (Muslims), are urging us eagerly to reach out hands to them in succor.”46 In a letter dated March 1, 1074, and addressed “To all who are willing to defend the Christian faith,” the pope asked the faithful to help defend Constantinople. He told them that on his return from beyond the seas, a bearer of gifts visited him at the threshold of the Apostles and reported that the Muslim Turks had been pressing hard upon the Christian Empire and had cruelly laid waste to the country, almost to the walls of Constantinople, and slaughtered many thousands of Christians like sheep. “Wherefore,” he said, “if we love God and claim to be Christians, we ought to be deeply grieved by the wretched fate of that great empire and the murder of so many followers of Christ. But it is not enough to grieve; we must take the example of the Redeemer and the duty of brotherly love and set our hearts H. J. E.Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII’s Crusading Plan of 1074,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 27–28. 46 Ephraim Emerton, The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), 22–23; J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, 148: 326; Erdmann, Origin, 161; Louis Bréhier, L’Église et L’Orient au moyen Age: Les Croisades, 2nd ed. (Paris: Lecoffred, J. Gabalm, 1928), 50–54, in Brundage, The Crusades: Motives and Achievements, 28–29; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 395–396; Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII’s Crusading,” 29–30, Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 223; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 26. 45

POPE URBAN II

109

to deliver our brethren.” He appealed to the faithful to carry out aid to the Christian Empire as soon as possible, by God’s help, and adjured them by the authority of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, to be stirred with compassion by the wounds and blood of their brethren and the peril of the empire and willingly offer their powerful aid to them in the name of Christ.47 On September 10, 1074, writing to William VI, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou, the pope declared that the Christians beyond the sea had by God’s help driven back the fierce assault of the pagans and that he was waiting for the counsel of divine providence as to his future course.48 Commenting on this letter, Erdmann voices surprise that Gregory allowed such a rumor to suspend his plans. He maintains that the pope’s real motive is found in another letter he sent the same day to the French bishops, urging them to depose King Philip I. Erdmann conjectures that Gregory may have been convinced that he needed to keep his followers (the French clergy) at home, rather than send them to fight in the East. Indeed, in his next letter to William of Aquitaine, dated November 13, 1074, Gregory said he knew that the rumor of the Byzantines’ victory over the Muslims was false, then called on his followers to act against Philip I. Erdmann concludes that the subjugation of Philip I took precedence in Gregory’s mind.49 Carrying out his Eastern Plan and dispatching an expedition to aid the Byzantines remained much on the pope’s mind, but he took no action. On December 7, 1074, he wrote Emperor Henry IV, expressing grief over the conditions of the Christians beyond the sea and declaring that many of them were being destroyed by the heathens (Muslims) and cruelly slaughtered like sheep. He informed the emperor that these overseas Christians had appealed to him to help in whatever way he could, “that the religion of Christ may not perish in our time—God forbid!” With Christianity in the East being destroyed by the pagans, he exhorted the Italians and others to assemble an army of over 50,000, to be led by the pope himself to fight against the enemies of God and to push forward even to the Sepulcher of the Lord. The pope expressed his intention to lead this expedition personally because “the Church of Constantinople, which agrees with us concern47 Emerton, The Correspondence, 25; Patrologia Latina, 148: 329, Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 26; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 396. 48 Emerton, The Correspondence, 38–39; Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 223. 49Erdmann, Origin, 166. For Pope Gregory’s letter to the French clergy, including Archbishop Manasses of Reims, Richer of Sens, Richard of Bourges, and Bishop Araldus of Chartres, see Emerton, The Correspondence, 39–42.

110

THE CRUSADES

ing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, is seeking the fellowship of the Apostolic See.” Meanwhile, the Armenians were almost entirely estranged from the Catholic faith, and almost all the easterners were waiting to see how the faith of the Apostle Peter would decide among their divergent views. Strangely, the pope asked Henry IV to protect and administer the church during his absence in the East: “For if it shall please God that I go, I shall have the Roman Church, under God, in your hands to guard her as a holy mother and to defend her for His honor.”50 Ironically, the pope moved the next year at a synod in Rome to excommunicate Henry IV for his incredibly audacious rebellion against the church, release all Christian men from any allegiance they might have sworn to him, and forbid anyone to obey him as king.51 One of the reasons why Pope Gregory VII extended help to the Byzantines was to mend fences with their church and bring it under his rule as the representative of the Apostle Peter. The reports that the Byzantines had countered the Muslims’ invasion and driven them back were untrue, and his plan to send an expedition to the East to help them never materialized. In a letter to Hugh, abbot of Cluny, dated January 22, 1075, the pope complained that “the Church of the East is falling away from the Catholic faith by the instigation of the Devil, and through all its members that ancient enemy himself is slaughtering Christians in all directions, so that the members are destroyed in their bodies while their head is slaying them in spirit.” Concerned that the kings and princes had usurped the spiritual role of the church, he appealed to Hugh to assist him and remind all those who love St. Peter, whom he represents, that if they truly wished to be his sons and knights they should not love earthly princes more than him. The allegiance of the king’s vassals was to the pope, not to the king.52 From what has been said so far, it appears the primary objective of Pope Gregory’s proposed expedition to the East was to aid the Byzantines against the Muslims and then reunite his church with the Church of Constantinople, which Rome considered “schismatic.” But by the end of 1074, the pope was contemplating extending his war plans to Jerusalem. He had 50 Emerton, The Correspondence, 56–58; Patrologia Latina, 148: 386; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 396; Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 223–224; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 27. 51 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 2: 350–352, says Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Henry IV for his immorality. See Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Chibnall, 4: 7–10, and Emerton The Correspondence, 90–91. 52 Emerton, The Correspondence, 64–65; Duncalf, 1: 224; Erdmann, Origin, 163.

POPE URBAN II

111

already written to King Henry IV that over 50,000 knights under his command would march against the enemies of God (the Muslims) all the way to the tomb of the Lord. In this and other letters, Pope Gregory VII laid out the first plan for a holy war against the Muslims.53 Where, then, did Jerusalem fit into this plan? Erdmann says that retaking the city was not Gregory’s idea; he ascribes it to the knights, because he thought that such a gigantic idea would have a particular appeal to them. Control of Jerusalem was not a main objective of Gregory’s plan, as it was when Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade. Foremost in Gregory’s mind was the liberation of those parts of Asia Minor already occupied by the Turks.54 A. A. Vasiliev believes that Gregory’s plan for a holy war against Islam was secondary to his intention of aiding Constantinople in order to bring the “schismatic” Christian East to the bosom of his own church, and that his plan was unmistakably connected to the schism of 1054.55 Emperor Alexius Comnenus, who came to the throne by deposing Nicephorus II Botaniates in 1081 (three years after Pope Urban II succeeded Gregory), renewed the appeals for aid. He was in frequent communication with the West because he needed military assistance in his wars against the Pechenegs and the Turks. But he realized that any appeal for aid from Pope Urban II faced difficulties because of the split between the Church of Rome and the Byzantine Church in 1054 over dogmatic and ecclesiastical issues. To lay the groundwork for his appeal, Alexius in 1089 proposed the convening of a synod to discuss a possible union between the two churches and an end to the great schism.56 At the Synod of Melfi in September 1089, in the presence of the emperor’s ambassadors, Pope Urban II lifted a ban his predecessor had placed on Emperor Alexius; the pope’s name was then reinserted in the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople.57 The synod Alexius had proposed met in Constantinople in 1089, discussed the points the pope had raised (including the oppression of the Latin Christians there), and even extended to him an invitation to visit the capital. 53 Bréhier,

L’Église et L’Orient, 50–54, in Brundage, The Crusades, 28–29. Erdmann, Origin, 168. For scholars’ varying ideas on the objectives of Gregory’s plan, see Erdmann, Origin, 166, n. 66. 55 Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 396; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 27–28. 56 Bernard Leib, S.J., Rome, Kiev, et Byzance à la Fin du XIe Siècle (Paris, A. Picard, 1924), 20–26. 57 Runciman, A History, 1: 102. 54

112

THE CRUSADES

Instead, the pope went to France to advance his plan for a crusade in the East. Unfortunately, he made some claims about the supremacy of his office which made reaching an understanding with Constantinople difficult. Apparently Pope Urban II had written a letter to the patriarch of Jerusalem expressing his desire to unify the two churches, provided that the pope of Rome as the successor of St. Peter should be the sole head of the united churches. Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople, who knew of this letter, was willing to compromise on some points, but not on the primacy of Rome, which he felt was an encroachment on the jurisdiction of his church. He also could not compromise on some doctrinal matters, especially regarding the Filioque (the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, rather than from the Father and the Son, as the church of Rome holds) and the azyme (unleavened bread used in the Eucharist by the Roman Church). Although Emperor Alexius managed to resolve some of the doctrinal issues between the two churches and establish good relations with the pope, the unity of the two churches was far from being achieved.58 Eventually, the differences over points of dogma and the pope’s insistence on the primacy of his office wrecked any hope of union.59 Despite the failure to reunite the churches, “The pope gave the crusades two aims: the recovery of the Holy Land and the deliverance of the eastern Christians.”60 By 1095 Alexius, whose position was stronger than ever because he was on good terms with Rome, succeeded in removing the danger that threatened the capital. He intended to take the offensive against the Seljuk Turks, hoping to recover most of the territory that had been lost to them. This task was too difficult to carry out alone, and, having established good relations with Pope Urban II, he appealed for aid against the Turks. The appeal resulted in the First Crusade.61 At this time, Emperor Alexius received aid from Robert (the Frisian), count of Flanders (the son of Duke Baldwin of Flanders and Adele, daughter of King Robert of the Franks, and brother-in-law of William the Conqueror.)62 Robert had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from 1087 to 1089 (or 1091) to atone for his sins, especially the murder of Godfrey of Bossu, 58 Charanis,

“The Byzantine Empire,” 1: 217–219. Leib, Rome, Kiev, 179–182, 319–322; Baldwin, “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations,” 460–461, reacts unfavorably to Leib’s idea. 60 Duncalf, “The Pope’s Plan,” 45. 61 Peter Charanis, “Byzantium, the West, and the Origin of the First Crusade,” Byzantion 19 (1949): 22–36. 62 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 2: 59, and trans. Chibnall, 2: 88, 281–282. 59

POPE URBAN II

113

duke of Lower Lorraine.63 On the return trip, Robert stopped at Constantinople and, after taking the customary Latin oath of allegiance, promised to send the emperor 500 horsemen (mercenaries) on returning home.64 Emperor Alexius is said to have written him a letter containing statements similar to those made by Pope Urban II at Clermont, but many Western writers consider it a forgery.65 Guibert of Nogent says that Alexius wrote to Robert of Flanders urging him to come to the aid of Greece, which was threatened by the incursions of the Turks, and that Robert, who had gone once before to Jerusalem to pray, stopped on his way back at Constantinople, and the emperor, who trusted him, felt impelled to call upon him for aid.66 Bohemond of Taranto, the son of Robert Guiscard, later used this letter for propaganda purposes.67 One source even says that Sir Francis Palgrave fantastically imagined that the Byzantine delegates at the Council of Piacenza were really disguised agents of Bohemond of Taranto, that Bohemond forged the so-called epistola spuria of Alexius, and that Peter the Hermit (who later led a ragtag group of “crusaders”) was his tool.68 The thrust of Pope Urban’s speech at Clermont was primarily religious, i.e., that Christians should rescue the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslims and drive them out of Jerusalem.69 Ordericus Vitalis says that with tear63 William

of Malmesbury, 331. Comnena, The Alexiad, 179–180; Erdmann, Origin, 296, 322; Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 228; F. Chalandon, Essai sur la règne d’Alexius I Comnène (1081–1118) (Paris: A. Picard, 1900), 117–118; M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, ed. Paetow, (New York, 1928), 79–100, esp. 83; Einar Joranson, “The Spurious Letter of Emperor Alexius to the Count of Flanders,” The American Historical Review 55 (1950): 811–832. 65 For the text of this letter see Heinrich Hagemeyer, ed., Epistulae et chartae ad Historiam primi belli sacri sectantes: Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100, cited hereafter as Die Kreuzzugsbriefe (Innsbruck: Hildersheim, 1901), 129–136. 66 Guibert of Nogent, 36–39, paraphrases the letter. 67 Guibert of Nogent, 39; Riant, “Inventaire critique,” 1: 74; Chalandon, Essai, 335; Dana C. Munro, “The Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont,” The American Historical Review 11 (1906): 234–235. Joranson, “The Spurious Letter,” 811–832, analyzes the letter thoroughly. See Barker, The Crusades, 10, n. 1. 68 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 34, n. 1; Sir Francis Palgrave, The History of Normandy and England, 4 (London, 1851–1864), 509–514, 521–522. 69 Lambert of Arras, “Canons of the Council of Clermont,” in Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, ed. Giovanni D. Mansi, 20 (Florence and Venice, 1759–1798): 815–820; Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 64–65, and trans. 64

114

THE CRUSADES

filled eyes, Pope Urban II told the sacred synod that “Jerusalem was prostrate and the holy places where Christ and His disciples walked in the flesh were profaned and trodden down,” and commanded those present, “Let such as are going to fight for Christianity put the form of the cross upon their garments, that they may outwardly, demonstrate the love arising from their inward faith.”70 The Franks who heard the pope then began to sew the cross on the right shoulder of their garments, vowing to follow in the footsteps of Christ, by whom they had been redeemed from the power of Hell, thereby giving rise to the term “Crusades”.71 There are several texts of Urban’s speech, but as historian Dana C. Munro says, “It cannot be proved that any one of them was written until a number of years after the Council.”72 Röhricht notes that while the pope’s speech was preserved in many [not verbatim] forms, it unquestionably contained accusations of the gruesome acts of the infidels (Muslims) against the Christians in the Holy Land, a call to war to all Christendom to drive the enemies out of the Promised Land and restore it to the Christians, and finally the spiritual consolation that Christ will lead His own to victory.73 Baldwin likewise asserts that despite the existence of several versions of the speech, we can ascertain its contents and objectives.74 Munro has reconstructed Pope Urban’s speech, based on the important version of Fulcher of Chartres.75 He says the versions provided by WilChibnall, 5: 11–15; Robert Somerville, The Council of Urban II, Vol. I, Decreta Claromontensia, in Annuarium Historia Conciliorum Supp. I (Amsterdam, 1972). Contemporary Muslim writers scoff at Urban’s plan to recover the Holy Sepulcher; Muhammad Rajah al-Bayyumi, Salah al-Din Qahir al-Udwan al-Salibi (Damascus, 1998), 16, says such an action made no sense, since Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified and buried but raised up to Allah, and asks why the Crusaders should claim a site that does not exist. 70 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 65–66, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 15; William of Malmesbury, 413. 71 Gesta Francorum, 2. 72 Munro, “The Speech of Pope Urban II,” 231. 73 Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), 20, 233– 239. 74 Baldwin, “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations,” 459–466. 75 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis, trans. Ryan, 61–67. Martha Evelyn McGinty made a partial translation entitled Fulcher of Chartres: Chronicle of The First Crusade (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941). There is also an Arabic translation by Hasan Habashi, A’mal al-Firnaja wa Hujjaj Bayt al-Maqdis (Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1970). See Robertus Monachus (Robert the Monk), Historia Ihero-

POPE URBAN II

115

liam of Tyre, Ordericus Vitalis, Roger of Wendover, and others are of little importance.76 This is not the case. Although William of Malmesbury and Ordericus Vitalis were not eyewitnesses, they faithfully derived their information from earlier writers while omitting some parts which they deemed unnecessary. While the version given by William of Tyre reads more like a sermon derived from the Scriptures, it follows some of the main points recorded by other sources. Jerusalem, he says, “is the cradle of our faith, the native land of our Lord, and the mother of salvation. It is now forcibly held by a people without God, the sons of the Egyptian handmaiden (the Shi’ite Fatimids).”77 He says that Pope Urban called on his listeners to go to the Holy Land and aid their brethren because “we are all members one of another, and heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” The pope emphasized the Muslims’ oppressive rule of the holy places and their enslavement of faithful Christians, saying the Church of the Holy Resurrection had been desecrated by those who had no part in the resurrection. He noted that priests and Levites were slain in the sanctuaries, and virgins were made to choose between painful death and prostitution. Finally, Pope Urban placed those who would undertake the task of fighting the infidels under the protection of the church and of the blessed Peter and Paul, as true sons of obedience. To those who took up arms against the infidel and assumed the burden of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he offered full remission of their sins and eternal reward.78 William of Tyre’s version plainly has merit, but some writers, notably Röhricht and Hagenmeyer, regard the one presented by Fulcher of Chartres as the most trustworthy.79 Pope Urban’s call for the Crusades was delivered at the end of a council that was devoted to other matters. It was not a casual or haphazard solimitana, R.H.C. Occ., 3 (1866): 727–723; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 12– 15; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, 137–140, and trans. Levine, 42–45; William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series, 2 (London, 1887–1889): 393–398. For an English translation of the pope’s speech from Latin sources, see Peters, The First Crusade, 25–37. 76 Munro,“The Speech of Pope Urban II,” 232. 77 William of Tyre, A History of the Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Babcock and Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 89. 78 William of Tyre, History, 1: 91–92; Alexander Hamilton Thompson, “Medieval doctrine to the Lateran Council of 1215,” The Cambrdige Medieval History, 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 694–695. 79 Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, in Hagenmeyer, 90; Röhricht, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges, 239; Munro, “Speech of Pope Urban II,” 232.

116

THE CRUSADES

summons, but a statement of important views and policies which had been in the making for more than a decade. In his speech the pope set forth several aims, some of which are mentioned by all the Latin sources already cited. Munro, in his reconstruction of the speech based on Latin sources, says the major points were: 1) the necessity of aiding the brethren in the East, 2) appeals for aid in the East, 3) the victorious advances of the Turks, 4) suffering of the Christians in the East, 5) desecration or destruction of churches and holy places in the East, 6) the vision of the Crusades as the work of God, 7) the necessity for rich and poor alike to join in the Crusade and march to the East, 8) plenary indulgence or full remission of sins for all who went on the Crusade, 9) an expression of contempt for the Turks, 10) the need to fight righteous wars instead of the iniquitous combat in which the leaders have been engaged, 11) the participants’ not letting anything deter them from this undertaking, 12) the time of departure, 13) God as their leader, 14) praise of the Franks, 15) the special sanctity of Jerusalem, 16) evil conditions at home, 17) the sufferings of the pilgrims, 18) the difficulty of the task, 19) the necessity of contending against the Antichrist, 20) a reference to Spain, 21) the wearing of the Cross. The pope’s speech also contained a subtle appeal to the ascetic spirit of the times, and an exhortation to follow the example of the heroes of the Old Testament.80 Most of these points are cited by William of Malmesbury, who declares, “I have adhered to the tenor of the pope’s address, retaining some few things unaltered, on account of the truth of the remarks, but omitting many.”81 Although the pope’s speech proposed significant objectives and undertakings, some modern writers question its historical importance. Frederic Chalandon says neither Raymond of Aguilers nor the anonymous Munro, “Speech of Pope Urban II,” 236–241. William of Malmesbury, 410–415; Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 64–67. For more on this subject see T. A. Archer, “The Council of Clermont and the First Crusade,” The Scottish Review 25 (1895): 274–295; Dana C. Munro, “The Popes and the Crusades,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 55 (1916): 348–356; Erdmann, Origin, 306–354; Baldwin, “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations,” 459–466; Duncalf, “The Pope’s Plan,” 44–56, rpt. in Brundage, The Crusades, 22–27, and “The Councils,” in Baldwin, A History, 1: 220–252; H. J. E. Cowdrey, “Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade,” History 55 (1970): 177–188; Krey, “Urban’s Crusade,” 235–250, reproduced in Brundage, The Crusades, 12–21; Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 8–37; Somerville, “The Council of Clermont,” 62–82; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 13–30; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 1: 106–116. 80 81

POPE URBAN II

117

author of the Gesta Francorum mentioned Clermont. Even those writers who mentioned the council, he says, merely reflect the accepted view of their contemporaries, which does not reveal precisely what the pope said or had in mind in undertaking his Crusade.82 Jonathan Riley-Smith says that it is hard to recapture the pope’s message accurately because it was based on materials written “before memories were distorted by the news of the crusade’s liberation of Jerusalem in July 1099. . . . We cannot for instance put much trust in four eye witness accounts of his sermon to the Council of Clermont which were written from memory after 1099.”83 Hans Eberhard Mayer asserts that “the accounts of the Clermont speech in the chronicles are too much colored by the tendency of the authors to show off their own rhetorical skills.” But these comments do not diminish the historical fact that Jerusalem was so important that as Mayer himself says, “according to later versions of his speech Pope Urban II made an impassioned appeal for the liberation of Jerusalem.”84 What is striking (but hardly surprising) about the points raised by Pope Urban II is that, taken together, they are inextricably associated with religion. Jerusalem and its allies in the fight against the Muslims, the recovery of the Holy Sepulcher, and the recent maltreatment of the Western pilgrims by the Turks and other Muslims were at the core of the Crusades. Although the reclamation of Spain and appeals for aid in the East may appear unrelated, both were rooted in religion. Becker says Urban saw the Reconquista (the Reconquest of Spain) as closely connected with the reorganization of the Spanish church and the holy war in that country against the Muslims.85 In the summer of 1089, Pope Urban had urged Count Berenguer Ramon II (1076–1097) of Barcelona and the Bishop of Toledo to rebuild Tarragona, on the Muslims’ frontier. He assured the Catalans that for their effort to reconstruct the city they would receive the same reward of penance and remission of sins as those among them who desired to go as pilgrims to Jerusalem or other places, so that “Tarragona will become the bulwark of Christianity against the Saracens (Muslims).” He urged the counts, bishops, and nobles to stay in their own country instead of going to Jerusalem, and 82 Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de Première Croisade jusqu’à l’Election de Godefroi de Bouillon (Paris: A. Picard, 1935), 38. 83 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 15. 84 Mayer, The Crusades, 9–10. 85 A. Becker, “Papst Urban II,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 19 (Stuttgart, 1964), 227–229; Erdmann, Origin, 315, n. 29; Mayer, The Crusades, 18.

118

THE CRUSADES

to strive to restore the Christian churches that had been destroyed by the Muslims.86 At the heart of the pope’s speech was the need to recover Jerusalem from the Muslims’ hands and bring the Eastern Church (the Byzantine Church) back under the authority of the Church of Rome. In this context he meant the Byzantine (Greek) Church, for the other Eastern churches (Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic) were regarded as insignificant fragmentary heretical churches. Jacques De Vitry (d. 1240), the bishop of Acre who was named Latin patriarch of Jerusalem but died before assuming that position, includes the Syrians (whom he calls Jacobites) among the barbarous nations who dwell in the Holy Land and in other parts of the East, but adds that long ago they were excommunicated and cast out of the Greek Church. De Vitry dwells on the theological errors of these “Jacobites,” revealing his total ignorance and misconception of their Christological doctrine.87 In a letter to Pope Urban II dated September 11, 1098, after they captured Antioch, the Frankish leaders condemned the Byzantines and other eastern Christians as heretics and urged the pope to make Antioch his seat of authority, from which they could march on to Jerusalem: We have subdued the heathens (Turks) and the pagans. But the heretics, Greeks and Armenians, Syrians and Jacobites, we have not been able to overcome. Therefore, we ask and ask again that you, our most dear father, come as father and head to the place of your predecessor; that you who are the Vicar of the Blessed Peter seat yourself on his throne and use us as your obedient sons in carrying out all things properly; and that you eradicate and destroy by your authority and our strength all heresies of whatever kind, and thus you will finish with us the pilgrimage of Jesus Christ undertaken by us and proclaimed by you; and you will open to us the gates of the one and the other Jerusalem and will liberate the Sepulcher of our Lord and exalt the Christian name above all . . . May God who liveth and reigneth forever and ever suffer you to do this. Amen.88

Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum, 701; Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 151: 302–303; Riant, “Inventaire critique,” 1: 68–69; Erdmann, Origin, 315; Duncalf, “The Councils,” 1: 233; Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 400. 87 Jacques De Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, A.D. 1180, trans. Aubrey Stewart (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896), 73–76. The Roman Catholic writer Adrian Fortescue perpetuated De Vitry’s view in The Lesser Eastern Churches (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1913). 88 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis, 111–112, Fulcher of Chartres: Chronicle, 86

POPE URBAN II

119

This letter makes clear that St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch and was its first vicar, and thus it had an ecclesiastical precedence over the Church of Rome.89 But it also shows that along with liberating Jerusalem, the Franks intended to reaffirm the authority of the pope over the Eastern churches. Obviously, they were not missionaries trying to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as did St. Paul and the early Apostles, but emissaries of Rome. The idea of papal supremacy over Christendom began not with Urban II but with his predecessor Pope Gregory VII, in his Dictatus Papae issued in 1075. Did Urban cherish the notion of founding a papal principality in the East, on the premise that the lands to be recovered from the heathen Muslims belonged to St. Peter? Although the letter urges the pope to come and seat himself on the throne which St. Peter had founded in Antioch, there is no evidence that Pope Urban II wished to claim the territory taken by the Crusaders. He had already made it clear at Clermont that the conquered territories should belong to the conquerors. Unlike Gregory VII, who claimed the territory in Spain recovered from the Muslims, Urban made no claim to the conquered lands in Syria.90 What is more noteworthy is the anti-Byzantine sentiment of the Frankish leaders. In a postscript (though it is not found in all the manuscripts, Hagenmeyer regards it as authentic), they asked the pope to come and release them from their oath to the Basileus (Emperor Alexius Comnenus), saying he had promised much but did not fulfill his promise. They also accused the emperor of having done all in his power to impede the progress of their march to Jerusalem.91 The postscript was probably inspired by Bohemond I, who was eager to possess Antioch, as we shall see in the discussion of the Franks’ attacks on and capture of that city.92 What the

55–58; Migne, Patrologia Latina, 155: 847–849; Hagenmeyer, ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe; Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The First Crusade and St. Peter,” in B. Z. Kedar et al., eds., Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, 43; Ishaq Tawdros Ubayd, Roma wa Byzanta min Qati’at Photius hatta al-Ghazu al-Latini li Madinat Constantine (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif bi Misr, 1970), 76. 89 See Matti Moosa, The Maronites in History (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 58, nn. 20–21. 90 Erdmann, Origin, 350–351. 91 Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 164–165; Yewdale, Bohemond I of Antioch, 84. 92 Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 96–97; Krey, “Urban’s Crusade,” 111: 239– 241; Anthony F. Czajowski, “The Siege of Antioch in the First Crusade,” Historical Bulletin 26 (1948): 82–84.

120

THE CRUSADES

pope thought of this strange letter is unknown, for he died before he could act on it.93 We should again emphasize that the motivation set forth in Pope Urban II’s speech and shared by the leaders of the Crusades was primarily religious. He said all Christendom had been disgraced by the triumph and supremacy of the Muslims (whom he calls Persians) in the East. Jerusalem, the city ennobled by the tomb of Christ, was prostrate, and the holy places had been profaned. The Muslims had turned their immense power against the Byzantine Empire, devastating its territory with fire and the sword. They had taken some Christians as captives into their own country and converted others to the uses of their own cult. The pope added that the Muslims had circumcised Christians and smeared their blood on the altars or thrown it into the baptismal fonts. They took pleasure in killing others by cutting open their bellies, piercing the ends of their intestines, and tying them to a stake. The pope enumerated other heinous acts committed by the Muslims against the Christians, not the least of which was the rape of their women. He said they had dismembered and isolated the kingdom of the Byzantines so much that it would be impossible to traverse the conquered territory in a two-month journey. He declared that the Holy Land, which was dear to the Christians and rightfully theirs, had been enslaved by the infidels, evidently referring to the fact that Atsiz, the son of Awq (Abeq), a vassal of the Seljukid Sultan Alp Arslan, had captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids of Egypt in 1071.94 The pope said that Jerusalem was the navel of the world, the land of the redeemer of mankind, which was adorned by His life, confirmed by His passion, redeemed by His death, and sealed by His burial, and enjoined his hearers to take this journey to Jerusalem for the remissions of their sins. He took pains to remind his audience to rise and remember the many deeds of their ancestors and the powers and greatness of Charlemagne, his son Louis I (the Pious), and the other kings who destroyed pagan kingdoms and planted the holy church in their territories. The loss of Jerusalem, coupled with the defeat at Manzikert, must have alerted the Christian kings of the West that it was their duty to turn their weapons against the enemies of God. They should rescue the Holy Land and Holy City (Jerusalem) and destroy forever the power of the infidel Muslims. Pope Urban II wept as he made known to the sacred council the hu-

93 Fulcher 94

of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis, 107–108, n. 1. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 98–99; Matthew of Edessa, 152.

POPE URBAN II

121

miliation of Jerusalem and the holy places where the Son of God once lived in the flesh with His disciples. Many of those listening wept with him, out of compassion for their Christian brethren.95 The reward for those who might lose their lives in this endeavor was remission of sins and release from all obligations of fasting and other mortifications of the flesh.96 The Crusades were inspired by God, and the men who participated were agents of God, engaged in His service and acting for His love. They were reminded that they were the followers of Christ.97 Fulcher of Chartres says the pope called the men who were to participate in the Crusades soldiers of Christ (Christi milites), the same term used by Baldric of Dol.98 They were the sons of God who promised Him to keep peace among themselves and sustain the rights of the Holy Church. The pope called them the Heralds of Christ, who were called upon “to exterminate this vile race (Muslims) from our lands.”99 In a sense, God was to lead the Crusaders’ expedition. According to William of Malmesbury, Pope Urban II told those present that the cause of their labors in joining the expedition against the Muslims would be charity: “If, thus warned by the command of God, you lay down your lives for the brethren, the wages of charity will be the grace of God, and the grace of God is followed by eternal life. Go then prosperously; go then, with confidence, to attack the enemies of God.”100 Ordericus Vitalis says the pope, like a kind and prudent physician, recognized that those who went on the pilgrimage (Crusades) would be constantly harassed on the road by all kinds of difficulties, for which “the worthy servants of Christ should be purified from all corruptions of sin.”101 We Robert the Monk, Historia Hierosolomitana, 727–730, in J. A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: The Marquette University Press, 1962), 18–19, also quoted in part in Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 8–9; see Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 65–66, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 15. 96 Robert the Monk, in Brundage, The Crusades, 18–19; Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 67, and trans. Chibnall, 5:17–19; Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” 265. 97 Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 137; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 6. 98 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis, 65; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 14; Erdmann, Origin, 339–340. 99 Fulcher of Chartres, 66 . 100 William of Malmesbury, 411. 101 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 67, and trans. Chibnall, 5:19. See Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII’s Crusading,” Kedar et al., Outremer, 27–40; Riley-Smith, 95

122

THE CRUSADES

should note that when the pope spoke at Clermont, he envisioned that only men would participate in the Crusade. Women supposedly would be forbidden from joining this venture. In fact, the Crusaders were joined by a number of women—wives, women of uncertain status, nuns, even prostitutes. Thus, promiscuity and licentiousness were common during the Crusaders’ march across Europe to the Holy Land. On reaching Antioch in 1099, “they rioted in unrestrained lust, knew not the meaning of temperance, were given to over to fornication, adultery, and nameless debaucheries.”102 Nevertheless, the pope’s assertion that those who joined the venture should be pure of all corruption by sin shows that the authority of Christ was an appealing feature of the Crusades. After all, they were to engage in a divine venture. Jonathan Riley-Smith aptly says, “the authority of Christ, the most characterizing feature of crusading, was originally introduced in a conventional, even a muffled way, and [that] it was the extraordinary series of events that followed which convinced the Crusaders that they really were engaged in a divine enterprise.”103 The Crusaders, following the pope’s command, sewed crosses on their garments to symbolize the religious nature of their action. How fitting and pleasing it was, says Fulcher of Chartres, to see the crosses made of silk, gold, or other beautiful materials which the pilgrims, whether knights, laymen or clerics, sewed on their shoulders. Their doing so indicated that they were now truly soldiers of God, ready to fight for His honor and protected by this emblem of victory.104 Said Ordericus Vitalis, “by assuming the badge of the holy cross on their right shoulders, the Crusaders will have the full scope to their military ardor on the renowned chiefs of the Infidels (Muslims).”105 The crosses sewn on the Crusaders’ garments reflected the fact that in 1093, Pope Urban II had already referred to Muslims as “enemies of the cross.”106 The symbolic importance of the cross is underscored by the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum, who reports that when BoThe First Crusade, 17; I. S. Robinson, “Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ,” History 58 (1973): 184–190. 102 James A. Brundage, “Prostitution, Miscegenation and Sexual Purity in the First Crusade,” in Crusade and Settlement, ed. Peter W. Edbury, (Cardiff; University College of Cardiff, 1985), 57–65. 103 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 17. 104 Fulcher of Chartres, 68; William of Malmesbury, 413. 105 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 66, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 15. 106 Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 16; Robert the Monk, 729–730; Jonathan Riley-Smith, “Death on the First Crusade,” Speculum 21 (1946): 2.

POPE URBAN II

123

hemond of Taranto heard in Amalfi, Italy, that an immense army of Frankish leaders was on its way to the Holy Sepulcher, “He, inspired by the Holy Ghost, ordered the most valuable cloak which he had to be cut up and made into crosses.”107 According to Ekkehard of Aura, the crosses the Crusaders sewed on their garments recalled the sign that Emperor Constantine I, before he defeated Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), saw written beneath it in daylight: “In this sign you shall conquer.”108 As Christopher Tyerman cogently says: If preaching were the voice of crusading, the Cross was its clothing, its symbol, its inspiration. The potency of the image was obvious and deliberate. The Cross mystically represented Christ, His passion, the Resurrection and the Church, inspiring a literary devotional genre of its own. The most familiar religious artifact, it stood for Christianity itself. . . . The True Cross, one relic of which sustained Christian armies in Outremer until its loss at Hattin, had specific association with Jerusalem. As military ensign, mystic symbol, badge of penance, talisman or charm, no icon was more potent.109

Pope Urban’s appointment of Adhémar (Aimar), bishop of Le Puy, the chief legate, as his personal representative and vicar to govern the entire army of God reveals his intention to give the whole expedition to the East ecclesiastical legitimacy and to exercise the papal authority granted to him by Christ through St. Peter.110 Some historians compared Adhémar to Moses.111 To Ralph of Caen, he was the commander of the people on behalf of Christ, zealous in giving the people instructions and exercising justice.112 Guibert of Nogent calls him “the most praiseworthy of men” and Gesta Francorum, trans. Hill, 7. Ekkehard of Aura, “Chronicon universale,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, SS., 6: 213. 109 Christopher Tyerman, The Invention of the Crusades (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 76. 110 Fulcher of Chartres, 67; John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, “Contemporary Accounts and the Later Reputation of Adhémar of Le Puy,” Medievalia et Humanistica 9 (1955): 30–38, and by the same authors, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1962), 29–34; Riley-Smith, “The First Crusade,” 43. 111 Robert the Monk, 3: 839; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 5: 16; Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 68. 112 Radulfo Cadomensi (Ralph of Caen), Gesta Tancredi Siciliae Regis in Expeditione Hierosolymitana, R.H.C. Occ. 3: 673–674. 107 108

124

THE CRUSADES

says the pope “granted him the power to teach the Christian people as his representative, wherever they went, and therefore in the manner of the Apostles, he laid his hands upon him and gave him his blessing.”113 Ordericus Vitalis says that while Pope Urban II was solemnly preaching in the council (Clermont) and exhorting the sons of Jerusalem to hasten to deliver their holy mother Jerusalem, Adhémar, a man of high character, distinguished for his ability, great courage and remarkable energy, rose from his place and, approaching the successor of the Apostles, knelt and asked to go on the Crusade. The pope gave him his benediction and issued a decree enjoining all the Crusaders to obey him as his apostolic vicar. Ordericus Vitalis adds that Adhémar and Raymond Berenger, count of Toulouse, whose ambassadors arrived to tell the pope that he and his men were ready to take the cross, “represent for us Moses and Aaron, who were sustained equally by divine aid.”114 William of Malmesbury says Adhémar was among the noblemen who, on hearing the pope’s speech at Clermont, fell at his knees, consecrating themselves and their property to the service of God. He calls Adhémar a very powerful bishop who afterwards ruled the army by his prudence and augmented it through his eloquence.115 We should remember that Pope Urban II had been a Cluniac monk and prior of the Cluny Monastery. Established in the tenth century, the Cluniac movement intended to reform the church and especially the monasteries from impiety and secular practices which placed the episcopate under the control of princes and kings. The emperor, not the pope, had become the representative of God on earth. It was Cardinal Hildebrand who, on becoming Pope Gregory VII in 1073, turned the Cluniac movement against simonistic princes, secularized clergy, and the Emperor Henry IV, who had usurped the supremacy of the church in what historians call the investiture controversy.116 Following the lead of Gregory VII, Urban II asGuibert of Nogent, 54. Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 16; Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 3: 68, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 19; John Hugh Hill, “Raymond of Saint Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship,” Speculum 27 (1951): 266. For a full treatment of Bishop Adhémar, see James A. Brundage, “Adhémar of Puy: The Bishop and His Critics,” Speculum 34 (1959): 201–212. 115 William of Malmesbury, 415. 116 Letter of King Henry IV to Pope Gregory VII, dated August–September, 1073, in Emerton, The Correspondence, 18–19; see Uta-Renata Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988); Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The West113 114

POPE URBAN II

125

serted the supremacy of the church and of the papacy. His launching of the Crusades was the result of the Cluniac movement. Adolph Harnack says that although this movement sought at first to reform the Church especially from secularized monachism, it had little effect “until the great Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) laid hold of it and as Cardinal and successor to Peter, set it in opposition to the princes, the secularized clergy, and the Emperor.”117 Harnack says the Cluniac teachings changed the temper of the masses and set them on fire to contend against the simonistic princes in all of Europe. As a result, A new enthusiasm of a religious kind stirred the nations of the West, especially the Romanic. The ardor of the Crusades was the direct fruit of the monastic papal reform movement of the eleventh century. In them most vividly the religious revival which had passed over the West revealed itself in its effect on earth. The supremacy of the Church must be given effect on earth. It was the ideas of the world-ruling monk of Cluny that guided the Crusaders on their path. The Holy Land and Jerusalem were parts of heaven on earth. They must be conquered. The dreadful and affecting scenes at the taking of the sacred city illustrate the spirit of medieval piety.118

Some Latin sources on the Crusades agree with Harnack that the taking of the sacred city (Jerusalem) was in the spirit of medieval piety. Harnack says that his ideas partly correspond with his lectures on Monachism, published in 1886.119 Carl Erdmann says that while Harnack’s account of how the reformers of monastic life (especially the Cluniacs, who attempted to restore the purity of the ascetic ideal and thus caused a renewal of religious influence in the outside world) is unsurpassed and his conception is deep, his identification of Gregory VII with the Cluniacs in this context can no longer be accepted.120 Marshall W. Baldwin, the translator and editor of Erdmann’s ern Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989); Gerd Telenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century, trans. Timothy Reuter (Cambridge, 1993); Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1997); H. J. E. Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy, and the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries (Oxford, 1983); Peters, The First Crusade, i, n. 1. 117 Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, 6 (New York: Dover Publications, 1961): 4. 118 Harnack, History, 6: 8. 119 Harnack, History, 6: 3, n. 1. 120 Erdmann, Origin, 71, n. 34. Erdmann’s view is based on Adolph Harnack,

126

THE CRUSADES

work, notes that when he was writing, “the discussion regarding the Cluny’s role in the Gregorian reform was dominated by the conclusions of Sackur, which minimized any direct influence of the Cluniacs on the general ecclesiastical reform.” He says Erdmann believed that the differences between the various reform movements should not be emphasized, for he was primarily concerned with the extent to which Cluny or other reform movements affected the church’s attitude toward war.121 In his study of the Cluniacs and Pope Gregory’s reforms, H. E. J. Cowdrey has aptly shown the pope’s final estimation of the Cluny “as an institution, and of the monks as partners with the Apostolic See in promoting the well-being of the church. In this respect Cluny’s liberty was an epitome of his reforming programme; its prayers and its actions throughout the Church made it his acknowledged ally. No praise could be too lavish when he expressed his sense of obligation to it.”122 Pope Urban II’s message to the faithful, summoning them to fight against the Turks and aid their Christian brethren of the East, offered a synthesis of ideas and current practices, such as holy war, pilgrimage, and plenary indulgence for the remission of sins. Most of those present responded to it with emotional enthusiasm, but without fully comprehending its essence. They had no idea how such a gigantic enterprise was to be organized and conducted, or who was to lead it. They were equally ignorant about the peoples they were expected to fight against and, more tragically, about the logistics of the whole campaign. Those who heard the pope’s message were simple folks who, out of reverence to him and the church, accepted it as the will of God, while some ambitious lords saw it as an opportunity for material gain. It was not until the 1140’s that the idea of the crusade was reinforced by apologists like Pope Innocent II (1130–1143), St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and the canonist Gratian, who asserted that the popes and the Catholic Church had the authority to arouse the believers to war on God’s behalf.123 Plainly, recovering Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher from Muslim control and liberating the Eastern Church were viewed as major objec-

Mönchtum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte (Giessen, 1908). 121 Erdmann, Origin, 72–73, n. 37. Erdmann cites Ernst Sackur, Die Cluniacenser, 2 (Halle-Saale, 1894): 54. See Harnack’s detailed comment on Sackur’s work, 2: 464, in History of Dogma, 6: 4, n. 1. 122 H. J. E. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), 57, 162–174. 123 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, i.

POPE URBAN II

127

tives in Urban’s plan, and in the writings of those who were present at Clermont or those who wrote afterwards about it.124 Supporting his call to liberate Jerusalem, the pope told his audience, “See how the Gospel cries out that ‘Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the time of the nations will be fulfilled.’” (Luke 21:24) He reminded them that according to the prophets, before the coming of the Antichrist, the empire of Christianity must be renewed, through them or through whomever God might will, adding, “Consider, then, that almighty providence may have destined you for the task of rescuing Jerusalem from such abasement. I ask you to think how your hearts can conceive of the joy of seeing the holy city revived by your efforts, and the oracles, the divine prophecies fulfilled in our own times.”125 He later said, “Those who may die will enter the mansions of heaven; while the living shall behold the Sepulcher of the Lord. . . . And what can give greater happiness than for a man in his lifetime to see those places where the Lord of Heaven was conversant as a man? Blessed are they who, called to this occupation, shall inherit such recompense. Fortunate are those who are led to such a conflict, that they may partake of such rewards.”126 As Christians, the Crusaders viewed Jerusalem as the royal city,127 the mother of all the churches, the sacred place where the blood of the Son of God, holier than heaven and earth, was spilled, where the body at whose death the earth trembled rested.128 It was Christ’s inheritance and personal possession, the city from which Christians had received grace and redemption, the source of all Christianity.129 Jonathan Riley-Smith says, “No passage of scripture was to be more often quoted in connection with crusading than the opening words of Psalm 79:1: ‘O God, the heathens are come into thy inheritance.’”130 Like the Hebrews, 124 Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 13–15; Robert the Monk, 3: 728– 729; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 18; Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 137; Hill, “Raymond of Saint Gilles,” 26: 265. 125 Guibert of Nogent, 44. 126 William of Malmesbury, 415. 127 Robert the Monk, 3: 729; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 11. 128 Guibert of Nogent, 42–43. 129 Robert the Monk, 3: 881–882; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 14– 15. 130 Robert the Monk, 3: 729, 863; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 11. See Penny J. Cole, “O God, the heathens have come into your Inheritance: The Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade Documents, 1095–1188,” in Crusades and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Schatzmiller (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 84–111.

128

THE CRUSADES

the chosen people whom God led to the land of Canaan, the Crusaders were led by God to the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.131 Although the pope’s speech stressed the sacredness of Jerusalem, he also told those who would fight to recover it, “through you the name of Catholicism will be propagated, and it will defeat the perfidy of the Antichrist and of the Antichristians,” i.e., the Muslims.132 He enjoined those present: “Rid God’s sanctuary (the Holy Sepulcher) of the wicked; expel the robbers, and bring in the pious. Let no love of relations detain you; for men’s chiefest love is toward God.”133 Thus, it is clear that Urban II considered Jerusalem the possession of the church and saw its recovery from the Muslims as a triumph of Catholicism. His position was similar to that of Pope Gregory VII, who considered the Kingdom of Spain as the possession of St. Peter, of whom the popes were representatives. Finally, the pope stressed that the land on which Jerusalem stood belonged rightfully to Christendom, not to the Muslims, who had possessed it for a long time, and that by heavenly judgment the city which had been taken unjustly from the fathers should now be returned to the sons.134 According to William of Malmesbury, he urged the people to go and attack the enemies of God, “For they long since, Oh sad reproach to Christians! have seized Syria, Armenia, and lastly, all Asia Minor, the provinces of which are Bithynia, Phrygia, Galatia, Lydia, Caria, Pamphylia, Isauria, Licia, Cilicia, and now they insolently domineer over Illyricum, and all the hither countries, even to the sea which is called the straits of St. George. Nay, they usurp even the sepulcher of our Lord, that singular assurance of faith.”135 Jonathan Riley-Smith states, “The attitude of eleventh-century Christians towards Jerusalem and the Holy Land was obsessive. Jerusalem was the center of the world, the spot on earth on which God himself had focused when he chose to redeem mankind by intervening in history.”136 Thus, the Crusaders were gripped with enthusiasm for “the Holy Land,” which Erdmann calls “a term that had not been yet coined.”137 He contends that although the term Holy City had been used prior to the Crusades, JeruRobert the Monk, 3: 747. Guibert of Nogent, 44. 133 William of Malmesbury, 414. 134 Robert the Monk, 3: 792; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 74. The best analysis of this view is given by Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 135–152. 135 William of Malmesbury, 411. 136 Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 21. 137 Erdmann, Origin, 300. 131 132

POPE URBAN II

129

salem derived its special significance not just from Christ’s suffering and His tomb, but from “the mystical conception of the heavenly Jerusalem that dominated Christian literature on the basis of Paul and the Apocalypse. These sources cast a shimmer of unreality upon the earthly Jerusalem and elevated it from the everyday world.”138 Perhaps in referring to Jerusalem Pope Urban II meant the Patriarchate and the “mother church,” but the thought of liberating the Holy City must have been very much in his mind at Clermont. Norman Housley writes, “The liberation of Jerusalem rather than the patriarchate was uppermost in the hopes of Pope Urban II and those who responded to his appeal. This was how people viewed the First Crusade.”139 St. Paul and the early fathers of the church saw Jerusalem as the allegorical representation of the church.140 To the Latin writers, Jerusalem had an anagogic meaning, described by the apocalyptic John as coming down from heaven (Revelation 21:2). Baldric of Dol wrote, “the Jerusalem which you see prefigures and represents the heavenly city . . . But this heavenly city will be closed to us and taken away from us if our house is seized by malignant strangers as a result of our slothfulness.”141 Regardless of the exegesis of his speech and sermon at Clermont, and whether or not as cardinal-bishop of Ostia in 1080 he had been inspired by Pope Gregory VII’s plan for the recovery of Jerusalem, Pope Urban II’s plan certainly reflects the conflict between Christendom and Islam, and the Crusades were simply the culmination of this conflict. In this sense the Crusades may be considered the “foreign policy” of the papacy, whose aim was to direct its faithful subjects to fight for Christianity against the infidel Muslims. These subjects had not only to act according to the spirit of chivalry but also to abide by feudal society’s rules and predilections, which had their Erdmann, Origin, 310. Norman Housley, “Jerusalem and the Development of the Crusades Idea, 1099–1128,” in The Horns of Hattin, B. Z. Kedar, ed. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Variorum, 1992), 29; Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 136–138; Robert the Monk, 3: 727–730; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 12–16. 140 Joshua Prawer, “Jerusalem in the Christian and Jewish Perspectives of the Early Middle Ages,” in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’altro medioevo, XXVI, Gli Ebrel nell’altro medioevo (Spoleto, 1980): 739–795; Housley, Jerusalem, 28– 29; A. H. Bredero, “Jérusalem dans l’occident médiéval,” in Mélanges offerts â René Crozet (Poitiers, 1966), 259–271; S. Mähl, “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht,” Der Welt als Geschichte 22 (1962): 11–26. 141 Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, 4: 101; Housley, Jerusalem, 29; Susan Edgington, The First Crusade (London, 1996), 7–8. 138 139

130

THE CRUSADES

origin in the “Truce of God” and the “Peace of God.” The Crusaders would also receive penance and remission of sins.142 By the eleventh century, the strength of the church and conditions in Europe had made it more plausible and feasible to conduct a Crusade against the Muslims of the East. The popes had repeatedly urged war against the infidels, considering it not only just but necessary for the remission of sins and a reward of eternal merit. Although no general doctrine of holy war was formalized or advanced, as James A. Brundage maintains, “the de facto existence of this species of war had been acknowledged. Implicit in this acknowledgment was a sense that some sort of papal sanction was required to sanctify warfare and that a holy war must necessarily be a just one.”143 It was a divine war, a holy war, meant to liberate the Christians of the East and Jerusalem from Muslim bondage.144 The Crusades should be understood as a holy war in the sense that they were provoked in an age dominated by the spirit of otherworldliness and by the clerical power which represented the other world.145 Thus, liberation and freedom became the battle cry of many reforming Christians, especially the monks of Cluny, whose ranks included Gregory VII and Urban II.146 Freedom is exactly what Pope Urban II had in mind when he referred to the liberation of Sicily and Spain from Muslim hands. Indeed, some Western scholars consider the “beating back of the Moors (Muslims) in Spain” as a cause of the Crusades.147

Barker, The Crusades, 2–3. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 28. 144 Jonathan S. C. Riley-Smith and L. Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095– 1274 (London, 1981), 1. 145 Barker, The Crusades, 2. 146 Cowdrey, The Cluniacs, 36–37. 147 Burr, “The Year 1000,” 439. 142 143

5 PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND Inextricably associated with the desire to recover Jerusalem, and nearly as important as a cause of the Crusades, was the desire to facilitate Westerners’ pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Indeed, history reveals that the Crusades were a special kind of pilgrimage made by armed men, a logical extension of the pilgrimages Christians had made for centuries. Joshua Prawer rightly says, “The crusade became a penitential and martial pilgrimage, and its goal was the Holy Sepulcher and prayer at the liberated tomb of the Savior.”1 As historian Hans Eberhard Mayer writes, “It would never have occurred to anyone to march out to conquer the Holy Land if men had not made pilgrimage there for century after century.”2 Heinrich von Sybel, however, argues that one cannot understand the importance of the Crusades as merely a sequel and extension of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. “Such a complete change in the history of the world,” he says, “does not arise out of such insignificant cause . . . the Crusades are rather to be understood as a great portion of the struggle of two world religions, Christendom and Islam, a struggle which began in the seventh century on the borders of Arabia and Syria.”3 Still, pilgrimage to Jerusalem had considerable significance. InJoshua Prawer, The World of The Crusaders (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972), 15–16; see J. A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 3. 2 Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, trans. John Gillingham, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 14; Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: The Limousin and Gascony, 970–1130 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 204–205; J. G. Davies, “Pilgrimage and Crusade Literature,” in Journey Towards God: Pilgrimage and Crusade, ed. Barbara N. Sargent-Baur (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1992), 1–30; Giles Constable, “Medieval Charter As Source For The History Of The Crusades,” in Crusades and Settlement, Peter W. Edbury ed. (Cardiff: University College Cardiff, 1985), 75. 3 Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer, 1881), 145; von Sybel, The History and Literature of the Crusaders, trans. Lady 1

131

132

THE CRUSADES

deed, without the continuous flow of Western pilgrims to the Holy Land, the Crusaders’ desire to reclaim Jerusalem seems meaningless. In this sense pilgrimage and the recovery of the Holy Sepulcher from the hands of the Muslims were wholly intertwined in the struggle between Christianity and Islam. The Latins’ ardent veneration of the Holy Land and the sacred sites was a primary motivation for pilgrimage. Early writers on the Crusades consider the Crusaders both warriors and pilgrims. Quoting Matthew 16:24, “If a man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me,” the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum says there was a stirring of hearts throughout the Frankish lands, so that every man who was ready to follow God and faithfully bear the cross for Him must not delay, but as quickly as possible take up the road to the Holy Sepulcher.4 Fulcher of Chartres makes it even clearer, declaring he has related in careful and orderly fashion the illustrious deed of the Franks “when by God’s most express mandate they made a pilgrimage in arms to Jerusalem of the Savior.”5 Ordericus Vitalis says those who were inspired by the words of Pope Urban II at Clermont went on the pilgrimage, i.e., the march to Jerusalem.6 William of Malmesbury says, “The bulk of the auditors, being extremely excited, attested their sentiments by a shout, pleased with the speech, and inclined to the pilgrimage.”7 Thus, by virtue of their vows the Crusaders were both warriors and pilgrims. And when they marched throughout Syria, as we shall see, their meager numbers were reinforced by pilgrims from Europe who were not warriors in the strict sense yet did not disdain to carry arms during their sojourn in the Holy Land.8 Duff Gordon (London: Chapman and Hall, 1861), 2. Cf. Bernhard Kugler, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1880), 3. 4 Gesta Francorum, trans. Rosalind Hill (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), 1. 5 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Iherosolymotana trans. F. R. Ryan (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 57. 6 Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. T. Forester (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854), 3: 67, and The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, trans. M. Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 5: 17. 7 William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, trans. J. Sharpe (London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815), 415. 8 Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 101–102, 274; Einar Joranson, “The Great German Pilgrimage of 1064– 1065,” in The Crusades and other Historical Essays, Presented to Dana C. Munro, Paetow,

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

133

Thus, the concepts of Jerusalem as holy city and pilgrimage to the holy sites were inseparable. Western people went to Jerusalem to worship, offer gifts to the Sepulcher of their Lord, or atone for their sins. They suffered great tribulation, molestation and humiliation. Professor Herbert M. J. Loewe correctly says, “In no small degree the origin of the Holy Wars was due to the expansion of the Seljuq Empire,” but adds almost in the same breath, “for as long as the Arabs held Jerusalem the Christian pilgrims from Europe could pass unmolested.”9 Yet, for many years before the Seljuks occupied Jerusalem, the Muslims molested the pilgrims and extorted money from them. The pilgrims traveled unarmed, relying greatly on God’s protection; many of them even refused to fight back. Since ancient times Christians had made pilgrimages to the Holy Land, the place where their Lord and Savior lived, died, and was resurrected, but exactly when the practice began is not known. During the first two centuries of Christianity, pilgrimage to Palestine was rare because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman general Titus. In the next century, when the Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, he defiled the sacred ground by building a temple to the goddess Venus Capitolina on the site of Calvary.10 Some early Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were Firmilian of Caesarea-Mazaea (Kaysari) in the second century, and an unnamed Cappadocian bishop in the third century. Toward the end of the second century some Christians still visited the holy places to search for the footsteps of Christ.11 In the fourth century, pioneers like Antonine the Elder, John the Presbyter, and Alexander the Bishop went to the Holy Land to pray and obtain information about the sacred places. Both Antonine and John came from Piacenza, in northern Italy, and made their pilgrimage about 303–304, some twenty years before Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine I the Great, discovered the relic of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem. Pilgrimage ed. (New York: F. S. Croft, 1928), 41, n. 144. 9 Herbert M. J. Loewe, “The Seljuqs,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923): 316. See Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 42. 10 T. A. Archer and Charles L. Kingford, The Crusades: The Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1894), 2–3. 11 Steven Runciman, “The Pilgrimage to Palestine before 1095,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 68–69, quotes Origen, In Joannem, Chapter VI: 29, in Patrologia Graeca, 14: 269; see Runciman, A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 38–50, and Brundage, Medieval and Canon Law, 6.

134

THE CRUSADES

became more common after Constantine converted to Christianity and built a church on the site.12 Constantine is thought to have visited the Holy Land himself; following his example, Christian pilgrims began flocking to Palestine. Around 330, hermits from the diocese of Cologne and a number of devotees from Western Europe journeyed to Jerusalem for the sake of the holy relics.13 Three years later, a pilgrim from Bordeaux visited Jerusalem and compiled a guidebook titled Itinerarium a Burdigala Hierusalem [The Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem], the earliest detailed narrative of a Christian pilgrimage from the West, completed two years before the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The author’s purpose was to make it easier for his compatriots to reprise his journey to the Holy Land.14 Leaving Bordeaux, this traveler passed through Italy, and then through Pannonia (Hungary), Illyria, Dacia and Thrace to Constantinople. He then journeyed across Asia Minor to Syria and finally reached Jerusalem. Like Origen, he came to search for the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples and to render prayer with thanksgiving. The account of his journey and his description of the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem, is too richly detailed to be quoted fully here. Among many sites he saw in Jerusalem were the pool of Solomon, the crest of the mountain on which Satan tempted Christ, and Golgotha, where Christ was crucified. Interestingly, he associated with each Holy Land site a verse of Scripture, and he found in them a fulfillment of the prophecies.15 He left Jerusalem for Constantinople and reached as far as Heraclea in Thrace, where he changed his route, passing through Macedonia to Thessa-

C. Raymond Beazley, The Dawn of Modern Geography, 1 (New York: Peter Smith, 1949): 53–54. On the church Constantine built, see H. T. F. Duckworth, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.). 13 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography,1: 57. 14 Thomas Wright, Early Travels in Palestine (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968), Introduction, ix; Joseph François Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robson, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1973): Appendix 2, 351–355. The Itinerarium was printed by Pierre Pithon in 1588 from a manuscript in his own library and was later included in the edition of the “Antonine Itinerary” by Schott and Wesseling. See Michaud, 351. 15 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 57–69; S. Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine before 1095,” in A History of the Crusades, 1, ed. Marshall W. Baldwin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 69; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 3. 12

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

135

lonika and then through Italy until he reached Milan.16 The Bordeaux Itinerary is also of considerable importance for the evidence it supplies of the imperial road system at that time.17 By the close of the fourth century the number of Western pilgrims to the Holy Land, especially from France and Spain, increased so much that it gave rise to the custom of collecting alms to help the poor in Jerusalem. This may rightly be called the Age of St. Jerome (d. 420), for his influence drew devoted people to the Holy Land and especially to his own cell in Bethlehem. In June 385 Jerome and his friend St. Eusebius of Cremona left the Italian port of Porto with a great number of pilgrims bound for Jerusalem. After suffering tempests they reached Cyprus, where they were received by St. Epiphanius. They journeyed to Antioch, where they were welcomed by Bishop Paulinus, and from there to Jerusalem. They spent some time in Jerusalem and then went to Egypt to visit the hermits of the Thebaid. On returning to the Holy Land, they took up residence in Bethlehem, where they founded a monastery.18 Jerome exhorted men to retire from the world to Bethlehem or other peaceful places in the Holy Land and to reverence the Holy Shrines. Evidently, St. Jerome was not consistent in his attitude toward pilgrimage. Although he encouraged his friend Desiderius to make the pilgrimage, he wrote to Paulinus of Nola, “A man is no worse for not having seen Jerusalem.” Jerome did not think himself a better man just because he lived in the Holy Land; one deserved praise not for merely being in Jerusalem, but for having lived religiously there.19 At about this time St. Jerome’s noble patroness Paula, accompanied by her daughter Eustochium and a number of virgins, devoted their lives to the service of the Lord. They lived in a nunnery and shunned the world for the love of Jesus Christ and their devotion to the holy places.20 She apparently saw St. Jerome, and together they visited several shrines in the Holy Land, including Elijah’s tower at Sarepta (Zarephath), the village at which the Prophet Elijah spoke to a widow whose handful of meal was multiplied Wright, Early Travels, ix; Michaud, History of the Crusades, 352–353. M. L. W. Laistner, “The Decay of Geographical Knowledge and the Decline of Exploration, A. D. 300–500,” in Travel and Travellers of the Middle Ages, Arthur Percival Newton, ed. (New York, 1968), 30. 18 Wright, Early Travels, x. 19 St. Jerome, Epistle 58, in Patrologia Latina,Migne, ed., 22: 580–582; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 70–72; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 7. 20 Jacques De Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, trans. A. Stewart (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896), 39. 16 17

136

THE CRUSADES

because she made bread for the prophet, and the home of Cornelius (later a church) at Caesarea.21 At Jerusalem she went first to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, prostrated herself before the true cross, and kissed the stone which the angels had taken from the entrance. She also visited the hermits of the desert in Egypt, then returned to Bethlehem, where she built a cell and hospitals for pilgrims, living in retirement there till her death.22 Paula once wrote to her friend Marcella that she did not doubt that there were holy men elsewhere, but it was in the Holy Land that the foremost of the whole world were gathered together. She then mentions the multitude of people of different ethnic origins found in Jerusalem, including Gauls, Britons, Persians, Armenians, Indians, and Ethiopians, all living in love and harmony.23 Pilgrimage was not favored by some prominent fathers of the church like St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, who either denounced it as irrelevant or dangerous or said that it was not supported by the Bible.24 Even so, at Bethlehem, St. Jerome became the leader, the guide and friend of all Western pilgrims, their chief correspondent and main attraction. He had given new impetus to religious travel that no visitor to the Holy Land could ignore.25 The fourth century saw many pilgrims from Gaul, including Caprasius of Lerins, Honoratus (later archbishop of Arles), and his brother Venantius (who died on the way), who made their pilgrimage in 380. But the most famous of the pilgrims was Silvia of Aquitaine (Etheria), whose “Peregrination” bears her name, although its authorship is doubtful. Silvia traveled to the Holy Land and throughout the East between 379 and 385. She visited not only Jerusalem but other sites, including Edessa and Harran, where the patriarch Abraham stayed on his journey to the land of Canaan, and parts of Arabia and Mesopotamia. By the time she concluded her journey to Palestine in 385, Jerome, who had visited Jerusalem in 372, was in Palestine for See 1 Kings, 17: 10; De Vitry, History of Jerusalem, 19. Wright, Early Travels, x–xi. 23 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 71–72, 82–86; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 4; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 69; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 6–7. 24 St. Augustine, Epistle 77, in Patrologia Graeca, 33: 268–269, and Contra Faustus Manichaeum, in Patrologia Graeca, 42: 384–385; John Chrysostom, Ad populum Antiochenum, 5: 1, in Patrologia Graeca 146: 1061A, and ad Ephisios, 2 in Patrologia Graeca 62: 57; Gregory of Nyssa, Epistle 2, in Patrologia Graeca, 46: 1009; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 69, n. 9, and 70, nn. 10–11. 25 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 81. 21 22

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

137

the second time and had settled at Bethlehem. Despite some incredibly outlandish assertions, Silvia’s account of travel surpasses all other records written by persons of her own class.26 At the start of the fifth century there were several notable pilgrims from Spain; Theodorus visited Jerome at Bethlehem, and Vincentius, who had accompanied Jerome on his second journey, also reportedly went to Palestine. Another pilgrim, Alexius of Rome, went to Edessa in search of the miraculous napkin in which the head of Jesus was wrapped at his death. The story of Alexius aroused so much interest that authorities later brought him to Jerusalem. In 400, many pilgrims traveled from Narbonne via Carthage and Alexandria all the way to Bethlehem and Jerusalem.27 Around 405 Turribius, a bishop of Austrias in Galicia, visited Jerusalem and collected some relics. When he saw in a dream that the Holy City would fall into the hands of unbelievers, he took the relics home and housed them in a shrine at Monte Sacro in his own district.28 Between 406 and 430, pilgrims from Spain, Gaul and Dalmatia visited the Holy Land; the Spaniard Sisinius was sent to Jerusalem in 413 by Exuperius, bishop of Toledo, along with Ausonius, a Dalmatian, and Apodemius, a Gaul. They were followed by women in 414. A notable visitor the next year was the historian Paulus Orosius, a friend of St. Augustine, who reportedly visited Palestine and carried letters exchanged between Jerome and Augustine.29 The year 417 saw the pilgrimage of Paula and Melania, who sailed from Rome and, caught in a storm near Sicily, were driven to hostile territory and taken prisoner, but were rescued by the local bishop who had heard of their famous journey. They sailed to a place near Carthage and went to Alexandria, where they were received by the patriarch St. Cyril (d. 444), and finally made it to Jerusalem.30 In 438–439 a famous pilgrimage was made by Eudoxia, wife of Emperor Theodosius the younger, and the spiritual daughter of Melania. Eudoxia had the fortune to unearth the relics of St. Peter’s chains. She also sent her sister-in-law in Constantinople a portrait of the Mother of God,

On Silvia’s journey see Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 73–81, and Claude Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage, A. D. 500–800,” in Travel and Travellers in the Middle Ages, A. P. Norton, ed. (New York, 1968), 44–48. 27 Patrologia Latina, 20: 183. 28 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 88. 29 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 89, mentions Augustine, Epistle 166, and Jerome, Epistle 134. 30 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 90. 26

138

THE CRUSADES

said to have been painted by St. Luke.31 There is little evidence of further pilgrimages before Justinian I ascended the throne in 527; Gregory of Tours reports one by a Gallic bishop around 490, and there is an unauthenticated report of a Welsh pilgrimage early in the sixth century.32 The most important sixth-century source is the anonymous Breviarius de Hierosolyma [A Short Description of the Holy Land], which appears with a book by Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae.33 We know little of the author, but his work may date to the first three years of Justinian I, 527–530, for he mentions Justinian’s building in the Holy City. The book was certainly used by Gregory of Tours, who refers to it in his tract “On the Glory of the Martyrs.”34 The author offers a full description of Jerusalem, supported by Biblical references, but then abruptly quits Palestine to tell us about the memorial of St. Clement at Cherson on the Black Sea. He moves westward to Sinope, where Andrew delivered Matthew from prison, and then to Armenia. He speaks next of Memphis, Egypt, where there were two monasteries under the leadership of St. Jeremiah and St. Apollonius the hermit. He leads us to Cappadocia, Sebastea, Galatia, Gangra, and other places in Asia Minor, and to the mountains of Armenia, where the Tigris meets the Euphrates, then returns to Palestine and traces the places where Jesus is said to have visited or performed miracles. He then takes us to Mesopotamia and tells us about the city of Dara, built by the Emperor Anastasius (491–518) to guard the frontier against the Persians. He concludes with a description of notable cities from Tarsus to Antioch to Edessa, Dara, and Amida.35 Raymond Beazley, who gives a detailed summary of this book, believes that it does not represent an actual journey or even a collection of statements derived from other writers. The merit of this account, he says, is that “it is packed full of news for the relic-seeker”; it has little to do with Christian travel, but “it throws some light on certain developments of Christian doctrine.”36

Nicephorus Callistus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 14; Patrologia Graeca, 146: 1061A; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 91; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 70. 32 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 93, 98. 33 Theodosius, ed. Gildemeister, 1882. For an English version, see Theodosius, J. H. Bernard, trans., (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1893). 34 Theodosius, 5; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 99; Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 50. 35 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 98–104. 36 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 98; Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,”50. 31

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

139

St. Berthaldus of Chaumont, son of Thealdus, “King of Scotia,” and a hermit named Amandus from the diocese of Rheims are said to have visited Jerusalem sometime before 533.37 In 530, three hundred Italian pilgrims visited the Holy Land, among them St. Isaac, abbot of Spoleto, and St. Herculanus, later bishop of Perugia. Petro, an abbot from Cornwall, is said to have visited Jerusalem in 550. For the next decade no pilgrimage is reported except for the journey of a Spaniard, St. Martin, archbishop of Braga, who visited Jerusalem in 560.38 Gregory of Tours reports the journey in 569 of Reovaldus (Reovalis) and others sent by Queen Radegund to the Levant to collect relics, especially in Jerusalem.39 But the most important pilgrimage to the Holy Land during this time was that of Antoninus of Placentia (Piacenza) in 570, whose Itinerary was most likely written by some of his companions.40 The purpose of his journey was to follow the footsteps of Christ and behold the scenes of the miracles wrought by the prophets. His Itinerary covered Palestine, Sinai, Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia.41 It is too detailed to be cited here, for there is no place in the Holy land which Antoninus does not describe. He notes that some hospices built by Justinian in Jerusalem could accommodate 3,000 beds.42 He also visited the hermits of Thebaid in Egypt and saw a multitude of crocodiles in the Nile. Upon his return to Jerusalem, St. Antoninus fell sick and was admitted to a hospital for poor pilgrims. He later went to Mesopotamia and returned by sea to his native Italy.43 Gregory of Tours mentions other Christian travelers in the sixth century, among them a nameless pilgrim who returned from Jerusalem in 575; a Breton named Vuinochus or Vuanochus, who stopped at Tours in 577 on his way to Jerusalem; Gregory (later bishop of Agrigentum), who went with others from Sicily to the Holy Land in 578; and an unnamed envoy of Gutram, king of the Franks. He also says Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) began communications between East and West. In 591 and 595, his emissaries carried missives to the patriarch of Jerusalem and Antioch. In Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 104. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 105–107. 39 Gregory of Tours, 1: 5, quoted in Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 109. 40 Wright, Early Travels, xi, says Antoninus visited the Holy Land early in the seventh century. 41 Antonini Placentia Itinerarium, in Itinera Hierosolymitana, ed. Geyer, 160–161, quoted in Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 52, n. 2. 42 For a detailed account of Antoninus’s journey, see Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 109–121, and Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 56–60. 43 Wright, Early Travels, xi–xii. 37 38

140

THE CRUSADES

594 he induced Lady Ruticiana to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In 597 Peter, an acolyte of the church of Rome, fled the Church of Jerusalem and the patriarch requested his extradition. In the last year of the century, according to the pope’s correspondence, a Roman named Simplicius went to Sinai and Jerusalem, and in that same year the pope’s letters were delivered to the abbot of the Monastery of St. Catherine on the Mount of God.44 The seventh century opened with the mission of the abbot Probus, whom Pope Gregory sent to Jerusalem to build hospices for Latin pilgrims. The pope also provided an annual supply of food and clothing to the servants of God at Jerusalem and in the holy mount of Arabia. His actions recall those of Constantine the Great and Justinian, who built hospices and churches for the pilgrims, and later were emulated by Charlemagne.45 But Jerusalem suffered a great disaster when the Persian Chosroes stormed and sacked it in 615. Most of the buildings Constantine had erected lay in ruins, and Persian fire-worshipers carried the True Cross beyond the Tigris. Emperor Heraclius managed in 627 to defeat the Persians and recover Jerusalem and the true cross, but in 638 Jerusalem was captured by the Muslims, whose rise to power posed a new threat to Christendom and cut off the traditional East-West relations. The Muslims had attacked the very heart of the Christian world and even threatened to capture Constantinople. No longer could Western pilgrims traverse the Byzantine Empire with little risk of hardship and molestation. Now Jerusalem was in the hands of people who loathed their religion and theology and considered them blasphemers who should by subdued by the sword. One of the most striking phenomena in European history at this time was that the Church of Rome became the center of a new system combining both spiritual and worldly power. To defend their authority and that of their church, the Italian popes developed the idea of a crusade, a kind of holy war against the Muslim intruders. Christianity was slowly progressing in the northern states of Europe, but the danger came from the south, where the Muslims were vigorously attacking European positions in the Mediterranean. Travel was seriously curtailed, and Christian pilgrims were discouraged from making the journey to Jerusalem. Despite the unfavorable conditions, it is reported that Waimer, duke of Champagne, visited Jerusalem in 678 to atone for his role in the murder of St. Leger. At the same time Wulphagius, a country priest, went to Jerusalem for the sake of devotion. 44 45

Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 121–123. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 123.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

141

But these men left no record of their journeys, and not until we come to Arculf do we find any record of Western pilgrimage to Palestine.46 Although the journey to Palestine was hazardous and expensive and wealth in the West was on the decline, some Western pilgrims still visited Jerusalem; the most famous was Arculf, a Gaul (Frank) by birth, said to have visited the Holy Land about 680.47 His mention of “Mauias, king of the Saracens” (Mu’awiya, the first Umayyad Caliph, 661–679), in connection with the shroud which covered the head of Jesus at his burial, suggests that he visited Jerusalem before the caliph’s death.48 On the way back, his ship was driven off course by a storm and carried to the Monastery of Iona, for a long time the seat of the Irish Church, where he was entertained by its abbot Adamnan, the biographer of and successor to St. Columba. Arculf related the story of his journey, and Adamnan wrote it down and presented it to King Aldfrith the Wise (685–705), the last of the great Northumbrian rulers, in his court at York in 701.49 Arculf, who spent nine months in Jerusalem, gives a full description of its walls, with their eighty-four towers and six gates. He talks about its great stone houses and the famous spot where an ancient temple was replaced by a Muslim prayer-house able to hold three thousand men at once.50 He speaks of the sacred buildings, especially “the round church built over the Sepulcher of the Lord,” the center of pilgrims’ devotion. He describes the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as large and round, encompassed by three walls; to the north side of the church was the tomb of our Lord, hewn out of rock. He personally measured it and found that it was seven feet long and rose three palms above the floor and gives a sketch of the Holy Sepulcher as it was in his day.51 He then speaks of the Church of Holy Mary, Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 121. Adamnan’s De Locis Sanctis, trans. Denis Meehan (Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1958), 37; also trans. J. R. Macpherson in Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 3 (London, 1896–1897). Some writers call him Arnulphus or Arnulph. See Walter Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem the City of Herod and Saladin, 4th ed. (London: Chatto and Windus, 1988), 129–130. 48 De Locis Sanctis, 54–55. See Wright, Early Travels, xiii. 49 De Locis Sanctis, 2–5; Wright, Early Travels, xii, 2–11; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 131–132: Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 61; Bede, Ecclesiastical History, 5: 15; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 71, n. 18; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 6–7. 50 De Locis Sanctis, 41–47; Wright, Early Travels, 1–2. 51 De Locis Sanctis, 43–47; Wright, Early Travels, 2. For the sketch, see De Locis 46 47

142

THE CRUSADES

which adjoins the round church, built on the site of Calvary, the basilica called the Maryrium built by the emperor Constantine, and the Chapel where the Lord’s chalice is kept. This silver cup, with two handles, rested in a perforated case which Arculf touched and kissed. He also saw the lance that pierced the Lord’s side and the shroud that covered his head when he was buried. He also mentions the high column that stands in the middle of Jerusalem, where the dead youth was restored to life when the Cross of the Lord was placed upon him. Of this column, surrounded by sunlight, the Psalmist sings, “God is our King before the ages hath wrought our salvation in the center of the earth and its navel.”52 His journey also took him to Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, and other places in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem. At Bethlehem he saw the tomb of Rachel, crudely built of stones, and at Hebron (also called Mamre) he saw the tombs of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and describes the places connected with their lives and the memorial to Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah. He talks about the Oaks of Mamre, where Abraham received the three angels.53 After his thorough description of these sites Arculf shifts the narrative to the River Jordan, which he swam forward and backward, and the Dead Sea, whose salty water reminds him of the Lord’s saying to His disciples, “You are the salt of the earth.” At Bethany he visited the sepulcher of Lazarus. He then turns to Nazareth, Mount Tabor, and the great crucifix over Jacob’s well at Sichem.54 Here Arculf mentions a Burgundian pilgrim named Peter who had traveled with him up to this point but refused to go further. This Peter, apparently an anchorite with a thorough knowledge of Palestine, showed Arculf the leading monastery of the area and the three handsome churches.55 He mentions Damascus and other parts of Syria, from which he traveled to Alexandria, Egypt, and speaks of the Alexandria Lighthouse (called Pharos by the Greeks and Latins) and the sepulcher where St. Mark the evangelist is buried.56 He talks about crocodiles of the Nile so ravenous that they could swallow a horse or a donkey.57 From Egypt Arculf traveled to Constantinople; he gives a deSanctis, 47; and Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, facing 1: 133. 52 De Locis Sanctis, 49–57; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 133. 53 De Locis Sanctis; Wright, Early Travels, 6–7; Jenkins, 63–65. 54 For Arculf’s visits to these places, see De Locis Sanctis, 63–91; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 136; Wright, Early Travels, 8. 55 De Locis Sanctis, 95–96; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1:137. 56 De Locis Sanctis, 101. 57 De Locis Sanctis, 105; Wright, Early Travels, 11.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

143

scription of the Church of St. Sophia, which he does not name, calling it “the very celebrated round stone church.”58 He stayed for a short while in Sicily, but on his way home was carried by contrary winds to the shores of Britain. There he met Adamnan and dictated the account of his journey, which Adamnan then committed to writing.59 There is little evidence of pilgrimage from England during this period except for a journey to the Holy Land (721–727) by St. Willibald (“bold of will”). English by birth, he was said to be a kinsman of the great Boniface and a native of the kingdom of Wessex, probably from Hampshire. His lifestory was written after his death in 786 by a nun of Heidenheim, of whom little is known except that she was his kinswoman and affirms she recorded the account of his travels from his own mouth.60 Along with his father, his brother Wunibald, and his sister (afterwards celebrated as St. Wulpurgis), Willibald left England in 718 and traveled through the land of the Franks to Italy. His father was taken ill and died at Lucca, but the three children reached Rome, where Willibald and two comrades determined to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. They departed Rome, most probably in 721, and arrived in Nebule (perhaps Eboli), then sailed to Palestine by way of Sicily, Ephesus and Cyprus.61 When he and his companions reached Emessa (Hims) in Syria, they were taken for spies, perhaps because of their strange appearance, and thrown into prison. But a Spaniard whose brother was chamberlain of the Umayyad Caliph Yazid II (reigned 720–724) took pity on them. The master of the ship that had carried them from Cyprus was summoned before the caliph, who asked where these strangers came from. He replied that they came from the land of the sunset, beyond which “we know not earth but only waters.” The caliph angrily said, “If this be so, why punish them? They have not sinned against us. Give them leave and let them go.” Thus, Willibald and his friends were released.62 Thomas Wright contends that the trouble Willibald and his companions faced in trying to obtain a passage to Tyre in Syria arose because at the end of his reign Ca-

De Locis Sanctis, 107–109. Early Travels, 12; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 140. 60 Thomas Wright, Biographia Britannica Literaria (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1968), 1: 335, and Early Travels, xiv. 61 Wright, Biographia, 1: 337–338, gives a detailed account of Willibald’s voyage. 62 Wright, Early Travels, 15–16, and Biographia, 1: 338, n. 3; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 150. 58

59 Wright,

144

THE CRUSADES

liph Yazid II, at the instigation of the Jews, persecuted the Christians in his territory, many of whom fled their homes.63 Once released, Willibald and his companions traveled to Damascus and then to Galilee, where they visited Nazareth, Cana, Mount Tabor, and Tiberias, on the shore of the sea “upon which Christ walked with bare feet,” and so came to Magdala, Capernaum, and other sites, such as the place of Christ’s baptism and the fountain of the Prophet Elisha.64 Willibald visited Jerusalem no less than four times. Once, it is said, he was miraculously cured of blindness by praying at the church where the cross of Christ had been discovered. Whether he was blind is not certain. He may simply have contracted an opthalmia on his journey and recovered in Jerusalem.65 Willibald describes many oddities, including a column set up at the place where the Jews tried to carry off the head of the Virgin, the three memorial crosses outside the eastern wall of the Church of Calvary, and a stone in front of the Sepulcher—not the original but a copy of the one rolled away by the angel; the fifteen bowls as a votive offering, standing on the couch on which the Lord’s body was laid, and many others.66 At Jerusalem Willibald bought the costly and famous Jericho balm, so precious that its export was forbidden. En route home, he hid the balm in a vessel partly filled with strong-smelling oil, so that when he embarked at Tyre the customs officer let him pass unmolested.67 Sailing from Tyre on November 30, 724, Willibald arrived at the beginning of April 725 in Constantinople and took lodging in a church so that he might behold daily where the Saints Andrew, Timothy, the Evangelist Luke, and John Chrysostom reposed. Two years later he sailed for Sicily in the company of the envoys of the pope and the emperor and was received into the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino. After six years there, he left with a Spanish presbyter for Rome, arriving on or about November 30, 733. At Easter 739, he departed Rome for Germany, where he was brought to Boniface (Winfrid, d. 755), archbishop of Mainz, who had converted various nations in Germany, notably the Hessian pagan tribes, and gained the honorable appellation of ‘Apostle of the Germans’.68 Boniface put WilWright, Biographia, 1: 342, and Early Travels, xiv. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1:151. 65 Besant and Palmer, Jerusalem, 135–136. 66 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 152; Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 65. 67 Wright, Early Travels, 21; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 153; Jenkins, “Christian Pilgrimage,” 68; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 72. 68 On Boniface see William of Malmesbury, History, 80–81; Wright, Biographia, 1: 63 64

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

145

libald in charge of a district in the wilderness at Eistet (Eichstädt) in Bavaria, where he was admitted to priestly orders on July 22, 739. The next year, Boniface sent him to Thuringia, where he visited his brother Wunebald. Shortly afterwards Boniface, with two other bishops, Burchard and Wizo, ordained him as Bishop of Eichstädt, probably in 740 or 741, after Boniface had resigned his bishopric. After holding this office for forty-four years, Willibald died on July 7, 786.69 A journey to the East about 750 by an Irishman, Fidelis, is reported by Dicuil, an Irish geographer-philosopher-monk who had settled in France, living there between July 802 and 810.70 In his tract De Mensura Orbis Terrae [On The Measurement of the Earth], Dicuil mentions Fidelis in connection with the dispute over whether the Nile on one side flowed into the Red Sea or not.71 We know that Fidelis came to Egypt on his way to Jerusalem, but whether he visited the holy city is unknown. He is one of the first Western sources to give a description of the Pyramids or, as he calls them, the seven barns of Joseph, representing the years of plenty. Fidelis says they were like mountains all of stone, square at the base, round in the upper part, and tapering to a point at the summit. He measured a side of one “barn” and found it to be four hundred feet.72 Pilgrimage apparently increased in the time of Charlemagne, especially after he made some sort of arrangement with the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (786–809), who granted him privileges in Jerusalem. According to Dicuil, the caliph sent Charlemagne an elephant as a gift, along with the keys of the Holy Sepulcher and of Jerusalem.73 The delivery of the keys to Charlemagne can be considered only, as Einar Joranson said, “a symbolic act whereby the patriarch of Jerusalem implicitly did homage to the King of the Franks (Charlemagne) and placed

308–334; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 141. 69 Wright, Biographia 1: 344, and Early Travels, 22; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 155, Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 8–9. 70 Wright, Biographia 1: 374. 71 Wright, Biographia 1: 372–373. 72 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 34, 162–164. 73 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 172, n. 1. On Charlemagne’s relations with Harun al-Rashid, see A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954) vol. 2: 391; Louis Bréhier, “Charlemagne et la Palestine,” Revue Historique 157 (1928): 277–291, and L' Église et l' Orient au moyen age-Les Croisades, 6th ed. (Paris: Lecoffred, J. Gabalda, 1928), 22–34; Steven Runciman, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” English Historical Review 50 (October, 1935): 606–619.

146

THE CRUSADES

himself under that monarch’s direct protection.”74 During the latter years of Charlemagne’s reign there was established on Mount Sion a colony of French monks, to whom he provided a copy of the Rule of St. Benedict. It appears that the monks had complained to him that some Muslims had ejected them on Christmas Day from the church at Bethlehem.75 Charlemagne, the first European ruler to establish a cohesive empire (although it faltered after his death in 814), had become a power to be reckoned with and respected, especially by the Muslims, who had already ravaged southern Italy and controlled most of Spain. He and the Franks, champions of Christendom, had “rallied the Church militant with considerable effect.”76 They had driven the Muslims back to the Ebro, conquered the Saxons in the North, and extended Christianity in upper Germany to the shores of the North Sea. It is no surprise that Harun al-Rashid, the most formidable ruler in the East, and Charlemagne, his counterpart in the West, should seek each other’s friendship. Both probably were acting out of self-interest. Harun al-Rashid needed Charlemagne against his rivals the Umayyads, who had built a strong state in Spain; just as surely, Charlemagne needed al-Rashid against the hostile Byzantines.77 Charlemagne’s envoys arrived in Baghdad in 797, and in June 801 Charlemagne received two Muslim envoys at Aachen. Their identity is unknown; one of them was said to be a Persian, the ambassador of Harun al-Rashid, while the other was a Saracen from Africa.78 As a champion of Christianity and the church, Charlemagne was greatly interested in Jerusalem and the Christians who lived there.79 Although no pilgrim-traveler has left an account of a journey to the Holy Land in Charlemagne’s time, his concern for the holy places appar74 Einar Joranson, “The Alleged Frankish Protectorate in Palestine,” The American Historical Review 32 (1927): 247. 75 Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 10. 76 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 160. 77 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: Macmillan-St. Martin’s Press, 1970), 298. This idea is challenged by Iorga, who says Byzantium was not a threat to the Franks and Charlemagne was not so sophisticated a diplomat as to make an alliance with the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad. See Runciman, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” 608, n. 8. 78 Joranson, “Alleged Frankish Protectorate,” 244. 79 Ordericus Vitalis, 3: 245, says during the first year of Charlemagne’s reign, Zachariah, patriarch of Jerusalem, sent him a reliquary containing a portion of the wood of the Holy Cross.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

147

ently inspired the writing of a tract entitled On the Houses of God in Jerusalem. The author was perhaps a man of high rank whom Charlemagne himself had sent to observe and report on the condition of the Syrian Christians of Jerusalem and the waning power of their religion.80 A pilgrim, Bernard the Wise, of whom we shall say more shortly, reported the existence of a library in the Church of St. Mary in Jerusalem, collected by Charlemagne, together with a hostel for the benefit of Catholic travelers. Bernard says that in Jerusalem the pilgrims were comfortably lodged in the “hostel of the glorious Emperor Charles, which he had built for all those who came there to worship speaking the Roman tongue.”81 Charlemagne’s buildings in Jerusalem, his acceptance of the Keys of the Holy Sepulcher as a gift from Harun alRashid, the frequent embassies between Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid, and the alms sent yearly by the Carolingian Court to Jerusalem have led some historians to conclude that a kind of Frankish protectorate was established in the Holy Land which left the interest of the Christians there untouched, and that at the end of the ninth century this protectorate passed from the Franks to the Byzantines.82 There is much disagreement about this protectorate and Christians’ rights in Jerusalem. The traditional view of this protectorate was set forth by Count Paul of Riant and apparently accepted by Vasiliev.83 It was first challenged by the Russian historian Bartold, who maintained that since Muslim sources are silent on this subject, it is hard to believe that Harun alRashid ever gave Charlemagne protecting rights in Jerusalem. Louis Bréhier amplified the ideas of Count Riant and Vasiliev and challenged those who denied the existence of the protectorate, pointing out that many Western pilgrims had seen the hospices, the library, and other facilities Charlemagne had built in Jerusalem.84 But Bréhier was challenged by A.A. Kleinclausz Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 164. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 172; Vasiliev, History, 2: 391; Joranson, “Alleged Frankish Protectorate,” 255. 82 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 121–122; Louis Bréhier, Les Croisades, 22–33, 38–39, and “Charlemagne et la Palestine,” 277–291; A. Kleinclausz, “La legende du protectorate de Charlemagne sur la terre sainte,” Syria 7 (1926): 211– 233. 83 P. E. Comte de Riant, “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des Croisades,” in Archives De L'Orient Latin, vol. 1, (Paris: E. Leroux, 1881), 15–16, n. 25. Vasiliev, History, 2: 391–392, esp. nn. 46–50. 84 Louis Bréhier, “Les Origines des Rapports entre la France et la Syrie: Le Protectorat de Charlemagne,” in Chamber de Commerce de Marseilles: Congrès Français de la 80 81

148

THE CRUSADES

and more especially by Einar Joranson, who after a thorough study of the historical evidence concluded such a protectorate “was never established. It is a myth quite analogous to the legend of Charlemagne’s crusade to the Holy Land.” Joranson says the myth of the protectorate was already in the making twenty years after Charlemagne’s death. Even then, he argues, Charlemagne’s biographer Einhard, either erroneously or deceptively, wrote that Harun al-Rashid had placed the Holy Sepulcher within Charlemagne’s power.85 Runciman, having studied the issue and the controversy it provoked, also concluded that “the theory of Charlemagne’s protective rights in Palestine should be treated as a myth. It was invented by that romantic historian, the Monk of St. Gall, who wrote fifty years after the emperor’s death.”86 Indeed, history gave way to sheer fantasy in the account of the Monk of St. Gall, Notker the Stammerer, in his Two Lives of Charlemagne. After stating that Harun al-Rashid had heard of the superior might of Charlemagne, he says that the caliph began to praise Charlemagne so obsequiously as to appear subservient. To show how willing Harun al-Rashid was to place the Holy Land under Charlemagne’s authority, Notker has him say: What can I offer him in return that is worthy of him, seeing that he has gone to so much trouble to honor me? If I give him the land which was promised to Abraham and shown to Joshua, it is so far away that he cannot defend it from the barbarians. If, with his customary courage, he tries to defend it, I am afraid that the provinces bordering on the kingdom of the Franks may secede from his Empire. All the same I will try to show my gratitude for his generosity in the way which I have said. I will give the land to him, so that he may hold it. I myself will rule over as his representative. Whenever he wishes and whenever the opportunity offers, he may send his envoys to me. He will find me a most faithful steward of the revenues of that province.87

Einar Joranson says Notker’s work “must be classified as imaginative literature rather than history.”88 Surely the idea that the caliph would place Syrie; Séances et Travaux, fasc. 2, Section d’Archéologie, Histoire, Géographie et Ethnographie (Marseilles and Paris, 1919); “La Situation des Chrétiens la Fin du VIII siecle et de Palestine à Establishment du Protectorat de Charlemagne,” Moyen Age 21 (1919): 67–75, also in Les Croisades; “Carlemagne et la Palestine,” 277–291. 85 Joranson, “Alleged Frankish Protectorate,” 260. 86 Runciman, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” 619. 87 Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, trans. Lewis Thorpe (Penguin Books, 1971), 148. 88 Joranson, “Alleged Turkish Protectorate,” 260.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

149

the Holy Land and specifically the Holy Sepulcher under the jurisdiction of Charlemagne is a gross exaggeration. How is it possible that such an important event as the powerful Caliph Harun al-Rashid’s magnanimously offering submission to Charlemagne has not been mentioned by any Arab source? Although Muslim writers mention various other relations and embassies between Muslim caliphs and Byzantine emperors, they are dead silent on this issue.89 Historical evidence indicates that Charlemagne was on good terms with Harun al-Rashid and entered into negotiations with him, using his friendship to secure the church of St. Mary in Jerusalem for the Catholic clergy. Given his deep interest in Palestine, Charlemagne apparently sent large quantities of alms and gifts to the patriarch of Jerusalem, establishing a hospice for the Latin pilgrims and a library connected with the church of St. Mary. He may or may have not obtained the approval of the friendly caliph, since his action was exclusively one of charity. For this reason Charlemagne was highly respected by the Christians of Jerusalem. To maintain, as Bréhier did, that offering alms and gifts, building a hostel, and founding a library constitutes any sort of privilege for a protectorate, is, as Steven Runciman maintains, squeezing too much from the available evidence.90 William of Tyre, evidently relying on Einhard’s biography of Charlemagne, says that when the envoys of Charlemagne told Harun al-Rashid their master believed that it would be of great comfort to the Christians in Jerusalem to live under his rule rather than that of Harun al-Rashid, the caliph “not only granted what they asked but gave them possession of that sacred and blessed place, that it might be regarded as placed under the power of [Charlemagne].”91 Let us separate myth from reality: the evidence shows that Charlemagne obtained the agreement of the Abbasid Caliph Harun alRashid to build a hostel for the Christians in Jerusalem and the Catholic pilgrims, and to found a library for their benefit. But he did not establish a protectorate for the Christians, nor did he have jurisdiction over any territory, nor was he offered a de jure right to claim these places in Jerusalem. These points are attested to by a pilgrim, Bernard the Wise, from the Monastery of St. Michel in Brittany. Bernard began his journey to the Holy Hitti, History, 298. Runciman, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” 616. 91 William of Tyre, History, 1: 64. Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964), 42–43; Einhard and Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives, 70. 89 90

150

THE CRUSADES

Land in 868–869, although apparently he had been there in 867. He arrived there in 870, coming through Egypt (as many merchants and travelers did), accompanied by Stephen, a Spaniard, and a certain Theudemundus, probably a Frank from the Monastery of St. Vincent at Beneventum.92 After obtaining the blessing of Pope Nicholas, the travelers left Rome for Mount Gargano and reached Barium (Bari). Although the Muslims had taken Bari from the Beneventines in 841, it was much safer to sail from than Marseilles or Amalfi, where there was a great danger from Muslim sailors and a bad reception in Muslim ports of the East. Bernard found that Bari was ruled by a certain Suldanus (Sultan) but does not give his name. The Muslim commanders of Bari were under the authority of the Aghlabids in Palermo, but they seem to have declared themselves “sultans” independent of the rulers of Palermo.93 The travelers were given letters of recommendation to the authorities at Alexandria and Babylon (al-Fustat, Old Cairo). Bernard did not sail from Bari but was sent by the city’s Muslim governor to Tarentum, which was also in Muslim hands. Bernard could not fail to notice that the Muslims in southern Italy were involved in the slave trade. He says that the ship he embarked on and five others were engaged in transporting Christian captives from Tarentum; two ships carried 3,000 slaves bound for Africa, two more were bound for Tripoli with a like number, and the last two (including Bernard’s ship) headed for Alexandria with the same number of slaves. When Bernard and his companions reached Alexandria after thirty days, the captain of the 60man crew would not let them disembark until they paid him six golden pieces.94 The governor of Alexandria ignored the letters the sultan of Bari had given Bernard and his companions, and obliged each of them to pay him 300 dinarii. Then he furnished them with letters to the chief man of alFustat, (known, then, to Europeans as Babylonia), in Egypt. After sailing for six days on the Nile, the pilgrims reached Babylonia and the seven granaries of Joseph, which still stand. Although they carried certificates of commendation from the governor of Alexandria, the pilgrims were taken by the guards to the Muslim governor, Adelacham (Abd al-Hakam), who asked them about their journey, ignored the letters they bore, and had them 92 Itinerary of Bernard the Wise, trans. H. Bernard, (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1893), 3, hereafter cited as Bernard; William of Malmesbury, 438; Wright, Early Travels, 23; Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 1: 166–167. 93 Hitti, History, 605. 94 Bernard, 4; Wright, Early Travels, 24; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 168.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

151

thrown into prison for six days. They were not released until they paid another 300 dinarii apiece; each obtained a sealed document, a kind of passport from the governor of Alexandria, and was thus ostensibly protected from other extortion while in Egypt. Even so, they entered several cities in Egypt where they still had to pay one or two dinarii in order to leave.95 Bernard says that the Christians living under Muslim rule (dhimmis, who according to Islamic law had to pay the poll tax in order to receive the protection of the Muslims) had to pay one to three gold pieces. People of lower classes paid thirteen dinarii, whether they were native Egyptians or foreigners. Anyone who could not pay was thrown into prison “until, either by the love of God, he is delivered by His angel, or else is bought out by another good Christian.”96 In Egypt Bernard had to pay again before he could travel safely to Jerusalem through Gaza. In Jerusalem, he and his companions were received into the hostel of the most glorious Emperor Charles (Charlemagne), where all who came to worship and spoke the Roman tongue were admitted. Close to the hostel was the Church of St. Mary, which had a noble library founded by the same emperor, with twelve dwelling-houses, fields, vineyards and a garden in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. In front of the hostel was a market; each person living there paid two golden pieces annually to its superintendent.97 He describes the Holy Sepulcher and especially the phenomenon of the sacred light which, according to tradition, shone forth from the Holy Sepulcher every Resurrection Eve. Among the many sights Bernard saw were the four churches built around the Holy Sepulcher, the iron gates of the prison through which the angel led forth St. Peter, the four round tables of the Last Supper, and the writing on the marble which Christ had traced with His finger at the Temple. Bernard’s description of Jerusalem is brief, and he seems to derive many details from the book of Arculf, which he had read.98 After completing his visit to the Holy Land, Bernard sailed to Italy. After a tempestuous sixty-day journey he landed at Mons Aureus, from which he traveled to Rome, and then to his Monastery of St. Michel in Brittany about 870.99 95 Bernard, 5–6; Wright, Early Travels, 25; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 170; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 10–11; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 72. 96 Bernard, 6; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 171. 97 Bernard, 7; Wright, Early Travels, 26; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 172. 98 Bernard, 8; Wright, Early Travels, 27; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 173. 99 Bernard, 10; Wright, Early Travels, 29; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1:166–

152

THE CRUSADES

So far we have seen no evidence of the persecution of Western pilgrims en route to Jerusalem. Except for his imprisonment, Willibald was not ill-treated in Emessa, and conditions for the pilgrims evidently improved during Charlemagne’s reign. Bernard compares the peaceful conditions in Jerusalem with the lawlessness in Beneventum, where he says the Christians murdered their prince Sichardus (Sikard) because of his pride and violated all laws until Louis, the brother of Lothair and Charles, at the invitation of the people of Beneventum, agreed to be their ruler. He remarks that the roads leading to Rome and the church of St. Peter were so infested with bandits that one had to travel in the company of armed men. By contrast, in Jerusalem the Christians and pagans (Muslims) lived together in amity and peace. There, he says, if the beast carrying his possessions were to die and he had to leave all his property unguarded, on his return he would find his belongings intact. But if the Muslims found any man traveling by day or night without some authorization from a prince or ruler of the district, they would suspect him of being a spy and imprison him until he produced evidence of the purpose of his travel.100 Although living was safer in Jerusalem, this fact does not absolve the Muslim rulers from the charges of extortion, such as Bernard and his companions had experienced, or engaging in the slave trade. As he saw firsthand, they captured Italian Christians by the thousands and shipped them to Africa to be sold. This action was more malicious and inhuman than persecuting pilgrims or exacting tribute from them. By the ninth century, the desire to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land was widespread, and so many people had left their work, homes, and lands and even neglected their families to do so that the church intervened to set some rules. Anyone who intended to perform the pilgrimage had to assure his bishop of his moral character and show that he was going on a pilgrimage with the consent of his family and friends. He had to prove that he was not motivated by indolence, curiosity, or the desire to obtain lands or other earthly possessions. Any member of a monastic order found it especially difficult to obtain church approval of his journey, for once he assumed the pilgrim’s robe, he left his order and returned to the world. Once a person obtained the bishop’s approval, he was supplied with a scrip (a document 173; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 10–11; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 72. 100 Bernard, 11; William of Malmesbury, 438; Wright, Early Travels, 30; Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades, 13.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

153

attesting to his status as a pilgrim) and staff and put on a long woolen robe. Blessed by the bishop, he was escorted by the clergy and friends to the boundaries of his parish, where he was given a document that promised him hospitality in any Christian country he might traverse on his journey. When he entered Muslim territory, however, he depended on the mercy of God and his ability to pay officials, but still dreaded mistreatment by the Turks en route to Jerusalem, and even at the city gates. The pilgrims traveled in bands and were exposed to diseases, harsh elements, and fatigue. Indeed, these things were of a greater danger to the pilgrims than the actions of the Turks, the chief enemies of the pilgrims.101 On his return trip, the pilgrim usually brought with him a palm branch from Jerusalem to show that he had been to the Holy Land. He would spend the rest of his life telling of the miracles he had seen in the course of his pilgrimage.102 In the tenth century, pilgrimage to the Holy Land became less perilous after the Muslims lost their grip over southern Italy and lost their piratenests in southern France. The Christians recaptured Crete in 961, and the Byzantine fleet and the Italian maritime cities could trade unmolested with the Muslim ports of the East. The Abbasid state was in decay and the governors of Palestine, in dire need of revenues, welcomed Western visitors to the Holy Land. It became easier for the pilgrims to take a boat from the Italian seaports of Venice, Bari, or Amalfi directly to Alexandria or a Syrian port.103 Although Europeans could travel to shrines like those of Santiago at Compostela in northwestern Spain, or St. Michael at Monte Gargano in Italy, pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher had a special spiritual significance for them. Many men who had committed crimes apparently traveled to the Holy Land to seek penance and expiation of their sins; of these, only a certain Fromond who left southern France for Jerusalem about the middle of the century is documented.104 Many notable pilgrims visited the Holy Land, among them Hilda, countess of Swabia (who died on her journey in 969), Judith, duchess of Bavaria, and many churchmen. These pilgrims, we

Besant and Palmer, Jerusalem, 129–131. The authors also detail the elaborate post-Easter ceremony at the Cathedral of Rouen following the blessing of the pilgrims, 131–133. 102 Besant and Palmer, Jerusalem, 134. 103 Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 73; History of the Crusades, 1: 43–45. 104 E. van Cauwenbergh, Les Pélerinages expiatoires et judicataires dans le droit communal de la Belgique au moyen-age (Louvain, 1922), passim; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 73, and History of the Crusades, 1: 45, n. 1. 101

154

THE CRUSADES

should note, were unarmed but were accompanied by bodyguards.105 The Cluniacs, whose abbey was founded in 910 by William, duke of Aquitaine, encouraged and sponsored pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as did some Cluniac reformers who promoted the Peace of God. Odilo of Cluny helped pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem, and Richard of St. Vannes personally accompanied seven hundred pilgrims to the Holy Land.106 But the impact of their encouragement of pilgrimage on the preparation of the First Crusade was diffused and indirect.107 As part of their plan, the Cluniacs built hostels on the road to Jerusalem to shelter the pilgrims, but since most of the pilgrims were poor folks, the Cluniacs undertook to escort them in small groups.108 For a short period in the middle of the tenth century, pilgrimage was difficult because of the fanatical Ikhshidis’ control of Jerusalem (934–969). After the Shi’ite Fatimids established themselves in Egypt and Syria in the second half of the tenth century, pilgrimage became easier. The Byzantines’ victories under Nicephorus and John Tzimises in the second half of the century, their retaking of major Syrian cities like Antioch and Aleppo, and the probability that the Byzantine army would enter Jerusalem made it easier and safer for the Western pilgrims to journey to the Holy Land.109 The Byzantines’ presence in Jerusalem led the French historian Louis Bréhier to say that a Byzantine protectorate over Jerusalem had replaced the Frankish one.110 The conversion of the Hungarians to Christianity and the annexation of the whole Balkan peninsula in 1019 by Basil II (the Bulgar-slayer) made the journey from central Europe to Jerusalem by way of Hungary, Constantinople, and the Syrian seaports easier. The kings of Hungary, especially the great St. Stephen, were interested in pilgrimage and built hospices for the pilgrims. Most of the pilgrims from Italy and France began to forsake the old sea route, since King Stephen had made land travel very safe for them, and as a result a multitude of pilgrims, both noble and common people, journeyed to Jerusalem.111 Italian pilgrims could safely cross the Bréhier, L’Eglise, 32–33. Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and Walter Goffart (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 304. 107 H. J. E. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and The Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), 182– 183. 108 Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 74. 109 Vasiliev, History, 2: 391. 110 Bréhier, “Charlemagne et la Palestine,” 277–291; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 122; Vasiliev, History, 2: 392. 111 Ralph Glaber, Chronique, III, Chapter I, quoted in Beazley, Dawn of Early Ge105 106

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

155

Adriatic to Constantinople, then travel to Syrian ports and finally to Jerusalem, staying in hospices in Constantinople or Samson. Toward the close of the century, many pilgrims from western and northern Europe journeyed to Palestine. One, St. John of Parma, visited the Holy Places six times, once in 982.112 Between 985 and 988 several monks from Monte Cassino, including John of Beneventum and Leo, brother of Abbot Aligernus, made it to Palestine. In 993 Hugh, Marquise of Tuscany, and his wife, Juliette, sent valuable gifts to the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Later two laymen who had supported the Cluniac reform movement, Poppo, abbot of Stavelot (Stablo), and in 997 Count Frederick of Verdun visited the Holy Land.113 There were even two pilgrims from Iceland, Thorvald Kodranson and Stefnir Thorgilsson, who journeyed to Jerusalem in 987 and visited the Holy Sepulcher. It is said that many Scandinavian pilgrims flocked to Jerusalem. The journey of Olaf Tryggveson, the king of Norway, who traveled to Jerusalem in 1003 with a hermit named Guy, is legendary.114 A Varangian officer named Kloskeggr went to Jerusalem in 992, and the illustrious Varangian Harald Hardrada, king of Norway, was there in 1034. According to his Saga, he bathed in the Jordan and lavished great wealth on the Holy Sepulcher, the Holy Cross, and other relics in Jerusalem.115 Most of the Scandinavian pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem by way of Gibraltar and returned home by the Russian route.116 Sadly, many pilgrims perished on the journey. Leger, the deacon of Auxerre, was buried at sea; Andrew the knight died and was buried in Jerusalem; another pilgrim, Hictarius, died before he could reach the tomb of Christ.117 Pilgrimage was probably less frequent in the time of the mad Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim, who ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009.118 The Byzantine Emperor Romanus III Argyrus (1028– ography, 2: 127, n. 2. 112 Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 125–126, quoting Archives de l’Orient Latin, I: 34. 113 Radulph Glaber, III: 6, in Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 124. 114 Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 126. 115 Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 107; Runciman,“ Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 75, and History of the Crusades, 1: 47. 116 Paul Riant, Expeditions et Pèlerinages des Scandinaves en terre sainte (Paris, 1865), 102–105, 117–118, 197–199; Runciman,“ Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 75–76. 117 Patrologia Latina, 137: 1229–1232; Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 1: 126. 118 On the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher, see William of Tyre, History, 1: 66; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 65 (184E); Tarikh Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki (Beirut:

156

THE CRUSADES

1034) negotiated a treaty with al-Hakim’s successors to rebuild the church with funds from the imperial treasury.119 The final agreement was reached in 1036 under Emperor Michael IV, but the restoration work did not begin until the time of Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042–1055), who sent his own workmen to Jerusalem to carry it out.120 The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher certainly had a negative impact on the Christians in Jerusalem, who now had to pay enormous taxes demanded of them, in violation of the rights granted to them by their former lords. Not until alZahir li I’zaz Din Allah {1021–1036) succeeded al-Hakim as caliph did their persecution cease.121 In the eleventh century, justly called the century of pilgrimage, there was much interest in visiting the Holy Land. As the Norman Dukes had done, Richard I, William Longsword, and Richard II sent messengers with gifts and alms to the Holy Sepulcher and took an interest in the Christians of the East. We hear of the pilgrimage in 1020 of Withman (who took the name Andrew), a native of Germany who in 1016 had become the third abbot of Ramsey. After spending a year in Jerusalem, Withman returned to England and retired in great humility to a small cell at Northeye until his death in 1047.122 In 1026 Richard, abbot of Grace Dieu, made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on behalf of Duke Richard I. Richard II is said to have exchanged gifts with the monks of Mount Sinai, and in 1035 Robert the Magnificent, father of William the Conqueror, left his duchy and traveled in person to Jerusalem. On the way back he died at Nicaea and was buried in the Church of Panagia.123 The lords of Aquitaine were greatly interested in the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Duke William III journeyed several times to Rome and Compostella, which housed the Shrine of St. James. Being unable to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he sent his minister William of Angoulême, in the company of many lords and prelates. The pilgrims journeyed to Hungary, where they received the hospitality of King Stephen, and then on to Jerusalem.124 There were also some pilgrims from England durMatba’at al-Aba al-Yasu’iyyin, 1909), 195–196, 298; Joshua Prawer, “The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem,” Speculum 27 (1952): 491. 119 Tarikh Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki, 270–271. 120 William of Tyre, History, 1: 69–70; Vasiliev, History, 1: 112; Runciman, “Pilgrimage to Palestine,” 1: 74. 121 William of Tyre, History, 1: 68. 122 Wright, Biographia, 1: 511. 123 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 128. 124 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 128.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

157

ing this period; Edward Godwine’s eldest son Svein (Swegen), who lived an evil life and whose house was afflicted with scandal, journeyed from Bruges to Jerusalem, but died at Constantinople in 1053. About the time of the Norman conquest, Ealdred, bishop of Worcester, more famous as the Archbishop of York who served as chief prelate at the coronation of William the Norman (1066), went to Jerusalem with unprecedented splendor and offered to the Holy Sepulcher worthy gifts, including a magnificently wrought golden chalice.125 At the same time, pilgrimage to Jerusalem became a popular custom in western Europe, particularly in Germany, and the number of pilgrims increased immensely.126 In 1038 Archbishop Poppo of Trier traveled to Palestine with the hermit Symeon, later canonized by Pope Benedict IX. In 1054, Arch-Chaplain Fulcher, Vidame of Arras, and Lietbert, bishop of Cambrai and Arras, set out for Jerusalem, but their journey sadly failed. They fell among thieves and were held for ransom by the Catapan of Cyprus. They got as far as Laodicea (Latakia), where they met Helinard, bishop of Laon, returning from Jerusalem. He described his miserable experience there, saying conditions were bad and nothing but trouble awaited them. Discouraged by this report, the pilgrims decided not to tempt God further and abandoned their journey.127 The most notable German pilgrimage in this period was the great pilgrimage of 1064–1065, led by Archbishop Siegfried of Mainz and Bishop Gunther of Bamberg, supported by Bishops William of Utrecht and Otto of Ratisbon.128 This group included other clergymen and counts, princes, courtiers from the royal palace, knights, and a large number of commoners, rich and poor, mostly from the Rhine valley or from Franconia and Bavaria. Bishop Gunther, a wealthy man of high birth, is considered the originator of this pilgrimage and was the dominant personality throughout the jourBeazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 128–129. Bréhier, L’Eglise, 50. 127 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 129. Some sources set the number of German pilgrims at 3,000. See Reinhold Röhricht, “Die Pilgerfahrten nach dem Heiligen Lande vor den Kreuzzüge,” Historiches Taschenbuch (Leipzig, 1875), 345, 390, and Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 2 (Berlin, 1878), 3–5; Bréhier, L’Eglise, 44–45. 128 Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 129–131. The most detailed account is Einar Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 1–43. Beasley, Dawn of Modern Geography, 2: 129, estimates the number of the pilgrims at 7,000; Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 9–11, puts it at more than 12,000. 125 126

158

THE CRUSADES

ney. He towered over his companions physically as well as in intelligence and moral virtues. The pilgrims left Germany in the middle of November 1064 and crossed Hungary, facing some danger from thieves, then went through Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thrace to Constantinople, where people were so struck by Gunther’s physical stature that they thought him to be the king of the Romans, deliberately disguised in a bishop’s garb. Leaving Constantinople, the pilgrims moved into Asia Minor, where they faced some problems, but they moved on to Cilicia and reached Laodicea, a Byzantine outpost.129 There some people just back from Jerusalem told them about the incredible evils they had suffered there at the hands of a savage tribe of Arabs, laying bare the wounds inflicted upon them. Relying on God’s providence, the pilgrims disregarded these grim reports and pushed on to Tripoli, which was in Muslim hands. On Maundy Thursday in March 1065, they arrived in Caesarea and celebrated the rites of that holy day. The next day, Good Friday, they left Caesarea, and barely past the desolate village of Caphrasala (Kafr Sallam), a day’s journey from Ramla, the pilgrims encountered a large number of armed Bedouin Arabs who were seeking booty.130 The Bedouins, who probably anticipated resistance, attacked the pilgrims, killing some and wounding others, and taking whatever they could get of their provisions. Though unarmed, some of the pilgrims decided to fight back with stones. But they were no match for the Bedouins and gradually retreated to Kafr Sallam; there they took shelter in the fortress with its twin towers, closed the gates of the atrium, and resolved to resist. Angered by this action, the Bedouins hurled their javelins, while some courageous pilgrims fought man-to-man and wrested some shields and swords from their attackers and were emboldened to feel capable of fighting. Exasperated by the resistance, the Bedouins, whose numbers had grown to several thousand, terrorized the besieged pilgrims, hoping to force them out. But no one came out except a certain pious abbess of noble birth, who disregarded the others’ advice. The “pagans” captured her and in plain view ravished her until she died. A knight who ventured outside the camp was also captured by the Bedouins and crucified on the spot.

For the details of this part of the journey see Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 15–19. 130 On the location of Kafr Sallam, which no longer exists, see Guy Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems (Beirut: Khayats, 1965), 471–472. 129

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

159

After committing these atrocities, the Bedouins threatened the pilgrims: “Thus will it be for you if you do not deliver up to us all your money!”131 Weary of the calamitous situation, a priest who protested that they should rely not on arms but on God alone advised surrender. The pilgrims’ leaders agreed to negotiate. They were willing to give up their possessions but not their lives. On hearing this, the Bedouin chiefs asked their men to pull back. Their leader chose sixteen distinguished sheiks and led them to the atrium, where the “glorious” Bishop Gunther and other bishops were seated in state. Still not trusting the pilgrims’ intentions, the Bedouins guarded the site, stationing many men at different parts of the atrium. Perhaps they were right, because Bishop Gunther had determined to apply a Fausrecht to the solution of his problem; the sheiks would become the instrument of his salvation and the pilgrims’. The Bedouin leader, arrogant in success, would accept nothing less than total surrender of the pilgrims and their possessions. The pilgrims were at his mercy and could no longer resist. To exhibit his prowess, the Bedouin leader furled his turban into a noose and flung it around Gunther’s neck, signifying that the capture of Gunther meant the capture of all the pilgrims, and threatening to drink their blood and eat their flesh.132 On learning from an interpreter what the sheik had said, Gunther felled his captor with a blow of his fist, dragged him to the floor, and placed a foot on his neck. Encouraged by his swift action, the pilgrims, both clergy and laymen, fell upon the Bedouins, seized them, and bound them hand and foot. Immediately they took up arms, manned the wall again, and drove off the Bedouins. The Bedouins outside the atrium charged forward, but were warned that if they continued, their leader would be decapitated. The threat worked, and those close to the sheik appealed to the Bedouins to halt their assault temporarily.133 Meanwhile, a messenger sent by the pilgrims to Ramla returned to Kafr Sallam to report that the Muslim governor of Ramla (southern Palestine, including Ramla, was still under the Fatimid state in Egypt) was on his way with a large force to rescue the besieged Christians. This wise and practical man reasoned that if they died, no pilgrims would ever pass along this route to Jerusalem, and he and his people would lose an important source of income. On March 28, the day after Easter, the governor arrived in Kafr Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 27. Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 130; Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 32. 133 Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 34. 131 132

160

THE CRUSADES

Sallam with a large force. On hearing the pilgrims’ story of their suffering, the governor commended them for the splendid service they had rendered him by capturing the Bedouins, who were the bitter enemies of the state.134 After a payment of 500 gold bezants, the governor escorted the pilgrims to Ramla, where they remained for two weeks and then were released. To assure their safety, the governor had them escorted to Jerusalem by lightly armed youths. Finally, with thanks and joy the pilgrims entered Jerusalem on April 12. Returning home, the pilgrims decided to avoid the land route through Palestine and sailed, probably from Jaffa to Laodicea, then journeyed through Licia and Asia Minor. When they reached Hungary and the banks of the Danube, their joy turned to sorrow when Bishop Gunther was taken seriously ill. After making confession to three of his fellow bishops and other clergymen and receiving the Sacraments, he died on July 23, 1065. So this great pilgrimage ended with the death of its valiant and resourceful hero. Of 7,000 pilgrims who had set forth, only 2,000 returned to Germany.135 Pilgrims continued coming to Jerusalem, but the circumstances were drastically changed in 1071, when the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert and Atsiz ibn Awq (Abaq), a vassal to the Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan, captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids of Egypt. When the people of Jerusalem, loyal to the Fatimids, revolted against him in 1076–1077, Atsiz subjugated the city and massacred many of them.136 Judging by the account of William of Tyre, the lot of the Christians in Jerusalem and the pilgrims was extremely bad. He says that in the midst of the insidious perils of this time a great number of Latin and Greek pilgrims arrived in Jerusalem, having risked death in a thousand forms in hostile lands. They came to worship at the holy places, but the keepers of the gates (presumably Turks) would not let them visit these places unless they paid a fixed tribute in gold. Many of them, having lost their money and reaching the city only with great difficulty, could not pay. Thus a thousand pilgrims, denied entrance to the city because they could not pay the tribute, succumbed to hunger and nakedness. Many of them were rescued by the Christians of Jerusalem, who provided them with just enough food to keep them alive. Even those who Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 36, n. 122. Beazley, Dawn of Early Geography, 2: 131; Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 39. 136 Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H.F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 98–99. 134 135

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

161

could pay the tribute were often a burden to the citizens of Jerusalem. As they moved about the city and rushed incautiously to the holy places, they were spat upon, beaten, and even killed, while the Christian citizens followed them and helped them in brotherly kindness.137 Because he lived nearby, William of Tyre had more firsthand knowledge about Jerusalem than other Latin writers of the period. One may dismiss his report completely or refer, as Joranson does, to “the possibly exaggerated and misleading representations of William of Tyre.”138 But there is no exaggeration in his account of the Turks’ abuse of the Latin pilgrims on their visit to Jerusalem. It is corroborated by two Syriac historians, Michael Rabo, patriarch of the Syrian Church (d. 1199), and the prelate Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286). Although they do not quote him or mention his name, they report the same events. Indeed, they regard the Turks’ harsh treatment of the Western pilgrims as a major factor in stirring the Europeans to march against the East to retake Jerusalem from Muslim hands. Michael Rabo writes, When the Turks dominated Syria and Palestine, they ill treated the Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, beating them and humiliating them. They imposed on them heavy tributes, which they exacted at the city gate or at Golgotha and the Holy Sepulcher. Moreover, they assassinated the Christians in one way or another, especially those who came from Rome and the rest of Italy. As a result, a great number of pilgrims became victims. This provoked the kings and princes in Rome (i.e., Europe), who marshaled an army in those regions and came by sea to Constantinople.139

The thirteenth-century chronicler Bar Hebraeus says that the Turkomans, who then ruled Syria, Palestine, and the other countries of the East, inflicted serious evils on the Christians who were coming to pray in Jerusalem, and especially those coming from Rome and other parts of Italy.140 The testimony of these two church dignitaries, who lived in Syria, close to William of Tyre, History, 1: 79–80. Einar Joranson, “Great German Pilgrimage,” 42, n. 147. That Joranson distrusted William’s account is clear from his decision not to include it in the text but to reduce it to a footnote. 139 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 586; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 182–183. 140 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 82 ( 234E) 137 138

162

THE CRUSADES

Palestine, is sufficient proof of the Turks’ ill-treatment of the pilgrims in Jerusalem. William B. Stevenson, however, contends that the Turks’ capture of Antioch in 1085 was more likely than their occupation of Jerusalem and the indignities which Christians suffered there to stir anti-Muslim feelings in the West: “ . . . it was the situation of the Greek empire and the advance of the Turk in Asia Minor which finally called Europe to arms on behalf of Jerusalem and the Eastern Churches.”141 We have already seen that Jerusalem and the idea of pilgrimage were so intertwined that neither makes sense without the other. Although it was not intended as an armed expedition, the long-standing tradition of pilgrimage to Jerusalem may be considered a crusade. Indeed, before the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, Sulayman ibn Kutulmish, captured Antioch from Philaretus in 1085, Pope Gregory VII had occasionally referred to the Holy Sepulcher. He was thinking of an “Eastern Plan,” a kind of crusade intended to extend assistance to the embattled Byzantine Empire, which he feared might perish if left unaided. Though the idea of war against the Muslims was not consistent with the idea of pilgrimage, nothing really changed at Clermont when the liberation of the Eastern Church was discussed. Even more than Gregory VII, Pope Urban II was aware of the danger from the Turks, who had overrun most of Asia Minor and Syria and occupied Jerusalem. Like his predecessor, he thought often about the liberation of the Eastern church and of Christianity. But he “was the first to unite pilgrimage and crusade in a synthesis . . . that simultaneously renounced the application of the idea of crusade to hierarchical ends.”142 He sought “to allow the campaign to the East to rank simultaneously as a pilgrimage.”143 He had already offered spiritual indulgence to those who would fight in Spain, but since pilgrimage was peaceful and incompatible with knightly combat, Pope Urban II found it more plausible to grant plenary remission of sins to those who journeyed to Jerusalem to liberate the church of God. The significance of this idea was not that traveling to Jerusalem would free the pilgrims from sins, but that it made pilgrimage a military objective for the journey. Hence, the Crusades came to be recognized as an armed pilgrimage, without jeopardizing the spiritual benefits of the plenary remission of sins.144 In this sense the Cru141 William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 269–270. 142 Erdmann, Origin, 305. 143 Erdmann, Origin, 331. 144 Erdmann, Origin, 331.

PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND

163

sades were intended not only to purify the fighting laymen nor to atone for their sins, but also to direct them to attack what was wrong, i.e., the possession of the Holy Sepulcher by the “infidel” Muslims. Thus, Pope Urban II succeeded in combining the spiritual sentiment of the people, which manifested itself in pilgrimages, with the profane sentiment of chivalry, whose sole objective was to recover the Holy Sepulcher.145 In other words, by promising absolution to those who joined the Crusades, Pope Urban II combined the concepts of pilgrimage and penitence, and made them support his new project, a military expedition with the sole objective of retaking Jerusalem from the Muslims.146

145

4–5. 146

Ernest Barker, The Crusades (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1923), Prawer, World of the Crusaders, 15–16.

6 THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN According to tradition, the reconquest of Spain was begun by Pelayo (Pelagius), the son of a Visigothic duke, Fafila, born in Asturias.1 Said to be the grandnephew of the Visigoth King Roderic, he was expelled from Toledo (probably in 710–711) by King Witiza, then came to Asturias and led a revolt against the Muslims, who had invaded the country. Later, the chronicle of Alfonso III made Pelayo the legitimate successor of Roderic.2 After King Roderic died in 711, the Visigoths continued to resist the Arab invaders in Asturias. Many nobles and bishops from different parts of Spain, together with the remnants of the defeated army, gathered in the mountains of Asturias to take a stand against the Muslims. They chose King Pelayo (reigned 718–737) as Roderic’s successor, and for this reason he is considered the founder of the Spanish monarchy. It is important to point out that Pelayo and his followers took refuge in Asturias for religious rather than political reasons. According to the ninth-century Chronicon Albeldense, the Christians were in daily combat with the Muslims; they hoped by resisting the Muslims in Asturias to preserve “some spark of the name Christian, since Spain has fallen into the hands of the Muslims.”3 The kingdom of Pelayo was the sal1 Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tilmisani al-Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib min Ghusn alAndalus al-Ratib wa Dhikr Wazirihi Lisan al-Din ibn al-Khatib, ed. Ihsan Abbas, 3 (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1968), 17, and 4: 350–351. See also Khuruj al-Andalus min Yad alMuslimin [The Exit of al-Andalus (Spain) from the Hand of the Muslims], ed. Muhammad Shuja Dayf Allah, (Kuwait: Dar al-Awrad, 1993), 26–27. This book is actually an excerpt by Dayf Allah of Chapter IV of al-Maqqari’s work. 2 Joseph F. O’Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1975), 98–99. 3 Américo Castro, The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History, trans. Willard F. King and Selma Margaretten (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 12, nn. 13–14; For more on Pelayo see Edward Everett Hale and Susan Hale, The Story of Spain (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1887), 231–147; Jan Read, The Moors in Spain and Portugal (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1975), 45–46.

165

166

THE CRUSADES

vation of Spain (salus Hispaniae). Its ultimate objective was to fight “day and night until divine predestination decreed the total expulsion of the Saracens.”4 Pelayo made Cangas de Onis his capital; at the end of the eighth century the capital was moved to Ovideo.5 For a while Pelayo maintained good relations with the Muslims and even paid them tribute. But in 718 he fought and defeated the Muslims at Covadonga, at the foot of the Holy Rock, on a date still disputed.6 According to Isa ibn Ahmad al-Razi, Pelayo and three hundred men took refuge in the Rock. The Muslims kept fighting them; exhausted and hungry, they lived only on honey which they extracted from openings in the rocks. In the end, only thirty men and ten women survived. The Muslims, though unable to defeat them, regarded them with contempt, declaring there was no point in fighting such a small force. Later, the followers of Pelayo became so numerous and powerful that they could not be ignored.7 Although the Arabic sources do not mention the victory of Pelayo and his followers, the increase of their numbers and their power suggests that they defeated the Muslims. This victory was attributed to intervention by the Hand of God, appearing in defense of the Christians. Amazed at what they had seen, the Muslims fled, leaving behind 20,000 dead.8 Later this victory was mythologized and considered the beginning of the Christian reconquest of Spain.9 As they withdrew from a region, the Muslims deliberately devastated it to prevent the Christians from chasing them, creating a “no man’s land” which became an effective barrier between them and the Christians. 4 Ramón Menédez Pidal, The Spaniards in Their History, trans. Walter Starkie (New York: W. W Norton, 1950), 83. 5 V. Duruy, Histoire du Moyen age depuis la chute de l’empire d’Occident jusqu’au milieu du XV Siécle (Paris: Hachette et cie., 1884), 324–326. 6 Maqqari, Nahf, 4: 351; Khuruj al-Andalus, 27; Reinhardt Dozy, Spanish Islam, trans. Francis Griffin Stokes (London: Frank Cass, 1913), 410–411; Rafael Altamira, A History of Spain, trans. Muna Lee, 3rd ed. (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1955), 101. 7 Quoted in Maqqari, Nahf, 4: 351, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 27. 8 Roger Bigelow Merriman, The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New, 1 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1918), 56. 9 Charles E. Chapman, A History of Spain (New York: Macmillan, 1930), 54–55; O’Callaghan, History, 99–100; Derek W. Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain (London: Longman, 1978), 25–31; Benjamin W. Wheeler, “The Reconquest of Spain,” A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years, ed. Marshall W. Baldwin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 32–35; W. Montgomery Watt, A History of Islamic Spain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965), 25.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

167

These devastated regions witnessed random skirmishes but no pitched battles between the two sides, and the progress of the Christian reconquest during this period was slowed. In the first half of the ninth century, the situation of the Christians changed as the kings of Asturias elicited the aid of the church. These kings realized that the clergy could be a mighty weapon in their struggle to drive out the Muslims, by preaching that the fight against the infidels was a sacred duty required of all faithful Christians; they could even impose ecclesiastical censure on those who did not carry their fair share in fighting against the Muslims. The Asturian kings would reward the clergy’s efforts with a generous share of the territory recovered from the infidels. Moreover, they promised to build churches, cathedrals, and monasteries, and insure their maintenance. The result was a remarkable unprecedented alliance between the kings and the church. The credit for organizing this alliance to further territorial expansion goes to Alfonso I (739–757), who came to be known as “the Catholic.” One Muslim chronicler says that he slew tens of thousands of the Faithful [Muslims] and burned houses and fields, and no treaty could be made with him.10 The struggle against the Muslims was continued successfully by Alfonso II (“the Chaste,” 791–842), who brought the Mozarabs (Arabic Musta’ribun, or would-be Arabs) from the conquered regions and settled them in the north.11 Still, some parts of the north remained unsettled, a fact which led to continuation of the “marches.”12 Alfonso II forged alliances with Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious and sent them trophies of wars and Muslim captives, giving the reconquest of Spain new impetus.13 In 751 or 759 Pepin the Short, the son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne, began pressuring the Muslims, whose hold on Septimania had been weakened by their tribal warfare in Andalusia, and seized Narbonne from them. Although this action did not end the Muslims’ raids against Provençal, at least it prevented their expansion in the West. In 755 a Muslim prince, Abd al-Rahman I al-Dakhil [the Newcomer], succeeded in establishing an Umayyad state which took its name from its capital, Cordova. He did not assume the title of caliph; the eighth prince, Abd alRahman III (912–961), first took that title in 929. The founding of this Merriman, Rise of the Spanish, 1: 59. Chapman, History, 55. 12 Watt, History, 25. 13 Duruy, Histoire, 324–326. 10 11

168

THE CRUSADES

Umayyad state in Spain was seen as a threat by the Abbasids, who in 750 had supplanted the Umayyads in the Middle East. The Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (ruled 786–809) cultivated a friendship with Charlemagne and, anxious to obtain his assistance against the Umayyads, granted him the keys of the Holy Sepulcher of Christ and a vague protectorate over the Holy Places. This was the first time since the rise of Islam that a Muslim potentate had accorded a Christian ruler such a privilege. This action may not have seemed important at the time, but it implied that the caliph acknowledged Charlemagne’s “moral authority” over the Christians of Palestine.14 It also suggests that Jerusalem and the holy sites there were very much on Charlemagne’s mind, though he could not restore the city to Christian hands. After subduing the Saxons, Lombards, and other intransigent tribes, Charlemagne in 778 turned his attention to Spain, intending to drive the Arabs back beyond the Ebro and extend the Franks’ rule. His plan was to oppose foreign encroachment, i.e., the Arab invasion of Septimania, and to see France triumph over Asiatic paganism and Islamism.15 His campaign against Spain, supported by Muslim chiefs who opposed prince Abd alRahman, began well; it appeared he would dominate the whole northeast of Spain. But when his forces encountered resistance by the Muslims at Saragossa, he abandoned the siege of the city and returned to France. The retreat was disastrous. His rear guard was ambushed and annihilated by Muslims, Basques, and Gascones. Several of his prominent fighting men were killed, including Roland, the governor of Brittany, immortalized in the Chanson de Roland [Song of Roland], the great epic of the Middle Ages which had a deep impact on later generations, especially during the First Crusade.16 The Franks captured Gerona in 785 and Barcelona in 801, and may 14 Henri Pirenne, Mohammad and Charlemagne (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), 167, esp. n. 1. 15 M. Guizot, “History of France,” in Charlemagne and the Carlovingians, ed. Gustave Masson (London: : S. Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1880), 20. 16 Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964), 34; Lomax, Reconquest of Spain, 32–33; O’Callaghan, History, 102. Some writers say that the Song of Roland would be impossible without the First Crusade; others say the Crusade would be incomprehensible without the Song of Roland. Indeed, the Song of Roland emphasizes the idea of war against the heathens and presents battle as a judgment of God, declaring through Roland himself that the Christians will be victorious because they are right and the heathens are in the wrong. Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton:

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

169

well have extended their domination to the Ebro. For the next three centuries, Barcelona was an outpost on the Frankish frontier.17 The impact of Charlemagne, a great emperor who presided over a golden age, cannot be overlooked. According to one account of his speech at Clermont, Pope Urban II reminded his audience of the feats of Frankish kings like Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: May the stories [of the deeds] (gesta) of your ancestors move you and incite your souls to strength; the uprightness and greatness of King Charlemagne and of Louis his son and of others of your kings, who destroyed the kingdoms of the pagans and extended into them the boundaries of the Holy Church.18

Several leaders of the First Crusade, including Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Bouillon, and his brother Baldwin, considered themselves descendants of Charlemagne. William of Malmesbury declares, “Godfrey, second to none in military virtue, and descendant from the ancient lineage of Charles the Great, inherited much of Charles both in blood and in mind.”19 When Baldwin became king of Jerusalem in 1100, Ralph of Caen wrote that Baldwin, a descendant of Charlemagne, had come to sit on the throne of David. He likened the Franks who had fought against the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Dorylaeum (July 1, 1097) to Roland and Oliver, the heroes of the Song of Roland. The Crusaders were so much inspired by the exploits of Charlemagne that while marching through Hungary towards Constantinople, they believed they were following a road he had built.20 Most likely the story of Princeton.University Press, 1977), 284–286, says the Song of Roland, with its emphasis on loyalty to Christianity, “shows the decisive importance that war against the heathen assumed both earlier and later, as the popular form of holy war.” 17 O’Callaghan, History, 102, says Einhard’s statement that Charlemagne dominated the entire chain of the Pyrenees mountains as far as the Ebro River is not true. See also Wheeler, “Reconquest of Spain,” 34. 18 Robert the Monk, Historia peregrinorum euntium Jerusolymam, in R. H. C. Occ. 3, 728, in Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 25; see also Riley-Smith, “The First Crusade and St. Peter,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C. Smail (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 48. 19 William of Malmesbury, History of the Kings of England and The Modern History of William of Malmesbury, trans. Rev. John Sharpe (London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815), 417. 20 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis in vol. 1, Expedtione Hierosolymitana

170

THE CRUSADES

Charlemagne’s building this road is a legend, but the romance persisted in the history of the Carolingians until the time of the Crusades and even after. Soon after the Crusades, it was rumored that Charlemagne had made a crusade to the holy places in Jerusalem and had risen from the dead.21 His campaign against the Muslims in Spain was recalled by Bohemond of Taranto at the siege of Antioch in 1097. During the siege, William the Carpenter, viscount of Melun, and Peter the Hermit deserted camp. Tancred went after them and brought them back in disgrace. Bohemond upbraided William for his disgraceful act, saying, “I suppose that you wanted to betray these knights and the Christian camp, just as you betrayed those others in Spain.”22 An adventurer, William the Carpenter had once deserted from a crusade in Spain.23 In sum, the Franks considered Charlemagne the instrument of God, who through His archangels commissioned him to fight for the Christians and supported him with miracles. They identified him with Jerusalem and with the relics of the sovereignty of Christ.24 Clearly the desire to recover Spain from the hands of the Muslim usurpers was strong. Such a sentiment, Norman Daniel observes, “preceded in vol. 3, Recueil des historiens des Croisades (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866) 627; Gesta Francorum, 2, esp. n. 8; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, trans. John Hugh Hill and Laurita A. Hill (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 17; Robert the Monk, Hisoria, 732, 169; Paul Riant, “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des croisades,” Archives de l’Orient latin, 1 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1881), 9–12; Riley-Smith, First Crusade, 112. 21 Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, R. H .C. Occ., 5:19; Riley-Smith, “First Crusade and St. Peter,” 49. On the legends associating Charlemagne with events before, during, and after the Crusades, see Erdmann, 295–299, and Gerhard Seeliger, “Conquests and Imperial Coronation of Charles the Great,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 625–629. 22 Gesta Francorum, 33–34; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879), 6: 79; Tudebode, Historia, 48. 23 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 223; Runciman, “The First Crusade: Antioch to Ascalon,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. Baldwin, 1: 313. 24 Erdmann, Origin, 285; Amy G. Remensnyder, Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France (Ithaca, NY: 1995), 150–164; E. A. R. Brown and Michael Cothren, “The Twelfth–Century Crusading Window of the Abbey of St. Dennis,” Journal of the Warburg and Cortauld Institutes 49 (1968): 1–40; Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 3, n. 6.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

171

the true crusading impulse, and it always contributed to it more than it owed.”25 King Alfonso II of Asturias was the first to conceive a policy of reconquest, stimulated by the immigration into his kingdom of refugees from al-Andalus. Most of the immigrants were Mozarabs or Arabized Christians. Some of them had been captured by the Muslims and embraced Islam to save their lives; others escaped to the north and settled in Asturias. The refugees may well have encouraged Alfonso II to commit himself to a program of reconquest, but whether they did so is uncertain.26 But one event which certainly spurred interest in and support for the reconquest of Spain was the discovery in northwest Galicia of what was believed to be the tomb and body of the Apostle St. James (Santiago) de Compostela, who had evangelized Spain. According to Acts 12:2, St. James was martyred in Jerusalem. How, then, did his remains reach Spain? According to a tenthcentury legend, the body of St. James floated in a ship from Jaffa in Palestine to Iria Flavia in Galicia and then was revealed to the subjects of Alfonso II.27 Another legend in the next century said that the tomb of St. James was discovered by a hermit who heard angels singing and saw a bright light shining on the spot where the apostle was buried. He told Bishop Theodomerus of Iria Flavia, who, after removing brushes and briars and digging deep in the ground, found the holy body of St. James in a marble sepulcher. Overjoyed, Theodomerus reported the news to King Alfonso II, who built a church on the spot, which became known as Campus stellarum, [the field of stars], or Santiago de Compostela.28 Due to the discovery of his remains, St. James became the patron saint of Spain, and the greatest Spanish order of knighthood was named for him. Compostela became a holy place, on a par with Jerusalem and Rome. The Spanish Muslim historian Ibn Hayyan (987–1076) has his own version of the legend of St. James. He declares that Santiago is one of the most remote parts of Galicia and one of the shrines most frequently visited by Christians not only from Spain but from all Europe. Just as the Muslims venerate the Ka’ba at Mecca, he writes, the Christians venerate Santiago (St. Yaqub [Jacob], James) as one of the Apostles, the brother of Jesus and bishop of Jerusalem. He went about preaching the Gospel and making con25

80.

Norman Daniel, The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe (London: Longmans, 1979),

Lomax, Reconquest, 30. Thomas D. Kendrick, St. James in Spain (London: Methuen, 1960), 19–24, 32–33; Lomax, Reconquest, 31. 28 Merriman, Rise of the Spanish, 1: 59–60; O’Callaghan, History, 105. 26

27

172

THE CRUSADES

verts until he reached that remote corner of Spain and then returned to Syria, where he died. Ibn Hayyan concludes by declaring that the Christians say his disciples afterwards carried his body and buried it in that church because it was the remotest place in which he had left his imprint by preaching.29 To justify the worship of the Apostle James, the bishop of Compostela elevated himself to the status of pontiff, and pilgrims began flocking to Santiago de Compostela in increasing numbers. Kings were even crowned there.30 Many pilgrims came from the south of France, for the population below the Pyrenees was a heterogeneous mixture of Basques, Catalans, Castilians, Leonese, Aragonese, Galicians and Navarrese, and all were labeled espanhols, i.e., Spanish. Indeed, the shrine of St. James became an international attraction for Christian visitors from all over Europe. The Way of St. James, which the pilgrims traversed, was known as the French Road.31 Travel to the shrine became comparable to the Muslims’ pilgrimage to Mecca. It is no wonder, says the Arabist Lévi Provençal, that one of the campaigns of al-Hajib al-Mansur against the Christians was called in Arabic Shant Yaqub; its special purpose was to inflict an affront upon all of Christianity by desecrating one of its most revered shrines.32 St. James must have given much needed hope to the people of Asturias when they were beset by the Muslims.33 The discovery of the remains of St. James certainly cemented the alliance between church and state and rendered the reconquest of Spain and Castro, The Spaniards, 399; O’Callaghan, History, 105. Kendrick, St James in Spain, 34. 31 Castro, The Spaniards, 14–15. For an illustration of this road through France, see Vera and Hellmut Hell, The Great Pilgrimage of the Middle Ages, trans. Alisa Jaffa (London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1966), 40. The book is full of exquisite illustrations and photographs. On Santiago de Compostela, see Marilyn Stokstad, Santiago de Compostela (Norman, OK: 1978); William Melczer, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela (New York: Italica Press, 1993); Maryjane Dunn and Linda K. Davidson, The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela (New York: Garland Press, 1994); Annie Shaver-Crandell and Paula Gerson, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Gazetteer (London, 1995); Paula Gerson, Jeanne Krochalis, Annie Shaver-Crandell, and Alison Stones, The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Critical Edition (London: Harvey Miller, 1996); and the Spanish exhibition catalogue, Santiago, camino de Europa: Culto y cultura en la peregrinación a Compostela (Madrid, 1993). 32 Evariste Lévi-Provençal, “España musulmana,” Historia de España 4 (1967): 423, Castro, The Spaniards, 14. 33 Chapman, History, 55; O’Callaghan, History, 105; Lomax, Reconquest, 30–31. 29 30

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

173

the expulsion of the Muslims a sacred duty. It also contributed to the development of the future Spanish empire, with which the reconquest became linked. Says historian Roger Merriman, “Never was national legend of deeper and more lasting significance.”34 The Spanish writer Américo Castro has thoroughly discussed the impact of Santiago’s spiritual power on the Spaniards.35 We learn from his penetrating analysis that in a hymn from the time of King Mauregatus (783–788), the apostle was called “Spain’s golden and shining head.” He was implored to protect Spain from plague and evil, as a half-century later he was implored to exterminate the Saracens (Muslims). He was considered a counter-Muhammad, and his sanctuary a counter-Ka’ba.36 The Muslims saw him as an invincible warrior and a powerful shield for the Christians. Castro concludes, “Santiago was a positive creed launched against Mohammadanism; there was nothing illusory about the battles won under his banner. His name became the national war cry, in opposition to the cry of the Saracens.”37 St. James became Spain’s most militant defender; his impact on the fighting spirit of the Spanish people cannot be exaggerated.38 Most of the Spanish knights who fought against the Muslims did so to obtain remission of sins. Even noncombatant Spaniards regarded the reconquest as a holy war and were encouraged to consider St. James their protector. It was reported that he appeared on horseback, holding a shining white flag, to lead [the future King] Ramiro I (842–850) and the Christians to victory over the Muslims at the Battle of Clavijo (834?).39 St. James told Ramiro, “Our Lord Jesus Christ divided among all the other Apostles, my brothers, and me all the other provinces of the earth, and to me alone he gave Spain to watch over her and protect her from the hands of the enemies of the faith . . . And so that you may doubt nothing of that which I tell you, tomorrow will you see me go into battle, on a white horse, with a white standard and a Merriman, Rise of the Spanish, 1: 60. Castro, The Spaniards, 380–419, gives the subject an entire chapter, entitled “The Beginnings of the Christian and European Reaction: St. James of Galicia.” 36 Castro, The Spaniards, 408. 37 Castro, The Spaniards, 419. Kendrick, St. James, 191–192, challenges some of Castro’s conclusions. 38 Kendrick, St. James, 41–43, vividly describes how St. James inspired the Spaniards against the Muslims. 39 Kendrick, St. James, 20. Erdmann, Origin, 274, n. 23, quotes A. López Ferriero, Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, 2 (Santiago, 1907), 73– 76, who defends the authenticity of the account of Clavijo. 34 35

174

THE CRUSADES

great shining sword in my hand.” Trusting in God’s help and that of the apostle James, the Christians gained victory over the Moors (Muslims).40 According to another account, St. James appeared to King Ramiro I in a dream and said that he had been commissioned by Jesus Christ to take Spain under his protection. He promised Ramiro victory on the next day with a negligible number of casualties. Those who fall in battle would rank as martyrs and receive heavenly crowns. The next day, at Clavijo, St. James appeared at the head of the Spanish army, visible to all, as he had promised, and inspired the Spaniards against the Muslims, who were utterly overwhelmed and routed, losing about 70,000 men. After this battle the Spanish army first used the battle-cry Adjuva nos Deus et Sancte Jacobe [May God and St. James come to our aid].41 Henceforth St. James became known in Spain as Santiago Matamoros, St. James the Moor-slayer.42 Other saints also were believed to protect the Christians in the reconquest. San Millán of Cogolla, along with St. James, in 934 led the Spanish army of King Ramiro II of Leon to victory against the forces of Caliph Abd al-Rahman III of Cordova, despite being outnumbered 1,000 to 1. It is said that both saints appeared in silver armor, mounted on white horses, with swords in hands, accompanied by a host of angels. The two heavenly warriors led the attack against the Muslims and threw them into confusion. The Muslims were so blinded by their glory that they began to slaughter each other. The victorious Christians recognized that St. James and San Millán, their heavenly lords, deserved gratitude and that offerings should be made to the churches where their remains lay.43 Arabic sources report that Ramiro II and Queen Regent Tuta of Navarre defeated the Muslims at Alhandega (al-Khandaq, the ditch), south of Salamanca. The caliph’s army was practically annihilated and he barely escaped with his life.44 St. Isidore, the patron of Seville (560–630), was honored with pilgrimages, prayers, and reverence by the monarchs of Leon, and was constantly invoked by King Alfonso VI.45 St. Peter, the angels Michael and Gabriel, and others also inCastro, The Spaniards, 387. Kendrick, St. James, 22–23. 42 Kendrick, St. James, 24, 147–148; see Hell and Hell, Great Pilgrimage, 43, and Kendrick’s introduction to that work, 18. 43 Kendrick, St. James, 41–43; Hell and Hell, Great Pilgrimage, 179. 44 Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib 1: 227; P. Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: MacmillanSt. Martin’s Press, 1970), 524. 45 “De Ortu et Obitu Patrum,” J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 83: 151–154; Kendrick, St. James, 109. 40 41

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

175

spired the Christian warriors. Frontier churches and cathedrals were often dedicated to the Virgin Mary, St. Anne, and other saints, a testimony to the efficacy of these saints and their relics in support of Spanish fighting men.46 Recounting the details of the Christians’ reconquest of Spain and their relations with the Muslims is not central to this study. Nevertheless, there is a definite historical connection between the reconquest and the launching of the Crusades. This connection was first observed by the eleventh-century Muslim writer Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami (1039–1106), who in the earliest treatise on holy war, entitled Kitab al-Jihad, shows awareness of the conflict going on between Christianity and Islam in Spain, Sicily and North Africa. The battle crossed the Mediterranean into Syria when the Crusaders arrived there.47 But it was left for the thirteenth-century Muslim historian Ibn alAthir and the Syriac historian Bar Hebraeus to elaborate on this subject. The Arab chronicler Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir (d. 1234), who may have read al-Sulami’s treatise, calls the Franks’ attack against Spain, Sicily and Africa a prelude to their attack against Bilad al-Sham (Syria): The beginning of the appearance of the state of al-Firanj (the Franks), their influence, their attack against the Muslims and their lands, and their occupation of some of these lands happened in the year 491 [of the Islamic calendar, 1097 A.D.]. They first conquered the city of Toledo and other parts of Andalus (Spain), as we have already mentioned. Then in the year 484/1091 A.D., they conquered Sicily, as I also mentioned. Then they marched against parts of Africa and conquered some of them. And in the year 490/1097 A.D., they marched against Bilad al-Sham. The reason for their expedition against Syria is that their King Bardawil (Baldwin of Boulogne) had assembled a great number of Franks. He did this because the Ifranji Rujar (Roger the Frank, i.e., Norman), who had conquered Sicily, sent a message to [Bardawil] telling him he had assembled a great number of Franks and would first conquer Africa and then would become his neighbor. Rujar (Roger) conP. Carter, “The Historical Content of William of Malmesbury’s Miracles of the Virgin Mary,” in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern, ed. R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1981), 127– 165; Lomax, Reconquest, 103–104; R. A. Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade in Spain,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series 37 (1978): 44. Erdmann, Origin, 275, ascribes the reverence accorded these patron saints during the Crusades to the Eastern Greek Church. 47 Robert Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades, 1096–1099,” in The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades, ed.Jonathan Riley-Smith, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 226. 46

176

THE CRUSADES sulted with his men, who swore by the Gospel that his action was profitable and that all the countries (of Syria and Africa) will become part of Christendom. Rujar sent a messenger to Bardawil, informing him that if he intended to conquer Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and liberate it from [the Muslims’] hands, it would be counted a glory to him . . . It was then that [the Franks] embarked upon their expedition against Bilad alSham.48

Bar Hebraeus is the only Syriac writer to mention Spain, and only in the context of the Franks’ pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He says that when the Franks learned the pilgrims had suffered serious evils at the hands of the Turkomans, they were filled with rage and, gathering troops, marched first against Spain and conquered many cities of that country, shedding much blood in them. They cut off the ears and noses and lips of many Arabs (Muslims) and blinded their eyes. Then they came to Constantinople.49 Why was Spain so important that it was frequently mentioned by Pope Gregory VII, and by his successor Pope Urban II at Clermont, and was regarded by the Muslim writer Ibn al-Athir as the beginning of the Franks’ attack against Syria? The Muslims had captured Spain, a Christian country, in 711, and the people strove constantly to restore it to Christian hands. But was their effort the start of the conflict between Christians and Muslims, or merely an isolated development? Spain was a landmark in a long struggle between Christendom and Islam, which culminated in the Crusades and extended into the thirteenth century, when the Mamluks finally evicted the Crusaders from Syria and Palestine. Indeed, the Western concept of a crusade never died, but stuck in the minds of Europeans even to modern times. If we believe what Generals Allenby and Gouraud said during World War I about the Crusades, we must conclude that they were still crusading against the Muslims of the East. And since Muslim fundamentalists today describe their battle against Western powers as a holy war, we may conclude that they too are still fighting the Crusades. By the dawn of the eleventh century, two-thirds of Spain was still in Muslim hands, along with Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Palestine, and North 48 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, R. H. C. Or. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 1: 189–191, also in Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. E. J. Costello (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 3–4; Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades,” 226. 49 Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 1: 82 of the Syriac text, 234 of the translation. Bar Hebraeus’s account shows that he used a source other than Ibn al-Athir.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

177

Africa. But in this century a vigorous religious revival moved Western Europeans to restore the Muslim-held lands to Christendom. Reinforcing this religious motive was the economic ambition of the lower classes, who saw a great opportunity to acquire both spiritual and temporal rewards. The maritime cities of Genoa and Pisa strove to free themselves from Muslim danger and conduct their trade in peace. The popes too had their own agenda, to defend Christendom by channeling the religious energies of the knights, the feudal class, and the peasants. They tried to incite them to drive the Muslims out of European territories, with Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher as their ultimate target. By the middle of the century, the states of Leon, Castile, Navarre, Aragon, and Barcelona comprised Christian Spain, but they still depended on the West-Frankish kings, as they had since Charlemagne organized the first Spanish march between the Pyrenees and the Ebro. The caliphate of Cordova, weakened at the start of the century by the constant dissension and quarreling among Muslim chieftains, was barely able to face the challenge of the Christian states of the north. Its gradual disintegration led to the rise of Muslim petty states ruled by kinglets called Muluk al-Tawa’if (Spanish reyes de taifas). There were no less than twentythree of these taifas (petty states) early in the eleventh century.50 The life of the Umayyad caliphate was extended a few more years, thanks to the political ability and religious fanaticism of Muhammad ibn Abi Amir, known as al-Hajib al-Mansur (d. 1002). He was the protégé of the Umayyad Caliph Hisham II al-Mu’ayyad, a boy of twelve. Taking advantage of the caliph’s tender age, Ibn Abi ‘Amir became his chamberlain (Hajib) and Vizir, and practically controlled the affairs of the state. With his victories against the Christian kingdoms of the north and the Shi’ite Fatimids of Egypt, he won for himself in 981 the title al-Mansur bi Allah [He who is victorious through the aid of God]. Though he had no military training, he maintained a highly effective military force and tried to abolish the tribal organization of the army. He relied largely on mercenaries, both Muslims and Christians, because he profited from the immense booty he had captured. He is said to have led sixty-five raids against the Christians and seized their fortresses, slaughtered their men, and taken their wives, sons, and daughters captive. They were sold in the slave markets of Africa, Egypt, Hitti, History, 537–538; T. E. Tout, The Empire and the Papacy (London, 1924), 465; O’Callaghan, History, 133–134, mentions these taifas by name; see Hugh Kennedy, Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus (London: Longman, 1996), 130–149, 196–231. 50

178

THE CRUSADES

Syria and other Muslim countries. His campaigns were very destructive, but he could not destroy the Christian states. In the spring of 997, he attacked the shrine of St. James (Santiago de Compostela). Moving through Portugal, he reached Compostela on August 11 and demolished the magnificent church over the Apostle’s tomb. The doors of the church were dismantled to be used for shipbuilding; the bells were taken as a trophy, carried by Christian captives to the great mosque of Cordova.51 The attacks by alHajib al-Mansur were so violent and barbarous that some thought there was no hope for the survival of Christianity in Spain, until the Christians of Spain ended their internal feuds and received aid from the other side of the Pyrenees, i.e., from the Franks. Al-Mansur was ruthless in fighting the Christians because he believed that a jihad was the best sacrifice he could offer to Allah.52 The outcome of al-Mansur’s expeditions was more favorable to the Christians than he could have ever envisioned, for their resistance was strengthened. After the destruction of Santiago, the royal courtiers of Léon set out to exalt the monarchy, and the assumption by their kings of the title of imperator shows their determination to claim suzerainty over the entire peninsula. The kings of Léon, Castile, Navarre, and other Christian provinces united to oppose al-Mansur. Even clergymen took up arms and joined in the fight. In 1002 the Spanish armies met those of al-Mansur in the vicinity of Soria, near the source of the Duero River. A ferocious battle ensued, and the Spanish, outnumbering the Muslims, won the day. When night came, al-Mansur asked why his generals and advisers had not come to consult with him, and was told they had fallen on the battlefield. Soon afterwards he fell ill; realizing that his end had come, he refused treatment and died a few days later. Dressed in his battle uniform and placed in the coffin he was wont to carry with him, he was buried in Medinaceli.53 The Spaniards cursed his memory. According to an unknown Spanish author, “After Joseph Reinaud, Muslim Colonies in France, Northern Italy, and Switzerland, trans. H. Sherwani (Lahore: Sh. Nuhammad Ashraf, 1964) 172 of the English translation, 193–194 of the Arabic translation: Tarikh Ghazawat al-Arab fi Faransa, Sewisra, Itlaia wa Jaza’ir al-Bahr al-Mutawassit, trans. S. Arslan (Cairo: Isa al-babi al-Halabi, 1933); Hitti, History, 533; Castro, The Spaniards, 418. O’Callaghan, History, 129–130, says that in 1236, when King Fernando III (1217–1252) of Castile and Leon recaptured Cordova, he compelled Muslim captives to carry the bells back to the shrine of Santiago. 52 Reinaud, 172 of the English translation, 193–194 of the Arabic translation. 53 Reinaud, 173 of the English translation, 194–196 of the Arabic translation. 51

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

179

many horrible massacres of the Christians, al-Mansur was seized in the great city of Medinaceli by the demon which had possessed him while he was alive, and he was buried in hell.”54 With the death in 1002 of al-Hajib al-Mansur, the ablest general and statesman of Muslim Spain but very ruthless in his treatment of the Christians, the Umayyad caliphate began to wane.55 It finally disappeared in 1031. The disintegration of the caliphate robbed the Muslims in Spain of both political and religious unity and weakened their capacity to challenge the Christians.56 As the caliphate was breaking up, King Alfonso V (999–1027) of Léon, along with his uncle Sancho (“the Great,” 970–1035), intensified the campaign against the Muslims beyond the Douro in Portugal. Meanwhile, Count Ramon Borrel I of Barcelona (992–1018) pushed the frontier in the east to the River Gaya. He invaded Andalusia in 1018, but died before he could fulfill his plan to restore Tarragona.57 Soon after Alfonso V died at the siege of Viseu, Sancho the Great succeeded in uniting the Christian kingdoms of Léon and Castile with his existing kingdom of Navarre, Aragon, and the Basque provinces of France and Spain (except for Galicia and Catalonia, which remained outside his domain). Although Sancho may well have had the talent to create a united Spain, it was too early for Spanish nationalism or the creation of a state, but his achievements planted the seed for what was to come.58 Since the Christians were not yet strong enough to oust the Muslims, they made no concerted effort to reconquer Spain, and the frontier between the Christian and Muslim territories remained static for the next half-century.59 Weakened by the attacks of al-Hajib al-Mansur, the Christians had few strong leaders. Ferdinand I of Castile (1035–1065), however, overwhelmed the king of Léon and united all of northern Spain under his rule, and until his death in 1065 he smote the Muslim forces on all frontiers.

O’Callaghan, History, 130, quoting Historia Silense, ed. J. Pérez de Urbel and A. González (Madrid: Ruiz-Zorrilla, 1959), 71; Richard Fletcher, Moorish Spain (New York: Holt and Company, 1992), 75. 55 Hitti, History, 533; Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 173, n. 1; O’Callaghan, History, 126–130. 56 Tout, Empire, 4. 57 Lomax, Reconquest, 51. 58 Chapman, History, 58. 59 Lomax, Reconquest, 48, 51 54

180

THE CRUSADES

After a protracted civil war, Alfonso VI of Galicia (1065–1109),60 called Adhfonsh by Arabic sources, succeeded in uniting the northern part of Spain, though he did not unify the Christians. His reign marks the real beginning of the reconquest of Spain. Taking advantage of the strife between the Muslims of Toledo and Seville (he took the daughter of Toledo’s amir as a concubine), Alfonso captured the upper valley of the Tagus and became the lord of Madrid. On May 6, 1085 he triumphantly entered Toledo, with the help of some Muslim traitors. The Muslim sources say that Alfonso VI captured Toledo from its ruler Abd al-Qadir bi Allah ibn alMa’mun ibn Dhi al-Nun after a seven-year siege.61 This was a major event in the history of medieval Spain. To the Muslims the loss of Toledo, “the greatest and most fortified of all the cities,” was so disastrous that they sought to stop the Christian threat and recover the land they had lost.62 It rekindled the religious enthusiasm of Christians in Spain and throughout Western Europe to expel the Muslims from Spain. More significant, it allowed the Spanish to form the nucleus of the region later called New Castile, which became the political center of the peninsula. Because of his conquest and his subsequent success in making many Muslim districts pay him tribute and exacting advantageous treaties from them, Alfonso VI assumed the title of Imperator Toledanus et imperator Hispanie he used in his diplomas.63 Chapman, History, 71–72; Rafael Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” in The Cambridge Medieval History 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 395–396. 61 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1961), 10: 142; Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Khallikan, Wafayyat al-A’yan wa Inba Abna alZaman, ed. Ihsan Abbas (Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1968), 4: 118, 5: 27; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 352–353, 356, 446, quoting Ibn Bassam; Khuruj al-Andalus, 28–30, 32; Bernard F. Reilly, The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain 1031–1157 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), 84. 62 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 142; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 1: 161, 206, and 4: 353; Khuruj al-Andalus, 29; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya: Safha Mushriqa fi Tarikh al-Jihad al-Arabi fi al-Usur al-Wusta, (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 1: 73. On the fall of Toledo, see Bernard F. Reilly, ed., The Kingdom of LeónCastilla under King Alfonso VI, 1065–1109 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988): 161–184. 63 Abu Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Mun’im al-Himyari, al-Rawd al-Mi’tar fi Dhikr alMudun wa al-Aqtar [The Perfume-Diffusing Garden in Mentioning the Cities and Countries], in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 356–357; Khuruj al-Andalus, 33–34; Athir, alKamil, 10: 142; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 5: 27–28, 7: 115; Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 397; O’Callaghan, History, 206–207; Tout, Empire, 467; Reilly, Kingdom of LeónCastilla, 95–115. 60

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

181

Perhaps the most famous of Alfonso’s subjects was Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar Campeador (master of the battlefield), better known as the Cid (Arabic al-Sayyid, meaning lord), a legendary hero of early Spain. Although immortalized as a Christian hero and loyal Spanish patriot, at times he collaborated with the Muslims.64 He was respected, sometimes grudgingly, by both sides. The Spanish Muslim writer Ibn Bassam says that although the Muslims detested the Cid as an ambitious, intolerable tyrant who oppressed the people of the coast and the inland regions and made them tremble, yet “this man, who was the scourge of his age, by his unflagging and clear-sighted energy, his virile character, and his heroism, was a miracle among the great miracles of the Almighty.”65 The Cid showed tolerance toward the Muslims of Spain, especially those of Valencia. But when they opted to remain under Islam and asked the Almoravids (Arabic al-Murabitun, or Murabits) to aid them against the Christians, he abruptly changed his attitude and resolved to expel the invaders and achieve the complete submission of the Spanish Muslims.66 At this time diversity rather than unity was the norm in Spain, and except in time of war, relations between Christians and Muslims were amicable. Mixed marriages were common among both lower and higher classes, and religious differences did not seem to separate Christians and Muslims. As a result of this social and religious tolerance, the Arab civilization had a great impact on Christian Spain. This influence was most obvious in the language; at the start of the eleventh century, most Spanish Muslims were bilingual, whether or not they were of Arab descent. The Mozarabs living under Muslim rule spoke both Arabic and a Roman patois.67 Ramon Menédez Pidal, The Cid and His Spain, trans. Harold Sunderland (London: Frank Cass, 1934), discusses his character in Chapter XVII, “The Hero,” 418–446. 65 Pidal, The Cid, 429, comments on this passage, “Thus, like Manzoni in his famous ode on the death of Napoleon, the Moslem enemy (Ibn Bassam) bowed reverently before a creative genius that bore the imprint of God.” 66 Pidal, The Cid, 429; Erdmann, Origin, 290. 67 J. B. Trend, “Spain and Portugal,” in The Legacy of Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 6–7. Because of strong pressure and persecution by the Muslims, the Mozarabs lacked freedom and could not develop a viable culture. Their persecution reached a high degree at the start of the ninth century, when many Mozarabs, both men and women, were put to death and became known as the “Cordovan martyrs.” See Stanley G. Payne, A History of Spain and Portugal, 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973): 22; Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Christian 64

182

THE CRUSADES

The intermarriage of Muslims and Christians deserves particular attention. J. B. Trend says that intermarriage between Muslims and Christians was widespread, and after the occupation of Spain, the sons of Musa ibn Nusayr and other Muslim leaders married into the family of Wititza, the last Visigothic king.68 But mixed marriage was not a marriage of equals. The Muslim spouse had full rights, and the marital relationship was valid only if it was subject to the Shari’a (Islamic law). From 850 onward, the Christians in Cordova and throughout Spain were treated under the law as dhimmis (people under the protection of the Muslims), free to practice their religion if they paid the poll tax. For the Cordovan Christians, the jizya was a constant reminder of their subservience to the Shari’a.69 But if a Muslim man married a Christian woman, their children had to be raised as Muslims, and if a Christian spouse converted to Islam, the children were regarded as Muslims and had no right to convert to Christianity even when they came of age. If a Christian woman married to a Muslim taught her children the principles of Christianity, there were severe problems within the family. In one case, two Christian children born of mixed marriages, Maria and Flora, were martyred for refusing to recant Christianity and embrace Islam.70 Moreover, if a Christian insulted the Prophet of Islam, he had only two choices: convert to Islam or be killed.71 Reinaud illustrates the Muslims’ intolerance by citing the case of a priest of Cordova named Parfait. It was rumored that Parfait, who knew perfect Arabic, had converted to Islam. Some Muslims met him on the street and asked his opinion of the Prophet. Parfait declined to answer, but when they insisted that he do so, he insulted Muhammad. They did not harm him then, but a few days later, as Parfait walked on the street, a Muslim told passersby what the priest had said and urged them to attack him. The mob took him before a judge who, on hearing Parfait admit his action, sentenced him to death. Because the trial took place during Ramadan, the sentence was not carried out right away, but ParMartyrs in Muslim Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), Chapters 1–2. 68 Trend, “Spain and Portugal,” 6–7. 69 Wolf, Christian Martyrs, 14. 70 Wolf, Christian Martyrs, 26–27. 71 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 120–121; trans. Arslan, 156. Today many Muslim governments practice the same intolerance toward the children of mixed marriages and demand under Islamic law that they become Muslims. Saddam Husain of Iraq and his Ba’th Party, although thought to be secular, reverted after the Gulf War to the same intolerant position.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

183

fait was beheaded before a large crowd at the Feast of al-Fitr. This incident rekindled the conflict between Spain’s Christians and Muslims. Muslim complaints against Christians who had allegedly vilified the Prophet of Islam increased, and the accused were sentenced to death. Some Christian zealots, including women, did intentionally vilify Muhammad in order to be killed and win martyrdom.72 As the conflict between the two sides intensified, Caliph Abd al-Rahman II (d. 858) sought to expel all the Christians who served in his palace. His son Muhammad, who succeeded him in 858, contemplated expelling all the Christians from Spain, but was too preoccupied with a series of rebellions to do so. To stop the religious friction, the bishops of Spain held a council and decreed that Christians, even those seeking martyrdom, should abstain from vilifying the Prophet of Islam because that action was contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. The Christians reportedly asked Emperor Charles the Bald (d. 877) to intervene because the conflict had reached the northern regions of Spain.73 The first concerted Christian effort by French and Spaniards against the Muslims of Spain came at the end of 1064 or the start of 1065, when Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, with a mixed army of Catalans, Aragonese, Normans, Aquitanians, and Burgundians, attacked the Muslim stronghold of Barbastro. Joined by a sizable French army led by William of Montreuil, Robert of Crespin of Normandy, Duke William VIII of Aquitaine, and Count Ermengol III of Urgel, they took the city after a forty-day siege.74 Ibn Hayyan attributes the fall of the city to the negligence of its kinglet Yu72 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 121–123, trans. Arslan, 157–158. The Catholic Church made Parfait a saint and commemorates him on April 18. Wolf, Christian Martyrs, 23–35, mentions Perfectus (Parfait) and Argentea, the daughter of the famed rebel Umar ibn Hafsun, who converted to Christianity and was martyred for refusing to recant her faith. Her father, a Mozarab descended from a Visigothic count, rebelled in 880 against the Muslim rulers. He later converted to Christianity and took the name Samuel at baptism, and championed the oppressed Mozarabs until his death in 917. See Hitti, History, 518–519. The accounts of Parfait’s death are derived from Eulogius, Memoriale Sanctorum, in Patrologia Latina, 115: 765–770, and Juan Gil, ed., Corpus Scriptorum Mozarabicorum, 2 (Madrid, 1973), 398–401. See James Waltz, “The Significance of the Voluntary Martyrs of 9th-Century Cordoba,” The Muslim World 60 (1970): 143–159. 73 Reinaud, trans. Sherwani, 123, trans. Arslan, 157–158. 74 Ibn Hayyan, the Muslim contemporary historian of Cordova, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 449, calls William the “Captain of the Cavalry of Rome,” probably meaning “the Standard-bearer”; see Khuruj al-Andalus, 137; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 657, n. 4; O’Callaghan, History, 197.

184

THE CRUSADES

suf ibn Sulayman ibn Hud, who left the inhabitants to their own fate. The people of the city surrendered, but the Christian commander violated the surrender terms, causing the massacre of over 6,000 prisoners. He spared only the Muslim military commander Ibn al-Tawil, the Judge Ibn Isa, and some dignitaries.75 The Muslim population suffered horrible torture; it is estimated that 50,000 of them were killed or taken captive. The share of the Christian commander-in chief was estimated at 1,500 maidens and 500 camel-loads of household goods, jewels, and clothing.76 Ibn Hayyan adds that when al-Malik al-Rum [the king of the Rum], whom he does not name, returned to his own country, he took many beautiful Muslim women, both virgins and non-virgins (mostly widows) along with thousands of handsome young men, and left 1,500 cavalry and 2,000 infantrymen at Barbastro.77 (Arab historians generally used the term al-Rum referring to the Greeks or Byzantines, but here it means the Franks, who supported the Spaniards in their fight against the Muslims.) Pidal, evidently thinking Ibn Hayyan meant the Byzantine emperor, writes, “It is said that 7,000 women captives were presented to the emperor at Constantinople, whereby the fame of the Christian exploit was spread throughout Europe.”78 But plainly the term Rum means the Franks and the Spaniards: Ibn Khallikan, who relates the events of the Battle of Zallaqa in 1086 between Alfonso VI and Yusuf ibn Tashfin, says that the vanguard of al-Mu’tamid’s force appeared, with the Rum at its heels. In another instance he says the Muslims stormed the camp of al-Adhfonsh (Alfonso VI) and the Rum retreated to their bases when they learned that Amir al-Muslimin (Ibn Tashfin) was there.79 Moreover, Ibn al-Abbar in his book al-Takmila [Supplement, Completion] states that in 542/1147 A.D., the Rum captured the city of Almería.80

Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 339. Ibn Hayyan, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 449–450; Khuruj al-Andalus, 135–136; Pidal, The Cid, 83–84. 77 Ibn Hayyan, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 450–451; Khuruj al-Andalus, 137. 78 Pidal, The Cid, 85. 79 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 151–155; Khallikan, Wafayyat al-A’yan, 3: 329, 5: 29; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 364–369, 6: 116; Khuruj al-Andalus, 44–45; Reilly, The Contest, 88–89. 80 Ibn al-Abbar, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 462; Khuruj al-Andalus, 149. O’Callaghan, History, 231, says that Almería was captured on October 17, 1147 by the joint troops of Alfonso VII, his vassal Ramon Berenger IV, Garcia Ramírez of Navarre, and William of Montpellier. 75 76

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

185

Ibn Hayyan describes the abominable actions of the men who captured Barbastro: “When al-Ifranj (Frankish knights), may Allah curse them, overwhelmed the inhabitants of Barbastro, they deflowered the virgin maiden in the presence of her father and the married woman in front of her husband and relatives, a thing Muslims have never seen before. Those who refused the order of the commander to do so, the commander gave these women to his slave men and servants to do with them the same.”81 The immoral actions of the knights of the cross alarmed the monks such as Amado, who condemned the way the knights allowed themselves to be consumed by the “fire of love, or rather lust.”82 Soon, however, the Christians paid for their actions. In December of the next year (1065), Ahmad alMuqtadir ibn Hud, kinglet of Zaragoza, with a contingent of Sevillian fighting men, stormed Barbastro and captured it. The Muslims lost only fifty men, the Christians about 1,000 cavalry and 5,000 foot soldiers. Ibn Hyyan says that the Muslims cleansed the city of the abomination of shirk (the association of God with another, for to call Jesus Christ the son of God is blasphemy in the Muslims’ view) and the rust of ifk (falsehood).83 Count Ermengol was killed, and the Frankish garrison was put to the sword. It was not until thirty-five years later that the Christians of Aragon freed the city completely from Muslim domination.84 The battle for Barbastro illustrates the great enthusiasm of the Spanish and Frankish Christians, who fought to glorify their faith and destroy the power of Islam. Amatus of Monte Cassino declares that the Christian faith could be restored and the mad frenzy of the Saracens (Muslims) destroyed if the kings, counts, and princes were united by God’s inspiration in one will and one plan. For this reason, he says, a strong mounted army of Frenchmen, Burgundians, and others traveled to Spain to attack the Saracens and bring them under Christian power. They asked God for help and thus triumphed in battle, killing a great number of Saracens. Amatus concludes by thanking God for giving victory to His people.85 There is evidence that the campaign against Barbastro was a “holy war”; Pope Alexander II is said to have granted indulgences to those who fought to recover the town from the Muslims.86 But it is not clear whether the fragmentary Ibn Hayyan, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 450, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 137. Pidal, The Cid, 85. 83 Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 454; Khuruj al-Andalus, 141–142. 84 Dozy, Spanish Islam, 657–658; Pidal, The Cid, 86. 85 Erdmann, Origin, 136–137; Pidal, The Cid, 83–84. 86 A. Ferreiro, “The Siege of Barbastro, 1064–1065: A Reassessment,” Journal of 81 82

186

THE CRUSADES

letters of Pope Alexander II offering indulgence to the Franks who went to Spain to fight the Saracens relate to this expedition in 1064, which was celebrated in a chanson de geste, or to the abortive one led by the French lord Ebles (Evulus) I, count of Roucy, a brother of Queen Felicia of Aragon, who went to Spain in 1073 with an army fit for a king.87 Clearly Alexander II and his successors regarded Spain as the western frontier between Christendom and Islam, and hoped to strengthen Spain by urging people from all over Europe to send expeditions to defend the frontier against Islam. He saw the fight against the Muslims in Spain as a crusade, of which the expedition against Barbastro, supported by the Abbot of Cluny, was a manifestation.88 It is for this reason that in 1063 he granted the men who resolved to fight the Muslims in Spain not only his benediction but also remission of their sins. In a letter to the archbishop of Narbonne, he approved and encouraged the Spanish campaigns and accepted the slaughter of Muslims from the general prohibition of killing. In his letter to the clergy of Vulturno, Pope Alexander II urged those who had decided to fight in Spain to confess their sins to a bishop or to a spiritual father and let the confessors absolve them, lest the devil have the chance to accuse them of impenitence. Then, by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, he granted them remission of sins.89 Evidently the pope’s intention in these letters “was to encourage the enlistment of soldiers in the ranks of the Reconquista and to assist the vigorous prosecution of the holy war.”90 Toward the close of his pontificate, Alexander II put his intention into practice, ordering a military expedition against Spain, commanded by Count Ebles of Roucy, who was to journey over the Pyrenees to fight the Muslims. The count seemed reluctant to fight unless he received some reward for his engagement. To fulfill his personal ambition, the count reached an understanding with the Curia that any lands he recovered from the heathens would be kept by him as a fief from St. Peter. He apparently believed that Medieval History 9 (1983): 133–135; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, 29. 87 See the letter dated April 30, 1073, in Ephraim Emerton, The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), 6; Frederic Duncalf, “The Councils of Piacenza and Clermont,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. Baldwin, 1: 232, nn. 25, 26; Albrecht Noth, Heiliger Krieg und Heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum (Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, 1966), 119–120. 88 O’Callaghan, History, 201; Lomax, Reconquest, 59. 89 James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 24. 90 Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 25.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

187

he was undertaking his campaign “for the honor of St. Peter.” But the expedition failed, and it fell to Pope Gregory VII to oversee such a military enterprise.91 Clearly the Spaniards’ national enthusiasm to recover their country from the Muslims was at its peak. Even before the capture of Barbastro, Ibn Hayyan reports, Ferdinand I of Castile (1035–1065) called for the subjugation of the Muslims and their expulsion from Spain: We demand the restoration of our country, which you have vanquished a long time ago when you first invaded it. You have lived in it as you pleased. Now, because of your evil, God has made us victorious over you. Therefore go, and leave our country for us. There is no longer any benefit for you from living with us. We will never leave you alone, or God will judge between you and us.92

The French knights’ crossing the Pyrenees to fight in Spain (which the French chroniclers Raoul (Ralph) Glaber and Adhémar of Chabannes say began in the time of Sancho the Great), the eventual reconquest of Spain, and Pope Gregory VII’s claim of authority over the lands recovered from the infidels demonstrate “how these extra-Iberian forces now viewed the peninsular struggle against Islam as a Christian holy war.”93 While circumstances early in the eleventh century kept the Spanish Christians from advancing with great force against Islam, by mid-century the geopolitical circumstances changed, and the Reconquest assumed a more vigorous force than before.94 That century saw the integration of Christian Spain into Western Christendom and the political restructuring of al-Andalus, parts of which remained in Muslim hands. It was natural for the Spaniards to strengthen their relations with France and the papacy and to elicit their aid against the Muslims. The fall of Toledo to Alfonso VI indicated that the balance of power, which for so long belonged to the Muslims, had shifted decisively.95 The Christians suffered defeat at Zallaqa in 1086, but the setback to their cause was only temporary, for soon Alfonso began to pick up the fight against the Muslims. Erdmann, Origin, 155–156; Benjamin Wheeler, “The Reconquest of Spain,” 39; Reilly, The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain, 46–47. 92 Ibn Idhari al-Marrakishi, al-Bayan al-Mughrib, 3 (Leiden, 1848–1850): 381, in Hasan Ahmad Mahmud, Qiyam Dawlat al-Murabitin (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1985), 250. 93 Wheeler, “The Reconquest of Spain,” 39. 94 Erdmann, Origin, 97, 136–137. 95 O’Callaghan, History, 193–194. 91

188

THE CRUSADES

Why should these Frenchmen cross the Pyrenees to join the Spanish in their fight against the Muslims? Charlemagne had fought in Spain, but after his death and the disintegration of his empire, non-Catalan Spain lost contact with Christian Europe. This isolation came to an end for several reasons, one of which was the impact of the legend of Santiago (St. James) on people all over the continent. Pilgrims from other European countries, especially France, began to flock to northern Spain to worship at the shrine of Santiago. Their journey became easier as Sancho the Great, king of Navarre, built roads, bridges, and hostels. Most likely these pilgrims came back with news of the Spanish people’s struggle to retake their country from the Muslims. Sancho was already one of the most important Hispanic kings of this period, but the growing number of pilgrims visiting Compostela raised him to a position of international eminence.96 He established strong relations with William, duke of Aquitaine (959–1030), who since his youth had frequently visited the resting places of the Apostles in Rome and, when he was not visiting Rome, made pilgrimages to Santiago. William, who often traveled with an entourage worthy of a king, won the friendship of both Sancho of Navarre and Alfonso V of Leon (999–1028), who exchanged both embassies and precious gifts with him.97 The French interest in the reconquest of Spain was also increased by the marriages linking French nobility and the royalty of northern Spain. Borrel (940–992), Ramon Borrel (992–1018), and Ramon Berenger I, count of Barcelona (1018–1135) married the daughters of the counts of Auvergne, Carcassonne, and Gascony respectively. Stimulated by the desire to seek allies, the custom of marrying across the Pyrenees spread into Aragon and Leon, and then to southern France. Ramiro I of Aragon married a daughter of the count of Bigorre and gave his daughters in marriage to the counts of Toulouse and Provence. His son Sancho Ramirez (1063–1094) married a princess from northern France; her mother’s cousin was King Philip I. French dukes, barons, and knights likewise sought wives in northern Spain and thus were drawn to fight against the Muslims in Spain.98 One of the most decisive factors in kindling support for the reconquest was the penetration of the monks of Cluny and their teaching into northern Spain. The Monastery of Cluny had been founded in 910 by Duke William the Pious of Aquitaine in French Burgundy, a few miles from the Castro, The Spaniards, 424. Castro, The Spaniards, 424. 98 Lomax, Reconquest, 56. 96 97

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

189

bishop’s town of Macon. He appointed as its abbot Berno, a Burgundian nobleman, who strove to establish complete and loyal observance of the rules of St. Benedict. Stressing religious piety, the Cluny monastery offered guidance to communities and clergy. But it was Odo, the second abbot (927–941), who began the famous monastic reformation. Besides emphasizing the rule of St. Benedict, the Cluniac order attempted to combat simony (buying church offices with money) and offenses against the celibacy of the clergy, and to effect complete submission of clergy and communities to the authority of the pope.99 The monks of Cluny came to Navarre in the reign of Sancho the Great, who in 1022 gave them the monasteries of San Juan de la Peña and Salvador de Leyre, and by 1033 they were already in Castile.100 They were attracted by the Sepulcher of Santiago, an ideal symbol for Christians whose aim was to save Christianity and the church from the infidels. Indeed, their coming to Navarre was a kind of devotional pilgrimage which they directed into suitable channels for the spiritual benefit of themselves and others who desired to make the pilgrimage to Compostela.101 While French monks settled in Spain, Spanish monks in turn went to study in French monasteries. In addition to promoting religious reform, the monks of Cluny accelerated the reconquest of Spain by urging the kings to fight against the Muslims.102 They were probably motivated both by their religious ideas and by their determination to counteract the Muslim cultural influence. The Cluniac influence became so powerful that the Spanish monasteries and their abbots, who were subordinate to the authority of Rome, were inspected every year by the abbot of the Monastery of Cluny himself. This influence was not confined to the monasteries; it spread into other areas of life when monks were assigned to new dioceses, where they introduced religious and educational reforms, and undoubtedly the monks of Cluny spread a new anti-Muslim crusading spirit. It is quite possible that their urging led Alfonso VI to wage his successful wars against the Muslims. The city of Toledo, the ancient seat of the Visigothic kings, was his primary target. As his father had done, Alfonso exacted tribute from the Muslim taifas of Seville, Granada, Badajoz, Toledo, and Zaragoza, but gradually he turned to conquest. Their kinglets had become too weak to challenge Alfonso, who constantly demanded more ecoTout, Empire, 96–118. Castro, The Spaniards, 422. 101 Castro, The Spaniards, 424. 102 Chapman, History of Spain, 66. 99

100

190

THE CRUSADES

nomic concessions from them. Evidently, his ultimate purpose was to bring them under his own (i.e., Christian) control, by playing the taifas against one another. The Muslim sources support the view of King Abd Allah of Granada (1074–1090), who observed that Alfonso’s policy was intended to weaken the Muslim princes and render them powerless to resist by imposing ever-increasing tributes on them.103 The Spanish Christians had a wholly different view, expressed by Alfonso’s ambassador to the court of King Abd Allah, Count Sisando Davidiz, who stated that the Muslims had no claim on al-Andalus (Spain), which had belonged solely to the Christians until they conquered it. Now the Christians intended to recover their country from the Muslims—by force, if necessary, so that the result would be final. Davidiz was clear on Alfonso VI’s policy toward the Muslims: “It is necessary to weaken you and waste you away with time. When you no longer have money or soldiers, we will seize the country without the least effort.”104 In 1082, when he rode into Tarifa in the south, Alfonso VI boasted as his horse waded in the surf, “I have reached the furthest extremity of Spain.”105 After he recaptured Toledo on May 25, 1085, Alfonso implemented the treaty of capitulation of al-Qadir, the Muslim kinglet, and promised to allow the Muslims to worship in the great mosque. But in his absence the zealous monks of Cluny and other French clergy, especially Bernard de Sauvetot, abbot of Sahagun, later to become archbishop of Toledo, persuaded the French queen to let them convert the mosque into a church.106 Alfonso, who was tolerant toward the Muslims, was outraged by this violation of his agreement of capitulation and intended to punish the archbishop, but the Muslims asked him not to do so, fearing that they might suffer later. How important Toledo was to the supremacy of the church became clear three years after its capture, when Pope Urban II proclaimed the primacy of the See of Toledo in Spain, causing opposition from the other bishoprics for the next 150 years.107 By recapturing Toledo, Alfonso VI secured effective control of all the territory up to the valley of the Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 353–357, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 32–36, quotes Ibn Hayyan, Ibn al-Athir, and Abu Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Mun’im al-Himyari. 104 Evariste Lévi-Provençal, “Les Mémoires de Abd Allah, dernier roi zirid de Grenada,” Al-Andalus 4 (1936): 29–145, especially 35–36; O’Callaghan, History, 204. 105 Dozy, Spanish Islam, 692; Chapman, History of Spain, 72. 106 Chapman, History of Spain, 72; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 692–693, seems biased against Alfonso and the Spaniards. 107 O’Callaghan, History, 206–207. 103

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

191

Tagus, from Talavera in the west to Guadalajara in the east. The fall of Toledo eventually led to the Castilians’ capture of Valencia and the castle of Aledo farther south, giving them command of the region of Murcia.108 Although Toledo was often threatened in the next century, it remained in Christian hands, and the Muslims were unable to push the frontier back from the Tagus.109 The Muslim rulers of the taifas in the east and south eventually submitted to the authority of Alfonso VI, who exacted tribute and advantageous treaties from them.110 Having subdued the kinglets, Alfonso now assumed the title Imperator constitutus super omnes Hispaniae nationes, in addition to the title Imperator Toledanus. The recapture of Toledo, “once the ornament of the Christians of Spain,” presaged the rapid disintegration and final downfall of the Muslims’ power in al-Andalus.111 But the crest of glory which Alfonso rode was ended by a new wave of Muslim invaders from north Africa, the Almoravids, a fundamentalist brotherhood founded by a Muslim cleric in the eleventh century in lower Senegal.112 As Alfonso VI was bringing the kings of the taifas under his authority, his vassal Roderigo Diaz de Bivar (the Cid) and his Castilian followers were establishing themselves in Valencia, from which they constantly harassed the domain of al-Mu’tamid ibn Abbad of Seville (1068–1091), the most popular and munificent of all the kinglets.113 Al-Mu’tamid paid tribute annually to Garcia, king of Galicia, and later to Alfonso.114 To protect their rule, al-Mu’tamid and the other kinglets sought aid from the Almoravids’ chief, Yusuf ibn Tashfin. According to Ibn Khallikan and al-Himyari, quoted by al-Maqqari, the kinglets knew that Ibn Tashfin wanted territory Dozy, Spanish Islam, 693–694. Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 397; O’Callaghan, History, 207. 110 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 142; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 5: 24 and 7: 115; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 356, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 32–43; Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 397, and History of Spain, 143–144. 111 O’Callaghan, History, 207. Dozy, Spanish Islam, 690, calls Alfonso “the Emperor.” Payne, History of Spain and Portugal, 1: 57 describes Alfonso VI as “Emperor of Hispania.” 112 On the rise of the Almoravids, see Mahmud, Qiyam Dawlat, and Yusuf Ashbakh, Tarikh al-Andalus fi Ahd al-Murabitin wa al-Muwahhidin, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1940); Hale and Hale, Story of Spain, 187–202; Reilly, The Contest, 88–91 and 99–122. 113 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 142; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 5: 28; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 356; Khuruj al-Andalus, 32–33; Hale and Hale, Story of Spain, 248–260. 114 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 142; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 356; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 676. 108 109

192

THE CRUSADES

in al-Andalus and had built ships to achieve that end. They feared his ambition, but when they learned that he was preparing to cross into Spain, they consulted with one another. They largely deferred to al-Mu’tamid, who was the most courageous of them all and had the largest kingdom. They were also influenced by Muslim jurists, especially Abu al-Walid al-Baji, who went throughout Andalusia urging them to close ranks and insure the triumph of Islam by inviting the Almoravids to come to their aid. So the kinglets, including al-Mu’tamid, wrote to Ibn Tashfin for help and sent him gifts. Ibn Tashfin, who knew no Arabic, had to have their letter read to him by an interpreter who knew both Arabic and the Murabit language, then asked his secretary to write a reply. When the kinglets received his answer, they were pleased and gained strength to fight the Ifranj (Spaniards).115 Al-Mu’tamid sought aid from Ibn Tashfin even though he and the other Andalusian princes distrusted the Almoravids and their leader, whom they considered barbarous desert warriors. If we read al-Maqqari carefully, we find that Ibn Tashfin was a dangerous rival rather than an ally. The kinglets knew that he coveted their territory, but they lacked the power to challenge him, and they had to deal with another formidable foe, Alfonso VI. Caught between two enemies, the Spanish in the north and the Muslim Almoravids in the south, they opted for the lesser evil by casting their lot with Ibn Tashfin.116 Some kinglets, especially Abd Allah Ibn Balkin al-Ziri of Granada and alMu’tamid’s son al-Rashid, warned of the danger of introducing the Almoravids to Spain. They warned al-Mu’tamid, “Two swords cannot be sheathed in one scabbard.” But he answered with a proverb of his own, “Herding camels [in the desert of Africa] is better than herding swine [in Castile].”117 Al-Mu’tamid was uncertain whether to cast his lot with Ibn Tashfin or with Alfonso, neither of whom he trusted. Eventually, feeling that if he favored Alfonso he would displease Allah, he decided it would be better to please Allah (by appealing to Ibn Tashfin), and his fellow kinglets did not criticize his choice.118 Obviously, al-Mu’tamid erred in this decision. He must have been desperate to invite these barbarous tribes from Africa. Yusuf ibn Tashfin ac115 Khallikan, Wafayyat, 7: 112–114; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 354–356, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 30–33. 116 Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 354; Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 398. 117 Al-Himyari, al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 359, and Khuruj alAndalus, 35; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 694–695; Hitti, History, 540; Mahmud, Qiyam Dawlat, 265. 118 Al-Himyari, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 359, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 35–36.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

193

cepted the invitation and crossed into Spain with 20,000 men with their camels – a clever stratagem, according to Ibn Khallikan. The Spanish people had never seen a camel before, and their horses feared the camels and the foam they spat when outraged. Before engaging Alfonso in battle, Ibn Tashfin sent him a message inviting him to embrace Islam, pay the jizya (tribute), or fall by the sword according to the Islamic Sunna (tradition).119 According to al-Himyari, the kafir (infidel) Alfonso VI became angry and was urged by the bishops and monks to fight to the death.120 On October 23, 1086, Ibn Tashfin met Alfonso at al-Zallaqa (Sacralias, modern Sagrajas), near Badajoz, and humiliated him in battle.121 It is worth noting that the armies of Alfonso VI consisted solely of cristianos (Christians), indicating that the struggle was essentially religious.122 It is said that in the heat of battle, Yusuf ibn Tashfin rode amidst his men crying, “Courage, Muslims! Before you are the enemies of Allah! Paradise awaits those who fall in the fight.”123 The number of casualties was staggering; one source says the Christians lost 300,000 men, whose heads the Muslims severed to form a minaret for calling the faithful to prayer.124 Another source says piles of severed heads were shipped to Africa or to other parts of Spain as evidence of the Christians’ defeat.125 Unaware of the evil fate that awaited him, the jubilant al-Mu’tamid ibn Abbad wrote to his son in Seville about the Muslims’ triumph over the kuffar (infidels).126 Having saved Spain from the infidels, Ibn Tashfin returned to Africa, leaving one of his commanders, Sayr ibn Abi Bakr, to continue fighting the Spanish. Al-Maqqari, who relies on Ibn Khallikan, gives no reason for his departure, but there may have been events at home requiring his attention.127 According to some Muslim sources, Ibn Tashfin returned home on 119 Khallikan, Wafayyat, 6: 116; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 361, and Khuruj alAndalus, 38. 120 Al-Himyari, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 362–363, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 41– 42. 121 Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 151–155; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 3: 329; Maqqari, Nafh alTib, 4: 366–368, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 30–32, 37–46. 122 Jiménez de Rada, Historia Arabum, IV, Ch. 31, in Castro, The Spaniards, 12. 123 Dozy, Spanish Islam, 698. 124 Ibn al-Khatib, al-Hulal al-Mawshiyya fi Dhikr al-Akhbar al-Marakushiyya (Tunis, 1911), 43. 125 O’Callaghan, History, 209. 126 Al-Himyari, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 368–369. 127 Khallikan, Wafayyat, 5: 29, in Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 370, and Khuruj al-

194

THE CRUSADES

receiving word of the death of his eldest son Abu Bakr.128 It seems more likely that Ibn Tashfin, having lost many of his men, realized he could not wage a prolonged war in Spain. Impressive as it was, the victory at alZallaqa was not decisive; Alfonso VI was badly beaten, but Toledo was still under his control. The riches of Spain obviously attracted the barbarous Almoravids, and Ibn Tashfin cherished the precious gifts he had received from the kinglets of the petty states. Although the Muslim religious leaders did not care for these men, he was not yet ready to dispossess them. A devout Muslim, Ibn Tashfin was greatly influenced by his companions, who kept agitating him against the kinglets and accusing them of immorality and subservience to the infidel Christians. When he visited Seville, then under al-Mu’tamid’s control, Ibn Tashfin was amazed at the city’s affluence. His companions urged him to seek the same sort of wealth; he did not succumb to their pressure, but declared that al-Mu’tamid would one day lose his kingdom because of his desire for luxury and soft living.129 Al-Mu’tamid, unaware that Ibn Tashfin meant that he would one day dispossess him, thought he might lose control of his kingdom to the Christians, but not to the Almoravids. It was for this reason that he appealed to them for aid. Yusuf Ibn Tashfin returned to Spain in 1088, joined by al-Mu’tamid and other lesser lords, including Tamim of Malaga, Abd Allah of Granada, al-Mu’tasim of Almería, and Ibn Rashiq of Murcia, intending to expel the Christians from Aledo.130 But because of the inhabitants’ vigorous resistance and the dissension and intrigues within the Muslim ranks, he lifted the siege of Aledo and returned home.131 On his way, he was invited to stop at Granada, whose kinglet Abd Allah ibn Balkin hurried to the city to receive him. Ibn Tashfin treacherously betrayed Abd Allah, expelled him from Granada, pillaged his royal mansion, where he found unlimited amount of treasures and money, and finally returned to Marrakush. He was fascinated by the beauty of al-Andalus and its buildings, its orchards, and its luxury, a stark contrast to his own barbaric country, Udwa, and its uncivilized people. Andalus, 47; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 697–698. 128 Mahmud, Qiyam Dalalt, 275. This author believes the Abu Bakr who died was Ibn Tashfin’s cousin, not his son. Apparently, the transcribers confused two people with the same name. See Mahmud, 287–288. 129 Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 374-375; Khuruj al-Andalus, 52–53. 130 Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Abd Allah, al-Anis al-Mutrib bi Rawd al-Qirtas fi Akhbar Muluk al-Maghrib wa Tarikh Madinat Fas (Upsala, 1834), 99. 131 Mahmud, Qiyam Dawlat, 292–298, gives a detailed account. See also Dozy, Spanish Islam, 701.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

195

Some of his men urged him to occupy al-Andalus, and they filled Ibn Tashfin with so much anger against al-Mu’tamid that his attitude toward him changed.132 Ibn Tashfin returned to Spain again in 1090, intending to subdue the petty kinglets by force if they did not submit to him. According to Ibn Khaldun, the Ulama issued a fatwa (religious juristic opinion) authorizing Ibn Tashfin to depose al-Mu’tamid and the other kinglets and to fight them if they refused to submit. Thus encouraged, he proceeded to eliminate the taifas’ kinglets one by one. He dispatched his commander Sayr ibn Abi Bakr, who laid siege to Seville. Al-Mu’tamid’s forces defended the city heroically but in vain; he himself was captured, thrown in chains, and banished to Aghmat, near Morocco, where he died in poverty.133 The Almoravids thus became the masters of all Muslim Spain except the kingdom of Zaragoza. They failed to conquer the rest of the peninsula because of weak structure in their military organization, which was less efficient than that of the Christians. Consequently King Peter I, Sancho’s son, captured Huesca in 1096, and Peter’s son Alfonso I of Aragon captured Zaragoza in 1118, with the result that a large area south of the Ebro, including major cities, was in Christian hands.134 Under the Almoravids, the state of non-Muslims was intolerable. The Jews of Lucena, whom the Muslims thought to be the richest men in the world, were forced to pay enormous sums of money to Ibn Tashfin. The Christian Mozarabs suffered even more. The Muslim faqihs (jurists and theologians) aroused religious hatred against them, issuing a fatwa under which Ibn Tashfin ordered their churches and chapels demolished. The Mozarabs were so oppressed by the Muslims that they appealed to King Alfonso I of Aragon (El Batallador, the Battler) to deliver them from their plight. He responded by leading an expedition in September 1125 with 4,000 knights, all sworn on the gospels not to desert one another. For a year Alfonso ravaged Andalusia; he won a great victory at Arinsol, southwest of Lucena, but did not capture Granada. No sooner did the Aragonese army withdraw than the Muslims took vengeance on the Mozarabs, killing many of them. Some Mozarabs who managed to escape the sword were settled in 132

51.

Khalikan, Wafayyat, 5: 30; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 373 and Khuruj al-Andalus,

Athir, al-Kamil, 10: 190; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 5: 32–36; Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib, 4: 371–373, and Khuruj al-Andalus, 51; Dozy, Spanish Islam, 699–712, 728–736; Read, Moors in Spain, 118–119. 134 Altamira, “Spain 1031–1248,” 398–399. 133

196

THE CRUSADES

Alfonso’s territory with his permission.135 But many others were transported to Africa and, after a great deal of suffering, settled in 1126 in the area of Salih and Mequinzes. The Qadi (judge) who issued a fatwa allowing their deportation was none other than the grandfather of the celebrated philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126–1198). Little more than a decade later, most of the Mozarabs were expelled from Spain, and very few were left in Andalusia.136 The Almoravids eventually lost their hold in 1147 and were replaced by the Muwahhidun (Almohads), another group of Muslim zealots from Africa whose leader, Abd al-Mu’min ibn Ali, son of a potter of the Zanata tribe, succeeded in establishing a state in Spain and became its first caliph.137 It is significant that Alfonso VI asked the Franks for aid against the Almoravids. Reportedly he threatened to enter into an alliance with the Muslims and even renounce his Christian faith if the Franks did not support him.138 Shortly after the battle of Zallaqa, a number of Frankish nobles including Duke Odo of Burgundy and Count Raymond of Toulouse (or Saint-Gilles), who became a prominent leader in the First Crusade, arrived in Spain. But on finding that Ibn Tashfin and the Almoravids had already left the country, they thought their services were no longer needed and returned home.139 The very fact that these Frankish nobles and knights came to Spain reveals how seriously they took their role in fighting the Muslims, like those who had taken part in the campaign against Barbastro. The papacy clearly had much to do with the idea of combating the Muslims. Pope Alexander II had already organized an expedition against Spain under Count Ebles of Roucy, a brother of Queen Felicia of Aragon.140 Dozy, Spanish Islam, 721–722, says Alfonso gave refuge to 10,000 Mozarabs. Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 405–406, and History of Spain, 159, says he brought back 14,000 Mozarabs to settle the conquered territory south of the Ebro after the battle of Arinsol. 136 Dozy, Spanish Islam, 721–722. 137 Ibn Abi Dinar, al-Mu’nis fi Akhbar Ifriqiyya wa Tunis (Tunis, 1869), 120; Athir, al-Kamil, 4: 377–378; Hitti, History, 546. 138 Erdmann, Origin, 288, quoting Fragmentum Historiae Francorum, in M. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 12 (Paris, 1738–1904): 2; Hugh of Fleury, Monumenta Germaniae historica, SS, 55: 9.390. 139 O’Callaghan, History, 209. 140 Emerton, Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, 6 ; Pidal, The Cid, 140; Erdmann, Origin, 155–156, 289; O’Callaghan, History, 201; Duncalf, “The Councils of Piacenza and Clermont,” 1: 232, nn. 25–26. 135

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

197

On April 22, 1073, as Ebles was preparing to invade the Muslim kingdom of Zaragoza, the pope died, and Archdeacon Hildebrand succeeded him as Pope Gregory VII. The new pope was a very controversial character, with a personality full of tension. He was unattractive physically – short and corpulent, with a rather dull complexion. He spoke with a stammer, and he was neither well-educated nor creative. Yet he “was one of the greatest practical men of the Middle Ages, and his single-minded wish to do what was right betokened a dignity of moral nature that was rare indeed in the eleventh century.”141 Whether he should be regarded as a statesman, an unscrupulous politician, a man of war or a saint is still unsettled, despite his canonization by the Roman Catholic church in the seventeenth century.142 Anna Comnena disparages Gregory VII for his harsh treatment of the ambassadors of King Henry VI of Germany. She says he tortured them inhumanely, clipped their hairs with scissors, sheared their beards with a razor, and finally committed a most indecent outrage upon them: “My womanly and princely dignity forbids my naming the outrage inflicted on them, for it was not only unworthy of a high priest, but of anyone who bears the name of a Christian.”143 We have already discussed Pope Gregory VII’s “Eastern Plan” to aid the embattled Byzantine empire; he was no less interested in the reconquest of Spain than his predecessor. In a letter to the archbishop of Narbonne, he encouraged the Spanish campaign against the Muslims and declared that killing them was not murder.144 In another letter to the clergy of Volturno, he offered remission of sins for those who would take part in the Spanish campaign: With fatherly affection we urge those who have resolved to go to Spain that they take greater care to complete that task which with divine counsel they have set out to accomplish. Let each soldier confess, according to the character of his sins, to his bishop or spiritual father and let the confessor impose suitable penance upon him, lest the devil be enabled to accuse him of impenitence. We, however, by the authority of the holy Tout, Empire, 125. Erdmann, Origin, 148–150. 143 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. E. A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 34. Erdmann, Origin, 148–181, devotes all of Chapter V to Hillenbrand. See Baldwin’s comments on the pope’s character in Erdmann, 148, n. 3, and 149, n. 4. Ishaq Tawdros Ubayd, Roma wa Byzanta min Qati'at Photius hatta al-Ghazu al-Latini li Madinat Constantine (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif bi Misr, 1970), 64, also describes the character, ideas and policies of Gregory VII. 144 Patrologia Latina, 161: 825; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 24. 141 142

198

THE CRUSADES apostles Peter and Paul, relieve them of their penance and grant them remission of sins, while our prayers go with them.145

Immediately after his election, on April 30, 1073, Pope Gregory VII wrote a letter asking the barons of France to give full support to Count Ebles of Roucy in his expedition against the Muslims in Spain. He reminded them that since ancient times, the kingdom of Spain had been subject to St. Peter in full sovereignty (proprii juris), and that it belonged to no mortal, but solely to the apostolic see. He stressed that the Kingdom of Spain, having once by divine act passed lawfully into the church’s possession, could not be diverted from its lawful right. He called on those Franks who were willing to save Spain from the pagans to offer their assistance to Count Ebles, who clearly was leading this expedition not on his own, but with the permission of the apostolic see. Pope Gregory VII affirmed that under the agreement they had made, the count would hold in the name of St. Peter those lands from which he might drive the pagans by his own exertion and with the help of others. He also threatened to impose punishment on those who failed to live up to this agreement by keeping the lands they have occupied as their own and infringing the rights of St. Peter.146 Whether Count Roucy’s expedition achieved its aim is far less important than the claim that the papacy alone, as the representative of St. Peter, had the right of possession of Spain.147 This was a daring claim which no pope in that era other than Gregory VII could have made. We must remember that before he became pope, Hildebrand was a Cluniac monk, quite convinced of the validity of the Cluniac plan for church reform.148 He was so adamant and forceful in fulfilling this doctrine that he alarmed even the Cluniacs themselves, and when he became pope he took his reform ideas outside the church. He tried to establish the church as a monarchy, to counteract the rulers like King Henry IV who had usurped power from the papacy and were selling church offices for money (simony) and interfering in the administration of the church. In February 1075 he convened a council to condemn simony and lay investiture; the next year, at the Lenten 145 Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 24. This represents the first evidence of a papal indulgence being offered in connection with a crusade. See Erdmann, Origin, 138, esp. n. 72. 146 Emerton, Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, 6. 147 Erdmann, Origin, 156. 148 On Gregory VII and the Cluniac reform, see H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970); Erdmann, Origin, 72–73, esp. n. 37.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

199

Synod, he excommunicated King Henry for his defiance of papal authority.149 On January 28, 1077, King Henry submitted to the authority of the pope at Canossa. After keeping him waiting for three days, the pope finally agreed on the fourth day to admit the king to his presence. The king threw himself at the feet of the pope crying, “Holy Father, spare me.” Gregory raised him up, absolved him, and entertained him at his table.150 Thus did the pope triumph over earthly kings. Pope Gregory VII was clearly militant in supporting the military action led by the Count of Roucy in Spain. As a reformer, he stood for the idea of holy war and intended to put it into practice in Spain. He saw the reform of the knighthood as corollary to the reform of the clergy and the ecclesiastical government. Both groups were part of a holy war—the clergy inside the church, the knights working outside the church to recover the countries captured by the pagans (Muslims). As Erdmann aptly says, holy wars may have different aims. There was a war against the heathens, a war within the church to establish religious and moral values, and a war for the service of the papacy, or Papal States. Clearly Pope Gregory VII focused on this last type.151 He envisioned what he called the “knighthood of St. Peter (militia s. Petri)”; the knights would serve the church as milites of St. Peter and the pope, binding themselves by a formal oath with the pope. Those who loved St. Peter should not love secular princes more than him if they truly wished to be his sons and milites.152 Apart from supporting the 1073 expedition, Gregory VII was not actively involved in the recapture of Spain. But his successor, Pope Urban II, took a special interest in the city of Tarragona, on the Muslim frontier. In the summer of 1089, he reestablished the archbishopric there and urged the archbishop of Toledo to rebuild the city, that it “might stand as a wall and bulwark of Christianity against the Saracens.”153 Like his predecessors, he was greatly concerned about reaffirming his supremacy over secular rulers, and he was determined to recover the papal domains lost to the Muslims, especially Jerusalem and Spain. His in149

85.

Emerton, Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, 90–91; William of Tyre, History, 1:

150 Emerton, Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, 111–112; Tout, Empire, 131. The Pope gave an account of this incident in a letter to the German princes. 151 Erdmann, Origin, 144, 156. For a reexamination of Erdmann’s idea, see John Gilchrist, “The Papacy and War Against the ‘Saracens’,” The International History Review 10 (1988): 174–197. 152 Erdmann, Origin, 204–205. 153 Erdmann, Origin, 315–316.

200

THE CRUSADES

terest in the battle for Spain suggests that he may have been thinking simultaneously of extending aid to the Byzantines to recover their lost lands from the Seljuk Turks. If this hypothesis is true, says Erdmann, then the crusade may be considered “a blow at the heart of the Muslim world planned as a Christian counterattack designed to put an end to the total advance of Islam.”154 Guibert of Nogent declares, This great man (Pope Urban II), although honored with gifts and even with prayers by Alexius, prince of the Greeks, but driven much more by the danger to all of Christendom, which was diminished daily by pagan incursions (for he heard that Spain was steadily being torn apart by Saracen invasion), decided to make a journey to France to recruit the people of his country.155

Here is testimony that the pope contemplated aiding both the Byzantines and Spain, as is clear from his discourse at Clermont. Enumerating the Christian countries the Muslims had captured, the pope noted, “Thus for three hundred years Spain and the Balearic isles [have been] subjugated by them (Muslims).”156 Whether the pope actually contemplated a Frankish expedition against the Muslims in Spain is beside the point. The situation in Spain and the need to furnish aid to the embattled Byzantines were interrelated; the pope’s ultimate purpose was to unite the Byzantine church with his own, and to bring Spain under papal authority. Following Frankish victories at Nicaea and Dorylaeum, he wrote in May 1098, “In our days God has eased the sufferings of the Christian people and showed the path to triumph. By means of the Christian forces He has conquered the Turks in Asia and the Moors in Europe, and restored to Christian worship that which was once celebrated.”157 That Pope Urban II saw the war to free Tarragona from Muslim control and the Crusades in Asia as interrelated is shown most explicitly by his appeal after Clermont to a number of counts and knights of Catalonia, on behalf of Tarragona. The pope beseeches them with urgency and commands them, for the forgiveness of their sins, to carry out the work of restoring Tarragona in every way. He tells them how significant a defense Erdmann, Origin, 318. Guibert of Nogent, Gesta, 40. 156 William of Malmesbury, 412. 157 Erdmann, Origin, 319, comments that Pope Urban II saw the wars in Asia and Spain as “parallel undertakings, forming a unit from the spiritual standpoint but separate as campaigns.” 154 155

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

201

of Christian people and resistance to the Saracens it would be if this celebrated city rose up again with God’s help, adding that since the knights of other lands have unanimously resolved to go to the aid of the church in Asia and liberate their brethren from the tyranny of the Saracens, they too should assist the church by joining in the assault against the Saracens. The pope promises those who may fall in this campaign forgiveness of all their sins and eternal life, declaring in conclusion: And if one of you has resolved upon the journey (joining the crusade) in Asia, let him rather fulfill his pious purpose here. For it is no service to liberate Christians from the Saracens in one place and deliver them in another to Saracen tyranny and oppression. May God fill your hearts with brotherly love and give your bravery victory over your enemies.158

In essence, the pope considered the struggle against the Muslims in Spain no less important than the capture of Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslims in the East. To him Spain was a Christian domain and should be liberated from the intruding Muslims. It also shows how Christian Spain was a part of the struggle against the Muslims. Even after the capture of Jerusalem by the first Crusaders in 1099 the Christians of Spain never relinquished their determination to restore their land to its rightful owners. Nothing demonstrates this determination like the appeal of Archbishop Diego of Compostela preserved in an 1125 document. Archbishop Diego says: Just as the knights of Christ and the faithful sons of the Holy Church opened the way to Jerusalem with much labor and spilling of blood, so we should become knights of Christ, and after defeating his wicked enemies the Muslims, open the way to the same Sepulcher of the Lord through Spain which is closer and less laborious.159

158 Erdmann, Origin, 317, gives the full text of this appeal. Riant, “Inventaire,” 103, suggests that the pope was chiefly concerned with Spain and saw the war in the east as a diversion intended to relieve the pressure on Spain, but his argument is unconvincing. 159 Jonathan Riley-Smith. “The Venitian Crusade of 1122–24,” in Gabriella Airaldi and Benjamin Kedar, eds., I Comuni Italiani nel regno crociato di Gerusalemme: Atti del colloquio, (The Italian Communes in the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem (Genova:Universita di Genova, Instituto di Medievistica, 1986), 347, reproduced in De expugnationae Lyxbonensi, trans. Charles Wendell David (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936, reprinted 2001 with Foreword and Bibliography by Jonathan Phillips), xv, of the Foreword.

202

THE CRUSADES

Some modern Western historians are of the opinion that the campaigns in Spain and the East (the Holy Land) are intertwined. According to Giles Constable, in both Pope Urban II’s bull in 1095 and the bull of Pope Paschal issued ten years later, “these expeditions in Spain were regarded not only as complementary but also equal, on a spiritual basis, to the campaigns against the Muslims in the Holy Land.”160 Jonathan Phillips says, “As a war of the Christian liberation the Reconquista in Spain had a fundamental link with the Jerusalem crusade from the start of the movement.”161 Other historians reject this view. After sketching the political development of medieval Spain, R.A. Fletcher argues the Spanish wars against the Muslims did not acquire a crusading character until the third decade of the twelfth century. He says that what historians call the First Crusade was no more than a “muddled raid,” and that certain pronouncements by Popes Urban II and Paschal II denote only the direction in which they were feeling their way: “It was not until 1123 that Pope Calixtus II made it clear that he regarded the Spanish wars as Crusades.”162 Fletcher calls on the present generation of medievalists in Spain to reassess the character of Spain between 800 and 1300 A.D. He says the Christian expansion of that period was a conquest rather than a reconquest, motivated largely by demographics, climate change, developing military technology, the needs of an emergent aristocratic elite, and the appetites of sheep and cattle.163 In conclusion, Fletcher says that the wars in Spain between Christians and Muslims may be loosely described as crusading and “these notions were not native to Spain but imported,” referring to the Franks’ role in the Spanish wars. The Spaniards themselves were not keen on fighting the Muslims, since they had several treaties and understandings with them.164 Fletcher’s view is at odds with that of Pidal, who places the whole question in a clearer historical context: “The unfettered spirit which had been preserved in north Spain gave impetus and national aims to the Reconquest. Without its strength of purpose Spain would have given up in despair all resistance and would have become denationalized. In the end it would have become Islamized as did all the other provinces of the Roman 160 Giles Constable, “The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries,” Traditio 9 (1953): 258 and 265. 161 Phillips Foreword to De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, xii of the Foreword; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London, 1870), 6–8. 162 Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade,” 42–43. 163 Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade,” 46–47. 164 Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade,” 47.

THE RECONQUEST OF SPAIN

203

Empire in the east south of the Mediterranean.”165 Pidal adds, “What gave Spain her exceptional strength and collective resistance and enabled her [to survive] through three long centuries of peril is her policy of fusing into one ideal the recovery of the Gothic states for the fatherland and the redemption of enslaved churches for the glory of Christianity. . . . The proposal to recover all the soil for the fatherland, which never ceased to appeal to the mass of people, was felt to have been accomplished in the thirteenth century. Both the people and the kings considered the great work terminated, and were convinced that it had been the united enterprise of all Spain.”166 Since the Muslim invasion, he argues, the Spaniards had been intent on retaking their country. Reconquest, “which was conceived and expressed as a Hispanic idea, shows that there was a very deeply-rooted national feeling in the country.”167 Pidal rightly says no other province of the ancient Roman Empire in the West (or, we may add, in the East) that succumbed to the power of Islam “began the gigantic struggle against Christendom for the domination of the world.”168 Another Spaniard, Rafael Altamira, says the Spain of the reconquest and its continued crusades against the Muslims “saved the Christian world from an invasion which would otherwise have been easier on the Western side.” Showing the connection between the crusade in Spain and the one in the East, he reports that one of the Castilian kings, responding to someone seeking his support for the crusades in the East, said, “We are always on crusade here, and so we do our share.”169 Thus, there was a continuous war in Spain from the eighth century to the eleventh, when the reconquest of Spain began to be pursued more forcefully than before. The connection between the war in Spain and the Franks’ participation in the Crusades likewise was apparent to the Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (and thus to the Syriac historian Bar Hebraeus, who relied on him), who stated that after occupying many cities in Spain, the Franks shifted their warfare to the Muslim lands in the East. In sum, the French

165 Pidal, The Spaniards, 143–144; Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade,” 32–33 who quotes Pidal in full. 166 Pidal, The Spaniards, 143–144. Fletcher, “Reconquest and Crusade,” 32–33, quotes Pidal in full. 167 Pidal, The Spaniards, 143–144. 168 Pidal, The Cid, 84. 169 Altamira, “Spain, 1031–1248,” 421.

204

THE CRUSADES

military contribution to the reconquest of Spain was decisive and had a great impact on the ideology of the First Crusade.170

170 Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, 1993), 70–114.

7 THE CONQUEST OF SICILY Unlike the reconquest of Spain, which was carried out by the indigenous population with some help from the Franks, the conquest of Sicily was strictly the achievement of outsiders, the Normans. While the Spanish were greatly motivated by religious considerations in their struggle against the Muslims, Erdmann concludes that the Normans, who dominated Sicily, “were no more inclined than the south Italian natives to regard religion as the essential motive for war against the heathen (Muslims)”.1 Robert S. Lopez says the Norman conquest of Sicily can hardly be described as a “duel between Cross and Crescent,” although he considers it “the greatest triumph of Christians over Muslims in the eleventh century.”2 Another writer calls it the most romantic of the Normans’ political achievements.3 Although the Normans apparently conquered Sicily not for religious reasons but for adventure and material gain, they carved out a state in the island. The Norman princes who ruled Sicily were tolerant and even supportive of their Muslim subjects. Why then did Islam disappear from Sicily by the end of the thirteenth century, while it survived in Spain until 1492 and the last cryptic Muslims (the Moriscos) were expelled as late as the start of the seventeenth century? Did the Norman rulers of Sicily help to eliminate Islam? Roger I (d. 1101), his son Roger II (1130–1154), William II (1166–1189), and Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215–1250) were clearly “Arabophiles.” Roger II even wore Muslim garb and supported the Muslims and Islam so much that critics called him the “half-heathen king.”4 One might infer that Roger II gave 1 Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton: Princeton.University Press, 1977), 110. 2 Robert S. Lopez, “The Norman Conquest of Sicily,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. M. W. Baldwin, vol. 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 54. 3 R. Allen Born, The Normans (New York, 1984), 79. 4 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: Macmilan-St. Martin’s Press, 1970), 608; Martino Mario Moreno, al-Muslimun fi Siqiliyya (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-

205

206

THE CRUSADES

little or no support to Christianity in Sicily because his primary motive was to establish his own power and government. But this was not the case. His contemporary, the Muslim geographer and cartographer Abu Abd Allah Muhammad al-Idrisi (1100–1166), calls him “al-Nasir li al-Milla alNasraniyya” [supporter of the Christian religious community] in the first chapter of his book Kitab Rujar (The Book of Roger), titled Nuzhat alMushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq [the recreation of him who yearns to traverse the land].5 Al-Nasir, the term used to describe Roger II, does mean “supporter,” or more precisely “the one who granted victory” (to the Christian denomination in Sicily, al-Idrisi implies, although he does not explain how Roger II earned this appellation).6 Al-Idrisi’s use of the term is understandable, for he knew more than any other contemporary about the deeds and achievement of Roger II, under whose patronage he wrote his book. He lavished high praise on him, calling him the King of Sicily, Italy and Calabria, and the Imam (Lord) of Rome, detailing his character and accomplishments, and declaring that Roger II had “governed his (Christian) community with justice, supported it, and bestowed on it his benevolence.”7 Al-Idrisi’s praise of Roger II and his use of the term al-Nasir should not be taken lightly or dismissed as mere hyperbole on the part of a Muslim subject patronized by his lord. It has a profound connotation; al-Idrisi would have not mentioned the support Roger II gave the Christian community in Sicily if in fact he was promoting Islam or supporting the Muslim community at the expense of the Christian community. Lopez may be right in asserting that since the Normans were Catholic, their identification with the interests of the Catholic Church was unavoidable, and “we must not confuse a byproduct with an original cause.” He adds that in the Normans’ conquest of Sicily, unlike the Crusades, the reliCatholikiyya, 1957), 21–22,; Alex Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the End of Islam (London: Routledge Curzon, 2003), 99–100. Michele Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, ed. C. A. Nallino, 3 (Catania: R. Prompolini, 1933–1939): 372, went so far as to call Roger II and Frederick II “the two baptized sultans of Sicily,” to illustrate their propensity toward Islam. 5 Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Idris, Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula (Al-Maktaba al-Arabiyya alSiqiliyya),Michele Amari, ed., (Leipzig: Presso F. A. Bockhaus, 1857), 15. Cited hereafter as Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula. 6 On the meaning of al-Nasir, see Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961), 970. 7 Amari, Bibloteca Arabo-Sicula, 15–19.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

207

gious motivation was not a primary cause; it was pushed to the background and only used as a thin cloak for the material incentives, which slowly grew into a sincere sentiment.8 There is a great deal of truth in what Lopez says. The Normans may have been only nominal Christians; they did not come to Sicily carrying the cross or sewing it on their garments. But in western Europe there was no difference between Christianity and the Catholic Church. The church was the bastion of Christianity, the visible kingdom of heaven on earth. As Catholics, the Normans had to defend Christianity against its foes in both Sicily and southern Italy, regardless of their own beliefs. The church was facing a tremendous threat from the attacking Arabs, and its immediate concern in the eleventh century was to expel the Muslims from southern Italy. The Normans had no choice but to become vassals to the popes and assume the positions of Dukes of Apulia and Sicily. It is too easy to minimize the religious motivation in the Normans’ conquest of Sicily. But we must not forget that they fought in Spain and later, as Crusaders, fought in the East against the Muslims. Our study of Sicily will reveal that, to no small extent, the Norman kings’ policies contributed to the decline of Islam and the shrinking and eventual disappearance of the Muslim community. The Normans’ conquest of southern Italy and Sicily should be viewed in the general perspective of the First Crusade, which William B. Stevenson correctly calls a counter-stroke to the Muslims’ attacks on southern Europe from the eighth to the eleventh century.9 If the Crusades represented the culmination of the struggle between Christendom and Islam, the Muslim assaults on southern Italy and Sicily form only a part of this ferocious struggle. As we have already seen, the Muslims’ effort to bring the Byzantine Empire under their sway had begun in the seventh century when Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan, then governor of Syria, created a naval force for that purpose. After failing several times to capture Constantinople and bring the Christian lands of the east under their domination, the Arabs captured Spain in 711 and moved deep into France. Christendom was safe for a while after Charles Martel defeated them at Tours in 732, but that loss only led them to make further incursions into southern Europe, using Spain as their stepping-stone. The Byzantines, who had occupied Sicily since the middle of the sixth century under the Emperor Justinian I (527–565), had long been aware of Lopez, “The Norman Conquest of Sicily,” 1: 55. William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 265. 8 9

208

THE CRUSADES

the Muslim threat there. They built fortresses and fortifications and increased their maritime power to guard the coasts against Arab raiders, being so apprehensive that they would even capture Muslim merchants if the occasion arose.10 The first serious Muslim incursion against Sicily came in 652, when Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan sent his namesake, Mu’awiya ibn Hudayj alKindi, to invade the island.11 Ibn Hudayj, who met strong opposition by the Byzantines, returned home with his ships satisfied with the booty he had captured. Ahmad al-Baladhuri (d. 892), says that, according to al-Waqidi, Abd Allah ibn Qays al-Dizaqi, who invaded Sicily (perhaps after Hudayj) found statues of gold crowned with jewels and sent them to Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who in turn sent them to Basra (the seaport of Iraq) to be shipped and sold in India.12 In 793 Habib ibn Maslama, grandson of Uqba ibn Nafi’, the conqueror of Africa, arrived in Syracuse, then the greatest city in Sicily. He attacked the city and overwhelmed its inhabitants, who finally agreed to pay him the Jizya (poll tax). His intention was to occupy the whole island, but he was forced to withdraw to north Africa because of the rebellion of Maysara al-Saqqa.13 The Muslims’ objectives in raiding Sicily were evidently booty and the establishment of their religion in the island.14 These raids continued sporadically until 827–828, when the situation changed. Arabs from Tunisia invaded Sicily and established a foothold, from which they later conquered the whole island, aided by the treachery of the Byzantine naval commander (Turmarch) Euphemius (called Phimi in Arabic sources), who earlier had attacked north Africa and had taken some Arab merchants captive.15 About 825 Euphemius rebelled against Gregoras, Ibn al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 220; Ihsan Abbas, al-Arab fi Siqiliyya (Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1975), 31–32. 11 Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Wahda al-Missiyya, 1956): 278, also in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 161; Aziz Ahmad, A History of Islamic Sicily (Edinburgh University Press, 1975), 2. On the raid, see the letters of Pope Martin I (649–653) in Philip Labbe and Gabriel Cossartii, eds., Sacrosancta Concilia, 1 ( Paris, 1671): col. 5; J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 88 (Paris, 1862): 208; Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, 1: 190; Taqi al-Din Arif alDury, Siqiliyya: Alaqatuha bi Duwal al-Bahr al-Mutawwasit al-Islamiyya (Baghdad: Dar al-Rashid li al-Nashr, 1980), 21–22. 12 Al-Baladhuri, Futah, 1: 278. 13 Ibn al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 219–220. 14 Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi, Futuh al-Sham wa Misr, in Biblioteca Arabo- Sicula, 198–205. 15 Ibn al-Athir, 23; Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, 1: 369. 10

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

209

the Byzantine patrician, defeated and killed him, and declared himself emperor of Sicily. In 826 Emperor Michael II (the Stammerer, 820–829) sent a force to subdue Euphemius, but its commander Constantine was defeated, captured, and put to death.16 Some sources say the reason for Euphemius’s rebellion was his passionate love for the beautiful nun Hormoniza, whom he married against her will and in violation of church rules. Her brothers went to Constantinople to complain about his action. Emperor Michael II sent a letter ordering Photenius, governor of Sicily, to investigate the matter and, if he found Euphemius guilty, to have his nose cut off. Realizing that his situation was serious, Euphemius sought help from the ruler of north Africa, the Aghlabid Ziyadat Allah (817–838), promising to help the Arabs take Sicily; he in turn would acknowledge Ziyadat Allah as emperor, pay annual tribute to him, and rule as his deputy.17 Ziyadat Allah responded by sending an expedition of 70 ships and 10,000 fighting men under Abd Allah Asad ibn al-Furat. The Muslim force landed at Mazara on June 17, 827, after three days at sea. The Arabs defeated the Byzantines in a pitched battle; the Byzantine commander, whom Arab sources call Balata, fled to Enna (Castrogiovanni) and then to Calabria, where he died.18 Euphemius soon realized that the Arabs were interested in establishing their power throughout Sicily rather than in helping him to become its sole ruler. Some sources say Euphemius was killed by adherents of the emperor.19 Thereafter the Aghlabids moved to control Sicily, and by 902 they occupied all of it. Let us briefly examine Sicily under the Arabs’ rule. Early in the tenth century, the Fatimid Shi’ite Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi managed with the aid of some Shi’ite propagandists to overwhelm the Aghlabids, declare himself caliph, and establish a Fatimid state in north Africa, a development that affected the situation in Sicily. Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Abi al-Fawaris, a former 16 E. W. Brooks, “The Struggle with the Saracens,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 134–135. 17 Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, 1: 361–387; C. H. Becker, “The Expansion of the Saracens—The East,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 382; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. I (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 279; J. B. Bury, A History of the Byzantine Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I, 802–867 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1912), 297; S. P. Scott, History of the Moorish Empire in Europe, 2 (Philadelphia and London, 1904), 10; Ahmad, A History of Islamic Sicily, 6–7; Abbas, al-Arab fi Siqiliyya, 32; Al-Dury, Siqiliyya, 43–47. 18 Brooks, “Struggle with the Saracens,” 4: 135. 19 A. A. Vasiliev, History, 1: 279.

210

THE CRUSADES

governor of Sicily, championed the Fatimid cause. Leading a faction of Shi’ites, he defeated and arrested the Aghlabid governor Ahmad ibn Abi Husayn, and Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi rewarded him with the governorship. Thus Sicily came under the power of the Shi’ite Fatimids. Some proAghlabid Muslim nobles of Palermo revolted, led by Ahmad ibn Qurhub, whom the Arabs and Berbers elected as amir of Sicily. Ibn Qurhub achieved some success against the Fatimids between 914 and 916, but he was weakened when some Berbers in Girgenti revolted against him. They asked Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi for help, and he dispatched an expeditionary force which defeated Ibn Qurhub, who was arrested, sent together with some of his supporters to Ubayd Allah, and executed.20 In the middle of the tenth century, Ali ibn Hasan al-Kalbi established a semi-independent dynasty in Sicily that lasted for ninety years. Under the Kalbites, Sicily experienced continuous warfare with the Byzantines, which drastically weakened the Arabs and put them on the defensive. The Byzantines grew so strong that in 1034, when Emperor Michael IV (1034–1041) sent an embassy to Ahmad ibn al-Akhal, the Kalbite governor of Sicily, he was negotiating from a position of strength. He conferred on al-Akhal the title of magistros, which al-Akhal accepted.21 The Kalbites’ position in Sicily became more vulnerable because of the hostile attitude toward the regime of Mu’izz al-Din ibn Badis, the Fatimid governor of north Africa (1051– 1061). In 972, the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu’izz li Din Allah had moved his caliphate from north Africa to Egypt, leaving Yusuf ibn Ziri as governor of north Africa (972–983). The Zirids—Yusuf, his son al-Mansur, and Mansur’s son Badis—did not interfere in the affairs of Sicily. But the situation changed when Badis’s son al-Mu’izz succeeded him as governor. Some Sicilian Muslims complained to al-Mu’izz that they had been treated harshly by Ahmad ibn al-Akhal and threatened to deliver Sicily to the Rum (Byzantines) if Ibn Badis refused to aid them. He responded by sending an expeditionary force commanded by his son Abd Allah to Sicily in 1035. In the confrontation that followed, al-Akhal was defeated and killed by Abd Allah’s men.22 According to Ibn al-Athir, the Muslims of Sicily realized that they had made a mistake by inviting the Zirids to Sicily. They revolted Ibn al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 251-253; Amari, 2: 175–183. Jules Gay, L’Italie mérdionale et l’empire byzantin, depuis l’avènment de Basil I jusqu’ à la prise de Bari par les Normands, 867–1071, 2 (New York, 1960): 33–435. On the Kalbite dynasty and its wars with the Byzantines in Sicily, see Ahmad, History, 30– 40, and Abbas, al-Arab, 44–49. 22 Ibn al-Athir, 274–275; Moreno, al-Muslimun, 17. 20 21

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

211

against Abd Allah, drove him from Sicily, and installed al-Akhal’s brother, al-Samsam, as their governor.23 Recognizing that relations between the Muslims of Sicily and the Fatimids were strained, Emperor Michael IV in 1038 sent his able commander George Maniaces with a force that included the Scandinavian hero Harald Hardrada, the most famous of the Varangians and later king of Norway. The Byzantine force occupied Messina, Syracuse, and all the east coast of Sicily, despite strong Zirid resistance. But the Norsemen became involved in a dispute with Maniaces over the question of pay and plunder, and they went back to Apulia. Suspected of an ambitious plot, Maniaces was recalled to Constantinople and thrown into prison. The Zirids took advantage of his removal and reclaimed all the territory that the Byzantines had seized except Messina.24 By the middle of the eleventh century, Sicily was extremely weak due to the constant wars and friction among the rulers of the petty states. The Muslim leaders had revolted against the Zirid Abd Allah and made alSamsam governor, but soon the Muslims of Palermo, led by Muhammad ibn al-Thumna, revolted and deposed him. Other Muslim leaders took advantage of the political chaos to carve out for themselves independent states all over Sicily. Ibn al-Thumna took Palermo and later added Syracuse, while Ali ibn Ni’ma, also known as Ibn al-Hawwas, took Castrogiovanni (Qasriyana), Girgenti, and Castronovo. Ali ibn Mankut (Mankud) became master of Trapani, Marsala, Mazara, Sciacca and the western plains; Ibn Maklati took possession of Catania.25 The wars among the leaders of these petty states culminated in 1052 in a battle between Ibn al-Thumna and Ibn al-Hawwas. Badly beaten, Ibn al-Thumna sought aid from the Normans, who were already in southern Italy. They agreed, and their move into Sicily marked the Muslims’ loss of the island.26 According to Gaufredo (Geoffrey) Malaterra, Ibn al-Thumna crossed to Apulia to meet with Roger at Regium and urged him to invade Sicily. Accompanied by Ibn al-Thumna, Roger landed with 160 soldiers near Messina, and eventually he controlled the whole island.27 Ibn al-Athir, 275. Brooks, “The Struggle with the Saracens,” 4: 150, and Vasiliev, History, 1: 329; Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1912), 42–43; Dury, Siqiliyya, 122. 25 Ibn al-Athir, 275. 26 Ibn al-Athir, 275–276; Umberto Rizzitano, “Ibn al-Thumna,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 3: 956. 27 Gaufredo (Geoffrey) Malaterra, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae Siciliae Comitis 23 24

212

THE CRUSADES

The Muslims did not confine their assaults to Sicily but ventured into mainland Italy. In 837 the Neapolitans faced a threat from Sikard, duke of Benevento (d. 839), who had besieged Naples. They had already appealed to the Carolingian Emperor Louis I the Pious (814–840) and other Christians, without success; so Duke Andreas turned to the Arabs in Sicily, who must have been overjoyed to exploit such an opportunity. They lifted the siege of Naples, ravaged Sikard’s own land, and signed a treaty of trade and friendship with Naples.28 In 843, Naples helped the Arabs to capture Messina from the Byzantine Empire, to which Naples itself belonged.29 The Byzantine authority over the Italian cities was nominal, and the cities’ rulers competed with each other to the point of trusting no one but themselves. They therefore found it sometimes useful and beneficial to forge alliances, as Naples did, with the Muslims. They took such action only when their prosperity was threatened. Consequently, they did not support the effort of the Carolingian Emperor Lothair (840–855) against the Muslims in 846.30 Their treaties of friendship meant little to the Arab plunderers, who occupied the islands of Ponza and Ischia and Cape Mesino on the mainland. Their forces ravaged the countryside, and their ships threatened the coastal trade. In the face of the danger they posed, Sergius I, the new duke of Naples, renounced the treaty with the Arabs and concluded alliances with the cities of Sorrento, Gaeta and Amalfi in 845. With their help, he achieved victory over the Arabs off Point Licosa in 846.31 A year after being invited to help the Neapolitans, the Arabs ravaged Brindisi and Tarento, and in 840 they occupied Bari as they defeated the Byzantine and Venetian fleets.32 In 841 the Muslims sacked Rancona, on the Dalmatian coast. Five years later a Muslim force of 73 ships and 11,000 men attacked Ostia and Porto. They ravaged the countryside and advanced to the very walls of the Eternal City, Rome. They pillaged the Basilica of St. Peter and the Cathedral of St. Paul, just outside the city on the right bank of et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis Frateris Eius, ed. Ernesto Pontieri, in Raccolta Degli Storici Italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquecento (Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1926), 30–31. 28 Becker, “The Expansion of the Saracens,” 2: 383; Hilmar Krueger, “The Italian Cities and the Arabs before 1095,” in A History of the Crusades, ed. M. W. Baldwin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 45. 29 Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), 183; Becker, “Expansion of the Saracens,” 2: 383. 30 Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, 183. 31 Krueger, “Italian Cities,” 45. 32 Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, 161.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

213

the Tiber.33 The citizens of Rome and the Frankish garrison could not resist the attackers. The land forces under Lothair’s son Louis (later the Carolingian Emperor Louis II, 855–875) and the naval forces from the Italian cities arrived too late. The Muslims took what booty they could and went on to lay siege to Gaeta. But they were repulsed by a combined fleet from Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi, and were told to depart in peace. As they left, their ships were destroyed by a storm, and the stolen treasures were forever lost. But the Muslims did not lose their bases, and they returned later to attack.34 Pope Leo IV (847–855) immediately set out to rebuild and fortify the old walls and towers of Rome, including the Vatican area, where the Cathedral of St. Peter stood. Before the defenses were finished, a large Muslim fleet assembled off the coast of Sardinia and sailed toward Ostia in 849. In the face of this threat, Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi assembled a fleet led by Caesarius, son of Sergius I, duke of Naples, which was blessed by the pope before engaging the Muslims. As the battle raged, a storm destroyed the invaders’ fleet; many Muslims were captured and hanged, while others were made to work in rebuilding the walls and towers. Little is known about the fate of the Italian fleet, but it succeeded in temporarily repulsing the Muslim assault. Despite this defeat, the Sicilian Muslims continued to attack the Italian coast from Luni to Provence.35 To stop the raids, the Lombard states reached an agreement with the Muslims, who from 875 onward directed their incursions northward against the pope. To save Rome from plunder and desecration of its religious sites, Pope John VIII (872–882), after failing to obtain aid from Charles the Bald, the king of Neustria (843–875) and emperor of the Franks (875–877), was forced in 878 to pay the Muslims a heavy tribute to purchase a short truce.36 He had already agreed to compensate Amalfi for promising to place its navy at his disposal. But after he reached an armistice with the Muslims, the Amalfitans not only refused to repay the subsidy but formed an alliance with the Muslims. The pope’s problem was that he stressed collecting revenue from the Italian cities but had no plan for doing so. His defense against the Muslims proved to be Joseph Reinaud, Muslim Colonies in France, Northern Italy, and Switzerland, trans. H. Sherwani, (Lahore: Sh. Nuhammad Ashsat, 1964) 119, and trans. G. Arslan, as Tarikh Ghazawat al-Arab fi Faransa, Sewissa, Itaia wa Jaza’ir al-Bakr al-Mutawassit (Cairo: Isaal-babi al-Halabi, 1933), 152. 34 Krueger, “Italian Cities,” 46. 35 Krueger, “Italian Cities,” 46. 36 Fred E. Engreen, “Pope John the Eighth and the Arabs,” Speculum 10 (1945): 321–328. 33

214

THE CRUSADES

disastrous to the economy of the Papal State.37 The situation was aggravated by the dispute between Salerno and Benevento over control of Capua after the death of its duke in 879. The truce with the pope did not stop the raids by the Muslims, who had dug themselves in north of Benevento and on the right bank of the Garigliano at Trajetto. From there they conducted many incursions into central Italy, especially Rome, and they destroyed Monte Cassino in one of these raids. The Muslims’ raids did not end until 915, when Pope John X (914– 928) organized an alliance of the Byzantines and the south Italian principalities, including the cities of Naples, Gaeta, Capua, and Salerno. In a pitched battle, with the pope himself in the field, the Muslims were badly beaten and hunted down. Their camp at Garigliano was destroyed, and with its fall came the end of their power in Italy.38 Still, they continued to harass the southern city-states. In 918 they captured Reggio and overran Calabria and took many captives, whom they sold into slavery in Sicily and Africa. In 1002, they attacked Bari, which was saved by the Venetian fleet. Between 1004 and 1012, Pisa suffered from Arab incursions. In 1014–1015 Mujahid al-Amiri, one of the petty kinglets of Spain, captured Sardinia, but a large joint force from Pisa and Genoa recaptured it with encouragement from Pope Benedict VIII (1012–1024).39 The Muslims maintained many maritime bases, from which they controlled the western waters and affected the economic life of Italy’s northern cities.40 Not until the eleventh century, when the Normans invaded southern Sicily and eventually took control of the entire island, did the Arabs relinquish power to the Christians. We may ask whether, in responding to the Muslims’ raids against southern Italy, the church was acting in a crusading spirit, as it did in Spain, to repulse the Muslim peril and preserve Italy for Christendom. In other words, did the idea of a Crusade begin in the ninth century as the very core of the church, the eternal City of Rome and the sacred relics of the Western church, were in danger of becoming Muslim possessions? The popes were extremely conscious of the Muslim threat, and some of them even took part personally in the campaigns against the invaders. In 849, three years after the Muslims reached Rome and desecrated the tombs of the popes and Engreen, “Pope John,” 328. Becker, “Expansion of the Saracens,” 2: 387; Krueger, “Italian Cities,” 50–51. 39 On Mujahid al-Amiri’s capture of Sardinia, see Abd al-Rahman ibn Khaldun, Kitab al-Ibar, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 461. 40 Khaldun, Kitab, 461; Krueger, “Italian Cities,” 50–51. 37 38

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

215

other relics, Pope Leo IV (847–855) accompanied the Roman army, which advanced under his command against the Muslim pirates.41 The pope offered those who might lose their lives while defending the church against the Muslims the assurance of everlasting life.42 Addressing the Frankish army in December 853, he appealed for help against the Muslim marauders who had desecrated the Church of St. Peter in 846 and were still causing havoc in Italy. He reminded his hearers that those who fought defending Christendom against the pagan enemies of the faith would be rewarded with the kingdom of God and eternal life.43 This idea was amplified by Pope John VIII (872–882), who, asked by some bishops if those who died defending the church and the faith would be granted remission of sins, answered that they would receive eternal life, as did the thief crucified with Christ (Luke 23:40–43). The pope also granted them absolution.44 The words of these two popes clearly asserted the sanctity of war against the Muslims and the blessings on those who might die defending the church and Christianity.45 They may be regarded as sowing the seeds of a holy war or, one may say, a “Crusade” against the Muslims. Whether Pope John VIII can be considered a key figure in the development of the concept of holy war, and whether his letters and those of Pope Leo IV should be taken as an articulation of a new attitude or policy, is still debatable. Clearly John VIII expanded the concessions made by Leo IV and offered an indulgence essentially like that granted later by Pope Urban II. In this sense, one can argue that Pope John’s battle against the infidels was motivated primarily by religion.46 Erdmann, Origin, 24. Pope Leo IV, Epistle 28, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 5: 601; Erdmann, Origin, 27. 43 J. A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 22; Erdmann, Origin, 267. Cf. Albrecht Noth, Heiliger Krieg und Heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum (Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, 1966), 92–109. 44 Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 22. Patrologia Latina, 126: 816, trans. Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, reports that Pope John VIII, responding to a question from the bishops in the realm of Louis II regarding indulgences for those who died in battle against pagans or unbelievers, declared that all such men would receive absolution. 45 Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 23. 46 See Baldwin’s comment on E. Delaruelle, “Essai sur la formation de l’Idée de croisades,” in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique (Toulouse, 1941): 86–103, in Erd41 42

216

THE CRUSADES

But Fred E. Engreen says the pope’s struggle against the Muslims (the Arabians, he calls them) was political. After all, it was directed not only against the Muslims but also against his adversaries. The pope’s motivation in this situation is clear. If he had only Christendom in mind, he would have concentrated on fighting the Muslims. Says Engreen, even when he demanded that Emperor Charles III (the Fat, 839–888) “fight the wars of the Lord in His stead to save Christianity as a whole, the pope was by no means thinking of a crusade, but requested only his intervention into the quarrels and wars on the side of the pope and to the benefit of the Roman Church.”47 Although the pope was not contemplating a crusade, Engreen is incorrect in saying his struggle against the Muslims and his Christian adversaries was purely political. To the pope, his Christian adversaries, whom he apparently considered miscreants, were no less dangerous to the well-being of the church and to his authority than the Muslims. One is tempted to ask why, if the motivation of the pope was not religious, he asked Emperor Charles to fight the wars of the Lord and to save Christianity as a whole. Engreen again misses the point when he states, “Religion is not the main issue of war, as can be clearly seen by the state of the Christian Church in Spain and the fact that there is no interruption of pilgrimage to the Holy Land.”48 He concludes that opposing the Muslims, in both Spain and Italy, was fundamentally different from the spirit of the crusades. These actions represent an attitude he prefers to call “Border-Christianity,” an attitude of great importance on all fronts in the battle against Islam.49 Engreen notwithstanding, religion was a motive behind the actions of Pope John VIII. The factors which hindered this struggle were his preoccupation with his Christian adversaries and the lack of resources and devout men to fight against the Muslims. It was for these reasons that in 878 he felt compelled to buy a short-term armistice from the Muslims. Although he failed to check the Muslim incursions into Italy, he succeeded in strengthening those tendencies in the church and the papacy which contributed to the regeneration of the church in the future.50 More significantly, like Pope Leo IV, Pope John VIII treated wars against the infidels as praiseworthy and affirmed the “salvific value of fighting against the enemies of Christenmann, Origin, 27–28, n. 86, and Noth, Heiliger Krieg, 95, 104. 47 Engreen, “Pope John,” 321. 48 Engreen, “Pope John,” 321. 49 Engreen, “Pope John,” 322. 50 Engreen, “Pope John,” 330.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

217

dom.”51 Religion, not politics, was their main concern. Although the actions of these two popes cannot be regarded as crusades, they were to all intents and purposes a precursor to the Crusades. As we noted earlier, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Thumna was the master of Syracuse between 1052 and 1060. To assert his power, he assumed the title al-Qadir bi Allah [he who has power through Allah] and had the Friday sermon read in his name in Palermo.52 Soon, however, he came into conflict with his brother-in-law, Ibn al-Hawwas, master of Castrogiovanni. In the struggle between the two rivals, Ibn al-Thumna was defeated. Desperate to save himself and his domain, he appealed to the Normans, then in southern Italy, hoping they would help him defeat his enemy and reestablish his authority over Sicily. But he was wrong: the Normans seized this golden opportunity to capture the entire island. Thus, the Muslims’ rivalry ended in disaster.53 This episode shows that the Normans were in Italy about the middle of the eleventh century. But when did they first arrive there, and how did they become so powerful that Ibn al-Thumna should appeal to them from Sicily? The arrival of the Normans in Italy was first reported in two sources, or traditions, which Einar Joranson calls the Salerno and Gargano traditions.54 The first was recorded by the monk Amatus (Aimé) of Monte Cassino, in a work titled Historia Normannorum, no longer extant in the original Latin. But many borrowings from this work, including the narrative of the Salerno tradition, were incorporated by Leo of Ostia in his Chronicle of the Monastery of Monte Cassino. Its content has been preserved in its entirety only in an Old French version, Ystoire de li Normani, done by an anonymous translator in the first part of the fourteenth century.55 The other major writer who follows the Salerno tradition is Ordericus Vitalis, who wrote his ecclesiastical history around 1125. Although Vitalis’s narrative differs slightly in chronological order and some details, it confirms Amatus’s narrative in substance.56 The Gargano tradition is preserved in two Latin texts. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 22–23. al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 276; Ahmad, History, 36. 53 Ibn al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 276; Ahmad, History, 37. 54 Einar Joranson, “The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy– Legend and History,” Speculum 23 (1948): 356–358. 55 Joranson, “Inception,” 355. 56 Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1968): 410–413; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 2 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 51

52 Ibn

218

THE CRUSADES

The earlier of these is in the form of a poem by William of Apulia, titled The Deeds of Robert Guiscard in the period 1088–1111. The other text, dating to the latter part of the twelfth century, was written by a monk named Alexander, who incorporated it in his Chronicle of the Monastery of St. Bartholomew of Carpineto, but gives no indication of the sources from which he derived his information.57 Although these traditions differ on some events and details, they agree on the Normans’ arrival in Italy. According to both traditions, before the year 1000, forty valiant Normans dressed as pilgrims came to Salerno (or Monte Gargano, according to The Deeds of Robert Guiscard) after visiting the Holy Land. Salerno, which already was controlled by the Saracens and paid annual tribute to them, was besieged by the Muslims, who came by sea, killed the people, and harassed the country. The Normans, unable to tolerate the Muslims’ oppression of the Christians, asked Guaimar IV, prince of Salerno, to provide them with horses and arms. He gave them what they needed, and the Normans attacked the Muslims and killed many of them. Many others fled to the sea and still others found shelter in the countryside. Thus, the victorious Normans delivered Salerno from the Muslims. Guaimar and his people begged the Normans to stay, but they chose to depart. The Salernitans sent with them messengers, bearing gifts to entice other Normans to come to their country. Meanwhile, a dispute arose between two Norman princes. Gisilberte killed William and, to avoid punishment, escaped with his four brothers to Salerno in the company of the Salernitan messengers. They passed Rome and came to Capua, where they found the Apulian Melo, who had been exiled for rebelling against the Byzantines. The Normans came to his aid and battled the Byzantines.58 The authenticity 1996): 57–59; Joranson, “Inception,” 364–365. 57 Joranson, “Inception,” 358. 58 Amatus (Aimé) of Monte Cassino, “The Chronicle of Monte Cassino,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, SS VII, 651–652, also cited in Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 11–12; H. J. E. Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy, and the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries (Oxford, 1983); David C. Douglas, The Norman Achievement, 1050–1100 (London, 1996), 89–109; John France, “The Occasion of the Coming of the Normans to Southern Italy,” Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991): 185–205; Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Making History: The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-Century Italy (Philadelphia, 1995); Barbara M. Kreutz, Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1991); Graham A. Loud, “Norman Italy and the Holy Land,” in The Horns of Hattin, B. Z. Kedar, ed. (Jerusa-

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

219

of these traditions has been widely disputed. But clearly the Normans, whether they were the pilgrims of Salerno or the pilgrims of Monte Gargano or the auxiliaries who were invited to fight on behalf of Guaimar IV of Salerno and Melo, were in Italy at the beginning of the eleventh century. At this time Italy was, as Charles Homer Haskins says, merely a geographical expression.59 In the year 1000, southern Italy was divided into a number of autonomous states, while Sicily was ruled by the Muslims. Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi were republics; Benevento, Capua, and Salerno were ruled by Lombard princes. Apulia, Otranto, and Calabria, under Byzantine authority, were prosperous because of their trade with the Levant, but their allegiance to the emperors was unreliable. The Byzantines’ power was precarious, despite the reconquest of more territory by Emperor Basil II (“the Bulgar-Slayer”). The Byzantines’ attempt in the tenth century to Hellenize Italy succeeded in Calabria and Otranto, but it failed in Apulia due to the strong resistance of the Lombards, who preserved the Latin language and Latin bishoprics in many towns, maintained their own laws, and appointed their own officials to local governments.60 Says Ferdinand Chalandon, “The links which bound South Italy to Constantinople were very weak.”61 It was under these circumstances that Melo rebelled against the Byzantines. A native of Bari and part of the Lombard aristocracy, he unfurled the banner of revolt in 1009. The rulers of Salerno and Capua believed the time had come to expel the Byzantines. But they failed, and the Byzantine catapan (governor) Basil recovered Bari in 1010. Melo went into exile, first to the Lombard princes and then to the court of Henry II of Germany, where he sought aid. Returning to his country in 1016, he negotiated with a band of Norman pilgrims to Monte Gargano and asked their help in expelling the Byzantines. Although the pilgrims would not fight for him, they promised to encourage their compatriots to come to his aid. Supported by Guaimar IV of Salerno and Pandulf (Paldolf) III, prince of Capua, Melo attacked Apulia in 1017, and all the land between Fortore and Trani fell to lem: Variorum, 1992), 49–62; Joranson, “Inception,” 356–358; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 1 (Paris: A. Picard, 1907): 48–54; Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the Normans,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957): 167–169; Charles Homer Haskins, The Normans in European History (New York: Frederick Unger Publishing, 1966), 198–200. 59 Haskins, The Normans, 196. 60 Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 24. 61 Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy,” 167.

220

THE CRUSADES

his power. The next year, however, he was defeated by the Byzantine catapan Boioannes at Cannae; as they camped on the right bank of the Ofanto, the Lombard and Norman forces were almost wiped out. Only ten of the 250 Normans escaped, and the Byzantines re-established rule over Apulia. Defeated, Melo fled once more to Germany, where he died in 1020.62 The Normans, however, kept flowing into Italy and lent their services to a number of Italian nobles.63 At first they did not play a major role in the affairs of Italy, but the situation changed in 1029 as a result of the rivalry between the Lombard rulers. Pandulf III, prince of Capua, had been taken prisoner by Henry II of Germany. But when Henry died in 1024, Pandulf was released and with the Byzantines’ aid regained his possessions. When Guaimar IV died and was succeeded by the infant Guaimar V, Pandulf took advantage of the opportunity to extend his domain at the expense of the neighboring principalities. Realizing that Pandulf’s ambitions threatened his state, Sergius IV, Duke of Naples, appealed to the Normans under Rainulf for help. He took the Normans into his service and in 1029 conceded to them Aversa and its dependencies. In 1034 Rainulf deserted Sergius IV to enter the service of the Prince of Capua, and in 1037 he deserted the latter to serve Guaimar V of Salerno.64 The concession of Aversa to the Normans was of tremendous importance to their conquest of lower Italy. Once they had established a foothold in the country, they ceased to be hired swordsmen serving whoever paid them the most. For a time they fought as mercenaries for Guaimar and other nobles against the infidels. But as rivalries intensified, they turned against their former masters and conquered Salerno, Bari, Capua, and the whole of Campania and Calabria by force of arms.65 They realized that in order to dominate, they must not give any one of the Lombard princes a decisive victory, but keep them divided. Gradually, they proceeded to establish their forces and fortunes.66 After Rainulf established himself in Aversa, he encouraged others from Normandy to rush and share the fortunes of their compatriots in Italy. Many responded, the most important of them being the sons of a petty Norman noble, Tancred of Hauteville. Tancred Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 36. Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy,” 169. 64 Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy,” 170; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 37. 65 Ordericus Vitalis, trans, Forester, 1: 412, and trans. Chibnall, 2: 58–59, esp. n. 62 63

4.

66

Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 38–39.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

221

had few possessions, but he imparted courage and strength to his twelve sons, who, since his patrimony was not sufficient for their ambition, looked elsewhere for adventure. His sons were the offspring of two marriages. Muriella was the mother of William, Drogo, Humphrey, Geoffrey and Sarlo; Fressende was the mother of Robert Guiscard, Mauger, William, Auveri, Tancred, Humbert and Roger. William and Drogo, the eldest sons, realizing that they had no future in Tancred’s poor and petty domain, left for Aversa between 1034 and 1037.67 William of the Iron Arm was considered the leader of the Normans in Apulia, and at his death in 1048 Drogo succeeded him. The Normans’ power grew seemingly without limit, and nothing, not even the power of the popes or the massacre of Drogo and sixty of his companions in 1051, could stop them from battling the Byzantines, whom they drove to the tip of Calabria and the Apulian coast. Their success alarmed the Byzantine government, which recalled its governor of Apulia, Marianus Argyrus, asking him to apprise it of the situation. Marianus did not have a force able to challenge the Normans, but he managed to arouse Pope Leo IX (1049– 1054) against them. With an army of Italians, supported by a Byzantine contingent and a German force sent by the Emperor Henry III (1039– 1056), Pope Leo decided to take the field personally. His struggle against the Normans was futile. He was defeated at Civitate and was taken prisoner on June 23, 1053 and escorted safely to Benevento. His captors paid him homage and knelt at his feet, but would not release him until he agreed to their demands. Pope Leo disavowed his policy against the Normans, and on April 19, 1054 he was released and left Benevento for Rome, where he died.68 But Robert Guiscard continued his conquest of Calabria. After the death of his brother Humphrey in 1057, Robert, using force and manipulation, became the Normans’ leader. Humphrey had made him the guardian of his infant sons Abelard and Herman, and had received his promise to respect and protect their rights. But after being chosen the leader of the On Tancred and his sons see Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 3; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 39–40; Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy,” 179; Robert Lawrence Nicholson, Tancred: a Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (New York: AMS Press, 1978), esp. 1–19. 68 Chalandon, La Domination Normande, 1: 39–40, and “The Conquest of South Italy,” 173; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 56–57. 67

222

THE CRUSADES

Normans, Robert took his oath lightly and eschewed the principle of hereditary succession.69 Due to his political machinations, he was called “the Weasel,” “the Cunning,” “the Wily,” and “the Resourceful.” Anna Comnena, the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus, whose rule Robert later challenged, says, “He was one of the aspirants to the throne who were foisted on the empire like an irremediable sore and incurable disease . . . he was a braggart and so famed for his tyrannical disposition. Normandy indeed begot him, but he was nursed and reared by consummate Wickedness.”70 The year 1059 was momentous for the success of the Normans in Italy, for it witnessed their alliance with the papacy and their submission as vassals to the popes. The church was struggling to carry out the Cluniac reforms and liberate itself from bondage to the secular authority of the German emperors, who had usurped the power of investiture, i.e., the appointment of clergymen to higher offices. Hildebrand, the future Pope Gregory VII, played a great role in church policy at this time. He was very much opposed to the Normans, who had slowly but surely captured most of Italy and appeared to have jeopardized papal authority. He urged Pope Leo IX and his successors, Victor II and Stephen IX, to appeal for help to Emperor Henry IV and Duke Godfrey of Lorraine. But the papacy was facing serious resistance, especially from the Roman aristocracy, which was hostile to reform. This aristocracy succeeded in proclaiming Benedict X as pope when Hildebrand favored Nicholas II (1058–1061). What the church desired most of all was to carry out its program of reform, which was not favorable to either the empire or the aristocracy. The church wanted to be independent of both groups, and the Normans alone could be trusted to help the papacy. 69 On the Normans in southern Italy, see Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 9–12; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 57. 70 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. S. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 26; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 4. On the historical value of The Alexiad, see James Howard Johnson, “Anna Komnena and the Alexiad,” in Alexios I Komnenos, Margaret Mullett and Dion Smythe, eds. (Belfast: Byzantine Enterprises, 1996), Chapter 13, 260–302. Otto of Freising (d. 1158), Gesta Frederici, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow asThe Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa (New York, W. W. Norton, 1966), 30 together with note 20, says that Robert was a man of moderate birth in Normandy. He was called Guiscard, which is to say wanderer or vagabond. More correctly, Guiscard means crafty or shrewd.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

223

Showing political acumen and willingness to take a serious risk, Pope Nicholas called the Melfi council in 1059 to promulgate his decree on papal election. The Norman leaders Robert Guiscard and Richard of Capua, who had married a daughter of Tancred, attended the council.71 Years earlier, they had sought but failed to obtain from Pope Leo IX a recognition of the states they had established. Their legitimacy was now conceded by Pope Nicholas II.72 On bended knee, Robert Guiscard swore by the grace of God and St. Peter that he (and his heirs) as Duke of Apulia and Calabria and, if they further aided him, future lord of Sicily, would pay homage to the popes. He would respect the patrimony and secure it to the pope, and would never attack or ravage the pope’s principality. He further swore to aid in papal elections, so that the decree of Pope Nicholas might be carried out. Finally, Robert promised to pay for the pope’s domains a tribute of twelve pence of Pavia annually on every yoke of oxen. Richard made a similar oath on behalf of Capua.73 These oaths helped tremendously to strengthen the position of the papacy, for after centuries of contention, southern Italy was under the authority of a people (the Normans) who, whether they had submitted by conviction or convenience, could be counted on to expel the Byzantines and Muslims from that part of Italy, make it secure for the Holy See of Rome, and align it with the Western church.74 Although the oaths stated that the two Norman chiefs were now vassals of their feudal lord the pope, clearly he did not place upon them the obligation to wage war on his behalf. The oaths they swore pertained only to the protection of the papacy and the papal states. What is significant is the relationship of the papacy to its feudal warriors’ “presupposed approval of holy war.”75 We do not know whether Robert Guiscard and Richard of Capua implemented their oaths to the pope faithfully. What is certain is that their enfeoffment by the pope enabled them to complete their conquest. In 1060, Robert Guiscard captured Taranto, Brindisi, and Reggio from the ByzanOrdericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 1: 412, n. 1, says Richard of Carel, who married Tancred’s daughter, obtained the principality of Capua as his share for the conquest of Sicily. 72 Hugo Falcandus, The History of the Tyrants of Sicily 1154–1169, trans. Graham A. Loud and Thomas Wiedemann (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 2–3 of the Introduction. 73 For these oaths, see Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 60, esp. n. 1. 74 Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 61; Erdmann, Origin, 129, n. 42. 75 Erdmann, Origin, 129–130. 71

224

THE CRUSADES

tines; the maritime republics in turn submitted, and Bari, the only coastal city left in the hands of the Byzantines, fell to the Normans in 1071.76 But the Normans’ vassalage took a new turn in 1064, when William of Montreuil and his father-in-law of Richard of Capua became estranged. On his own William became a papal vassal and promised to acquire for the Holy See the district of Campania, meaning all of the southern papal states. For his action he apparently received the position of “deputy for the Patrimony of St. Peter.”77 Ordericus Vitalis praises William of Montreuil as one of the most distinguished Normans to cross the Tiber, saying he became the commander of the papal army and carried the banner of St. Peter to victory in fertile Campania.78 This is the first historical mention of the banner of St. Peter. Christianity had no banners until 312, when the Emperor Constantine I (the Great) raised the cross to lead his troops to victory at the Milvian Bridge over the Tiber. Holy banners appeared first at the start of the eleventh century. In 1003, Peter Orseolo, Doge of Venice, bore the banner of St. Hermagoras, patron of Grado, as he attacked the plundering Croats and Naranetini, and he was still bearing one of the victory banners when he attacked the Muslims at Bari in 1003.79 The banner carried by the doge was plainly used as a military insignia. We may note that the Crusaders had their insignia, the vexillum cruci, sewn on their right shoulders before they marched to the East, to signify that their action against the Muslims was championed by the cross. It is possible that the banner of St. Peter mentioned in this context was simply the insignia of the cross.80 William of Montreuil’s bearing the vexillum sancti Petri [Banner of St. Peter], says Erdmann, “must signify that the war to be waged had the blessing of religion.”81 Although the Normans’ pledge to protect the papacy and its domains did not constitute a crusade, their relationship with the pope presaged something very much like a crusade—not only against the Emperor Henry IV, who objected to the confirmation of the lordship of Robert Guiscard over the lands he had acquired in Italy, but also against the Saracens. Robert Guiscard vividly de-

76

57.

Chalandon, “The Conquest of South Italy,” 175–176; Runciman, History, 1:

77 Erdmann,

Origin, 131, quoting Amatus of Monte Cassino. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Chibnall, 2: 59, and trans. Forester, 1: 413. 79 Erdmann, Origin, 47. 80 Erdmann, Origin, 36–37. 81 Erdmann, Origin, 131. 78

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

225

scribed the unmistakable alliance between the conquering Normans and the church: In order to obtain God’s help and the intercession of Saints Peter and Paul, to whom all kingdoms of the world are subject, I have subjected myself with all my conquered lands to their vicar, the pope, and have received it from the hands of the pope, so that, by God’s power, he might thus guard me from the wickedness of the Saracens and I might overcome the insolence of the foreigners. The Almighty has given me victory and subjected the land to me. This is why I must be subject to Him for the grace of the victor, and I declare myself to have the land from Him.82

Some may object that the main intention of Robert Guiscard and the Normans was to legitimize their capture of lands in Italy, but the fact remains that they also found themselves fighting the wars of the church against its internal enemies and against the Muslims. Indeed, the very fact that Robert’s brother Roger crossed over to Sicily to fight the Muslims in itself represents a crusade.83 Roger, Tancred’s youngest son, was destined to play a decisive role in the history of Sicily. Robert Guiscard still had to face the Byzantines’ challenge in Apulia, and although he finally emerged victorious in that struggle, his long involvement in it gave Roger the primary role in the conquest of Sicily.84 According to Geoffrey Malaterra, Roger was extremely handsome, eloquent, of graceful shape and lofty stature.85 He had considerable prowess in warfare, having accompanied Robert in fighting the Byzantines and capturing most of their domains in southern Italy. But the two brothers fell out, and Roger lived like a bandit in his castle at Scalea, near Melfi, warring on his own brother and his neighbors. He had no qualms about stealing valuable horses from a house in Melfi where he was a guest.86 But it was in 82 Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis, ed., Storia dei Normanni di Amato di Montecassino (Cassino: Francesco Ciolfi, 1999), 294, gives the Old French text with an Italian translation, introduction, and notes by Giuseppe Sperduti. Baldwin, ed., Erdmann, Origin, 132, gives the English translation and calls the proclamation “a daring metamorphosis [that] equated public law and religion, politics and piety. There is no need for a special legal title when such motives were present.” 83 Malaterra, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii, 29; de Bartholomaeis, Storia, 190–191; Erdmann, Origin, 109, 133. 84 Chalandon, “Conquest of Southern Italy,” 175–176. 85 Malaterra, De Rebus, 18–19; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 57. 86 Malaterra, De Rebus, 20; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 58.

226

THE CRUSADES

Sicily that Roger found his life’s work and fame, while Robert Guiscard dominated the course of affairs on the Italian mainland. Sicily had been in Muslim hands for more than two centuries, but by the middle of the eleventh century it was rent by dissension among its three amirs, Abd Allah in Mazara, Ibn Hawwas in Castrogiovanni, and Ibn al-Thumna in Syracuse. Fearing he would lose Syracuse in his struggle with Ibn Hawwas, Ibn alThumna asked Robert Guiscard for help and offered him the whole island as a reward. To guarantee the truthfulness of his appeal, he sent one of his sons as a hostage. 87 The Norman leaders could now move against Sicily from a position of strength. Robert had already reconciled with Pope Nicholas II and, with the help of St. Peter and the pope as his vicar, could claim Sicily as his domain. With this religious sanction in mind Robert and Roger marched against Sicily, aided by Ibn al-Thumna. The conquest of Sicily was not so easy as they had expected. In 1061 Roger succeeded in capturing the region between Messina and Gergenti, and the Christian inhabitants of Troina surrendered the city to him. The next year, joined by Ibn al-Thumna, he occupied Petralia near Cefalu, but was called by his brother Robert to return to Italy. In a skirmish with the Muslims, Ibn al-Thumna was slain and Roger lost a valuable ally.88 In 1072, Robert Guiscard and Roger captured the capital, Palermo; the fall of the city and the gradual conquest of Sicily were a deadly blow to Islam. Robert installed his brother as Count of Sicily, while he himself retained lordship of the island, Palermo, Val Demone, and half of Messina.89 Thus within thirty years, from 1061 to 1091, the entire island of Sicily fell into Roger’s hands.90 Some historians viewed the conquest of Sicily as a crusade. The medieval writer Roger of Hoveden says, “Roger I, brother of Robert Guiscard, waged war with the people of Sicily and subjugated the whole island, and became the earl of Sicily. This Sicily is a large island and, before Roger subjugated it, was inhabited by pagans (Muslims), and under the dominion of the emperor of Africa. But Roger, having expelled the pagans [from power], established the Christian religion, and erected in it two archbishoprics and six bishoprics.”91 As we have seen, after reconciling with the pope Robert Amari, 3:65; Ahmad, History, 94. Malaterra, De Rebus, 36. 89 Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 68. 90 Al-Idrisi, Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 26. 91 Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, trans. Henry T. Riley as The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2 (New York: AMS Press, 1968): 253, which shall be cited throughout as 87 88

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

227

Guiscard had assumed lordship over Apulia and Calabria (which he had already conquered) and potentially of Sicily, to which he could not lay a legitimate claim. The island was in the Muslims’ hands, and he probably did not have a military force sufficient to challenge them. What significance, then, does Roger of Hoveden’s mention of Sicily have? Carl Erdmann has answered this question by declaring that the motivation of the Norman conquest of Sicily was essentially no different from that of the First Crusade and should be judged accordingly. Robert’s title presupposed the conquest of the island, and the feudal oath he gave “relates to the circumstance that a heathen opponent was to be found only in Sicily, whereas Apulia and Calabria had been wrested from Christian Greeks . . . In harmony with this theme, the Norman historians (Geoffrey Malaterra and Amatus of Monte Cassino) represent the Sicilian undertaking as a crusade from the first.”92 To these writers, the Normans’ crossing to Sicily was a religious undertaking whose main objective was to fight the Muslims. To Amatus of Monte Cassino, the battle for Sicily was a continuation of the Normans’ fight against the Muslims in south Italy. Although the motivation for the conquest of Sicily appears to be religious, history shows that after the Normans took over the island, the Muslims and Christians lived in amity side by side. The Norman chiefs made no attempt to coerce or persuade the Muslims to be Christianized. On the contrary, Count Roger and the later kings of Sicily were from the outset tolerant toward the Muslims and other racial and religious groups. In other words, their objective was not to convert the non-Christian inhabitants of Sicily, although some of them surely felt that the Christian inhabitants of Sicily “should cease to live in servitude, that Christianity should govern there, and that Christian observance should be restored to fitting splendor.”93 This idea was rooted in the fact that Sicily had formerly belonged to the Christians, and the Muslims themselves were violent intruders who had no claim on the land. The Sicily which the Normans conquered was a melting pot of races, creeds, and languages. The Byzantines and Muslims were the main ethnic groups on the island. The Byzantines retained their own churches and gave no allegiance to the Church of Rome. The Normans did not disturb their culture, and Greek remained an official language along with Arabic and Roger of Hoveden. 92 Erdmann, Origin, 133, esp. n. 55. 93 Erdmann, Origin, 134.

228

THE CRUSADES

Latin. Still, they gradually lost ground due to the Latinization of the island. In 1083, following a bull proclaimed by Pope Gregory VII, Roger replaced a Greek archbishop with a Latin one. He gave the Byzantines full freedom to worship, while they acknowledged his authority over them. Since the Muslims had converted several churches into mosques, Roger I ordered that they be converted to churches and appointed a Greek archbishop, Nicodemus.94 The Muslims represented almost half of Sicily’s population, and the Normans had to deal equitably with them. Their language, their law, and their way of life were deeply rooted in Sicily. Historical evidence shows that the Norman rulers generally treated the Muslims fairly. Three of the Norman kings of Sicily were so infatuated with Arabic culture that they took Arabic titles, like the Muslim caliphs: Roger II (1103–1154) assumed the title al-Mus’taizz bi Allah, William I (d. 1166) took the title al-Hadi bi Amr Allah, and William II (d. 1189) became al-Musa’izz bi Allah.95 Still, we must ask why the Muslims, who constituted a sizable portion of the population and enjoyed a great culture, faded from the island, leaving only a few Arabic words as traces. Being newcomers, the Normans had no precedent telling them how to rule the island’s multiracial population, including the Muslims. They were first and foremost Latin Catholics, determined to establish Latin ways in both secular and ecclesiastical affairs. They had to act judiciously toward the different religious and racial groups and utilize their talents if they were to have a stable government.96 Their success depended on their adaptability and their skills in political management. Consequently, the Norman rulers of Sicily catered to the Muslims and even used them as mercenaries. When Count Roger crossed to the Italian mainland to aid Robert Guiscard, he took with him a large force of Muslim soldiers, and he did the same in 1098 at the siege of Capua. When Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, came to see him at the city gates, he noticed the innumerable brown tents of the Arabs. The saintly archbishop said that these Muslims could not be converted to Christianity, because the count would severely punish any of them who chose to abandon his religion.97 These Muslims recognized that the count was their protector and were Malaterra, De Rebus, 53. Francesco Gabrielli, “La politique arabe des Normands de Sicile,” Studia Islamica, 9 (1958): 95; Ahmad, History, 63. 96 Matthew, The Norman Kingdom, 86; Denis Mack Smith, A History of Medieval Sicily (London: Chatto and Windus, 1968), 16. 97 Amari, 3: 187. 94 95

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

229

therefore devoted to him. Count Roger was evidently ignorant of papal displeasure and Latin politics, or he would not have cultivated the Muslims’ support. His pro-Muslim attitude plainly displeased the modern Western writer Edmund Curtis, who lashes out against the Norman rulers: “It was to be a great reproach of Roger and his successors to the fifth generation that they employed these dreaded infidels against their Christian opponents.”98 While Curtis berates Roger for his pro-Muslim attitude, Ibn al-Athir gives a totally different picture. He says that when Roger finally gained complete control of Sicily in 1091, he made the Rum (Byzantines) and the Ifranj (Franks) live together with the Muslims, adding that he “left for no one of its (Muslim) inhabitants a public bath, shop, mill or bakery.”99 The contemporary Egyptian Muslim writer Shawqi Dayf says that for thirty years, Roger I maltreated the Muslims of Sicily. He enfeoffed his military leaders and clergy with the lands he had conquered, reducing the former Muslim landowners to serfs of their new lords, as when he captured the city of Catania. He imposed a tax which the Muslims had to pay until the end of Norman rule. Dayf says that some contemporary writers (he does not mention any names) claim that what Roger did applied only to the peasants or those who had become serfs because of the conquest. But this view, Dayf argues, does not apply to Ibn al-Athir’s statement. He says other writers who defend Roger maintain that if he intended to punish them, he would have driven them from their homes, but they forget that Roger would not drive the Muslim city-dwellers from their homes because he needed them to build up the country and defend it. Otherwise, he would have had no one to protect him and save him and his people from starvation. Dayf concludes by saying that Roger and the Normans, at the instigation of the popes, did what they did against the Muslims in order to confirm Christianity in Sicily and decimate Islam.100 Dayf is right in saying that Roger I needed the Muslims. In fact, even if Roger had intended to uproot the Muslims from the cities, he would have found it too risky to do so, for many of them were soldiers, artisans, and traders. Elsewhere in Sicily, however, there were still many rebellious Muslims. Thus, forced to implement a policy of tolerance, Roger left the Muslim city-dwellers to practice their trades and religion unmolested. They had Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 95. Ibn al-Athir, 278. 100 Shawqi Dayf, Asr al-Duwal wa al-Imarat: Libya, Tunis, Siqiliyya (Cairo: Dar alMa’arif, 1992), 436. 98 99

230

THE CRUSADES

their mosques, judges, and amirs, except that at Palermo the amir was now a Latin official. In the countryside the masses of land cultivators were subjected to feudal service, as Dayf says, but their situation was no worse than that of the Christians when the Muslims ruled Sicily.101 Despite the tolerance shown by Roger and his successors to the Muslims and the Byzantines, the Latinization of Sicily was inevitable. Ibn al-Athir is correct in saying Roger made the Byzantines and the Franks live alongside the Muslims. His army was reinforced by Normans, French, and Italians, while so many immigrants from every part of Italy swamped the island that eventually the Latin Catholics in Sicily outnumbered the Byzantine and Muslim populations, threatening the society’s internal stability.102 Thus, it is hardly surprising that the Papal Curia looked with favor upon Roger’s conquest of Sicily as “a crusade of the highest importance.”103 Unlike other princes of Europe, Roger I declined to participate in the Crusade launched by Pope Urban II, but he had to come to terms with the church in order to win over the multitude of new Catholics. For this reason he reached a rapprochement with Pope Urban II in 1098, according to which he agreed to enforce the church’s canon law and have bishops and clergy tried before an ecclesiastical judge. The pope in turn conferred upon Roger the apostolic legateship of Sicily and sanctioned the hereditary power of his family because of the great service he had done the church by recovering Sicily from the Muslims.104 Still, their views on the Christianization of Sicily were different. To the pope, Christianization meant converting Muslims; to Roger it meant increasing the number of Latin Catholic immigrants to the island, which would eventually make it Christian and Catholic. Roger’s tolerant attitude toward the Muslims was a matter of political and military expedience. He never intended to promote Islam or to convert Sicily into a predominantly Muslim state. His military ambition drove him beyond Sicily to participate in the capture of north Africa (Tunisia) in collaboration with Baldwin I of Boulogne, who by 1097 was battling the Seljuk Turks in the First Crusade. According to Ibn al-Athir, Roger sent word to Baldwin that he had marshaled a great force and would join him, but his intention was to conquer Sicily. Before leaving on the expedition, Roger assembled his men to obtain their counsel. Ibn al-Athir says Roger’s men Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 94. Falcandus, History, 11 of the Introduction. 103 Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 97. 104 Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 98, quoting Malaterra, Book IV, Ch. 29. 101 102

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

231

told him, “By the truth of the Gospel this is more profitable for us and for [Baldwin], since the countries will become Christian.” More important, Roger instructed his envoy to tell Baldwin that if he decided to combat the Muslims and liberate Jerusalem from their hands, the glory would be his alone.105 The implication is very clear: both Roger and Baldwin I intended to capture Muslim lands, in order to make them Christian.106 Roger II, the first crowned king of Sicily, is portrayed as being more pro-Muslim than his father. Ibn al-Athir says that Roger II honored the Muslims, associated with them, and prevented the Franks from molesting them, and for this reason they loved him. He notes that Roger followed the path of Muslim rulers by having Muslim functionaries, such as jana‘ib (aidesde-camp), hujjab (chamberlains), silahiyya (equerries), jandariyya (wardrobe attendants), guards, and arms bearers. He established a department of justice to look into people’s legal complaints, and was so fair that he would even inflict punishment on one of his own people if he were found guilty.107 In imitation of Muslim caliphs who assumed titles with religious connotations, Roger called himself al-Malik al-Mu’azzam al-Qiddis [the Majestic King, the Saint]. Amari’s description of him as the “baptized king,” indicating that he was a crypto-Muslim, was challenged as an overstatement by Chalandon, who says that in religion as in politics, the administration of Roger II was influenced more by Byzantine than by Muslim culture.108 Roger II’s leniency toward the Muslims of Sicily, like that of his father, was motivated primarily by political ambition. He led naval expeditions against the Muslim country of North Africa, aiming to enhance his power and extend his kingdom to include not only that region but southern Italy.109 In 1130 he supported Anacletus II for the papacy, receiving in return the crowns of Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia, and the principality of Capua.110 According to the twelfth-century writer Romuald of Salerno, near the end of his life Roger II 105 al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh Ibn al-Athir, R .H. C. Or., 1: 190, and in Bibiloteca AraboSicula, 279. 106 Chalandon, Histoire de la Domination Normande, 1: 344–347; Ahmad, History, 70. 107 Ibn al-Athir, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 278. 108 Chalandon, Histoire, 2: 721; Ahmad, History, 64. 109 On the expeditions of Roger II against North Africa, see Ibn al-Athir, 282– 299; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 242–272; Ahmad, History, 55–58. 110 Amari, 2: 568–569; Falcandus, History, 4, indicates that Pope Anacletus granted Roger the hereditary right to rule over his lands as a kingdom, with all royal dignities.

232

THE CRUSADES

became less tolerant of the Muslims and more a champion of Christianity. He labored in every conceivable way to convert Muslims and Jews to the faith of Christ and endowed converts with many gifts.111 An incident from the campaign in North Africa illustrates Roger’s intolerance. In 1153, a year before he died, the forces of Abd al-Mu’min, the Muwahhid (Almohade) ruler of Bjaya, threatened to capture Bona. But a Norman force led by the Logothete Philip, whom Roger had made an admiral and entrusted with the expedition against Bona, reached the city first and captured it with the help of Arab tribesmen from the interior. Philip took the citizens of Bona captive, but let a number of Muslim learned and religious men escape with their families to the neighboring villages. He returned triumphantly to Sicily via al-Maghniyya, but suffered disgrace and tragic death after being arrested by Roger II on his return. There is disagreement over the reason: Ibn al-Athir says it was because of his lenient treatment of the Muslims of Bona, while Romuald of Salerno blames his Catholic orthodoxy.112 Philip was a eunuch, a former Muslim who (at least outwardly) had converted to Christianity. Roger II favored him, perhaps because of his conversion, and raised him to the position of Magister over all his royal household. Both sources agree that Philip and his fityan (pages) were crypto-Muslims who did not observe Lent, and that deep in his heart he was a Muslim; Romuald says Philip frequented mosques and sent offerings to the tomb of Muhammad in Medina.113 According to Ibn al-Athir, Roger II summoned the bishop and other clergy and knights, who issued a verdict that Philip should be burned.114 Romuald says that when the facts became known, Roger, inspired by the zeal of God, summoned Philip to answer for his crimes before the Curia, an assembly of nobles, the principal organ of the royal court and the government. Philip did not defend himself but promised to adhere to Catholic orthodoxy in the future, and this promise alone was the major reason for his condemnation. With tearful eyes, Roger lamented that the servant he had had since childhood as a Catholic now was practicing Islam under the cover of faith. In a clear expression of Christian sentiment, he added, 111 Romuald of Salerno, Chronicon sive Annales, 1153–1169, in Falcandus, History, 220. The translation of Romuald’s work appears in Falcandus, 219–263. 112 Athir, al-Kamil, 299; Romuald of Salerno, cited in Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 258– 259. 113 Athir, al-Kamil, 299; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 260–261. 114 Athir, al-Kamil, 300, calls Philip’s burning the first sign of Muslims’ weakness in Sicily.

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

233

If he had wronged me I would have forgiven him, but he has sinned against God, for which I dare not forgive my own son. Now, that all the world may know I love the Christian faith with all my heart and do not cease to avenge her (the Catholic Church) wrongs even on my servants, let the laws be evoked, let them be armed with the sword of justice to strike terror into the infidels (Muslims).115

Like Ibn al-Athir, Romuald says the curia found Philip guilty of the charge of being christiani nominis delusor (a deceiver of the name Christian) and sentenced him to be burned. Philip was dragged at the heels of a horse to the place of execution and burned at the stake before the royal palace, and his ashes were cast into the harbor in the sight of the fleet.116 Although Ibn al-Athir says that Philip was burned for aiding the Muslims in Bona, Romuald says that Roger sacrificed Philip to demonstrate that he was a true Catholic. At the end of his life, Roger seemed weak, embittered by the death of his wife and three eldest sons. He may well have sacrificed Philip to clear his court of scandal and show that it was better than that of a Muslim prince. The accusations about Philip’s conduct proved true, and according to Romuald, he had many accomplices at the court who were punished with him. Roger may also have been under the influence of the Catholic clergy.117 Philip’s downfall is evidence of Roger’s return to orthodox Catholicism, which he cherished. In the final analysis, he was a Christian Catholic, and as such he contributed to the eventual triumph of Latin Christianity in Sicily. Al-Idrisi correctly calls him al-Nasir li al-Milla alNasraniyya [The Protector of the Christian Denomination].118 While he was not a Crusader like the other Frankish princes, “he stands inferior to no Western prince in the history of the wars between Christendom and Islam.”119 Despite his change of attitude at the end of his life, the reign of Roger II was a blessing to the Muslims, but under his successors, their hopes for a continued safe existence in Sicily were eclipsed. This loss of hope is reflected in the words of the Muslim poet Abd al-Halim ibn Abd al-Wahid: “When I was still young, I passionately loved Sicily, which was like the Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 260. Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 260, quoting Romuald. This passage is not included in the translation of Falcandus. 117 Amari, 3: 441; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 261–262. 118 Al-Idrisi, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 15. 119 Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 263. 115 116

234

THE CRUSADES

Eternal Garden (Paradise). But since I have come to mature years, it has become a burning Gehenna (Hell).”120 Under William I (1154–1166) and William II (1166–1189), the Arab influence was as strong as it had been under Roger II. These two kings outwardly seemed more like Muslims than Roger. Both spoke Arabic and were surrounded by Muslim bodyguards; their courts were full of eunuchs and concubines. Various departments, including the Department of Finance (Diwan al-Tahqiq), known by the vulgar Latin name dohana de secretis, were run by Arabs, while the Curia was full of Arab officials. William I, who was indolent, often cruel, and devoid of political instinct, had the title “the Bad” fastened on him by Hugo Falcandus, “the Tacitus Of Sicily.”121 Under him, the Muslims’ status changed for the worse. Although they were loyal to him, they were persecuted by the Norman barons and the Lombards following the loss of al-Mahdiyya in North Africa to the Muwahhidun (Almohades) through the treachery of the commander of the fleet, Peter, a cryptoMuslim.122 The Muslims were disarmed by Chancellor Maio of Bari, who had gained power after 1156 and along with William’s wife, Queen Margaret, formed a party of the palace opposed to the party of the nobles. Attacked by a Christian mob in 1161, the Muslims tried to defend themselves but suffered heavy casualties, and some of their officials were executed.123 The Lombards seemed determined to destroy their rural settlements in eastern Sicily; many of them abandoned their homes and sought refuge in the southern part of the island, which had a substantial Muslim population, but still could not escape the Lombards.124 Falcandus relates another antiMuslim incident in which Chancellor Maio played a decisive role. In 1167, when King William II was still a minor and his mother, Margaret, was the regent, Maio received complaints that some Muslims (including palace officials) who had converted to Christianity had returned to their former religion. Robert of Calataboiano, a prominent dignitary, was accused of apostasy and immoral acts with women and boys. The familiares of the court were summoned, along with bishops and other clergymen and a large crowd of Amari, ed., Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, 582; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 421. Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 427. Smith, 39–40, says that under William the monasteries which had been the center of Byzantine culture were taken over by the Latins, an indication that Rome had replaced Greece in the religious and intellectual life of Sicily. 122 Falcandus, History, 78–81, 120–121. 123 Amari, 3: 495–496. 124 Smith, 38–39; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 419. 120 121

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

235

common people. Robert was accused of rapine, murder of citizens, and the violation of unmarried women. Despite the intercession of Queen Margaret, he was publicly flogged, had his property confiscated, and was sent to the Sea Castle and confined in the dungeon into which he himself had thrown so many. There he was subjected to many severe punishments which caused his death, to the gratification of the people of Palermo, especially the Lombard immigrants.2 William II (“the Good”), only thirteen at the time, succeeded his father William I in 1166 under the guardianship of his mother, the Regent Queen Margaret of Navarre, but did not assume power until 1171. One of his first acts as king was to send an expedition across the Mediterranean to protect the Christian communities in the Levant against the Muslims and keep communications between Europe and the Holy Land open. Unlike his predecessors, William II had the zeal of a Crusader. He was the first to assume the cross on the occasion of the Third Crusade. In 1174 he reached an understanding with King Amalric of Jerusalem to attack Egypt, from which Salah al-Din (Saladin) threatened the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. He dispatched a force of 200 ships and 50,000 men against Alexandria, but Egypt was not easily subdued, and Saladin drove the Sicilians away.3 William saw in the Third Crusade, which followed Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem in 1187 and the loss of Syria and Palestine, an opportunity to challenge Muslim power. It is said that when he received the sad news that Saladin had defeated the Christians at Hittin, he sat in sackcloth and ashes and went into retreat for four days.4 He aspired to personally lead an expedition against the Muslims, but died on November 18, 1189 without having done so.5 William II was perhaps more pro-Muslim than his father and grandfather, but at heart he was a Christian with a crusading spirit. He spoke fluent Arabic and supported Arab poets, wore Moorish dress, ruled as an oriental potentate, and even preferred Muslim women as concubines. Muslim functionaries and officials were still powerful in his government, although their numbers decreased. There were still many mosques in Palermo, and despite the racial riots of the 1160s, many Muslims lived there and kept their own religion, judges, and schools. But William II could not stop the ChristianizaFalcandus, History, 166–169; Ahmad, History, 72. Chalandon, “The Norman Kingdom,” 5: 200; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 434–435. 4 Runciman, History, 3: 4. 5 Chalandon, The Norman Kingdom, 200; Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 435–436. 2 3

236

THE CRUSADES

tion of Sicily by the Cluniacs and Cistercians, who collected endowments for that purpose.6 The only detailed account of relations between Christians and Muslims in Sicily during this period is that of the Spanish Muslim traveler Ibn Jubayr (1144–1217), who in 1185 spent four months in Sicily on his way back to Spain. His travel was confined to the north coast, between Messina and Trapani. He calls Messina the emporium of the infidel (Christian) merchants, noting that because it has only a few Muslims, mostly tradesmen, it seems lonely to a Muslim visitor. The capital city, Palermo, which the Muslims call Madina, has many mosques, and Muslims live in its suburbs and neighboring villages. Ibn Jubayr marvels at the fact that King William II uses strict Muslims in his court and is very trusting; even his kitchen supervisor is a Muslim.7 The king’s gold embroidery expert, Yahya ibn Fityan, told Ibn Jubayr that as soon as a Christian Ifranjiyya (Frank) concubine entered his palace, the Muslim concubines converted her to their faith. Most of the king’s men were Muslims who followed the Islamic laws. Out of religious duty, they purchased back Muslims enslaved for their faith, but they could not help their fellow Muslims in the countryside, whose lot was to him pitiful. At Messina Ibn Jubayr met one of the king’s prominent officials, Abd al-Masih [The Servant of Christ], a crypto-Muslim who lamented being in bondage to a kafir (infidel) king, despite having taken a Christian name and professed the Christian faith.8 Ibn Jubayr says that if the hour of prayer arrives while they are attending the king’s council, the Muslims leave his presence one by one to perform their prayer.9 They keep some traces of their faith. They have their mosques and call the faithful to prayer in a loud voice. They have their own enclaves, where they live apart from the Christians. They have their own judge, who looks into their legal matters. But they have been prevented from performing the Friday prayer, although they observe the feast prayer and mention the name of the ruling Abbasid caliph in the sermon. They have numerous masjids with Quranic schools. Despite their freedom of religion and the fact that they have so far maintained their Muslim identity, Ibn Jubayr does not seem too optimistic about their condition. He says they are generally estranged from their brethren in other Muslim countries and are under the protection of the kuffar (infidel Christians). Smith, 52. Rihlat Ibn Jubayr (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1964), 297–298. 8 Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 299. 9 Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 300. 6 7

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

237

They have no security regarding their possessions, their children, or their women.10 While in Trapani, Ibn Jubayr observed the Christians’ oppressive treatment of the Muslims. He mentions Ibn Zur’a, who converted to Christianity and became quite strong in the knowledge of the Gospel, but had to conceal his Muslim religion11 He cites al-Qa’id al-Qasim ibn Hammud, the chief of an island near Trapani, who apparently was disgraced and forced to leave by William II, whom Ibn Jubayr calls “the Tyrant.” The king confiscated his possessions and fined him over 30,000 dinars. Ibn Hammud voiced the wish that he and his household could be sold and sent to Muslim lands, just to be saved from his suffering. Moved by his story, Ibn Jubayr prayed to Allah to save this man and all the Muslims of the island, saying they parted in tears. Evidently, the Christians believed that if Ibn Hammud embraced Christianity, the other Muslims would follow. Another Muslim dignitary asked one of Ibn Jubayr’s companions to marry his pubescent daughter and take her to a Muslim country, and the man agreed.12 Ibn Jubayr says that if a husband fought with his wife or a mother became angry with her daughter, one party might turn to the church for conciliation, embrace Christianity, and be baptized. Muslim leaders were afraid that the Muslims of Sicily, like those of Crete, would gradually be converted.13 They were under great pressure. If a Muslim man had sex with a Christian woman, he was fined or beaten. But if a Christian violated a Muslim woman or child, he could go free, by claiming that he was trying to convert the Muslims to Christianity or exact a large sum of money from them.14 Ibn Jubayr’s narrative makes clear that the Muslims were not merely living in lamentable conditions but losing ground to Christianity. It is not far-fetched to say that Islam in Sicily was doomed. Whereas the Christians once had been dhimmis (second-class citizens) under the mercy and protection of their Muslim lords, now the Muslims were subjects of their former slaves. Since the Quran clearly presented the Muslims as the best people ever produced, masters of the peoples they had vanquished, it was extremely difficult for them to accept subjugation by non-Muslims. Indeed, it is very hard for a devout Muslim who adheres to the Quran and the Shari’a Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 305–306. Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 313. 12 Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 314–316. 13 Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, 315. 14 Amari, 3: 543; Ahmad, History, 74. 10 11

238

THE CRUSADES

to function in a non-Muslim society, especially a Christian society.. Thus, the Muslim intellectuals realized that the only solution to their problem was to leave Sicily for other Muslim lands. Whatever tolerance the Norman kings of the house of Hauteville may have shown toward the Muslims changed drastically when William II died childless at thirty-six in 1189. His official heir was his aunt Constance, the daughter of Roger II and wife of the Hohenstaufen King Henry (later Emperor Henry VI). The barons at first were obliged to swear allegiance to Constance, but later, led by Matthew of Ajello, supported Tancred of Lecce, the illegitimate son of Duke Roger of Apulia. Another faction, led by Archbishop Walter of Palermo and many nobles, favored King Henry, hoping to prevent a foreign invasion or civil war. In January 1190 Tancred became the last Norman king of Sicily, chosen by an assembly of clergymen and nobles; the people of Palermo preferred a Norman rather than a German king. He also had the support of the papacy, since the popes wanted to avoid encirclement of their state by a united Germany and Italy. Around this time a civil war broke out, accompanied by a popular uprising against the Muslims, who plainly defied assimilation. They still held large amounts of property and maintained their religion and social customs. The Sicilians envied them their prominent jobs in the government and were offended by their unfamiliar faith and dress. Perhaps 100,000 Muslim men, women, and children fled to the mountains; many others, including merchants and artisans of Palermo, went to Africa. Sicily’s farming regions saw their population dwindle, and the rich suburban gardens that had astonished Ibn Jubayr ten years earlier were destroyed. Although Tancred brought back some Muslim refugees who won his trust and found jobs, good relations between the Muslims and the Christians were gone forever.15 Tancred died in 1194, a few days after his son Roger III; his wife Sibylla became regent, as his son William III was under age. The barrier to Emperor Henry VI’s seizing power in Sicily was now removed; he had only a woman and an infant to contend with. On November 22, he entered Palermo, and Tancred’s second son and heir, William III, disappeared with his mother, probably into a German or Italian prison.16 Believing he had every right to the throne of Sicily, which he considered an extension of Germany, Henry crowned himself king on Christmas Day 1194. Thus the Norman Smith, 45–46. Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 439. Chalandon, The Norman Kingdom, 203, says that Henry may have caused William III to be mutilated, or perhaps he became a monk. 15 16

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

239

rule of Sicily ended and the Swabian era began. Under King Henry VI, the Muslims suffered yet more misfortune. Having no protection against the barons and feudal lords, they were driven from the towns and villages and again took to the mountains, where they became brigands. Gradually, the Latin element of Sicily’s population became dominant. The days of the Muslims’ presence on the island were numbered, but their persecution went on.17 The death of Henry VI in 1197 at Messina, as he was about to invade the Holy Land, led to anarchy and riots. This was an inauspicious beginning for his son and successor, Frederick II, who assumed full power when he came of age in 1208. His first act was to restore peace and tranquility to Sicily. Though he was proclaimed emperor in 1219 and supported Arab culture, the Muslims saw little point in submitting to him. They lived in poverty; as the Muslim court eunuchs disappeared, Muslim farmers and villeins acquired new Christian masters. Seeing themselves as a minority targeted for oppression, they soon revolted. As the rebels gathered strength (their numbers were estimated at 25,000 to 30,000), they captured castles and villages. They seized Girgenti to keep contact with the Muslims in North Africa, converted its cathedral into a barracks, and kept its bishop prisoner for a year. They even pillaged a leper hospital near Palermo.18 Unfortunately, these bandits were exploited by politicians, especially German barons who had much to gain from chaos and rebellion.19 By 1221, Frederick had managed to restore order and tranquility to most of Sicily, but three years later the Muslims rose again in rebellion and were driven to the mountains. This time he decided to solve the Muslim problem once and for all by transporting those Muslims who had surrendered—about 16,000 all told— to Lucera in Apulia, on the Italian mainland. Since the rebels were receiving aid from North Africa, he sent a naval force there and sacked the town of Jerba. He established two smaller Muslim colonies on the mainland, at Girofalo and Nocera. In 1243, the very few Muslims remaining in Sicily rose in rebellion but were starved into submission and deported like the others to Lucera.20

Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 439; Ahmad, History, 74–75. Amari, 3: 604–608; Smith, 51–52; Ahmad, History, 83. 19 Smith, 52. 20 Amari, 3: 627–629; Smith, 59–60; Ahmad, History, 86. 17 18

240

THE CRUSADES

Denis Mack Smith maintains that Frederick II turned against the Sicilian Muslims not because of their religion but because they were rebels.21 Nevertheless, the transportation of the rebels to mainland Italy can be interpreted as an effort to liquidate the Muslim presence in Sicily. Frederick is known for his rationalism and rejection of some Christian dogma, especially the Trinity, which made him an arch-heretic in the eyes of Rome. He had no quarrel with the Muslims and their faith, but was eager to discover the truth. In his correspondence with the Muslim savant of Seville, Ibn Sab’in, which came to be known as the “Sicilian Questions,” Frederick, obviously sarcastically, asked what truth there was in Islam and what became of the houris of the Muslim paradise when they become old.22 In a rather doleful tone, the Muslim writer Aziz Ahmad says about Frederick II’s deportation of Muslims to the Italian mainland, “It is an irony of history that this end was brought about by an emperor who was a great admirer of Islamic intellectual and material culture, and was in many ways involved in it personally.”23 But we must not forget that at heart Frederick was a Latin, the heir to a kingdom which was part of Latin Europe. By culture he was a Christian, not a Muslim. Like the former kings of Sicily, he patronized both the Byzantines and the Muslims. But given the state of affairs in Europe, with the church, the Cluniacs, and the Cistercians looking at the Muslims as invaders and usurpers of Christian territory, Sicily, like Spain, had to be set free from Muslim domination. The fate of the Muslims deported to Lucera was sealed. They would have to convert to Christianity or suffer expulsion. Some of them converted to Christianity and were given positions of trust, even though they retained some of their Arabic identity. Finally, in August 1300 the Muslim colony of Lucera was destroyed by the order of Charles II of Anjou, and the Islamic presence in Sicily and Italy forever vanished.24 As in Spain, the triumph of Christianity over Islam was inevitable, although in the view of some writers the Spanish Catholics were intolerant whereas the Normans were generally tolerant and assimilative.25 Religion played a decisive role in both cases. The Church of Rome, with the Cluniacs in the forefront, was determined to clear the Muslims from Europe. As we saw earlier, the Christianization of the Muslims was not the church’s princiSmith, 60. Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 452–453. 23 Ahmad, History, 86. 24 Ahmad, History, 105–106. 25 Ahmad, History, 68. 21 22

THE CONQUEST OF SICILY

241

pal objective. The main idea, as Erdmann has rightly stated, was that the Christian people of Sicily should not live in servitude, that Christianity should govern there, and that Christian observance should be restored to its former splendor. Still more significant, the Muslims were looked upon as intruders who had no right to the lands. This motivation, Erdmann emphasizes, was no different from that of the First Crusade.26 Indeed, in many aspects the campaign in Sicily was a crusade before the Crusades. This takes us back to the brilliant observation by that most erudite Arab historian Ibn al-Athir, who prophetically linked the reconquest of Spain and Roger I’s consummation of the occupation of Sicily in 1091 with the march of the Franks against the East in 1097.27 It is no coincidence that the Franks, who fought alongside the Spanish, and the Normans, who controlled Sicily, also took the lead in the First Crusade, fighting the Muslims in the East.

26 27

Erdmann, Origin, 134; Metcalfe, Mulsims and Christians, 174–187. Athir, al-Kamil, 189–190.

8 FALSE START: THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE After Pope Urban II launched the Crusades at Clermont, thousands of people, high and low, clergy and laymen, responded with tremendous enthusiasm. Their cry, “It is the Will of God!” was evidence of their religious fervor and devotion to the church. The pope’s call to deliver Jerusalem from the infidels’ hands urged them to challenge the Turks and Persians, Arabs and Saracens, who have seized Antioch, Nicaea and Jerusalem itself, which is glorified by Christ’s sepulcher, and many other cities peopled by Christians, and have turned their own power against the empire of the Greeks. They have already dominated Palestine and Syria, destroying churches and butchering the Christians like sheep. In churches where the divine sacrifice was once celebrated by the faithful, the [Muslims] now stable their horses, introducing their superstition and idolatries, and have shamefully expelled the Christian religion from the temple dedicated to God.1

Such inflammatory words were sufficient to arouse the excitement of the children of the church. But the pope’s speech transcended the limits of Clermont, extending to all the provinces of the continent and reaching all those who had heard the name of Christ, even on distant islands or in savage countries. In the words of William of Malmesbury, The Welshman left his hunting, the Scot left his fellowship with vermin, the Dane his drinking party, the Norwegian his raw fish. Lands were deserted of their husbandmen, houses were [emptied] of their inhabitants, even whole cities migrated. There was no regard to relationship, affec1 Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 66; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 17; Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 66.

243

244

THE CRUSADES tion to their country was held in little esteem, God alone was placed before their eyes . . . They hungered and thirsted after Jerusalem alone.2

The anonymous writer of the Gesta Francorum seems more restrained in saying that the words of Pope Urban II were reported abroad through all the duchies and counties of the Frankish lands.3 Similarly, Guibert of Nogent said that when the council held at Clermont was over and the great news spread through all the parts of France, whoever heard the news of the Pontiff’s decree urged his neighbors and family to undertake the proposed “path of God”—that is, to march to Jerusalem.4 The people’s response to the pope’s message was so strong that Fulcher of Chartres wrote, “What then shall I say? The islands of the seas and all the kingdoms of the earth were so moved that one believed the prophecy of David fulfilled, who said in his Psalm, ‘All the nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord.” (Psalms 85:9)5 When Pope Urban spoke at Clermont, he addressed all people, without distinction between lords and peasants. To him, all those who heard him were “the salt of the earth” and “the sons of God,” who would hasten to carry aid to their brethren in the East. He made clear what their reward would be: “I address those present; I proclaim it to those absent; moreover Christ commands it . . . for all of those going thither (to Jerusalem) there will be remission of sins.”6 But he excused some from making the journey: men who were unable to fight, women without husbands and legal guardians, and clerics without the consent of their superiors. The pope directed those laymen who decided to join the Crusade to receive their priests’ bless-

2 William of Malmesbury, 416; Otto of Freising, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146 A. D., trans. Charles Christopher Mierow (New York: Octagon Books, 1966), 405–406. For more on the response of the lay people to the First Crusade see Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay People Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony 970–1130 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 250–281. 3 Gesta Francorum, trans. Rosalind Hill as The Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), 2. 4 Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, trans. Robert Levine as The Deeds of God through the Franks (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), 45. 5 Fulcher of Chartres, History, 73. 6 Fulcher of Chartres, History, 65–66; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 92.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

245

ings.7 In so doing, he postulated some qualifications of a crusader.8 Finally, he gave directives to those who determined to join the crusades. He told them that nothing should delay them from marching. He advised them to set their affairs in order, collect money, and when winter ended and spring had come, zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord.9 The Crusaders who marched to Jerusalem included courtly nobility, middle-class knights, and humble peasants. William of Tyre says no one could be prevented from undertaking the journey. No one in the West gave any consideration to age or sex, status or condition. This was, he says, a fulfillment of what was written in the apocryphal Book of Tobit, that to “Jerusalem, the holy city, many nations shall come from far . . . with gifts in their hands . . . ; all generations shall praise thee with great joy. They shall hold your hand in consecration, invoking in you a great name.”10 Overwhelmed by religious zeal, the peasants marched first in 1096, followed the next year by an organized military crusade. There were five expeditions of participants from the lower classes of Western society which, taken together, are generally called the “Peasants’ Crusade” or “Popular Crusade”, in contradistinction to the Seigneurial Crusade, i.e., the Crusade of the knights and nobles.11 These bands, including those of Walter the Penniless, Folcmar, Gottschalk, and Emico, were all led by Peter the Hermit.12 The Latin sources are not consistent on the number of participants in the Peasants’ Crusade. Fulcher of Chartres says, “A multitude came from all Western countries; little by little and day by day the army grew while on the march, from a numberless host into a group of armies.”13 William of Malmesbury sets their number at six million, “which surpassed all human imagination.”14 Frederic Duncalf says the chroniclers have “ridiculously exaggerated” the number of those who responded to the call of Pope UrRobert the Monk, Historia Iherosolymitana, in R. H. C. Occ., 3: 729. See Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 25–46. 9 Fulcher of Chartres, History, 67. 10 Tobit, 13: 11, 14–15, in William of Tyre, History, 1: 93–94. 11 James A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 24. 12 Frederic Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” The American Historical Review 26 (1921): 440. 13 Fulcher of Chartres, History, 73. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 46, mentions only “masses of poor people.” 14 William of Malmesbury, 416. 7 8

246

THE CRUSADES

ban II.15 Some writers say from 70,000 to 100,000 made the journey to Constantinople in 1096 and 1097, while others set the number at 200,000 souls.16 Aflame with desire, and without considering their scanty resources or how to dispose of their homes, vineyards, and fields, the poor set out on the march. Albert of Aachen attributes the massing of so many people to the powerful preaching of Peter the Hermit. He says a great number of people of all sorts responded to his constant urging and call, including bishops, abbots, clerics, monks, nobles, laymen, and princes. Among them were the sinful: adulterers, murderers, thieves, perjurers, robbers, and every class of those who professed the Christian faith, including women and those influenced by the desire for penance.17 The general belief is that these people were disorderly, misguided and unprepared rustics.18 Ekkehard of Aura condemns the peasants as the product of folly, ignorance and the devil, calling them the chaff while praising the organized Crusaders as the wheat.19 To the careful scholar Reinhold Röhricht, these people were like bad boys, hordes of peasants and folks from every walk of life, without dis-

15 Frederic Duncalf, “The First Crusade: Clermont to Constantinople,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969) 1: 255. 16 Steven Runciman, “The First Crusade: Journey Across the Balkan Peninsula,” Byzantion 19 (1949): 220–221; Thomas Forester, trans., Ordericus Vitalis, 3: 77, n. 2. 17 Albert of Aachen (Albertus Aquensis), Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Emendatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, R. H. C. Occ. 4, in A. C. Krey, The First Crusade, 48–53. For a thorough analysis of the historical validity and judgment of Albert of Aachen see, Susan Edgington, “The First Crusade: Reviewing the Evidence,” in The First Crusade, Jonathan Phillips, ed., (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 55–77; Colin Morris, “The Aims and Spirituality of the First Crusade as Seen Through the Eyes of Albert of Aachen,” in Reading Medieval Studies 16 (1990): 99–117 esp. 103–105 on Peter the Hermit. Edgington has written The Historia Iherosolimitana of Albert of Aix: A Critical Edition, (Ph.D thesis, London, 1991, and an English translation of the Chronicle of Albert of Aachen, still in manuscript form. In her message dated December 2, 2000 Edgington informed me that this translation was in the hands of Oxford Medieval Texts awaiting publication. 18 Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 440. 19 Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, ed. Hagenmeyer (Tübingen, 1877), 119–122, 130–133; Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 441.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

247

cipline and order, without horses or weapons of any kind.20 But in fact the peasants were as prepared as the organized armies of the Crusaders.21 As Pope Urban II had directed, everyone, whether noble or peasant, had to be equipped and ready to make the journey. Guibert of Nogent says the poor did prepare for the journey to Jerusalem, often selling their belongings at low prices to unscrupulous and greedy wealthy men.22 But the circumstances before their departure were dismal. Food was scarce at the time, and these poor, hapless people had to sell whatever they had to get money to buy provisions for the journey. It was a miraculous sight, he says. Everyone bought high and sold low. Whatever could be used on the journey was expensive. The poor peasants sold cheaply whatever they had, so as not to be late in setting out on the path of God. Others who had no desire to make the Crusade ridiculed the poor, saying they were going on a miserable journey and would return even more miserable. But when they saw their zeal, they had a change of heart and, abandoning their goods, set out with those at whom they had laughed.23 The multitude of peasants included not only men but boys, women, virgins, and the infirm. Although everyone sang of battle, the people did not all intend to fight. Their objective was Jerusalem, and they were ready to offer their necks to the sword and receive martyrdom. And if the young men among them were to fight, they would do so in support of Christ.24 Such was the religious zeal of these peasants, and such was their love for Jerusalem; there is no reason to doubt that the motivation of these Crusaders was primarily religious. Indeed, whenever small children in the group came upon a castle or city, they asked whether it was Jerusalem, their destiny. They had “the desire to emulate God, but not the knowledge,” but because of their good intention God prepared salvation for their simple souls, says Guibert of Nogent, noting wryly that some of the peasants tied their cattle to two-wheel carts, armed as though they were horses, and carR. Röhricht, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), 35, and Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kruezzüge, 2 (Berlin, 1874–1878): 26; Heinrich Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite: Ein kritische Beitrag zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1879), 172; Theodore Wolff, Die Bauernkreuzzüge des Jahres 1096 (Tübingen, 1891), 66. 21 Duncalf, “Peasants’ Crusade,” 440–442. 22 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 46. 23 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 46–47. 24 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 47. 20

248

THE CRUSADES

ried their scanty possessions along with their children in the wagons.25 What little they had was sufficient for these sincere people, hoping to reach the holy city. Many of them were unarmed, expecting to overwhelm the Muslims by the direct intervention of God rather than by the use of earthly weapons. But they met with disaster.26 The most prominent leader of the Peasants’ Crusade was Peter the Hermit, whom Ordericus Vitalis also calls Peter of Acheri (Achères); he came from a diocese of Amiens but was a native of Picardy.27 He was long credited with originating the Crusades; Walter Besant and E. H. Palmer call him “the preacher and the main cause of the First Crusade.”28 He was a preacher but not the cause of the First Crusade. (The first writer to dispel this notion was Heinrich von Sybel in 1841, followed by Heinrich Hagenmeyer in Peter der Eremite: Ein kritische Beitrag zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges.)29 Indeed, we hear little of him until Clermont, which he probably attended.30 He remains a controversial figure; his surname “the Hermit” does not indicate that he was a monk or that he was an austere cenobite who, disgusted with mankind, retreated from the world.31 Nor is it likely that he was called the “Hermit” because he habitually wore a cape.32 Anna Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 47. Walter Porges, “The Clergy, the Poor, and the Non-Combatants on the First Crusade,” in The Crusades: Motives and Achievements, J. A. Brundage, ed. (Lexington, MA, 1964), 43. 27 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 75, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 29; Albert of Aachen, in Krey, The First Crusade, 48–53; William of Tyre, History, 1: 82. 28 Walter Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, The City of Herod and Saladin (London: Chatto and Windus, 1899), 155. 29 For more on this subject see E. O. Blake and Colin Morris, “A Hermit Goes to War: Peter the Origins of the First Crusade,” Studies in Church History 22 (1985): 70–107; M. D. Coupe, “Peter the Hermit–Reassessment,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 31 (1987): 37–45; Colin Morris, “Peter the Hermit and the Chroniclers,” in The First Crusade, J.Phillips, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 21–34; Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 102. 30 William of Tyre, History, 1: 82. 31 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 47; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 75, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 29. Joseph F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robson, 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1973): 41; Norman Cohn, “The Pursuit of Millennium,” partially reproduced in Brundage, ed., The Crusades: Motives and Achievement, 34–41. 32 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 113. 25 26

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

249

Comnena says that Peter was a certain Frank nicknamed Cucupeter [Peter of the Cowl], but does not refer to him as a Hermit.33 William of Tyre says Peter “was known both in fact and in name as the Hermit” but does not explain why.34 Strangely enough, Peter simply took a family name; his father Renaud (Reginald) bore the name l’Ermite before him, and it was preserved by his descendants.35 In fact, several noble families in France adopted the surname l’Ermite, perhaps hoping to establish a connection with Peter, who became a celebrated figure.36 Thomas Forester says that when Peter took an active part in the First Crusades, he was 43 years old and probably married.37 Hagenmeyer, citing some sources of doubtful authenticity, says Peter was married to a noble woman, Beatrice of Roussy, and had two children, a son named Peter and a daughter named Alice.38 But William of Tyre and the Jewish chronicler Solomon bar Simon make Peter a priest.39 Peter was known for his piety, his generosity to the poor, and his concern for prostitutes, whom he reformed and made respectable. He endeavored to establish peace among people who had known only discord before. In this respect, says Guibert of Nogent, whatever Peter did or said was almost divine. Because of his piety, common people coveted even the hairs of his mule as if they were relics.40 Guibert elaborates on the ascetic life of Peter the Hermit: he wore a woolen cloak that covered his upper body and a bit of his arms, but his feet were bare. He drank wine and ate fish but rarely took bread. His ascetic life was coupled with his powerful preaching of Pope Urban’s message about the 33 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 248. 34 William of Tyre, History, 1: 82. 35 Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 24. 36 Forester, ed., Ordericus Vitalis, 3: 75, n. 2. 37 Forester, ed., Ordericus Vitalis, 3: 75, n. 2. 38 Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 25. 39 William of Tyre, History, 1: 82; “The Chronicle of Solomon bar Simon,” in The Jews and the Crusaders: The Hebrew Chronicle of the First and Second Crusades, Shlomo Eidelberg, trans. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977), 62. The narrative attributed to Solomon bar Simon, a pericope of a larger chronicle written at Speyer in the twelfth century, also appears in Robert Ghazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (Berkeley, 1987), 243–261. Although Pope Gregory in 1075 had interdicted married priests from saying mass, celibacy was not established until the First Lateran Council in 1123. 40 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 48.

250

THE CRUSADES

Crusades.41 William of Tyre says of his activity, “Urban promised on the word of Him (Jesus Christ) whose servant he was that as opportunity offered, he would assist him in the mission on which he had come.”42 Due partly to his reputation and partly to his preaching, he assembled a sizable army and decided to march through the land of the Hungarians to reach Jerusalem.43 According to William of Tyre, while Peter was in Jerusalem on a pilgrimage, he went to the Church of Resurrection and spent a whole night in devotion. Deep in slumber, he saw the Lord Jesus in a vision urging him to arise and hasten to do without fear the task with which He had entrusted him. The Lord told Peter it was time that the holy places were purged and His servants aided. Peter awoke and immediately boarded a ship bound for Apulia, where he met with Pope Urban II and presented him with a letter from Simeon, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Peter, “kindled with enthusiasm from on high,” began to preach in Italy, across the Alps, and to each of the princes of the West.44 Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexius I, gives an account of Peter’s preaching and his call to deliver Jerusalem from the Hagarenes [Muslims]. She says the effort by masses of peasants to recover the Holy Sepulcher resulted from Peter’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After going there to worship and suffering many wrongs at the hands of the Saracens and Turks who had ravaged Asia, he became angry and wanted to make the pilgrimage again. Not wishing to undertake the journey alone, he worked out a clever plan to preach to all Latin countries: the voice of God had urged him to announce to all the counts in France that they should leave their homes, set out to worship at the Holy Sepulcher, and strive wholeheartedly to recover Jerusalem from the hands of the Hagarenes. With this quasi-divine command, Peter succeeded in assembling the Franks from all sides with arms, horses, and other paraphernalia. The Frankish force, including women and children, resembled rivers moving toward the Byzantine province of Dacia.45 With a band of thousands of followers including townsmen, nobles, and even some knights, Peter the Hermit began his pilgrimage to the Holy 41 Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 442, says, “It is even possible that he was definitely commissioned to preach by Urban II.” 42 William of Tyre, History, 1: 86–87. 43 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 48. 44 William of Tyre, History, 1: 82, 84–85, 87; Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 62– 64. 45 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 248–249.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

251

Land in March 1096. In his company were Walter of Poissi, with his nephews, Walter Sans-Avoir (the Penniless), William Simon and Matthew, and other gallant French knights. He reached Cologne the Saturday before Easter, April 12, and remained there for Holy Week. 46 The people of Cologne mocked the would-be Crusaders, but this fact did not distract Peter the Hermit from his good work.47 He preached to the Germans and won 15,000 of them over to the Lord’s cause, including two powerful counts, Berthold and Hildiberi, and a bishop who proceeded with him through Germany and Hungary. But while he tarried at Cologne, preaching God’s word and recruiting more followers, the proud, impatient Frenchmen refused to wait for him.48 Committing themselves to the leadership of Walter the Penniless, they left Cologne on April 15, 1096 for the Holy Land. Peter then followed Walter’s band, and the two groups finally reunited in Hungary.49 These accounts indicate that the followers of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless were well received in Germany. They were orderly and caused no trouble to the German citizens, especially the Jews. The Jewish chronicler Solomon bar Simon says that when Peter, whom he calls Petron, arrived at Trier accompanied by many men “on his crooked path” to Jerusalem, he carried with him a letter from the Jews of France, evidently addressed to the Jews in Germany. The letter enjoined the German Jews to furnish Peter and his men with provisions in the Jewish areas they might pass through because “he would speak kindly of Israel – for he was a priest and his words would be heeded.” Solomon bar Simon adds that the Jews of Trier gave assistance to the priest Peter, and he continued on his way. After Peter and Walter had left Germany, however, the persecution of the Jews began in earnest, as we shall see later.50 William of Tyre says Walter Sans-Avoir undertook the march at the command of Peter the Hermit.51 Accompanying him were his uncle Walter of Poissi, his brothers William and Simon, and Matthew and other gallant

Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forster, 3: 75–76, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 29. Cohn, “The Pursuit,” 40–52; also in Brundage, The Crusades, 34–41, esp. 36. 48 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 76, and trans. Chinball, 5: 29, esp. n. 7. 49 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, The First Crusade, 48–52; also in Brundage, ed., 25. 50 Eidelberg, The Jews, 62, also in Ghazan, European Jewry, 243–261; Régine Pernoud, ed., The Crusades, trans. Enid McLeod (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1963), 29. 51 William of Tyre, History, 1: 99. 46 47

252

THE CRUSADES

French knights.52 Albert of Aachen, the first to write about this series of events, says that Walter, surnamed the Penniless, a well-known soldier, set out as a result of the preaching of Peter the Hermit with a great company of Frankish foot soldiers and only eight knights and entered Hungary. When King Coloman, the strongly Christian ruler of Hungary, learned the reason for Walter’s journey, he received him kindly, granted him peaceful transit across his entire realm, and offered him permission to trade.53 Walter and his forces went through Hungary en route to Belgrade in Bulgaria without trouble and reached Maleville (Semlin), where the realm of the king of Hungary ends. As soon as they crossed the Morava (now called the Morawa or Save River, which separates Belgrade from Semlin), their troubles began. Sixteen of Walter’s company apparently stayed behind in Maleville to buy arms without his knowledge. Some Hungarians seized them and robbed them of their garments, gold, and silver, leaving them naked. The men finally reached Belgrade and told Walter about their misfortune. He did not seek revenge, but tried to buy provisions from the magistrate of Belgrade; when he refused to supply them on the grounds that they were spies, Walter and his men seized cattle and sheep grazing in the meadows. A serious battle ensued between the Bulgarians and Walter’s men, some of whom became cut off from the main body and sought refuge in a church. The Bulgarians laid siege to the church and burned it, killing sixty of Walter’s men. Walter, unable to oppose the Bulgarians, left his men scattered everywhere. He and his force managed to reach the wealthy city of Nish, where he reported his misfortune to Niketas, the duke and prince of the city. Niketas offered Walter arms, money, and provisions, but kept him in the city while awaiting instructions from the emperor in Constantinople (Alexius I Comnenus) as to what to do with him. The emperor, who had thought the Crusaders would not leave the West before the Feast of the Assumption, asked Niketas to send Walter on with an escort. Niketas gave Walter and his men safe conduct through the Bulgarian cities of Sofia, Philippopolis (Plovdiv),

52 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 302, trans. Chibnall, 5: 347, refers to William and Simon as brothers of Walter Sans-Avoir. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 76, does not identify this group or its leaders but says that Coloman, King of the Magyars (Hungary), was friendly towards them and supplied them with provisions. 53 Albert of Aachen, quoted in Krey, 48, Brundage, 26, Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam (Leyden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 104; William of Tyre, History, 1: 97.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

253

and Adrianople, and a license to buy provisions.54 Crossing the Danube, they traveled through Bulgaria and arrived in Cappadocia, where they waited till they were joined by Peter the Hermit and his band, who were followed closely by the Germans.55 William of Tyre reports that Walter the Penniless and his force came at last to Stralicia (probably modern Sofia, known under the Byzantines as Triaditza), where he complained to the city’s governor about his misfortune. The governor, a God-fearing Christian man, treated Walter kindly and agreed to sell him provisions at moderate prices, and furnished guides to escort him all the way to Constantinople. The passage from Bulgaria to Constantinople had one major incident: Walter of Poissi died in July 1096 at Philippopolis, and the sign of the cross was found on his body. When the governor, the bishop, and the citizens heard of this marvel, they came out of the gates and carried Walter’s body into the city, where they buried it with great reverence.56 By mid-July Walter the Penniless, at the head of two or three thousand French peasants, reached Constantinople and was introduced to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, who granted him permission to station his army near the capital and the right to purchase provisions until Peter the Hermit arrived.57 Shortly afterwards, Peter the Hermit and his men, who Albert of Aachen says were as numerous as the sands of the sea (William of Tyre set their number at 40,000), left Cologne on April 19, 1096, and after traversing Germany and Austria reached the borders of Hungary.58 Peter sent a message to the king of Hungary and obtained permission to pass through his realm, on the condition that he and his men would cause no trouble. He and his force advanced to Maleville where they learned that sixteen of Walter’s men had been hung on the city walls. Peter could not believe that such a heinous crime could be committed by the Hungarians, who were fellow Christians. But when his men saw their comrades’ arms and personal effects hanging on the walls, he urged them to avenge their brothers. They stormed the city; most of the inhabitants were either killed or drowned in the nearby river. About 4,000 Hungarians lost their lives, while Peter lost only a hunAlbert of Aachen, in Krey, 49; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 1: 123. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 76, trans. Chibnall, 5: 29. 56 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 77, trans.Chibnall, 5: 31; Duncalf, “The First Crusade,” 1: 260. 57 William of Tyre, History, 1: 98–99; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 1: 123; Duncalf, “The First Crusade,” 1: 281. 58 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 50; William of Tyre, History, 1: 99. 54 55

254

THE CRUSADES

dred of his men. The incident outraged the king of Hungary, who gathered a formidable force to seek revenge. Peter had already left Maleville, planning to cross the Morava into Bulgaria, but could not find enough boats to carry his men, cattle, and provisions. Some of his men began building rafts to cross the river. Attacked by Pechenegs (Turkish mercenaries), they sank seven Pecheneg boats and took seven captives. They led them to Peter and, at his command, killed them in his presence.59 Then Peter’s men crossed the Morava into the woods of Bulgaria, taking with them an ample supply of food and the spoils from Belgrade. After waiting eight days, they crossed the stone bridge over the river and approached Nish, a strongly fortified city. Niketas, the city’s governor, who had refused to deal with Walter the Penniless, did not trust Peter and his men. After hearing about the atrocities they had committed in Maleville, he feared they would do the same to his citizens. Having little confidence in his ability to defend the city, he and the inhabitants fled into the secret recesses of the thick forest. Meanwhile Peter and his companions, suddenly faced with a great shortage of food, sent a message asking Niketas to provide food under good conditions and at a just price “for the pilgrim people . . . following divine command.” Niketas agreed, on condition that Peter should offer him hostages and that no injuries should be inflicted on his people or on those who managed the market. Both sides accepted this condition; the following morning the hostages were given, whereupon the city residents came out of their hiding places, bringing their merchandise with them. After friendship was established and Peter’s followers obtained abundant food, Niketas returned the hostages and the Crusaders were again on the march.60 Another ugly incident disturbed the peace between the Bulgarians and the Crusaders. After the Crusaders began leaving, about a hundred Teuton troublemakers set fire to several mills and the homes of some citizens outside the city walls, then hastened to rejoin the departing force as if nothing untoward had happened. Outraged by these unwarranted crimes, Niketas urged the townspeople of the city to arm. He himself led the attack against the Crusaders, who had already left. Before reaching the main force, the people of Nish came upon some of the malefactors and killed them. In the course of events, some innocent people became victims. The pursuers apparently encountered the rear of Peter’s force, seized their wagons, and 59 60

Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 51. William of Tyre, History, 1: 100–101; Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 142–146.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

255

bound and led away old men and women, boys and girls who could not keep up with the rest of the force. Peter, far away at the head of the marching force, was unaware of these events. When a messenger suddenly came galloping to inform him of the calamity, he and his men turned back to the scene of the massacre and saw personally the scattered bodies of their comrades. Peter refrained from taking revenge, which would worsen the situation, preferring peaceful methods to solve the problem. He sent messengers to the governor of the city, Niketas, who investigated the incident and concluded that the inhabitants of the city had acted with cause in taking up arms. The messengers tried to bring about peace, in order that their comrades might continue their journey unmolested. But some reckless individuals in Peter’s camp, in their passion to avenge the wrong their comrades had sustained, compounded the problem. Trying to stop the mob from attacking Bulgarian citizens and avoid another massacre, Peter sent word to all his forces urging them not to join or deal with the disobedient and reckless men. Unfortunately, the men did not heed his peaceful advice. His messengers returned to help calm the situation, but to no avail. Fighting the Bulgarians was inevitable, and a mighty battle took place before the city of Nish. Many people on both sides lost their lives, and the massacre was worse than the one before. Peter’s entire army fled, and the Bulgarians seized the wagons with most of the booty they had collected. Not satisfied with looting, they pursued Peter’s force and killed almost 10,000 Crusaders, carrying off many women and children as prisoners. Many of Peter’s comrades sought shelter in the dense forest. But they were called by the sound of the trumpet and gathered around Peter, along with those who had escaped with him to the hills. Finally, Peter managed to rally his scattered forces and prepared to resume the march. They pursued their journey under great difficulties. Addressing them publicly, Peter told them that news of their conduct and the trouble they had brought upon his subjects by stirring up quarrels had reached the emperor in Constantinople. If they hoped to find favor in the eye of his majesty, they should not remain in any of his cities more than three days. He himself would lead the expedition speedily to Constantinople under control and would buy food at just prices. Having duly admonished his forces, Peter led the expedition and reached Constantinople on August 1, 1096, less than two weeks after Walter the Penniless.61 According to Albert of Aachen, Emperor Alexius sent a message urging Peter to hasten to 61

William of Tyre, History, 1: 102–105.

256

THE CRUSADES

Constantinople because of reports he had received about the conduct of his men. When they reached Constantinople, Peter’s army was ordered to encamp at a distance from the city, and was granted a license to trade and buy food.62 Enthusiasm for the crusade continued in Germany after Walter the Penniless and Peter the Hermit marched through Europe, but without the organization and support of the papacy. Duncalf says that because of the struggle over investiture and the opposition of the anti-pope Guibert, who had been elevated by Henry IV against Pope Gregory VII, Pope Urban II did not include Germany in the crusade. Moreover, only three German bishops were loyal to the pope at that time.63 For this reason, three German leaders gathered people to follow in the footsteps of Walter and Peter. One of these was Folcmar, about whom we know little except through Ekkehard, who says a band followed him through Bohemia. When they reached the city of Neitra in Pannonia, an uprising took place (Ekkehard does not offer any cause); some of Folcmar’s followers were killed, others were taken prisoner. Those who survived testified that they were saved by a cross that appeared in the heavens and delivered them from death.64 Ekkehard says that Folcmar was followed by Gottschalk, a pseudoChristian who entered Hungary with his followers between May and July 1096. Feigning piety, he fortified a certain town with the intention of ravaging Pannonia. But the natives captured the town, killed many of Gottschalk’s followers, and took others prisoner. The rest were scattered about, and Gottschalk himself, “a hireling and not a true shepherd,” was driven away in disgrace.65 Albert of Aachen elaborates more on Gottschalk, calling him a priest, a Teuton in race, and an inhabitant of the Rhine country. Influenced by the preaching of Peter the Hermit, Gottschalk assembled a band of over 15,000 persons from various regions of Lorraine, eastern France, Bavaria, and Alemania to make the journey to Jerusalem. Upon their arrival at the fortress of Wieselburg in Hungary, King Coloman received them with alacrity and granted them permission to purchase provisions. But after they had tarried there for several days, the spirited Swabians and Bavarians and others began to drink heavily and violate the peace. Behaving without discipline or order, they began to ravage the region, taking Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 52; Gesta Francorum, 2–3. Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 447. 64 Ekkehard of Aura, in Krey, 53. 65 Ekkehard, in Krey, 53. 62 63

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

257

wine and grain from the Hungarians, devastating their fields, and killing their cattle and sheep. When Gottschalk heard of this, he lectured his men, and they agreed to surrender their arms to King Coloman to placate him. But no sooner had they done so than the Hungarians, treacherously violating the peace agreed upon by their king, slaughtered the Crusaders. The entire plain of Belgrade was filled by the bodies of the slain and covered with their blood.66 From the narrative of Albert of Aachen (whom William of Tyre follows) we learn that after Peter the Hermit assembled his band of followers and set out on his journey, other forces were formed in like fashion by Christians in France, England, Flanders, and Lorraine.67 These bands of Crusaders evidently had no leader or guide and marched along haphazardly, without foresight or wisdom. They included such men of noble birth as Thomas of La Fère, Clarebold of Vendeuil, William the Carpenter (Viscount of Melun and Gâtinais), Count Hermann (Hartman) of Dyllingen and Kyburg, Drogo of Nesle, and others. The impression one gets from William of Tyre is that they were lawless groups, running to and fro aimlessly.68 But if this was the case, why were these men of noble birth accompanying them? Would such prominent men march with a lawless group of ruffians, without a leader or a guide? This is not only confusing but illogical, unless we assume that these noblemen were the leaders. Albert of Aachen implicates some of these noblemen in crimes committed against the Jews by the members of the Peasants’ Crusade, stating, “with very great spoils taken from these people (the Jews), Count Emico, Clarebold, Thomas, and all that intolerable company of men and women continued on their way to Jerusalem.”69 Otto of Freising and William of Tyre blame Emico himself for the evil deeds of his followers and the crimes they committed against the Jews.70 William of Tyre has no doubt that Emico’s band and the noblemen with him, not the bands of Crusaders who preceded them, arose in a spirit of cruelty against the Jewish people and Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 52–53; William of Tyre, History, 1: 110–111. Although Belgrade lies in modern Serbia, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries it was at various times under the control of the Byzantine Empire, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 448, has identified Martinsberg as the place where the Hungarian king halted Gottschalk. 67 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 54. 68 William of Tyre, History, 1: 112–113. 69 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 55. 70 Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, 406; William of Tyre, History, 1: 113. 66

258

THE CRUSADES

slaughtered them mercilessly, especially in the kingdom of Lorraine. They did so because they believed that they were marching against all enemies of the Christian faith. The Jews of Cologne were the first victims. These socalled Crusaders fell upon a small group of Jews, killing some, wounding others, and destroying their homes and synagogues. About 200 Jews managed to escape under cover of darkness to Neuss. But they were discovered by these crusading bands, who took their belongings and slaughtered them.71 William of Tyre says that when these bands should have progressed with discipline imposed by the fear of God on the pilgrimage they were making for Christ’s sake, instead they cruelly massacred the Jewish people in the cities and towns through which they passed. The Jews had no idea these bands would persecute them.72 Then the great multitude arrived in Mainz, where the powerful Count Emico was awaiting their arrival with a large band of Teutons.73 The Jews of Mainz, who had heard about the slaughter of their brethren, sought refuge with Rothard, the city’s bishop. They deposited their treasures and money with him, and he sheltered some of them in his own home. But Emico and his followers attacked the bishop’s house, broke down the doors, and killed about 700 Jews, including women and children. Seeing that they had no way to escape death at the hands of these gangs, the Jews in desperation fell upon one another; brothers, sisters, children, and spouses perished at each other’s hands. Albert of Aachen paints a gruesome picture of this massacre. Mothers slit the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others with their own hands, lest they be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised (Christians). A few Jews managed to escape, while others were baptized, not out of love for the Christian faith but out of fear.74 The author of the Jewish source Mainz Anonymous calls Emico the chief of “our all oppressors” and voices a wish that “his bones may be ground to dust between iron millstones.” He says Emico showed no mercy to people young or old, to maidens, babes or sucklings, not even to the sick. He made “the people of the Lord (the Jews) like dust to be trodden underfoot, killing their young men by the sword and disemboweling their preg-

Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 54; William of Tyre, History, 1: 113. William of Tyre, History, 1: 113. 73 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 54; William of Tyre, History, 1: 113. 74 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 55. 71 72

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

259

nant women.”75 This heinous action is not surprising. Ekkehard, whose account corroborates the Jewish sources, calls Emico, count of the lands around the Rhine, “a man long of very ill repute on account of his tyrannical mode of life.”76 He was one of those religious zealots who believed he had been called by divine revelation, like Saul of Tarsus (later St. Paul) to save the faith. He installed himself as the commander of almost 12,000 Crusaders and led them through the cities of the Rhine, the Main, and the Danube, where they slaughtered Jews wherever they found them, in the belief that they were rendering divine service to the Christian religion.77 The Jewish sources give more detail than the Latin sources about the calamities that befell the Jews of Germany. Solomon bar Simon says that the Crusaders were “arrogant people, a people of strange speech, a nation bitter and impetuous, Frenchmen and Germans [who] set out for the Holy City, which had been desecrated by barbaric nations . . . to banish the Ishmaelites (Muslims) and conquer the land for themselves.”78 On March 8, 1096, they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer and killed eleven souls; the remainder were saved by the local bishop but were not coerced to be baptized.79 The author of the Mainz Anonymous identifies the bishop of Speyer as John and calls him righteous among the gentiles: “the Omnipotent One used him as a means for the Jews’ benefit and rescue. When Bishop John heard about the murder of the Jews, he came with a large army to aid the community, took the Jews in, and rescued them from their enemies. He then took some of the burghers and cut off their hands.” He also credits King Henry IV (1056–1106) with helping rescue the Jews: . . . through the aid of the king, Bishop John enabled the remnants of the (Jewish) community of Speyer to take refuge in the fortified towns.”80 The crimes committed against the Jewish communities in several German cities were utterly heinous and deplorable, and several German bishops offered the Jews protection against their egregious treatment. The persecution of the Jews was carried out by nondescript ruffians, wolves “Narrative of the Old Persecution, or Mainz Anonymous,” in Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusades, 107. 76 Ekkehard, in Krey, 53. 77 Ekkehard, in Krey, 53; Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The First Crusade and the Persecution of the Jews,” Studies in Church History 22 (1984): 51–72. 78 Solomon bar Simon, in Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusades, 21. 79 Solomon bar Simon, in Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusades, 22. 80 “The Narrative of the Old Persecution,” in Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusades, 101. 75

260

THE CRUSADES

clothed in the sheepskin of Crusaders.81 What is striking about the Jewish accounts, however, is that they are replete with invectives against Christianity and against Jesus Christ himself. Baptism is called a stench, Christianity is an error, Jesus is an abhorred offshoot, a bastard, a son of a menstruating woman, a son of lechery, a trampled corpse, a detestable thing, the desecrated and detestable hanged one, son of whoredom, and the Holy Sepulcher is a house or grave of Christian idolatry. Anna Sapir Abulafia, who has studied these and other invectives which occur in Jewish sources, explains that they are not merely expressions of the Jews’ outrage against their persecutors. Invectives of this nature are common to all types of Jewish literature throughout the Middle Ages. Indeed, since the inception of Christianity the Jews had been unable to accept Christian beliefs. They could not understand how a woman might conceive a child and remain a virgin. They could not believe that God could demean himself by assuming human nature and suffer and be killed. They could not comprehend how Christians uphold the notion that God is One and yet profess him to be three (a reference to the Trinity). Without understanding these points, Abulafia says, one cannot understand the anti-Christian invectives in medieval Jewish writings.82 After killing the Jews and carrying off the spoils, Emico’s band proceeded along the royal highway to Hungary. William of Tyre estimates the numbers of his followers at 200,000 foot soldiers and nearly 300,000 knights.83 They passed through Franconia and Bavaria to a place on the frontier of Hungary, a fortress of the king, strongly defended by the Rivers Danube and Leythia, and by the deep marshes which surround it.84 When the king, remembering the injury he had inflicted on the forces of Gottschalk, refused to grant Emico’s band freedom of passage, the leaders of the army stormed the fortress and laid waste the whole region. Meanwhile, seven hundred of the king’s soldiers stumbled unexpectedly upon the Crusaders, who annihilated them. Encouraged by their success, the Crusaders stormed the city and breached the walls. But before they could enter the city, they were struck by panic and abandoned the attack. Albert of Aachen For a comprehensive picture of what happened to the Jews during this period, see Eidelberg, Jews and the Crusades, and Robert Ghazan, European Jewry. 82 Anna Sapir Abulafia, “Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade,” in Crusade and Settlement, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Cardiff: University College of Cardiff Press, 1985), 66–70. 83 William of Tyre, History, 1: 113. 84 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 55, calls the place Wieselberg; William of Tyre, History, 1: 113 says it was Meseburg. 81

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

261

and William of Tyre give no reason for the their action, suggesting that the hand of God turned on them for their ungodliness, their impurity and fornication, and their cruelty in killing the Jews, motivated by greed and money rather than love of Christ. When the Hungarians saw that the Crusaders had panicked, they attacked and slaughtered a number of them. The army of Carlebold of Vendeuil was cruelly destroyed at the gates of Wisselberg.85 Count Emico himself fled with a large group of his vanquished men and returned to his own country. Thomas, Clarebold, William the Carpenter, Drogo, and other noblemen with him fled toward Carinthia and Italy, eventually arriving at the borders of Apulia. From there they went to Greece, along with other leaders making the same journey who planned to sail to Durazzo (Dyrrachium, now the Albanian port of Durrës) to join Hugh the Great, count of Vermandois and brother of King Philip I of France, who had landed there with his force. Thus Emico’s men met with disaster. Though they had some military capability, it was very difficult for them to press through Hungary without the aid of its people and their king.86 When Peter the Hermit reached Constantinople about August 1, 1096, he found already there men from all over Italy, including many Lombards, who with the emperor’s permission were making provision for the approaching army.87 He obtained an audience with Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, who asked him about his intentions and the reasons for his undertaking. With great eloquence, Peter answered his questions in a manner which impressed the men of the palace. The emperor, also pleased, gave Peter bountiful gifts and, after providing him with provisions, advised him not to cross the Hellespont (the Bosporus, also called the Strait of St. George) until the great armies of the Christians arrived, because his men lacked sufficient numbers to fight the Turks.88 Raymond of Aguilers, whose account seems based on hearsay, unfairly paints Emperor Alexius as treachAlbert of Aachen, in Krey, 57–58. Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 55–56; William of Tyre, History, 1: 113–115; Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” 449. 87 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 33. 88 Gesta Francorum, 3; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, trans. Chibnall, 5: 33; Peter Tudebode, Historia Hierosolymitano Itinere, John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 17; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 586; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 183. 85 86

262

THE CRUSADES

erous in dealing with Peter and his men: “At this time we learned that Peter and his peasant hordes had arrived in Constantinople . . . Alexius betrayed Peter by forcing him and his followers, unfamiliar with both the locale and the art of war, to cross the Straits with no defense against the Turks.”89 Says William of Tyre, “Then in the ships supplied by the imperial command, they (Peter and his men) crossed the Hellespont to Bithynia, the first province of the diocese of Asia Minor,” at a place called Helenopolis or Civitot.90 This statement does not agree with the account of Anna Comnena, Emperor Alexius’s daughter, who says that Peter disregarded the emperor’s advice to wait until the arrival of the others but instead trusted his multitude of followers, crossed the Bosporus, and pitched his camp near a small town called Helenopolis.91 Whatever the case may be, the contingents of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless were generally poor and disorganized. Emperor Alexius, probably feeling sorry for their ragged condition, tried to help them with provisions and advised them not to rush to cross the Bosporus, lest they fall victim to the Turks. Impatient and unwilling to heed his advice, they resorted to violence and plunder. The reason, says William of Tyre, is that too much unwonted leisure and abundance of supplies “rendered this wretched and stiff-necked people reckless.”92 Ordericus Vitalis asserts these “ungoverned, leaderless people, assembled from different places, lived without discipline.”93 In other words, they were lawless bands with no firm sense of direction. Peter the Hermit had gone to Constantinople hoping to get provisions for lower prices and to secure better conditions for trading. His perverse and unruly men, taking advantage of his absence and acting abominably, began to plunder the region. They sacked and burned the palaces and even stole lead from the roofs of the churches and sold it to the 89 John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, trans. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Cepernut Iherusalem (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 27, n. 5, call the reader’s attention to the fact that Raymond uses every opportunity to show his hatred of the Greeks (Byzantines), including of course Emperor Alexius. See John France, A Critical Edition of the Historia Francorum qui cepernut Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers, (unpublished PH.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1967). 90 William of Tyre, History, 1: 106. Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 179, says Anna Comnena calls the place Helenopolis while Albert of Aachen calls it Civitot. 91 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, 250–251. 92 William of Tyre, History, 1: 106. 93 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, trans. Chibnall, 5: 33.

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

263

Greeks.94 Hearing of this, Alexius was outraged because the pilgrims had abused his generosity. To get rid of these unruly bands, he arranged for them to be transported across the Bosporus to Asia Minor on August 5–6, 1096. On August 10, Peter’s and Walter’s men reached Nicomedia, which had been deserted a few years earlier. Even after they crossed, they continued their violence and laid waste both houses and churches.95 At Nicomedia (modern Izmit or Izmid in northwestern Turkey) the Italians and the Germans broke off from the Franks, perhaps considering them too arrogant, too fierce, or too obstinate and therefore prone to crime. The Italians chose a leader named Rainald (Reginald), and the Germans also chose a leader (not identified), and they all entered the province of Romania (Asia Minor).96 They marched westward to the fortified camp that Alexius had prepared for them at Civitot (Helenopolis), at the mouth of the Dracon, close to the Turkish frontier. After Peter and his contingent had crossed over, they were followed by others who separated themselves from the rest and began to lay waste the country near Nicaea and pillage the nearby villages, killing many Byzantine Christians. Perhaps exaggerating, Anna Comnena says that these men were so cruel that they dismembered some children, fixed others on wooden spits and roasted them over fires, and tortured the aged.97 According to William of Tyre, the separated group set for Nicaea, the capital of Kilij Arslan, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1092– 1106). Marching in battle formation, they drove off a number of flocks and herds and returned safely to their camp. When the Teutons and those who spoke their tongue saw the Latins’ exploits, they decided to follow their example, hoping to gain glory and improve their own condition. Three thousand of them, joined by 200 knights, marched toward Nicaea. Four miles from there, they stormed a small fortified town at the foot of a hill and captured it despite the inhabitants’ valiant resistance. Taken with the

Gesta Francorum, 3; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 17–18; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 33; Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 179. William of Tyre, History, 1: 106, mentions Peter’s absence in Constantinople but does not describe specific acts of violence. 95 Tudebode, Historia, 18; Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite, 179. 96 Gesta Francorum, 3; Tudebode, Historia, 18; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 33. 97 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 251, says 10,000 men followed them; William of Tyre, History, 1: 106, says there were 7,000 foot soldiers joined by 300 knights. 94

264

THE CRUSADES

wealth and beauty of the place, they added to the town’s fortifications and decided to stay until their leaders arrived.98 Peter the Hermit’s men, no longer under his control, marched into Turkish territory, killing and ravaging, much against his wishes and certainly without his consent. Growing tired of Peter, many of them abandoned him and chose the more adventurous Geoffrey, surnamed Burel, as their leader. They began to pour insults on those of higher rank.99 There were constant quarrels between the French, Italian, and German contingents over booty and leadership. In the middle of September 1096, a large group of Frenchmen penetrated as far as the gates of Nicaea, looted the neighboring villages around the city, and brutally massacred the Christian population, then returned to Civitot with their booty.100 The Italian and German bands led by Reginald journeyed four days beyond the city of Nicaea, leaving on September 20, 1096, and captured a deserted castle called Xerigordon, and found corn, wine, meat, and an abundance of all good things stored therein.101 Upon hearing of their arrival the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan, son of Kutulmish, sent out his troops, commanded by Elchanes. Arriving on the day of the Dedication of Saint Michael (September 29, 1096), they besieged and captured Xerigordon. Reginald prepared to ambush the Turks at a spring near the foot of the rampart of Xerigordon, but the Turks spotted the trap on arriving.102 The wells outside the castle, except one, had run dry, and the pilgrims suffered from thirst. Some drank the blood of their donkeys and horses. Others dipped their belts and clothes into the sewers and squeezed the liquid into their mouths. Some of them urinated into cupped hands and drank the urine. Others lay on their backs and heaped earth onto their chests to alleviate their thirst. Totally cut off in this miserable state, the pilgrims fell cold prey to the Turks, who virtually annihilated them.103 Kilij Arslan allowed Reginald to surrender on condition that he and his men embrace Islam. Some did so; those who refused were massacred. The Turks treated the new converts harshly, dividing them like sheep. Some of them William of Tyre, History, 1: 107; Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 251. William of Tyre, History, 1: 108. 100 Runciman, “The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,” in A History of the Crusades, 1: 282. 101 Gesta Francorum, 3. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 79, trans. Chibnall, 5: 33, calls the place Exerogrogan. Today it is Eski-Kaleh in Turkey. 102 Tudebode, Historia, 18. 103 Gesta Francorum, 3; Tudebode, Historia, 18; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 80, 85, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 33, 39; William of Tyre, History, 1: 107. 98 99

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

265

were put up as targets and shot with arrows; others were sold or given away as if they were brute beasts. Some of them were transported to Antioch, Aleppo, and other places under Turkish rule. Lamenting their pitiful condition, the author of the Gesta Francorum says, “These men were the first to endure blessed martyrdom for the name of our Lord Jesus.”104 News of the massacre reached the pilgrims at Civitot, where Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless were stationed with their bands. When the Turks learned they were in Civitot, they were elated and planned to kill them and their comrades. But Peter went to Constantinople to ask the emperor for aid, perhaps because he could not make his ragged troops obey.105 In his absence, the Crusaders rashly decided to attack the Turks. Walter the Penniless advised them not to do so until Peter returned, but Peter tarried too long in the capital, and Walter’s advice was overruled by Geoffrey Burel, who, like the rest of the Crusaders, was impatient to fight.106 The Crusaders went on the offensive, and barely three miles from Civitot they encountered the troops of Kilij Arslan. Convinced that this was a struggle to the death and confident of their superior strength, the Turks fell upon the Crusaders, chased them back to their camp, and slaughtered most of them. One of the victims was a priest, whose head they lopped off as he was saying mass at the altar. Walter the Penniless, Renier of Brus, Fulcher of Orleans, and many others were killed, and Walter’s brother William was wounded.107 Some escaped and fled to Civitot; others leapt into the sea or hid in the woods and mountains.108 The Turks butchered 60,000 peasants, but about 3,000 others escaped their swords and took refuge in a halfruined fortress without gates or bars, on the shore near their camp.109 They attempted to protect themselves by blocking the entrance of the fortress with their shields or huge stones which they rolled into place. The Turks chased them and stacked brush piles against the fortress wall to burn it. The pilgrims outwitted them, setting fire to the brush, and an adverse wind threw the flames back against the Turks and burned some of them. But the

Gesta Francorum, 2–4; Tudebode, Historia, 19. Gesta Francorum, 4. 106 William of Tyre, History, 1: 108. 107 William of Tyre, History, 1: 109; Gesta Francorum, 4; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 85, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 39. 108 Gesta Francorum, 5. 109 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, 27. 104 105

266

THE CRUSADES

Turks successfully stormed the fortress and captured the pilgrims, then took them to Muslim territory.110 The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum says that when Emperor Alexius heard that the Turks had defeated the pilgrims, he rejoiced and ordered the survivors brought back to the Bosporus. When they crossed the straits, he had them completely disarmed.111 Ordericus Vitalis says that many of the pilgrims retreated to Constantinople, where they told the story of their suffering to their newly arrived comrades who were encamped there. On hearing of their disaster, the emperor bought the fugitives’ weapons to keep them from committing outrages in a country where they were strangers.112 Anna Comnena blames Peter the Hermit for the Crusaders’ catastrophic loss. She says that her father had advised Peter and his followers not to cross the straits until the arrival of the crusading armies, but they disobeyed. After Peter and his forces crossed to Helenopolis, the Turks set a trap to capture him, then fell on the Crusaders and massacred many of them. When the emperor received reliable information about the terrible massacre, he was worried that the Turks might capture Peter. He therefore dispatched a large force of warships commanded by Constantine Catacalon Euphorbenus across the straits to help Peter. When the Turks saw the Byzantine force, they fled. Constantine picked up Peter and the few followers with him and brought them safely to the emperor. The emperor reminded Peter of his thoughtlessness and told him that the disaster would not have befallen his men if he had listened from the beginning to his advice. Anna Comnena says, “Peter, being a haughty Latin,” would not admit that he was the cause of the trouble. He rather blamed it on some followers who did not listen to him but followed their own will, calling them robbers and plunderers whom, because of their deeds, the Savior would not allow to worship at His Holy Sepulcher.113 William of Tyre seems to agree with Anna Comnena. Unlike other Latin writers, he blames the defeat and massacre of Peter’s men on their rash behavior. He calls them stiff-necked, unruly men who were unwilling to accept the advice of those wiser than themGesta Francorum, 5; Tudebode, Historia, 20; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 285–288; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 85, trans. Chibnall, 5: 41. 111 Gesta Francorum, 5; Tudebode, Historia, 20, repeats this account. 112 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 86, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 41; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 16–22. Tudebode, Historia, 20, says the emperor collected all the arms of the defeated Crusaders but does not indicate that he bought them. 113 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 252. 110

THE PEASANTS’ CRUSADE

267

selves. Because of their lack of discipline, they drove themselves onto the swords of the enemy.114 Although the Peoples’ Crusade ended in utter failure, the mission of Peter the Hermit and his band may be regarded as a prelude to the First Crusade.115

William of Tyre, History, 1: 110. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 285–288, gives a detailed account of the Peasants’ Crusade; see A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 1: 405. 114 115

9 THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE1 Pope Urban II’s appeal to take up the cross appears to have had much greater influence on the princes of Europe than on Peter the Hermit and his followers. Unlike Peter and other “Peasant Crusaders,” these were the Seigneurs, the elite of the Western leaders, including feudal knights, barons and their servants, priests, monks, and pilgrims, “an agglomeration of . . . feudal forces.”2 Many of them were trained in warfare, including Bohemond I of Taranto, the son of Robert Guiscard, who fought against Emperor Alexius between 1085 and 1095 and captured some of his dominions in Italy.3 Shortly after the collapse of the Peoples’ Crusade, the Franks’ organized expeditions were on their way to Constantinople in several main groups. The Latin sources do not agree about the chronological order of their movements, but it appears that Count Hugh of Vermandois was the first to leave home, cross the sea, and begin the journey to the East.4 William of Tyre says Hugh was the first of all the leaders to start and cross the Alps into Italy.5 Hugh was surnamed the Great (Magnus), apparently a mistrans1 James A. Brundage ed., The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), uses this title for Chapter IV. 2 Brundage, The Crusades, 39; Susan Edgington, The First Crusade (London, 1996), 9–11. 3 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), Chapter III, 25–33. 4 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 72; Brundage, The Crusades, 39; Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 142. 5 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 123.

269

270

THE CRUSADES

lation of moins né [young], since he was younger than his brother, King Philip I of France. He was also known as the Count of Crépy and Valois by virtue of his marriage in 1068 to Adela, daughter of Herbert VI, count of Vermandois.6 He took part in the Crusades not because he was wealthier or more powerful than other princes, but because he was noble by birth, the son and brother of kings. Guibert of Nogent says that certain leaders attached themselves to him, thinking that after the Crusaders had driven the Gentiles (Muslims) from Jerusalem and recovered the Holy Sepulcher, they would install him as their king.7 Leaving his lands to his sons Ralph and Henry and giving his daughter Isabel to Robert, count of Mellent, Hugh set out on a crusade in late August 1096 at the head of a noble army of Frenchmen.8 He may have been joined by other prominent men such as Drogo of Nesle, Clarebold of Vendeuil, and William the Carpenter.9 Hugh and his company passed by Rome and arrived at Bari in October 1096, then sailed to Dyrrachium (Durazzo) to await those who were following. From there he was to travel the Via Egnatia to Constantinople. Anna Comnena, while acknowledging the noble birth, wealth, and power of Hugh, whom she calls Ubus, seems to question his real intention in going to the Holy Land. She says he left his native land “ostensibly to go to the Holy Sepulcher,” suggesting he may have had a different plan. She adds that he “sent a ridiculous message” to the emperor, demanding a magnificent reception: “Know, O Emperor, that I am the king of kings and the greatest of those under heaven, and it behooves you to meet and treat me on arrival with all pomp and in a manner worthy of nobility.”10 The emperor told his nephew John Comnenus, whom he had named Duke of Dyrrachium, and Nicolas Mavrocatacalon, a duke (admiral) of the Byzantine fleet, to watch on land and sea for the Franks and inform him when Hugh 6 Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 77, n. 4. 7 Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, trans. Robert Levine under the title The Deeds of God through the Franks (Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1997), 53–54. 8 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 77–78, and The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, trans. Marjorie Chibnall, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 31. 9 Runciman, History, 1: 142–144; F. Duncalf, “The First Crusade: Clermont to Constantinople,” in M. W. Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 265. 10 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. E. A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 252–253.

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

271

arrived at Dyrrachium. Before his arrival, Hugh sent messages to John Comnenus that “the count” was arriving soon and was bringing with him the standard of St. Peter. After traveling from Rome through Lombardy and then crossing from Bari to Illyria, he was shipwrecked on the coast between Dyrrachium and a place called Palus, but was miraculously saved. He reached Dyrrachium on horseback and was received with honor by John Comnenus. Upon learning of Hugh’s arrival, Emperor Alexius sent Butumites to escort him to Constantinople. He received Hugh with honor and warmth, offering him a large sum of money to persuade him to become his “man” and take the customary oath of the Latins.11 As he would do with the other nobles leading Crusaders to Constantinople, the emperor demanded that Hugh swear an oath of allegiance to him as suzerain and promise to restore any lands he might liberate from the Muslims in his name. This demand shows that the emperor distrusted the loyalty of these Franks. As we shall see later, some Frankish leaders refused to fulfill the oath. Some Latin sources tell a slightly different story about Hugh and Emperor Alexius, ascribing treachery to the emperor. The author of the Gesta Francorum says that when the governor (John Comnenus, whose name he does not mention) heard that so many experienced warriors were arriving, he devised a plan to have Hugh arrested and sent under guard to Constantinople, so that he would swear fealty to him.12 Fulcher of Chartres says that Hugh the Great landed with his men near Durazzo but rashly advanced with a small force and was captured by the citizens and brought before the emperor in Constantinople, where he stayed some time, being not entirely free.13 Guibert of Nogent says that Hugh hastily and unwisely left Bari and came to Dyrrachium, and that he should have realized the large number of knights and foot soldiers with him would certainly scare the Byzantines, for “all of Greece, as one might say, trembled to its foundation.” John Comnenus, seeing an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the emperor, seized Hugh and ordered that he be conducted carefully to Constantinople. Guibert does not explicitly say that Hugh was asked to swear an oath of fealty to the emperor (whom he calls a clever and treacherous prince), but this is implicit in his account.14 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 254. Gesta Francorum, 6. 13 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 72. 14 Guibert of Nogent, Gesta, 55–56. 11 12

272

THE CRUSADES

Other Latin writers ascribe the treachery not to the emperor but to his nephew John Comnenus. Peter Tudebode says that upon Hugh’s arrival in Durazzo with so many warriors, the governor of the city “hatched an evil scheme by which he ordered the Crusaders seized and closely escorted to the Basileus (Alexius), so that they might in good faith pledge fealty to him.”15 Ordericus Vitalis also says the governor, on hearing of the arrival of such great lords, had them arrested and led under strict guard to Constantinople: “The obsequious governor hoped by his treacherous obedience to gain the emperor’s favor.”16 Somewhat neutral, William of Malmesbury says Hugh unwisely entered the emperor’s territory with a few soldiers and was taken by the emperor’s troops and detained in free custody.17 Despite the Latin writers’ criticism, Emperor Alexius showed wisdom and political acumen in dealing with Count Hugh. He had no intention of humiliating him or treating him as a captive. By demanding an oath of allegiance, he sought simply to protect his own domain against the Latin leaders, who he may well have thought would carve out principalities for themselves at his own expense. He could not forget that Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemond had warred against him and seized some of his territories in southern Italy, and even plotted to capture Constantinople and dethrone him. Despite his victory over the Normans at Larissa in 1083, he was apprehensive about their designs on him and his country.18 It is thus no surprise that the emperor should demand a guarantee from Hugh and the other Latin leaders that they would maintain his authority over and ownership of any lands they might capture from the Muslims. He was the suzerain of the East, and his claim to his own domains could not be disregarded. Count Hugh of Vermandois did not object to taking this oath and harbored no resentment against the emperor, who thus succeeded in setting a precedent for other Latin lords.19 Peter Tudebode, Historia Hierosolymitano Itinere, John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 22. 16 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 83, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 37. 17 William of Malmesbury, trans. Sharpe, 417–418. 18 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 9–24; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade jusqu’à l’élection de Godefroi de Bouillon (Paris: A. Picard, 1935), 116–120; F. Chalandon, Essai sur la règne d’Alexis I Comnène, 1081–1118 (Paris: A. Picard, 1900), 175–186, and “The Earlier Comneni,” in, The Cambridge Medieval History 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), 328–329. 19 Runciman, “The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,” in A History of the Crusades, 1: 284. 15

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

273

The first organized military expedition after the disastrous failure of the so-called “Peasants’ Crusade” was undertaken by Godfrey of Bouillon, the duke of Lower Lorraine (modern Belgium), his brothers Eustace and Baldwin, and the latter’s wife and children.20 Other members of this expedition were Raymond IV, count of Toulouse (Saint-Gilles), and Robert, count of Normandy, the oldest son of William the Conqueror. Pope Urban II, who regarded this venture as a “papal expedition,” appointed Adhémar of Monteil, the bishop of Le Puy, as his representative. The pope held Adhémar in great esteem and told the Crusaders to be prepared to submit to him.21 The expedition was also joined by other nobles like Bohemond of Taranto, Richard of the Principate (of Salerno), Robert, count of Flanders, and Robert Hughes, count of Normandy.22 Godfrey set out in the middle of August 1096 and passed through Hungary, where he had a meeting with King Coloman of Hungary. Albert of Aachen, the earliest writer to mention this event, says that Godfrey and the other Latin chiefs tried to investigate the Hungarians’ massacre of the pilgrims (the Peasant Crusaders) who had passed through their land. The Latin chiefs did not want the same to happen to them. After an exchange of envoys, King Coloman struck a treaty by which he pledged not to harm the pilgrims who were passing through his country. Still, he did not trust the intentions of the Latins and wanted a guarantee that they would not harm him or his country. Upon the advice of his men, Coloman demanded as hostages Godfrey’s brother Baldwin and his wife and family. Baldwin accepted his fate; Coloman took him to Pannonia to insure the safety of his brethren, and the Latins resumed their march through Hungary. Godfrey had heralds announce to his men that they should purchase provisions for a fair price and cause no trouble, under penalty of death. As he and his army 20 John C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1947, rpt. 1972), 53–65. 21 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes, in Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahre 1088–1100 (Innsbruck: Hilderscheim, 1901), 136–137. For a thorough but controversial study of Adhémar’s character, leadership, and position in the First Crusade, see John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, “Contemporary Accounts and the Later Reputation of Adhémar, Bishop of Puy,” Medievalia et Humanistica 9 (1955): 30–38, and James A. Brundage, “Adhemar of Puy: The Bishop And His Critics,” Speculum 34 (1959): 201–212. 22 Albert of Aachen, in Krey, 58; William of Tyre, History, 1: 116–117; Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry Huntingdon, trans. T. Forester (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), 226–227.

274

THE CRUSADES

reached Francavilla, near Sermis on the Save river, King Coloman arrived with a band of horsemen, accompanied by Baldwin and the other hostages. The army then moved to Maleville (Semlin). Scarcely had the Latin forces crossed the Save river when Coloman returned the hostages to Godfrey with many gifts and the kiss of peace. Soon legates of Emperor Alexius appeared, carrying a message from the emperor enjoining Godfrey and his men not to plunder or lay waste his lands and his kingdom, and granting them the privilege to buy provisions, which they would find in abundance. Godfrey agreed to abide by the emperor’s mandate; he and his men arrived peacefully at Nish, and from there they went to Sofia and then Philippopolis (Plovdiv) in Bulgaria. Some Latin sources say Godfrey received word that Emperor Alexius was holding Count Hugh of Vermandois, Drogo of Nesle, Clarebold of Vendeuil, and William the Carpenter captive in Constantinople. He promptly sent an embassy to ask for their release, but the emperor refused. Enraged, Godfrey ordered his men to plunder the part of Bulgaria where they were stationed. On hearing of their action, the emperor sent two emissaries who had kin among the Franks, pledging to release the captives and asking that Godfrey’s men stop their plundering. Godfrey was pleased by this response, and after consulting other Latin chiefs he ordered the plundering stopped.23 He and his men resumed the march to Constantinople; on December 23, 1096, they became the first Latin military expedition to reach the Byzantine capital and made camp outside the city. Hugh the Great and his fellow captives came to meet the army and offer thanks for their release. Godfrey hosted them for a time, showed them kindness, and sympathized with their misfortune.24 The emperor’s messengers also came and summoned Godfrey to meet Emperor Alexius. The accounts of this encounter offered by Byzantine and Latin sources are often at odds, and one must examine their details with utmost care. In this writer’s judgment, no modern writer looking at both This episode was first recorded by Albert of Aachen, R. H. C. Occ., 4: 300– 304 (also in Krey, 58–61) and later repeated and expanded by William of Tyre, History, 1: 117–123. Chalandon, “The Earlier Comneni,” 337, says that there is no precise information about Godfrey’s journey through Hungary except that of Albert of Aachen, whose narrative he says “is on many points of a biased and legendary nature.” Fulcher of Chartres, Historia,72, and William of Malmesbury, 417, say that Godfrey proceeded by way of Hungary but give no details. 24 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 4: 305, and Krey, 80; William of Tyre, History, 1: 124. 23

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

275

Norman and Byzantine history during the reign of Emperor Alexius has described his actions more equitably than Ferdinand Chalandon. He notes that for many years historians have indulged in cheap denunciation of Emperor Alexius, saying that despite soliciting help from the West against the Turks, he constantly obstructed the activities of the Crusaders by his false and treacherous conduct.25 The French historian F. J. Michaud, for instance, declares, “Impartial history can see nothing in Alexius but a weak ruler of a superstitious character led much more by a love of vain splendor and display than by any passion for glory.” He says that because Alexius was weak and timid, the Latin forces alarmed him, and he thought it would be acceptable to deceive the Crusaders into believing they had nothing to fear from him, yet to demand homage from them in order to profit by their victories. He portrays Alexius as dishonest and duplicitous in dealing with the Crusaders, noting that no sooner did the Crusader princes march out of Constantinople than he placed troops everywhere to harass them on their journey.26 This is harsh treatment of Emperor Alexius, who genuinely desired to help the Crusaders but was also aware that the presence of a huge Latin armed force on his land posed a serious danger to his authority and best interests. He was a consummate statesman who realized that the Crusaders were passing through his country to go to the East and fight the infidel, not to cause him political and military turmoil.27 Alexius was quite anxious to regain the Byzantine territories in Asia Minor that had been lost to the Seljuk Turks. Historians should keep this fact in mind and be more open and tolerant in trying to understand his position and his treatment of the Latin leaders.28 The conflict between the Latins and the Byzantines had been exacerbated by the conduct of the undisciplined masses following leaders like Peter the Hermit, inflicting devastation as they marched through Byzantine lands in the Balkans on the way to Jerusalem. The Byzantines considered these lawless pilgrims no better than the Turkish Pechenegs and Comans, who just a few years earlier had invaded and laid waste their European Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade, 116–120, Essai sur la règne d’Alexis I, 175–186, and “The Earlier Comneni,” 333; A. A. Vasiliev, A History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 406–407. 26 F. J. Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robinson, 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1973), 89. 27 Vasiliev, History, 2: 407. 28 Brundage, The Crusades, 40. 25

276

THE CRUSADES

provinces. Although the Crusaders were led by spiritual enthusiasm to march on Jerusalem and retake it from the Muslims, the Byzantines completely overlooked the religious motive for their action and saw it only as an ambitious effort by the Latin barons to carve out principalities for themselves at their own expense.29 Facing their enormous forces, Emperor Alexius found it difficult to deal with these newcomers when his forces were spread out along the frontiers and could not be reunited without time and effort. The only way he saw to solve his dilemma was to let the Latin princes know that while in his territory, they could act only as his mercenaries and must hand over all the Asian lands the Byzantine Empire had lost to the Turks. To insure their trust, he asked each to swear an oath of fealty to him. Vasiliev correctly states, “Alexius was not a man humbly to pick up what the Crusaders left for him. Alexius Comnenus showed himself a statesman, who understood what a threat to the existence of his Empire the crusaders presented.”30 There is much confusion about Emperor Alexius’s dealings with Godfrey of Bouillon and the other Latin princes. The only thing certain is that Godfrey arrived at Constantinople and established his camp at the outskirts of the city. But the details, as recorded by the Latin writers and by Anna Comnena on the Byzantine side, are conflicting. From the outset, trust was lacking between the emperor and the Latin princes. The author of the Gesta Francorum, distrustful of the emperor, says that when Godfrey arrived in Constantinople, he sent his squires to get feed for the horses, but they could not do so because “the wretched Emperor Alexius ordered his Turcopoles [Turkish cavalry in the Byzantine army and Pechenegs, both of whom were mercenaries] to attack and kill them.” It was then that Godfrey’s brother Baldwin attacked the emperor’s men and took sixty of them prisoner. He killed some and gave the others to Godfrey. Late that evening “the miserable emperor ordered his men to attack the Duke [Godfrey] and the Christian army, but [he] drove them back.”31 Guibert of Nogent is more virulent, stating that when Godfrey, Baldwin, and Raymond of Saint-Gilles reached the outskirts of Constantinople, “The perfidious Alexius, who once sought support against the Turks . . . pondered [how] to bring about the total destruction of the large army that was, as he thought, about to attack See Bernhard Kugler, “Kaiser Alexius und Albert von Aachen,” Forsch. z. deutsch. Geschichte, 23: 486, in Chalandon, “The Earlier Comneni,” 334. 30 Vasiliev, History, 2: 407. 31 Gesta Francorum, 6. 29

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

277

him.” He adds that not only the emperor but also the citizens of Constantinople were terrified of the large armies of the Latins. They feared that their city would be lost, and their country and provisions devastated. They saw that if Godfrey and his men disobeyed the emperor, they had no choice but to incapacitate his army by cutting off its provisions to render it incapable of fighting against “the perfidious prince, despite the oath of fealty the Latin princes had sworn to the emperor.”32 Similarly, Peter Tudebode says Godfrey pitched his camp outside Constantinople and remained there until “the wicked Alexius” ordered him to lodge peacefully within the city, adding, “this unjust emperor, Alexius, quickly set guards of Turcopoles and Pechenegs over the Crusaders and ordered his mercenaries to rush upon and kill the Latins.”33 Albert of Aachen gives a rather different account of the negotiations between Godfrey and Alexius. While Godfrey was camped outside Constantinople with his army, he says, strangers from the land of the Franks came and cautioned him not to be cajoled by flattery into an audience with the emperor, but to remain outside the walls and listen carefully to what he might propose. Heeding the strangers’ advice and distrusting the Byzantines, Godfrey refused to see the emperor, who became outraged and denied the Crusaders the right to buy provisions. Urged on by his brother Baldwin, Godfrey began to plunder the lands of the Greeks, and when the emperor saw the devastation, he agreed to lift the ban on selling provisions. He asked Godfrey to stop plundering and move his army to some houses on the shore of the straits. After a lengthy negotiation, Godfrey yielded and moved his army some thirty miles along the shore. Alexius sent several embassies to Godfrey asking him to have an audience with him, but Godfrey declined the invitation. When these overtures failed, the emperor sent his mercenaries, the Turcopoles, who killed many of Godfrey’s men. Enraged, Godfrey had the trumpets sound, calling his men to arms. They attacked the buildings of Constantinople and set fire to some of them, causing irreparable damage. A fierce skirmish followed, and Baldwin led the way in capturing a bridge to insure the passage of the Latin troops, while Godfrey’s men continued to plunder. Alexius, whom Albert of Aachen portrays as an obsequious person at Godfrey’s mercy, sent yet another delegation imploring him to cease the hostilities and offering hostages if he would let the emperor greet him with honor and glory. Godfrey agreed, provided 32 33

Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 60–61. Tudebode, Historia, 22.

278

THE CRUSADES

he received hostages he could trust. The emperor offered his own son John as a hostage; Godfrey agreed, and John was placed in the custody of Godfrey and his men. As soon as the emperor’s legates departed, Godfrey received envoys from Bohemond urging him to make peace with the emperor and withdraw his troops to Adrianople and Philippopolis and pass the winter in Bulgaria. Bohemond also told Godfrey that he and his troops would move in March to attack the emperor and invade his territory. After consulting with his men, Godfrey sent a reply to Bohemond saying that he had left his country and kindred not to seek gain or to kill Christians, but to journey to Jerusalem in the name of Christ. He hoped to achieve this objective and overcome the designs of the emperor, and yet regain the emperor’s favor and goodwill. Hearing this reply from Godfrey’s own lips, Bohemond’s messengers departed. Then Godfrey, who still had Alexius’s son in custody, was taken by boat through the straits to Constantinople to meet the emperor, and peace was restored between the two. Godfrey declared himself a vassal of the emperor, who in turn treated Godfrey as an adopted son and showered him with gifts. “So, indeed,” says Albert, “the Emperor and the Duke (Godfrey) were bound by the indissoluble bound of perfect faith and friendship.” Godfrey, now more certain of the emperor’s good will, returned to lodge in the buildings on the straits and sent back his son with honor. At the start of Lent, the emperor summoned Godfrey and asked him to cross the sea and pitch his tent in Cappadocia. Godfrey graciously agreed, and he and his men were transported there.34 William of Tyre’s brief account of Alexius’s meeting with Godfrey appears to be based loosely on that of Albert of Aachen; he mentions some events and omits others. Like Albert, he attributes the conflict between them to Godfrey’s decision to deal with the emperor through embassies rather than personally. He says the emperor bade Godfrey to appear before him in the imperial palace; when he declined, the emperor became angry and refused a market to Godfrey's men. Thus the Franks had no choice but to steal cattle and drive herds to their camp. Seeing the pillage and destruction, the emperor was terrified and ordered the markets restored. Although he sympathized with the pilgrims, he wanted the legions of Franks confined to a limited area with little freedom of movement, so that he could better restrain them. William says the emperor offered Godfrey his son, John Porphyrogenitus, as a hostage to insure that he would agree to meet with 34 Albert of Aachen, R. H. C. Occ., 4: 306–311, and Krey, 81–86. For another account of this episode, see Andressohn, Ancestry, 60–65.

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

279

him. But the message he says Godfrey received from Bohemond is longer and more vitriolic than that reported by Albert of Aachen. He says Bohemond told Godfrey that he “had to deal with the worst of beasts and a very wicked man,” and that the emperor would do everything in his power to deceive and persecute to death every Latin nation. Moreover, he was aware of the deep-seated and persistent malice the Greeks (Byzantines) harbored toward the Latins. For these reasons he urged Godfrey to withdraw to the Bulgarian cities: “I, by the will of the Lord, will come to offer you as my lord in brotherly affection aid and advice against the wicked prince of the Greeks.” Godfrey answered that he recognized the Greeks’ wickedness, but he shrunk from using his arms against Christians when they were meant to be used against the infidel. He ended by saying that he was waiting eagerly for the arrival of Bohemond’s forces and those of the other princes.35 Like Albert of Aachen, William of Tyre states that when peace was restored between them, the emperor opened his treasure and showered Godfrey and his companions with gifts of gold, gems, silken fabrics, and precious vases of unimaginable elegance and value. His aim was clearly to impress Godfrey and his companions with his wealth, generosity, and munificence. Every week, from the festival of Epiphany to the Ascension, the emperor sent Godfrey many gold coins, as well as ten measures of copper dinarii. Godfrey kept nothing for himself but distributed the gifts to the nobles and to his men, according to their needs. Later he returned to his camp and sent back the emperor’s son John with great honor. The emperor, seeming grateful, issued an edict that markets should be made available to Godfrey and his men, allowing them to purchase provisions at a fair price. Ever distrustful of Emperor Alexius, William accuses him of trickery in dealing with the Duke (Godfrey) so that his forces could not unite with others. With the same subtlety, he says, the emperor compelled those Crusaders who followed Godfrey to cross the strait, so that two armies would not be simultaneously together before Constantinople.36 William of Tyre, History, 1: 123–131. William of Tyre, History, 1: 132–133; John France, Victory in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 113. For more on the attitude of Latin sources toward Emperor Alexius Comnenus see Jonathan Shepard, “CrossPurposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade,” in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, Jonathan Phillips, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 107–129, and by the same author, “‘Father’ Or ‘Scorpion’? Style and substance in Alexios’s Diplomacy,” in Alexios I Komnenos, Margaret Mullet and Dion Smythe, 35 36

280

THE CRUSADES

Anna Comnena, the emperor’s daughter, gives a very different account from those of the Latin writers. She says Godfrey arrived with 10,000 horsemen and 70,000 foot soldiers and camped outside Constantinople near the straits. The emperor urged him to cross the straits, but he delayed on one pretext after another, awaiting the arrival of Bohemond and the other Crusaders. Godfrey must have had knowledge of the hatred Bohemond harbored for Alexius, who had achieved a brilliant victory over him at Larissa in 1083. The emperor, aware from past experience of the Latins’ “rascality,” stationed a squadron to watch whether any messengers went between Godfrey and Bohemond. Clearly, he did not trust the ambitious Latin leaders. But he invited Godfrey, Hugh of Vermandois, and others in an effort to convince Godfrey to swear an oath of allegiance. Meantime, much time was wasted because of the “long-winded talkativeness” of the Latins and the circulation of false rumors that the emperor had thrown Godfrey and other Latin leaders into prison. It is for this reason, Anna Comnena says, that numerous Latin regiments moved on Constantinople and demolished the palace near the “Silver Lake”. They also attacked the walls of the capital and set fire to the gate below the palace, close to the chapel built by the emperor in memory of St. Nicolas. While others rushed to save the palace, the emperor kept calm. He ordered that no one should leave Constantinople to fight the Latins because it was Good Friday and sent messengers asking the Latins to stop attacking the capital, saying, “Reverence the God who was slain for us all today, who for the sake of our salvation refused neither the cross nor the nails nor the lance, things fit only for malefactors. But if you really desire war, we shall be ready for you the day after our Lord’s resurrection.”37 But the Latins disregarded this passionate appeal and moved their troops closer to Constantinople, and even wounded a man standing by the emperor’s throne. Still the emperor sat unmoved. But when he saw that the Latins had reached the city walls and would not obey his appeal, he had Nicephorus, Anna’s husband, stationed with stout soldiers and skilled archers atop the city’s wall. A fierce battle between the Latin and Byzantine armies ensued. Finally, the emperor threw in his own troops and drove the Latins into headlong flight.38 Count Hugh of Vermandois, still in Constantinople after being freed by the emperor, went to see Godfrey and urge him to obey the emperor’s eds. (Belfast: Byzantine Enterprises, 1996), 68–132. 37 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 258–259. 38 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 259–261.

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

281

wish, i.e., to swear allegiance to him and cross the straits with his troops. Godfrey reprimanded Hugh, saying that, having left his own country as a king with great wealth and a great army, he had humbled himself to the level of a slave. What kind of success had Hugh gained, he asked, if now he advised Godfrey to humble himself and obey the emperor? Hugh replied that the Latins should have remained in their own country and not interfered in foreign affairs. But since they had come so far, they have no alternative; they sorely needed the emperor’s protection and must therefore obey his wishes. When Hugh failed in his mission, the emperor sent a few well-chosen generals with troops to urge Godfrey and even compel him to cross the straits. The Latins saw them, and a severe battle ensued, in which many fell on both sides. The imperial troops fought bravely, and the Latins retreated in flight. Godfrey, apparently having found he was no match for the emperor, finally yielded. He met with Alexius and swore the prescribed oath, according to which he should return to the emperor any towns, countries, or forts which had formerly belonged to the Byzantine Empire. After taking this oath, Godfrey received a large sum of money from the emperor, feasted luxuriously, then crossed the Straits and encamped near Pelecanus, where he awaited the arrival of other crusading forces.39 The emperor gave orders that abundant food supplies be provided to Godfrey and his men. Shortly afterwards, says Anna Comnena, a man called Count Raoul, whose identity is uncertain, arrived at Constantinople with 15,000 horses and foot soldiers, posing a fresh problem for the emperor. The emperor wanted Raoul to cross the straits as quickly as possible and, when he refused, sent his troops against him. Many were killed and more wounded in the ensuing battle. The emperor feared that if Raoul joined Godfrey and told him what had happened to him and his men, Godfrey would be angered against him. But the survivors of Raoul’s army appealed to the emperor to transport them across the straits, and he gladly acceded to the request.40 Chalandon declares that Anna Comnena’s account is more convincing than that of Albert of Aachen, apart from the exaggeration of Godfrey’s force.41 Yet the The exact site of Pelecanus is unknown. Some writers identify it as Hereke, sixteen miles west of Nicomedia. Others say it was near Chalcedon, and still others think it was near the ferry to Civitot. John Cantacuzenus, the only writer besides Anna Comnena to mention Pelecanus, puts it east of Dacibyza (modern Gebez). See Runciman, 1: 152, n. 1. 40 Anna Comnena, 261–262; Krey, 69. Runciman, 1: 152, does not mention Raoul but refers to a Count Toul, a vassal of Godfrey. 41 Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade, 119–129; Runciman, History, 1: 152, 39

282

THE CRUSADES

difference between the two is sharp. Krey says the Gesta Francorum’s treatment of Emperor Alexius “is too condensed to settle the disparities between the accounts of Anna and Albert, and the reader must draw his own inferences.”42 Like the other Latin writers, Ordericus Vitalis does not trust Alexius, who he says tried to harm Godfrey. He denied him passage through Constantinople and then declared that if he agreed to cross the Bosporus, he would supply him with food and provisions. Vitalis says that the cunning emperor schemed in this way to remove Godfrey and his men from Constantinople, so that he would not have the advantage of the counsel and aid of the other leaders who were soon to arrive there. Thus Godfrey crossed over after having sworn an oath of fealty to the emperor. But in the final analysis, the emperor dealt with Godfrey in good faith. The Latins were newcomers and constituted a real potential danger to his authority and state, and he had to use political prudence and farsightedness to deal with Godfrey and his army, as Ordericus himself concedes.43 The only way for the emperor to deal with Godfrey and later with the other leaders of the Crusade was to have them swear allegiance to him as his mercenaries, not as overlords. In fact, the emperor did not cut off supplies to Godfrey’s army until March 1097, when he learned that Bohemond’s army was due to arrive in Constantinople. If Godfrey had been sincere in his dealing with the emperor, he would have sworn the oath of allegiance immediately. But he refused, perhaps thinking he could wait to see what the other chiefs of the Franks would do about this matter. He took the oath only when he saw that he was no match for the emperor, and that his antagonism would cause havoc to himself and to the emperor and defeat his purpose of fighting the Turks, who were in control of Asia Minor, in order to reach Jerusalem and recover it from Muslim hands. According to the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond of Taranto followed Godfrey in crossing the Adriatic with his army bound for Constantinople. In his company were his nephew Tancred, the son of Emma, Bohemond’s half-sister; Richard of the Principate (Richard of Salerno) and his brother Rainulf, cousins of Bohemond; Rainulf’s son Richard; Robert of Anse (Amzi); Hermann of Cannes, son of Humphrey de Hauteville and cousin of Bohemond; Robert of Sourdeval; Robert the son of Toustan; Boello of n. 1. 42 43

Krey, 69. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 87–88, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 43.

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

283

Chartres; Humphrey, count of Russignolo; Gerard, the bishop of Ariano; Albert of Cagnano; Humphrey of Monte Scaglioso; Ralph the Red; Peter, the bishop of Anagni; Robert, son of Gerard, who acted as Bohemond’s constable; and many others.44 Anna Comnena does not mention Bohemond in connection with these, but says another heterogeneous crowd collected from all the Frankish countries, together with their leaders—kings, dukes, counts, and even bishops—followed on Godfrey’s heels, as numerous as the stars of heaven or the sands on the sea shore. She declined to name any of them because the names were so unfamiliar and unpronounceable, and because they were so numerous. “And why indeed,” Anna asks, “should we endeavor to recount the names of such a multitude, when even those who were present were soon filled with indifference at the sight?”45 From her account one may infer that Bohemond was not among this throng but arrived later. She says that the emperor was anxious to force these leaders to take the oath of fealty to him, as Godfrey had done. He invited them to take the oath separately, but they refused because they were waiting for Bohemond to arrive. They stalled, adding fresh demands which Anna does not specify. Anna seems not to agree with the Latin sources, which say that Bohemond arrived with an army after Godfrey crossed the Bosporus. Furthermore, Anna is inconsistent about the size of Bohemond’s force. Although she refers several times to their large numbers, she later, perhaps inadvertently, minimized Bohemond’s forces, saying “he did not have many troops, but only a very limited number of Frankish retainers.”46 Bohemond was at Amalfi in southern Italy when he heard that a large army of Frankish Crusaders was on its way to Jerusalem to fight the Muslims and restore the Holy Sepulcher.47 It is not certain when he heard that Pope Urban II had proclaimed the launching of the Crusades at the Council of Clermont. Sir Francis Palgrave advanced the fantastic notion that the Byzantine legates at the Council of Piacenza were disguised agents of Bohemond, who relayed the news to him.48 Even more fantastic is the assertion by William of Malmesbury that it was on Bohemond’s advice that Pope For the names of Bohemond’s men, see Gesta Francorum, 7–8; Albert of Aachen, R.H.C. Occ., 4: 313; William of Tyre, History, 1: 134; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 37–38; Andressohn, Ancestry, 66; Runciman, History, 1: 155. 45 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 262–263. 46 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 266. 47 Gesta Francorum, 7. 48 Sir Francis Palgrave, The History of Normandy and England, 4 (London, 1851– 1864): 509–514, 521–522; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 34, n. 1. 44

284

THE CRUSADES

Urban II went to France in 1095 “to excite almost the whole of Europe to undertake an expedition into Asia.” Thus, he credits Bohemond with launching the Crusades in return for the right to claim Illyria and Macedonia.49 Bohemond had long been engaged with his half-brother Roger Borsa in a dispute over the inheritance of his father Robert Guiscard. Bohemond was Robert’s eldest son and his logical heir, but his mother was of low birth; Robert had divorced her to marry Sigilgatia, a noble-born woman, the mother of Roger, to whom the inheritance passed. Bohemond eventually secured for himself the principality of Taranto and the Terra d’Otranto in deep southern Italy. The brothers’ uncle, Roger of Sicily, managed to arrange a truce between them, but Bohemond never accepted its terms. The siege of Amalfi in July and August 1096 offered him the great opportunity to join the Crusades. The people of Amalfi, which was under Roger’s authority, had revolted against him and chosen their own duke. With a large army, the two Rogers and Bohemond besieged the city. Having heard that an immense Frankish army was already on the march, Bohemond planned to join the Crusaders but kept his designs secret. One day in August he appeared with the Crusaders, who had arrived in Italy, and told his followers to wear the cross on their right arm and march to the Holy Land. A large portion of the army surrounding Amalfi followed Bohemond and took up the cross, ending the siege. When the two Rogers saw that most of their army had defected, they lifted the siege and went home.50 Bohemond’s army consisted mainly of young men who were anxious to embark on a new adventure. Of all the Crusaders’ armies, it was the best organized and best prepared to challenge the Muslims in the East. According to the author of the Historia belli sacri, some of the leaders who joined Bohemond, like Tancred and Richard of the Principate, knew Arabic, while others may have known both Arabic and Greek. Thus, Yewdale maintains, Bohemond’s army was highly fitted to undertake the crusading task.51 This army did not cross the Adriatic all together. One unit left before Bohemond’s departure, while others followed and landed between Durazzo and Avlona in Albania. The main force left Italy in October 1096, landed near Avlona, and the next month joined the detachments that had preceded

William of Malmesbury, 407; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 34. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 35–36. 51 Anonymous, Historia belli sacri, in Yewdale, Bohemond I, 38. 49 50

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

285

them.52 According to the Gesta Francorum and other Latin sources, Bohemond reached the valley of Adronopolis (perhaps the village of Dropuli, sixty miles south of Avlona, not to be confused with Adrianople, presentday Edirne in Turkey), where he assembled his army.53 He called a council and told his men to be courteous to the natives and refrain from plundering this Christian country; no one should take more food than what was sufficient. Bohemond led his army to the fortress of Castoria (Kastoria) to celebrate Christmas and buy provisions. But the inhabitants, afraid they had come to ravage their land, refused to sell them food and other necessities, and Bohemond’s men had to resort to plunder. The author of the Gesta Francorum, perhaps present since he uses the first person, says, “So we seized oxen, horses and asses, and anything else we could find.”54 From Castoria the army went to Pelagonia (Monastir), in northwest Macedonia, where there was a castle of Manichaean and Paulician heretics.55 (The Manichaeans had been allied with the Pechenegs in their struggle against the Byzantine Empire since the time of Justinian I. Many Armenians had accepted the heresy of the Paulicians, also called Tondrakites, who were persecuted by the Byzantine church and state.56 Many others fled to Muslim lands, since their religious doctrines and practices were closely related to those of the Shi’ite heretical sects.57) Bohemond’s men captured their palace, which stood beside a lake, put the inhabitants to death by sword or by fire, and seized a large amount of booty and spoils. To the pilgrims, these heretics, like the Jews and the Saracens (Muslims), were the enemies of God.58 Afterwards the Crusaders came to the Vardar River, which BoGesta Francorum, 8; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 39. Gesta Francorum, 8; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 25; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 58; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 88, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 45. 54 Gesta Francorum, 8; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 38–39; Tudebode, Historia, 25; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 88, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 45; William of Tyre, History, 1: 132. John Hill and Laurita Hill, eds., Tudebode, Historia, 25, n. 31, say the Gesta’s use of the first person does not mean the author was present, for careless copyists often switched between first- and third-person narrative. 55 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 88, trans. Chibnall, 5: 45. Chibnall also refers to Pelagonia as Monastri. 56 Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 59–62. 57 Vasiliev, History, 1: 149, 2: 383; Matti Moosa, Extremist Shi’ites: The Ghulat Sects (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 205–206, 435–437, 439–442. 58 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 89, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 45. 52 53

286

THE CRUSADES

hemond crossed with some of his troops, while Count Geoffrey of Russignolo stayed behind.59 According to some Latin sources, the Turcopoles and Pechenegs, mercenaries of Emperor Alexius who were located in the area, attacked Bohemond’s men on February 18, 1097. Tancred, who was not far away, rushed across the river to Bohemond’s aid with 2,000 knights who fought the mercenaries ferociously. Tancred defeated the enemy and took many prisoners, who were then bound and led before Bohemond. He rebuked them, saying, “Scoundrels, why do you kill Christ’s people and mine? I have no quarrel with your emperor.” They replied that they were the emperor’s men and were only following orders. Bohemond, who sought reconciliation rather than war with the emperor, let them go, warning them not to molest his people again.60 William of Tyre, however, says that when the emperor heard Bohemond’s legions were on the way, he privately instructed the leaders of his army to march alongside the Christian forces and harass them. He had grave misgivings about Bohemond’s arrival because of the ills he had suffered from him and his father. “Yet,” says William, “this crafty man [Alexius], who was skilled in concealing his purpose, dispatched some of his nobles to that distinguished man.” He gives the text of a message in which the emperor begs “our beloved friend” Bohemond not to harm his subjects with violence, rapine, and fire, but instead to hasten to see him. The message portrays the emperor as benevolently commanding its bearers to provide Bohemond’s army with necessary provisions at a just price and to continue supplying commodities. Despite the tone of the message, William distrusts the emperor’s intentions; while his words were ostensibly kind, “they were imbued with poison.”61 His account reveals that the Latins hated the emperor and held him in utter contempt. With the help of the emperor’s esteemed administrators, the curopalates (officials of the royal palace) guided Bohemond’s army through Macedonia to Constantinople. Alexius’s benevolence was shown in the actions of Gesta Francorum, 9, says Geoffrey and his brothers remained behind; Tudebode, Historia, 25, says only his brother, the bishop, stayed. 60 Gesta Francorum, 9; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 59; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 25–26; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 89, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 45, attributes the mercenaries’ attack to the emperor’s “perfidy” or “double-dealing,” but then backtracks, saying that although Bohemond was extremely irate, he kept his self-control because the passage of his army depended on the emperor’s grace. 61 William of Tyre, History, 1: 135–136. 59

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

287

his agents, who called on the towns through which the army passed to provide it with food and provisions. The author of the Gesta Francorum attributes this action not to the emperor’s generosity or good will, but to the inhabitants’ fear of Bohemond’s strong army, which they did not allow inside the walls of their cities.62 On the Wednesday of Holy Week (April 1, 1097), Bohemond’s army arrived at Roussa (Ruskoi), a Thracian town now called Ruskujan or Keshan. After it camped there, the inhabitants approached, rejoicing and bringing plenty of provisions. Bohemond, accompanied by a few knights, departed for Constantinople to meet with Emperor Alexius, leaving Tancred behind to take command of “the army of Christ.” On hearing that Bohemond had arrived at Constantinople, the emperor ordered that he be received with proper ceremony but took care to have him lodged outside the city.63 The reason is obvious; neither man trusted the other. Anna Comnena says, “The emperor knew his [Bohemond’s] machinations and had been long aware of his treacherous and scheming nature.”64 Clearly the arrival of the son of Robert Guiscard, who had formulated the ambitious design to capture Constantinople, must have frightened him.65 After Bohemond settled outside the capital, the emperor invited him to a secret conference at which Godfrey and his brother Baldwin were also present.66 William of Tyre says that Bohemond hesitated to accept the emperor’s invitation to meet because he did not trust his “evil intentions.” Meanwhile Godfrey, in response to the emperor’s entreaties, had arrived at Constantinople with a group of nobles. He saw Bohemond and urged him to call on the emperor. After much hesitation Bohemond finally agreed and went confidently to the emperor’s palace.67 The Gesta Francorum says the Frankish leaders were susceptible to the machinations of the emperor, who, “troubled in mind and fairly seething with rage, was planning to entrap these Christian knights by fraud and cunning.”68 Be that as it may, Bohemond went to see the emperor, who received him with alacrity. Smiling Gesta Francorum, 10; Tudebode, Historia, 26; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 59. Gesta Francorum, 11; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 60; Tudebode, Historia, 26–27. 64 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 264. For more about Anna Comnena on Bohemond see Jonathan Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–98,” in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988): 185–227. 65 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 42. 66 Gesta Francorum, 11. 67 William of Tyre, History, 1: 137. 68 Gesta Francorum, 11. 62 63

288

THE CRUSADES

cheerfully, the emperor graciously asked him about his journey and jokingly reminded him of their former enmity and his deeds at Durazzo. Bohemond answered that although they had been enemies in the past, he now came to him of his own will as a friend. Bohemond and his retinue were placed at the Cosmidium, where they were served with sumptuous food. A feast of flesh and fowl was brought for the guests, and Bohemond was told that if he did not like it, he could ask the cooks to prepare the meat according to the Latin recipe. Bohemond, fearing the food might have been poisoned, had his own cooks prepare the meat and eat it before he did. His men ate it with pleasure, and nothing happened to them.69 Later the emperor opened his treasury to impress Bohemond with his power and wealth. Bohemond was brought unexpectedly to a large room in the palace filled with garments, stamped gold and silver, and riches of every kind. Amazed at the sight, he exclaimed that if these treasures were his, he could have made himself master of many countries long ago. The attendant with him said that the emperor was offering these treasures as a gift. At first Bohemond rejected them, but the emperor, recognizing the Latins’ characteristic fickleness, offered them again. Anna Comnena says Bohemond, like a polypus, that changes its appearance instantly, finally accepted them with great pleasure. She portrays him as an ambitious, opportunistic rogue whose objective was not to worship at the Holy Sepulcher but to gain a kingdom for himself and, as his father tried earlier, to seize the Roman (Byzantine) Empire itself. She says Bohemond demanded from her father the office of Great Domestic of the East. Recognizing his ambition, the emperor tried to “out-Cretan a Cretan,” fearing that if he gave him so powerful a position, Bohemond would not only control the East but make the Franks’ leaders his subordinates and dictate to them whatever he wished. So he graciously told Bohemond the time was not ripe for him to assume such a position: “But by your energy, reputation and above all by your fidelity, it will come before long.”70 Ralph Bailey Yewdale says that the account of Bohemond’s demanding this position from the emperor is not impossible. He states that Norman adventurers previously had held responsible offices in the Byzantine Empire, adding, “Such an appointment might have fallen in very well with Bohemond’s plans, if he already had designs upon the empire . . . Not

Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 265–266; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 42–43. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 267; Albert von Ruville, Die Kreuzzüge (Bonn and Leipzig, 1920), 44. 69 70

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

289

improbably he had already fixed his ambitions upon the possession of Antioch.”71 Finally, the emperor summoned Bohemond and the other Frankish leaders. He warned them of the difficulties they would face on their journey into Asia Minor and instructed them in the Turks’ method of warfare, with which he was quite familiar. He told them how to deploy the army and arrange their ranks, and particularly he advised them not to pursue the Turks if they fled. He showered them with money and then urged them to cross into Asia Minor. Heeding his advice, the Frankish leaders including Bohemond swore an oath of fealty to the emperor. On his part, the emperor guaranteed security and good faith to all the Latins and vowed to accompany them with his army and navy, and to faithfully furnish them with supplies and provisions by both land and sea. He pledged to restore all the things that the Latins had lost and promised not to disturb the Latin armies on their journey to the Holy Sepulcher.72 Matthew of Edessa likewise says Emperor Alexius made peace and alliance with the Frankish leaders. He took them to the Church of Saint Sophia, where the pact was sealed with an oath. The Frankish leaders swore on the cross and the Gospels, and thus the pact was never to be broken.73 They left and crossed the straits to Nicaea. William of Tyre says Bohemond’s meeting with the emperor was private and friendly. The emperor received him with the kiss of peace, and “Bohemond became the emperor’s man.” The oath-taking ceremony must have been solemn and elaborate, in accordance with Byzantine tradition. He seems to agree with Anna Comnena that the emperor offered Bohemond precious gifts of gold, robes, vases, and precious stones from his wardrobe. Thus, peace was established between the two men.74 Obviously, this peace was not cheap but was bought at an exorbitant price which the emperor paid and Bohemond gladly accepted. This shrewd political reality was noted by the Latin writers, although they twisted it to suit their hatred and prejuYewdale, Bohemond I, 44. Gesta Francorum, 12. 73 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 165. Arabic sources only briefly mention this pledge. See Muhammad Ibn Ali al-Azimi, Tarikh Halab, ed. Ibrahim Zu’rur (Damascus, 1984), 358, and Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, H. F. Amedroz, ed. (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al-Yasu’iyyia, 1908), 135. 74 William of Tyre, History, 1: 137. 71 72

290

THE CRUSADES

dice against the emperor. William of Malmesbury says simply that Alexius succeeded in obtaining homage from the leaders because of his powerful Grecian eloquence.75 The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond’s vassal, relates a specific promise regarding land beyond Antioch made by the emperor to Bohemond: Now the emperor was much afraid of the gallant Bohemond, who had often chased him and his army from the battlefield, so he told Bohemond that he would give him lands beyond Antioch, fifteen days’ journey in length and eight in width, provided that he would never break his vow. But why did such brave and determined knights do a thing like this? It must have been because they were driven by desperate need.76

This unusual passage drew the attention of Professor A. C. Krey, who wrote a thorough critical analysis of it.77 Why did not Anna Comnena, who made much of Bohemond’s political ambition, relate such an important development in connection with his demanding from her father the office of Great Domestic of the East, especially since Antioch lay within the territory he had demanded? Bohemond was still in Constantinople, not in Antioch, which was not captured until much later (indeed, Bohemond himself became the prince of Antioch in 1099). So why demand lands beyond Antioch? Professor Krey brings up a salient point: he says that the Gesta Francorum mentions the Latin leaders (plural), while the negotiation was supposedly with Bohemond as an individual.78 In other words, if the Frankish leaders were present at the meeting with the emperor, why should he fix a secret deal with Bohemond alone? Although other Latin sources such as Guibert of Nogent, Peter Tudebode, and Baldric of Dol mention this episode, they usually copy the Gesta and add no further important information.79 What makes the statement in the Gesta Francorum preposterous is that William of Malmesbury, History, 419. Gesta Francorum, 12. 77 August C. Krey, “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, by His Former Students, Louis J. Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928), 57–78. 78 Krey, “A Neglected Passage,” 58. 79 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 61; Tudebode, Historia, 30; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, in R. H. C. Occ., 4: 25; Krey, “A Neglected Passage,” 60, n. 5. 75 76

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

291

when Bohemond claimed Antioch, he did not mention the promise supposedly made to him by Emperor Alexius. This passage in the Gesta Francorum has been highly controversial. Early in the nineteenth century, Heinrich von Sybel showed that there was no such promise by the emperor offering Bohemond lands beyond Antioch.80 Hagenmeyer, as Krey says, “always loath to admit any reflection upon the accuracy of the Gesta, felt constrained to accept von Sybel’s argument.”81 Chalandon accepts the theory of a separate agreement between the emperor and Bohemond, suggesting that Alexius was so dazzled by the presence of so many Latin leaders that out of embarrassment he made some such vague promise to Bohemond.82 But there is no reliable evidence to support what the author of the Gesta says. It is clearly false. As Yewdale says, Bohemond “may have told his story to his own followers, in order to obtain their support in his attempt to maintain possession of the city [Antioch].”83 Krey’s thesis is that the promise made by the emperor to Bohemond offering lands beyond the city of Antioch, specifically predicated on this sole passage of the Gesta, is highly questionable. One can believe in such a promise only if he accepts Louis Bréhier’s thesis of multiple or at least dual authorship of the Gesta Francorum, and Krey does not seem convinced of this idea.84 It is incredible that Alexius, who refused Bohemond’s demand to be Great Domestic of the East, should turn around and offer him such a vast area of land in the neighborhood of Antioch. Tancred, whom Bohemond left in charge when he departed for Constantinople, apparently relished his position as commander-in-chief of the Norman troops. But he was displeased to learn that Bohemond had paid homage to the emperor, who he thought was treacherous and whom he Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs (Düsseldorf, 1841), 273. Krey, “Neglected Passage,” 61. 82 Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d’Alexius I Comnène, 186, and Histoire de la première croisade, 137; Krey, “Neglected Passage,” 61. 83 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 43. 84 Krey, “Neglected Passage,” 78, n. 47. Jonathan Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” 219–225, maintains that Krey’s allegation concerning the obtrusiveness of the Gesta is still non conclusive, Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusaders States 1096–1204, J. C. Morris and J. E. Ridings, trans. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 19, note 45 says that Krey’s supposition that the passage was introduced later into the text of the Gesta is improbable and may have been a propaganda devised by the chronicle. See Louis Bréhier, Histoire anonyme de la première croisade (Paris, 1924). 80 81

292

THE CRUSADES

would not even condescend to meet. Ralph of Caen, his friend and biographer, attributes to him a soliloquy deploring the fact that his uncle had sworn fealty to the emperor, thinking Bohemond was unaware of the emperor’s dishonesty and had fallen into his trap. He thought the other leaders of the Crusaders were likewise shortsighted, thinking only of the present and not the future. He reasoned that they would discover their mistake eventually, but too late to correct it.85 Faced with a scarcity of food, Tancred led his men to a valley filled with all kinds of edible things, where he and his men celebrated Easter with great devotion (April 5, 1097).86 They then continued on their way to Constantinople, which they reached on April 26. Upon learning that the emperor was meeting with Bohemond and the others, Tancred tried to avoid seeing the emperor and having to swear an oath of fealty to him. Richard of the Principate (Salerno) shared the same odious feeling. To avoid taking an oath to the emperor, both Tancred and Richard mingled among their common soldiers and immediately set sail, passing the straits in great haste with nearly all of Bohemond’s force.87 Tancred’s action did not serve the intentions of Bohemond, who had tried in good faith to mend fences with the Emperor Alexius, and it may have led the emperor to come to an agreement with Raymond of Saint-Gilles (Count of Toulouse), who was not on good terms with Bohemond.88 When the emperor learned of Tancred’s escape, he asked Bohemond to secure his submission to him.89 But Tancred refused, not wishing to become a pawn in his uncle’s political chess game. Bohemond, anxious to achieve reconciliation with the emperor, whose aid he badly needed, overlooked Tancred’s obduracy and ignored his interests.90 The Gesta Francorum says Raymond of Saint-Gilles was not present when Godfrey, his brother, and Bohemond swore their allegiance to the emperor, but was encamped just outside Constantinople.91 Raymond was 85 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis, R. H. C. Occ. 3 (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866), 612; Robert Lawrence Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in Their Relation to the First Crusade (New York: AMS Press, 1978), 26. 86 Gesta Francorum, 11. 87 Gesta Francorum, 13; Ralph of Caen, Gesta, 3: 612; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 93, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 51. 88 Von Sybel, Geschichte, 267. 89 Ralph of Caen, Gesta, 3: 614; Nicholson, Tancred, 27. 90 Nicholson, Tancred, 28. 91 Gesta Francorum, 11, 13. On the family origin and feats of Raymond of Saint-

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

293

the head of the largest of all the Crusaders’ forces. He was the wealthiest and, in his fifties, the oldest of all the Franks’ leaders. He truly desired to take up the cross and lead his men to Jerusalem: “On bended knee, the uncrowned king of the Midi implored Saint Robert to aid him in his holy cause,” carrying the saint’s chalice to guide him on his last journey to Jerusalem.92 Pope Urban II, planning for the Crusades, must have sought aid in the Midi, and Raymond of Saint-Gilles was the first prince to respond to his call.93 He was accompanied by the papal legate, Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, his wife Elvira, and a heterogeneous group of knights, bishops, footmen, women, beggars, Goths and Gascons (called Provençals by Fulcher of Chartres), people from throughout the Pyrenees and the Alps.94 Raymond’s force left southern France in October 1096 and traveled through southern Italy to the Adriatic Sea, and then to Constantinople. Raymond of Aguilers, chaplain to Raymond of Saint-Gilles, says the army traversed Sclavonia (Dalmatia) and suffered many privations during the winter. Sclavonia was a barren land, mountainous and not easily accessible. Its ignorant, poor, barbarous natives refused to provide guides and fled their villages as if they feared they would be slaughtered by the army stragglers.95 When the army reached Pelagonia in northwest Macedonia, the Pechenegs captured the Bishop of Le Puy, who had gone astray while seeking a comfortable lodging. They threw him off his mule, stripped him, and struck him on the head, but the Crusaders rushed to the rescue and saved his life.96 After Raymond and his men got an unfriendly reception at Roussa, they stormed the town and captured immense booty. When they reached Rodosto (Tekidagh in modern Turkey) on April 18, 1097, Raymond received messengers from Emperor Alexius asking to have an audience with him. The Provençals in turn sent emissaries to AlexGilles, see John Hugh Hill and Laurita Lyttleton Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1952), 1–28. 92 Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, 3. The Midi is in southwest France, in the central Pyrenees near Bagnères-de-Bigorre. 93 Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, 40, n. 1. 94 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 72; William of Malmesbury, 417; Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, 39. 95 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 21. 96 Raymond of Aguilers, 21; Peter Tudebode, 27; Duncalf, “The First Crusade: Clermont to Constantinople,” 1: 273.

294

THE CRUSADES

ius; they returned with rosy reports of Byzantine promises, largely because “the emperor had bribed them.”97 They reported that Count Robert of Flanders, Bohemond, and Godfrey, who were already there, had asked Raymond to make a pact with Alexius, so that he might take up the cross and become the leader of God’s army. They said that the emperor was willing to act for Raymond and the other leaders, and the Crusaders sorely needed the advice of this great man on the eve of combat with the Turks. They urged him to come to Constantinople with a small force, so that after the completion of negotiations with the emperor they could march without delay. Heeding their advice, Raymond left a garrison in camp and went to Constantinople unarmed, accompanied by a few followers. On April 22, 1097, Alexius and his princes received Raymond with due honor, and the emperor asked him to take the oath the other Latin leaders had taken. Raymond responded that he had not taken up the cross to pay homage to another lord, or to be in the service of anyone other than the one (Jesus Christ) for whom he had left his native land and possessions. The emperor, says Raymond of Aguilers, politely declined to join the Crusading armies on their march, fearing that the Germans, Hungarians, Comans, and other fierce peoples might take advantage of his absence to plunder his territory. Meanwhile, Raymond was planning to take revenge on the imperial army, which had harassed his men and killed some of them after they left Rodosto.98 Alexius said the Byzantine troops had attacked Raymond’s men because they had been pillaging the countryside near their camp, and he pledged to make reparation for their losses. Robert of Flanders, Bohemond, and Godfrey opposed Raymond’s intention to battle the emperor, saying it would be improper to fight against fellow Christians. Bohemond said that if Raymond refused to swear fealty to the emperor or did him any injustice, he himself would support the emperor. But Raymond was adamant in his position. Raymond of Aguilers declares, “He would not pay homage because of the peril to his rights.”99 According to other early Latin sources, he said he would not do so “even at the peril of my life,” but swore that he would respect the life and honor of the emperor and neither destroy them nor permit anyone else to do so.100 Contrary to the other 97 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 22. Gesta Francorum, 13, says Raymond went to see the emperor while he was encamped in the suburbs of Constantinople. 98 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 22–23; Gesta Francorum, 13. 99 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 24. 100 Gesta Francorum, 13; Tudebode, Historia, 29–30; John Hill and Laurita Hill, “The Convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of Saint-Gilles,” American

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

295

Latin writers, William of Tyre, who recounts at length Raymond’s meeting with the emperor and the pleas of Godfrey and Bohemond, says, “In compliance with the advice of the leaders, the Count became reconciled to the emperor and swore fealty in accordance with the tenor of the oath taken by the others.”101 Anna Comnena presents a different view of the attitudes of Raymond (whom she calls “Isangeles”), Bohemond, and the emperor towards one another. Because of the emperor’s good counsel and the money he showered on them, she says, the Latin leaders softened their savage conduct and agreed to cross the straits as he suggested. But the emperor kept Raymond of Saint-Gilles with him for some time. He liked Raymond for his superior wisdom, sincerity, and spotless life, and for the fact that he valued truth above everything. For this reason, he sent for Raymond and explained to him openly his misgivings about the Latins and what would happen to them in their journey across the straits to face the Turks. He warned Raymond to be wary of Bohemond’s wickedness, declaring that if Bohemond should break his oath of fealty, he should use every possible means to foil his plans. Listening attentively, Raymond accused Bohemond of having acquired his ancestral heritage through perjury and treachery and said it would be a miracle if he kept his oath. But he assured the emperor that he would carry out his orders. Anna Comnena does not say that Raymond swore the oath of allegiance to the emperor; she says only that after his audience with the emperor, he departed to join the whole Frankish army.102 Apparently Raymond changed his attitude toward the emperor, whom he found to be a staunch ally against Bohemond and his political ambitions.103 Perhaps, as Hill maintains, when Emperor Alexius failed to make Raymond of SaintGilles his mercenary, he decided to use him against Bohemond. Although Bohemond did his utmost to undermine Alexius, Raymond continued to support the Byzantines.104 In October 1096, the last major expedition of the First Crusade began its march. It was a powerful force of Norman knights from Brittany, FlanHistorical Review 58 (1953): 322–327; John Hugh Hill, “Raymond of Saint-Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship,” Speculum 27 (1951): 266–267; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 45. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 79, says simply that Count Raymond refused to subscribe to the oath. 101 William of Tyre, History, 1: 146. 102 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 267–268. 103 Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 1: 164. 104 Hill, “Raymond of Saint-Gilles,” 267–268.

296

THE CRUSADES

ders and Normandy, led by Robert Curthose, the duke of Normandy and eldest son of William the Conqueror; his brother-in-law Stephen, count of Blois and Chartres; and his cousin Robert II, count of Flanders. Fulcher of Chartres who was traveling with the group says that they left France and journeyed to Italy, where they met Pope Urban II near Lucca. He goes on to say that Robert of Normandy, Stephen of Blois, and others who desired talked to the pope and received his blessing.105 Afterwards the group went to Rome, rejoicing. The trip to Constantinople was not without tragedy. The Crusaders arrived at Brindisi on March 5, 1097. The weather was inclement; one of their ships split right through the middle for no apparent reason, and about 400 Crusaders drowned along with their women and horses. The rest sailed safely to Durazzo, then journeyed overland to Thessalonica (modern Salonika in Macedonia). From there they traveled through many towns until they finally reached Constantinople on May 14, 1097.106 It was probably at this time that the Frankish leaders asked for a guide to make their journey safer. Alexius assigned them Taticius, the son of a Muslim Turk who had fallen into the hands of John Comnenus, Anna’s paternal grandfather. Taticius, who was brave and absolutely fearless in battle, had risen through the ranks of the imperial court to be Primicerius (Chief of the Household).107 William of Tyre, calling Taticius the emperor’s confidant, describes him as a wicked and treacherous man whose slit nostrils were evidence of his evil mind. He says the emperor assigned Taticius to not only guide but spy on the Franks. He had a thorough knowledge of the area, and the emperor could rely on him to report the movements of the Frankish army and the actions of their leaders. Alexius even had messengers who

105 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 73; Michaud, History of the Crusades, 1: 82–84; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 1: 164–166; Brundage, The Crusades, 45. On major leaders of the Crusade, see Charles Wendell David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Harvard Historical Studies Vol. 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920); M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, Paetow, ed., 79–100; James A. Brundage, “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio 16 (1960): 388–395. 106 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 75–78. Adolf Stieler, Handatlas über alle Theile der Erde und über das Weltgebaüde (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1881) gives the modern names of many towns and places mentioned by Fulcher of Chartres. 107 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 103. For more about Taticius (also called Tatan or Tatanus), see Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 112, 134, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 77, 107.

THE SEIGNEURIAL CRUSADE

297

shuttled between him and Taticius to direct his nefarious schemes.108 Having previously had bad experiences with the Franks, the emperor would let them enter Constantinople only at the rate of five or six each hour.109 Stephen of Blois was especially impressed by Emperor Alexius, who treated him like a son and trusted him more than he did the other Frankish leaders. Like Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders, Stephen was of noble lineage.110 He was also married to Adela, the daughter of King William the Conqueror.111 Stephen, who frequently wrote to his wife, told her in one letter that not even his father-in-law could compare to Emperor Alexius: “Your father, my beloved, gave many and large gifts, but he was almost as nothing in comparison with this man.”112 Although Stephen may have been too credulous to distinguish the emperor’s flattery, what matters is that Alexius proved to be a consummate diplomat who, despite distrusting the Crusaders’ leaders, convinced them to pledge their allegiance, support his efforts to save his empire, and restore the lands his empire had lost to the Turks. For his part, he pledged to help them in their enterprise and provide them with forces and supplies, but declined to join them personally. One might think such an important agreement should have been committed to writing and signed by the parties. But no such written agreement exists, although some modern writers maintain there is a small amount of documentary evidence in its favor.113 One clear result of the agreement between Alexius and the Crusaders is that Bohemond appeared to be a staunch ally of the emperor. Stephen of Blois and Robert of Normandy, who arrived in Constantinople in May 1097, stayed in the city for two more weeks to confer with the emperor and then crossed the straits to join the main Crusading army, which had left before.114 The First Crusade army which took part in the William of Tyre, History, 1: 150. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 77–78, esp. 77, n. 3. 110 William of Malmesbury, 419. 111 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 2: 128, 3: 78, trans. Chibnall, 3:117; Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 48–49; Brundage, “An Errant Crusader,” 381– 383. 112 Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 138–139; Krey, The First Crusade, 101; Brundage, “An Errant Crusader,” 384. 113 William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 284, esp. n. 1. Chalandon, “The Earlier Comneni,” 336, regards the Franks’ agreement with the emperor as a treaty. 114 Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 139; Krey, 107; Brundage, “An Errant Cru108 109

298

THE CRUSADES

attack against Nicaea was composed of the forces of Hugh of Vermandois, with a group of knights; Godfrey of Bouillon; Bohemond, who had led the force of Normans from southern Italy; Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse with his Provençal soldiers; Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, the papal legate, with a small force of his own; and the Norman, Breton, English and Flemish troops under the command of Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and Stephen of Blois.115 Although one may get the impression that all went well between the emperor and the Crusaders’ leaders once they were moved to the Asiatic side, this was not the case in the attack on Nicaea, as both the Latin sources and Anna Comnena reveal.

sader,” 385. 115 Brundage, The Crusades, 66.

10 THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE After the crusading forces crossed the Bosporus, their military operation began in earnest. Because they were many in number and short of provisions, they could not stay in one place. They hoped the emperor would arrive with Raymond of Saint-Gilles so that they could begin their attack on Nicaea. According to Anna Comnena, they split into two contingents which reached Nicaea by different routes, passing by Civitot. One group, led by Bohemond and Godfrey, went through the province of Bithynia.1 When they reached Nicomedia, the largest metropolis of this province, Peter the Hermit, who had spent the winter there with a few survivors of his pilgrimage, came out to greet them. He now joined the Crusaders and was warmly welcomed by all. Hearing the story of the catastrophe his men had suffered, the Frankish leaders sympathized with him and offered him generous gifts.2 Nicaea, the first target of the crusading army, was greatly revered by the Christian church as the historic meeting place of the First Ecumenical Council in 325. Now it was held by the Turks, serving as the capital of the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan I (1092–1107). Unless they captured the city, the Franks’ leaders would find it difficult to march through Asia Minor to Antioch, for Kilij Arslan could cut off their communications with the Byzantines. The task was not easy. Although the inhabitants were mostly Christians, there were Turks serving in various capacities, including government officials of the Seljuk court and members of a Turkish garrison. And the city was difficult to attack. Lake Ascanius lapped at its walls and formed a natural fortification for the city. A ditch full of water blocked the entrance on three sides. As Stephen of Blois wrote to his wife, the city’s marvelously 1 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 269. William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 147, includes Robert, count of Flanders, and Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy among this group. 2 William of Tyre, History, 1: 147.

299

300

THE CRUSADES

constructed walls, so high that the inhabitants feared no outside attack, were guarded by over three hundred towers.3 War machines for hurling missiles from the walls and niches for marksmen with crossbows made it extremely difficult for an enemy to move forward without being struck down from the top of a tower.4 But the Franks were determined to capture Nicaea. The Latin sources say that Godfrey, accompanied by Tancred, Robert of Flanders and others, went to Nicomedia and stayed there three days. Finding the mountainous route to Nicaea was almost impassable he sent 3,000 men to open a path. Eventually, on Wednesday, May 6, 1097, Godfrey’s army reached Nicaea. His men suffered from lack of food and provisions, but the stressful situation was alleviated when Bohemond arrived, bringing abundant supplies. On Ascension Day, May 14, the Franks began to invest the city, building wooden machines and towers in order to break down the walls.5 Bohemond attacked from the north, Godfrey and the Germans from the east, Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bishop Adhémar from the south, all with no imminent threat from the Turks. The time for the siege of Nicaea was well chosen.6 Kilij Arslan was busy fighting the 3 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1879), 138–139; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Emendatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, R. H. C. Occ. 4: 314, in Krey, The First Crusade, 108; J. A. Brundage, “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio 16 (1960): 385. 4 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Cepernut Iherusalem (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 25. 5 Gesta Francorum, 13–14. The author does not say how Bohemond obtained these provisions. Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 82, says during the siege of Nicaea food was brought by seagoing ships with the emperor’s consent. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 93; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 51–52, says there was a great scarcity of bread in the camp until the emperor’s supplies arrived. See Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks, trans. R. Levine (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), 62; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 31. 6 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 315; Steven Runciman, A History of the Cru-

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

301

Danishmends for the possession of Melitene (Malatya), whose commander Gabriel had courageously resisted him and fortified the city. While attacking Melitene, the sultan learned of the Crusaders’ movement. When he could not take Melitene, he withdrew to his own territory, assembled a large army, and went to Nicaea to fight the Franks.7 With his capital city under siege, Kilij Arslan sent two messengers to tell its inhabitants he was coming to their aid with a mighty force and to offer words of encouragement. But one drowned in the lake and the Franks captured the other, from whom they learned about the approach of Kilij Arslan’s army.8 As Raymond of Saint-Gilles began to make camp on the south side of Nicaea, he suddenly faced the troops of Kilij Arslan. Divided into two groups, they descended from the mountain and fell upon the Frankish army. The Turks’ plan was for one contingent to fight Godfrey and the Germans, while the other would enter Nicaea by the south gate and rout the unsuspecting enemy.9 When Raymond saw the Turks advancing toward the gate, he attacked fiercely and defeated them, killing many while the others fled. The Franks took tens of thousands of captives and seized large quantities of gold and silver. But Kilij Arslan did not give up easily. Three days after this defeat he rallied the survivors and, with the help of fresh troops, returned to fight with high spirit.10 The Turks brought ropes with them, planning to lead the defeated Franks back to Khurasan (Persia) as captives. But as they descended the mountain, the Franks captured and beheaded them, and hurled the severed heads into the city with slingshots to strike terror among the Turkish garrison. Then Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bishop Adhémar met and decided to weaken the city by attacking the tower near the Turks’ camp and having tunnels dug to undermine the foundation. With a great effort, the miners succeeded in undermining the foundation and set fire to the beams and poles that held up the city walls. All this happened at night; the Turks managed to rebuild the walls in great

sades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 177. 7 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 163–164. 8 William of Tyre, History, 1: 154–155, presents the text of Kilij Arslan’s message. 9 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 25; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 62–63; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 320–324. 10 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 166.

302

THE CRUSADES

haste, but could not stop the attacking Franks at daybreak.11 Meanwhile, Robert of Flanders, Stephen of Blois, and Roger of Barneville arrived, adding to the strength of the Franks’ forces. Nicaea was by now totally surrounded, so that no one could get into or out of the city by land. The author of the Gesta Francorum declares, “I do not think that anyone has ever seen, or will ever again see, so many valiant knights.”12 The battle was fierce, and there were numerous casualties on both sides. As the Franks assailed the city with war machines, they were at times driven back from its strong walls. One would grieve, says Fulcher of Chartres, to see how the Turks killed Franks in close to the wall. They lowered iron hooks on ropes and snatched up the bodies of the slain Franks, which no comrade dared wrest away, then stripped them and threw them outside the walls.13 Although the Crusaders’ armies surrounded the city on three sides, the side facing the lake was exposed to the attacks by the Turks, who launched boats and brought food and other necessities to their besieged comrades. The Frankish leaders sent messengers to Constantinople to ask Emperor Alexius to have boats brought to the harbor town of Civitot and then dragged overland by oxen to the lake.14 The emperor responded immediately and sent his well-armed Turcopole mercenaries with the boats. His men did not launch the boats at once, but instead set out on the lake at night. By daybreak, the boats reached Nicaea. When the Turks inside the city saw the boats they were frightened, not knowing whose boats they were. Realizing that no outside help was coming, the Turks in the city sent the emperor a message offering to surrender the city to him if he would let them go free with their wives and children. The emperor, whom the author of the Gesta Francorum calls a fool as well as a knave, told them to depart unhurt and without fear. “He had them brought to him under safe-conduct, and kept them carefully so that he could have them ready to injure the Franks and obstruct their crusade.”15 Ordericus Vitalis, more temperate, says “the emperor, who secretly envied the success of the [Crusaders], Gesta Francorum, 15–16; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 93, trans. Chibnall, 5: 53; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 63; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 33; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 26. 12 Gesta Francorum, 16. William of Tyre, History, 1: 152–186, gives a more detailed account of the siege and capture of Nicaea than any other Latin source. 13 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 82. 14 Gesta Francorum, 16; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 82; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 64; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 96, trans. Chibnall, 5: 55. 15 Gesta Francorum, 16–17. 11

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

303

agreed to the terms of the besieged and ordered Tatano (Taticius) his general to bring to Byzantium in safety those citizens of Nicaea who were ready to surrender themselves and their property, and to be careful that no injury was done to the city.”16 These statements reveal the Latin writers’ distrust of the emperor and the manner in which the city of Nicaea surrendered to him. They treat him contemptuously, calling him “fool,” “knave,” and “jealous.” Guibert of Nogent calls him “the tyrant” who responded to the appeal of the Turks and set them free without punishment.17 Peter Tudebode accuses the emperor of deception and injustice for letting the Turks leave Nicaea freely.18 Fulcher of Chartres says that when the Turcopoles captured the city, they also seized all its treasure in the name of the emperor. Alexius ordered that gifts be presented to the Frankish leaders, including gold, silver and raiments, but to the foot soldiers he gave only copper coins.19 According to Anselm of Ribemont, Latins and Byzantines fought side by side to recover the city. Inside and outside the walls, carrying crosses and imperial standards, they cried together, “Glory to thee O Lord!” After capturing the city, the princes of the army met the emperor, who had come to render them thanks. “Having received from him gifts of inestimable value, the princes returned, some with kind feeling, some otherwise.”20 Stephen of Blois says that when the emperor heard of the surrender of Nicaea, he did not dare enter his own city, fearing that the inhabitants, who held him with utmost reverence, would smother him in their exaltation. He stayed on the island of Pelecanus, where he received all the Frankish princes; when Stephen and Raymond of Saint-Gilles went to see him and celebrate his great victory, he showered them with gifts.21 Guibert of Nogent says, “ . . . the tyrannical prince was extremely pleased to have regained the city, and gave our leaders countless gifts. He also made substantial charitable contributions to all the

Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 96–97, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 57. of Nogent, The Deeds, 65. 18 Tudebode, Historia, 33. 19 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 83; Letter of Stephen of Blois to his wife Adela, in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 140; Krey, 108–109; Brundage, “An Errant Crusader,” 385. 20 Anselm of Ribemont, in Krey, 106. 21 Stephen of Blois, letter to his wife, in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 140; Krey, 108–109; Brundage, “An Errant Crusader,” 385. 16

17 Guibert

304

THE CRUSADES

poorest people.”22 Matthew of Edessa says simply that the Franks handed over Nicaea to the Emperor Alexius.23 Some Franks who were neither powerful nor poor were overlooked by the emperor and felt envy and hostility toward their leaders. Guibert of Nogent calls the emperor’s action unjust; these overlooked Frankish warriors deserved the same gifts as the others. After all, they had fought the battles and, in the seven-week siege of Nicaea, carried “the burden and heat of the days. (Matthew, 20:12) ”24 . Many of these Franks suffered martyrdom; says the author of the Gesta Francorum, “They gave up their blessed souls to God with joy and gladness, and many of the poor starved to death for the name of Christ. All these entered Heaven in triumph.”25 When Nicaea capitulated on June 19, 1097, some of the Crusaders’ leaders were unhappy that the emperor had taken possession of the city and all the glory they thought should have been theirs. According to William of Tyre, the wife of Sultan Kilij Arslan had remained in the city up to the time of its capture and suffered hardship. When she saw the towers come tumbling down, she became exceedingly terrified and tried to flee. But the Franks had boats guarding the lake and prevented those besieged from leaving the city. When the guards discovered her trying to escape, they seized her and kept her under strict guard with the other prisoners. After the city surrendered to the emperor, however, she and her two sons along with many others were set free and taken to Constantinople, where they were treated with mercy and generosity.26 Anna Comnena gives a different account of Nicaea’s surrender. The emperor had planned to seize Nicaea, once part of his empire, even before the armies of Bohemond and Godfrey crossed over to Asia Minor. Despite his negotiation with the Franks’ leaders and their oath of allegiance, he considered them ambitious and avaricious, declaring with exaggeration that “they would sell their wives for a penny-piece.”27 Moreover, he realized that the sheer size of the Frankish army, which dwarfed his own, made him look weak. He crossed over to Pelecanus, close to Nicaea, to learn how the Franks were faring and get news of Kilij Arslan’s expedition and the state of Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 65. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 166. 24 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 65; Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, T. Forester, trans. (London: Henry G. Bohm, 1853), 228. 25 Gesta Francorum, 17; Tudebode, Historia, 33. 26 William of Tyre, History, 1: 165, 168. 27 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 272. 22 23

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

305

affairs inside the city. He thought that allowing the Franks to recapture Nicaea would bring humiliation on him. Wanting the victory laurels for himself, he hoped secretly to take Nicaea rather than receive it from the Franks in accordance with their pledge. To achieve his plan he sent his general and confidant Manuel Butumites to the inhabitants of Nicaea, whom Anna calls barbarians, to promise them complete immunity and warn them that they would endure terrible suffering and fall by the sword if the Franks took the city. Thus, their only salvation was to surrender the city to him. When he heard that Kilij Arslan was helping the inhabitants by bringing in food and provisions by boat, the emperor thought the Franks would never be able to capture the city. So he had light boats built and pulled by oxen to the lake, and manned them with heavily armed soldiers under the command of Butumites. Then he summoned Taticius and Tzitas from the continent and sent them with 2,000 brave peltasts to Nicaea. When they reached the city, they were to march forward slowly and fix their palisades opposite a tower called Gonates and then, by agreement with the Franks, attack the walls in close formation. When Taticius reached Nicaea with his troops, he sent word to the Franks of the emperor’s orders, and they and the Byzantines attacked together. The Turks in Nicaea were terror-struck when they saw so many boats with the emperor’s standard hoisted by the soldiers. Despairing when they realized no help was forthcoming from the sultan, they decided it was more prudent to surrender the city to the emperor. Butumites, on learning of their willingness to surrender, sent word that he wished to meet with the inhabitants. Making a suitable speech, he showed them a document sealed with gold, in which the emperor promised them immunity and great gifts. He also offered money and honor to the wife and sister of Sultan Kilij Arslan and had them taken to Constantinople.28 Despite what Anna Comnena says, Emperor Alexius could not have retaken Nicaea without the Franks, for it was they who besieged the city and forced the inhabitants to surrender. Indeed, her account exposes her father’s duplicity. She says that as soon as Butumites entered Nicaea, he ordered Taticius to attack the walls of the city, which was about to fall into his hands. He was to persuade the Franks to prepare for the assault, but he should encourage them simply to make an attack on the walls, encircle them, and start the siege at sunrise. This strategy, she says, “was really advice to make the Franks believe that the city had been taken by Butumites 28

Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 268–272.

306

THE CRUSADES

in battle and to keep secret the drama of treachery the Emperor had arranged. For the Emperor did not want the Franks to know anything of what Butumites had done.”29 Thinking the emperor’s men held the city, the Franks asked Butumites for permission to enter and worship in its churches. Once in the city, Butumites had the gates opened, and the emperor named him Duke of Nicaea. Butumites, who distrusted the Franks, let them enter the city only ten at a time.30 The emperor, staying at Pelecanus, wanted all the Frankish counts who had not yet sworn fealty to him to do so. He told Butumites to urge them not to start for Antioch before taking leave of him and promised that if they obeyed, he would shower them with gifts. When Bohemond, whom Anna Comnena consistently portrays as ambitious and greedy, heard gifts and money mentioned, he was the first to respond. Tancred alone refused to take the oath of fealty, despite the urging of his friends and the emperor’s kinsmen, saying he owed allegiance only to Bohemond and would keep it to his death. Anna Comnena reports that Tancred conceitedly told the emperor, who was sitting in a large royal tent, that he would swear the oath if he gave him this tent full of money and as much more as he had given the other Franks. George Palaeologus, a distinguished man and trusted friend of the emperor, tried to throw him out. But the emperor rose and separated the two. Bohemond also chided Tancred: “It is not fitting for you to behave in such an impudent way to the emperor’s kinsman.” Ashamed at having behaved as if he were drunk, Tancred, recognizing the disgrace of his insolence toward Palaeologus, and influenced by the counsel of Bohemond and others, took the oath.31 Tancred’s rash conduct may be blamed on his lack of foresight or his hatred of the Byzantines. Despite his respect for and veneration of his uncle, he apparently felt that Bohemond had acted unreasonably in taking the oath when he was in a position to dictate his will to the emperor and perhaps fulfill his desire to be the Domestic of the East. But Bohemond knew his limitations. He realized that if he and the other Frankish leaders were to reach Jerusalem and liberate it from the Muslims, they needed Alexius more than he needed them, for without his help, their journey through TurkishAnna Comnena, Alexiad, 73. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 275. 31 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 275–276; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, R.H.C. Occ., 3: 618–620; R. L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (New York: AMS Press, 1978), 32; Krey, 110 and 289, n. 25. 29 30

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

307

held Asia Minor would be impossible. No doubt he also realized that challenging the emperor’s authority in southern Italy, as he and his father had done, was totally different from challenging his authority in his own domain. So he rebuked Tancred for his reckless and unseemly behavior. Young Tancred did not agree with the other Frankish leaders, particularly his uncle Bohemond.32 Despite the contradictory claims and behavior of both the Franks and the emperor, the conquest of Nicaea was of tremendous importance to Alexius. The city was almost within sight of the walls of Constantinople, and the Turks’ presence had been a constant menace to the capital. With Nicaea taken, Alexius could breathe freely. 33 Toward the end of June 1097, the Crusaders left Nicaea and marched through Asia Minor. Unlike Nicaea, where the Turks could slip in and out of the city in small groups, the Crusaders now had to face the Turks in the open. Though outnumbered, the Turks enjoyed some advantages; they had swifter horses and greater mobility, and they were fighting on their own territory. But not all was bad for the Crusaders. The Turks lacked the unity they needed to challenge them. In fact, for many years before the Crusaders arrived in Asia Minor, the Turks had been embroiled in bitter disputes. The Abbasid caliphs had claimed authority over the Muslim East, but they were challenged by the Seljuk Turks, who embraced Islam and in 1055 occupied Baghdad, where they became the real power and reduced the caliphs to a mere religious symbol. The Seljuk Turks themselves formed two groups, one in Baghdad and the other in Asia Minor, in what came to be known as the Rum Seljuk Sultanate of Konya (Iconium). There were also petty Turkish states all over Asia Minor whose rulers were independent of the Seljuk Turks in Baghdad and even rebelled against them. The fact that these feudal lords were constantly fighting each other made them easy prey for the Crusaders. And when Sultan Alp Arslan died in 1092, his sons became engaged in a bitter struggle over control of his domains. But when they finally perceived the danger from the Crusaders and faced the possible loss of their territories, they closed ranks to fight them.34 After taking leave of the emperor, the Crusaders left Nicaea and marched into the interior part of Romania (Asia Minor). The emperor asFor more on this subject, see Nicholson, Tancred, 1, 25, 32–34. Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., 1 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 239. 34 See Claude Cahen, “The Turkish Invasion: The Selchükids,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 161–166; Krey, 112–113. 32 33

308

THE CRUSADES

signed Taticius and some troops to them, partly to facilitate their march and partly to take over any territory they might take from the Turks.35 They reached the river Sangarius, where they camped for three days.36 After resuming the march and crossing a bridge near the village of Leucae, the army split into two columns, probably to facilitate forage. One column, commanded by Bohemond, included Stephen of Blois, Robert of Normandy, and Tancred; the other, under Raymond of Saint-Gilles, included Godfrey, Hugh the Great, Robert of Flanders, and Bishop Adhémar. One column marched eastward and the other westward, with the intention of meeting at Dorylaeum, near present-day Eskisher.37 When Bohemond’s forces reached Dorylaeum, they were surprised to find that some adventurous Franks had already been there and lost about forty men in a skirmish with the Turks; Bohemond had not expected to meet them in battle so quickly. The loss of Nicaea had apparently awakened the Turks to the imminent danger from the Franks and the possible loss of territory to them. Consequently, the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan and the Turkish Amir Ghazi Danishmend had formed a joint front against the Franks. On June 30 the Turkish forces massed at Dorylaeum to fight the invaders.38 Bohemond’s camp was surrounded by Turks, howling and shouting in an unknown language. To Fulcher of Chartres, they were howling like wolves and furiously shooting a cloud of arrows.39 Bohemond addressed his knights in true Christian spirit: “Gentlemen, most valiant soldiers of Christ, you can see that we are encircled and that the battle will be hard, so let the knights go out to fight bravely, while the foot soldiers are careful and quick in pitching the camp.”40 Guibert of Nogent says Bohemond told his men, “If you keep in mind the expedition that you joined, having considered why 35 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 83; Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 276. William of Malmesbury, 431, puts the number of Franks who left Nicaea at 700,000, which seems highly exaggerated. 36 Gesta Francorum, 18; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 183. 37 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 99, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 59. For the routes taken by the two columns, see Oman, History, 1: 239–240, and Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 183–184. 38 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 184–185; Sa‘id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya: Safha Mushriqa fi Tarikh al-Jihad al-Arabi fi al-Usar al-Wusta, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963): 166. 39 Gesta Francorum, 18; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 85. Probably the Turks were shouting the Muslim war cry Allah Akbar [Allah is the Greatest]. 40 Gesta Francorum, 18–19; Tudebode, Historia, 34.

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

309

it was necessary, then go forward. Attack them like men, and defend your honor and your life.”41 When Bohemond’s camp was arranged in good order according to the rules of military science, Sultan Kilij Arslan appeared with a large contingent of Turks, perhaps more than 360,000.42 Encouraged by the arrival of such a huge force, and with Kilij Arslan “rejoicing like a lion in the strength of his army,”43 the Turks attacked Bohemond’s army from every direction, throwing darts and javelins and shooting arrows from an astonishing range. The Crusaders were surprised at the multitude of Turks, Arabs, and other Muslims covering the mountains, hills, valleys, and plains near Dorylaeum. Frightened and trembling, they huddled like sheep in a fold. Surrounded by the enemy, they could not turn in any direction. This happened, says Fulcher of Chartres, because some of them had been defiled by sin, luxury, and avarice.44 Despite the ferocious attack, the Crusaders fought valiantly as one man. The women in their camp rendered a great help by bringing water to the fighting men and encouraging them to defend themselves.45 Seeing that the Turks were fighting very bravely, Bohemond sent an urgent request for aid to the other column of Crusaders commanded by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, which was camped six or seven miles away. GodGuibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 65. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 84, esp. n. 7, puts the number at 360,000 and gives the names of some Turkish leaders in garbled form. Gesta Francorum, 20, and Tudebode, Historia, 36, also say the enemy force included 360,000 Turks, Persians, Paulicians, Saracens [Muslims] and Agulani, not counting Arabs. The author of the Gesta Francorum apparently did not know that the Turks and Arabs were Muslims, or that the Agulani were not a sect or nation, but a particular group of fighting men. His mention of Paulicians in the Turkish army is curious; they were heretical Armenians who were persecuted by the Byzantine church and state. Some of them may have converted to Islam and therefore joined the Turks. On the Agulani and Paulicians, see Runciman, The Medieval Manichee, 59–62. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 67, and Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 99, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 59, put the number at 460,000. William of Tyre, History, 1: 170, 173, says the Turks numbered 200,000, including 150,000 horsemen, while the Frankish forces, cavalry and infantry, numbered barely 50,000. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 27, says Bohemond’s soldiers saw 150,000 Turks (Kilij Arslan’s horsemen) approaching his camp in battle formation. This number seems exaggerated. 43 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 277. 44 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 85–86. 45 Gesta Francorum, 19; Tudebode, Historia, 35. On the women who went with the Crusaders, see Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 336–337. 41 42

310

THE CRUSADES

frey and Hugh the Great arrived first, and then the bishop of Le Puy. Raymond of Saint-Gilles followed them to Dorylaeum with a large cavalry force. The infantry remained behind to guard the tents.46 Meanwhile, a secret message of encouragement was passed to the fighting Crusaders: “Stand fast all together, trusting in Christ and the victory of the Holy Cross. Today, please God, and you will receive great wealth.”47 The arrival of the column led by Godfrey and Raymond of Saint-Gilles changed the whole situation in favor of the Crusaders. Forming one body, they were now ready for battle. The author of the Gesta Francorum, describes the Crusaders’ formation. On the left wing, on which he fought, were Bohemond, Robert of Normandy, Tancred, Robert of Anse, and Richard of the Principate. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Robert of Flanders, Hugh the Great, and Godfrey took positions on the right.48 Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, came down from the mountain and surrounded the startled Turks. In their distress, the Crusaders turned to God for mercy. Their patron, Adhémar, with forty bishops and many priests, all in white vestments, asked God to destroy their enemy.49 On July 1, 1097, the Franks and Turks met in a ferocious battle. The Turks were soundly defeated and took flight.50 They left behind great quantities of gold and silver, numerous animals (asses, pack-horses, and camels), tents, and pavilions of various colors and unusual shapes, which the Franks had never seen before. The Franks carried these off and returned to their camp.51 The contemporary Latin sources do not provide casualty figures for either side, but say that the Franks lost two distinguished knights, Godfrey of Monte Scaglioso and Tancred’s brother William, who was killed by an Oman, History, 1: 277. Gesta Francorum, 19–20; Tudebode, Historia, 35; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 66–67. 48 Gesta Francorum, 20. 49 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 85–86. 50 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 86–87; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 331; Oman, History, 1: 239–240; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 184–186; R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare 1097–1193 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 168–170; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade jusqu’à l’élection de Godefroi de Bouillon (Paris: A. Picard, 1935), 169–170; René Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem, 1 (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1934–1936): 31–36. 51 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 87; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 166; William of Tyre, History, 1: 172. 46 47

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

311

arrow.52 William of Tyre says the Turks lost three thousand powerful and illustrious men, while the Franks lost only four thousand “of our common people and those of the lowest rank, both men and women… according to the recollection of aged men, only two of higher rank perished.”53 Guibert of Nogent says that the savage people (Arabs) showed their backs to the Christians and ran like rabbits, and so many fleeing Muslims were killed that the Crusaders did not have enough swords to do all the killing.54 The battle of Dorylaeum marks the first military success of Christianity over Islam in the East in which the Franks played a decisive role. Since Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantines, having lost most of Asia Minor to the Turks, had grown apathetic and resigned to the idea that they could not resist the Turks or regain what they had lost. This attitude seems to underlie Emperor Alexius’s warning to the Franks about the strength and war tactics of the Turks. Since he did not have a military force strong enough to regain his lost territories, he expected the Franks to restore them to him. Because the Byzantine Christians had become spiritually apathetic about retaking their country from the Muslims, it fell to the Western Christians, the Franks, to shoulder this responsibility. Reading the Latin sources, one senses that the Franks’ fight at Dorylaeum was charged with great spiritual enthusiasm. They were fighting in the name of Christ and for the Cross. Their victory, says Fulcher of Chartres, strengthened the glory of Christianity: “Gladdened by such a victory, we all gave thanks to God. He had willed that our journey should not be brought entirely to naught, but that it should prosper more gloriously than usual for the sake of that Christianity which was His own. Wherefore from East to West the tiding shall resound forever.”55 Guibert of Nogent wrote of the Franks’ victory: Here we can clearly see the signs of Christian power. And if we marvel at the inequality of a battle between so few men and so many, we must attribute the results entirely to the aid of Christ. For if in the ancient text it is said of the Jews, who had not yet separated from God, “one will pursue a thousand, and two will put to flight ten thousand,” (DeuteronGesta Francorum, 21; Tudebode, Historia, 36; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 68; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 102, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 63. 53 William of Tyre, History, 1: 173, esp. n. 15, most likely based his information on oral tradition. 54 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 67. For detailed account of the battle of Dorylaeum see John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 170–187 55 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 86. 52

312

THE CRUSADES omy, 32:30) then it seems to me no less true of this victor, since human understanding cannot hope to fathom how so many men could be defeated by so few.56

Although the Franks believed that they were the valiant soldiers of Christ and had gained victory in His name and His cross for the glory of Christianity, they did not conceal their admiration and even envy at how valiantly the Turks fought. The author of the Gesta Francorum exalts the Turks for their skill, power, and courage, but says still the Franks beat them. He wishes that they too were Christians. Nobody can deny, he says, that if the Turks stood firm in the faith of Christ, and were willing to accept one God in three persons (the Trinity), and believed that the Son of God was born of a virgin mother, and that He suffered, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven and then sent the Holy Ghost to His disciples, and that He reigns in Heaven and earth, “you could not find stronger or braver or more skillful soldiers.”57 The author reveals his ignorance of Islam, saying the Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, but according to the Quran, “Jesus is like Adam in the sight of Allah. He created him of dust and then said to him: ‘Be’, and he was.”58 His admiration of the Turks is so great that he even considers them of the same ethnic origin as the Franks. He says that there is a saying that the Turks are of common stock with the Franks, and that no men except the Franks and themselves are naturally born to be knights.59 One of the consequences of the battle of Dorylaeum, says Grousset, is that it settled the question of power in the Near East for more than a century. The Franks’ victory was a harbinger of the creation of a new power which was to prevail for generations to come. In this sense, the victory at Dorylaeum offset the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert. Dorylaeum so demeaned Turkish power that until 1187, when Saladin finally evicted the Franks from Jerusalem, the Muslims gave way not only to the Franks, who conquered all Syria including Palestine, but to the Byzantines, who regained most of their provinces in Asia Minor.60 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 68. Gesta Francorum, 21. 58 Sura of Imran, 3: 59. 59 Gesta Francorum, 21; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 68, likewise says the Turks believed that they shared a common ancestry with the Franks. 60 Grousset, Histoire des croisades, 1: 12–13, and The Epic of the Crusades, trans. Noel Lindsay (New York: Orion Press, 1970), 19. 56 57

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

313

The Franks’ victory was so great that for four days and nights after their defeat, “the foes of God and sacred Christianity” fled helter-skelter.61 Sultan Kilij Arslan, who, “frightened out of his mind, fled Nicaea after the end of its siege,”62 met ten thousand Arabs who asked him with bitter sarcasm, “O unhappy man, more miserable than all our people, why are you fleeing in terror?” The sultan answered that just when he thought he had defeated the Franks and prepared to have them bound together in pairs as captives, he looked back and saw swarms of Franks covering the mountains, hills, valleys and plains, and he and his men were terribly frightened and took flight. He added, “If you will believe me and trust my words, be off, because if they know that you are here, hardly one of you will escape with his life.” When the Arabs heard his words, they retreated and scattered throughout Rum (Asia Minor).63 To cover up their defeat, whenever they reached a town or castle where Syrian Christians lived, the fleeing Turks cunningly told them they had defeated and conquered the Christians, who had all disappeared or hidden themselves in holes. These simple Christian folk, taken by surprise, received them into their gates. The Turks took their vengeance on these simple people and pillaged their churches and houses and whatever they could find of value—horses, asses, mules, gold and silver. They also kidnaped Christian children and burned everything that might be of use to the Franks as they fled, terror-stricken, before the Franks’ vanguard.64 Charles Oman says Dorylaeum can be called a chance victory. The Crusaders should have been defeated because they split into two disconnected columns and marched haphazardly through an area unknown to them. Godfrey had to march six or seven miles to reach Bohemond’s column, and the Turks wasted much time vainly searching for the right column, while Bohemond’s messengers were asking Godfrey to come to their aid. Moreover, the Franks were totally unable to cope with the Turks’ unexpected formation. They did not even try to use their infantry and cavalry simultaneously to return the Turks’ showers of arrows and spears. In fact, after holding out for five hours, Bohemond’s column would have broken up and suffered disaster if it were not for the comrades who came to their Gesta Francorum, 22; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 37. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 68. 63 Gesta Francorum, 32; Tudebode, Historia, 37–38; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 68; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 28; Oman, History, 1: 277. 64 Gesta Francorum, 23, Tudebode, Historia, 38; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 103, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 65. 61 62

314

THE CRUSADES

aid. Oman concludes that the Franks’ victory was “undeserved, yet it gave the Crusaders a free passage through Asia Minor.”65 This interpretation is doubtful and should not be taken at face value. Oman’s estimate of the distance between Bohemond’s force and the others does not square with the Gesta Francorum.66 R. C. Smail asserts that although the Franks were closepacked and disorganized and their most adventurous knights failed to challenge the Turks, the Turks could not destroy them. Once Godfrey’s force arrived, the Franks represented a formidable power; in a few hours the deadlock was broken and they won the battle.67 The Franks continued to pursue the Turks, but faced great hardships. They passed through uninhabited territory where they suffered from lack of food and water. To relieve their hunger they had to rub their hands with spikes of cactus or corn.68 They lost many knights to thirst and hunger. They also lost most of their horses, and their cavalrymen had to go on foot. Because they had lost their horses, the Franks used oxen, goats and sheep and dogs as pack animals, and some armed knights even used oxen as mounts.69 Despite these hardships, the Franks marched on until finally, toward the middle of August 1097, they reached Iconium (Konya).70 They found that its inhabitants had already fled into the neighboring mountains with all the possessions they could carry. The Franks were worn out and needed rest. Godfrey had been wounded few days earlier by a bear while hunting. Raymond of Saint-Gilles fell gravely ill, and Bishop William of Orange administered the last rites of the dead to him.71 On the advice of the 65

184.

Oman, History, 1: 277–278; John France, Victory in the East, 170–175 and 180–

See William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 287, n. 1. 67 R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare, 169; Stevenson, “First Crusade,” 286–287. 68 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 69, n. 137, says these were spikes of cactus, perhaps used to make flour. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 103, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 65, says the Franks plucked ears of unripe corn, rubbed them, then chewed and swallowed them. William of Malmesbury, 430–431, also mentions corn and blames the “savage” Turks for plundering the land and turning it barren before the Crusaders passed through it. He appears to follow Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 87, who says the country leading to Iconium was depopulated by the Turks. See Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 339. 69 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 314; von Sybel, 301–302. 70 Gesta Francorum, 23; Tudebode, Historia, 39; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 88; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 69. 71 Raymond of Aguilers, Armenia, 28–29; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 66

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

315

Armenians living near Iconium, the Franks carried skins filled with water to last them a day’s journey. They reached a river where they rested for two days and then journeyed to Heraclea (modern Erghli), thirty hours from Iconium.72 At Heraclea there were a considerable number of Turkish troops, mostly Danishmends and men of Hasan of Cappadocia, who had fled at the approach of the Crusaders. The Turks laid an ambush, but the Crusaders discovered it, defeated the Turks, and routed them. They then entered the city, where they remained four days.73 In mid-September 1097, Tancred and Godfrey’s brother Baldwin split off from the main army at Heraclea and entered the valley of Botrenthrot, or Podandos (modern Gealek Boghaz), at the entrance to one of the passes of the Taurus Mountains, on the road to the Cilician coast.74 Their objective was Mar’ash, inhabited mostly by Armenians; the bulk of the army was to advance northward to Caesarea, then join Tancred and Baldwin at Mar’ash and together strike at Antioch. But Tancred broke away from Baldwin’s forces and led his knights to Tarsus, famous as the birthplace of St. Paul.75 The army rested for three days of rest at Mar’ash, where Fulcher of Chartres left the main force and joined that of Baldwin.76 But why did the Frankish army divide itself at this point? William of Tyre says some knights left the main body of the army to explore the country and learn more about its pathways before trying their fortune.77 Some modern writers believe that

341–342; William of Tyre, History, 1: 176–177; J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robson (New York: AMS Press, 1973), 1: 115; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 189. 72 Gesta Francorum, 23; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 69; Tudebode, Historia, 39; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 103, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 65; William of Tyre, History, 1: 177. 73 Gesta Francorum, 24; Tudebode, Historia, 39 and n. 29; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 69–70; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 103–104, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 65. 74 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 340; William of Tyre, History, 1: 177, suggests that Tancred and Baldwin split from the main body of the army before they reached Heraclea. 75 Gesta Francorum, 24, Tudebode, Historia, 39; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 70; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 104, trans. Chibnall, 5: 65–67. Nicholson, Tancred, devotes 38–56 to the division of the Frankish army and the quarrel between Tancred and Baldwin. 76 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 89. 77 William of Tyre, History, 1: 175.

316

THE CRUSADES

the Frankish army split up to facilitate the search for food.78 But this does not make much sense, since sending Tancred and Baldwin in a different direction with a small force could not have solved the food-shortage problem. The division of the army at Heraclea was motivated mainly by strategic and political factors.79 To reach Syria, the Franks had to pass through the province of Cilicia, inhabited mostly by Christian Armenians who had immigrated there in the eleventh century, either voluntarily or on the orders of the Byzantine emperor. It was sound strategy to win these Armenians to their cause and establish a stronghold against the Turks. Few Armenians lived in Cappadocia, to which the remnants of Kilij Arslan’s army had fled after Dorylaeum, hoping to unite with other Turks and create a new military front, which the Franks certainly did not wish to face. Cilicia thus offered the Franks a better opportunity to consolidate their power and win the support of the Armenian princelings, with whom they had already communicated when they marched into Asia Minor.80 Matthew of Edessa writes that when the Frankish army, numbering about 500,000, marched through Bithynia, the Armenian princes, Thoros, ruler of Edessa, and Constantine, ruler of the territory of Kopitar, a fortress in the Taurus Mountains in northern Cilicia, were informed by letter of their coming.81 Unfortunately, he does not say who wrote this letter or under what circumstances. We may only speculate that the Franks informed these Armenian princes of their coming in hopes of getting them to form a united front against their enemy, the Turks. After Tancred broke away from Baldwin’s company, Baldwin, aided by an Armenian guide named Panoratius who was thoroughly acquainted with the region, marched by the Via Regia and caught up with him at Tarsus.82 Soon the two leaders were embroiled in a quarrel over possession of the city, to be discussed later. At this point we must ask why Tancred and Baldwin split. Ralph Bailey Yewdale asserts that Bohemond’s design upon Antioch first became evident during the Franks’ march through Asia Minor, and that Tancred and a group of Norman troops broke away from Baldwin’s force and marched southward to Cilicia to secure the strategic route Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), 95. Nicholson, Tancred, 38–56. 80 Robert Nicholson, Tancred, 40. 81 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 166; William of Tyre, History, 1: 173–174, says the pilgrims (Crusaders) went through Bithynia into Pisidia and then Antioch. 82 Ralph of Caen, History, 633; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 343–344; Grousset, Historie, 1: 45; Paul Gindler, Graf Balduin I von Edessa (Halle, 1901), 15–16. 78 79

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

317

leading to Antioch, suggesting that Tancred’s action was intended to promote his uncle’s interest in carving out a principality there for himself.83 Robert L. Nicholson argues that the struggle between Tancred and Baldwin over possession of Tarsus was motivated by self-aggrandizement, at the expense of both the Byzantine and the Seljuk Turks. He says Tancred, who had sworn fealty to Emperor Alexius, was not honest enough to keep his word. He had taken the oath at Constantinople but, finding himself near to Antioch and outside the emperor’s jurisdiction, regarded it as no longer binding. Thus, Tancred became Bohemond’s willing instrument in invading Cilicia and paved the way for him to capture Antioch.84 Nicholson also dismisses the idea that Baldwin accompanied Tancred out of jealousy, saying he did so to promote the interest of his own Lorraine group, which did not want Tancred to control Cilicia and facilitate the aims of his uncle Bohemond. If this was Tancred’s objective, then Baldwin’s group must also have aspired to a territorial base in the region.85 Whatever the reasons were, as the Frankish leaders left Asia Minor for Syria, their attitudes toward the Emperor Alexius and each other were drastically changed. They were motivated by individual ambition to carve out for themselves principalities in the East. Pursuing material benefits, they had put their self-interest above all else.86 Rivalry between Baldwin’s Lorraine group and Tancred’s Norman group for the control of the major cities of Cilicia, as a step toward control of Syria and its major city, Antioch, must have been the main reason why the two forces, which had left Heraclea together, parted company soon afterwards. The rivalry is confirmed by the fact that when the two leaders reached Tarsus, they began to quarrel over control of the city. Although Tancred’s force was much smaller than Baldwin’s, he was determined to establish himself at Tarsus before anyone else could challenge him.87 83 R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond I: Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 49. 84 Nicholson, Tancred, 49. 85 Nicholson, Tancred, 42. Röhricht, Geschichte, 96, says Baldwin accompanied Tancred out of jealousy. See Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 345–346; J. C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications, 1972), 71–73. 86 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 31. 87 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 630, 633, says Tancred had 100 knights and 200 foot soldiers, while Baldwin had 500 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers. For more on their rivalry, see Gindler, Graf Baldwin, 15–17, and Nicholson, Tancred, 43–44.

318

THE CRUSADES

Tancred reached Tarsus and for seven days laid siege to the city. Most of its inhabitants at this time were Christian Armenians and Greeks, but there were also some Turks who controlled the fortresses and oppressed the Christians. With threats and harsh language, Tancred urged the people to raise his standard on the highest tower, to signify that they had surrendered to him. They acquiesced, on condition that he would protect them until Bohemond’s force arrived and would not compel them to leave their houses or estates against their will. Tancred accepted these conditions.88 But while he was still at the city gates, Baldwin arrived from another direction. When he saw from afar a camp at the city gates, he thought it was Turkish. Likewise, Tancred, seeing a large force advancing toward the city, thought it was Turkish and alerted his men to be ready to fight.89 But when he saw that it was Baldwin’s men, he received them with affection and hospitality. The two leaders joined forces and continued the siege of the city.90 Baldwin, who had designs on Tarsus, asked Tancred to make a friendly agreement to share the city, but Tancred refused. The Turkish inhabitants fled the city as the Christians came out into the night shouting, “Come on, unconquered Franks, come on! The Turks have all gone because they are much afraid of you.”91 Tancred and Baldwin seemed unable to settle their dispute over Tarsus. It was left to the Christian population of the city to resolve the problem. At dawn the dignitaries of Tarsus came out and told the two, “Sirs, let be. We desire and seek to have for our ruler and lord the man who yesterday fought so gallantly against the Turks, i.e., Tancred.”92 But Baldwin objected, saying that he and Tancred should seize and plunder the city, and whoever took the most should claim the whole city for himself. Tancred nobly replied that he had no wish to plunder Christians, and that the men of Tarsus had chosen him to be their lord. But in the end, says the author of the Gesta Francorum, Tancred could not stand up to the superior strength of Baldwin’s forces and so left the city with his men to capture the two towns of Adana, at the foot of the Taurus mountain, and Mamistra (Mopsuestia, the modern al-Missisa), east of Adana on the right bank of the River Jihan, with many castles which surrendered to him directly.93 Fulcher of Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 343; William of Tyre, History, 1: 179. Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 632; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 343. 90 William of Tyre, History, 1: 180. 91 Gesta Francorum, 24. 92 Gesta Francorum, 24. 93 Gesta Francorum, 25; William of Tyre, History, 1: 181; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tan88 89

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

319

Chartres does not discuss the rivalry between Tancred and Baldwin, but praises the latter as a most capable knight. He says that Baldwin took the city of Tarsus from Tancred and, leaving guards in it, returned to the main army.94 Evidently, Baldwin succeeded in frustrating Tancred’s ambition to establish a principality for himself at Tarsus. After Tancred left, Baldwin took possession of Tarsus. He ordered its citizens to open the gates and let his forces in, and, lacking the confidence to challenge him, they obeyed. The Turks, who controlled most of the towers and fortifications, were suspicious of these Christians. When they saw that there was no hope of outside help, they began to steal out of the city with their wives, children, servants, and belongings.95 Soon after Tancred left, three hundred Normans from Bohemond’s expedition arrived at Tarsus, apparently to reinforce Tancred’s forces. Baldwin, now in control, refused them entrance to the city. Weary and short of supplies, they implored him to let them lodge in the city and purchase food. Baldwin’s forces within the city sympathized with these men and urged him to let them in, but he was adamant. The Christians of Tarsus, motivated by brotherly charity, lowered baskets full of bread and wine in skins from the wall by ropes. By chance, the Turks who had stealthily left Tarsus saw the 300 Normans sleeping outside the gates, fell upon them, and murdered them all. The next day the citizens and Baldwin’s men discovered the massacre. Outraged at this atrocity, Baldwin’s men rebelled against him and the other chiefs. The situation had become too tense, and Baldwin had to act. He managed to quiet the foot soldiers, who were still holding their arms, and began to protest his innocence. He swore that his only reason for barring the men from entering the city was that he had promised to let no one enter the city until the duke [Godfrey] arrived. Finally, by flattering and persuading certain nobles, he placated his men.96 As he was speaking, he pointed to several towers still controlled by the Turks. His men now turned their rage against the Turks. Their fury was increased when some Christian women of the city appeared and showed that the Turks had cut off their noses and credi, 633–634; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 344–346; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 70; Tudebode, Historia, 39–40; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 104–105, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 67. 94 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 89. 95 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 344–346; William of Tyre, History, 1: 182, follows Albert’s narrative. 96 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 346–347; William of Tyre, History, 1: 183– 184.

320

THE CRUSADES

ears. Baldwin’s men, no longer able to control their emotions, fell upon the Turks left in Tarsus and massacred them without pity.97 Baldwin soon received unexpected reinforcements. Three miles from Tarsus, a fleet appeared on the sea entering the bay of Mersin, at the mouth of the Cydmus river just below the city, and his men rushed to the shore to investigate. The sailors were Christians, Flemish, Dutch and Frisian pirates who had plied the seas for eight years. They regretted their sinful acts, had repented, and were en route to Jerusalem to worship. When Baldwin’s men saw they were men of faith, they received them with the kiss of peace and led them to Tarsus. The pirate captain, Guinemer (also called Guynemer, Guymer or Winemer), a Boulognian, recognized Baldwin, the son of his lord, Count Eustace. Guinemer, a rich man with many followers, pledged that he and his companions would take up the cross and fight alongside the Crusaders. Five hundred of the men with Baldwin and Guinemer were selected as a garrison to guard Tarsus after the others had left the city.98 The episode of Guinemer, related by Albert of Aachen, has been viewed with some suspicion, even regarded as a fabrication, in conflict with attested facts. Babcock and Krey write, “Albert of Aachen is undoubtedly guilty of embellishing the original facts with fanciful details, not all of which are accepted by William of Tyre.”99 The Latin sources give differing accounts of Tancred’s march to Adana and his actions there. Ralph of Caen says that after leaving Tarsus, Tancred marched northeast to Adana at the request of the Armenian Ursinus (Oshin), who had recently captured the city from the Turks, and arrived there on September 22, 1097.100 Oshin, identified as the Armenian lord of Lamport and a scion of the Hetumid family, asked Tancred to place his forces at his disposal to attack the neighboring city of Mamistra, held by the Turks.101 Tancred, desiring the Armenians’ friendship and cooperation, agreed, and the combined forces attacked Mamistra the next day. The peoMichaud, History of the Crusades, 1: 118. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 347–350; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 629–641; William of Tyre, History, 1: 184; Michaud, A History of The Crusades, 1: 118; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 199. 99 Emily Atwater Babcock and A. C. Krey, eds., William of Tyre, History, 1: 184–185, n. 23; C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Harvard Historical Studies 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 237–238. 100 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 634–636. 101 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 167; Chalandon, Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène (Paris: A. Picard, 1912), 105; Nicholson, Tancred, 48, n. 2. 97 98

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

321

ple of Mamistra promptly surrendered to Tancred and declared him their governor.102 Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre say that Tancred was unable to enter Adana because it had already been seized by a certain Burgundian knight named Guelf. Apparently Guelf and some followers, having split off from the main Frankish army, by chance came to Adana and took it from the Turks by force. When Tancred learned that the city had fallen into the hands of the Franks, he dispatched messengers to ask Guelf to open its gates for him and his troops. Guelf agreed and provided Tancred and his men with food, some at no charge and some at a fixed price. He was generous to Tancred because he had laid his hands on the treasures of the city, which he found full of gold, silver, flocks and herds, grain, wine and oil. Tancred then left the city and marched along the royal highway to Mamistra. Arriving there in October 1097, he made his camp nearby and began his attack. The Turks resisted, but Tancred overwhelmed them and many of them fled. Within a few days, he captured the city and slew the infidels inside it.103 He found vast amounts of riches and provisions in the city and divided them among his men. While he was at Mamistra, Tancred learned that Baldwin had left Tarsus and was on his way there. Baldwin’s march was not easy, for he had to cross two rivers. Moreover, Tancred had already ordered the inhabitants of Adana and Mamistra to remove all the bridges, so that Baldwin’s forces could not use them.104 Tancred, angered by Baldwin’s arrival, wanted to fight. Richard of the Principate (Richard of Salerno) and Robert of Anzi urged him to retaliate for what Baldwin had done to him at Tarsus. Heeding their advice, Tancred sent a troop of archers to wound the horses of Baldwin’s men, which were foraging in the pastures, or to capture and drive them out. Tancred himself took 500 knights and fell upon Baldwin’s camp. He surprised the sentries, who were killed before they could seize their weapons. But Baldwin’s men resisted. A fierce struggle ensued and both sides fought furiously, as if they were bitter enemies. Baldwin’s forces captured Richard of the Principate, while Tancred’s men seized Gilbert of Montclair, and both camps were dismayed by the apparent loss of these distinguished men. Recognizing that his small force was no match for 102 103

181. 104

Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 634–637; Nicholson, Tancred, 49. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 346, 349–350; William of Tyre, History, 1: Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 634.

322

THE CRUSADES

Baldwin’s men and could not endure the stress of battle, Tancred retreated to Mamistra. Finally, he and Baldwin realized that they had come to the East to fight the Turks, not each other. They exchanged messengers and asked for terms of peace. Prisoners on both sides were returned, Tancred and Baldwin reconciled, their armies took the kiss of peace, and harmony was restored.105 The Latin sources also differ about what Baldwin and Tancred did after leaving Mamistra. The Gesta Francorum is silent on the subject. Fulcher of Chartres says that Baldwin gathered a few knights and set out toward the Euphrates, where he took many towns, the most desirable being Turbessel (Tall Bashir), whose Armenian inhabitants surrendered peacefully. He then relates Baldwin’s actions concerning Edessa.106 William of Tyre says Baldwin went to Mar’ash, where the main army had just arrived, to see his brother Godfrey. He heard that Godfrey had fallen ill and tried to visit him, but when he heard that Godfrey was recovering, he decided to seek new adventures. Baldwin’s wife Gutuera (Godihelde), who had accompanied him on the Crusade, died at Mar’ash and was buried with due rites and honor. Baldwin wanted to go on to Syria, but many Franks, put off by his arrogant treatment of Tancred at Tarsus, refused to join him. Even Godfrey severely reprimanded him for his action. But Baldwin acknowledged his bad behavior toward Tancred and was pardoned, winning back the good will of all. Absolved of his guilt, Baldwin finally convinced a few comrades to accompany him on his expedition. William says no more about Baldwin’s actions until he reached Edessa.107 Ralph of Caen says Baldwin left Mamistra and crossed the Euphrates, intending to claim a principality for himself, which he deemed more important than conquering Cilicia. Baldwin probably thought Tancred might well challenge him for control of Cilicia, whose inhabitants were mostly Greek and Armenian, and he marched toward Edessa to avoid a conflict with him. On the way he attacked the city of Artasium (Artah), northeast of Antioch, but the Turks succeeded in besieging his force.108 Meanwhile, Tancred was Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 349–350; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 637–639; William of Tyre, History, 1: 185. See Nicholson, Tancred, 50–51, esp. 50, n. 1. 106 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 89–90. 107 William of Tyre, History, 1: 177, 187. The account of Baldwin’s treatment by the Franks and his own brother is most likely based on oral tradition. See William of Tyre, 1: 187, n. 2. 108 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 639. 105

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

323

also marching toward Artah. When his forces reached the city, the Turks, mistaking them for the main Frankish army, became frightened and retreated. Tancred easily entered Artah and rescued Baldwin. Once again the two rivals came face to face at Artah, and their old hostility rekindled. The Turks, realizing that only a small Frankish force had attacked Artah, returned to fight. But instead of storming the city, for reasons unknown they suddenly left, and the Frankish leaders resumed their quarrel. The deadlock was finally broken when Tancred wisely left the city to Baldwin. He marched around the Gulf of Issus and captured several towns, including Alexandretta (modern Iskenderun), aided by the naval forces of Guinemer, who had supported him at Tarsus.109 He was welcomed by the Armenian population, who had long sought freedom from their Muslim overlords.110 Having achieved this memorable feat, Tancred left Alexandretta and turned northward to join the main Frankish army.111 After Tancred’s departure from Artasium, Baldwin also left to join the main army at Mar’ash, leaving his kinsman Baldwin of Le Bourg in control of the city.112 The conflict between Tancred and Baldwin shows that they sought to claim principalities for themselves in the East. They apparently forgot that their main mission, and that of the whole Frankish expedition, was to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslims and reclaim Jerusalem. Clearly, selfinterest and worldly ambition took precedence over spiritual principles. The main Frankish forces, commanded by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Bohemond, Godfrey, Stephen of Blois, and many others, entered the land of the Armenians, thirsting for the blood of the Turks. They came to a wellfortified castle but failed to capture it. An Armenian native named Simeon wanted ownership of the castle, so that he could keep it from falling into the hands of the Turks. The Frankish leaders granted that right, and he dwelled among his people. The Franks left and after a pleasant journey came on September 27, 1097, to Caesarea (modern Kayseri) in Cappadocia, a region in central Anatolia. From there they marched to Comana (Placentia), a city of great splendor and wealth, which quickly surrendered. A knight named Peter of Aups (Aulps, or Alfia, according to Ordericus Vitalis) asked the Franks to let him hold the city in fealty to God, the Holy 109 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 357; Runciman, “The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,” in A History of the Crusades, 1: 301–302. 110 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 640–641. 111 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 360. 112 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 641; Nicholson, Tancred, 55–56.

324

THE CRUSADES

Sepulcher, and the Emperor Alexius, and they gave it to him with good will. Meanwhile, Bohemond heard that the Danishmend Turks were in the area and had besieged the city. He and his knights prepared to attack them wherever they were, but he could not find them.113 On October 5–6, 1097, the Franks marched to Coxon (modern Göksun), a fine, wealthy city whose Armenian inhabitants surrendered voluntarily (and gladly) to their fellow Christians. They stayed there three days, enjoying rest and plentiful provisions. While they were there Raymond of Saint-Gilles received reports that the Turkish garrison guarding Antioch had fled the city. He held a council with his Provençals and sent Peter of Castillion, William of Montpellier, Peter of Roaix, and Peter Raymond of Hautpoul (Hauteville), along with 500 knights, to explore the road, scout the territory, and take possession of the city. Reaching a castle near Antioch held by the Paulicians, they learned that the Turks inside the city were preparing to defend it. Leaving the expeditionary force under the cover of darkness, Peter of Roaix passed near Antioch and entered the Rugia (Riha) valley, east of Antioch, where he found a number of Turks. He killed many and drove away the rest. When the Armenian inhabitants saw that Peter of Roaix had defeated their enemies, they immediately surrendered Rugia and other castles to him.114 Those who had stayed at Coxon now left the city and marched to Mar’ash (Germanicia). They had to go by a rough road across the antiTaurus range, which the author of the Gesta Francorum calls “a damnable mountain” and Peter Tudebode calls “the devilish mountain.”115 This journey was perhaps the worst and most hazardous the Crusaders ever made. The mountain was high and rocky, so precipitous that no man would dare to overtake another on the rough-hewn trails. The path was so narrow that the men collided with each other and were badly bruised. As horses plunged over the cliff and pack animals dragged one another down, the helpless knights could only wring their hands in shock and grief. They were so miserable, frightened, and uncertain of their fate that they sold their shields, breastplates, helmets, and valuables for whatever they could get. 113 Gesta Francorum, 25–26; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 40–41; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 73; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 105–106, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 67; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 191. 114 Gesta Francorum, 26; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 41; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 74; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 106, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 69; Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 190. 115 Gesta Francorum, 27; Tudebode, Historia, 42.

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

325

Those who could not sell their worthless arms threw them away and marched on. After barely surviving the fearful passage, they reached Mar’ash on October 13, 1097.116 Mar’ash was ruled by the Armenian governor Tatoul, formerly an official of the Byzantine Empire.117 The Christian inhabitants came to meet the Franks outside the city walls, rejoicing and bringing plentiful supplies. The army stayed in Mar’ash waiting for Bohemond, who was still pursuing the Danishmend Turks. Albert of Aachen says the main army then departed Mar’ash and marched to the city of Artasium, which Robert of Flanders took with the help of the Armenian inhabitants.118 On the evening of October 20 the Franks entered the valley of the Orontes (al-Asi) River, on whose left bank stood Antioch, the largest city and capital of Syria.119 The next day they pitched their camp.120 The stage was now set for a significant historical event, the establishment of the first Frankish principality in the East. The Crusaders’ stated goal was to free Jerusalem from the Muslims. But before they even got there, one of their leaders, Baldwin, stayed behind to establish his rule in Edessa; another, Bohemond, would make himself ruler of Antioch prior to the march on Jerusalem. As we have already seen, Baldwin joined the main army at Mar’ash but stayed there only a few days. Instead of preparing to take part in the siege of Antioch, Baldwin, following the advice of an exiled Armenian noble, Pancratius (also Pakrad or Bagrat, the brother of Kogh Vasil), turned southward to capture the two fortresses of Tall Bashir and Ravendan (Turbessel and Ravendel in the Latin sources; the Arabic souces refer to Rawandan), situated on the Euphrates river.121 Albert of Aachen and William William of Tyre, History, 1: 186–187, 195. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 176. 118 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 358. 119 Gesta Francorum, 27; Tudebode, Historia, 42; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 74; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 106–107, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 69; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 192–193. William of Malmesbury, 431–432, says simply that the Franks arrived at Antioch; he gives a full description of the city, but does not describe the events on their march from Nicaea. 120 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 366; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 642. 121 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 220, calls the Armenian Bagrat, the name this writer prefers. On Kogh Vasil, see Ter-Grigorian (Galust) Iskenderian, Die Kreuzfahrer und ihre Beziehungen zu den armenischen Nachbarfürsten bis zum Untergange der Grafschaft Edessa (Weide i.Th.: Druck von Thomas und Hubert, 1915), 60–65. 116 117

326

THE CRUSADES

of Tyre call Bagrat a valiant warrior but a perfidious man, very sly and of questionable loyalty, who escaped (or was released) from the prison of Emperor Alexius and joined the crusading army at Nicaea.122 Baldwin used him as a guide and liaison with the Armenian inhabitants of the region, who received Baldwin with jubilation. The Syrian Orthodox inhabitants, whom writers call “Jacobites,” were unsure of Baldwin’s intentions because he belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, which held the Chalcedonian faith which they had rejected, but they did not oppose or antagonize him.123 After capturing the two fortresses, Baldwin delivered Tall Bashir to an Armenian prince named Fer and turned Ravendan over to Bagrat, who installed his son there with an Armenian garrison. Bagrat may have needed Baldwin’s help to maintain his family’s authority over its principality near the Euphrates; Baldwin hoped to ingratiate himself with the Armenians to carve out a principality for himself in Edessa.124 Their relationship was at first amicable, but Matthew of Edessa says Baldwin ruined Bagrat and pillaged his territories.125 Baldwin evidently suspected that Bagrat was using him to gain control of all the territories near the Euphrates, and once he established his authority there, he would turn against Baldwin and intrigue with the Turks to further his designs. He also heard from the inhabitants of the region that Bagrat and Kogh Vasil had burdened them with heavy taxes. Bagrat’s hopes were ended when two Armenian princes, Fer and Nichsus, allied themselves with Baldwin; they told him of Bagrat’s perfidious actions and intrigues with the Turks and of his lying to the Emperor Alexius, for which he was imprisoned. Warned not to trust such a treacherous person, Baldwin grew suspicious of his friendship and loyalty. Worse still, he learned that Bagrat and Kogh Vasil were secretly plotting with Bohemond to deliver Edessa to him. On hearing these reports, Baldwin’s brother Godfrey was enraged and sent an army to destroy their forces. Baldwin moved quickly, sending troops to Ravendan to arrest Bagrat and bring him to justice. He tortured him in an effort to learn the truth, but Bagrat said little. He escaped to the mountains and took refuge with his brother Kogh Vasil, Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 353; William of Tyre, History, 1: 188, 304–305; Bernhard Kugler, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885), 50; André Alden Beaumont, Jr., “Albert of Aachen and the Count of Edessa,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, Louis J. Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928), 105. 123 Runciman, “The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,” 1: 302. 124 Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 64. 125 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 220. 122

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

327

whereupon Baldwin seized Ravandan and pillaged it.126 Baldwin’s cruel treatment of Bagrat evidently convinced the Armenians that he had come not to help them against the Turks but to seek power and wealth at their expense.127 Baldwin received full support from the Christian inhabitants of the region, who desired nothing more than to rid themselves of the Muslim yoke. The appearance of a Christian leader like Baldwin was more than a blessing to them. Ordericus Vitalis says Baldwin was a knight of great stature and lofty spirit, well versed in letters. He was a man of outstanding valor and integrity, and of illustrious descent, being a scion of the stock of the Emperor Charlemagne.128 The townspeople of Edessa saw him as the Frank most suited to be in charge of their city. They paid him full homage, cooperated with him, and furnished him with troops. The reports of his courage and achievements also reached the Christians of Edessa, who thought this mighty leader would redeem them from servitude and offer them freedom.129 Some historical background of Edessa is in order. The Anonymous Edessan says that in 1087 the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah Abu al-Fath captured Antioch and sent one of his commanders, Mujahid al-Din Buzan, to capture Edessa. The Edessans expected the Byzantine emperor to send a force to save the city, but no aid came. They surrendered the city willingly to Buzan on Wednesday, March 3, 1087. Buzan stationed some Turks in the fortresses of Edessa and appointed Tadrus (Theodore), who was in fact the Armenian Thoros, son of Hatim or Hetum, as curopalates (Guardian of the Palace) and commander of the city.130 When Malik Shah died in 1092, a struggle for power ensued between his son Berkyaruk (1094–1105), who succeeded him, and his brother Taj al-Dawla Tutush, ruler of Syria (1078– 1095).131 Tutush seized several towns, including Edessa, and had Buzan 126 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 351–357; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 204; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 105. 127 Runciman, “The First Crusade,” 1: 303; Aliyya Abd al-Sami’ al-Janzuri, Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya (Cairo, 1975), 49–52. 128 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 143, trans. Chibnall, 5: 119. 129 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 351; William of Tyre, History, 1: 188–189. 130 The Chronicle of the Anonymous Edessan (cited as The Anonymous Edessan), 49 of the Syriac text, and trans. Rev. Albert Abouna, Tarikh al-Ruhawi and Majhul (Baghdad: Matba’at Shafiq, 1986), 66–67; J. Laurent, “Des Grecs aux Croisés,” Byzantion 1 (1924): 405–410. 131 Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi, Tarikh Halab, ed. Ibrahim Zu’rur (Damascus,

328

THE CRUSADES

beheaded in 1094 for his support of Berkyaruk.132 He appointed Thoros as the city’s commander.133 Tutush’s son Ridwan, ruler of Aleppo (1095–1113), and several of his father’s men like Yaghi Siyan, lord of Antioch, fled to seek refuge with Thoros in Edessa. Thoros planned to hold them as prisoners, but some noblemen of the city persuaded him to return them safely to their respective cities. Meanwhile, Thoros tried to fortify the city. But a Turkish commander who had captured the Citadel of Maniaces told the neighboring amirs Sukman, the son of Artuk, lord of Diyarbakr, and Balduk, lord of Samosata, what he had done, and they raised forces in an effort to capture Edessa. Ridwan and Yaghi Siyan attacked Edessa with 40,000 men, causing Sukman and Balduk to flee, but failed to capture the city. Peace was brought to Edessa through the efforts of Mkhitar, a Christian officer in the army of Sultan Berkyaruk, and perhaps through a payment of money by Thoros. The Citadel of Maniaces was delivered to Thoros, who also took other citadels and villages.134 Still, he was harassed by the neighboring Turkish lords and did not feel safe in Edessa. The Franks’ arrival was happy news to him and the Christian inhabitants of the city, and Thoros invited Baldwin to come to his aid.135 The Latin sources say Thoros, a feeble old man and childless, wanted Baldwin to possess the city and all of his domains as a permanent inheritance, as if he were his own son.136 Thoros had many enemies in Edessa, particularly the Armenians, who considered him a miscreant for deserting the faith of his own church (“monophysitism”) to embrace the Chalcedonian faith of the Byzantine church.137 Quite possibly the immediate reason 1984), 375. 132 Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al Yasu’iyyia, 1908), 127; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya, ed. Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat (Cairo: Dar alKutub al-Haditha, 1963), 15; Jamal al-Din Muhammed ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, ed. Jamal al-Din Shayyal, 1 (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad alAwwal, 1953), 27. 133 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 161. 134 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 162–163. 135 Mathew of Edessa, Armenia, 168. 136 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 325; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 90. William of Tyre, History, 1: 190, calls Thoros a useless ruler unable to protect his own subjects. 137 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 43–56.

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

329

that led him to ask Baldwin for help was a report that Kerbogha, the Turkish governor of Mosul (d. 1102), had assembled a great army and was marching toward Antioch, which the Franks had besieged. Plainly Thoros needed Baldwin’s support against the Turks as much as Baldwin needed his help to establish himself in Edessa. Thoros’s embassy to Baldwin was headed by the city’s bishop and twelve dignitaries. After consulting with his men, Baldwin accepted their invitation.138 Guibert of Nogent says a knight in Thoros’s household heard him say that since he was old and childless, he wanted a Frank to come to Edessa and defend him against the Turks, and he would treat him as his own son. The knight then repeated what Thoros had said and Baldwin, believing him, accompanied the knight to Edessa, where he was welcomed and adopted by Thoros.139 Baldwin left for Edessa with a band of knights.140 Fulcher of Chartres says that as soon as they crossed the Euphrates and arrived in territory controlled by the Turks, they saw that Balduk, the Turkish lord of Samosata, had laid an ambush for them. A certain Armenian offered them shelter in his own castle, where they hid for two days. On the third day the Turks came galloping up to the castle and plundered the livestock in the pasture. Though few in number, Baldwin and his men managed to drive off the Turks and then proceeded to Edessa. En route they passed through Armenian towns whose people received them with joy, coming out carrying crosses and banners, and kissing their feet and garments for the love of God, believing them to be their saviors against the Turks.141 When he arrived in Edessa in February 1098, Baldwin was received by the people with great joy, arousing the jealousy of Thoros, who had invited Baldwin thinking that he would protect him against the Turks and they would divide the revenues, and that after his death, since he had no heir, Baldwin would take over the city.142 Albert of Aachen says that Thoros promised Baldwin gold, 138 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 325; Runciman, A History, 1: 203, and “The First Crusade,” 1: 303; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 55; Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade, 175; J. B. Segal, Edessa the Blessed City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 225–228. 139 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 70; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 637; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 107. 140 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 325, says Baldwin had 200 knights with him; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 90, who accompanied Baldwin, says there were eighty; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 168, says there were sixty. 141 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 91. 142 William of Tyre, History, 1: 191.

330

THE CRUSADES

silver, precious stones, thousands of horses, and a great quantity of arms, if he would defend the city and its people against the Turks.143 Matthew of Edessa says simply that Thoros acted in a friendly manner towards Baldwin, offered him gifts, and formed an alliance with him.144 The Syriac sources, however, say that when the people of Edessa heard that the Franks had besieged Antioch, they told Theodorus (Thoros), the son of Hatim (Hetum), to ask the French to send them troops to protect their city from the plundering Turks. He did not like the idea, but when he saw that he could not overcome their argument and they might contact the Franks without his consent, he gave in to their demand. Frightened because many citizens hated him, he sent an embassy to ask Godfrey, the Frankish commander, to send troops to protect his country. When Godfrey read his letter, he and his men rejoiced, saying, “as Edessa believed in Christ before Jerusalem, so did the Lord Christ hand it to us before Jerusalem.” Godfrey sent his brother Baldwin, a believer, God-fearing and brave man, to take charge of the government of Edessa.145 The Syriac sources make clear that the people of Edessa, not Thoros, initiated the request for protection by the Franks. Moreover, they differ from the Latin sources in saying this appeal was addressed to Godfrey, and that he sent Baldwin to take the government of Edessa. Upon arriving in Edessa, Baldwin offered his services to Thoros. The citizens of Edessa received the Franks with kindness, gave them comfortable quarters, provided them with plentiful food, and offered them good wages, trusting them to defend the whole province.146 Despite the citizens’ warm welcome and generous treatment, Baldwin soon found his relations with Thoros less than amicable. He had not imagined, when he received the invitation to come to Edessa’s aid, that Thoros expected him simply to be his mercenary fighting the Turks. Being a prominent Frankish prince, Baldwin, perhaps humiliated at being asked to serve as a mercenary, wanted full control of the city’s affairs, while he may also have entertained the ambitious idea of converting it into a Latin city. He threatened to leave Edessa, but the people insisted that Thoros keep Baldwin and even adopt him as his Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 353. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 168. 145 Michael Rabo, Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir, G. S. Shamoun, trans. (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 587 of the Syriac text (183–184F); The Anonymous Edessan, 56 of the Syriac text, 70 of the English, 75 of the Arabic translation. 146 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 143, trans. Chibnall, 5: 119. 143 144

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

331

son and heir, since he was old and childless. The members of the city council and many dignitaries urged him not to let such a noble and brave man forsake them, but to make him his partner in the government of Edessa.147 In view of these demands, Guibert of Nogent says, Thoros adopted Baldwin as his son and proclaimed him heir to the government of Edessa. The adoption ceremony took place in the Armenian church, according to Armenian traditions. Thoros directed Baldwin to strip naked and put on a linen inner garment, a kind of tunic. He embraced him and confirmed the entire transaction with a kiss, and old men and women did the same.148 Significantly, the Armenian Matthew of Edessa and the Syriac writers do not mention such an event, nor does Fulcher of Chartres, Baldwin’s chaplain. Beaumont questions the account of Baldwin’s adoption, saying that surely Fulcher would have known about it. But he might have suppressed it to save space (Fulcher’s writing is marked by terseness) or considered it to be nonessential, or beneath the dignity of a Frankish knight.149 Perhaps to appease those people of Edessa who disapproved of his relationship with Baldwin, Thoros sent him on an expedition against Balduk, the lord of the fortress of Samosata on the Euphrates. The fortress had belonged to Edessa, but Balduk captured it and used it to harass Edessa and exact annual tribute from Thoros. Accompanied by Constantine, lord of nearby Gargar and a vassal of Thoros, Baldwin set out to recover the fortress. But the attack was repulsed because the Armenians with him fled, awed by the power of the Turks. Baldwin managed to take the nearby village of St. John, where he stationed a large part of his force to harass the Turks, and returned to Edessa.150 Thoros received him with great honor, and the clergy and people went out to meet him, singing hymns accompanied by trumpets and drums.151 Yet why, if he had been defeated by the Turks, did they receive Baldwin with such honor? Kugler argues that the citizens of Edessa believed Baldwin’s defeat was caused by the cowardice of Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 353; William of Tyre, History, 1: 191; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 204; Claude Cahen, La Syrie Nord à L’époque des Croisades, et la principauté Franque D’Antioche (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1940), 210. 148 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 71; William of Tyre, History, 1: 191, also describes the ceremony. 149 Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 108. 150 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 168–169; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 353; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 108–109; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 205. 151 William of Tyre, History, 1: 191. 147

332

THE CRUSADES

the Armenian troops who accompanied him, and not by the inability of Baldwin and his knights.152 Despite his show of good will towards Baldwin, the people of Edessa conspired to get rid of Thoros. In fact, the antagonism against him intensified soon after Baldwin’s arrival in Edessa. Some hated him because he was a miser and had burdened the subjects with heavy taxes to pay the evergreedy Turks. Some said he had used the infidels’ power to oppress the Christians.153 But most people hated him because they considered him a miscreant who had abandoned the faith of his church to ingratiate himself with the Byzantine emperor and preserve his position as governor of Edessa.154 Both Latin and Syriac sources mention a conspiracy against Thoros. Fulcher of Chartres says that fifteen days after the Franks’ arrival, “the wicked citizens plotted to slay their prince [Thoros], because they hated him, and to elevate Baldwin to the palace to rule the land.”155 The Anonymous Edessan writes, When the Franks had been for some time in Edessa the callous Edessans began to provoke strife and dissension between the Franks and Thoros. Their hearts were filled with wickedness. Their cruelty reached a point that they conspired to kill the governor and have the Franks rule over them. They did this not from love of the Franks but from bad will because they disliked Thoros. Like wild beasts they raged and excited and inflamed one another. Many of them congregated and agitated in the place where [Thoros] usually descended from the high fortress at the source of the fountain. When he came to that crowd, he fled to the lower fortress above the eastern gate of the city which he had built and already finished. When they attacked him he asked them to pledge to let him, his wife and his sons go without taking any possessions. They promised and swore to do so. Accordingly, he opened the gate for them. But they did not honor their pledge and acted perfidiously toward him. They tied him with a rope and let him down from the high wall which overlooked the city while he was naked except for a loin cloth. While they let him down [here two pages of the Syriac text are miss-

152 Kugler,

Albert von Aachen, 59; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 109. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 354; William of Tyre, History, 1: 193; Michaud, History, 1: 123. 154 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 206, Cahen, La Syrie Nord, 210. 155 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 91; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 354. 153

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

333

ing]... son of Hatim... and destroyed his house. Baldwin then took the possessions of Thoros and seized the city’s two fortresses.156

Thus, the Anonymous Edessan agrees with Albert of Aachen that the plot against Thoros was concocted without reference to Baldwin. Both sources describe the agitation in the city and Thoros’s attempt to be released without his possessions. Curiously, while the Latin sources say Thoros was childless, the Anonymous Edessan refers to his sons. Matthew of Edessa gives an entirely different account, implicating Baldwin in the plot that led to the murder of Thoros, which he says occurred during Lent. He states that forty men who planned to kill Thoros in a Judas-like act went to Baldwin to persuade him to agree to their evil scheme and promised to deliver Edessa into his hands. Baldwin approved their vicious plot, in which the Armenian Constantine, lord of Gargar, was also involved. These men incited the people of the city against Thoros and gathered in the inner citadel, where he was violently attacked. They pillaged the homes of his officers and seized the upper citadel. Matthew says Thoros appealed to them not to harm him but to let him go with his wife to the city of Melitene, on condition that he surrender the citadel and the city to them. The plotters swore on the Holy Cross, and Baldwin swore by all the saints, not to harm him. Then Thoros handed the citadel over to Baldwin. But on the Tuesday of the celebration of Passion Week, the townsmen, armed with swords and clubs, attacked Thoros. They threw him down from the rampart into the midst of the crowd. They wounded him and killed him with the sword. Thus, the people of Edessa committed a great crime in the sight of God. Moreover, they bound Thoros’s body and dragged it through the city.157 The divergence of Matthew’s account from those of Albert of Aachen and the Anonymous Edessan is obvious. Why he implicates Baldwin in the plot is unclear. Beaumont says Matthew’s account reveals his hostility toward Baldwin; he questions its accuracy because, he says, Fulcher of Chartres says nothing of Baldwin’s involvement in Thoros’s murder, adding that he had no reason to mention it at length.158 This is not quite the case; Fulcher of Chartres discusses the plot against Thoros, but says Baldwin and his men were sad because they were unable to obtain mercy for him. Perhaps, The Anonymous Edessan, 57 of the Syriac text, 70–71 of the English translation; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 111. 157 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 169–170. 158 Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 112. 156

334

THE CRUSADES

as Baldwin’s chaplain, Fulcher suppressed this heinous episode because it defiled the name of his lord. But if he wished to be truthful, why did not he not defend Thoros or explain Baldwin’s willingness to become the lord of Edessa after Thoros’s murder?159 It appears Baldwin’s aim was to use the people’s distrust of Thoros and anger at their treatment by him to win their love and support. He was reluctant to rescue Thoros, knowing that his life was in danger, and advised him to surrender to the conspirators. Albert of Aachen says Baldwin told Thoros that the citizens of the province were plotting against him and, armed with all kinds of weapons, had rushed to the citadel in tumultuous agitation, and that this event grieved and distressed him. Baldwin further told Thoros that if he could set himself free or abdicate his power, he would not hesitate to come to his rescue.160 Baldwin seems not to have been sincere about saving Thoros’s life. William of Tyre says the people were angry at Thoros and determined to overthrow him. Fearing for his life, he summoned Baldwin, poured out his treasure before him, and begged him to intercede with the people for his life. Although Baldwin was willing to try to protect Thoros, he soon realized that his effort would be in vain because the people of Edessa were so angry with him. He urged Thoros to try to flee to safety. But Thoros did not heed his advice and was finally murdered by his own people.161 Ordericus Vitalis says Thoros was murdered at the instigation of one Tobias, a chief citizen of Edessa. Tobias gave a lengthy diatribe against Thoros and the citizens, inflamed against him, rushed upon him and cut off his head. Tobias took the head and asked the citizens to guard the palace and its treasures, promising that he and his companions would bring the Franks (meaning Baldwin) with joy and peace. Then he invited Baldwin to govern the city.162 It seems highly doubtful that Baldwin, who was so much loved and admired by the citizens of Edessa, could not convince them to let Thoros leave the city unharmed. Whatever the case may be, Baldwin with insincere reluctance agreed to become the lord of Edessa. On March 8, 1098, the citizens proclaimed him their new governor and swore full allegiance to him. They led a grand procession to the citadel and lavished on Ryan, trans., Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 91, n. 12. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 354; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 206; al-Janzuri, Imarat, 61. 161 William of Tyre, History, 1: 193–194. 162 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 146–147, trans. Chibnall, 5: 125. 159 160

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

335

him the treasures that their former lord Thoros had stored up all his life. Ordericus Vitalis says the native Christians, delighted to be ruled by a Christian prince, gave thanks to God, while the Turks were downcast at having lost their power over the worshipers of Christ, whom they had oppressed. Baldwin entered the city in triumph and was received in the palace of the governor amid the cheers of the citizens, as peace and security were restored.163 Thus Edessa became the first Latin principality in the East. Baldwin had set the precedent; other Latin leaders would likewise carve out principalities for themselves, including Antioch, Tripoli and, most important, the kingdom of Jerusalem. Let us recall that when the Frankish leaders were in Constantinople, they swore fealty to Emperor Alexius and pledged to restore to him the lands and cities they liberated. Edessa was still under the emperor’s authority, and Thoros had ruled it in his name as the Byzantine governor. Baldwin should have handed it over to the emperor, but he did not. Having won the city without a fight and with the people’s consent, perhaps he thought he was not bound by the oath the Frankish leaders had sworn. Or he may have reasoned that Thoros was governor only in name and had no legal allegiance to the emperor, so that becoming ruler of Edessa after his murder was not a usurpation of his rights. Moreover, Alexius was in no position to demand his rights to Edessa. It was too far from Constantinople, and he could not send an army to challenge Baldwin and affirm his legitimate right to the city. So he chose to overlook at least temporarily what had happened in Edessa, leaving himself leeway to affirm his rights in Syria in the future.164 Now that he was the undisputed Count of Edessa, Baldwin endeavored to protect his principality. He had only a few Frankish knights and did not fully trust the people of Edessa after seeing what they had done to Thoros. He was also surrounded by the Turks, who were a permanent menace to his new principality. So he decided to take control of Samosata, whose lord Balduk was a threat to Edessa. But Balduk, realizing that Baldwin was not Thoros and that he lacked the power to fight the new Frankish lord, proposed to sell Samosata to Baldwin for 10,000 pieces of gold. Baldwin, thinking Samosata was fortified and could not easily be taken by storm, Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 147, trans. Chibnall, 5: 127; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 355; William of Tyre, History, 1: 194. 164 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 60–61; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1: 185. 163

336

THE CRUSADES

decided after much deliberation to pay that sum from the treasury left by his predecessor and took possession of the fortress. He soon gained prestige by freeing a number of Armenian hostages, mostly Edessans, who had been held in the citadel of Samosata. The citizens of Edessa regarded him as lord and father, and were ready to fight for his welfare and glory. Balduk was summoned to Edessa, where he and his bodyguard became the mercenaries of Count Baldwin.165 After Samosata Baldwin moved against Saruj (on the road leading to Aleppo), whose lord was the Artukid Balak (Belek, or Balas in the Latin sources), son of Bahram. When the people of Saruj heard of Baldwin’s war preparations and his plan to besiege the city, they were terrified and agreed to surrender the city and pay him tribute. He returned to Edessa covered with glory.166 Ibn al-Athir does not mention either Baldwin or Belek in his account of the surrender of Saruj, which he says occurred in 1101. He says that when the citizens of Saruj learned that the people of Edessa, most of whom were Armenians, had surrendered their city to the Franks, Sukman, son of Artuk and lord of Diyarbakr (1101–1104), assembled an army of Turkomans to fight the Franks but was defeated. The Franks then marched on Saruj and captured it; they killed many of its men, took the women captive, and plundered the city.167 After Saruj, Baldwin continued to consolidate his power by capturing al-Bira, an important strategic position on the road to Aintab on the eastern bank of the Euphrates in 1099. He was constantly fighting the Turks on his frontiers and enlarged the boundaries of the Christian territory.168 By 1099, Baldwin’s rule covered the whole country of Edessa, which “extended from the frontiers of the principality of Antioch to the verge of Kurdistan.”169 He never forgot that he had become the ruler of a Christian city. He sought to win the support of the clergy by increasing their endow165 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 355–356; William of Tyre, History, 1: 194; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 208; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 112. 166 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 355; William of Tyre, History, 1: 194–195; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 112. 167 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, R. H. C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 207–208, cannot be right about the date, since Baldwin became King of Jerusalem in 1100. Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 113, sees no reason to doubt the Latin sources, which say Baldwin took both Samosata and Saruj in 1098. 168 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 148, trans. Chibnall, 5: 129. 169 Grousset, Epic of the Crusades, 40.

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

337

ments and providing them with necessary resources, and urged them to celebrate divine services daily for the salvation of the faithful.170 To ingratiate himself with the Armenians and legitimize his rule, Baldwin married an Armenian, Princess Arda, the daughter of Taphnuz or Tafroc.171 Her father, Prince Thoros I (not to be confused with Thoros of Edessa, who adopted Baldwin) was the son of Constantine and ruler of Partzapert (1100–1129) of the Roupenid dynasty.172 Ordericus Vitalis, evidently confusing the two men, says the daughter of the wicked duke [Thoros] was baptized and married the handsome Baldwin, whom she had secretly loved, unknown to her father, during his lifetime.173 Baldwin’s honeymoon with the Armenians did not last. They soon realized that they had exchanged an Armenian-Byzantine ruler for a Latin ruler. Their admiration of Baldwin was dimmed by the fact that he was an ambitious man whose objective was to carve for himself a principality at the expense of the Byzantine emperor. They had sworn fealty and allegiance to him and were ready not only to help him in his war against the Turks but to die for him. How could they not trust and love a Latin prince who had married an Armenian princess?174 It did not take long for the Armenians to turn against their cherished Latin prince when they found that he was determined to make Edessa a Latin city. In the summer of 1098, the Crusaders had begun to flock there in great numbers to enter Baldwin’s service. He lavished on them rich gifts which they badly needed, since the long journey through Syria had depleted their resources. Edessa was so full of Franks that it was difficult to find accommodations for many of them. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 148, trans. Chibnall, 5: 129. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 361. Fulcher of Chartres mentions Baldwin’s wife without giving her name, but Ryan, Historia, 126, n. 2, identifies her as Arda. William of Tyre, History, 1: 416, gives her father’s name as Tafroc. Kugler, Albert von Aachen, 60, complains that Albert of Aachen contradicts himself about this marriage. 172 William of Tyre, History, 1: 416, n. 5; 461, and 2: 52, n. 12; Harold S. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099–1118,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 408. Michaud, History, 1: 124, says Baldwin married the niece of an Armenian prince but does not name him. 173 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 147, trans. Chibnall, 5: 127, clearly believes Arda was the daughter of Thoros, the childless governor of Edessa. 174 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 355–357, 361, 445–446; William of Tyre, History, 1: 194. 170 171

338

THE CRUSADES

The newly arrived forces gave more strength to Baldwin, who reduced the whole region to his authority. But in time, although they were guests, they stirred resentment among the citizens by their domineering attitude. With the honors Baldwin lavished on them, they became a Latin aristocracy, alienating itself from the Armenian majority.175 As Latins they were adherents of the Chalcedonian doctrine, but they did not maltreat the nonChalcedonian Armenians and Syrians as the Byzantines had done. But as Baldwin’s compatriots, they controlled the city’s economy. They took over most of the farms that had belonged to the city; the Armenian peasants now worked for the Latins, their new feudal lords, who imposed on them heavier taxes than Thoros.176 Still worse, Baldwin alienated the prominent citizens of Edessa by preferring the counsel of his knights, who looked down upon the Armenians.177 The tables now turned against Baldwin, and the natives plotted to kill him. They secretly contacted the Turkish Artukids to help them eliminate Baldwin and all the Franks, but the plot was foiled when an Armenian exposed the conspirators to Baldwin, who punished them severely. He had the ringleaders blinded. Others were exiled, and their goods were confiscated. Some who appealed to Baldwin to keep them in the city were compelled to forfeit their treasures, which were added to his own. In this manner Baldwin acquired about 20,000 pieces of gold. To the natives of Edessa, he became a cruel, avaricious tyrant, and they regretted having helped him take over their city.178 To their utter disappointment, they discovered that the Franks were in fact more brutal than the Byzantines 179 Baldwin’s name wrought fear among the citizens of Edessa and the region. Even his fatherin-law, fearing Baldwin might ask him for the rest of his daughter’s dowry, which though promised had not yet been paid, fled secretly into the mountains where he had a stronghold of his own.180

Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 361; Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen,” 119–120; William of Tyre, History, 1: 305. 176 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 176. 177 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 442–443; William of Tyre, History, 1: 305. 178 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 442–443; William of Tyre, History, 1: 305–306. 179 Grousset, Epic of the Crusades, 39–40. 180 Albert of Aachen, 4: 443; William of Tyre, History, 1: 306; Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs (Dusseldorf, 1841), 68; Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 96. 175

THE CRUSADERS TAKE THE OFFENSIVE

339

Baldwin’s marriage to the Armenian Princess Arda had been a political stratagem to strengthen his position as lord of Edessa. But after he became king of Jerusalem in 1100, he had no more use for the Armenians or his Armenian wife. William of Tyre says Arda went to Constantinople to raise money to relieve the poverty of her community, but once there she fell into a life of prostitution, and Baldwin accused her of adultery in order to get rid of her. There is no evidence to substantiate this accusation, and Baldwin must have had other motives for dismissing his wife, most likely the desire to marry a richer woman of higher rank.181 Arnulf, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, whom William of Tyre describes as wicked and impious, was instrumental in inducing him to shed his wife and marry another.182 Baldwin’s new wife was Countess Adelaide of Sicily, the widow of Roger I, who died in 1101. This marriage brought him more power and wealth.183 The Church of Rome accused Baldwin of bigamy, a mortal sin and a violation of canon law. Faced with possible condemnation by the church, Baldwin had no choice but to divorce Adelaide, who returned to Sicily in April 1117, sad and sorrowful at having lavished her wealth on him.184 It is said that in the last year of his life Baldwin took Arda back, but this makes little sense; doing so would be an admission that he had falsely accused her of adultery, and that he was desperate for her money.185 Although there were many very able Frankish leaders more illustrious than he, Baldwin was particularly fortunate in being able to found a powerful and wealthy principality. He started out on the Crusades a penniless young man, dependent on the charity of his brothers, not realizing he would win a bigger prize than any of them. Yet his name and career will be marred by the fact that he did not join the Crusaders who battled their way into Antioch and then Jerusalem. Whether it was through sheer luck or political acumen and consummate statesmanship, Baldwin would succeed his brother Godfrey as king of Jerusalem in 1100. In him, says Steven Runciman, “the Crusade could recognize the ablest and most astute of its statesmen.”186 William of Tyre, History, 1: 461–462. William of Tyre, History, 1: 489. 183 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 597; Iskenderian, Die Kreuzfahrer, 59–60; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 103–104. 184 William of Tyre, History, 1: 514. 185 Iskenderian, Die Kreuzfahrer, 61. 186 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 212. 181 182

11 ANTIOCH The Franks’ capture of Antioch is associated with a legend related by Michael Rabo, the Syrian patriarch of Antioch, but not found in other Syriac sources. He says that while the Franks were still in Constantinople (1097), Antioch was rocked by an earthquake. In the foundation of a ruined tower there appeared a great temple, containing huge copper figurines representing Franks mounted on horses, fully armed with lances and swords made of copper. They were all in chains. The Turkish governor of Antioch, Aghusin (Mu’ayyid al-Dawla Yaghi Siyan), ordered a search to establish the truth of this discovery. But because no one seemed to know about it and no book had referred to it, the figurines were regarded as pagan idols, and Yaghi Siyan ordered them destroyed. But a blind old woman said, “I have heard old people say that under one of the fortresses are laid cryptic characters belonging to the Franks, cautioning them not to cross the sea.” On hearing these words, the governor felt sorry for having destroyed the figurines. He asked whether she knew how they had been made and whether it was possible to make others like them. She answered in the negative, and they killed her.1 The Arab historian Ibn al-Adim reports al-Qadi Hasan ibn al-Mawj alFaw’i related a similar anecdote, saying he had fled from al-Mujann (Barakat ibn Faris al-Faw’i, the ruler of Aleppo) and reached Antioch, where he entered the service of Mas’ud, the vizir of the amir Yaghi Siyan. Four years before the Franks occupied Antioch, an earthquake had rocked the city and destroyed many of its towers. In the ruins of one was found a broken urn containing seven brass figurines, mounted on brass horses, each clad in armor and carrying a shield and a lance. The figurines were brought to

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 586; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 183. 1

341

342

THE CRUSADES

Mas’ud, who then took them to Yaghi Siyan. Some of those present said that Yaghi Siyan should invite old people to tell him the truth about this discovery. Brought before the amir, the old people said they could not identify th figurines, but offered a hint about their significance. They mentioned the Monastery of the Malik (king), which had been destroyed in 477 A.H. (1084 A.D). Digging up its foundation, they found copper figurines (probably from an Arab or other Muslim nation) representing Turks carrying bows and arrows. They did not attempt to identify them but proceeded to build up the wall. The old people said these figurines resembled the Franks, about whom they had received strange reports, though no one dared speak of them. Later that year Sulayman ibn Kutulmish (the founder of the Seljukid state of Rum, or Anatolia, 1077–1085) captured the city. Yaghi Siyan insulted these men, saying, “You infidels! Is there no one else on earth [to lose to the Franks] except the Turks?” and ordered them to leave. Hardly had the year ended before reports arrived that the Franks had descended upon Constantinople.2 The thirteenth-century Arab chronicler Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim (d. 1262) may have read and expanded on an anecdote related by the chronicler Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi of Aleppo, who died in 1161. Al-Azimi reports that Antioch was rocked by an earthquake, and in the Monastery of the King (Dayr al-Malik) were found brass figurines of seven Turks mounted on brass horses. Hardly a year had passed (he gives the year as 1074) when the Turks occupied Antioch. But al-Azimi’s brief anecdote says nothing of Yaghi Siyan or the old woman he consulted about the origin of the figurines.3 Although al-Azimi and Michael Rabo do not identify the source of this anecdote, Ibn al-Adim attributes it to the oral tradition of alQadi Hasan ibn al-Mawj al-Faw’i, and it is plausible that the others used it.4

2 Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Bughyat al-Talab fi Tarikh Halab, ed. Suhayl Zakkar, 1 (Damascus, 1988), 481–482; Suhayl Zakkar, Madkhal ila Tarikh al-Hurub alSalibiyya (Beirut, Dar al-Amana, 1972), 125–126. 3 Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi, Tarikh Halab, ed. Ibrahim Zu’rur (Damascus, 1984), 349. 4 On Barakat ibn Faris al-Faw’i (al-Mujann), see Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, ed. Sami al-Dahhan, 2 (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954): 139–141; Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ad al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 135. Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359, says al-Mujann rebelled against Ridwan of Aleppo, who had him and his children killed in 1097.

ANTIOCH

343

At any rate, the Franks were intent on capturing the city of Antioch, one of the glorious cities of the East and the third major metropolis in the Roman empire. It was the place where the Apostles were first called Christians and where St. Paul preached. It was traditionally considered the seat of the first bishopric founded by St. Peter; a church bearing his name was built there, and another consecrated in honor of St. Mary which, says William of Malmesbury, strikes the eyes of the beholders with its beauty.5 It was the home of the famous School of Antioch (which rivaled the School of Alexandria), the shining light of Greek and Christian culture and Byzantium’s most important commercial center.6 It was the key to Syria and the most magnificent fortresses in the East, a masterpiece of Byzantine military engineering.7 Its location on the Orontes (al-Asi) River, about twenty miles from the sea, with a wide expanse of marshes, formed a natural defense on the north and east. On the south it was flanked by the rugged slopes of mountains that precluded attack from that direction. Except to the south, the city was ringed by inner and outer walls. The inner wall, built with heavy stones, surrounded only the main part of the city; atop it stood the citadel of Antioch, with 450 watchtowers.8 The only approach to the city was from the northwest by way of the Iron Bridge, which spans the Orontes River at some distance from the outer wall.9 William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England, trans. J. Sharpe (London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815), 432. 6 The most exhaustive work on the importance of Antioch in the GrecoRoman world is Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961). On the Patriarchate of Antioch, see Rev. John Mason Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Antioch (London: Rivingtons, 1873). Among Latin sources on the Crusades, William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 1: 199– 297, gives the most detailed description of the city and its capture by the Franks. 7 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 52. 8 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 52–53; Gustave Schlumberger, Renaud de Chatillion (Paris: Plon, 1923), 25–34; Lester Fields Sheffy, The Use of the Holy Lance in the First Crusade, M.A. thesis (University of Texas, 1915), 8–10. See Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John Hill and Laurita L. Hill (Philadelphia The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 30. 9 Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, trans. Rosalind Hill as The Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), 28. 5

344

THE CRUSADES

When the main Frankish army reached Antioch on October 21, 1097, they laid a siege that lasted until June 3, 1098. Bohemond and Tancred and their men camped at the Gate of St. Paul, north of the city. Robert of Flanders, Robert of Normandy, Hugh of Vermandois, and Stephen of Blois set up camp between the Gate of St. Paul and the Gate of the Dog.10 Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy camped with their Provençal knights west of the Gate of the Dog, and Godfrey camped opposite the Gate of the Duke. The Bridge Gate and the Gate of St. George were left uncovered, but the Franks immediately began to build a bridge of boats in order to reach the roads to Alexandretta and St. Simeon (the Suwaydiyya). Another camp was soon established to the north of the Orontes.11 Antioch now had a Turkish governor, Yaghi Siyan. Its last Byzantine governor, the Armenian Philaretus, had lost it to Sulayman and the Rum Seljuks in February 1085. Sulayman’s capture of Antioch angered Sultan Malikshah, whose seat of government was in Khurasan, Persia. An army led by Malikshah’s brother Taj al-Dawla Tutush defeated Sulayman, who then reportedly committed suicide by plunging a sword into his bowels.12 Malikshah named Yaghi Siyan as governor of Antioch in 1087; after Malikshah died in 1092, his brother, now Sultan Taj al-Dawla Tutush, confirmed him in this position.13 In 1095, Tutush was killed near a village called Dashilu, a few miles from Rayy.14 A struggle developed between his two sons, Fakhr Albert of Aachen, Albert of Aachen (Albertus Aquensis), Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Emendatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, R. H. C. Occ. 4, 366; M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, Louis Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928), 88–89; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantine and the Crusader States 1096–1204 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 31–41. 11 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 54; Runciman, Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 217. For a detailed acount of the siege and capture of Antioch see John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), Chapters 5–9 12 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 153–154. 13 Ara Edmund Dostourian, trans., The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993; cited hereafter as Matthew of Edessa), 154. An Arabic source, Sayyid Ali al-Hariri, Kitab al-Akhbar al-Saniyya fi al-Hurub alSalibiyya (Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Umawiyya, 1899–1900), 18, says Yaghi Siyan was the youngest son of the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah. 14 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Tawarikh Al Seljuq, abridged by al-Fath al-Bundari, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1889), 85. See Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 357. 10

ANTIOCH

345

al-Muluk Ridwan, governor of Aleppo, and Shams al-Muluk Duqaq, governor of Damascus. Ridwan, who coveted Damascus, planned to take the city and unseat his brother. Yaghi Siyan, whose daughter Chichek had married Ridwan,15 joined forces with him, but they failed to capture the city and returned to Aleppo frustrated. But when Ridwan wanted Antioch for himself, Yaghi Siyan betrayed him and sided with Duqaq, even goading him into (and supporting him in) an unsuccessful attack on Aleppo.16 The conflict between Ridwan and Duqaq, intensified by Yaghi Siyan’s playing the brothers against one another, wrought havoc in the region. It weakened the Muslims and left Antioch a prey to the Franks, whose huge forces struck awe in the people.17 By betraying Ridwan, Yaghi Siyan deprived the Muslims of the assistance of the people of Aleppo; when the Franks attacked Antioch and its environs, those who were in the fortresses or near the city resisted and were killed. Very few managed to escape. Yaghi Siyan’s oppressive treatment alienated the Christians of north Syria and led the Christian inhabitants of Artah to appeal to the Franks for help. Says Ibn al-Adim, “All this was the result of the tyrannical behavior of Yaghi Siyan.”18 Matthew of Edessa says Yaghi Siyan was “a vicious, vile, invidious, and savage-minded man.”19 He was especially cruel to the Christians of Antioch. He imprisoned John the Oxite, the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, and expelled many leading Christians. His men desecrated the Cathedral of St. Peter and turned it into a stable.20 Fearing that the people of Antioch, mostly Syrians and Armenians, might collaborate with the Franks, Yaghi Siyan plotted to evict them from the city. He ordered first the Muslim inhabitants and then the Christians to dig a trench outside the city wall for its protection. But when the Christians returned in the afternoon, he prevented them from entering the city. He told them that they should offer him the city as a gift, and he would decide what to do with them and the Franks. If they gave him the city, they asked, who would take care of them, their children, and their wives? Yaghi Siyan said that he would. They re-

Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 131–132 (39–40 of the English translation). 17 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 134 (41 of the English translation). 18 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 131; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963): 189–190. 19 Matthew of Edessa, 154. 20 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 214–215. 15 16

346

THE CRUSADES

fused to heed him and stayed in the Franks’ camp.21 The author of the Gesta Francorum, however, says that the Armenians and Syrians living in the city left, pretending to flee to the Franks. While their wives stayed behind, they went into the Franks’ camps daily to spy on them, reporting to the Turks in the city everything the Franks said and did. When the Turks had enough information, they came out gradually, ambushing and attacking the Franks from both the sea and the mountainsides.22 Meanwhile, the Turks in Antioch were struck by fear and confusion when they saw that a Genoese ship had docked at the harbor of St. Simeon (modern Suwaydiyya), ten miles from Antioch, on November 17, 1097.23 (The Genoese, allies of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, later assisted him in the siege of Jerusalem.) But the Muslims inside the city did not remain quiet. They sneaked out, killed peasants who were pasturing their horses and cattle across the river, and returned with their booty to Antioch. The opportunity for pillage and slaughter encouraged the Muslims to patrol the roads more consistently.24 The Turks also used the castle of Aregh (Harim), eight miles east of Antioch, to attack the Franks. The Franks’ leaders were griefstricken when reports reached them that the Turks in many areas had mutilated and killed their comrades. They sent some knights and carefully combed the Turks’ hiding places. When they found the Turks, they attacked them, but then retreated to the place where Bohemond had hidden his army. In this skirmish the Franks lost two men. In response Bohemond, accompanied by the counts of Flanders and Normandy, chased the Muslims and drove them to death in the Orontes.25 According to the Gesta Francorum, the barbarians (Turks) fell upon the Franks, who were few in number, and joined battle in good order. The Franks killed many and captured others, who were led before a city gate and beheaded, to grieve the Turks still in Antioch.26 But other Turks kept com21 Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, R. H .C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 192. 22 Gesta Francorum, 29. 23 Raymond of Aguilers, The Deeds, 32; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 383. 24 Raymond of Aguilers, The Deeds, 32. 25 Raymond of Aguilers, The Deeds, 32; Epistle of Anselm of Ribemont, in H. Hagenmeyer, ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus dem Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck: Hildersheim, 1901), 145–146; Knappen, “Robert II,” 89. 26 Gesta Francorum, 29; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 44.

ANTIOCH

347

ing out of the city and climbed up on the gate, shooting arrows at Bohemond’s camp. A woman wounded by one of them died. To insure their safety and keep the Turks at bay, the Franks’ leaders called a council and decided to build a castle on the top of the mountain, which they gave the name Maregart, most likely the hill of Bohemond’s camp, although this is not certain.27 The castle was built and fortified, and the leaders took turns guarding it.28 The day before they laid siege to Antioch, the Franks at the Iron Bridge chased away some Turks who had come out to lay waste the region. They seized many Christians whom they had taken captive and led back to their camps horses and camels laden with enormous plunder.29 Meanwhile, since the siege of Antioch had lasted some time and the Franks had not yet stormed the city as expected, Yaghi Siyan prepared his defense by manning the fortresses with fresh forces and storing sufficient provisions inside the city. Instead of assaulting the city immediately, the Franks focused on capturing villages and fields in the vicinity of Antioch to obtain food and provisions. Shortly before Christmas 1097, grain and other necessities became scarce. The Franks were afraid to venture out of their camp to seek food in the Christian territory. No one had the courage to forage in the Muslim-held areas without a strong force. At length the Franks called a council, which decided that one part of the army should go out to search for food while the other stayed behind to guard the noncombatants and monitor the enemy closely. Bohemond was the first to volunteer to go out and search for food with Count Robert of Flanders. After celebrating Christmas with great splendor, they set out on Monday, December 28, 1097, with over 2,000 knights and 3,000 footmen and marched safely into the Muslims’ territory.30 The next day, Yaghi Siyan’s Turkish garrison, taking advantage of their absence, sallied forth from Antioch and suddenly attacked the Franks, killing many knights and foot soldiers who were caught off guard. On that grievous day Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, lost his seneschal, who was carrying his banner and guarding it. The Turks would have overwhelmed the Franks were it not for the river that separated them.31

A. C. Krey, The First Crusade, 291, n. 10. Gesta Francorum, 30; Tudebode, Historia, 45. 29 Anselm of Ribemont, in Krey, 129. 30 Gesta Francorum, 30; Tudebode, Historia, 45. 31 Gesta Francorum, 32; Tudebode, Historia, 46. 27 28

348

THE CRUSADES

Yaghi Siyan realized he could not fight the Franks alone. He badly needed help but could not get it from Ridwan of Aleppo, whom he had already betrayed. He sent his son Shams al-Dawla (“Sensadolus” in the Latin sources) to Duqaq, lord of Damascus, Janah al-Dawla ibn Mula’ib, lord of Hims, and Waththab ibn Mahmud and the Banu Kilab, and sent his other son Muhammad to Abu Sa’id Qiwam al-Dawla Kerbogha, atabeg of Mosul (d. 1102), asking them for a jihad against the Franks.32 Having already heard that a great Frankish army had entered their territory, the Muslims at once prepared for battle. In response to Yaghi Siyan’s appeal, a Muslim force led by Duqaq, accompanied by Atabeg Zahir al-Din Tughtekin and Janah al-Dawla ibn Mula’ib, assembled at Shayzar to rescue Antioch. The Turks broke into two units, intending to surround the Franks’ vanguard and rearguard. But Robert of Flanders, armed at all points with faith and the sign of the cross, which he bore loyally every day, rushed with Bohemond against the Turks.33 The two sides clashed at al-Bara, near Aleppo, at the end of December 1097. The Muslims were beaten and fled in panic; the Franks, having lost only about fifty men, took their horses and substantial booty.34 The Franks withdrew to al-Ruj and then to the town of Ma’arrat Misrin, where they killed many people and broke the pulpit (of its mosque).35 The Gesta Francorum says the Franks returned in great triumph and glorified God, the “Three in One who liveth and reigneth now and forever. Amen.”36 Other sources say simply that after sufficiently ravaging the countryside, the expedition returned to Antioch safely.37 Although the Franks had gained a victory over the Turks, they were weakened by a lack of provisions and suffered poverty, misery, and confusion; one could not find in all the crusading army a thousand knights who had managed to keep their horses ready for battle. The Latin sources say that the Armenians and the Syrians, taking advantage of the situation, went to the mountains and bought food and resold it to the Franks at exorbitant Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 134 (42 of the English translation); Adim, Zubdat, 2: 130. 33 Raymond of Aguilers, The Deeds, 34. 34 Gesta Francorum, 31; Tudebode, Historia, 46; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 132; Husayn Muhammad Atiya, al-Imara Antakiya al-Salibiyya wa al-Muslimun 1171–1286 (Alexandria: Dar al-Ma’rifa al-Jami’iyya, 1989), 115–117. 35 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 134, (43 of the English translation); Adim, Zubdat, 2: 132. 36 Gesta Francorum, 31; Tudebode, Historia, 46. 37 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 375; Knappen, “Robert II,” 89–90. 32

ANTIOCH

349

prices. Many Franks who could not afford the high prices died of hunger.38 Raymond of Aguilers says that some of the poor, along with the wealthy, who wanted to save their possessions, deserted the siege. Straw was scarce, and an adequate amount of grain could not be bought even for seven or eight solidi.39 Matthew of Edessa gives a similar description of the Franks’ difficulties, but says that the Armenian princes who ruled in the Taurus Mountains gave them whatever provisions they could afford, and all the Christian faithful acted benevolently towards the Franks.40 The horrendous conditions apparently led Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy to appeal to the West for help. He saw fit from an ecclesiastical point of view to seek the approval of Patriarch Simeon II of Jerusalem, without compromising his own authority as the representative of Pope Urban II. The last thing he wanted in such circumstances was to cause a rift between the pope and the Eastern Church. He therefore drafted a letter in the name of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, addressed to the church in the West, in which the patriarch referred to himself as Apostolic and appeared to be an independent pontiff. Thus, Adhémar was able to avoid any language in the letter that might suggest an encroachment on the pope’s authority. Although the letter was delivered to the West, the manner in which it was received and the response to it are not known.41 Patriarch Simeon, then in Cyprus, sent gifts of food—pomegranates, apples, bacon, wine, and whatever else the island could afford.42 But these provisions were not sufficient to sustain the Franks. Despairing, some troops deserted camp to seek shelter and food elsewhere. Some of their leaders, including Peter the Hermit and William the Carpenter, viscount of Melun and Gâtinais, also secretly stole out of camp, revealing complete cowardice.43 Pursued by Tancred and brought back in disgrace, they pledged under oath to remain in the camp and make amends to all the Frankish leaders. William, a despicable creature, spent the night in Bohemond’s tent, lying on the ground. The next morning he came out, red Gesta Francorum, 33; Tudebode, Historia, 45; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, trans. Robert Levine as The Deeds of God through the Franks (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), 78–79; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 222–223. 39 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 35. 40 Matthew of Edessa, 167 41 Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, 146–149; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 223. 42 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 489. 43 R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), 118, n. 3. 38

350

THE CRUSADES

with shame, to face Bohemond, who said, “You wretched disgrace to the whole Frankish army, you dishonorable blot on all the people of Gaul . . . Why did you flee so disgracefully? Perhaps by this act you wished to betray those knights and the army of Christ as you surrendered others in Spain!” William stood silent, and the Franks asked Bohemond not to punish him. Bohemond granted their request, but made William swear that he would never abandon the journey to Jerusalem, in good times or bad. Tancred and the others agreed not to harm William, and Bohemond dismissed him. Though pardoned, William could not overcome his humiliation and eventually disappeared from the camp.44 Although Bohemond eventually became lord of the principality of Antioch, the important question is whether he had designs on the city when the Franks first besieged it in October 1097. The Latin sources are not very clear on this subject, but give some indication that this was the case. Raymond of Aguilers says that at the start of January 1098, when the Franks were already hungry and miserable, Bohemond threatened to depart, saying honor led him to do so. His men and horses were dying of hunger and, having limited means, he could not sustain a prolonged siege. But, says Raymond, “We learned afterwards that he made these statements because ambition drove him to covet Antioch.”45 Yewdale says it is possible but not clear that Bohemond planned at this point to claim Antioch. He had seen the greatness of the city, which rivaled Rome and Constantinople, and the wealth of the city and in fact the whole region of Syria must have whetted his appetite.46 But the German writer Bernhard Kugler maintains that Bohemond had determined not only to possess the city, but to establish a principality in Antioch and eventually absorb all of Palestine.47 Let us recall that before marching through Syria, Bohemond had willingly sworn the oath of homage demanded by Emperor Alexius. He and the other Frankish leaders further pledged to restore the cities and lands to the emperor once they had liberated them from the Turks’ control. According to the Gesta Francorum, after they captured Antioch, the Frankish leaders, including Bohemond, sent the high-born knight Hugh the Great to Con44 Gesta Francorum, 33–34; Tudebode, Historia, 48–49; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 79–81. William of Tyre, History, 1: 267, names William the Carpenter but not Peter the Hermit as among the Franks who fled. 45 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 35. 46 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 55. 47 Bernhard Kugler, Boemund und Tankred, Fürsten von Antiochien (Tübingen, 1862), 1–5.

ANTIOCH

351

stantinople to ask the emperor to come and take over the city and fulfill his obligations towards them, but Hugh never came back.48 Did Bohemond renege on his oath? If so, why did he agree at all to hand over Antioch to Emperor Alexius? And why did he threaten to quit the siege precisely when his comrades needed him? Bohemond knew he was duty-bound to turn Antioch over to the emperor but changed his mind, realizing that once the Franks occupied Antioch, the emperor would never agree to give it to them, let alone to Bohemond himself. He must have also realized that his leaving the siege of Antioch would be disastrous to the success of the Franks’ military operation. By threatening to quit at this early stage, Bohemond hoped to serve notice to the other Frankish leaders and the emperor that Antioch should be his. His ploy succeeded, and to dissuade him from deserting the expedition his comrades promised to hand him over Antioch once they had captured it.49 Thus, in the case of Antioch the Franks clearly broke their pledge to the emperor.50 The situation was complicated when the Byzantine commander Taticius withdrew with his forces during the siege of Antioch, leaving the Franks to fight alone. Under the agreement the Franks’ leaders had reached with the emperor at Constantinople in May 1097 (largely through the mediation of Bohemond himself), Alexius had pledged to carry the cross, join the Crusaders in their expedition, protect them on their journey through his dominion, and furnish them with troops and provisions. The emperor appointed Taticius as his representative to accompany the Crusaders with a corps of Byzantine troops. After the Crusaders took Nicaea, they honored their pledge and handed it over to the emperor. When they laid siege to Gesta Francorum, 72; neither Raymond of Aguilers nor Peter Tudebode mentions the Franks’ sending Hugh the Great to Constantinople. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 149; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 129, likens Hugh the Great to the raven which Noah sent forth from the ark, but which did not return to him (Genesis, 8: 6–7). William of Malmesbury, 436, says Hugh the Great returned to France (instead of Antioch), “alleging as a reason the perpetual racking of his bowels.” 49 F. Chalandon, Essai sur la Règne d’Alexis Comnene 1081–1118 (Paris: A. Picard, 1900), 200–201, and Histoire de la première croisade (Paris: A. Picard, 1935), 193–195. 50 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 135, says that the Franks reneged on their pledge to the emperor, but wrongly says they did not return Nicaea to him. See Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 195. 48

352

THE CRUSADES

Antioch in October 1097, Taticius was stationed nearby with his troops. Bohemond, who had already threatened to quit the siege, may well have tried to persuade Taticius to withdraw. If he did so, Bohemond could argue that Alexius, by not providing troops to assist the Franks, had failed to keep his part of the agreement, and thus he could claim Antioch for himself instead of handing it over to the emperor.51 The Latin sources are not so clear about Taticius’s decision to withdraw from the siege of Antioch in early February 1098. The Gesta Francorum, our earliest source, says he withdrew because he had heard that a Turkish army was about to attack the Franks and, as he admitted, he feared that all the Franks would perish or fall into the hands of the enemy. To justify withdrawing, Taticius falsely told the Frankish knights no reinforcements could reach them from any direction. To pacify the Franks, he told them that he would depart for the Byzantine country, promising to send them ships laden with provisions and bring goods by land under the emperor’s safe conduct. To assure them that he would return as quickly as possible, he vowed to leave his pavilion in the camp. Taticius left his possessions in the camp, but, says the Gesta Francorum, he was and would always be a liar. Plainly he left the Franks in a time of dire need at the mercy of the Turks, who were attacking them from every direction.52 William of Tyre adds no information but heaps contumely upon Taticius, “a wicked and faithless man who deserves to be condemned to everlasting death,” adding that by his departure, never to be seen again, he established a pernicious precedent for the Franks who later deserted the camp, regardless of the oaths and vows they had taken in the beginning.53 These sources do not mention Bohemond in connection with Taticius’s departure, implying that Taticius was scared and decided on his own to withdraw. The only Latin source who associates Bohemond with Taticius’s departure is Raymond of Aguilers, who after vilifying him as the one with a “disfigured nose [who] lacked any redeeming qualities,” reports the lies Taticius used to justify his departure. He told the Franks that the emperor’s forces, including Slavs, Pechenegs, Comans, and Turcopoles, were approaching, but were reluctant to join the Franks, whom they had already 51 Chalandon, Essai sur la Règne, 201–203, and by the same author, “The Early Comnena,” in The Cambridge Mediaeval History, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923): 338. 52 Gesta Francorum, 34–35; Tudebode, Historia, 49–50; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 81–82, follows the account of the Gesta Francorum. 53 William of Tyre, History, 1: 219.

ANTIOCH

353

treated badly on their journey. Taticius, anxious to flee, not only invented this story but compounded the lie; he ceded to Bohemond the cities of Turbessel (Tall Bashir), Mamistra, and Adana. Then, under the pretext of joining the emperor’s army, he broke camp and left “with God’s curse. By his dastardly act he brought eternal shame to himself and his men.”54 It is clear from this and the other Latin sources cited that Taticius was personally responsible for his departure, an act of cowardice and dishonesty. Anna Comnena blames Taticius’s departure on Bohemond and his ambition to possess Antioch, even at this early stage of the siege. Her account implies that Taticius left as Bohemond was plotting with an Armenian traitor (Firuz) inside Antioch to take over the city and the army of Kerbogha (whom she calls Curpagan), the Turkish lord of Mosul, was advancing to attack, but she errs on the chronological sequence of events. She says that when Bohemond heard that an immense army of Hagarenes (Muslims) commanded by Kerbogha was on its way to Antioch, he did not wish to cede the city to Taticius, having already sworn to restore to the emperor any territory he and the other Frankish leaders might liberate from the Muslims. Rather, she says, Bohemond concocted an evil plan to force Taticius to depart Antioch against his will, telling him that Emperor Alexius had deliberately persuaded the Seljuk sultan to send this army against the Franks, and that because the Franks firmly believed the emperor and the sultan were plotting against his life, it was up to him to take measures for his safety and that of his troops. Being thus warned by Bohemond, and realizing that the food shortage at Antioch was severe and there was no hope of taking the city in the name of the emperor, Taticius left for Suwaydiyya (St. Simeon’s Port) and went from there to Cyprus. After his departure, Bohemond continued to plot with the Armenian until the city fell to the Franks and he could claim it for himself.55 Yewdale, who has thoroughly analyzed this account, says Anna Comnena was mistaken. Bohemond did not make a bid for Antioch until May 1098, when he was sure of Firuz’s plot to hand over the city. She gives the date of Bohemond’s plot with Firuz as January 1098, when the two were not yet in communication. She says the army of Kerbogha was marching against Antioch when Taticius departed, but in fact it was the army of Ridwan, lord of Aleppo. He concludes, “The errors are not calculated to in-

54 55

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 36–37. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 277–278.

354

THE CRUSADES

crease our confidence in Anna’s narrative.”56 Moreover, Raymond of Aguilers contradicts the Gesta Francorum, whose author, a member of Bohemond’s army and his chaplain, is unlikely to have falsified the facts to defend Bohemond. Yewdale says that Chalandon is incorrect in preferring the accounts of Raymond and Anna to the Gesta Francorum, and there is no evidence that Bohemond was responsible for the departure of Taticius.57 Later in her account, Anna Comnena inadvertently reveals the truth regarding Bohemond’s attitude. After Tancred occupied Laodicea, Emperor Alexius wrote to Bohemond asking him to surrender that city and Antioch to him. Bohemond replied that the emperor had promised to follow them with a great army but never fulfilled his promise, and that when the Franks reached Antioch they had fought for three months against the enemy and famine and had endured long hardships. Moreover, he said, “While we were in this danger even Taticius, your Majesty’s most loyal servant, whom you had appointed to help us, went away and left us to our danger.”58 Of all the Latin sources, Ordericus Vitalis is kindest in treating the departure of Taticius. He says that Tatan (Taticius), the Greek commander of the emperor’s troops, was so appalled at the prospect of perishing in the common calamity (i.e., hunger and the assaults of the Turks) that he sent a message to the emperor apprising him of the situation and promising to assist his allies as soon as he could, then departed and never returned. He adds that Taticius faithfully reported to Alexius the courage and constancy of the Franks who were besieging Antioch and the privation they suffered, and said that he had exhorted the noble chiefs of the Franks, including Guy, son of Robert Guiscard, to hurry to the relief of their friends. But while he was at Philomelium, Alexius heard the bad news about the besieged Franks from Stephen of Blois, yet he declined to rush to Antioch.59 Runciman does not clear Bohemond of having induced Taticius to depart to pave the way for his takeover of Antioch. No sooner had Taticius gone, he says, than Bohemond’s propagandists suggested that he had acted out of cowardice, fearing the advancing Turkish force. With his departure Bohemond was freed from his obligation to restore Antioch to the emperor.60 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 59–60. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 60–61; Chalandon, Essai sur le Règne, 201–203. 58 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 290–291. 59 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 112, 134, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 77, 107. 60 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 249–250. For more on the departure of Taticius see John France, “The Departure of Tatikios from the Crusade Army,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971): 137–147; Jonathan Shepard, 56 57

ANTIOCH

355

Whether Taticius left Antioch on his own or out of treachery, the fact remains that during the siege of Antioch Bohemond plotted with a certain Armenian to take over the city, and eventually he became its first Latin prince.61 While the Crusaders were determined to capture Antioch, the Muslim lords in Syria did not seem to understand the danger they represented. The major Muslim powers at that time, the Shi’ite Fatimids of Egypt and the Sunnite Abbasids of Baghdad, were enemies of each other. The Fatimids also considered the Sunnite Seljuk Turks in Syria enemies because of their differing religious doctrines.62 Moreover, the Fatimids wanted to regain Jerusalem, which had been taken from them in 1071 by Atsiz in the name of the Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan and was seized in 1079 by Artuk, the founder of the Artukid dynasty. In August 1097, the Vizir Sayf al-Islam Shahanshah al-Afdal, an Armenian by birth who was de facto ruler of Egypt from 1094 to 1121, led an Egyptian army against Jerusalem. He camped before the city, which then was in the hands of the Turkish amirs Sukman and Ilghazi, the sons of Artuk. Al-Afdal asked them to deliver the city to him without war or bloodshed; when they did not respond, he stormed the city, occupied it by force, and returned to Egypt.63 Ibn al-Athir says that when the Egyptians saw the Turks’ weakness, al-Afdal, the son of Badr al-Din al-Jamali, attacked Jerusalem and captured it after forty days, but then magnanimously permitted Sukman and Ilghazi to leave the city, the former going to Edessa and the latter to Iraq.64 “When Greek Meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–98,” Byzantiune and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988): 189; Lilie, Byzantine and the Crusader States, 31–34. 61 Gesta Francorum, 44–45. 62 Chalandon, Histoire de la Première Croisade, 190; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 197. 63 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 135–136 (p. 45 of the English translation). Fulcher of Chartres, History, 125, refers to al-Afdal, the son of Badr al-Din alJamali, as “Lavedalius”. 64 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 197–198; Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muyyasir, Muntakhabat Tarikh Ibn Muyassar, R. H. C. Or. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 462–465; Abu alMuzaffar Yusuf ibn Kizoghlou (Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi), Mir’at al-Zaman fi Tarikh al-A’yan, R. H. C. Or. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 518–519; Ibn Taghri Birdi, al-Nujum al-Zahira, R. H. C. Or. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 485–486. William of Tyre, History, 1: 393, says al-Afdal, whom he calls “Emireius,” was an Armenian born of Christian parents. In fact al-Afdal’s father, Badr al-Jamali, was an Armenian slave in the house of the Fatimid caliph.

356

THE CRUSADES

The Fatimids, hoping to restore Jerusalem to their rule, thought it desirable to ally themselves with the Crusaders. In January or February 1098, al-Afdal sent an embassy to the Crusaders at Antioch, asking them to continue the siege. His deputies, instructed to assure the Crusaders that the caliph would aid them with military support and resources, tried to win their favor and sign a treaty of friendship with them. There is no evidence that any agreement was reached, although Raymond of Aguilers says that the Frankish envoys were charged with entering into a friendship pact with the Egyptians.65 The Crusaders welcomed this embassy, recalling that when they were in Constantinople the Emperor Alexius had advised them to form an alliance with the Fatimids, who were foes of both the Seljuk Turks and the caliphs of Baghdad. The Crusaders reacted negatively to the caliph’s proposal that they partition Syria. The Fatimid emissaries returned to Egypt, accompanied by a Frankish mission. Impatient to conclude a solid alliance with the Crusaders, al-Afdal captured Jerusalem in August 1098; by autumn the entire region up to the Dog River near Beirut was in Egyptian hands.66 While the Franks were bringing the siege of Antioch to a successful conclusion, their envoys were detained in Cairo for a whole year by violence and negotiations. They rejoined the Crusaders in 1099 at the siege of Arqa, accompanied by envoys from the Fatimid caliph bearing a different message. Whereas earlier the Egyptians had sought the Crusaders’ help, they now implied that they were doing the Christians a great favor. The caliph’s envoys reported that he would allow the Christians to perform the pilgrimage to Jerusalem in groups of two or three hundred, provided that they did not bear arms. The Crusaders considered the message an insult and sent back the Egyptian envoys with the reply that they would visit Jerusalem not in small detachments but en masse. Ironically, William of Tyre attributes the Egyptians’ change of attitude to the Crusaders’ victory at Antioch. The Turks in Syria, suffering from dissension and declining military power since the death of Artuk in 1091, had been defeated whenever they came into conflict with other nations. Thus the Fatimids, despite having lost Jerusalem to the Turks, came to surpass them in power. But al-Afdal and the Egyptians never conceded that they had been able to retake Jerusalem because Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 382; William of Tyre, History, 1: 223–224; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 41. 66 Runciman, “The First Crusade: Antioch to Ascalon,” A History of the Crusades, 1: 315–316. 65

ANTIOCH

357

the Crusaders had greatly weakened the Turks. Thus, they “scorned the aid of our people, which formerly they had so earnestly sought.”67 The Fatimids had achieved a temporary success by avenging themselves against the Seljuk Turks and recapturing Jerusalem. But they never recognized that they had to come face to face with the Crusaders, and that in the end they would lose Jerusalem to them. When the Muslim troops left al-Bara at the end of December 1097 and prepared to attack Antioch, Yaghi Siyan’s son left the Muslim camp and went to Aleppo to seek help. Ridwan of Aleppo apparently forgot his animosity toward Yaghi Siyan and joined forces with him. Other Muslims came too, including Sukman, son of Artuk of Diyarbakr, an Artukid force from the Jazira, and yet another one from Hims, Hama and Shayzar.68 The Muslim force of 12,000 elite horsemen assembled at the fortress of Harenc (Harim), about ten miles from Antioch, to engage the Franks.69 They decided to sandwich Antioch between themselves and Yaghi Siyan’s forces. But the Armenian and Syrian inhabitants of Antioch secretly warned the Franks to be on guard. With a force of barely 700 knights, the Crusader chiefs set out to fight the Muslims. The enemy legions edged forward, and those in the vanguard made a violent charge against the Franks. In the ensuing battle in mid-February 1098, the Muslims were defeated and retreated from the fortress of Harim. When the Muslim garrison saw that the situation was hopeless, they set the fortress on fire and fled.70 But the Armenians and other Christians living in the area took possession of Harim and handed it over to the Frankish leaders before they returned to camp.71 The victorious Crusaders killed a large number of Turks and carried to their camp the heads of more than 200 Turks “so that Christ’s people might derive great joy therefrom.”72 William of Tyre says the enemy lost 2,000 men

67 68

225.

William of Tyre, History, 1: 325–326. Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 132; William of Tyre, History, 1:

Stephen of Blois, in a letter to his wife, gives the number of Muslim forces. He does not mention Harim by name but refers to a plain near the Iron Bridge on the Orontes River. See Krey, The First Crusade, 156, and the letter of Anselm of Ribemont to his Lord Manasses in Krey, 158. 70 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 40. 71 William of Tyre, History, 1: 227; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 132; Gesta Francorum, 32; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 373–374, 398; Tudebode, Historia, 44. 72 Stephen of Blois, in Krey, 156. 69

358

THE CRUSADES

and the victorious Crusaders returned to their camp with the heads of 500 slain enemies and a great quantity of spoils, including a thousand horses.73 Yaghi Sigan then made a surprise attack against the Franks but was repelled. They killed many of his men and flung the heads of the Turks slain at Harim inside the walls of Antioch, to show him that the same fate could befall him and his men. Desperate, Yaghi Siyan had to appeal to the Seljuk Sultan Berkyaruk.74 The Franks’ position became more secure when a fleet manned by Englishmen led by Edgar Atheling, carrying pilgrims from Lucca, Italy, arrived at Suwaydiyya (St. Simeon), the harbor of Antioch, on March 4, 1098, augmenting the Genoese ships that had arrived in November of the prior year.75 The fleet had called first at Constantinople, where Edgar placed himself under the authority of the Emperor Alexius.76 Bohemond and Raymond of Saint-Gilles, accompanied by sixty knights, set out immediately to recruit troops from among the newcomers. On March 6, as they were returning from the port of St. Simeon with men and provisions, they were ambushed by Turks, and a rumor spread that both Frankish leaders had lost their lives. On hearing this sad report, Godfrey tried to rescue their troops, but the Turks sallied forth from Antioch and attacked. Godfrey was able to repel them, and soon afterwards Raymond and Bohemond appeared unexpectedly with the remnant of their forces. In the battle the Turks lost about 1,500 men, reportedly including nine amirs, while many others drowned as they tried to cross the Orontes.77 The Muslims carried their dead to bury them in a Muslim cemetery on the north bank of the river, and the Franks allowed them to do so unmolested. But the next day they dug up the corpses, looking for gold and silver ornaments worn by the dead Muslims. They threw the corpses into a pit, and cut off their heads and brought them William of Tyre, History, 1: 227. Fulcher of Chartres, History, 93–94, mistakenly says Yaghi Siyan sent his son Sanxado (Shams al-Dawla) to the sultan. Actually Shams al-Dawla was sent to Duqaq, the lord of Damascus. See Ryan, ed., Fulcher of Chartres, 94, n. 7. 75 See the letter of the clergy of Lucca in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 165– 167. 76 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 227–228, esp. n. 1; C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Harvard Historical Studies 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 236–237. As Edgar was in Scotland in the fall of 1097, he may have traveled to Constantinople separately and joined the fleet there. 77 Stephen of Blois, in a letter to his wife, cited in Krey, 157, says 1230 Turks were killed, while the Franks lost no one. 73 74

ANTIOCH

359

to camp, except for some which they loaded on horses belonging to the caliph’s ambassadors and sent to the seacoast. The Turks grieved almost to death at seeing this spectacle and lamented the loss of their men for many a day.78 Despite this victory, the Frankish leaders knew that the Turks in Antioch would continue harassing and ambushing them. The Crusaders met in council and decided to build a castle at the mosque (by the Muslim cemetery), facing the Bridge Gate, from which they could keep the enemy immobilized. Raymond of Saint-Gilles told the leaders that if they helped him build the castle, he would fortify and defend it to prevent any attack by the Turks from that direction. Bohemond suggested that he and Raymond of Saint-Gilles go to the port of St. Simeon to recruit workers for the project.79 The fortification, finished in March 1098, came to be known as the castle of Raymond.80 In the meantime, Tancred was sent to fortify the ruined Monastery of Saint George, near a gate of the same name west of Antioch.81 By now, the Franks controlled five gates of the city. Left unguarded were the postern gates opening on the hills, through which food and provisions could be brought into the city. As Tancred and his men, seeking to stop the Turks from using these entrances, began to blockade the city, a large number of Armenians boldly came down from the mountains carrying provisions for the besieged Turks. Tancred captured them with all their loads of corn, wine, barley, oil, and other provisions. He was fortunate in being able to block all approaches to Antioch until the Franks captured the city.82 The Armenians and Syrians who sold provisions to the Turks may simply have been self-seeking men taking advantage of the blockade, or they may have been coerced by Yaghi Siyan to bring food to his beleaguered men inside the city. The episode of Rainald Porchet, related by Peter Tudebode, symbolizes the mortal combat between the Muslim Turks and their Christian enemies at Antioch. The Turks ordered Rainald, a noble knight whom they had 78

Gesta Francorum, 42. Gesta Francorum, 43; Tudebode, Historia, 53; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 383–386; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 46; Anselm of Ribemont, in Krey, 159; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 64. 80 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 228. 81 Gesta Francorum, 43; Tudebode, Historia, 160; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, R. H. C. Occ., 3 (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866), 643; Kugler, Albert von Aachen, 80; Nicholson, Tancred, 62. 82 Gesta Francorum, 43–44; Tudebode, 60. 79

360

THE CRUSADES

thrown into a dungeon and were about to behead, to ask the Crusaders what they would pay to ransom him. Standing at the city wall, Rainald told the Frankish leaders that it mattered not if he died and asked them not to ransom him. He urged them instead to stay steadfast in the faith of Christ and the Holy Sepulcher, adding that they had already slain the bravest Turks in Antioch, including twelve amirs and 15,000 noblemen, and no one remained to battle the Franks or defend the city. The Turks asked an interpreter what Rainald had said and were told that he had said nothing good concerning them. Yaghi Siyan then ordered him to descend from the wall and through the interpreter asked, “Rainald, do you wish to enjoy life honorably with us?” He replied, “How can I live honorably with you without sinning?” Yaghi Siyan answered, “Deny your God, whom you worship and believe, and accept Muhammad and our other gods. If you do so, we shall give you all that you desire, such as gold, horses, mules, and many other worldly goods, as well as wives and inheritances, and we shall enrich you with great land.” Rainald asked for time to think about his offer; Yaghi Siyan agreed, perhaps expecting him to recant his Christ. But Rainald, clasping his hands and turning his face toward the east, asked God to come to his aid and transport his soul with dignity to the bosom of Abraham. Yaghi Siyan asked what his answer was and was told, “Rainald completely denies your god and refuses worldly goods.” Outraged, Yaghi Siyan ordered him executed, and the Turks gleefully chopped off Rainald’s head. Having failed to make Rainald an apostate, Yaghi Siyan ordered all the Crusaders who had infiltrated the city brought before him with hands bound behind their backs, stripped naked, and tied with ropes in a circle. He then had firewood and hay piled up around them, and they were burned as enemies of God. They were, says Tudebode, martyrs of the faith, loyal to “our Lord Jesus Christ.”83 Yaghi Siyan’s action, a manifestation of Muslim fundamentalism, speaks for itself. It is an integral part of the jihad, dedicated to the glory of Islam. Nearly a century after Rainald died at Antioch, as we shall see, Saladin would offer freedom to Reginald of Chatillon if he embraced Islam. When Berkyaruk learned about the Franks' expedition against Antioch, he sent an army led by Abu Sa’id Qiwam al-Dawla Kerbogha, estimated by one Syriac source at 100,000 horsemen.84 Early in May 1098, soon after the Tudebode, Historia, 56–59. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 587 (184F). Other sources put the number at 150,000. See Anthony F. Czajkowski, “The Siege of Antioch in the First Crusade,” The Historical Bulletin 26 (May, 1948): 82. Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359, says Ker83 84

ANTIOCH

361

Franks learned of Yaghi Siyan’s appeal, rumors began to circulate among them that a great Muslim expeditionary force commanded by Kerbogha, lord of Mosul, had gathered at March Dabiq a month earlier and was marching to Antioch. Anna Comnena says that when the Sultan [Berkyaruk] heard that the emperor had gone to aid the Franks, he collected innumerable men from Khurasan (Persia) and put them under the command of his son Ishmael (sic), and instructed them to overtake the emperor before he reached Antioch.85 William of Tyre says that when the magnificent prince of Persia (Berkyaruk) heard of the troubles of Antioch, he was moved by compassion. He wrote to princes, calling on all people and nations, and all tribes and tongues, to follow his beloved son Corbagath (Kerbogha), who took charge of these legions and entered Mesopotamia with 200,000 men and camped in the vicinity of Edessa, from which he marched on Antioch.86 Stalling for time, “through a treacherous ruse offering to surrender Antioch, Yaghi Siyan massacred a small group of Christians, among whom was Galon, constable of the King of France.”87 In the face of the new danger, the Franks realized that a protracted siege of Antioch was pointless and determined to find a quick way to occupy the city. Kerbogha lost precious time by diverting his force toward Edessa, which he intended to capture from Baldwin of Boulogne. He wasted three weeks (May 4–25, 1098) in attacking the city, but Baldwin offered stiff resistance and forced him to withdraw.88 The Anonymous Edessan gives no reason for Kerbogha’s delay at Edessa, but one can infer from his account that Kerbogha was plundering the full flocks of cattle and sheep, and attacking men and houses throughout the district. He enslaved many of the people of the city. After doing great havoc in the land Kerbogha headed for Antioch by way of Aleppo, where he learned that the Franks had captured bogha’s army had 400,000 men. 85 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 283; Matthew of Edessa, 170. Raymond of Aguilers, Patrologia Latina, 155: 616–617, refers to Kerbogha as Corbaras. Hill and Hill, trans., Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 49, give the name as Kerbogha. The Anonymous Edessan, 58 of the Syriac text, 71 of the English translation, 77 of the Arabic translation, also calls Kerbogha a great chief who came from the East to Edessa. 86 William of Tyre, History, 1: 245. 87 John Hugh Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1962), 75. Henry Huntingdon calls him Corboran. See Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, T. Forester, trans. (London: Henry G. Bohm, 1853), 233. 88 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 396–399; Matthew of Edessa, 170.

362

THE CRUSADES

Antioch on June 3, 1098.89 One writer observes that if Kerbogha had arrived four days sooner, “the crusading movement would have been extinguished at the gates of Antioch.”90 His failure to capture Edessa enhanced Baldwin’s prestige and saved the Crusaders at Antioch. If Kerbogha had gone directly to Antioch before the Christians could take the city, says William of Tyre, the situation would have been critical for Bohemond: “By the Grace of God, Antioch was taken before the infidels arrived; even so, however, it was with difficulty that they were able to withstand Kerbogha's coming.”91 Kerbogha’s delay afforded the Franks time to regroup their forces and meet his attack. Meanwhile, Bohemond was plotting with a traitor (Firuz) inside Antioch to take over the city. The Latin and Eastern sources give different forms of his name and different accounts of his identity and his dealings with Bohemond.92 Fulcher of Chartres refers to the traitor simply as “a certain Turk” and connects him with the delivery of Antioch to Bohemond according to a divine dream. He says Christ appeared to the Turk thrice in a dream, asking him to return the city to the Christians, for He who commanded him was Christ indeed. Wondering what to do, the Turk related the vision to his master the prince of Antioch, Yaghi Siyan, who asked, “Do you wish, stupid man, to obey a ghost?” The man returned and remained silent.93 But, no longer doubting the vision, he discreetly made an agreement with the Franks by which they would obtain the city. When the matter was settled, the Turk offered his son to Bohemond as a guarantee of his fidelity. On the appointed night, the Turk let twenty Franks over the wall by means of rope ladders. Without delay the gate was opened, and the Franks, who were ready, entered the city, followed by others who shouted, “God wills it, God wills it!”94 The Gesta Francorum says the traitor was a Turkish amir named Firuz who struck up a friendship with Bohemond, who promised to bestow great The Anonymous Edessan, 58 of the Syriac text, 71 of the English, 77 of the Arabic. 90 William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” The Cambridge Mediaeval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 292. 91 William of Tyre, History, 1: 246; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 396–397. 92 John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, eds., Peter Tudebode, Historia, 61, n. 1, say Firuz was called Pirus, Pyrus, Pyrrhus, Firous, and other names; Huntingdon, The Chronicle, 232–233. 93 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 98. 94 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 98–99. 89

ANTIOCH

363

honor and wealth on him and to have him christened. Firuz trusted Bohemond and promised to hand over three towers which he was guarding. Pleased with himself at the thought that he could enter the city, Bohemond went to the Frankish leaders, then meeting in a council, and jokingly said that they were in dire poverty and misery and did not know whence better fortune would come to them. Addressing them politely, he suggested that if he could capture Antioch, alone or with others’ help, they should agree to give it to him. They refused, saying the city would not be granted to anyone; they would all share it alike. They reasoned that they had given equal toil and thus should have equal honor. Displeased by this response, Bohemond immediately left.95 Raymond of Aguilers says a certain (unidentified) Turk inside Antioch sent the Frankish chiefs a plan to deliver the city to them, and the Franks sent Bohemond, the duke of Lorraine, and Robert, count of Flanders, to look into these matters. When they came at midnight to the high point of the city, a messenger sent by the traitor commanded them not to move until a torch or lamp passed by. Apparently, the Turks had several men carrying torches on the wall to alert the people against any attack by the Franks. After the torches passed, the Franks approached the wall, put up a ladder, and climbed it, and by this stratagem they finally captured the city.96 Ralph of Caen says the city was delivered to the Franks through the treachery of a wealthy Armenian.97 Guibert of Nogent says the person Bohemond communicated with was Pyrrhus (Firuz), a Turkish leader from a city called Pyrrus (present Qurash, in northern Syria).98 William of Tyre gives a long, detailed account of Firuz and his role in the Franks’ capture of Antioch. He says Firuz was from a family noted for its high lineage, with the name Beni Zerra [“sons of the makers of breastplates”]. William does not specify Firuz’s ethnicity, but his narrative represents him as a Christian native of Antioch, a man of great influence due to his position as secretary at the palace. When the siege of Antioch began, Firuz strove to win Bohemond’s favor by reporting daily to him on the state of the city and Yaghi Siyan’s plans, with his own son acting as messenger. Apparently Bohemond's plan, which he concealed from the other Frankish leaders, was to claim Antioch as his possession once it was capGesta Francorum, 44–45. Raymond of Aguilers, History, 47–48; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 401–406. 97 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 562. 98 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 90. 95 96

364

THE CRUSADES

tured. When they learned he was plotting with Firuz to capture the city, all of them approved except Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse. With Firuz’s collaboration, the Franks managed to scale the city walls and occupy some of the ramparts. When Bohemond climbed the ladder, Firuz was at the wall and, taking him by the hand, pulled him over. William relates an anecdote (not found in the accounts of other historians) about what led Firuz to carry out his plot to deliver the city to Bohemond. He says while Firuz was at the palace of his master Yaghi Siyan tending to some important matters, he sent his young son home on an errand. When the son arrived, he was stunned to see his mother in the embrace of a Turkish chief and hurried to his father to tell him. Enraged and resentful, Firuz said it was not enough that the filthy dogs (the Turks) had crushed the people of Antioch under the yoke of servitude and depleted their patrimony by exacting money daily; they had also violated the laws of wedlock and destroyed the bonds of marriage. “If I live,” he said, “I will put an end to such insolence and, with the help of the Lord, repay them as they deserve.”99 William of Tyre reports that Firuz and his brother (whose name he does not give) helped deliver Antioch to Bohemond. He says Firuz did not trust his brother, who was pessimistic about the siege of Antioch and thought its Christian inhabitants did not perceive the disastrous end that awaited them. The brother said that if the people of Antioch foresaw their coming destruction, they would seek safety by other means. Distressed by his brother’s discouraging views, Firuz plotted his death and, when he found him in a deep sleep on the tower, struck him with a sword, in an action “at once pious and wicked.”100 On Firuz’s betrayal of Antioch, the editors of William’s Chronicle say, “This incident seems to have appealed strongly to William’s fancy. He not only drew upon all his Latin sources but

William of Tyre, History, 1: 241–256, esp. 249–250. William of Tyre, History, 1: 242, 254–256. H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs (Dusseldorf, 1841), 344–345, attributes the treachery of the Armenian renegade Firuz to his harsh treatment by Yaghi Siyan, but this idea seems without merit. Also untenable is the conjecture that Firuz was closely associated with Philaretus, the former governor of Antioch who lost the city to the Turks in 1084, and then collaborated with the Franks to regain the position he had lost when the Turks captured Antioch. See Ter-Grigorian Iskenderian (Galust), Die Kreuzfahrer und ihre Beziehungen zu den armenischen Nachbarfürsten bis zum Untergange der Grafschaft Edessa (Weide i.Th.: Druck von Thomas und Hubert, 1915), 34. 99

100

ANTIOCH

365

upon Arabic sources as well for information, and then allowed his imagination to carry his pen beyond all of them.”101 The earliest Eastern sources to mention Firuz are Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi and Ibn al-Qalanisi. Al-Azimi says Firuz was an Armenian Christian zarrad [breastplate maker] who delivered Antioch to the Franks.102 Ibn al-Qalanisi says the man who plotted to give the city to the Franks was Niruz, an Armenian zarrad, an Antiochene from the camp of Yaghi Siyan.102 Ibn al-Adim also says an Antiochene zarrad in Yaghi Siyan’s camp plotted to deliver the city to Bohemond, who offered him money and an estate for his collaboration.103 Ibn al-Athir identifies the man who handed the city to the Franks as Baruzyeh, a zarrad by trade who became a guardian of a fortress of the city, but does not specify his ethnic origin.104 Anna Comnena says Bohemond tempted an Armenian on the tower guarding the part of the wall assigned to him and persuaded him to betray the city. The Armenian gave a signal to Bohemond, who then stormed the city.105 Michael Rabo, the Syrian patriarch of Antioch, says two Armenian brothers charged with guarding the towers of Antioch collaborated to deliver the city to Bohemond at night.106 Another Syriac source, the Anonymous Edessan, says that while the Franks were fighting fiercely, some inhabitants of Antioch plotted with Bohemond to surrender the city to him. When the plan was perfected, the Franks ascended the wall and captured it.107 Bar Hebraeus says the Franks managed to capture the city by a secret arrangement with a Persian named Ruzbah, who guarded a tower near the ravine called Kashkaruf. They promised to give him gold. Iron poles were laid across the ravine, and a tower was built on them. The Franks came by night and entered there, and others scaled the wall with ropes. When a great number of Franks were on the wall, they blew a blast on the horns during the last

101

12.

Emily A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, eds., William of Tyre, History, 1: 241, n.

Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 136, and ed. Zakkar, 220–221 (44–45 of the English translation). 103 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 133–134; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 231. 104 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 192. 105 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 277–279. 106 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 587 (184F). 107 The Anonymous Edessan, 59 of the Syriac text, 71 of the English translation. 102 102

366

THE CRUSADES

watch of the night and thus entered the city.108 Matthew of Edessa reports that one of the officials of Antioch sent a man to Bohemond and other Frankish chiefs and invited them to occupy his native city. Having obtained an oath from them, the officer secretly during the night delivered Antioch into Bohemond’s hands.109 Bohemond continued to flatter Firuz and make tempting promises. On June 1, 1098, Firuz secretly sent his son to Bohemond to assure him that he would deliver the city to him. He also sent word that on the morrow all the Frankish troops should be summoned and should pretend to go out to plunder the lands of the Muslims, but they were to return immediately by the western mountain, where the towers Firuz controlled were located. He promised to watch for the troops and admit them through the towers. Following his instructions, Bohemond sent one of his followers, a sergeant nicknamed “Bad Crown” (Peter Tudebode calls him “Big Crown”), to summon a great force. Bohemond told Duke Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, and the bishop of Le Puy of the plan, saying, “God willing, this night shall Antioch be betrayed to us.”110 On June 3, 1098, the Frankish knights went through the plain and the foot soldiers by the mountains until they reached the towers Firuz was guarding. Bohemond dismounted and encouraged his comrades to be strong and scale the ladder. Firuz was disheartened when he saw how small the Frankish force was, fearing that they would fall easily into the hands of the Turks. Frightened, he exclaimed, “Micho Francos echome!” [We have few Franks!] Then he asked, “Where is the hero Bohemond? Where is that unconquered soldier?”111 Soon a soldier from southern Italy climbed down the ladder and yelled at Bohemond, asking why he was standing there instead of climbing the ladder, for the Franks already had three towers in their possession. Bohemond and the rest of the troops rushed to climb the ladder in great numbers, giving encouragement to those already on the wall. The men in the towers saw them climbing and began to shout, “God’s will!” A ladder broke because of their hasty ascent. But those who were already atop the wall lowered themselves into the city and broke open a gate. The Franks 108 Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 82 of the Syriac text, 234 of the English translation. 109 Matthew of Edessa, 170. 110 Gesta Francorum, 46; Tudebode, Historia, 62–63; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 91–92. 111 Gesta Francorum, 46; Peter Tudebode, Historia, 63.

ANTIOCH

367

rushed through the gate into the city and killed everyone they encountered, including Firuz’s brother. The Anonymous Edessan says, “The capture of Antioch was the result of treason, a surrender by the garrison near the hill on the east side.”112 The whole city was thrown into confusion, and the cries of women and children could be heard. The victorious Franks raised their standards on Antioch’s southern hill. When the Turkish inhabitants saw that the Franks had captured the city, some panicked and rushed through the gates seeking safety, while other leaped from the walls. The Franks helped themselves to substantial booty and killed many Turks. Says Raymond of Aguilers, “We cannot estimate the number of slain Turks and Saracens, and it would be sadistic to relate the novel and varied means of death.” He shows no sorrow for the Muslims killed, but he and the other Franks were saddened at the loss of more than three hundred horses dashed to death.113 Unlike Raymond, the author of the Gesta Francorum does not express joy at the killing of Muslims. He says simply that the Franks entered the city gate and killed all the Turks and Saracens they found there, except those who managed to flee through the gates to save their lives.114 Some Turks fled through the middle gate; others sought refuge in the citadel above the city. Realizing how important the citadel was, Bohemond attacked it ferociously but was wounded in the thigh and was compelled to give up the fight. Antioch fell on June 3, 1098.115 One Latin source describing the capture of Antioch is very different from those cited so far. The story is presented in a letter to the people of Lucca, Italy, by Bruno, a citizen of that city who was aboard an English ship at the port of St. Simeon (al-Suwaydiyya), the harbor of Antioch. He says he witnessed the Turks’ siege of Antioch and describes how it fell to the Franks, who had built a fortress at the city’s western gate. The Turks attacked and killed 2,500 of the Franks, while losing only 800 men. The building of the fortress is consistent with the other accounts, but the manner in which Bruno says Antioch was captured by the Franks is totally different. He claims that four noble brothers promised to deliver the city to three Frankish leaders: Bohemond, Robert Curthose (Robert of Normandy), and Count Robert of Flanders. These three, with the consent of all the Frankish 112 The Anonymous Edessan, 58 of the Syriac text, 71 of the English, 77 of the Arabic. 113 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 47–48. 114 Gesta Francorum, 47; Tudebode, Historia, 64. 115 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 406–407; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 655; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 68; Huntingdon, The Chronicle, 233.

368

THE CRUSADES

princes, led the whole army by night to the city wall. The Turks were unaware of their movement. In the morning, when the four brothers opened the gates to admit the Frankish leaders as they had promised, the Franks suddenly rushed into the city and occupied every fortified place in it except the very high citadel.116 Oddly, Tancred was not among the leaders who entered Antioch and indeed had no idea about Bohemond’s negotiations with Firuz. He had taken up comfortable quarters in a nearby village while he was carrying out his mission against St. George’s Castle.117 Meanwhile, Yaghi Siyan, the Turkish lord of Antioch, fled the city and wound up dead. The Latin and Eastern sources give varying accounts of his death. According to the Gesta Francorum, Cassianus (Yaghi Siyan) escaped with many of his companions and entered the area controlled by Tancred close to the city. They sought refuge in a village, but its Syrian and Armenian inhabitants captured them, cut off Yaghi Siyan’s head, and took it to Bohemond to win their freedom.118 Radulf (Ralph) of Caen says Cassianus fled the city, severely wounded and exhausted, having lost a lot of blood. He met a peasant (whom Radulf does not identify) and told him that Antioch was lost to the Franks and he had barely escaped with his life, seriously wounded. He offered the peasant a handsome reward if he would help him to escape. The peasant contemplated what to do. He thought that by killing him, he would gain fame and the Franks’ favor, as well as Cassianus’s horse and clothes. The peasant looked at the half-dead Cassianus and decided it would be easy to kill him, as he had no strength and no weapon to defend himself. So, unmindful of justice and decency, he crushed Cassianus’s head with a club and mutilated his body.119 Fulcher of Chartres says that the amir of Antioch, Aoxianus (Yaghi Siyan), fled Antioch and was beheaded by an Armenian peasant, who sent his head to the Franks.120 Raymond of Aguilers, largely agreeing with this account, states that Yaghi Siyan fled the city by way of one of the gates. He was captured by Armenian peasants, who cut off his head and delivered it to us [the Franks] (related by Abu al-Mahasin ibn Taghri Birdi; see footnote 30). Thus Yaghi Siyan, who had decapitated many Armenians was now, by the inex116 Letter to the people of Lucca, in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuszzugsbriefe, 165–167; David, Robert Curthose, 107, nn. 85–86; Krey, The First Crusade, 161–162. 117 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 656; Nicholson, Tancred, 65, esp. n. 2, discusses at length the reasons for leaving Tancred out. 118 Gesta Francorum, 47–48. 119 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, in Patrologia Latina, 155: 540. 120 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 99.

ANTIOCH

369

pressible will of God, beheaded by the Armenians.121 Guibert of Nogent says that Cassian fled with several of his commanders and took refuge in an area held by Tancred, not far from Antioch. Exhausted by their hasty flight and unable to go on, they stopped at a house. Some Armenians and Syrians came upon the house, cut off his head, and brought it as a gift to Bohemond, expecting him to offer them freedom. His baldric and the scabbard of his sword, which they took, brought them about sixty besants (bezants).122 William of Tyre states that when Yaghi Siyan saw that Antioch with its towers and fortifications had fallen into the hands of the enemy, he was stricken with fear and fled hastily from the city unaccompanied. Wandering aimlessly, he fell in with several Armenians. Seeing him alone, the Armenians realized that the city had fallen. They threw him violently to the ground and cut off his head. They carried it to the city and presented it to the [Franks’] leaders in the presence of all people.123 Matthew of Edessa says that Yaghi Siyan fled the city and was killed by some peasants, who cut off his head with a scythe.124 Ibn al-Adim states that when he tried to escape with other Turks, he fell off his horse. Some Armenians killed him and carried his head to the Franks.125 Ibn al-Athir says Yaghi Siyan fled with thirty of his men. When he fainted and fell off his horse, near death, his men fled, abandoning him, and an Armenian woodcutter passing by killed him.126 Ibn al-Qalanisi gives a different version of Yaghi Siyan’s death, saying that he fled with a number of men, but none of them made it to safety. On reaching Armanaz, an estate near Ma’arrat Misrin, he fell off his horse. One of his companions picked him up, but he kept falling off and finally he died. There is no mention of an Armenian beheading him or of his head being sent to Bohemond.127 The Syriac sources, except for Bar Hebraeus, say little about Yaghi Siyan’s end. Michael Rabo reports that because of the Franks’ harassment of the city (Antioch), he left for Aleppo and was waylaid by a group of ArmeRaymond of Aguilers, Historia, 48. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 93. 123 William of Tyre, History, 1: 259. 124 Matthew of Edessa, 171. 125 Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 135. 126 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 195; al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Isma’il Abu al-Fida, al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, R. H. C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872) 3; Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 359, says that Yaghi Siyan fled and died from thirst. 127 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. Amedroz, 135, and ed. Zakkar, 220, and trans. Gibb, 44. 121 122

370

THE CRUSADES

nians who cut off his head and brought it to the Franks.128 The Anonymous Edessan says when the Turkish governor, whom he calls “Aksin,” saw that Antioch had fallen, he fled through the gate of the upper fortress on top of the mountain and departed by the southeast side of the mountain, but he mentions nothing about his death.129 Bar Hebraeus’s account differs slightly from these and in some respects echoes that of Ibn al-Qalanisi. He reports that when the Franks blasted on their horns as they stormed Antioch, the Turkish governor of the city, whom he calls “Gaisgan,” awoke. Thinking the Franks had already captured the citadel of Antioch, he began trembling with fear. He opened the city gate and fled with thirty of his men by night along the road to Aleppo. When day broke, he began to bite his fingers, saying, “How was it that I left the city, my men, my family, and my possessions and fled?” He turned toward Antioch, weeping, and because of his immense grief he fell off his horse. His companions lifted him back on the horse several times, but he continued to fall off. Finally, they left him and departed. It happened that an Armenian woodsman passed by and saw Yaghi Siyan, cut off his head, and took it to the Franks.130 At the end of May, Kerbogha abandoned the siege of Edessa, marched to Antioch, and laid siege to the city. He had wasted three weeks at Edessa and then Aleppo, and that miscalculation had given the Franks breathing room. By June 5, 1098 his huge army, estimated by al-Azimi at 400,000 men, was at the Iron Bridge, and two days later it camped outside the walls of the city of Antioch. The approach of Kerbogha’s army and the coming siege caused panic among the Franks, and many deserted camp. On June 2, 1098, a great number of northern Frenchmen, led by Stephen of Blois, count of Chartres, fled Antioch. The Latin sources call Stephen’s flight a disgraceful act of cowardice. He had heard that the Turks had surrounded and besieged Antioch. Standing atop a nearby mountain, he looked around and saw countless enemy tents. As the author of the Gesta Francorum says, when the Franks were shut up inside Antioch and desperately needed his aid, suddenly “that coward, whom all our leaders had elected ductor (commander), pretended to be very ill and fled shamefully to Alexandretta.”131 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 587 (184F). The Anonymous Edessan, 58 of the Syriac text, 71 of the English, 77 of the Arabic. 130 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 82 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation. 131 Gesta Francorum, p. 63; Tudebode, Historia, 81. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 97, says only that Stephen returned home to France by sea. Huntingdon, The 128 129

ANTIOCH

371

Albert of Aachen admits he is unable to account for what Stephen of Blois did, but says he left Antioch because of illness; Ralph of Caen attributes his withdrawal to boredom.132 William of Tyre says that Stephen, count of Chartres, accompanied by about four thousand men, “took leave of his brethren, under pressure of illness, and went down to the coast.” His plan was to sojourn at Alexandretta until he had regained his full health, but his departure appalled the other Franks as “an infamous act fraught with everlasting disgrace.”133 But of Stephen’s death in 1102 at Ramla, fighting alongside Baldwin I, he says that the Lord “permitted Stephen to wipe out by a splendid end the mark of infamy which his own conduct had branded upon his name when he deserted the forces before Antioch.”134 Fulcher of Chartres says that all the Franks grieved for him because he was a noble man and mighty in arms.135 James A. Brundage defends Stephen of Blois and explains his flight from Antioch. After sketching Stephen’s career, including his joining the Crusades and the capture of Nicaea, he says that at Antioch Stephen received a great honor when the princes of the Crusading armies chose him as presiding officer of the assemblies of the leaders, in charge of the expedition’s housekeeping. Thus, the Crusaders considered Stephen a well-tried leader. But by March 1098, Brundage says, Stephen was fed up with the Crusades. In a letter to his wife Adele dated March 29, two months before his departure, he indicated he was already planning to leave the Crusading army. Brundage infers from this letter that Stephen put off leaving the Crusades because as a conscientious quartermaster-general, he wanted to see the result of the campaign at Antioch before making the decision to depart. Once the Crusaders had captured the city, he “considered that he had made his contribution to the Crusading endeavor.”136 Brundage excuses Stephen’s departure on the grounds that he had only a small army camped at Alexandretta outside Antioch. He looked from the mountain and saw Kerbogha’s huge Turkish army, many times the size of his own petty force, advancing toward the city. Convinced that he could not challenge Kerbogha and that Chronicle, 234, says Stephen of Chartres deserted his friends with unmanly weakness. 132 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 398; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 649. 133 William of Tyre, History, 1: 239–240. 134 William of Tyre, History, 1: 444. 135 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 97. 136 James A. Brundage, “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio 16 (1960): 386–388.

372

THE CRUSADES

doing so would only agitate the mighty Turkish warlord, he had to find a way out. So far as he could see, the situation was hopeless; nothing he could do would help the Crusaders’ army inside Antioch. Stephen saw that the Crusaders were worn out by starvation, disease, and desertion. They were trapped with inadequate supplies, while the Turkish forces had already a sure foothold within the city. “Rather than trying to alleviate the situation of the Crusaders in Antioch by pitting his tiny force against the huge besieging army, Stephen decided instead to flee.”137 Given the historical facts of the Franks’ predicament at Antioch, Stephen of Blois should have not left his comrades. The arguments Brundage offers against the Latin sources’ accounts of his flight do not seem convincing. His report to Emperor Alexius at Philomelium reveals not a true and genuine crusading spirit, but unwarranted despair and weakness. Whether his forces were small or large, Stephen should have kept his ground and fought, as any valiant and true soldier would have done. Clearly Stephen of Blois miscalculated the situation at Antioch. He did not know that his kinsmen would capture the fortress guarded by Firuz and enter the city a day after his departure, amid the jubilation of the Armenian and Syrian inhabitants. Runciman writes, “Had Stephen delayed his departure for only a few hours he would have changed his mind.”138 But he did not. In Runciman’s view, Stephen was never a great fighting man, but at least he would have lived to fight another day. Bohemond must have smiled to see him go, but could not have known how useful Stephen’s flight would be to his own cause.139 According to the Gesta Francorum, when the Muslim forces drew near Antioch, Shams al-Dawla, son of Yaghi Siyan, ran straightway to Kerbogha. Weeping, he told him that the Franks had besieged the citadel of Antioch and the city had fallen into their hands, and that they had killed his father and were determined to eliminate Kerbogha and all the Muslims. He appealed to Kerbogha to help him against the Franks.140 Kerbogha, with the instinct of a political opportunist, told Shams al-Dawla that he would help him against the Franks if he surrendered the citadel to him. Shams al-Dawla said he would deliver the citadel to Kerbogha, pay him homage, and acknowledge him as liege lord only if he killed all the Franks and sent their Brundage, “An Errant Crusader,” 389. Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 233. 139 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 232. 140 Gesta Francorum, 50; Tudebode, Historia, 65; Matthew of Edessa, 170. 137 138

ANTIOCH

373

heads to him. But Kerbogha said this would not do, and Shams al-Dawla must surrender the citadel unconditionally at once. He was negotiating from strength, since by June 8 he had completed the siege of Antioch and was confident of capturing both the city and the citadel, and Shams al-Dawla had no choice but to accept his demand.141 Kerbogha appointed Ahmad ibn Marwan, a noble and trustworthy man, to take charge of Antioch’s defense and affairs. Ahmad at first declined this responsibility but finally yielded, on the condition that if the Franks triumphed over the Muslims, he would hand the citadel over to them. Kerbogha praised Ahmad ibn Marwan for his wisdom and expressed confidence that he would do what was best.142 Kerbogha’s men do not seem to have had much respect for the Franks’ military power or their armaments. When he returned to his camp, some of his men brought him an ugly, worthless sword covered with rust, together with a wooden bow and a useless lance that they had taken from a poor Frank. They told Kerbogha to look at the weapons the Franks had to fight them with. He chuckled and sneered, “Are these the warlike weapons which the Christians have brought into Asia against us, and with which they confidently expect to drive us beyond the further boundaries of Khurasan, and blot out our names beyond the rivers of the Amazons? Are these the people who drove all our forefathers out of Rum (the Byzantine land) and from the royal city of Antioch, which is the honored capital of all Syria?”143 Kerbogha later summoned his scribe and dictated a letter to the sultan and the people of Khurasan, saying he was sending the weapons his men had taken from the Frankish rabble, to show what kind of arms they had brought against the Turks. Saying he held control of the citadel while the Franks were trapped below in the city, he boasted that he would kill them all or lead them as captives to Khurasan. He told the sultan, “I swear to you by Muhammad and all our gods that I will not appear before your face until I have conquered by the strength of my right arm the royal city of Antioch and all Syria, Rum (Byzantium), and even as far as Apulia, to the glory of the Gods and of you and of all who are sprung from the race of the Turks.”144 141 Gesta Francorum, 50; Tudebode, Historia, 66, esp. n. 21, where the editors examine the credibility of the dialogue between Shams al-Dawla and Kerbogha. 142 Gesta Francorum, 50–51; Tudebode, Historia, 67; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 136–137; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 194. 143 Gesta Francorum, 51–52; Tudebode, Historia, 67–68, esp. n. 28. 144 Gesta Francorum, 52–53; Tudebode, Historia, 68. The author of the Gesta Francorum apparently supposes (wrongly of course) that the Muslims were polytheists.

374

THE CRUSADES

At this juncture the Gesta Francorum introduces a rather curious story whose authenticity some historians have challenged, while others have sought to explain it rationally. Supposedly Kerbogha’s mother, who lived in Aleppo, traveled all the way to Antioch to implore her son with tears not to fight the Christians. She told him that she recognized his military prowess, and no one could defeat him. She declared that although the Christians were no match for him, he should not fight them because their God was with them, and he would confound and scatter their enemies (Psalms 67:31). She admonished her son not to fight the Christians because they are called “sons of Christ”; the prophets call them “sons of adoption and promise”, and the apostles say that they are “heirs of Christ.” She added that once the god of the Christians is enraged, he does not punish the offender at once but visits him with unmistakable vengeance afterwards. She warned Kerbogha that the Christians’ god would punish him and he would die during this year (in fact, he died in 1102). Kerbogha seemed not to believe his mother and the reasons she gave him not to fight, for he insisted that with the strength of his army, he would defeat the Christians. Interestingly, the story says that Kerbogha asked his mother whether it was true that Bohemond and Tancred were gods and as such could eat two thousand cows and four thousand hogs for lunch. His mother answered that they were mortals like other Christians, but their god had bestowed his love upon them and given them the power to fight others. (Here she quotes Genesis 2:4 about the omnipotence of God, who created the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the universe). Kerbogha declared that he would still fight the Christians according to his plans. Seeing that her son insisted on engaging the Christians in battle, Kerbogha’s mother was exceedingly sad and returned to Aleppo, taking with her everything she could lay her hands on.145 While Hagenmeyer and Bréhier dismiss this story as an interpolation by a scribe or perhaps a camp-tale told by a Norman knight, Rosalind Hill, the editor of the Gesta Francorum, disagrees.146 She believes the story was the The mention of Apulia as a land Kerbogha intended to conquer suggests that the author, a follower of Bohemond, was probably born in southern Italy. See Gesta Francorum, p. 52, n. 4, and Tudebode, 68, nn. 33, 34. For more on the activities of Kerogha see Sulayman Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, I (Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Salafiyya, 1923), 154, 164–166. 145 Gesta Francorum, 53–56; Tudebode, Historia, 69–72, follows the Gesta. 146 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Anonymi gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum (Heidelberg, 1890), 323, n. 1; Louis Bréhier, ed., Historia anonyme de la Pre-

ANTIOCH

375

product of gossip and rumors in the Crusaders’ camp about how the Muslims and Greeks acted. The author of the Gesta, who had a sense of humor, enjoyed these tales and took pleasure in inserting them into his history. Hill says the author “would have not expected Karbuqa to speak or behave as Bohemond did, and probably expected him to have a slightly sinister background. Hence the curious tale of Karbuqa’s second-sighted and rapacious mother.”147 Despite the agony and hardships the Franks suffered, they related this and similar stories to show that they were indomitable and their victory over the Turks was sure because they were the followers of Christ. This fact may explain why the author put in the mouth of Kerbogha’s mother the admonition not to fight the Christians. Of course, no one expects this woman, a Muslim Turk, to have so profound a knowledge of the Bible that she quotes passages from it. Even more peculiar is her telling her son that a hundred years ago it was discovered in the Quran that the Christian were destined to come upon the Muslims and defeat them, and that the Muslims would become their subjects. Indeed, there is such a prediction in the Quran. The writer of this story hoped to show that the Crusaders were guided and supported by divine Providence because they were fighting for Christ. To show that they were so favored, the author of the Gesta Francorum had a very important Muslim woman, Kerbogha’s own mother, dissuade him from fighting the Christians. The Crusaders’ capture of Antioch was not the end of their troubles. The citadel was still in the Turks’ hands, but the Franks refrained from attacking it, having been busy examining their spoils. Raymond of Aguilers says “ . . . they gourmandized sumptuously and splendidly as they gave heed to dancing girls.”148 To bolster their position, the Crusaders built up the fortress of Robert of Flanders near the Iron Bridge, feeling that if they abandoned it, the enemy would capture it and have the advantage of controlling the exit from the city.149 Kerbogha, expecting the battle with the Crusaders would be fought outside the city, camped about two miles from Antioch and then advanced to the Iron Bridge. Three hundred men from his army, heavily armed and mounted on swift horses, positioned themselves for an ambush near the city. Thirty of them began galloping before the city walls to show the Crusaders that they did not fear them. Roger of mière croisade (1924), vi–vii; Hill and Hill, eds., Peter Tudebode, Historia, 69, n. 1. 147 Rosalind Hill, ed., Gesta Francorum, xv–xvi of the Introduction, and 52, n. 1. 148 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 48. 149 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 49.

376

THE CRUSADES

Barneville, from the retinue of Robert, count of Normandy, rushed from the gate with fifteen knights to attack them. The other Turks, lying in ambush, suddenly fell upon the Crusaders. Roger of Barneville was killed by an arrow that pierced his heart. He fell from his horse, and the Turks severed his head.150 To prevent further attacks, Robert of Flanders, after a council of war on June 8, burned the fortress constructed with so much pain, destroyed the wall, and withdrew into Antioch.151 As they retreated through the narrow, crowded gate, many men were trampled to death. Those outside the city kept fighting. In the heat of battle William of Grandmesnil from Apulia, who had married Bohemond’s sister, his brother Alberic, Guido (Guy) of Trusellus, and Lambert the Pauper disappeared. The Franks appealed to Emperor Alexius for help, but to no avail. When by the middle of June the emperor reached Philomelium (near present-day Akshehir in Turkey), he met Stephen of Blois, together with William of Grandmesnil and Peter, son of Aulps (whom Anna Comnena calls Aliphas), who had fled Antioch on June 10, with the skin of their hands and feet stripped down to the bone. Others had secretly fled with them. Many more had wanted to escape but were prevented from doing so by Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy and Bohemond.152 When those who had fled reached the port of St. Simeon, where ships were docked, they asked the sailors why they were standing there, since the Turkish army was besieging Antioch and had killed all the Christians, and they had barely escaped with their lives. Horrified by this news, the sailors rushed to their ships and put out to sea. Shortly afterwards the Turks arrived upon the scene and killed the Christians, burned the ships that were still in the mouth of the river, and seized their cargo. The Crusaders still in Antioch, barely able to defend themselves, had built a wall between themselves and the citadel and guarded it day and night.153 But Stephen of Blois told the emperor that the Franks at Antioch were doomed, for the city had already fallen into Turkish hands but the citadel had not, and the Franks’ forces had been annihilated and the emperor could do nothing about it. He advised him to go as quickly as he Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 49; William of Tyre, History, 1: 262– 263. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 49; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 411– 412; Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” 92. 152 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 57; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 414– 415; William of Tyre, History, 1: 267. 153 Gesta Francorum, 57; Tudebode, Historia, 73. 150 151

ANTIOCH

377

could, so that the Turks would not find him and his men.154 The emperor summoned a secret council attended by Bohemond’s half-brother Guy, who along with others had served the emperor as a mercenary. The emperor related the bad news he had been given about Antioch. Guy tearfully told the emperor the reports he had heard were false. His sorrow was so great that no one could comfort him. Finally he composed himself and told the emperor that while he might believe the report of this “cowardly old fool of a knight,” Stephen of Blois had done no knightly deed but retreated from Antioch shamefully like a wretched scoundrel. He assured the emperor that what he had heard was a lie, but the emperor, apparently unconvinced, withdrew his forces. His decision was a blow to the Franks, who had to face Kerbogha alone. The author of the Gesta Francorum says, “Willynilly our friends retreated. . . . the Franks grieved to death over the retreat and many of them fell sick and died because they had not the strength to follow the army, so they lay down to die by the wayside while the emperor and his men returned to Antioch.”155 Anna Comnena says that when Stephen and the others reached Tarsus, they heard that the emperor was at Philomelium and went to meet with him. Although frightened by their report, the emperor became very anxious to help the Franks but was warned by everyone not to do so.156 She says the emperor was hesitant to aid the Franks because he had heard that the sultan of Khurasan had assembled a great army under the command of his son Ishmael, with instructions to overtake the emperor before he reached Antioch. The emperor felt that it was impossible to save Antioch, already besieged by Kerbogha, with another army commanded by Ishmael already advancing. He also felt that his force was not sufficient to meet the Turkish challenge and that the Franks, who were hemmed in by the Turks, would eventually flee and leave the city empty. The emperor thought that if the Franks occupied Antioch, the ambitious Bohemond would keep it for himself, depriving him of a precious possession he believed was rightfully his. Most important, he believed that he could not change the Franks’ decision to resist the Turks and thought it better not to proceed any further than Philomelium, lest by hastening to the assistance of Antioch he should cause the destruction of Constantinople. Once he moved toward Antioch, not only the inhabitants of the region around Philomelium but everyone living Gesta Francorum, 63; Tudebode, Historia, 81. Gesta Francorum, 65; Tudebode, Historia, 83. 156 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 282–283. 154 155

378

THE CRUSADES

in his country would fall victim to the Turks. He decided instead to send a detachment of his army, which he broke into several sections, with orders that when they faced the Turks, they should fight fiercely to prevent them from attacking the emperor. Alexius then withdrew with most of his army.157 The Franks’ situation grew worse as Kerbogha’s army tightened its grip on Antioch. The Franks’ ten leaders assembled on the mountain before the citadel grieving, unsure what course of action to take. Immediately a priest named Stephen, probably from Valence, told them that he had had a vision while he was prostrate at the Church of Saint Mary.158 He said that Jesus, His mother, and St. Peter appeared to him. Behind Jesus’s head stood an unbroken cross. Jesus told Stephen that he had given the Franks victory at Nicaea, and he had led them to Antioch and suffered along with them the hardships of the siege. But many of the men who called themselves Christians had committed many evil acts, satisfying their filthy lusts with both Christian and pagan women, so that a great stench arose to heaven. At this point the Virgin Mary and St. Peter fell at Jesus’s feet, imploring him to aid the surviving Christians in their anguish. Turning to the priest, Jesus told him to go to his people and admonish them to return to him, saying he would return to them and within five days would send them mighty help. Stephen went to the Frankish camp and related the vision he had seen and the admonition of Jesus. If they did not believe him, he said, they should behead him or throw him into the fire.159 Upon hearing this, Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, asked for the Gospels and a crucifix to be brought, and Stephen swore on them that he was telling the truth. Consequently, the leaders met and swore that they would not flee or abandon Antioch except by common consent. Bohemond was reportedly first to take the oath, followed by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and Duke Godfrey. Tancred likewise swore that so long as he had forty knights to follow him, he would never abandon the city of Antioch or

Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 283–284. Gesta Francorum, 57, does not give the priest’s name. Tudebode, Historia, 74, identifies him as Stephen the priest. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 55, simply calls him Stephen and presents this event after Peter Bartholomew’s vision of the Holy Lance, to be discussed in the next chapter. 159 Gesta Francorum, 58. Tudebode, Historia, 74–76, and Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 55–57, provide slightly different accounts. 157 158

ANTIOCH

379

the march to Jerusalem. When the entire Christian army heard that the leaders had taken the oath, they were greatly encouraged.160 Although the Franks held the city of Antioch, the citadel was in the Turks’ hands. So they had to fight against both the Turks in the city, who attacked them day and night, and those who held the citadel. Beleaguered by the Muslims, whom the author of the Gesta Francorum calls “pagans” and “the blasphemous enemies of God,” the Franks faced starvation due to the siege by Kerbogha’s forces. Some bought and sold horses and asses for their flesh; many died of hunger. So terrible was their plight that men boiled and ate fig leaves, vines, thistles, and all kind of trees. Others stewed and ate the dried skins of horses, camels, asses, oxen, or buffaloes.161 Fulcher of Chartres says the famished Franks ate the shoots of beanseeds, all kinds of unseasoned herbs, and thistles, as well as the flesh of horses, asses, camels, dogs, and rats. The poorer ones ate the skins of beasts and seeds of grain found in manure.162 Similarly, Guibert of Nogent says the rich among the Crusaders ate the flesh of horses, camels, cows and deer (even a small amount of donkey meat was sold for an exorbitant price in the marketplace), along with figs, thistles and grape leaves. The poor prepared the dried skins of these animals, cut them into pieces, boiled them and ate them. The food shortage was so severe that many died, their bellies bloated.163 Albert of Aachen reports that a small piece of bread was sold for a piece of gold.164 Godfrey of Bouillon took pity on some of his men, once prosperous but now destitute, especially a certain Count Hartmann and a knight named Henry of Ascha, whom he invited daily to his table, but he himself suffered as well.165 William of Tyre dolefully describes the horror of starvation, which robbed decent men of modesty and made them beggars. Children fared the worst and begged for food at the crossroads while their parents, struggling to survive, neglected them.166 Ibn al-Athir, using almost the same words as Guibert of Nogent, says that thirteen days after capturGesta Francorum, 59; Tudebode, Historia, 76; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 56, says the princes swore that they would never abandon Antioch, but does not mention Jerusalem. 161 Gesta Francorum, 62. 162 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 96. 163 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 103. 164 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 414. 165 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 412; John C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington, IN: University Publications, 1947), 83. 166 William of Tyre, History, 1: 266–272, esp. 271. 160

380

THE CRUSADES

ing Antioch the Franks had nothing to eat. The rich ate their mounts, while the poor ate the flesh of dead animals and leaves.167 Michael Rabo mentions the Franks’ hunger only once, saying that when the Turks besieged Antioch, they ate their horses and resorted to prayer.168 The Anonymous Edessan says there were several thousand Franks in Antioch, as well as a multitude of natives. They lacked corn and fodder for their horses because the land had been laid waste, and the situation was worse because no produce was coming into the city. The famine was so severe that the head of an ass was sold for ten dinars, while wheat and barley were not to be seen.169 Despite their hardships, the Crusaders’ religious zeal never waned. They received great encouragement from their clergy, and the churches were crowded with worshipers. They turned often to prayer and anticipated divine help. In the words of Baldric of Dol, the Christians suffered with weeping and lamentation. No one expected them to rush to the churches to worship and seek aid and advice.170 Their spirits remained high, and their determination to challenge the Turks was soon to be renewed by the discovery of the Holy Lance.

Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 194; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 137. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 587 (184F). 169 The Anonymous Edessan, 59 of the Syriac text, 72 of the English translation, 77–78 of the Arabic translation. 170 Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, R. H. C. Occ., 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879), 67; Sheffy, “The Use of the Holy Lance,” 24. 167 168

12 THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM As the Franks, weakened by hunger, fell before Kerbogha’s assault on the citadel of Antioch and were forced to retreat into the city through a narrow gate where many of them died, they sought divine assistance through the lance with which Christ’s side had been pierced at the crucifixion. The episode of the lance has been discussed by both Latin and Eastern sources. As Runciman says, in the history of the First Crusade there was no story as dramatic and baffling to the historians as this one.1 Among the Latin sources, Raymond of Aguilers gives the most detailed account of the discovery of the lance. He relates that on June 5, 1098, two days after the Franks seized Antioch, a Provençal peasant pilgrim sent word to Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bishop Adhémar about a vision he had had. Raymond does not give the peasant’s name when he first mentions this vision, but in discussing a later vision identifies him as Peter of Bartholomew.2 Other sources call him Peter or Peter Bartholomew.3 The peasant said that on four occasions Andrew, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, had appeared to him and instructed him to tell the two 1 Steven Runciman, “The Holy Lance Found at Antioch,” Analecta Bollandiana 68 (1950): 197. 2 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Cepernut Iherusalem, John Hugh Hill and Laurita Hill, trans. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 93. 33 Gesta Francorum, 59, and Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks, trans. R. Levine (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), 101, simply call him Peter; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 83, calls him Peter Bartholomew. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 130; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 101, refers to him as Peter Abraham, a Provençal clerk.

381

382

THE CRUSADES

Frankish leaders that upon the fall of Antioch, he would bring them the lance that had pierced the side of the Savior. When he went outside Antioch to fight the Turks, he was trapped by two horsemen and nearly crushed to death. Sad and listless, Peter saw St. Andrew and a comrade appear to warn him that the Crusaders would face more trouble if he did not quickly deliver the lance to them. Raymond of Saint-Gilles and the bishop of Le Puy asked the peasant for more details about the nature of his vision and the instructions from the apostle Andrew, and Peter began to relate his story.4 While he was alone in bed in his hut, he said, two men appeared to him, and the older asked what he was doing. Terrified and unable to see, Peter asked the man who he was. The man ordered Peter to stand up unafraid and listen. He said he was Andrew, the Apostle. He wanted Peter to arrange a meeting of Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, and Peter Raymond of Hautpoul, a vassal of Raymond. St. Andrew then asked why Adhémar did not preach the word and exhort and bless the people with the cross which he carried daily. He further commanded Peter to follow him, promising he would reveal “the Lance of our Father, which you must give to the count (Raymond of Saint-Gilles) because God set it aside for him at birth.”5 Peter Bartholomew got out of bed and followed St. Andrew to St. Peter’s Church in Antioch. St Andrew reached to the ground, drew forth the lance, and put it in his hands, telling Peter to behold the lance that had pierced Christ’s side. With eyes filled with tears of joy, Peter Bartholomew grasped it and told St. Andrew that if he wished, he would take the lance to Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles. St. Andrew told Peter to wait until Antioch was captured, then return with twelve men and search for the lance in the place where he had revealed it. Then he buried it in the same spot and vanished. Because Peter did not deliver his message to the Crusaders’ leaders, however, St. Andrew and his companion appeared to him in a fort near Edessa, where Peter was searching for food. St. Andrew asked whether he had delivered his message, and Peter admitted that he had not. The apostle told Peter that he must deliver the message because God had selected him from all mankind for this purpose. At Port Simeon on the eve of Palm Sunday, St. Andrew appeared once more to Peter Bartholomew, asking why he had not delivered his message to Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Adhémar. Peter urged St. Andrew to send someone more worthy than himself, for he 4 5

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 51, esp. n. 1. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 52.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

383

feared that the Turks would kill him. Despite St. Andrew’s assurance to the contrary, he still lacked the courage to take the message to the Crusaders. St. Andrew appeared to Peter again at Mamistra (ancient Mopsuestia, present-day Misis in Turkey) as he was boarding a ship bound for Cyprus. This time the apostle warned Peter to return to Antioch. Three times blocked from going to Cyprus, he finally returned to Port Simeon and from there to Antioch, where he told his story to the Crusaders’ leaders. Raymond of Saint-Gilles believed his testimony and placed him in the custody of his chaplain, while Bishop Adhémar thought it was false.6 The lance was placed in the custody of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, enhancing his reputation.7 Bishop Adhémar died on August 1, 1098, and was buried in St. Peter’s Church in Antioch. On the second night after, says Raymond of Aguilers, Adhémar appeared to Peter Bartholomew with Jesus and St. Andrew. The bishop told Peter that he had sinned (by doubting his testimony about the lance) and was drawn down into hell, but presented three dinarii for the lance and thus avoided burning in hell. He implored his people not to grieve over his death, declaring, “I shall be more useful in death than in life.”8 Brundage says Adhémar’s skepticism was well-founded, for he must have seen the Holy Lance among the relics on display when he was in Constantinople.9 In April 1099, during the siege of Arqa, Peter Bartholomew had another vision; he saw Jesus on the cross, in the company of the Apostles Peter and Andrew, and had a lengthy dialogue with Him. Peter says that when he told his story about the lance, the brethren [Crusaders] did not believe it, considering him an ignorant yokel. They asked Bishop Arnulf of Chocques (Arnulf Malecorne of Rohes, a castle of Flanders), the chaplain of Robert of Normandy, for his opinion regarding the lance.10 Arnulf, whom Raymond of Aguilers calls “chief, as it were, of the unbelievers,” doubted its authenticity, acknowledging that he was skeptical because Bishop Adhémar was also skeptical. Raymond relates the testimonies of several priests Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 52–54. Albert of Aachen (Albertus Aquensis), Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Emendatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, R. H. C. Occ. 4: 146– 147. 8 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 66–67. 9 James A. Brundage, ed., The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 68, n. 54. 10 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 470. For more information on Bishop Arnulf of Chocques, see Charles Wendell David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), Appendix C, 217–220. 6 7

384

THE CRUSADES

and the Bishop of Apt about the lance and says that after hearing them, Arnulf confessed and credited the lance. He further promised the Bishop of al-Bara he would do public penance for his skepticism, but when he came on the appointed day before a council, he reneged, saying he would do penance only after consultation with the Lord. Raymond says he was present when the digging for the lance took place (June 15, 1098), and he himself kissed its point while the haft was still embedded in the ground.11 Peter Bartholomew insisted that his testimony about the lance was true, and he would be judged before God for all he had said, done and thought. Realizing Bishop Arnulf was the chief cause of skepticism about his testimony, he asked the leaders, particularly Arnulf, to let him take the ordeal of fire with the Holy Lance in his hand. If the lance was the one with which the Lord’s side had been pierced, he would emerge safe; otherwise he would die. Everyone agreed, and the test was set for Good Friday 1099. On that day wood was piled up from morning to midday. Peter, clad in a simple tunic, fell on bended knees before the Bishop of al-Bara and recited his testimony about the lance. He took the lance in his hand, signed the cross, and bravely walked through the flames, lingering briefly. Some in the crowd said they had seen a bird fly over Peter’s head before he emerged from the fire. Bishop Ebrard, later a resident in Jerusalem, and William Bonofilius, a knight of Arles, attested to this event. William Malus, a knight of Béziers, testified that he had seen a man dressed like a priest enter the fire before Peter did; he cried when he saw the man emerge from the fire, thinking Peter had been consumed by it. When Peter Bartholomew emerged from the flames, the people cried, “God help us!” Everyone rushed to snatch a piece of his clothing. As they did so, they inadvertently wounded his leg and cracked his backbone. When people asked him the reason for his delay in coming through the fire, Peter said that the Lord had met him in the flames and told him that because they did not believe him, the Crusaders would not cross [through Asia Minor on their way to Jerusalem] without wounds, but they would not see hell. Raymond says that Peter Bartholomew then called to him, asking why he had wanted him to submit himself to the ordeal by fire. He rebuked Raymond, saying he was aware of his doubts about his revelation of the lance. Raymond denied such thoughts, but Peter consoled him, saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Andrew, who had appeared to him, would gain a pardon for him before God if he would pray

11

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 96, 99–101.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

385

earnestly to them.12 Finally, when the Crusaders were on their way to Jerusalem, Peter departed this life in peace on April 20, 1099, at the hour appointed for him by God. He was buried in the same spot where he had passed through the fire with the lance.13 According to the Gesta Francorum, the monk who had the vision was a certain pilgrim named Peter. St. Andrew the Apostle appeared to him and said he should go to the church of the blessed Peter, where he would find the lance with which the Savior Jesus Christ had been pierced. Peter was afraid to reveal his vision, thinking no one would believe him. In another dream Andrew took him to the site where the lance was buried, saying he who carried it in battle would never be overcome by the enemy. The Franks finally believed the monk’s story. The author of the Gesta, an eyewitness, says, “We who had heard the words of the man who brought us the message of Christ through the words of his Apostle hurried at once to the place in St. Peter’s Church as he had described.” Thirteen men dug for it from morning to evening, and the monk Peter found the lance, as he had foretold. The Franks took it up with great joy and dread, and all throughout the city there was great joy. From that point on the Franks were determined to attack the Turks.14 Peter Tudebode, who usually follows the Gesta Francorum, appears here to have followed the account of Raymond of Aguilers. He identifies Peter Bartholomew as the one who said that St. Andrew had appeared to him and showed him where the lance of Jesus Christ was hidden. He told Raymond of Saint-Gilles to go to the church where the lance was hidden, and there showed him a place in front of the choir, to the right side. From morning to evening eleven men dug a deep hole and found the lance, just as St. Andrew had revealed. The people received the lance with joy and began singing Te Deum laudamus, and a great euphoria seized Antioch. Greeks, Armenians, and Syrians came, chanting the Kyrie Eleison and exclaiming, “Kal Francia fundari Christo exis!”15 Tudebode was clearly not an eyewitness; otherwise, he would have more details. He does not mention Peter Bartholomew’s Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 100–103. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 108, esp. n. 5. On Raymond’s account of the lance, see A. C. Krey, The First Crusade, 224–237. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 140–131, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 101–103, gives a very brief account of Peter and the lance. 14 Gesta Francorum, 59–60, 65; Krey, 174–176. The Gesta Francorum does not mention Peter Bartholomew’s ordeal by fire. 15 Peter Tudebode, Historia, 81–82. 12 13

386

THE CRUSADES

ordeal by fire, and his description of the people singing is not in the Gesta Francorum. Fulcher of Chartres seems not to believe the story of Peter Bartholomew. He says a lance was found by a certain man, whose name he does not give, in a pit on the grounds of St. Peter's Church. Peter Bartholomew claimed that it was the lance with which, according to the Scriptures, Longinus, a Roman soldier, pierced the right side of Christ (John 13:24). He told his story to the Bishop of Le Puy and Count Raymond (of SaintGilles), emphasizing that it had been revealed by St. Andrew the Apostle. The Bishop of Le Puy thought the story false, but Count Raymond believed it. On hearing this story, all the people glorified God and held the lance with great veneration for almost a hundred days, and Count Raymond carried it gloriously and guarded it. But many priests hesitated to accept Peter Bartholomew’s story, thinking he was a fool and had discovered not the Lord’s lance but another. To determine its authenticity, the Franks fasted and prayed for three days. But to prove his own truthfulness, Bartholomew asked that a heap of wood be placed in the middle of the town of Archas (Arqa), thirteen miles from Tripoli, and set on fire. The bishops blessed the fire, and the finder of the lance quickly ran clear through the midst of the burning pile to prove his honesty. When he emerged from the fire, the people believed he was guilty because his skin had been burned, and soon afterwards he died in anguish. Many Franks continued to doubt that this was the authentic lance; nevertheless, Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles kept it for a long time (as late as 1101) in Anatolia.16 Ralph of Caen sounds suspicious of the anecdote about the lance related by Peter of Bartholomew. Ralph, a young Norman knight, was not an eyewitness to these events but joined the First Crusade in 1096 and was an intimate friend and servant of Tancred, later prince of Antioch. At Caen he had been a pupil of Bishop Arnulf of Rohes, to whose great remembrance he dedicated his history.17 He calls Peter “a versatile fabricator of lies” who preached that the people’s salvation was to be effected by the discovery of the lance, and says that for three days men dug in the Church of St. Peter but found nothing. Apparently Peter Bartholomew had secretly hidden on 16 Frances Rita Ryan, trans., Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University Press of Tennessee, 1969), 99–101, 110. 17 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis, R. H. C. Occ. 3 (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866), 604; David, Robert Curthose, 219.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

387

his person an Arab spear, not one used by the Franks, and jumped into the pit. He seized the hardened, worn, aged point of the spear and proclaimed that it was the lance with which the Lord’s side had been pierced. Ralph contends that the discovery of the lance was arranged with the support of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who saw his treasury enlarged, his spirit exalted, and his army aroused. But Bohemond was suspicious of the lance and argued against it. Interestingly, Raymond quotes Virgil (Aeneid II:390): “Treachery or courage, who in war would ask?” to suggest that in the war against the Turks the authenticity of the lance did not matter. Indeed, genuine or not, it stimulated the Franks’ eagerness to fight the Turks and triumph over them.18 According to Guibert of Nogent, the apostle Andrew appeared to a soldier named Peter and told him to go to the Church of St. Peter, his brother, where he would find the lance with which the side of the Savior Jesus Christ had been pierced. Peter replied that if he related his vision to the leaders, no one would believe him; he wanted reliable evidence to convince them of his story. The apostle responded by carrying Peter in spirit to the lance’s resting place. Still, Peter was hesitant to deliver the message to his people. St. Andrew appeared to him once more and urged him to tell his people, who were suffering great tribulations, that they would gain victory through the lance. Peter hurried to his people, told them of his vision, and warned them that if they did not believe him they would surely be defeated by the Turks. On hearing him, the Crusaders began to have hope and feel relief. They said they did not believe that God, who thus far had given them victory, would now let them be cut down by the Turks’ sword. Guibert abruptly ends his narrative of the lance here.19 William of Tyre gives a very brief account of the lance. He reports that while the Crusaders at Antioch were suffering affliction, a cleric named Peter (Bartholomew), a simple but sincere man of slight education, said to be from Provençal, informed the Bishop of Le Puy and Raymond, count of Toulouse (Raymond of Saint-Gilles) that St. Andrew had come to him in a dream and urged him to tell the leaders that the lance with which Jesus’s side was pierced was hidden in the Church of the Prince of the Apostles (St. Peter). Being poor and unlearned, Peter did not deliver the message to the Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 666–667; Krey, 237–241; L. F. Sheffy, “The Use of the Holy Lance in the First Crusade” (Master’s thesis, University of Texas, 1915), 34–36. 19 Guibert of Nogent, Historia, trans. Robert Levine, 101–102. 18

388

THE CRUSADES

leaders, but St. Andrew appeared to him several more times and frightened him into doing so. His communication was revealed with great secrecy to the other leaders. Peter was called before them, and after listening to him, they believed his testimony and assembled at the Church of St. Peter. The earth was dug deep, and the leaders found the lance, just as Peter had said.20 William of Tyre returns to the subject of the lance in discussing the siege of Arqa (near the port of Tripoli, Lebanon) around February 14, 1099, saying the Franks’ leaders were perplexed by Peter Bartholomew’s testimony. Some believed it, but others said that it was merely proof of the cunning of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, a fraudulent trick devised for his own advantage. William says the author of this controversy was “one Arnulf, a friend and chaplain of the Count of Normandy . . . a learned man but of immoral life, a man who delighted to stir up discord.”21 He mentions the lance once more, in connection with the visit to Constantinople in 1171 by Amaury (Amalric), king of Jerusalem (1163–1174), to seek help from Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180). The emperor showed Amalric his treasures, the relics of the saints and the precious mementoes of Lord Jesus Christ; among these was the lance, which had been left in the custody of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who carried it to Constantinople in 1100.22 Anna Comnena says that a bishop whom she does not name, inspired by a divine voice, assembled the chiefs of the Franks and asked them to dig on the right side of the altar (which she does not identify) to find the “Holy Nail” (Lance). They did as they were told but could not find it. The bishop 20 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 1: 280– 282. 21 William of Tyre, History, 1: 324 and n. 41, apparently accepts the view of Arnulf offered by Raymond of Aguilers. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 135, says Arnulf had some skill at logic and significant knowledge of grammatical learning, which he taught for some time. 22 William of Tyre, History, 2: 381, and n. 41. On how the lance got to Constantinople, see Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 590; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 189. On Amalric’s embassy to Constantinople and his meeting with the emperor, see Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric I, 1143–1174,” in M. W. Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 316– 317.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

389

prayed more earnestly and bade the Franks’ leaders to search more diligently, and when they finally found it, they were overwhelmed with joy. Then they entrusted the holy and venerable Nail to “ . . . Isangeles [her name for Raymond of Saint-Gilles] to carry in battle, as he was the holiest of them all.”23 Anna’s account plainly differs from those of the Latin sources. But her mention of the Holy Nail is not farfetched; the Syriac writers Michael Rabo and Bar Hebraeus refer to the lance as having been assembled by Tancred from nails and splinters of Christ’s cross. The brief account by the Armenian Matthew of Edessa is similar to those of Latin writers, but he says that the holy Apostle St. Peter (not St. Andrew) appeared in a vision to a pious Frank and told him that on the left side of St. Peter’s Church, in front of the altar, he would find buried the lance with which the godless Jewish nation pierced the undefiled side of Christ. He told the pious man to take the lance and go into battle, and they (the Franks) would triumph over their enemies as Christ did over Satan. This vision appeared twice more and was reported to Godfrey, Bohemond, and all the Christian chiefs. So they began to pray, went to dig in the specified spot in the church, and found the Lance of Christ.24 The Syriac sources give a different account of the lance. Michael Rabo says that in a dream Tancred saw an opening in the Church of Cassianus (Qusayyan), inside which were the nails of the Lord’s Cross. He made from them a cross and a Roman lance, put them on, and went to fight the Turks; God led the Franks to triumph, and the ground was filled with corpses.25 After he captured Tripoli, Sanjil (Raymond of Saint-Gilles) returned homeward, carrying the lance that had been discovered in Antioch, and stopped on the way at Constantinople. Emperor Alexius asked to see the lance and receive its blessing, promising to return it. Foolishly, Raymond sent the lance to the emperor, who had a copy made and sent the fake back to Raymond. Michael Rabo says this lance was the one with which mocking Jews 23 Anna

Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 284–285. 24 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 171. 25 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 587 (184F). Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Bughyat al-Talab fi Tarikh Halab, ed. Suhayl Zakkar, 1 (Damascus, 1988), 85, says that Bi’at al-Qusayyan [The Church of Qusayyan], in the middle of Antioch, was the house of the king, whose son was brought back to life by Butrus (Peter), Chief of the Apostles.

390

THE CRUSADES

had pierced the figure [of the Crucifixion] in Tiberias, from which gushed blood and water.26 The Anonymous Edessan appears to follow Michael Rabo’s account, but does not mention Tancred. He says that during the Franks’ difficulties in Antioch, it was revealed in a dream to one of the bishops that in the great Church of Qasyan (Cassianus) was hidden the spear with which the figure of Christ that the Jews had erected in Tiberias was pierced. The bishop told the Franks that if they took the spear and let it go before them while fighting their enemies, they would triumph. When the Franks found the spear, they were extremely happy and became ready to defeat the Turks. They marched to fight, fixing the cross and the spear on the tips of their lances, and God gave them victory.27 Bar Hebraeus says that one of the kings of the Franks, whose name he does not mention, saw a dream. The Franks opened a certain place in the Church of Mar [St.] Cassianus and found there splinters from the Cross of our Lord. From them they made a cross and the head of a spear. They took them and went to fight the Turks; God gave them victory, and they filled the ground with the slain.28 Arabic sources also mention the story of the lance. Ibn al-Athir says that among the Franks was a clever monk who told them that Christ’s lance had been buried in Qusayyan (Cassianus), a great edifice in Antioch, but was damaged. If they found it they would triumph, and if they did not they would perish. He told them to fast and repent for three days, and on the fourth day he led the Franks’ leaders and skilled workmen to the site. They dug and found the lance, and the monk told them to rejoice, for victory was theirs.29 Ibn Taghri Birdi, however, says that St. Gilles, a crafty and clever leader of the Franks, arranged a scheme with a monk from Jabala. He gave him a lance and asked him to bury it in a certain place, and then tell the Franks that Christ had appeared to him in a dream and told him of the bur26 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 590 (189F). Raymond of Saint-Gilles went to Constantinople in 1100 and returned to Syria at the beginning of 1102. 27 The Anonymous Edessan, 59 of the Syriac text, 72 of the English, 78 of the Arabic. 28 Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 265 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation. Runciman, “The Holy Lance Found at Antioch,” 204, erroneously describes Michael Rabo (d. 1199) as “writing a little later” than Bar Hebraeus, who was born in 1226. 29 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, R.H C. Or., 1 (Paris: Primerier Nationale, 1872), 195.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

391

ied lance. If he possessed it he would triumph, because Christ had said it was His lance. Christ told the Franks to pray, fast, and give alms for three days. The monk and the Franks went to the site and dug it up. They found the lance and, shouting with joy, attacked the Muslims until they drove them out of the city and killed them all, may Allah have mercy on them.30 Interestingly, Muslim chroniclers relate the episode of the lance even though some believed it had been concocted by Raymond of Saint-Gilles. The reason is that, like their Christian contemporaries, they believed in the power of divine objects, a tradition that persists until this day in the Middle East. Historian Steven Runciman, who has traced the fate of the lance throughout time, concludes that the ultimate fate of the lance found at Antioch remains uncertain. What is most important is the lance “had had one moment of glory, when it gave fresh courage to a Christian army and saved the First Crusade.”31 The Franks, facing hunger inside Antioch and a formidable Muslim army outside, saw the lance as a manifestation of God’s favor toward them. Whether or not they believed it was an authentic symbol of Christ’s divine power, its discovery raised their spirit and rekindled their hope, giving them courage and impetus to fight the Turks. They were ready to battle with Kerbogha.32 While the Franks were forming a plan of attack, they held a council and sent an embassy of two men, Peter the Hermit and a Frank named Herluin, who spoke both Arabic and Persian, to ask Kerbogha why he intended to attack a Christian domain and kill the servants of Christ. They added that their leaders unanimously demanded that he withdraw immediately from the region, which St. Peter had long ago converted to the faith of Christ. The envoys assured Kerbogha that if he left, he could take with him all his goods, horses, mules, asses, camels, sheep, oxen and other property.33 Peter Tudebode adds to the story, saying that the two envoys told Kerbogha many Franks wondered why he had come there. They went on, “We Abu al-Mahasin Jamal al-Din ibn Taghri Birdi, al-Nujum al-Zahira fi Muluk Misr wa al-Qahira, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 483–484. These words come from Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, trans. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, 48. 31 Runciman, “The Holy Lance Found at Antioch,” 200. 32 Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 70–71. 33 Gesta Francorum, 66. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 135, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 109. 30

392

THE CRUSADES

believe that perhaps you have come to accept Christianity and you believe in the one true Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom we believe. If, indeed, you come without this in mind, our leaders, both great and small, beg you to depart hastily from the land of God and the Christians, in which the Blessed Apostle Peter a long time ago preached the Gospel and recalled it to the Christian religion, and afterwards was elected first bishop.”34 Kerbogha arrogantly told the two envoys that he cared nothing about their Christianity and intended to crush it and the Franks. He said that the country belonged to the Muslims; if the Crusaders sought peace, let them relinquish their faith and religious laws and recant the lord whom they worship. Otherwise, he would vanquish them, take them in chains to his country, and treat them as slaves. He would spare only young men and virgins if the Christians were willing to deliver them to him, and would kill everyone else. In other words, he would settle for nothing less than complete surrender. Raymond of Aguilers says the haughty Kerbogha answered that for good or evil, he wished to be master of the city and the Franks, and he forced Peter the Hermit to bow down before him.35 Ralph of Caen says Peter proposed to Kerbogha that instead of total combat, each side should choose a group of men to fight, and if the Turks lost, they should leave Antioch.36 The two messengers returned and reported Kerbogha’s cruel reply, leaving the Crusaders unsure what course of action to take. They were caught between two perils, the torment of hunger and the threat of the Turks; the Lord offered the only way out of their predicament. They fasted for three days, confessed their sins, and received absolution by partaking in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; they gave alms to the poor and celebrated masses.37 In the end, the Franks had no choice but to stand and battle Kerbogha, although their strength had been diminished since they captured Antioch.38 Eastern sources mention an embassy which the Franks sent to Kerbogha, but it is not clear whether it was that of Peter the Hermit and Herluin or another. These sources do not even agree whether the embassy was Peter Tudebode, Historia, 84. It is significant that Tudebode, a Roman Catholic, acknowledges that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, demolishing the belief of the Roman Church in the supremacy of St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome. 35 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 60–61. 36 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 663–665. 37 Gesta Francorum, 67–68; Tudebode, Historia, 85. 38 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 171. 34

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

393

sent when the Franks first faced starvation and the assault of Kerbogha’s army, or after their fighting spirit was lifted by the discovery of the Holy Lance. They say that the Franks in Antioch were so despondent that they sent embassies to Kerbogha asking him for amnesty, and offering to deliver the city to him if he would let them leave for their own country, but he replied, “You will never leave except by the sword.”39 One prominent man in Kerbogha’s army, Waththab ibn Mahmud, urged him not to let the Franks leave.40 Others told him to let them leave in groups of five or six, arguing that it would be easier to kill them that way. Disregarding their advice, Kerbogha, who was sure of victory, told his men to wait until the whole body of the Franks had departed the city, then pounce upon them and annihilate them.41 Obviously, he wasted a golden opportunity to defeat the Franks. On June 28, 1098, Bohemond ordered his men to leave the city and attack the Muslims who had fortified themselves in the citadel. His army was divided into six lines. In the first line were Hugh the Great and Robert, count of Flanders. In the second line was Duke Godfrey, followed by Robert of Normandy and his men. Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, carrying the Holy Lance, was in the fourth line along with a host of bishops, priests, clerks, and monks wearing their church vestments. In the fifth line was Tancred with his troops, along with those of Gaston of Béarn and the Count of Poitou. Bohemond and his men were in the sixth line. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, perhaps seriously ill, remained behind with 200 men to guard the mountain, lest the Turks who were fortified in the citadel attack the city.42 Raymond of Aguilers, apparently contradicting his earlier testiAthir, al-Kamil, 1: 194; Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, ed. Anton Salhani (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1958), 196; Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn alQalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, H. F. Amedroz, ed. (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab alYasu’iyyin, 1908), 136, pp. 46–47 of the English translation. 40 Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, ed. Sami alDahhan (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 137. John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill, eds., Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 62, n. 4, say that Ibn Wassab (Waththab) ibn Mahmud advised Kerbogha to attack the Christians as they came out of the city. 41 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 171–172; Athir, al-Kamil,1: 195, Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 196; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 137; Said Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka alSalibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 1: 210–211. 39

42 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 61; Gesta Francorum, 68; Tudebode, Historia, 86, is the only Latin writer who mentions Gaston of Béarn and the Count of Poitou;

394

THE CRUSADES

mony, says, “With all our soldiers outside Antioch our princes, as already stated, had formed eight lines, bur five more appeared in our lines, thereby giving us thirteen ranks.”43 Charles Oman explains that the original design was to make four large divisions, but each division was comprised of two corps in two lines, one of foot soldiers and one of horsemen, making a total of eight corps in all.44 As the Franks arranged their battle lines and their will to fight soared, Kerbogha’s forces suffered due to dissension between the Arabs and Turks. Grousset points out that as the sultan’s representative, Kerbogha was suspicious of the loyalty of the Arab Muslim forces.45 He needed the aid of Ridwan of Aleppo, who was not eager to offer it because Yaghi Siyan had betrayed him and joined forces with his brother and rival Duqaq. Kerbogha contacted him, but by doing so he aroused the suspicion of Duqaq, who had joined him earlier to fight the Franks in Antioch. Janah al-Dawla Husayn ibn Mula’ib, the Arab lord of Hims, who was also at Kerbogha’s side at Antioch, feared retribution by Yusuf ibn Abeq, lord of Rahba and Manbij, a supporter of Ridwan. Moreover, disagreement with the Arabs under Waththab ibn Mahmud led many Turks, taking their directions from Ridwan, to desert Kerbogha’s army.46 Abu al-Fida blames the dissension within Muslim ranks on Kerbogha’s arrogance and bad treatment of the Muslim leaders in his company, which made them indignant and distrustful of him.47 The Turks, under Sukman son of Artuk, were first to abandon Kerbogha’s camp and flee, followed by Janah al-Dawla Husayn ibn Mula’ib. Realizing that these leaders had abandoned him, Kerbogha also gave up and fled.48

Cafarus of Genuensis, Liberatio Orientis, R.H.C. Occ., 5 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1895), 55. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 104, treats this subject only briefly. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 421–429, says Bohemond’s corps was large. Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 666, says Tancred led the fourth group and had fewer men. 43 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 63. 44 Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 1 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924): 284, n. 1. 45 R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1934–1936), 1: 103–104. 46 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 136. 47 al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Isma’il Abu al-Fida, al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, R.H C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 4. 48 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 196.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

395

Kerbogha’s proud, arrogant attitude cost him victory over the Franks. He seems to have been completely nonchalant about the coming battle. It is interesting and perhaps tragic that while the Franks prepared for battle, Kerbogha was amusing himself. When a Turk, a most excellent knight whom Fulcher of Chartres calls Amiraldis, saw the Franks advancing with their banners and flags flying, he was surprised and knew that there would be soon a battle. He immediately hastened to Kerbogha to report what he had seen, but found him playing chess. “Why are you playing chess? Behold, the Franks are coming!” he said. Kerbogha replied, “Are they coming to fight?” Amiraldis answered, “Up to the moment I do not know, but wait a little.” Amiraldis went away briefly, then returned to tell Kerbogha that he saw the Franks advancing with their banners and flags. He said, “Look at the Franks! What do you think?” Kerbogha replied, “I think there will be battle, but wait a little. I do not recognize the banners which I see.” Looking more closely, he saw the standard of the bishop of Le Puy advancing with the third squadron. Amiraldis told him, “Tremble today, lest you be overcome by those whom you thought you were going to utterly destroy.” Kerbogha seemed to soften his arrogance and said he would send word to the Franks that what they demanded of him yesterday he would grant them today. Amiraldis replied that he had spoken too late, then withdrew from his master Kerbogha, spurred on his horse, and considered fleeing, but urged his comrades to stay and fight bravely.49 Raymond of Aguilers gives a slightly different account of this episode. He says that while Kerbogha played chess in his tent, he learned that the Franks were coming to fight. Troubled at this unexpected move by the Franks, he summoned Mirdalin, a Turkish refugee from Antioch and a courageous nobleman, and asked what was going on. Since the Franks were small in numbers, he asked Mirdalin, why had he reported that the outnumbered Christians would never fight against him? Mirdalin answered that he had made no such report, but invited Kerbogha to follow him; he would observe them and advise Kerbogha if he could defeat them. When Mirdalin saw the Franks’ third rank advancing and Kerbogha asked if some of their forces could be pushed back, Mirdalin, who seemed fearful of the Christians’ strength, said that if all the pagan world rushed against them, they would die before they would flee. Despite this apprehension, Kerbogha formed his army into battle order and permitted the Crusaders to march out

49

Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 104–105.

396

THE CRUSADES

of Antioch unmolested, although he could well have blocked them.50 By alienating some of his commanders and taking a nonchalant attitude toward the Franks, Kerbogha made a strategic mistake that would cost him Antioch. So the Franks, arrayed in battle formation and protected by the sign of the Cross, began to march out of Antioch by the gate that stood before La Mahomerie.51 The battle of Antioch has been recorded by Latin and modern sources.52 The Franks won a decisive victory and occupied the citadel which the Turks had fortified. Kerbogha and the Turks fled in terror – swift as a deer, says Fulcher of Chartres.53 William of Tyre says that Kerbogha’s followers advised him to take measures for his safety, but he fled thoughtlessly in great haste. He reached the Euphrates and crossed it in terror, scarcely believing that he had gained safety, and finally reached Mosul.54 Kerbogha and his army left behind gold, silver, sheep, oxen, horses, mules, camels and asses, corn, wine, flour, and many provisions of which the Franks were badly in need. When the Syrians and Armenians who lived in those regions heard that the Franks had defeated the Turks, they rushed toward the mountain to stop their retreat and killed any Turk they captured. Then the Franks returned to Antioch, rejoicing and praising God who had given them victory.55 The Turks left behind magnificent treasures. William of Tyre describes Kerbogha’s pavilion as a marvelous piece of work, woven of the finest silk in the likeness of a city, with turrets, walls, and ramparts. It contained many apartments, separated by walkways like streets, and was so

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 62. Tudebode, Historia, 86, esp. n. 35; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 110. 52 Gesta Francorum, 69–70; Tudebode, Historia, 86–88; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 62–64; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 104–105; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 421–429; Oman, History, 1: 284–288; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 236–249; R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare, 1097–1193 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 172–174; Robert Lawrence Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (New York: AMS Press, 1978), 67–70. 53 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 106. 54 William of Tyre, History, 1: 293. 55 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 64; Gesta Francorum, 70; Tudebode, Historia, 88; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 106; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 172; William of Tyre, History, 1: 294. 50 51

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

397

large it could accommodate 2,000 men.56 Stevenson says that before he fled, Kerbogha set fire to his tents.57 The most important consequence of the battle was that the Crusaders were now safe from Muslim attacks not only in Antioch but in all of northern Syria.58 With the Turks driven out, the first thing the bishop of Le Puy did was to care for the churches and other sacred places they had desecrated. William of Tyre says the Turks had driven away the priests and converted the churches into stables for their horses and other beasts of burden. They erased the pictures of saints from their walls, gouging out their eyes, mutilating their noses, and splashing them with mud and filth, and pulled down the altars and defiled the sanctuary of God. Bishop Adhémar restored the clergy to their former positions in the churches and established funds for their support. He used the gold and silver left by the Turks to make candelabra, crosses, and chalices and other items needed for church services. Patriarch John the Oxite, who had suffered much from the Turks and was imprisoned throughout the siege of Antioch, was released and restored with great pomp to his patriarchal throne.59 This was a friendly gesture on the part of Adhémar, who did not wish to denigrate the patriarch’s legitimacy, even though Patriarch John disliked the Latin rite.60 William of Tyre says the Franks could have chosen another patriarch of their own rite but elected not to do so, for having two patriarchs would violate sacred canons. Although restored to his former position, Patriarch John realized that, as a Greek, he could not effectively govern the Latins in church matters, and voluntarily left Antioch for Constantinople. After his departure, the clergy and people of Antioch chose as their patriarch Bernard, bishop of Artasium, a Latin and native of Valence who had attended the Bishop of Le Puy as his chaplain on the expedition to Antioch.61 Michael Rabo, the Syrian patriarch of Antioch and a contemporary of William of Tyre, gives a different account. He says that when the Franks established their dominion over Antioch, they ousted the Greeks (Byzantines) from their cathedrals, expelled their clergy, and installed a patriarch William of Tyre, History, 1: 294. William B. Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” The Cambridge Mediaeval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 293, offers this assertion without documentation. 58 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 421–427; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 72. 59 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 433; William of Tyre, History, 1: 297. 60 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 237. 61 William of Tyre, History, 1: 297. 56 57

398

THE CRUSADES

(for Antioch) from their own ranks. They also ordained Latin bishops for Tarsus, Missisa, Edessa, Manbij, Duluk, Cyrrhus, Euphemia, Tripoli, and Harim. The Frankish patriarch of Jerusalem ordained bishops for Bethlehem, Hebron, Samaria, Joppa, Nazareth, Caesarea, Sidon, and Beirut, and after occupying Tyre they ordained a bishop for it too. Even when the Franks occupied Edessa, they had ordained a Latin bishop named Brikha (Benedict).62 The selection of a Latin bishop for the diocese of Tyre caused friction between the Latins and the Greeks.63 Michael Rabo’s account indicates that the Franks, before and after they took control of Antioch, intended to establish their ecclesiastical supremacy in Syria. This intent is consistent with a letter (mentioned only by Fulcher of Chartres) sent to Pope Urban by the princes Bohemond, Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Duke Godfrey of Lorraine, Count Robert of Normandy, Count Robert of Flanders, and Count Eustace of Boulogne.64 Along with mentioning the Holy Lance and their defeat of the Turks at Antioch, the princes told the pope that they had subdued the Turks and the pagans (Muslims) but had not been able to overcome the heretics, Greeks and Armenians, Syrians and Jacobites. They implored the pope to come personally and take the place of his predecessor (St. Peter), because “you are the Vicar of the Blessed Peter and seat yourself on his throne . . . you eradicate and destroy by your authority and your strength all heresies of whatever kind.”65 Clearly the Crusaders’ intention was not only to subdue the Turks but to place the Eastern Churches, be they Greek, Armenian, or Syrian, under the pope’s authority. The first step toward establishing papal supremacy over these churches was to install Latin bishops in all the lands they had occupied. Hagenmeyer says the princes’ letter may have been inspired by Bohemond or even written by the author of the Gesta Francorum, an admirer of Bohemond, indicating that he planned to turn the crusade to his advantage and finally claim possession of Antioch. Bohemond surely would have realized that inviting the pope to come and occupy the throne of the church of Antioch violated his desire to promote amicable relations with the Byzantine Church.66 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 589 (191F, n. 5). Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1129 (Innsbruck, 1898), 181. 64 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 107–112. 65 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 111. 66 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus dem Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck: Hildersheim, 1901), 96–97; Hagenmeyer, ed., Fulcheri Carnotensis historia 62 63

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

399

After defeating the Muslims, the Franks chased them to the Iron Bridge and to the east of Harim, killing many of them. They took the Muslims’ war-engines, provisions, cattle and grain, and whatever the Crusaders missed the Armenians took.67 Those Turks with horses managed to flee, but hardly a foot-soldier survived.68 To the Muslim women who remained in the tents, says Fulcher of Chartres, the Franks did no evil except driving lances into their bellies.69 The fate of Ahmad ibn Marwan, whom Kerbogha had put in charge of the citadel of Antioch, was sealed. Once the Muslim army and Kerbogha himself fled, he had no choice but to surrender the citadel to the Franks. Ibn al-Adim says the Franks returned to the citadel and communicated with Ahmad ibn Marwan, offering him amnesty and a house in Antioch, and he handed the citadel over to them.70 According to the Latin sources, the amir in charge of the citadel, frightened and no longer able to defend it, asked for the standard of one of the Franks and was given that of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who was close to the citadel. When Ibn Marwan raised the banner, the Lombards, striving to obtain the favor of their leader Bohemond, shouted that it was not his banner. When Ibn Marwan learned that the banner belonged to Saint-Gilles, he lowered it and returned it to the count. Then Bohemond gave him his own banner, which Ibn Marwan raised on the citadel. He negotiated with Bohemond so that any Muslims who wished to accept Christ might join him, and those who wished to depart might do so unharmed. Bohemond accepted the terms of the agreement. Within a few days, Ahmad ibn Marwan himself and many others accepted Christ. Bohemond had those who did not wish to convert escorted to Muslim lands.71 With the fall of Antioch, the key to southern Syria, the road to Jerusalem now lay open before the Crusaders. Antioch

Hierosolymitana 1095–1127 (Heidelberg, 1913), 259, n. 1; Ryan, ed., Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 107, n. 1. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 74, says the fact that Bohemond’s name appears above those of other princes who signed the letter is evidence of his dominant position in the army. 67 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 137; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 135, 44 of the English translation; Gesta Francorum, 70; Tudebode, Historia, 88–89. 68 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 64. 69 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 106. 70 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 137–138. 71 Gesta Francorum, 70–71; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 110; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 434; Tudebode, Historia, 89; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 111.

400

THE CRUSADES

was destined to become the second principality established by the Franks, following that of Edessa.72 The Franks’ victory was followed by wrangling over the possession of Antioch. We should note here, as do Hill and Hill, that the sequence of events after the Franks’ defeat of Kerbogha is unclear, and the chronologies of the Latin writers are not always consistent.73 Such anomalies make it difficult for the investigator to place events in their proper sequence, but the narrative process requires us to do our best. The Crusaders’ leaders had to fulfill the agreement they had made with the Emperor Alexius at Constantinople in 1097, when they pledged to restore to him all the cities and lands they liberated from the Muslims. Bohemond, it should be remembered, was the first to sign that agreement. The Gesta Francorum says the Frankish leaders sent the high-born knight Hugh the Great (of Vermandois) to Constantinople to ask the emperor to come personally and take the city of Antioch, in fulfillment of their treaty, but that Hugh went and did not return.74 William of Tyre says that Hugh the Great, brother of the king of France, and Baldwin, count of Hainault, were chosen for this mission, but Baldwin disappeared after a skirmish with the enemy and his fate was unknown. Some said he fell in the fight, while others said he was taken prisoner by the Turks and taken in chains to some Muslim land. William says that Hugh avoided the enemy trap and reached the emperor, but after completing his mission did not bring back his answer to the Frankish leaders, adding that his action besmirched his fair name, particularly because of his exalted rank.75 The emperor’s reaction to Hugh’s mission is not known; perhaps, as Runciman suggests, he thought he could not get to Antioch before the spring [of 1099].76 Regardless of Hugh’s whereabouts, the rivalry among the Franks’ leaders over possession of Antioch continued. Raymond of Aguilers says that 72 Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972), 14; Husayn Muhammad Atiya, Imarat Antakiya al-Salibiyya wa alMuslimun 1171–1268 (Alexandria: Dar al-Ma’rifa al-Jami-iyya, 1989), 122–123. 73 John Hugh Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1962), 93–94, says that both the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers exhibit points of view influenced by disputes that became apparent in the summer and fall of 1098. 74 Gesta Francorum, 72. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 112, calls Hugh the Count of Mons. 75 William of Tyre, History, 1: 298. 76 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 251.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

401

after the recapture of the citadel, Bohemond, “conceiving mischief by which he brought forth sin, seized the higher towers and forcibly drove out the followers of Godfrey, the Count of Flanders, and the Count of SaintGilles from the citadels with the excuse that he had sworn to the Turk (Firuz) who had delivered Antioch that only he would possess it.”77 Emboldened, Bohemond demanded possession of the citadel and the gates of Antioch, which the other Frankish leaders had protected since Kerbogha’s siege, evidently feeling they had already promised it to him. It was at this time that Bohemond’s men began calling him by the honorable name of Prince.78 Hill and Hill maintain that during the summer of 1098, Bohemond was moving secretly toward support for his claim to the entire city of Antioch. On July 14, 1098, he made an agreement with the Genoese granting them by charter the Church of St. John, together with a warehouse and thirty houses, and exempting them from all taxes in Antioch. In return, they pledged to defend the city against all enemies except the Provençals, i.e., the men of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. If Bohemond and Raymond should engage in armed conflict, the Genoese would try to reconcile the two leaders but reserved the right to stay neutral. Thus, through them Bohemond secured his communications with Italy. The reservations the Genoese had indicate that they were aware of the contention among the Franks. They felt “Bohemond was officially seeking support for his possession of Antioch, which had not been approved by the council of leaders but would come up in their designating meeting in November . . . Thus Bohemond sought to isolate the count.”79 The other Frankish leaders, preferring peace to strife, acceded to Bohemond’s demand. But Raymond of Saint-Gilles, despite his weak health, made it clear that no promises or threats could persuade him to surrender the bridge gate, the part of the citadel he had occupied, or the palace of Yaghi Siyan.80 The leaders were worried, for internal strife had undermined Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 65, 105. William of Tyre, History, 1: 297. 79 Hill, Raymond IV, 96–97. See Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 113; Wilhelm Heyd, Geschichte des Levantehandel im Mittelalter, 1 (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1879): 148; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 249; Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” 295, n. 1; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 73. William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, J. Sharpe, trans. (London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815), 436, says it was now clear Bohemond wanted all of Antioch. 80 Gesta Francorum, 76; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 434; Yewdale, Bo77 78

402

THE CRUSADES

their amicable bond. Raymond of Aguilers says that since there was no judge who could look into such disputes, every person became a law unto himself. Raymond of Saint-Gilles and the bishop of Le Puy offered their followers little protection. The ill feeling between Bohemond and Raymond of Saint-Gilles, begun long ago in Constantinople, had now intensified.81 The situation worsened following the death on August 1, 1098, of Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, the most distinguished victim of a pestilence which plagued the whole region of Antioch and the port of St. Simeon.82 The Franks had lost a spiritual leader and advisor, a neutralizer who could have healed their rift and brought them together, and were left to solve their dissension by themselves.83 The vision related by Raymond of Aguilers, in which Adhémar on the second night after his death appeared to Peter Bartholomew at Raymond’s chapel with Jesus and St. Andrew, deals with the question of whether Antioch should be held by Bohemond or Raymond of Saint-Gilles. Adhémar asked the two to go to the Church of St. Andrew and reconcile with one another in peace and the love of God. It appears they accepted this advice but soon ignored it, since some of the Crusaders said, “Let us return Antioch to Alexius,” but others objected.84 The account of this vision indicates that even while he was alive, Adhémar’s counsel carried no weight. Hill and Hill say Raymond of Aguilers “robbed him of the integrity and expressed judgment that we believe him to have possessed.”85 Even after Adhémar’s death, the rivalry between Bohemond and Raymond of Saint-Gilles did not end, and with other factors it may have delayed the Crusaders’ march to Jerusalem. Oddly, Raymond of Aguilers says that if the Franks had marched immediately to Jerusalem, not one city between Antioch and Jerusalem would have opposed them; the Muslims were terrified and weak following the defeat of Kerbogha.86 Despite their suffering from dissension, pestilence, and the pressure to go on to Jerusalem, and perhaps because of the Muslims’ weakness, some hemond I, 73. 81 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 65; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 73. 82 William of Tyre, History, 1: 299; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 66; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 111; Gesta Francorum, 74; Tudebode, Historia, 93. 83 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 252–253, elaborates the significance of Adhémar’s death. 84 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 66–69. 85 Hill, Raymond IV, 99. 86 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 65.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

403

of the Frankish leaders made incursions into Muslim lands. According to the Gesta Francorum, the Crusaders’ leaders decided in a council held on July 3, 1098, that they should not yet enter the land of the pagans because the summer had been very hot and rainless, and it would be better for them to wait until the beginning of November. So the leaders separated, and each went into his own territory until the time was propitious for them to resume their march to Jerusalem.87 Bohemond returned to Romania (Asia Minor, Cilicia), and Godfrey went to Edessa, which indicates his usefulness to the Militia Christi and its leaders.88 One of the first raids was led by Raymond Pilet, a knight from Limousin in the service of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. Taking many knights and foot soldiers, Pilet left Antioch and entered the Muslim territory and came to the castle of Tall Mannas, whose Syrian inhabitants surrendered to him. After the Crusaders had been at Tall Mannas for eight days, messengers came to tell Pilet about a nearby castle full of Muslims. He and his men left at once, seized the castle, and returned to Tall Mannas.89 Pilet then marched toward the town of Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, northeast of Antioch, within the domain of Ridwan, lord of Aleppo. Ibn al-Adim says Raymond of SaintGilles had been in contact with the Syrian and Armenian inhabitants of the area before Pilet began his campaign, and when he arrived, the inhabitants of Tall Mannas, joined by the Christian inhabitants of Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, marched on the latter town. Ridwan responded immediately by sending a contingent from Aleppo to challenge the invaders. The two forces met midway between Tall Mannas and Ma’arrat al-Nu’man; the Franks were soundly defeated and lost over a thousand men. They were beheaded, and their heads were taken to Ma’arrat al-Nu’man.90 The chronology here is uncertain. The author of the Gesta Francorum says the massacre occurred on July 5, 1098, and those Crusaders who had stayed in Antioch were grieved by the death of Bishop Adhémar (August 1).91 Hagenmeyer says that Raymond Pilet began his march on July 14, and Runciman says he left Antioch on July 17.92 87 Gesta

Francorum, 72; Tudebode, Historia, 90–92. of Aguilers, Historia, 66. 89 Gesta Francorum, 73; Tudebode, Historia, 92. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 113, says that the Muslim inhabitants who agreed to become Christians were spared, and those who did not were killed 90 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 138. 91 Gesta Francorum, 74; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 113. 92 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie de la première croisade, 1094–1100,” 88 Raymond

404

THE CRUSADES

Meanwhile, Bohemond went to Cilicia to secure Tancred’s conquest of the cities of Tarsus, Adana, Mamistra and Anazarva (‘Ayn Zarba). He reinforced the garrisons and appointed rulers in those places, and made himself master of the entire district.93 Godfrey went on September 1, 1098, to Edessa, ruled by his brother Baldwin, who gave him the towns of Turbessel (Tall Bashir) and Ravendan (Rawandan). Godfrey may have been jealous of his brother’s success and probably was prepared to return these two cities to him if he rejoined the Crusaders on the march to Jerusalem.94 Between September 14 and September 17, a Muslim force from Aleppo invested the fortress of Azaz (Hazart), northeast of Antioch.95 When Umar, lord of Azaz, rebelled against his master, Ridwan of Aleppo, Ridwan sent a force to subdue him. Umar then appealed to Godfrey for help, delivering his son Mahmud as a hostage to guarantee his honesty.96 Godfrey, who had recently returned from Edessa to Antioch, was in no position to send troops and asked Baldwin and Bohemond to help. The Frankish force now marched to attack Ridwan, forcing him to lift the siege against Azaz and withdraw with his forces to Aleppo. Godfrey arrived in Azaz and was hailed by Umar, who in a gesture of subservience and gratitude dismounted from his horse and declared his vassalage to Godfrey.97 But according to Ibn al-Adim, Umar appealed to the Franks for help and Raymond of Saint-Gilles rushed to his aid. When Ridwan withdrew his force from Azaz, Raymond pillaged it and returned to Antioch, taking as a hostage Umar’s son (who died in captivity). Ridwan finally captured Umar and took him to Tall Harraq, a fortress west of Aleppo. Umar surrendered Azaz to Ridwan and stayed with him for a time in Aleppo, but Ridwan eventually killed him.98 Revue de l’Orient (1902–1911): 301; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 251; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 219; Tudebode, Historia, 92, n. 5. 93 William of Tyre, 1: 300; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 254. Nicholson, Tancred, 72; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 74, says, “We know next to nothing of Bohemond’s activities in Cilicia.” 94 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 255. 95 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 69. 96 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 141. 97 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 439; William of Tyre, History, 1: 301–302; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 220. 98 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 141. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 70, says Raymond of Saint-Gilles was at Azaz and returned to Antioch “with considerable expense to his army,” apparently corroborating the account given by Ibn al-Adim.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

405

Soon afterwards Raymond of Saint-Gilles, with a few knights, marched into Syria and captured Albara (al-Bara), southeast of Antioch. He killed many Muslims, both men and women, and sold many of them into slavery in Antioch.99 He restored the city to the Christian faith and took counsel with his advisers to choose a bishop for the city, recall it to the worship of Christ, and consecrate “the house of the devil” (the mosque) as a temple of the true and living God, and a church dedicated to his saints.100 Eventually, they chose Peter of Narbonne, an honorable and learned man, as bishop, and clearly Raymond of Saint-Gilles was instrumental in this choice.101 They took him to Antioch, where he was consecrated by John, the Greek patriarch. According to Raymond of Aguilers, the natives of Albara wanted a Roman bishop in the Eastern Church, but the choice of a Latin bishop would have provoked the enmity of the Greek clergy.102 To honor Peter of Narbonne, Raymond of Saint-Gilles gave him one-half of Albara and its environs.103 Peter must have been highly esteemed by the Franks, for following his consecration as bishop he held councils as a replacement for Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy.104 During this time the Frankish leaders were embroiled in a bitter dispute (Raymond of Aguilers calls it a “princely fiasco”) about the destiny of Antioch.105 Bohemond insisted that the other leaders had promised Antioch to him, although he had earlier voiced his willingness to hand it over to Emperor Alexius. Raymond remained adamant in his view that Antioch should be restored to the emperor. The controversy clearly affected the morale of the army and knights, who came to believe that possession of Antioch had taken precedence over the march to Jerusalem. The wrath of Raymond’s men was so intense that they wanted to select a brave knight to lead them to Jerusalem. They asked, “ . . . isn’t a year in Muslim lands and the loss of 200,000 soldiers enough?” They threatened to march to Jerusalem by themselves, leaving the leaders to fight over Antioch. The leaders Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 73; Gesta Francorum, 74–75; Tudebode, Historia, 94; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 141. 100 Gesta Francorum, 75. 101 Walter Porges, “The Clergy, The Poor, and The Non-Combatants On The First Crusade,” Speculum 21 (1946): 20. 102 Hill and Hill, eds., Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 73, n. 2; Gesta Francorum, 75. 103 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 73. 104 Tudebode, Historia, 94. 105 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 75. 99

406

THE CRUSADES

apparently took the threat seriously, and in several meetings in November they decided that they would march to Jerusalem by the end of the month.106 On November 23 Raymond of Saint-Gilles and his army, together with Robert of Flanders, left Antioch, and four days later they stormed Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, which the Crusaders had failed to capture earlier. They were later joined by Bohemond and his men.107 The Muslims surprised them by offering strong resistance. Impressed by the Muslims’ audacity and suffering from a lack of food, the Crusaders almost lost hope and wanted to turn back.108 But they regained courage from a new vision of Peter of Bartholomew, who was with them at Ma’arrat al-Nu’man. Peter said he had been visited by St. Andrew and St. Peter, who appeared at first in rags but later became luminous. St. Peter told Peter Bartholomew that God had deserted them because of their sins and evil deeds, but as He had delivered them in Antioch from the hands of Kerbogha, He would do the same here, not because of their merits (they had none) but because of His grace. He added that if the Crusaders would turn from evil and collectively have faith in the good of others, and tithe whatever they possessed or might possess, then God would deliver Ma’arrat al-Nu’man to them. When Peter Bartholomew related his vison to the Crusaders, he was ridiculed by Bohemond and his comrades.109 A large group of Muslims had come to Ma’arrat al-Nu’man to fight, and Raymond of Saint-Gilles prepared to oppose them. Bohemond, who had followed Raymond, quickly set up camp next to him. Then they attacked the city ferociously; their ladders clung to the walls so closely that they stepped on the walls as they ascended. The inhabitants frustrated the Crusaders by resisting vigorously. To combat the resistance of the besieged Muslims, Raymond of Saint-Gilles had a very tall wooden siege-tower built. It rested on four wheels, with space at the top to accommodate a large number of soldiers. On its top stood many knights; Everard the Huntsman blew a blast on the horn, and underneath many knights pushed the tower closer to the city wall. But the Muslims stiffened their resistance. They used ballistic machines to hurl stones and threw lime, beehives, and even Greek Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 75. Gesta Francorum, 75, 77–78; Tudebode, Historia, 98, esp. nn. 31, 32. 108 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 76. 109 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 78–79; Tudebode, Historia, 99, gives a similar account. 106 107

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

407

fire at the Crusaders, hoping to destroy the wooden tower. Gouffer of Lastours, William of Montpellier, and many other knights managed to climb the wall; others who followed them hurled great stones down, killing many Muslims and breaking their shields.110 After several days of heavy fighting, the Crusaders finally overwhelmed the Muslims, who were terrified and fled into the city. Bar Hebraeus says the Franks killed over 100,000 inhabitants of Ma’arrat al-Nu’man.111 The fleeing Muslims hid in subterranean caves, and dared not appear on the streets. The Crusaders smoked them out of the caves but were disappointed at not finding anything to plunder. They led the captured Muslims through the streets, hoping they would lead them to their hidden treasures, but the captives jumped headlong to their deaths rather than comply, and the corpses were thrown into swamps beyond the city walls. The Crusaders were victorious, but still suffered from hunger and lack of provisions. Raymond of Aguilers says the shortage of food was so acute that the “Christians ate with gusto many rotten Saracen bodies which they had pitched into the swamps two or three weeks before.”112 This apparent act of cannibalism disgusted many Crusaders and others, with the result that many Crusaders abandoned hope of reinforcement from home and turned back. The Muslims, equally shocked, said that these stubborn and merciless people who were unmoved by perils, sword, or hunger at Antioch now feasted on human flesh. In their dismay they came to believe that no one could resist these Christians. Raymond of Aguilers attributes the spread of the stories of these and other inhuman acts by the Crusaders to the ‘infidels’, but adds in what seems a penitent tone, “We were unaware that God had made us an object of terror.”113 Fulcher of Chartres is more graphic, reporting that many of the Crusaders, suffering from hunger and tormented by the madness of starvation, “cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted.”114

Gesta Francorum, 78–79; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 78–79, Tudebode, Historia, 99–100; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 116–117. 111 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, p. 82 of the Syriac text, p. 235 of the English translation. 112 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 81, says Christians (Crusaders) were the perpetrators of this atrocity but does not identify them by name. 113 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 81. 114 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 112. 110

408

THE CRUSADES

Guibert of Nogent reports that it was said that some Crusaders cut pieces of flesh from the corpses of Muslims, cooked them and ate them, but adds that this was done rarely and in secret, so that no one can be sure whether such an act actually happened.115 The accounts of cannibalism are troubling and puzzling. Raymond of Aguilers and Fulcher of Chartres offer no more information than Guibert of Nogent, who reports the act of cannibalism in a way that leaves the reader with the belief that the Crusaders themselves had committed this abominable act, although he does not seem entirely certain.116 The subject does not arise again until he discusses the Crusaders’ conquest of Jerusalem, when he reports (in an account not found in other sources) that the Crusaders’ children, seeing that their elders were suffering from lack of food, went to beg their princes for food and were given enough for their nourishment. Yet here he says nothing of cannibalism, and goes on to describe how the children emulated the fighting prowess of the Crusaders’ army. They used long reeds as spears, wove shields out of twigs, and brandished small arrows and missiles, each according to his ability. With weapons and zeal, the Crusaders’ children came out of their camp tents to face the Muslim children, who also emerged from their camp to challenge them.117 Whether this story was true or a product of the author’s imagination is not clear; what is evident is that neither the Crusaders’ children nor their elders seem to have suffered from extreme hunger. We come now to the subject of the Tafurs, which has been neglected in several histories on the Crusades.118 Among the Crusading army was another kind of a man, barefooted, dirty, naked, and poor, who marched in ahead of everyone, feeding off herbs and the most wretched things that grow. This man, says Guibert of Nogent, was a Norman, well-born, and was reportedly once a knight but now a foot-soldier. When this man saw others without a leader, he laid aside his clothes and arms and attempted to make himself their king. Guibert says this man came to be called Tafur, a term taken from the “barbarian” (Arabic) language, adding, “we call them less literally ‘Trudennes,’ that is, men who kill time, who pass their time wandering aimlessly here and there.” We further learn that it was the cus115 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 117. Guibert, who did not accompany the Crusaders, relies on hearsay. See Lewis A. M. Sumberg, “The ‘Tafurs’ and the First Crusade,” Mediaeval Studies 21 (1959): 227, n. 16; 235–236; 238, n. 62; 241–242. 116 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 117. 117 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 145. 118 Sumberg, “Tafurs,” 224.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

409

tom of this Tafur, when he and his men arrived at a bridge or a narrow pass, to rush forward to see whether any of his men possessed two dinars; if so, he would separate him from the group, ask him to purchase arms, and assign him to the armed section of the army. But if some of his men loved the simple life and had no desire to save money, he made them members of his inner circle. No one, says Guibert, can describe how useful these Tafurs were in carrying food and heavy burdens, like asses and mules, and collecting tributes, and they were very proficient in using projectiles to hurl stones in the siege of the cities.119 Having said all this, Guibert of Nogent returns to the subject of cannibalism. He says that when pieces of flesh were found at Ma’arrat alNu’man and elsewhere, “a hideous rumor, based on something that had been done furtively and rarely, circulated widely among the pagans (Muslims) that there were some men in the Frankish army who eagerly fed upon the corpses of Saracens.” To give this rumor wide circulation, the Muslims said that the men brought out the battered corpse of a Turk in full view of other Turks, set it afire, and roasted it as if the flesh were to be eaten. When they saw this happen, the Muslims, believing the charade was real, were even more frightened of the fearless Tafurs than of other Crusaders.120 But because they lived among the crusading army, the Muslims, who could not distinguish them from the Franks, thought that the Franks were the perpetrators. But the reports of cannibalism were based on rumors which the Muslims circulated within their own camp. Raymond of Aguilers and Fulcher of Chartres describe acts of cannibalism, but unfortunately do not attribute them to the Tafurs, leaving the Muslims to believe the Franks were the perpetrators. It is likewise unfortunate that Guibert of Nogent, the only writer to mention the Tafurs, does not reveal his source. Relying on the Latin sources, one may conclude that some acts of cannibalism may have occurred during the attack against Ma’arrat al-Nu’man or elsewhere, but any such acts were perpetrated by the Tafurs, not by the Franks.121 The identity of the Tafurs, their association with the Crusaders, and their cannibalism have excited the interest of Western authors. Some writers link them with the followers of Peter the Hermit, who were poor like the 119 Guibert

of Nogent, The Deeds, 146. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 146. 121 Porges, “The Clergy,” 12–13; Alfred Adler, “Rainouart and the Comparison of the Chanson de Guillaume,” Modern Philology 49 (1952): 161–163; Sumberg, “Tafurs,” 225–227. 120

410

THE CRUSADES

Tafurs, or with old French epics like the Chanson de Guillaume, the Chanson de Roland, or the Chanson d’Antioche.122 As to the origin of their name, there is no basis for the speculation that it is derived from the Armenian tahavor (king) or was the name of the pagan god Toutatis. Sauvaget and Cahen are correct in saying that “Tafur” is the same as the Arabic tafran [pauper, havenot].123 But because the Latin sources, except Guibert of Nogent, do not discuss the identity and exploits of the Tafurs, they will always be the subject of speculation. Porges rightly says the deeds of the Tafurs “have been enlarged upon to form one of the most curious legends of the Crusades, but whose historicity may no longer be doubted.”124 According to Arabic sources, some of the inhabitants of al-Ma’arra sought refuge in their homes. The Franks entered the city, raised crosses over its buildings, and offered the inhabitants amnesty but then betrayed them. They attacked the houses, divided them among themselves, and slept in them. They tried to calm the Muslims until the morning, when they finally unsheathed their swords, killed many men, and took the women and children captives. Ibn al-Athir says they killed 100,000, and Ibn al-Adim puts the number of those killed at 20,000 men, women and children.125 The old rivalry between Bohemond and Raymond of Saint-Gilles flared up again. Since he had participated in the capture of al-Ma’arra, Bohemond was unwilling to cede Raymond anything in the region, which he claimed as his own.126 The army, tired of their squabbles, was determined to march to Jerusalem. To straighten matters out, Raymond of Saint-Gilles sent messengers to Antioch asking Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, Robert of Normandy, and Bohemond to meet him at Chastel-Rouge (Rugia, al-Ruj, or Riha in the Gesta Francorum), between Antioch and Ma’arrat al-Nu’man. The leaders gathered on January 4, 1099, but could not reconcile the pair unless Raymond agreed to surrender Antioch to Bohemond. Raymond said he could not do so because of the oath he had sworn to Emperor Alexius, to return to him all the cities and lands recaptured from the Muslims.127 Some Adler, “Rainouart,” 160; Sumberg, “Tafurs,” 225–227. Sumberg, “Tafurs,” 226. On the meaning of tafran, see Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961), 562. 124 Porges, “The Clergy,” 12–13. 125 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 196–197; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 142; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 136. 126 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 79; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 113. 127 Gesta Francorum, 80; Tudebode, Historia, 102. 122 123

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

411

of the other Frankish leaders offered reasons for not continuing the journey to Jerusalem. Like Bohemond, they wanted their share of the spoils and possessions. As a result, Raymond of Saint-Gilles offered Godfrey and Robert of Normandy ten thousand solidi apiece, six thousand to Robert of Flanders, five thousand to Tancred, and proportionate amounts to others.128 Whether Raymond’s purpose in offering these sums was to bribe the Frankish princes to accept his leadership of the army on the march to Jerusalem is not clear. But there is no evidence that they accepted his offer. Charles Wendell David says that there is reason to believe that along with Tancred, Robert Curthose (Count of Normandy) did so. He argues that, pressured by the army, Raymond had decided to march on his own to Jerusalem, and to isolate his rivals more effectively he resorted to hiring them by offering them money.129 Hill and Hill believe that Raymond’s offer was accepted, and that the difference in amounts represents the perceived merits of the leaders.130 Godfrey and the other leaders went back to Antioch, while Raymond of Saint-Gilles returned to Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, planning to garrison there with knights and footmen from the army, but the “poor people” rebelled and, angered by the delay in the march to Jerusalem, decided to tear down the walls of the city.131 The Gesta Francorum says Raymond of Saint-Gilles returned to Ma’arrat al-Nu’man and ordered the knights to fortify the palace and the fort above it but redeemed the city bridge. On January 13, 1099, he began marching barefoot to Jerusalem, followed by other Frankish leaders except Bohemond, who stayed in Antioch.132 Bohemond, who wanted Antioch, expelled all the men Raymond of Saint-Gilles had chosen to guard his sector. Raymond ignored this development, as he had only one purpose, to march on to the Holy Sepulcher.133

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 80, 92. David, Robert Curthose, 109–110; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 261. 130 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 80, n. 11. See Nicholson, Tancred, 76, n. 2. 131 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 81. 132 Gesta Francorum, 81. 133 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 105; Tudebode, Historia, 102–103; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 113. Hill and Hill, eds., Tudebode, Historia, 103, n. 47, maintain that modern historians have placed undue importance on the quarrel of Raymond and Bohemond, and that on this point Tudebode is more reliable than Raymond of Aguilers. See John Hugh Hill, “Raymond of Saint-Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship,” Speculum 27 (1959): 270. 128 129

412

THE CRUSADES

Commanding the Crusaders’ army, Raymond of Saint-Gilles left Ma’arrat al-Nu’man and marched to Kafartab, some miles to the south.134 They remained there until January 14, 1099, where they were joined by Robert, Count of Normandy, and Tancred.135 Here some petty Arab lords who ruled a few towns in the Tripoli-Shayzar region sought alliances with them. Taking advantage of the broken power of the Seljuks, who had controlled the region, the Franks asserted their supremacy in the towns under their rule. As Claude Cahen observes, “Dynastic fragmentation often found support in local particularism.”136 Bernhard Kugler asserts that the Crusaders would have faced serious danger on their march though Syria, were it not for the fact that they came to friendly agreements with most of the petty Arab potentates.137 This was not the case. These petty lords lacked the military strength to challenge the Crusaders and so preferred to seek peaceful relations with them. One of them, Izz al-Din Abu al-Asakir Sultan Ibn Munqidh (1098– 1154), whom the Gesta Francorum calls “the King of Shayzar,” sent many messengers to Raymond at Shayzar and Kafartab, asking for a treaty of peace. He promised to pay an indemnity to him and treat the Christian pilgrims kindly, and was glad to sell them horses and food. Eventually Ibn Munqidh yielded to the Franks and paid them tribute.138 Assured of his friendship, the Crusaders moved out and pitched their tents along the Orontes river near Shayzar on January 16, 1099.139 Ibn al-Athir says the sultan panicked when he saw the Frankish army in the vicinity of Shayzar and threatened to deny the Crusaders a market. To keep them moving on, Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi, Tarikh Halab, ed. Ibrahim Zu’rur (Damascus, 1984), 360. 135 Gesta Francorum, 81; Tudebode, Historia, 104; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 83. 136 Claude Cahen, “The Turkish Invasion: The Selchükids,” in Marshall W. Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969): 165. 137 Bernhard Kugler, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885), 189. 138 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 82 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation. Ibn Munqidh was the paternal uncle of the celebrated Usama ibn Munqidh, whose father was on good terms with the Franks. See Usama ibn Mundidh, Kitab al-I’itibar, trans. Philip Hitti as An Arab-Syrian Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn Munqidh (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), 67. 139 Gesta Francorum, 81; Tudebode, Historia, 104; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 126. 134

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

413

or perhaps to get rid of them, he sent two messengers to guide them to a place where they could find more food and booty.140 Raymond of Aguilers says that the ruler of Shayzar, who knew of the Franks’ planned march, ordered his people to flee, and that two Franks captured a messenger with letters urging them to do so. He says the ruler tricked the Franks by having his messengers lead them astray on the first day, since they lacked everything except water. But the next day the messengers inadvertently led them to a valley to which the ruler had had his cattle herded because of his fear of the Franks.141 Even if he had intended to block their march, he would have failed because the Franks were told of his intention. The garrison of a neighboring castle surrendered to Raymond of Saint-Gilles, offered him horses and gold, and swore on the Quran that they would not harm the Franks.142 By now the Franks had captured large herds of cattle and sent knights to both Shayzar and Camela (Emessa, Hims) to buy Arabian horses.143 With plenty of food and adequate provisions, the Franks could now proceed on their way with more confidence and less worry. The farther they marched, the greater were God’s benefits. But their optimism was overshadowed by disagreement about which route to take to Jerusalem. Raymond of Aguilers says some men tried to persuade Raymond of Saint-Gilles to detour briefly to take Gibellum (Jabala), a Syrian port near Latakia, which had been ruled by Jalal al-Mulk Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar (d. 1099) and then by his brother Abu Ali Fakhr al-Mulk ibn Ammar. This meant that the army would take a very long and arduous route along the Mediterranean seacoast to reach Jerusalem. On the way they would capture Jabala, Antartus (Tortosa, modern Tartus in Syria), Tripoli, and Beirut, and then descend on Sidon, Tyre, and Acre. Tancred opposed this plan, saying the Crusaders had suffered hardships at Antioch and elsewhere, and their force had been reduced to less than a thousand knights and 5,000 foot soldiers. He argued that since Jerusalem was their ultimate goal and God would surely give it to them, it would be inadvisable to change the course of the expedition and go through the mountains (of the Ansariyya, or Nusay140 Athir,

al-Kamil, 1: 197. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 83. Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 268, says it was the valley of the Sarout. 142 Gesta Francorum, 82; Tudebode, Historia, 105, says only that the ruler swore “by his law,” without mentioning the Quran. 143 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 84; Gesta Francorum, 82–83; Tudebode, Historia, 106. 141

414

THE CRUSADES

ris), which would involve much more effort and time.144 Tancred’s argument prevailed. The Crusaders marched on January 22, 1099, to Masyaf, whose Arab ruler welcomed them and entered into an agreement with them. Then they moved to Ba’rin (Montferrand), and on January 23 they entered the pleasant town of Rafaniya (Kephalia in the Gesta), whose inhabitants had abandoned it out of fear. For two days they enjoyed the abundant food left by its people and contemplated the mountains ahead. On the 27th of the month, after crossing the mountains, they descended into the al-Biqa valley (called Sem by the Gesta), where they stayed for fifteen days.145 Not far from there the Franks attacked two castles, one of which had been abandoned by its Muslim inhabitants. In Hisn al-Akrad (the Fortress of the Kurds, or Krak des Chevaliers), which they captured on January 29 after a difficult struggle, they found plenty of food and provisions.146 On February 2, 1099, the Franks celebrated the Feast of Candlemas (the Purification of the Virgin Mary).147 Two days later they received messengers from Janah al-Dawla, ruler of Camela (Hims), who sent Raymond of Saint-Gilles horses and gold, and pledged in an agreement with him that he would do the Franks no harm.148 The ruler of Tripoli, Abu ‘Ali Fakhr alMulk ibn ‘Ammar, also sent messengers to propose a treaty of friendship and sent with them ten horses, four mules, and some gold. The Gesta Francorum says Raymond of Saint-Gilles refused to make any treaty with him unless he was christened, but does not say whether Ibn Ammar agreed to this proposal or embraced Christianity.149 Peter Tudebode says the ruler of 144 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 84; Chalandon, Histoire de la Première Croisade, 253. Hill, Raymond IV, 114, notes that the author of the Gesta Francorum, who is more methodical than Raymond of Aguilers, does not mention the dispute over the army’s march toward Tripoli. 145 Gesta Francorum, 82; Tudebode, Historia, 105; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 118–119. 146 Tudebode, Historia, 106, says the Franks seized two castles; Gesta Francorum, 82, and Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 85–87, mentions only one. Raymond of Aguilers describes in great detail the struggle of the castle’s inhabitants against the Franks, the strategy of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, the council of war he summoned, and the Franks’ eventual victory over the Muslims and capture of the castle. 147 Gesta Francorum, 82; Tudebode, Historia, 106; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 119. 148 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 82 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation, says that Janah al-Dawla went out to the Franks and became their subject. 149 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 87; Gesta Francorum, 82–83. See Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 162, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 147. Heinrich von Sybel,

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

415

Tripoli “so promised,” indicating that he wished to convert to Christianity.150 Raymond of Aguilers says that “the king of Tripoli” placed the count’s [Raymond of Saint-Gilles] standard on his castles.151 As we shall see, Ibn ‘Ammar repeated his promise to become a Christian at the Franks’ siege of Arqa. On February 14, 1099, the forces under Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Tancred, and Robert of Normandy reached and laid siege to Arqa, which was under Ibn ‘Ammar’s jurisdiction, perhaps thinking that if they captured it, he would increase the amount of tribute he paid the Franks.152 Raymond of Aguilers, who was with the army, says the knights of Raymond of SaintGilles were so impressed by the wealth of the city of Tripoli, whose ruler offered Raymond many expensive gifts, that they urged him to invest Arqa before he got to Tripoli.153 Arqa was a well-built, nearly impregnable fortress, full of Turks, Arabs, and Paulicians (heretical Armenians), who defended it bravely. The Franks found it difficult to challenge and lost many illustrious knights, including Pons of Balazun and Anselm of Ribemont (both of whom were struck by rocks hurled by a petrary) and William the Picard.154 Sorely in need of provisions, the Franks sent Raymond of Pilet and Raymond of Turenne with 100 knights and 200 foot soldiers to seek food.155 They attacked Tortosa, which like Arqa was under the jurisdiction Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer, 1881), p. 392, says the harshness of Raymond’s terms indicates that he intended to force Ibn Ammar to cede Tripoli to him. Hill, Raymond IV, 117, asserts that succeeding historians have slavishly followed von Sybel’s suggestion that “the evaluation of the importance of Tripoli to crusading planning has been forgotten.” 150 Tudebode, Historia, 106. 151 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 87. 152 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 680; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 113; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 132–133. 153 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 87. Gesta Francorum, 83, says simply that in the second week of February the Franks reached ‘Arqa and pitched their tents around it. See Tudebode, Historia, 106; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 119. 154 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 87; Gesta Francorum, 85; Tudebode, Historia, 109; William of Tyre, History, 1: 323. Some sources mention only Pons of Balazun and Anselm of Ribemont, the latter best known for his two letters to Archbishop Manasses of Reims, in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe. 155 Gesta Francorum, 83; Tudebode, Historia, 107, mentions Viscount Peter of Castillon, Aimericus of Lobenes, Sichardus and Bego of Ribeira, and William Botinus as well.

416

THE CRUSADES

of Ibn ‘Ammar, but could not capture it. They resorted to a trick, setting a great fire to convince the city’s inhabitants their numbers were so great that they could not resist. The trick succeeded; the people fled, leaving behind abundant provisions. After entering the city on February 17, the Franks supplied themselves with plunder to their heart’s content and returned to camp with great joy.156 The Franks remained in Tortosa throughout the siege of Arqa. Meantime, the Muslim ruler of the neighboring port city of Marcalea (Maraqiyah, north of Tortosa) made a pact with the Franks, admitted them into his city, and let them raise their banners over its walls.157 The capture of this port made it easier for the Franks to receive supplies of grain, wine, barley, pork and other marketable goods carried by their ships from Antioch and Latakia, as well as the Venetian and Greek (Byzantine) vessels anchored at these ports.158 Several events during the siege of Arqa had an effect on the Crusader princes’ strategy and their relations with Emperor Alexius, the Muslim lords of Tripoli, and the Fatimids of Egypt. One such event was a revival of the controversy over the Holy Lance, which had begun in Antioch. The debate was rekindled at Arqa, perhaps to reinvigorate the Franks’ spirits and convince them not to give up on capturing a city that had thus far defied them. Peter Bartholomew, soon to die after his ordeal by fire, reported a new vision, whose intent was to convince the Crusaders they could easily capture Arqa if they believed they could, but which created a rift between Raymond of Saint-Gilles and the other Frankish leaders. While Raymond was marching through the interior of Syria, Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, and Bohemond had stayed in Antioch. Later, following Raymond’s route, they came to Latakia; then Bohemond left them and went back to Antioch, where he had already established a principality. Godfrey and Robert of Flanders then marched against Jabala, to which they laid siege on March 2. Jabala was nominally under the jurisdiction of Ibn Ammar, lord of Tripoli, but al-Qadi Abu Mahmud ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Mansur had wrested it from him and ruled it independently. While Raymond of Saint-Gilles was besieging Arqa, rumors spread through the Franks’ camp that the Abbasid Caliph 156 Gesta Francorum, 84; Tudebode, Historia, 107; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 88; William of Tyre, History, 1: 319–320. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 119–120, says that by deserting their city the inhabitants of Tortosa fulfilled the Scripture: “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath he will give for his life” (Job 2:4). 157 Gesta Francorum, 94; Tudebode, Historia, 107; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 163, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 147. 158 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 88.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

417

al-Mustazhir (1094–1118), whom Raymond of Aguilers calls “The Pope of the Turks,” was on his way with a great army to fight them. On hearing this, Raymond put his army on alert, took counsel with his men, and on March 9 sent the bishop of Albara (al-Bara) to summon “those of our leaders who are besieging Gibellum (Jabala)” to come to his aid.159 Three days later, Godfrey and Robert of Flanders lifted the siege of Jabala and rushed to Raymond’s aid, after ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Mansur agreed to give them money and horses.160 On reaching Arqa, they discovered the rumor was false, apparently concocted by the Muslims to frighten the Franks and relieve the siege of Jabala.161 Naturally, Raymond’s opponents accused him of having accepted bribes by the Muslims to spread the rumor.162 Still, he managed to mollify Godfrey and Robert of Flanders, who camped on the other side of the Orontes and took part in the siege of Arqa.163 Raymond of Aguilers reports that when the armies of Godfrey and Robert of Flanders joined that of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Raymond’s entourage boasted of their Arabian horses and the riches bestowed upon them by God in Muslim lands. Yet some of his men claimed they were not rich but poverty-stricken. So it was decided to apportion the spoils of war to different groups. One-fourth was given to the priests for their religious work, one-fourth to the Bishop of Albara, and half to Peter the Hermit, the authorized custodian of the poor, from which he gave shares to the clergy and the poor. Because of their wisdom in dividing the spoils, God blessed the Franks by multiplying the number of horses, camels, and other necessities, much to the soldiers’ amazement. But this sudden wealth created contention and even arrogance among the leaders, leading some devout Christians in the armies to long for poverty rather than transitory wealth.164 The contention among the Franks’ leaders is clear evidence of a power struggle. Runciman says that Raymond of Saint-Gilles resented the arrival of Godfrey and the others, for to this point he had been recognized as the Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 90. Gesta Francorum, 84, reports the Muslim force’s approach but does not mention “the Pope of the Turks.” See Hill and Hill, 119–120. 160 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 453; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 231. 161 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 90. 162 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 453–456. 163 M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, L. J. Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Croft, 1928), 95. 164 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 90–91. 159

418

THE CRUSADES

undisputed leader of the Crusade. At Arqa his leadership was threatened by Godfrey, who was supported by Tancred, Robert of Flanders, and Robert of Normandy. The result was a rift within the crusading armies.165 Raymond of Aguilers says that because of the new wealth won at Jabala, “each one of the Frankish princes dispatched letters to the Muslim cities stating that he was the lord of the Crusaders.”166 Albert of Aachen says that Tancred, who earlier had accepted money in exchange for his support, abandoned Raymond for Godfrey after he failed to pay him and his men the sum promised.167 This is unlikely, says Robert L. Nicholson, for Raymond, an astute warrior, already was aware of Tancred’s enmity toward Godfrey and Robert of Flanders, and his plan was to keep the three from uniting in a common front against him.168 It may very well be that when he learned no Muslim army was coming to fight the Franks at Arqa, Godfrey became angry with Raymond of Saint-Gilles because by abandoning the siege of Jabala, he had lost a chance to establish a principality for himself.169 Raymond of Aguilers says succinctly that Tancred, who had accepted money and horses from Raymond of Saint-Gilles, now wished to join the forces of Godfrey. So he and Raymond quarreled, and finally “Tancred wickedly deserted the Count.”170 Adding to the tumultuous situation at this time was the return of the Frankish envoys who had been sent to the Fatimids in Cairo during the siege of Antioch a year earlier. Having already retaken Jerusalem from the Turks, the Fatimids, imagining they were acting magnanimously, sent the envoys back to Arqa and invited the Franks to come to Jerusalem in small groups, two or three hundred at a time. The Crusaders rejected this offer, considering it an insult, and decided to march to Jerusalem as one united host.171 Clearly the Fatimids did not realize that the Crusaders’ ultimate goal was to capture Jerusalem. Although the Crusaders had destroyed the power of their enemies the Seljuks, in their view they themselves had achieved a great success by recapturing Jerusalem. Ibn al-Athir, who understood the Fatimids’ motivation, unhesitatingly accuses them of having invited the Crusaders to come to Bilad al-Sham (Syria) in order to create a buffer zone 165 Runciman,

A History of The Crusades, 1: 271–272. of Aguilers, Historia, 91. 167 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 454–455, 471. 168 Nicholson, Tancred, 82, n. 2. 169 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 136–137. 170 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 92. 171 William of Tyre, History, 1: 326. 166 Raymond

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

419

between themselves and the Turks.172 The fifteenth-century Egyptian chronicler Abu al-Mahasin ibn Taghri Birdi (d. 1469) voices disbelief at the attitude of the Fatimids, who did not join with other Muslim forces to defend Antioch against the Franks, though clearly they had the money and men to do so. Likewise, he cannot understand why the Fatimids did not rush to defend Syria when the Franks fought the Muslims there.173 The Fatimids’ inaction was motivated by their belief that Arabs, not Turks, should dominate the East, and may also have been a manifestation of Shi’ite vengeance against the Sunnite Turks.174 Although the Franks rejected the Fatimids’ invitation to go to Jerusalem in small groups, they did not reveal that Jerusalem was their ultimate objective. They continued to exchange embassies with them and assure them of their willingness to support them against their common enemy, the Turks.175 The conflict between Raymond of Saint-Gilles and the other Frankish leaders was intensified by the arrival of emissaries from Emperor Alexius at the Crusaders’ camp, perhaps on April 10 or 11, 1099. They came partly to protest Bohemond’s possession of Antioch, contrary to the oath he had sworn in 1097 at Constantinople, adding that the emperor was ready to offer the Crusaders large amounts of gold and silver if they would wait until the feast of Saint John, so that he could join them on the journey to Jerusalem. Raymond of Saint-Gilles and many of his men wanted to accept the offer and delay the march, believing the emperor’s presence would unite the armies and assure trade by land and sea. The Crusaders also felt that under his leadership they would reach Jerusalem much more quickly, and thus would have the chance to return home as soon as they laid eyes on the city. Raymond urged that, considering the perils confronting the army, they should step up the siege of Arqa so that in a month the city would capitulate; if they abandoned the siege, they would be the object of mockery.176 Chalandon and Grousset speculate that Raymond welcomed the emperor’s offer of assistance because he thought it would strengthen his leadership

Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 191. Birdi, al-Nujum al-Zahira, 482, 484; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 234–235. 174 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 144–145. 175 William of Tyre, History, 1: 326. 176 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 105–106. William of Tyre, History, 1: 326– 327, mentions the emperor’s embassy but does not give the same particulars. See Hill and Hill, 121–122, and Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 272. 172

173 Taghri

420

THE CRUSADES

among the Franks and enable him to fulfill his aspiration to establish a principality of his own, to include Arqa and Antartus (Tortosa).177 The other Frankish leaders acknowledged their oath to the emperor but rejected his offer. They accused him of being first to violate the terms of the agreement, saying he had consistently harmed them and plotted against them. They argued that according to the agreement, he should have assembled his troops and come to their aid immediately. He had also promised to give them the opportunity to trade with vessels coming by sea, and to supply them with sufficient food and provisions for their march to Jerusalem. But he had procrastinated and therefore should suffer the loss of whatever might be due him. Thus, the Franks were not obliged to return to him any liberated city.178 These leaders may have thought that Emperor Alexius was favoring Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who was on good terms with him, at their expense. They may also have resented the fact that they could have marched on to Jerusalem instead of spending so much time at a small place like Arqa, vainly awaiting the arrival of the emperor’s assistance.179 The emperor’s envoys tried to persuade the Franks not to march to Jerusalem but to await his arrival in July. They promised plenty of gifts to each of the Frankish leaders and liberal wages for the people to support themselves. At this point the leaders convened to study the matter, but the conference was faced with an impasse. Raymond of Saint-Gilles argued it was to their advantage to wait for the emperor, but it is not clear whether he sincerely believed this or simply hoped to detain the leaders and the army until he could conclude the siege of Arqa. William of Tyre says he may have felt that failing to capture Arqa would cast a shadow of disgrace and ignominy upon him. The other leaders felt it would be wiser to resume the march without delay to achieve their main objective, liberating Jerusalem. They also preferred to avoid “the tricks and subtle words of the emperor, which they had so often experienced, rather than to involve themselves anew in the labyrinth of his shrewd evasion, from which they might find it difficult to extricate themselves.”180 Obviously, those leaders who did not agree with Raymond of Saint-Gilles had been distrustful of Emperor 177 F. Chalandon, Essai sur la règne d’Alexis Comnène 1081–1118 (Paris: A. Picard, 1900), 214–215; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 138. 178 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 106; William of Tyre, History, 1: 327. 179 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 3: 683; Nicholson, Tancred, 83. 180 William of Tyre, History, 1: 328.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

421

Alexius since they met with him in Constantinople in 1097, but Raymond was determined to honor the oath to the emperor and rely on his good will. Although the Franks were suspicious of the emperor’s intentions, he had every right to be suspicious as well. After all, he had had a bad experience with Bohemond, who instead of returning Antioch to him had claimed it for himself. In the end, nothing seems to have come of the leaders’ conference. Their deep disagreements and differing objectives made it impossible to bring them into harmony.181 Raymond of Aguilers says that because of this impasse, the Franks proclaimed a period of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, hoping God would intervene and resolve the issue. As he often does, Raymond reports celestial visions at Arqa similar to those about the Holy Lance at Antioch, evidently intended to help the Crusaders lift the siege of Arqa and resume the march to Jerusalem. He says Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy appeared to Stephen of Valence and rebuked him for frequently ignoring his visions of the Lord of the Cross and of the Virgin Mary. Without the cross, said Adhémar, you will have no wisdom. Asked where the Virgin Mary was, Adhémar revealed her in wondrous form, standing nine feet from him along with Saint Agatha.182 Stephen told Adhémar there were rumors in the camp that his hair and beard had been burned in hell, and asked him for some candles to take to Raymond of Saint-Gilles. The next day Stephen asked about the lance, and when he saw it in Raymond’s possession, he broke into tears and began to describe Adhémar’s visit. Raymond, touched by Stephen’s story, sent him to the bishop’s brother, William Hugh of Monteil, in Latakia, where Adhémar had left the cross he carried into battle. Raymond of Aguilers then connects this vision with that of Peter Bartholomew, who at Arqa summoned Raymond of Saint-Gilles and the other leaders to tell them, before he departed this life, that he had not fabricated his vision of the Holy Lance in Antioch. Nevertheless, Peter’s testimony remained a subject of controversy among the leaders of the Franks.183 Raymond of Aguilers digresses here to describe the sad condition of the Syrian Maronites, who for four hundred years had been persecuted by the Muslims, suffering horrendous atrocities. He says the Muslims murWilliam of Tyre, History, 1: 328; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 118. West Haddan, “Agatha,” in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, William Smith and Henry Wace, eds. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1877): 58–59, identifies Agatha as a virgin martyred at Catania, Sicily on February 5, 251, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Decius. 183 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 108. 181

182 Arthur

422

THE CRUSADES

dered their men and abused the mothers and children, whom they snatched from their arms. They tore down churches and built mosques on their sites, smashed icons, and used sacred statues as targets for their arrows. One of the most egregious examples of Muslim persecution, he says, was their putting Syrian children in brothels and exchanging their sisters for wine for lewd purposes.184 Raymond of Saint-Gilles summoned these Maronites and asked them for the best route to Jerusalem. They gave him several choices, including the road to Damascus, the road through the mountains of Lebanon, and still another road skirting the sea. Then they cited the apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, which they said described not only the choice of routes but past acts and the results of future actions, and told him that the one destined to capture Jerusalem should take the seacoast route, although it was hazardous.185 When Raymond of Saint-Gilles saw the Cross brought from Latakia by William Hugh of Monteil, he broke down in tears and began to abase himself for having been so intent on capturing Arqa that he asked the other leaders to besiege the city.186 But he was comforted by another vision, related by Raymond of Aguilers, in which Saint Andrew appeared to Peter Desiderius and told him to instruct Raymond of Saint-Gilles not to worry about the unfinished siege of Arqa, because God would soon give him Jerusalem, Alexandria and Babylon (Cairo). Otherwise, he would not receive God’s rewards. But Raymond gave only lip-service to the words of Peter Desiderius and continued to heap invective on his comrades. He even denied them the riches he had acquired from the ruler of Tripoli.187 The accounts of these visions presented by Raymond of Aguilers seem fanciful; perhaps they were a response to propaganda later summarized by Ralph of Caen, who exhibits a strong Norman prejudice in his account of the feuds between them and the Provençals.188 The tears of Raymond of Saint-Gilles availed him naught, for on March 13, 1099, Godfrey, who was anxious to go to Jerusalem, lifted the siege of Arqa and marched to Tripoli.189 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 108–109; William of Tyre, History, 1: 330. Hill and Hill, eds., Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 110, n. 8, cite Clemens Klein, Raimund von Aguilers Quellenstudie zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Berlin, 1982), 72–75, regarding the Gospel of St. Peter. 186 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 110. 187 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 111. 188 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 682; Hill and Hill, 125. 189 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 110; William of Tyre, History, 1: 328; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 166, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 149. 184 185

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

423

At about this time, the English and Genoese ships that had docked at the Syrian ports of Antioch and Latakia proved helpful to the Franks by assuring them of commerce with Cyprus and other islands. These ships sailed back and forth daily to intimidate the Muslims and make Greek shipping safe. Raymond of Aguilers says that when the English sailors saw the Franks depart for Jerusalem, they deserted their ships, whose wood rotted, while others burned their boats and joined the Crusaders’ march to Jerusalem.190 Another significant event during the siege of Arqa involved relations between the Franks and Ibn Ammar, the lord of Tripoli. Before the Franks besieged Arqa, Fakhr al-Mulk Ibn Ammar had sought to enter into an agreement with Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who refused to make peace unless Ibn Ammar embraced Christianity. Evidently there was a skirmish between the Franks and Ibn Ammar while the dispute between the leaders was going on.191 Raymond of Aguilers says the ruler of Tripoli, having heard about the dissension among the Frankish leaders, began to mock them, saying, “Who are these Franks? What about their knights? How powerful are they? The Frankish army has laid siege to Arqa for three months, and I have not experienced an attack nor seen a single armed man . . . Why should I pay tribute to unseen faces and unknown might?”192 When the Franks’ leaders received his response, they chided themselves for their unwarranted dissension. They believed he had shown contempt not only for them but for God. The leaders had no choice but to fight. They left the Bishop of Albara in charge of their camp while they marched against Tripoli. The citizens came out to fight but were badly defeated by the Franks; some fled, but many others were killed. Raymond of Aguilers says that the massacre was so fierce that “the swirling waters of the aqueduct tumbled the headless bodies of nobles and rabble into Tripoli.”193 The Gesta Francorum says the slaughter of the pagans and the bloodshed was so great that the stream which flowed into the city turned red.194

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 113. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 104, places the skirmish almost at the end of the siege; the Gesta Francorum, 85, puts it near the start of the siege on February 14. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie de la première croisade,” 366, 370, follows Raymond of Aguilers and gives the date of the skirmish as April 18, 1099. 192 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 104. 193 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 104. 194 Gesta Francorum, 85. 190 191

424

THE CRUSADES

The ruler of Tripoli finally realized that he had to make peace with the Franks. He sent several messengers to ask them to end the siege of Arqa and reach an agreement with him. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey, Robert of Normandy, and Robert of Flanders, seeing that the harvest season had come, took counsel and decided to lift the siege and move on to Jerusalem. Ibn Ammar promised to give them 15,000 gold pieces (bezants) and fifteen expensive horses, and to offer an abundant supply of horses, asses, mules, clothing, and other provisions in an open market. In addition, he agreed to release all the Christian captives if the leaders would abandon the siege of Arqa. The Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode say he also promised to embrace Christianity if they defeated the Fatimids and captured Jerusalem.195 The Franks in return agreed to spare not only Arqa but Jubayl and Tripoli, which were under his rule.196 The Frankish leaders and the ruler of Tripoli finally came to terms; on May 13, 1099, after besieging Arqa unsuccessfully for four months, they departed for Tripoli.197 Raymond of Saint-Gilles had to follow, much against his will. All his schemes and efforts to keep up the siege of Arqa and capture it were in vain.198 Unlike Bohemond, who had fulfilled his ambition by setting up his principality in Antioch, Raymond failed to establish his principality, which was to include Arqa and Tortosa. After staying a few days in Tripoli, the Crusaders left it on May 16, 1099, guided by some natives who showed them the way. Passing along a narrow, steep path, they reached al-Batrun and then Jubayl, where they suffered from thirst. But they were revived when they reached the river called Nahr Ibrahim (‘Braym’ in the Gesta Francorum and Guibert of Nogent). On Ascension Day they marched on. Reaching a point where the path was very narrow, they expected to find enemies lying in ambush, but were fortunate that nothing of the sort happened. Frankish knights went ahead of the army to clear the way until they reached Beirut, whose governor offered them money and a handsome store of provisions. The people agreed to submit to the Franks’ authority if they captured Jerusalem, and the Franks in turn

195 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 105; Gesta Francorum, 85–86; Tudebode, Historia, 110. 196 Guibert of Nogent, Historia, 124–125; William of Tyre, History, 1: 330. 197 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 197; Bar Hebraeus,Chronography, 82 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation. 198 W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 32.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

425

vowed to protect the Arabs’ orchards, vineyards, and granaries.199 On May 20 they reached Sidon (called Sagitta by the Gesta Francorum, and Sarepta by Guibert of Nogent), whose governor for no obvious reason began to harass them. The Franks overwhelmed their assailants and killed some, losing only Walter de Verra, who went out to plunder but did not return, causing his comrades much grief.200 On May 23 the Crusaders passed by Sarafand and Tyre, where they made camp, then marched along the seacoast route to Acre (Akka), whose governor offered them gifts and provided them with a market on favorable terms. He also made an agreement that if they defeated the Fatimids and took Jerusalem, he would surrender Acre to them.201 From Acre the Crusaders went to Mount Carmel and the sea, with Galilee on the left, until they came to Caesarea, where they celebrated Whitsunday on May 30.202 The festivities, however, did not soften the tense relations between the leaders, for Godfrey and Robert of Flanders camped at a distance from Raymond of Saint-Gilles.203 The Crusaders resumed their tedious march, with the coastal cities of Acre and Joppa (Yafa) on the right, and traversed an extensive plain until they came to Lydda (present-day Ludd), in whose church, which had been built by the Byzantines, the remains of St. George the Martyr were entombed.204 Relying as he often does on the intercession of saints, Raymond of Aguilers says the Crusaders felt that Saint George would be their intercessor with God and be their faithful leader through his dwelling place.205 The Crusaders met to choose a bishop, Robert the Norman, born in the bishopric of Rouen, who was charged with rebuilding the church. They gave the new bishop one-tenth of the gold, silver, horses, and other animals, so that he and those who remained with him could live in an honorable and religious manner.206 199 Gesta Francorum, 86; Tudebode, Historia, 110; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 458; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 125. 200 William of Tyre, History, 1: 331. 201 William of Tyre, History, 1: 332. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 198, says the Franks besieged Acre but did not capture it. 202 Gesta Francorum, 87. William of Tyre, History, 1: 332, says they celebrated the holy day of Pentecost on May 29; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 124–125. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 169, gives the date as June 6, but Forester, n. 2, says Jerusalem was invested on June 7. 203 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 460–461. 204 Gesta Francorum, 87; Tudebode, Historia, 111; William of Tyre, History, 1: 332. 205 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 115. 206 Gesta Francorum, 87; Tudebode, Historia, 111; William of Tyre, History, 1: 333;

426

THE CRUSADES

Then the Crusaders marched again, and on June 2, 1099 they attacked Ramla. Preparing to storm the city, they sent Robert of Flanders with 500 knights to ascertain the inhabitants’ attitude and plans. When they drew near the city, no one came out to meet them. Finding the gates wide open, they entered; the people had abandoned the city, leaving behind their arms as well as much grain in the field and harvested crops.207 Robert of Flanders sent a message urging the other leaders to rush and capture Ramla, which they did. On June 6, the Crusaders reached the small town of Emmaus, near Jerusalem.208 When the Greek and Syrian inhabitants of Jerusalem and Bethlehem heard that the Crusaders were approaching, they sent messengers asking them to rush to their rescue because the Fatimids of Egypt, who in the summer of 1098 had wrested Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks, had charged them with treason and planned to take revenge on them for inviting the Crusaders. Godfrey responded by sending Tancred and Baldwin of Le Bourg with a hundred knights; they arrived in Bethlehem on June 7 and were received with joy by the inhabitants, who carried crosses and banners to greet them.209 Fulcher of Chartres says that on seeing them, the townspeople wept and sang songs of devotion. They wept because they feared so small a number of Crusaders could be overwhelmed by the hordes of Muslims; they sang to welcome those whose arrival they had long desired, feeling they would restore the Christian faith, long abused by the heathens, to dignity.210 William of Tyre adds that amid enthusiastic rejoicing and to the accompaniment of psalms and votive hymns, the citizens of Bethlehem raised Tancred’s standard over the Church of the Nativity in sign of victory.211 Knowing that the Fatimids intended to fight them, the Crusaders had complete faith that they would conquer the kingdom of Egypt and cap-

Porges, “The Clergy,” 20. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 125, does not mention the bishop’s name. 207 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 114–115; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 460–461; William of Tyre, History, 1: 332–333; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 125; Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders,” 96. 208 William of Tyre, History, 1: 335. 209 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 462; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 115; William of Tyre, History, 1: 336; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 683; Von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs, 405; Kugler, Albert von Aachen, 198; Nicholson, Tancred, 85. 210 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 116–117. 211 William of Tyre, History, 1: 336.

THE HOLY LANCE AND THE MARCH TO JERUSALEM

427

ture not only Jerusalem but the Egyptian cities of Alexandria and Cairo.212 After offering prayers and supplication at the Basilica of the Virgin Mary, visiting the place of Christ’s birth, and giving the kiss of peace to the Syrians, the legions of the Christian army camped before the city of Jerusalem on the morning of Tuesday June, 7, 1099.213

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 115. (He calls Cairo ‘Babylon’.) Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 116; William of Malmesbury, History, 440. Gesta Francorum, 87, n. 3, and Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 126, give the date as June 6, but in 1099 June 7 was actually a Tuesday. See William of Tyre, History, 1: 348. 212 213

13 JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND CONFLICT Jerusalem was the ultimate goal of the Crusaders. Guibert of Nogent called it the place “which had provoked so many hardships for them, which had brought upon them so much thirst and hunger . . . which kept them sleepless, cold, ceaselessly frightened . . . the most intensely pleasurable place which had been the goal of the wretchedness they had undergone, and which had lured them to seek death and wounds.”1 Thus, it is hardly surprising that when the Crusaders reached the spot where the towers of Jerusalem could be seen, they stopped and wept with joy. They fell on their knees, worshiping God and kissing the holy ground. All proceeded with bare feet except those who were fully armed as a necessary precaution against the enemy.2 Jerusalem was ruled by the Fatimid governor Iftikhar al-Dawla.3 Realizing that the Crusaders were determined to capture the city, he had strengthened its fortifications, ordered dirt and all sorts of refuse thrown into the water wells, destroyed the cisterns, choked the flow of springs, stripped the countryside of provisions, and expelled all the Christians from Jerusalem.4 Indeed, the Muslims had persecuted the native Christian inhabiGuibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks, trans. R. Levine (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), 126. 2 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968), 116; Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 169; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 157. 3 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 198; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 82 of the Syriac text, 235 of the English translation. 4 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 116, n. 1, and 118; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New 1

429

430

THE CRUSADES

tants of Jerusalem since the Latins came to Syria (1097), and particularly after they captured Antioch and began marching toward Jerusalem. The Muslims distrusted them thoroughly, believing that through messengers and letters, they had invited the princes of the West to come and destroy them. They therefore abused the Christians of Jerusalem and slaughtered many of them for the most trivial offenses, regardless of age or sex, so that the population of Jerusalem was greatly reduced before the Crusaders arrived there.5 The Crusaders had also to meet a formidable Muslim force. In Jerusalem there were 40,000 well-equipped Muslim warriors, as well as other fighting men who had flocked there from the countryside and the neighboring fortresses, bringing with them supplies of food, arms, and reinforcements. The number of Crusaders of both sexes and varying age and condition is said to have been about 40,000, but there could not have been more than 20,000 foot soldiers and 1,500 knights capable of fighting.6 Since a total siege of Jerusalem was not feasible, the Crusaders selected the most suitable places from which to storm the city. The Latin sources disagree about their positions. The Gesta Francorum says Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders took positions on the north, next to the church of the Protomartyr St. Stephen, while Godfrey and Tancred besieged the city from the west.7 Ralph of Caen reports that Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders encamped opposite the Gate of St. Stephen, with Tancred to their right.8 Raymond of Aguilers says Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, and Robert of Normandy camped to the north.9 Peter Tudebode says that Godfrey, Robert of Flanders and Tancred encamped to the west.10 Raymond of Saint-Gilles took his position to the south on Mount Zion, York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 352. 5 William of Tyre, History, 1: 507; Joshua Prawer, “The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem,” Speculum 27 (1952): 492, and n. 12. 6 William of Tyre, History, 1: 349. 7 Gesta Francorum, 87. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 169, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 157, also says that Godfrey and Tancred besieged the city from the west. 8 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis, R. H. C. Occ. 3 (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866), 687. See R. L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (New York: AMS Press, 1978), 87, n. 1. 9 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 116. 10 Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974), 112, with n. 3.

JERUSALEM

431

next to the Church of the Blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord.11 The Franks did not invest the city from the eastern side, because a ravine between Godfrey’s camp and the city walls prevented an approach and led Godfrey to change the location of his camp.12 Scarcely half the city was enclosed by the siege lines. From the north Gate of St. Stephen to the tower overlooking the valley of Jehoshaphat, and from that tower to the south gate, called the Gate of Mount Zion, the city remained unblocked.13 Ordericus Vitalis says Cosan, a noble and powerful chief of Turkish descent, freely offered his services to the Christians. Cosan had become a true believer in Christ and intended to be reborn by receiving holy baptism. He not only aided the Crusaders in various ways to capture Jerusalem, but also did his utmost to secure for them the dominion of Palestine and the capital of the kingdom of David.14 The identity of this Cosan, not mentioned by other sources, remains a mystery, since Ordericus Vitalis says nothing more about him. Although the Crusaders’ camps included a multitude of helpless, sick, and feeble people, and although their siege did not cover all of Jerusalem, they were determined to fight. After all, they had come for one reason, to liberate the Holy Sepulcher from the hands of the Muslims. Thus, on June 9–10, Raymond of Pilet, Raymond of Turenne, and others went out to fight. They encountered a hundred Arabs whom they attacked and defeated, killing many and capturing thirty of their horses.15 Raymond of Aguilers relates that on June 12, 1099, a hermit stood on the Mount of Olives and told the Crusaders that the Lord would deliver Jerusalem to them if they Gesta Francorum, 87; Tudebode, Historia, 112; Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 120; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 687. For more on the disposition of the Crusaders’ forces, see William of Tyre, History, 1: 349–350, and M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, Louis J. Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Croft, 1928), 96. 12 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 116; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 687. 13 William of Tyre, History, 1: 350. 14 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 170–171, trans. Chibnall, 5: 159. 15 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 120; Gesta Francorum, 88, Tudebode, Historia, 112–113, and Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 126, put the number of Arabs at 200 men. 11

432

THE CRUSADES

stormed it the next day until the ninth hour. The Crusading leaders replied that they did not have any siege machinery. The hermit said that God is omnipotent, and if He willed it, they could scale the wall with one ladder. God is with those who work for the truth.16 The next day, the Crusaders assaulted the city with great vigor and were about to capture it but failed because they were short of ladders.17 Their immediate concern was finding sufficient material to build ladders and engines of war. They were fortunate to find in their camp a Syrian Christian who guided Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and a band of knights and foot soldiers four to seven miles from Jerusalem, to a valley full of tall trees. Suitable trees were transported by camels to the Crusaders’ camp, and the craftsmen began to make hurling machines, battering rams, and other necessary machines to allow them to overwhelm the walls.18 Despite their failure to capture Jerusalem at once, the Crusaders persisted in their siege. But they had not only to challenge the Fatimid force in the city, but to cope with hunger and thirst. For ten days they could not buy bread. They were relieved when a messenger on June 17 told them that six ships had arrived in the deserted port of Jaffa.19 Two were Genoese, under the brothers Embriaco, and the others probably from the English fleet. The ships, carrying provisions, armaments and workers skilled in building engines of war, revived the Crusaders’ damp spirits.20 The leaders met and 16 17

126.

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 117. Gesta Francorum, 88; Tudebode, Historia, 113; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds,

18 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Emendatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae, R. H. C. Occ. 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1867), 467–468. Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 689, and William of Tyre, History, 1: 351, give the impression that all the leaders were involved in the search for materials; see Charles Wendell David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Harvard Historical Studies 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920), 113. On the war engines the Crusaders used, see William B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 34, and Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 1: 135. 19 Gesta Francorum, 88; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 119; William of Tyre, History, 1: 355–356. 20 F. Chalandon, Histoire de la Première Croisade jusqu’ àl’Election de Godefroi de Bouillon (Paris: A. Picard, 1935), 269–271; Wilhelm Heyd, Geschichte des Levantehandels im Mittelalter, 1 (Stuttgart, 1879): 149; Stevenson, Crusaders, 34, and “The First Crusade,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 295–296; J. H. Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse: Syracuse Uni-

JERUSALEM

433

decided to send knights to guide the sailors to the Crusaders’ camp. Raymond of Saint-Gilles sent two groups from his army, one under Galdemar Carpinel with twenty knights and some fifty foot soldiers, and another fifty knights under the command of Raymond of Pilet and William of Sabran.21 When the group under Galdemar reached Lydda and Ramla, they encountered a Muslim force of 600 men and, despite being outnumbered, fell upon them and killed 200, forcing the rest to flee, and seizing over 100 horses. The Christians lost four knights, as well as Gilbert of Trèves and Achard (Aicard) of Montmerle, much to the leaders’ sorrow.22 After overwhelming the Muslims, the Crusaders proceeded to Jaffa. The sailors greeted them with joy and shared refreshments of bread, wine and fish, unaware of impending danger. As they were preparing to depart, an Egyptian fleet suddenly appeared one night before Jaffa. At daybreak, the Crusaders saw they had no chance against a superior force and returned to Jerusalem; the sailors had to dismantle their vessels and carry the sails, ropes, and other equipment to the Crusaders’ tents. When one ship that had been on a plundering mission returned laden with spoils and the crew saw that the Muslims already controlled the port of Jaffa, they changed course and sailed to Laodicea. Raymond of Aguilers says this misfortune occurred because the Crusaders lost faith in God’s message and abandoned hope of His mercy. Some of them, who had bathed in the Jordan and hope to sail home with the Genoese sailors, were forced to stay and rejoin the rest of the Crusaders.23 About this time, perhaps in the first part of July, a meeting was held to discuss the quarrels among the leaders, because Tancred had seized Bethlehem and raised his banner over the Lord’s birthplace as if over a temporal possession. The campaign against Tancred was probably led by Raymond versity Press, 1962), 129; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 282. 21 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 119; William of Tyre, History, 1: 356; Tudebode, Historia, 113. The Gesta Francorum, 88–89, does not mention Galdemar Carpinel. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 127, refers to the mission but gives no names. See Nicholson, Tancred, 120. 22 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 119–120; Gesta Francorum, 89; Tudebode, Historia, 113–114. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 128, says the Crusaders spared one man, from whom they learned all that the Fatimids were planning against them. Only William of Tyre, History, 1: 356, lists Gilbert of Trèves among the dead. 23 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 120–121; William of Tyre, History, 1: 357; Hill and Hill, 129.

434

THE CRUSADES

of Saint-Gilles, who had never been on good terms with him.24 Albert of Aachen, who follows Raymond of Aguilers, indicates that their quarrel was not new, and that Peter the Hermit and the priest Arnulf of Rohes had already tried to convince them to reconcile.25 The leaders also discussed at this meeting the choice of one of them to rule Jerusalem, should it be delivered to their hands. But the bishops and clergy objected that it was wrong to elect a king where the Lord had suffered and was crowned, preferring to wait until eight days after the city’s capture, and the issue was left unresolved.26 Once again Raymond of Aguilers mentions a vision; this time Peter Desiderius, the priest who had taken the place of Peter Bartholomew, saw Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, who instructed him to command the princes and the people to free themselves from the filthy world of sin by fasting and walking barefoot in a circle around Jerusalem. Count Isoard and William Hugh of Monteil, Adhémar’s brother, convened a general assembly and reported the heavenly vision. July 8 was set as the date for a religious procession, to be led by clergymen with crosses and relics of saints, accompanied by the blare of trumpets and brandishing of arms. The Crusaders marched to the Mount of Olives, the site of Christ’s ascension after the resurrection, and implored God, who had gloriously and marvelously brought them so far in quest of the Holy Sepulcher, not to abandon them. God was now on their side, their bad luck had turned to good, and all was going well. The bishops recalled that at Jericho, which the Israelites had walked around seven times, the walls came tumbling down. The Christians came to the Church of Saint Stephen and took their stations. While they were circling Jerusalem and supplicating God, the Muslims at the top of the walls jeered and blasphemed, placing crosses on yoked gibbets along the walkways. But the Crusaders, paying no attention to this abuse, pressed forward until preparations for the assault were completed.27 Peter Tudebode, who took part in the procession, says the Muslims had made a wooden cross similar to that on which Christ was crucified and then, in plain view, beat on it with sticks and smashed it against the walls, 24 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 121; Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs (Dusseldorf, 1841), 410. 25 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 470–471, 482–483; Nicholson, Tancred, 90. 26 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 121. 27 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 122–123; Gesta Francorum, 90; Tudebode, Historia, 115–116; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 129.

JERUSALEM

435

shouting, “Frango agip salip!” (Franks, is this a wondrous cross?) The Christians, distressed at what they had seen, continued their procession and prayer and reached the Church of the Mount of Olives, where the priest Arnulf delivered a sermon. Although threatened by the Muslims there, they continued their march to the Monastery of the Blessed Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, then returned to the Mount of Olives, and as they entered the church, a clerk was struck on the forehead and died instantly.28 William of Tyre reports that the infidels had set upon the walls crosses which they spat upon and abused in other ways: “with brazen insolence they kept pouring forth blasphemous words and taunts against our Lord Jesus Christ and His doctrine of salvation.”29 Hill and Hill express utter amazement that the Muslims could have stood at the top of the walls, in a perfect position to shower the barefooted Crusaders with arrows, yet did not budge or fight.30 During the siege the Crusaders, suffering from thirst, had to make waterskins from the hides of oxen and buffaloes and then travel six miles to fill them, because the Muslims had already polluted the water wells and blocked springs in and around the city. The Pool of Siloam, at the foot of Mount Zion, sustained them for a while, but they had to pay dearly for the water. The Muslims, lying in ambush around all the fountains and wells, slaughtered anyone they could find and drove the animals they captured into caves and hiding-places in the rocks.31 Despite these hardships the Crusaders pressed on with the preparation for the final assault against Jerusalem. Godfrey and Robert of Normandy entrusted supervision of the work to Gaston of Béarn, an able and honest man who instituted a division of labor to speed up the work while the leaders kept busy hauling wooden materials.32 Raymond of Aguilers put William Ricau (William Embriaco), the commander of a Genoese galley, in charge of a similar operation on Mount Zion, and assigned the Bishop of Albara the responsibility of getting workmen and Muslim captives to haul timber, with which the Crusaders built two siege-towers and other machines.33

Tudebode, Historia, 115–116, and n. 16. William of Tyre, History, 1: 359. 30 Hill and Hill, 130. 31 Gesta Francorum, 89; Tudebode, Historia, 114–115; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 118, esp. n. 4; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 127–128. 32 On Gaston of Béarn, see Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 131; Hill and Hill, eds., Raymond of Aguilers, 123–124, n. 14; William of Tyre, History, 1: 357–358. 33 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 124–125; William of Tyre, History, 1: 358. 28 29

436

THE CRUSADES

Seeing that the Crusaders were busy bolstering their positions and building towers and war machines, the besieged Muslims within the city strengthened the weak spots of the walls, hoping to make any assault hopeless. Peter Tudebode says the Saracens sent someone to spy on the Crusaders’ construction projects. But when Greek and Syrian residents saw him, they cried in warning, “Ma te Christo caco Sarrazin.” (By Christ, this is an evil Saracen.) The Crusaders grabbed the spy and put him on a petrary (machine for hurling stones), intending to hurl him over the walls and into Jerusalem. But he was ejected with such force that his bones were broken before he touched the walls and he fell in pieces.34 When Godfrey, Robert of Normandy, and Robert of Flanders saw the Muslims’ buildup, they moved their towers and siege weapons northward to a position between the Church of St. Stephen and the valley of Jehoshaphat, much to the bewilderment of the enemy.35 Raymond of Aguilers gives two reasons for this action: the flat ground offered a better approach to the walls for the war machines, and the Muslims had left the remote northern area unfortified.36 Ralph of Caen reports that Tancred assisted Godfrey in moving the towers, and Tancred and Robert of Normandy operated the mangonels (manjaniqs), clearing the way for Godfrey’s tower to be moved close to the wall. Tancred and Count Eustace, Godfrey’s brother, went on a foraging expedition (July 10–13) to find food for the Crusaders. They got as far as Nabulus, which they occupied except for its well-defended citadel, and prepared to set the city on fire. But the other Crusaders restrained them and promised that if they succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, they would cede Nabulus to Tancred and Eustace.37 Raymond of Saint-Gilles labored for three days to fill the pit the Muslims had dug to prevent the Crusaders’ advance, then moved his wooden tower toward the wall. The Fatimid Iftikhar al-Dawla and his nephew (the emir Guinimond and his nephew Frigolind, according to Ordericus Vitalis) had by now retreated with their men to the Tower of David, halfway down the western wall, and up the hillside to the Jaffa Gate.38 The zero hour came on the dawn of July 14, 1099, when the Crusaders stormed Jerusalem. The Muslim force was estimated at 60,000, with the Tudebode, Historia, 117. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 471. 36 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 125. 37 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 692; Nicholson, Tancred, 91. 38 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 175, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 166–167. Chibnall, 166, n. 2, says the nephew of Iftikhar al-Dawla is a fictional character. On the location of the tower of David, see Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 179. 34 35

JERUSALEM

437

number of Crusaders at 12,000 including 1,300 knights.39 Both sides fought all day long with vigor, heroism, and desperation. The knights, led by Godfrey and Eustace, fought bravely on the siege-tower. The Muslims tried vainly to set fire to the towers as they were moved. As the towers were about to be pushed against the walls, “all the hellish din of battle broke loose.”40 The Muslims pelted the Crusaders with stones, arrows, flaming wood and straw, and threw mallets of wood wrapped with burning pitch, wax, sulphur, and rags on the war-machines. The combat continued until the next day as the Muslims showed incredible skill and courage in warfare. Raymond of Aguilers says two Muslim women tried to cast a spell on one of the Crusaders’ petraries, but it was broken when a stone from the petrary hurtled through the air, whistling, killing the two witches and three small girls nearby.41 The Crusaders, beginning to think it was impossible to breach the walls, met in council to discuss withdrawing the war machines, since many of them were badly burned. But an unidentified knight signaled with his shield from the Mount of Olives, urging Godfrey and the others to move forward. Given new hope, the leaders renewed their attack against the walls as others began to climb ladders and ropes. Raymond of Aguilers says a youth shot cotton-padded flaming arrows against the ramparts, which served the Muslims as an efficient defense against the wooden tower of Godfrey and the two Roberts. Godfrey immediately lowered the drawbridge that led to the tower, and the Crusaders poured through it into the stricken city. Other sources report that a youth named Lethold, Engelbert, and Bernard of Saint-Valeri managed to climb the wall and were closely followed by the knights of Christ, along with Godfrey and Eustace.42 When the Muslim defenders saw that the wall had been breached, they scurried away and scattered throughout Jerusalem. The entire Frankish army rushed in, some through breaches made by the battering rams, others by jumping from the tops of their machines. In their haste to gain the honor of being first to enter Jerusalem, they trampled one another, and Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 123. Gesta Francorum, 90; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 176–177; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 476–477; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 125. 41 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 126. 42 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 127; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 477; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 692–693; Gesta Francorum, 91; Tudebode, Historia, 118; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 130, calls the youth Lietaud. See Nicholson, Tancred, 94. 39 40

438

THE CRUSADES

some were injured as they tried to cross the hidden pits the Muslims had built near the city gates. Meanwhile, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, trying to bring his siege-tower and army from the south to a spot close to the wall, was stymied by a deep ditch the Muslims had dug. To get it filled, he promised a dinarius to every man who brought three stones. When the ditch was filled within three days, it was easy for him to move the siege-tower close to the wall. But the Muslims fought back with incredible courage, even shattering the upper part of the tower. Suddenly, Raymond saw three knights from Godfrey’s army approaching from the Mount of Olives, shouting that Godfrey and his men had already entered Jerusalem. Raymond shouted to his men, “Why are you so slow? Look! All the other Franks are in the city!” At once they raised their ladders, pushed them against the wall, and entered Jerusalem.43 Since the Fatimid commander Iftikhar al-Dawla still held the Tower of David, Raymond demanded that he surrender it. They finally reached agreement on this matter, and Iftikhar al-Dawla received safe conduct as far as Ascalon.44 Ordericus Vitalis reports an anecdote about the Christians of Jerusalem not related by other Latin sources. He says that when the Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians saw the Crusaders rush into the city, they all fled to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, chanting “Kyrie eleison”, awaiting the event’s outcome. Tancred, who had lost his way, by God’s will happened on the church with his force and learned that those in it were Christians. He warned his men, “These men are Christians, do not presume to do them any injury. We did not come here to harm the servants of Christ, but to free them from their persecutors. They are our brothers and friends, faithful up to now through many tribulations; they have been proved as gold in the furnace.” He left the commander of his troops, Bigod d’Igé (Ilger Bigod), with two hundred knights to guard the church and prevent the Muslims from taking possession of it.45 Gesta Francorum, 91; Tudebode, Historia, 118; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 127; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 130. 44 Tudebode, Historia, 119. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 483, accuses Raymond of Saint-Gilles of taking a bribe from Iftikhar al-Dawla in exchange for his release. Grousset, Histoire, 1: 160, rejects this charge, saying Raymond wanted at least partially to redeem his failures at Antioch and Ma’arrat al-Nu’man. He may have allowed Iftikhar al-Dawla to leave under safe conduct to limit the massacre of Muslims. See Nicholson, Tancred, 94–95, n. 3. 45 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 177–178, trans. Chibnall, 5: 169–171; Nicholson, Tancred, 95–96. 43

JERUSALEM

439

To escape massacre, many Muslims sought refuge in the Temple of Solomon, on whose site they had built al-Aqsa Mosque, and fought ferociously against the Franks throughout the day of July 15. A large group of Muslim men and women climbed to the top of the temple; Tancred and Gaston of Béarn gave them their standards, as a sign that peace had been granted to them. But the peace Tancred offered did not save them, for the next day some Crusaders, regretting the fact that they had permitted the Muslims to live, invaded the heights and cut them to pieces, both men and women; some, preferring suicide, threw themselves from the top of the temple. Tancred became extremely angry but did not argue with his comrades, who contended that it was too dangerous to keep Muslim fighters alive inside Jerusalem while they faced possible attack by the Egyptian Fatimids.46 Raymond of Aguilers says that on entering Jerusalem, Tancred and Godfrey spilled an incredible amount of blood. Some Muslims were mercilessly beheaded; others, pierced by arrows, jumped to death from the towers; still others were tortured a long time, then burned in searing flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet lay in the houses and streets, while the knights ran back and forth over the bodies.47 These sources say that Tancred was simultaneously honorable and dishonorable, which makes no sense. He may have been one or the other, but the available evidence cannot help the modern historian to reach a sound verdict. Heinrich von Sybel, who evidently could not decide which view is correct, says Tancred’s action in sparing the lives of the Muslims was not strictly humanitarian, for it has been reported that he spilled as much blood on that day as other warriors. His motive was to collect ransom for these Muslim victims. This idea seems based on the account of Albert of Aachen, who accuses Tancred of venality.48 Hagenmeyer agrees with von Sybel about Tancred’s motive and rejects Tudebode’s account, which contradicts that of the Gesta Francorum.49 Kugler also rejects Tudebode here, saying two Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 483; Gesta Francorum, 91–92; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 131–132; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3:180, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 173; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jherosolimitana, R. H. C. Occ., 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879), 102. Tudebode, Historia, 119–120, says Tancred gave the command for the Crusaders to go to the temple and kill Muslims. 47 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 127. The Gesta Francorum, 91, and Tudebode, Historia, 119, say that on entering Jerusalem the pilgrims pursued and killed Saracens fleeing to the Temple of Solomon, but give no details. 48 Von Sybel, Geschichte, 415. 49 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Anonymi Gesta Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolomi46

440

THE CRUSADES

other Latin sources, Albert of Aachen and Baldric of Dol, agree on Tancred’s attitude toward the Muslim captives.50 During the massacre at the temple the Franks took many captives, both men and women, and killed or released them at will. So many Muslim men died that “all the temple was streaming with their blood.”51 Fulcher of Chartres says the Franks opened the bellies of the Muslims they had just slain and ripped out their intestines to get the coins they had supposedly swallowed, declaring, “If you had been there your feet would have been stained to the ankles in the blood of the slain.”52 Recalling Revelation 14:20, Raymond of Aguilers says, “In the Temple of Solomon and portico, Crusaders rode in blood to the knees and bridles of their horses,” and calls it “poetic justice that the Temple of Solomon should receive the blood of pagans (Muslims) who blasphemed God there for many years.”53 Raymond and the Gesta Francorum do not give the number of Muslims slain in the temple, but Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre say that 10,000 were beheaded.54 Ibn al-Jawzi, his contemporary Ibn al-Athir, and Bar Hebraeus, who most likely followed Ibn al-Athir, say the Franks killed over 70,000 Muslim officials, worshipers, and learned men.55 Matthew of Edessa says that Godfrey fell upon the infidels and with all his might slaughtered 65,000 men in the temple.56 We cannot know how these authors determined the number of Muslims massacred in the temple, and it is unlikely that the tanorum (Heidelberg, 1890), 474–475, n. 43. 50 Bernhard Kugler, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885), 216–217. See Nicholson, Tancred, 94–95, n. 3. 51 Gesta Francorum, 91; Tudebode, Historia, 119. 52 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 122. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 131, says the blood of the Muslims who were killed nearly submerged their boots. 53 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 127–128. 54 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 122; William of Tyre, History, 1: 372. See William of Malmesbury, The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury, J. Sharpe, trans. (London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815), 443. 55 Abu al-Faraj Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200), al-Muntazam fi Tarikh alMuluk wa al-Umam, Muhammad Abd al-Qadir Ata and Mustafa Abd al-Qadir Ata, eds. 17 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1992): 47; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 199, and Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 82 of the Syriac text, 236 of the English translation, say the Franks also seized 150 small lamps and forty silver lamps, a silver furnace for the lamps, and large sums of money. 56 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 172.

JERUSALEM

441

Franks killed so many in one day. Probably these numbers represent the Muslims killed throughout the city, not just in the temple. The Gesta Francorum and Tudebode say God alone knows how many there were, while Ordericus Vitalis, using the poetical language of earlier writers, says “the floor of the temple was knee-deep in blood, and great heaps of corpses were piled up in all quarters of the city.”57 Alone among the medieval sources, Ibn al-Qalanisi says that Jews were herded by the Franks into a church (which he does not identify) and were burned.58 When they had finished with their carnage, the Franks rushed throughout the city, taking gold and silver, horses and mules, and housefuls of goods.59 But Ordericus Vitalis says that the victors neither sacked nor set the city afire, as they had done in other cities they conquered. Instead, each occupied the first house he found deserted by the Muslims, took possession of it and all the valuables therein, and preserved it as a hereditary right. Many Crusaders generously distributed whatever they found to the poor.60 William of Malmesbury, following earlier Latin writers, says the Frankish chiefs showed remarkable forbearance from the day they captured Jerusalem, except for Tancred, who followed up victory with a quest for spoils and helped himself to the treasures of the temple.61 Albert of Aachen says some Muslim captives told Tancred about these treasures, and he took the opportunity to seize gold, silver, precious stones, and decorated ornaments, particularly the jewels which encrusted the columns and the walls, and eight huge silver lamps. Tancred apparently shared his booty with Godfrey.62 His action stirred the wrath of the clergy, who felt that since most of the treasures he had seized were meant for religious use, they should go to the

57 Gesta Francorum, 92; Tudebode, Historia, 120; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 180, trans. Chibnall, 5: 173. 58 Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ad al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 137. 59 Gesta Francorum, 92; Tudebode, Historia, 119. 60 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 180, trans. Chibnall, 5: 173. 61 William of Malmesbury, History, 443. 62 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 473, 479–480; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 122; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 695–696; Nicholson, Tancred, 92–93; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 290, and “The First Crusade: Antioch to Ascalon,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 338.

442

THE CRUSADES

church, not to a layman. His actions must also have provoked the jealousy of other leaders, too preoccupied with their victory to lust for spoils.63 Illustrating how important Jerusalem was to the Crusaders, Raymond of Aguilers says that after the city fell on the Ides of July, “It was rewarding to see the worship of the pilgrims at the Holy Sepulcher, the clapping of hands, the rejoicing and singing of a new song to the Lord. . . . A new day, new gladness, new and everlasting happiness, and the fulfillment of our toil and love brought new words and songs for all.” On this day, he says, the children of the apostles were thrown out of Jerusalem and dispersed throughout the world, recalling the scattering of the disciples of Christ after the stoning of St. Stephen (Acts 8:1–8), and on this day the children of the apostles, i.e., the Crusaders, freed the city for God and the Fathers. He adds that the recovery of Jerusalem and its lands was in accordance with a pledge by God to His church, and says the Crusaders chanted the Office of the Resurrection because on this day Jesus arose from the dead and restored them through His kindness.64 After reporting that ten thousand Turks were slain at the Temple of Solomon, their dead bodies were heaped up and burned, and the city of Jerusalem was cleansed by the slaughter of the infidels, William of Malmesbury says, “They (the Crusaders) proceeded with hearts contrite and bodies prostrate to the Sepulcher of the Lord, which they had long so earnestly sought after, and for which they had undergone so many labors. By what ample incense of prayer, they propitiated heaven, or by what repentant tears they once again brought back the favor of God, none I am confident, can describe. No, not the splendid eloquence of the ancients could revive, or Orpheus himself return. Who, as it is said, bent even the listening rocks to his harmonious strain. Be it imagined, then, rather than expressed.”65 Ordericus Vitalis writes, “Lo! the crusade to Jerusalem is entered on by the inspiration of God; the people of the West miraculously flocked together from many nations into one vast body, and are led in one united army to fight against the Ethnicos [infidels] of the East.”66

William of Malmesbury, History, 443. Nicholson, Tancred, 97. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 128. The reference to the new day echoes Isaiah, 65:17. 65 William of Malmesbury, History, 443. 66 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 58, trans. Chibnall, 5. For more on the spiritual importance of Jerusalem, see Jacques de Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, A. D. 1180, Aubrey Stewart, trans. (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896), 32–33, 38–50. 63 64

JERUSALEM

443

On July 17 the Crusaders’ chiefs and clergy gathered to discuss urgent matters pertaining to the capture of Jerusalem.67 The leaders decreed that every man should give alms and pray God to help them choose a ruler to govern the city and punish the pagans (Muslims). But they did not follow through with the selection of a ruler in this meeting, for they faced the more urgent problem of cleansing the city, which was strewn with dead bodies and susceptible to disease. They had planned to entrust this task to the surviving Muslims, but since their numbers had been drastically reduced by the massacre, they employed poor Crusaders to join them. Both groups dragged the corpses in front of the gate, piling them up in mounds as big as houses, and set fire to them. The spectacle of burning bodies was so gruesome that Peter Tudebode asked, “Has anyone ever seen or heard of such a holocaust of infidels?”68 The Muslims who did this grueling job were not paid, but the poor Crusaders were given a daily wage.69 The leaders also discussed Tancred’s seizure of the temple treasures, which had aroused the wrath of the clergy. Arnulf of Chocques (Malecorne) vehemently accused Tancred of appropriating to himself what rightly belonged to the church, and of acting independently of the other Frankish leaders, thereby insulting them and himself and showing contempt for God. He reminded Tancred of the ambition of his grandfather Robert Guiscard, insinuating that he was greedy. Tancred lashed back, defending the memory and reputation of his grandfather and charging Arnulf with cowardice during the Crusades. When the question of whether Tancred should keep the temple treasures was raised, he argued that he had put them to good use, actually paying his followers and recruiting more men with the booty he had seized.70 Before Jerusalem was captured, he said, he asked Arnulf about the booty that might be taken, and Arnulf replied that it would belong to those who captured it; thus, he should be ashamed for changing his mind. Finally the leaders decided that Tancred could keep the booty because he had made gifts to other churches in Jerusalem, but that he should pay some money to the church.71 According to Fulcher of Chartres, Tancred restored or replaced the items he had taken from the holy places, even though no divine 67 Hagenmeyer, Anonymi Gesta Francorum, 479, n. 12; Hagenmeyer, ed., Chronologie, 7, Nos. 408–409. 68 Tudebode, Historia, 120; Gesta Francorum, 92. 69 William of Tyre, History, 1: 377. 70 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 696. 71 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 701–702; Nicholson, Tancred, 96–97.

444

THE CRUSADES

(Christian) services were conducted there at the time.72 William of Malmesbury declares, “reproved by his own conscience and the address of some other persons, he restored, if not the same things, yet such as were of equal value.”73 Some Muslims from Syria went to Baghdad and tearfully related the calamity that had occurred at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, causing their hearers to mourn as well. Although it was the fasting period of Ramadan, the grief of the Muslims who heard the story was so complete that they broke their fast. The Abbasid caliph sent the Judge Abu Muhammad alDamghani, Abu Bakr al-Shami, and Abu Sa’d al-Hulwani to Syria, hoping to arouse the Seljuk Sultan Berkyaruk to fight the Franks and recapture Jerusalem, but they returned empty handed after finding that Majd al-Mulk alBalasani had been assassinated.74 At this time the Seljuks’ leaders, Berkyaruk, Tutush, Duqaq, and Ridwan, were still embroiled in an internecine struggle over control of the Seljuk state following the death of Sultan Malikshah in 1092. The capture of Jerusalem and the massacre at the temple were grievous and shocking to the Muslims outside Palestine but were a cause of jubilation to the Crusaders, who had finally fulfilled their long-sought objective and cherished hope of liberating the Holy Places. After the liberation of Jerusalem, the Franks offered magnificent gifts of gold and silver, but their sincere devotion was more valuable than gifts. It is not surprising that many of them approached the Holy Sepulcher with bare feet and tears of joy.75 Raymond of Aguilers declared, “This day, which I affirm will be celebrated in the centuries to come, changed our grief and struggle into gladness and rejoicing . . . I further state that this day ended all paganism, confirmed Christianity and restored our faith. This is the day which the Lord has made; we shall rejoice and be glad in it, and deservedly because on this day 72 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 122; Kugler, Albert, 215, accepts Fulcher’s testimony. 73 William of Malmesbury, History, 443. 74 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 200. Jawzi, al-Muntazam, 17: 47, says Judge Abu Sa’d alHarawi of Damascus, in the presence of the caliph, said words which made everyone weep. Both sources append an ode by Muhammad al-Abiwardi describing the enormity of the calamity. Abu Mudaffar Yusuf ibn Kizoghlu, called Sibt ibn alJawzi (d. 1257), Mir’at al-Zaman fi Tarikh al-A’yan, R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie National, 1884), 520–521, puts this calamity and al-Abiwardi’s ode after the battle of Asqalan (Ascalon), fought shortly after the Franks captured Jerusalem. 75 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 181, trans. Chibnall, 5: 175.

JERUSALEM

445

God shone upon us and blessed us.”76 One can only speculate how he would react today, since Jerusalem is still the subject of contention between Muslims and Jews. Ironically, barely two weeks after the capture of Jerusalem, Pope Urban II, who had launched the Crusades and labored so hard to see the city liberated from Muslim hands, died on July 29, 1099, without hearing the Crusaders’ glad tidings. One of the most important matters the Franks had to settle on July 22 was the selection of a ruler to govern Jerusalem, defend the city, collect taxes, and ensure the safety of the citizens. With the city in Christian hands, it was imperative to choose one of their leaders to take charge of the whole province of Jerusalem.77 Since Pope Urban II had led the way in calling for and launching the Crusades, the clergy had an interest in determining who the ruler would be. They desired a cleric, but no one among them was so qualified as the late Bishop Adhémar. A small group of clergy objected that a spiritual leader should be chosen first and threatened that if this were not done, they would not recognize the leaders’ choice as king; angered, the princes hastened to select a king.78 Governing this new province in the midst of Muslim territory required strong leadership and an army to defend it, and choosing a secular leader was the most logical action.79 The princes encouraged Raymond of SaintGilles to accept the kingship, but he “shuddered at the name of king in Jerusalem.”80 But he made it clear that he would not object to the election of a temporal king, and that he would acknowledge whomever they chose. The leaders chose Godfrey and gave him the title of Advocatus Sancti Sepulcheri (advocate of [the Church of] the Holy Sepulcher).81 The pious Godfrey refused to be a temporal and earthly monarch in a city where the true king 76 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 128. “This is the day the Lord made” is from Psalms 117: 24. 77 William of Tyre, History, 1: 379. 78 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 129. Gesta Francorum, 93, and Tudebode, Historia, 120, say simply that the council chose a king and then a patriarch. 79 R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 166–167. 80 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 129; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 485. 81 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 129–130; H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1095–1127 (Innsbruck: Hildersheim, 1901), 168; David, Robert Curthose, 114; John C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1947), 104. Gesta Francorum, 93, and Tudebode, Historia, 120, say Godfrey was elected prince of Jerusalem. See Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 488–489.

446

THE CRUSADES

was the crucified Savior Jesus Christ, with His crown of thorns, but the Crusaders had to all intents and purposes established a full temporal power.82 After praising him as one born to knighthood and famed for his valor, a man of courtesy, gentleness, and abundant mercy, William of Malmesbury says Godfrey was exalted to be king of Jerusalem (Ordericus Vitalis calls him king over the kingdom of David).83 The clergy also desired a new patriarch for Jerusalem. Yet why should the Latins want to fill this office when, according to the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Michael Rabo, they had vowed that on capturing Jerusalem they would offer amnesty to all the Christian churches and restore the churches and monasteries to every community which confessed Christ?84 Although this vow did not say the Latins could not appoint a patriarch, it certainly implied that they should respect the rights of all the Christian denominations in Jerusalem—especially the Greek church, whose Patriarch Simeon II had lived in exile in Cyprus since the Seljuks took Jerusalem from the Fatimids of Egypt in 1079. And since Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, in a letter to the West, had acknowledged Simeon as an apostolic and independent pontiff, why should the Latins desire another pontiff? Out of respect for canon law, they should have asked the Greeks to choose another patriarch to replace Simeon, who had died in exile. But they preferred to choose one of their own, simply because, as they said in their letter to Pope Urban II after the capture of Antioch, they wanted to subjugate the Eastern churches to the pope’s authority.85 The selection process was marred by controversy. There were two factions among the clergy, one led by the Bishop of Albara, known for his piety, and the other by Bishop Arnulf of Marturaran (Martirano), who supported the candidacy of Arnulf of Chocques for the patriarchate. Raymond of Aguilers finds nothing good to say about Arnulf of Chocques, calling him ambitious and lacking in conscience, and noting that he indulged in J. G. Rowe, “Paschal II and the Relation Between the Spiritual and the Temporal Powers in the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Speculum 32 (1957): 474–475. Andressohn, Ancestry, 105–106, says Godfrey was king in fact if not in name. 83 William of Malmesbury, History, 448; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 181–182, trans. Chibnall, 5: 175. 84 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 586–587; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 183. 85 For the text of this letter see Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 107–112. 82

JERUSALEM

447

sexual pleasure on the journey to Jerusalem and became the object of smutty stories. Not even a subdeacon, he was of disgraceful origin, being the son of a priest, and not qualified to be patriarch.86 But the Gesta Francorum says Arnulf, “a most experienced and distinguished man,” was chosen patriarch by the clergy.87 William of Tyre, who evidently follows Raymond of Aguilers, blames their action on the evil machinations of the bishop of Marturana, who befriended Arnulf for challenging the princes. Like Raymond, he holds the two men in utter contempt. He attacks Arnulf for his immoral behavior, perverse mind, and utter disregard for honor, and says such was the man whom the bishop, contrary to the sacred canons and to the will of all honorable men, was endeavoring to raise to the patriarchal office.88 After the death of the most revered Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, legate of the Apostolic See, there was no man of honest character and administrative ability to replace him. Without him, the clergy had grown weak and decadent. The pious, God-fearing Bishop William of Orange, who succeeded Adhémar, died soon afterwards at Ma’arrat al-Nu’man. With their deaths, the scheming bishop of Marturana had a better chance to push the candidacy of his friend Arnulf. He even accused the Frankish leaders of blocking Arnulf’s elevation to the patriarchate because they wanted the church to be without a head, in order to dominate it themselves. The bishop’s machinations against the chiefs seem to have succeeded. He chose Arnulf and seated him on August 1, 1099, in the patriarchal chair of Jerusalem, with the support of Robert, count of Normandy.89 Guibert of Nogent says that the shortage of learned men made him appear even more illustrious, adding, “For some time Arnulf presented himself as the bishop, though in name only,” but he went on to solidify his position by preaching.90 Fulcher of Chartres says it was decided on July 22 that no patriarch 86 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 131; Rowe, “The Origins,” 472, calls Arnulf “this unscrupulous prelate.” On Arnulf as the son of a priest, see Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 136. 87 Gesta Francorum, 93; Tudebode, Historia, 120. 88 William of Tyre, History, 1: 380. 89 William of Tyre, History, 1: 384. Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Forester, 3: 182, n. 1, and ed. Chibnall, 5: 175–176, n. 1, calls Arnulf “Arnulfus of Zocris”. David, Robert Curthose, 115, says Arnulf became acting patriarch of Jerusalem. For more on the patriarchate of Jerusalem, see Eduard Franz, Das Patriarchat von Jerusalem im Jahre 1099 (Sagan, 1885). 90 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 136.

448

THE CRUSADES

should be chosen until the pope was contacted to see who his choice would be.91 There is no indication that the ordination of Arnulf of Chocques was done with the approval of any pope. Nevertheless, he became patriarch and endeavored to win the approval of the clergy. To mend fences with those who had opposed him, Arnulf urged the Christians of Jerusalem to unearth the true Cross, and when they found it, the Cross became a subject of great veneration and replaced the Holy Lance, at least in the minds of those Christians who had remained in Jerusalem.92 The situation changed with the arrival of Archbishop Daimbert (Dagobert) of Pisa, whom Runciman says Pope Urban II chose to succeed Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy, trusting him enough to appoint him as his legate at the court of Alfonso VI of Castile.93 Before the end of 1098, Daimbert sailed eastward with a Pisan fleet of 120 ships. On their way they attacked several islands under the authority of the Byzantines; enraged, Emperor Alexius sent a fleet against them, but the Pisans had already sailed for Syria and docked at the harbor of Laodicea. Daimbert met Bohemond, who was besieging the city, and rendered him great assistance. They then went to Jerusalem, and Daimbert succeeded in deposing Arnulf of Chocques, who had been installed as patriarch in his place.94 There are two key questions here: whether the pope had appointed Daimbert as his legate to the Crusades to replace Adhémar, and in what capacity he acted among the Crusaders in Syria. Krey says that the idea that Daimbert, archbishop of Pisa, was sent by Pope Urban II as his papal legate to succeed Adhémar is “pure assumption.” He says all the chronological indexes indicate that Daimbert and his fleet were on their way to Syria long before Urban could have received the news of Adhémar’s death (August 1, 1098), and correctly says there is every reason to believe that the only known papal legate was Cardinal-Bishop Maurice of Porto, who was appointed in 1100 by Urban’s successor, Pope Paschal II (Rainerius of Blera) as his representative to the Crusade.95 But surprisingly, Krey elsewhere reFulcher of Chartres, Historia, 124. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 130–132; Hill and Hill, 134–135. 93 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 289, 299. 94 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 299, 302–307. 95 August C. Krey, “Urban’s Crusade–Success or Failure?” American Historical Review, 52 (1948): 241, in The Crusades: Motives and Achievements, James A. Brundage, ed. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1964), 15–16. On Maurice of Porto, see Caffaro of Caschifelone, Genuensis consulis, De liberatione civitatum Orientis, R. H. C. Occ., 5 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1895), 58–59; James Lea Cate, “The Crusade of 91 92

JERUSALEM

449

fers to Daimbert as the papal legate.96 When Daimbert arrived in Laodicea as Bohemond was trying to add it to his domain of Antioch, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Robert of Flanders, and Robert of Normandy opposed Bohemond and said Laodicea should be delivered to Emperor Alexius, in accordance with the oath they had sworn to him in Constantinople.97 Pope Urban, who was trying to reconcile his church with the Greek church, would not have allowed his legate to support Bohemond, thereby disrupting his relations with the emperor. Daimbert called off the Pisan fleet and tried to reconcile the Latin leaders, but, says Krey, the siege of Laodicea, Bohemond’s conduct, and the pope’s plan to reconcile the two churches “seem to imply that Daimbert could hardly have been Urban’s appointee to succeed Adhémar.”98 If Daimbert was not the papal legate, what was his capacity when he arrived in the East? Krey says he went to the East as the ecclesiastical leader of the Pisan fleet and its men, to help their contribution to the Crusades. Although he was an archbishop and acted as such in the East and was later elected patriarch of Jerusalem, he was not authorized or appointed as a legate by the pope.99 The situation in the East, the death of Pope Urban II, and the choice of Paschal II as his successor raised Daimbert’s interest in becoming the patriarch of Jerusalem himself. When he arrived at Laodicea and found Arnulf of Chocques had already been elected patriarch, he sent word to Pope Paschal II, who decreed that Arnulf’s election should be challenged. Daimbert looked into Arnulf’s background and found that he was the son of a priest, and therefore was barred by church canons from holding a sacred office. Arnulf strove to defend himself, but eventually was deposed. The leaders must have felt sorry for him and, to mitigate his shame, asked who he thought should replace him. He said they should choose Daimbert, the archbishop of Pisa, who was already carrying out his spiritual assignment to serve the army. They agreed and, without even asking his consent, took Daimbert to the cathedral to assume the patriarchate. Then, traveling with Bohemond to Jerusalem, Daimbert was ordained patriarch at

1101,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 343–345; Rowe, “The Origins,” 478–479. 96 August C. Krey and Emily Atwater Babcock, eds., William of Tyre, History, 1: 402, n. 37. 97 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 252, trans. Chibnall, 5: 273. 98 Krey, “Urban’s Crusade,” 244–245, in Brundage, ed., 17–18. 99 Krey, 244–245; William of Tyre, History, 1: 402–403.

450

THE CRUSADES

the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, probably on Christmas Day, 1099.100 There is no evidence that Daimbert acted as papal legate or that the pope formally approved his ordination as patriarch. This was strictly the doing of the Latin leaders. William of Tyre, himself a cleric, says that Godfrey humbly received from Daimbert the investiture of the kingdom of Jerusalem, as Bohemond humbly received from him the investiture of his principality, to show honor to Him [Christ] “whose vicegerent on earth they believed the patriarch to be.”101 This statement makes clear that Godfrey and Bohemond, not Pope Paschal II, took the lead in Daimbert’s elevation to the patriarchate. Daimbert did not enjoy the glory of his position for long. When King Godfrey died on July 18, 1100, he was succeeded by his brother Baldwin, who was called from Edessa to take his place.102 The magnificent reception for Baldwin provoked the envy of Daimbert, who had regarded the kingdom of Jerusalem as a theocracy where his authority was preeminent, not to be challenged by any secular power. Daimbert opposed Baldwin and even went so far as to refuse to anoint him as the new king, fearing that like his brother Godfrey before him, he would subjugate the church authority to his own will.103 After Baldwin arrived, Daimbert left Jerusalem and took refuge in the church of Mount Sion, reportedly because of the malice which Arnulf, “the first-born of Satan,” had shown toward him.104 The two were reconciled through mediation, and on Christmas of 1100, Daimbert consecrated and anointed Baldwin as king at the church at Bethlehem and solemnly crowned him with the royal diadem.105 But their reconciliation did not last. On October 2, 1102, at a council in Jerusalem presided over by the papal legate Robert, Daimbert was accused of treason and removed from 100 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 136; William of Tyre, History, 1: 402–403; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 512; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 704; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 132; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 89; Harold S. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099–1118, “ in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 374. 101 William of Tyre, History, 1: 303. For more critical analysis of the subject see “Daimbert of Pisa, the Domus Godefridi and the Accession of Baldwin I of Jerusalem,” in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500, Alan V. Murray ed. (Turnhout, Brepols, 1998), 81–102. 102 William of Tyre, History, 1: 414–415. 103 See Daimbert’s letter to Bohemond in William of Tyre, History, 1: 419–420. 104 William of Tyre, History, 1: 425. 105 William of Tyre, History, 1: 427–428.

JERUSALEM

451

office.106 After his deposition, Daimbert sought refuge with Bohemond and then Tancred in Antioch, before sailing with Bohemond for Italy in the fall of 1104. After he reached Rome, Pope Paschal II supplied Daimbert with a letter and sent him back to Jerusalem to reclaim his position, but he died in 1105 in Sicily while returning to the East.107 A new patriarch had to be chosen, and through manipulation Arnulf of Chocques elected one of his peers, Ebremar, whom William of Tyre calls stupid, thoughtless and ignorant.108 Guibert of Nogent says Ebremar was a simple, illiterate, submissive man whom Arnulf thought he could use as a puppet. But Ebremar was his own man and acted contrary to the wishes of Arnulf and his associates, who unsuccessfully brought charges against him to the Apostolic See.109 Undaunted, Arnulf and his accomplices continued to plot against Ebermar until he was replaced by Gibelin of Arles. When Gibelin died around 1112, Arnulf resumed his role as patriarch of Jerusalem.110 William of Tyre heaps calumny upon Arnulf, accusing him of unchastity and shameful conduct, and charges that he married his niece Emma to Eustace Grenier, lord of the cities of Sidon and Caesarea, thus giving Eustace the best portion of the patrimony of the church.111 The fundamental question was whether Jerusalem should be under the control of the king or the patriarch. Arnulf’s position, that it should be ruled by the king, displeased Pope Paschal II, who sent a letter to Baldwin regarding this matter. At a church council in Jerusalem in 1116, presided over by Berenger, bishop of Orange, Arnulf’s opponents prevailed and he was deposed. He died two years later.112 Soon after his election King Godfrey became involved in a controversy when he demanded that Raymond of Saint-Gilles hand over the Tower of David to him. Raymond refused, saying he planned to stay in the region until Easter, but Godfrey was supported by Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and even many of Raymond’s followers, who were anxious to return home. Abandoned by his comrades and friends, Raymond eventually surrendered the tower in trust to the bishop of Albara, who imGuibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 136. William of Tyre, History, 1: 467, esp. n. 16; Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, No. 747. 108 William of Tyre, History, 1: 453. 109 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 136–137. 110 Rowe, “The Origins,” 484–487. 111 David, Robert Curthose, 218, says this accusation is mentioned only by William of Tyre, History, 1: 489. 112 William of Tyre, History, 1: 506, 523. 106 107

452

THE CRUSADES

mediately turned it over to Godfrey.113 Raymond accused the bishop of abusing his trust, but he responded that he had been manhandled and had acted under duress. Feeling exasperated and dishonored at his unjust loss, Raymond decided to return home, taking many of his Provençal followers. They traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho, where they gathered palms, then paddled across the Jordan and, after praying for the Crusading princes, performed the rite of baptism in the Jordan. Then they returned to Jerusalem to prepare for their final departure from the Holy Land. While these events were taking place, messengers from Nabulus, the principal town of Samaria, came to inform Tancred and Count Eustace, Godfrey’s brother, that its citizens wanted them to take over their town. Tancred and Eustace left for Nabulus, with numerous knights and foot soldiers, and the inhabitants surrendered the town and made a treaty of peace with them.114 On August 4, 1099, however, Godfrey hastily summoned them back to Jerusalem. He had received word that a Fatimid Egyptian army under the command of al-Afdal Shahanshah, Vizir of the Caliph alMusta’li (1094–1100), was en route to Ascalon (Arabic Asqalan) to storm Jerusalem.115 The Crusaders were told that the Fatimids planned to kill all the adult male Franks and make captives of the rest, and that their ruler planned to mate young Frankish women with Egyptian males, with the intention of breeding a warrior race from Frankish stock.116 Peter Tudebode says the Fatimid emir was bringing with him chains and shackles to fetter young Christians, and that he had ordered all the old Christians killed.117 Raymond of Aguilers alludes to the animosity between the Sunnite and Shi’ite Muslims, declaring “the king of Babylon [i.e., Cairo] . . . held that the Turks were nothing and the Franks, conquerors of the Turks, were nothing.”118 Why should the Fatimid ruler and his commander, al-Afdal, so despise the Turks? The Fatimids and Turks, being Muslims, should logically have formed a united front against their Christian enemies. This statement is of tremendous import, implying that the Shi’ite Fatimids did not regard the Sunnite Turks as brothers in the same faith. One may argue that the Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 485. Gesta Francorum, 93; Tudebode, Historia, 121; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 137; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 182, trans. Chibnall, 5: 177. 115 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 183, trans. Chibnall, 5: 177, gives the text of the message. 116 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 132. 117 Tudebode, Historia, 121. 118 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 132. 113 114

JERUSALEM

453

Fatimids felt the Turks had lost their fighting mettle and thus were “nothing.” Even so, they could have urged the Turks to disturb the Crusaders’ movement as much as they could to prevent them from reaching the Holy Land. Upon receiving Godfrey’s message, Tancred and Eustace went quickly into the mountains, looking for Muslims to fight. They marched along the coast to Caesarea and then to Ramla, where they found many Muslims whom the Fatimids had sent as scouts. They fought them and captured several, and gathered information from them about the size and position of their army and where it planned to fight the Christians. Tancred sent messengers to relay this information to Godfrey, and sent others to tell Patriarch Arnulf and the other leaders there would be a battle at Ascalon. After receiving this message, Godfrey urged the army to proceed to Ascalon and face the enemy.119 The Crusaders marched barefoot before the Holy Sepulcher and, weeping, begged God for mercy. They beseeched Him not to allow the profanation of the holy places the Fatimids had threatened to destroy. They came to the Temple of the Lord, singing hymns and pouring their souls before God, echoing the words of King Solomon when he blessed the newly built Temple of God.120 Godfrey, along with Patriarch Arnulf, Robert of Flanders, and Bishop Arnulf of Marturana, went with them on Tuesday August 9, 1099.121 But Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Robert of Normandy told Godfrey that they would not march unless battle was certain. They sent their knights to reconnoiter, and the knights reported that they had seen the Muslims’ preparation and a battle was imminent. Godfrey then sent the Bishop of Marturana to Jerusalem to bid Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Robert of Normandy and others to hurry to his side if they wished to engage the enemy.122 Eventually, the other leaders joined Godfrey and prepared for battle. Peter the Hermit remained in Jerusalem to encourage the Greeks and Latins 119

137.

Gesta Francorum, 93; Tudebode, Historia, 121; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds,

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 132–133. The passage cited is in 1 Kings 1:8. Gesta Francorum, 93; Tudebode, Historia, 121; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 183, trans. Chibnall, 5: 177. 122 Gesta Francorum, 94. Tudebode, Historia, 122, esp. n. 6, adds that while the Bishop of Marturana was returning to Jerusalem, he was captured by the Muslims and led to an unknown place, and was not heard from again. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138, is uncertain of the bishop’s fate. See Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 184, trans. Chibnall, 5: 179. 120 121

454

THE CRUSADES

through prayers and almsgiving, beseeching God to give them victory. The clergy, clad in sacred vestments and carrying crosses, moved in a procession from the Holy Sepulcher to the Temple of the Lord. On the evening of August 11, 1099, the patriarch declared that every man should be ready for battle at dawn, and everyone who turned to pillage before the battle was over would be excommunicated.123 Tudebode says that the patriarch carried the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, while the chaplain of Raymond of SaintGilles (none other than Raymond of Aguilers) bore the Holy Lance.124 Like the Gesta Francorum, he reports that when Godfrey, the patriarch, and the other leaders gathered at the river (Nahr al-Safiya, between Jerusalem and Ascalon), they found and seized a large number of cattle, oxen, camels, sheep, donkeys, and other animals which the Muslims had sent out to hide.125 Raymond of Aguilers says that when the Crusaders saw Arabs turning flocks of sheep and large herds of cattle and camels out to pasture, they sent two hundred knights to explore the situation and concluded that a battle was imminent.126 But Guibert of Nogent says the Muslims turned the cattle out deliberately to lure the Crusaders, and when the Christians’ leaders learned of the trap, they circulated an order throughout the camp that no man should be found with this booty in his tent, unless he could prove that he had taken it for food that day.127 In a preliminary skirmish, three hundred Arabs moved forward; the Crusaders attacked and captured two, causing the rest to flee. Raymond of Aguilers says the prisoners claimed they were merely cattleherders planning to sell their animals to the Fatimids. They told the Crusaders that the Arabs planned to invest Jerusalem and drive out or kill the Franks, and the Fatimid commander, camped a few miles away, would march the next day to engage the Franks in battle, but they had no idea how big the Muslim force was.128 At dawn on Friday August 12, 1099, the Crusaders entered a lovely valley level with the river and set their battle lines. The army units assembled; Godfrey, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Eustace of Boulogne, Tancred, and Gaston of Béarn all stood Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 132–133; Gesta Francorum, 94–95; Tudebode, Historia, 122–123; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138. 124 Tudebode, Historia, 123. Curiously, neither the Gesta Francorum nor Raymond of Aguilers mentions these details. 125 Tudebode, Historia, 123; Gesta Francorum, 94. 126 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 133. 127 Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138. 128 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 134. 123

JERUSALEM

455

before their men. The Fatimids’ army likewise stood ready for battle; each man had hung around his neck a bottle from which to drink while fighting.129 The battle began in earnest with a blare of trumpets and horns. The Franks, ready to march on “the camp of Muhammad,” had underestimated the Muslim force, believing that God would defend them against those who blasphemed Him.130 The Arabs stayed in their camp, perhaps thinking the news of their approach would scare the Franks and keep them close to their walls. They also believed the reports of the herders who had reached their camp safely, that the Franks had come only to pillage and would soon return to Jerusalem. Moreover, having heard that the Frankish forces in Jerusalem were weakened by desertion, they were confident of victory over the Christians.131 Clearly they had miscalculated. The Franks had come to fight and were prepared to gain a great victory or meet death. Now they stood in battle formation. When the battle began, Robert of Normandy saw in the distance the standard of the Fatimid commander al-Afdal, with a golden apple atop a pole covered with silver and precious stones. Robert charged and struck alAfdal, inflicting a mortal wound.132 Roused by this action, Robert of Flanders, Tancred and Eustace charged courageously through the middle of the Egyptians’ camp. Terror-stricken, the Egyptians began to flee; those who did not were cut down by the Franks’ swords. Some of them sought safety by climbing sycamore trees, but perished when the Franks set the trees on fire.133 Near the shore, Raymond of Saint-Gilles launched his own army against the enemy and attacked them with such brute force that the fleeing Muslims jumped into the sea and drowned, while others fled to Ascalon.134 According to Abu Ya’la Hamza ibn al-Qalanisi (d. 1160), the Franks killed 2,700 inhabitants of Ascalon, among them merchants, youths, and other 129 Gesta Francorum, 95; Tudebode, Historia, 124; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 185, trans. Chibnall, 5: 179–181. 130 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 134; Gesta Francorum, 96. 131 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 494; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, 134– 135. 132 Gesta Francorum, 96; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 497; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 138; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 186, trans. Chibnall, 5: 183; David, Robert Curthose, 116. 133 Gesta Francorum, 96; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 126; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 202. 134 Gesta Francorum, 96; Tudebode, Historia, 125; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 494; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 139–140; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 127. See Oman, History, 1: 288–291; Nicholson, Tancred, 98–102.

456

THE CRUSADES

non-combatants. They also imposed a 20,000-dinar tax on the people of Ascalon, but because of dissension among their leaders they left without receiving anything.135 When the citizens of Ascalon saw that it was futile to fight the Franks, fearing they might capture the city and slaughter its people, they begged Raymond of Saint-Gilles to send his banner and swore that they would surrender to him. They did so partly because he posed the most immediate threat to them, and because he had preserved the life of their amir Iftikhar al-Dawla and others who had trusted his word. Raymond sent his standard-bearer and, after killing or routing all the men outside the city, instructed the people of Ascalon to hoist his standard on the city gate. Meanwhile, Tancred advanced with part of Godfrey’s force, intending to capture the city for Godfrey, but was thwarted by Raymond of SaintGilles, who perhaps felt he deserved Ascalon more than anyone else because he had attacked it alone, and because its citizens had chosen him to receive their surrender. He told Godfrey and the other leaders that a great victory had been given to the Franks, and that he had already sent his banner to the citizens of Ascalon. If the leaders approved, he said, the citizens of Ascalon would put themselves under his rule and obey his dictates to save their lives. Godfrey objected that the lordship of Ascalon should be granted to no one but himself, since it was very close to Jerusalem and should be part of his domain. Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders supported Raymond of Saint-Gilles; because he had left his rich estate back home to join the Crusade, and because he had stormed Jerusalem and won it for them, they argued, Godfrey should willingly grant him the city of Ascalon, which he did not yet possess. But Godfrey would not yield, and when Raymond saw this, he departed in anger and advised the citizens of Ascalon to defend themselves with firmness. Godfrey, who had hoped to capture the city, found himself alone after the leaders retired, exhausted and angry. Regretfully, he had to withdraw his forces, leaving the city unharmed.136 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 137. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 202, says the tax was 12,000 or 20,000 dinars. Ibn al-Qalanisi does not explain the Franks’ disagreement, but Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 497–498, says Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Godfrey argued over the expected surrender of Ascalon. 136 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 703; Baldric of Dol, Historia, 110; Nicholson, Tancred, 101. Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 188–189, trans. Chibnall, 5: 185– 187, says, “Such was the consequence of insatiable ambition.” He adds that if Godfrey had had a spirit of charity and followed the laws of God and loved his neighbor as himself, he might have been able to win the city and open up for the 135

JERUSALEM

457

When the inhabitants of Ascalon learned of the Frankish leaders’ dissension, they refused to surrender the city or pay the financial penalty imposed on them. When al-Afdal entered Ascalon and saw the defeat of his army, he lamented his fortunes and those of his army saying, “O spirits of the gods! Who has ever seen or heard of such things as these?” He could not believe that his 200,000 men had been beaten by a force of beggars, unarmed and poverty-stricken. He went on to swear by Muhammad and by the glory of all the gods, “I will never raise another army because I have been defeated by a foreign people. . . Woe to me! I shall be held up to everlasting scorn in the land of Cairo.”137 The Franks returned to the enemy’s tents and seized enormous quantities of gold and silver and piles of goods, along with cattle and various other animals and a great cache of arms. The booty was so abundant that animals and grain could be bought for trifling prices.138 Some men captured the standard of the Egyptian amir; Robert of Normandy bought it for twenty pieces of silver and gave it to the patriarch in honor of God and the Holy Sepulcher. The amir’s sword was bought for sixty bezants. The Franks returned with joy to Jerusalem, and al-Afdal fled to Cairo.139 The battle of Ascalon was the Franks’ last major victory in Palestine. Ascalon remained in Muslim hands for more than a century and was a constant threat to the kingdom of Jerusalem. But the Franks had the prestige that came from having beaten the Muslims in their own land, despite their superior numbers and bravery.140 With their defeat, the Fatimids were no longer a threat to the Franks, who were now free to capture the cities of Palestine one after the other. But the Franks’ power was greatly diminished when many of their leaders and men returned to their native lands. Ralph of Caen says Godfrey was left with only 200 armed men, a very small number in view of the fact that when the citizens of Arsuf broke their treaty with Godfrey in the fall of 1099, he attacked the city with 3,000 troops.141 Robert Christians a passage to Egypt. In what seems a vengeful tone, Ordericus Vitalis concludes that there is much to praise in King Godfrey, but in this case, as St. Paul wrote, “I praise him not.” (I Corinthians, 11: 22.) 137 Gesta Francorum, 96–97; Tudebode, Historia, 125–126; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 140; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 187, trans. Chibnall, 5: 183–185. 138 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 127; Tudebode, Historia, 127. 139 Gesta Francorum, 97; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 127. Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 140, says the amir’s standard was placed at the Tomb of the Lord. 140 Stevenson, “The First Crusade,” 297. 141 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 703; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 507;

458

THE CRUSADES

of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and Raymond of Saint-Gilles with a host of their men sailed homeward via Constantinople, where Emperor Alexius received them with honor.142 Ordericus Vitalis says the emperor offered these illustrious men rich gifts, free markets, and free passage through his domain, hoping they would enter his service, but they were anxious to get home. In 1100, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders returned to Italy and were received with joy by the elder Roger, count of Sicily, his nephew Roger, duke of Apulia, and Geoffrey of Conversano, the nephew of Duke Robert Guiscard, who did their best to entertain these champions of Christ who had suffered toils and hardships in His cause. Raymond of Saint-Gilles remained in the emperor’s circle and was reckoned one of his closest friends and counselors. The emperor gave Raymond particular affection and attention because he had respected the oath of fealty the emperor required of the Frankish leaders and had opposed Bohemond in Antioch.143 But after an absence of two years, says William of Tyre, Raymond returned in safety to his wife and household.144 He wanted to return to Syria to conquer one or more cities, and hoped the emperor would grant him legal recognition for the capture of Tripoli; in return he would surrender to the emperor Latakia, Marcelea, and Valania. He joined Emperor Alexius in his struggle against the Turks and finally died on February 28, 1105, at the fortress Mons Peregrinus (Pilgrim Mountain), which he had built with the emperor’s help in the Lebanon mountains, opposite the city of Tripoli.145 Of all the leaders of the Crusades, Raymond of Saint-Gilles deserves special commendation. He was perhaps the only one who remained dedicated to the spirit of crusading, although his association with Emperor Alexius caused the Normans to disparage him. John Hugh Hill presents him as a decent and honorable person, a man of commitment who never deviated from the desire of Pope Urban II to consolidate Greek and Latin friendship. He praises “Raymond’s opposition to Bohemond, his consistent defense of the Greek emperor, and his zeal in

Kugler, Albert, 245. 142 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 128; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 499– 500; William of Tyre, History, 1: 397–398; David, Robert Curthose, 117. 143 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 254, 256, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 277. 144 William of Tyre, History, 1: 399. 145 William of Tyre, History, 1: 431; Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 287–288; Hill and Hill, 157; Fink, “The Foundation,” 396.

JERUSALEM

459

fighting Moslems,” and concludes, “With your sword you have caused the religion of the Messiah to triumph; honor to you, Saint Gilles.”146 With the departure of these three leaders, Godfrey was left with Tancred, Count Garnier of Grey, and a few other nobles. He granted Tancred hereditary rights to the city of Tiberias, on the lake of that name, together with the principality of Galilee, and Haifa with all its possessions.147 Tancred and Godfrey advanced to occupy the region of Galilee in December 1099. This task was made easier because shortly before the battle of Ascalon, Galilee had been the subject of a conflict between Duqaq, the Seljuk lord of Damascus, and the Fatimids.148 Marching northward, Tancred captured Caesarea, whose inhabitants deserted it during the night. He then marched on Tiberias, whose Muslim inhabitants fled while the Christian Syrian minority remained.149 In the autumn of 1099 Tancred captured Beisan, which overlooked the east bank of the Jordan and was strategically important as a buffer between Damascus and Jerusalem. He fortified it with a moat, planning to use it as a base to intercept Muslim caravans and invade neighboring lands, and began raiding the area beyond the Jordan, taking whatever he could to supply the kingdom of Jerusalem, which was in dire need of provisions.150 Facing no opposition, Tancred and Godfrey concentrated on the region east of the Lake of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), then controlled by Duqaq. In an earlier expedition, Tancred had forced the lord of that region, whom Latin sources call “the fat peasant,” to pay tribute, but he soon reneged. Tancred apparently went to Jerusalem personally to ask Godfrey for aid against him.151 Godfrey responded by bringing a force of 200 knights and 1,000 foot soldiers. For a week he and Tancred swept the region, causing a great deal of devastation by sword and fire; having captured enough men and booty, they prepared to return to Jerusalem. The “fat peasant” sought help from Duqaq, who sent him about 500 horsemen. With these reinforcements, he attacked the rear of Tancred’s army and Godfrey and reJohn Hugh Hill, “Raymond of Saint Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship,” Speculum 27 (1951): 272. 147 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 703; William of Tyre, History, 1: 399. 148 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 304. 149 Baldric of Dol, Historia, 111; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517–518; Nicholson, Tancred, 105, n. 1. 150 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517; Nicholson, Tancred, 106. 151 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 186; Nicholson, Tancred, 106–107; Kugler, Albert, 253. 146

460

THE CRUSADES

leased the Muslims they had captured.152 In a bloody battle, Tancred barely escaped with his life. Godfrey, who was in the vanguard, had camped overnight, unaware that the rear of the army had been attacked. He joined with Tancred and attacked the Damascus contingent vigorously, but they found that the Muslim force had already retreated, perhaps fearing to challenge their joint forces.153 Tancred then returned to Tiberias, and Godfrey to Jerusalem. Then Tancred, acting on his own, led sixty knights and swept through the whole region, as far as Damascus, and seized a great amount of booty.154 Realizing they could no longer challenge him, the “fat peasant” and Duqaq sued for peace, stipulating that at the expiration of a specified period they both would either definitely submit to Tancred or render the agreement void. Tancred sought the advice of Godfrey, who agreed to the stipulation. To show their pleasure, the Muslim leaders gave Tancred and Godfrey rich gifts of gold, silver, and purple cloth.155 With this Tancred and Godfrey ceased attacking their territories. At this point Tancred, perhaps elated by his success, sent an embassy of six knights to Damascus, asking Duqaq to embrace Christianity or leave the city at once. Duqaq, outraged at what he considered a frivolous request, threatened to kill Tancred’s messengers if they did not embrace Islam. One of them embraced Islam, but the other five were beheaded. When Godfrey and Tancred learned the messengers’ fate, they led their joint forces and for two weeks attacked and devastated the area around Tiberias, up to the edge of Damascus, destroying farms and villages around the city. Finally, the lord of the region of Tiberias, seeing that he could no longer challenge the Franks’ forces and that his lord Duqaq could not help, submitted to Tancred and agreed to pay him tribute.156 Later Godfrey returned to Jerusalem, passing by Acre, Haifa and Caesarea, whose lord invited him to a sumptuous banquet. Godfrey at-

Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East , 41. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517. 154 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517. 155 Heinrich Hagenmeyer, ed., Ekkehardi Uraugiensis abbatis hierosolymitana (Ekkehard of Aura), (Tübingen, 1877), 188–197; Nicholson, Tancred, 108–109, n. 5. Kugler, Albert, 259–260, contends that no peace negotiations took place. 156 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 517–518; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 310–311; Nicholson, Tancred, 107–109; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, alHaraka al-Salibiyya, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 265–266. 152 153

JERUSALEM

461

tended the banquet, but ate only a lime. He fell ill a few days later, but managed to reached Haifa, where he was tended to.157 The Kingdom of Jerusalem had by now become a Frankish feudal state, an island in the sea of Islam. Godfrey’s greatest problem was that he had no significant sea power and no port except Jaffa, but the Muslim-held coastal cities posed a threat to traffic into Jaffa.158 It was imperative to secure a safe sea route to link his state with the outside world, and he cast his eye on the port of Arsuf, north of Jaffa. The Crusaders had tried to capture it in August 1099, but failed because of the dissension between Godfrey and Raymond of Saint-Gilles. In December 1099, Godfrey sent a land force to capture Arsuf; the expedition failed, but he left behind a small force which raided the vicinity.159 In February 1100, Godfrey’s men captured some Muslims of Arsuf, mostly farmers, and cut off their noses, hands and feet.160 Being subjects of the caliph in Cairo, the citizens of Arsuf appealed to the Fatimids’ Vizir al-Afdal for help. He responded by sending them a small force of 300 soldiers, but it was ambushed by the Crusaders in March 1100. The citizens of Arsuf, convinced that they could not fight the Crusaders and should become their vassals, sent a delegation to Godfrey, bearing the keys to the city and indicating their willingness to pay him a tribute.161 Beginning in January 1100, Godfrey endeavored to fortify Jaffa with the help of Daimbert’s men. Consequently, it became more nearly invincible than the Fatimids’ ports of Acre and Ascalon. It became the military and commercial hub for the new kingdom, and ships from the ports of Genoa, Pisa and Venice landed there, bringing pilgrims and provisions for Jerusalem.162 From Jaffa Godfrey also raided the Muslim-held territories in southern Palestine. The Muslim lords of the ports of Ascalon and Caesarea lacked the power to challenge the Crusaders, and since no help was coming from the Fatimids, they were compelled to submit to Godfrey and pay a combined total of 5,000 dinars a month, as well as cattle, grains, and oils.

Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae,519. Grousset, Histoire, 1: 187; Fink, “The Foundation,” 375. 159 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 511. 160 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 182. 161 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 513–514; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 263. 162 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 183; Heyd, Geschichte, 1: 147. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 207, says that Godfrey fortified Jaffa and handed it over to Tancred. 157 158

462

THE CRUSADES

Many of the Muslim lords of the interior followed their lead, paying Godfrey tribute and offering other provisions to secure their safety.163 The arrangements these Muslim cities had with Godfrey did not guarantee their right to conduct maritime trade in the Mediterranean. By entering into agreements with the maritime republics of Italy, the Crusaders kept these cities from trading freely with other Muslim ports, especially Alexandria and Damietta (in Tunisia), with the result that all of Palestine fell under their hegemony. The Muslims’ sea trade was further disrupted when European ships seized their vessels coming from Egypt and Tunisia, killed their sailors, and confiscated their cargo. Still, relations between the Muslims and Christians in 1100 were generally peaceful, as is clear from the fact that the Muslims of Ascalon ventured into the regions controlled by the Franks to trade, while the Christians visited Ascalon for various reasons without interference.164 Of great help at this time was the arrival of the Venetian ships on June 10, 1100, about the time Godfrey fell ill in Jaffa. He felt so weak that he leaned his head against a friend while putting his legs in the laps of others. Despite his pain, Godfrey received the Venetians, who offered him precious gifts of gold, silver, and costly purple cloth and garments. Because of the severity of his pain, he asked to be taken to Jerusalem, leaving the negotiations with the Venetians to his kinsman Count Garnier of Grey (Werner of Grez), Tancred, and Daimbert (whose role in the negotiations is not known).165 Although the Venetians declared they had come to counsel and aid the Crusaders for the love of God, their primary motive was in fact material. After tough bargaining on both sides, the two parties finally reached an agreement in which the Venetians pledged their services to Godfrey for the period from June 24 to August 15, with the stipulation that they should have a church and a marketplace, together with one-third of the booty taken in any cities that might be captured with their help. But if Tripoli were conquered the Venetians would possess the entire city, and any booty would be equally divided. In return, the Venetians pledged to make a small annual payment, not to Godfrey but to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Finally, the Venetians wanted the right to conquer the coastal towns and 163 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 515–516; Andressohn, Ancestry, 114–115; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 264. 164 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 516; Grousset, 1: 186; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 265. 165 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 519; Andressohn, Ancestry, 119.

JERUSALEM

463

gain taxing privileges.166 Once this agreement was ratified, the Venetians and the forces of Daimbert and Tancred began to besiege Acre. Soon, however, there was news from Jerusalem of the death of Godfrey on July 18, 1100. Daimbert and Tancred proposed to the Venetians that they lift the siege of Acre and attack Haifa, which was closer to Jerusalem and potentially more useful to them.167 Haifa then was under the protection of the Fatimids, who had left a small garrison there. But the majority of its people were Jews who hated the Christians and, together with the Muslims, forcefully resisted the Crusaders.168 Tancred began the siege of Haifa and was on the verge of capturing it on July 25 when he learned of Godfrey’s death.169 There are numerous causes advanced for Godfrey’s death. Matthew of Edessa says he was poisoned by the Muslim chief of Caesarea, but Ordericus Vitalis says he was poisoned by the people of Joppa (Jaffa). The main Arabic sources, al-Azimi, Ibn al-Qalanisi, and Ibn al-Athir, say that Godfrey was killed at Acre after being struck by an arrow.170 William of Tyre says simply says that Godfrey was stricken with a violent and incurable disease, remained sick until death, and was buried in the church of the Holy Sepulcher.171 Godfrey reigned in Jerusalem only from July 22, 1099 to July 18, 1100, too short a time for him to leave an indelible mark on the new Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted almost nine decades though surrounded by hostile Muslims. Ekkehard of Aura, who was in Jerusalem in August 1100, calls him high-minded and deeply religious. Despite the small military force and meager means at his disposal, Godfrey pursued the remnants of the Muslim forces wherever he found them. He rebuilt the demolished town of Jaffa, restored churches and ministries, and gave them and the hospital in Jerusalem rich gifts. He maintained firm peace to insure commerce with Ascalon 166 Translatio S. Nicolai Venetiam, R.H.C. Occ., 5 (Paris, 1895): 373; Andressohn, Ancestry, 119; Nicholson, Tancred, 109–110. 167 Translatio S. Nicolai Venetiam, 373, Heyd, Geschichte, 1: 136; Dana Carleton Munro, The Kingdom of the Crusaders (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1935, rpt. 1966), 67–68; Nicholson, Tancred, 110, n. 1. 168 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 521. 169 Cafari (Caffaro), De liberatione civitatum orientis, 59. 170 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 175–176; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 299, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 341; Muhammad ibn Ali al-Azimi, Tarikh Halab, I. Au’rur, ed. (Damascus, 1984), 360; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 138; Athir, alKamil, 1: 207. 171 William of Tyre, History, 1: 413–414.

464

THE CRUSADES

and Damascus. Most important, he managed with his suave urbanity to quell the bickering among the various ethnic groups of Crusaders. A combination of qualities made Godfrey unique.172 William of Tyre devotes a whole chapter to Godfrey in Jerusalem, embellishing it with tales of his military skill and prowess.173 William of Malmesbury, who declares that King Godfrey was unconquerable in death as he had formerly been in battle, lauds him as a descendant of Charlemagne, and Andressohn produces a genealogical table of Godfrey’s maternal ancestry in support of this contention.174 Godfrey’s death caused a dispute over his succession. Before he died, he had reportedly had Daimbert and Tancred take an oath that they would allow only one of his brothers or kinsmen to succeed him.175 William of Tyre says it was Godfrey’s wish that his brother Baldwin of Boulogne, count of Edessa, should succeed him “in the care of the kingdom due him by hereditary right,” but notes that when Godfrey died, those who were entrusted with carrying out his last will and testament abandoned his wishes and followed their own desires.176 The people of Jerusalem expected Baldwin to succeed Godfrey as hereditary prince of the kingdom. Fulcher of Chartres says that Baldwin grieved a little at the death of his brother but rejoiced more over his inheritance. After consulting with his men, he appointed his cousin and namesake Baldwin of Le Bourg in his place to rule Edessa.177 William of Malmesbury mistakenly says Tancred and the other chiefs declared that Baldwin should be king, but in fact, Tancred was opposed to Baldwin’s succeeding Godfrey.178 It is clear that some of the men closest to Godfrey opposed Baldwin’s succession. In a letter whose text is given by William of Tyre, Patriarch Daimbert, who hoped to block Baldwin from taking power and establish a church-state with himself as head, urged Bohemond, prince of Antioch, to Hagenmeyer, Ekkehard of Aura, 188–197; Andressohn, Ancestry, 123. William of Tyre, History, 1: 379–414. On Godfrey’s skill as a swordsman, see 412–413. 174 William of Malmesbury, History, 446, 448; Andressohn, Ancestry, 10, esp. n. 2. 175 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 524. 176 William of Tyre, History, 1: 415, 417. 177 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 137; Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds, 149; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 299, trans. Chibnall, 5: 343; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 177. 178 William of Malmesbury, History, 449. 172 173

JERUSALEM

465

come to Jerusalem and make himself the city’s temporal ruler: “You know well that you promised me your aid and counsel and voluntarily made yourself subject to the holy church and me.” Daimbert, facing strong opposition from many of Godfrey’s followers, asked Bohemond to forbid Baldwin from acting “against our will and express injunction to come to Jerusalem to devastate the holy church and in any way to lay hand on its possessions,” and urged him to use every means possible, including violence, to hinder Baldwin’s arrival.179 Albert of Aachen mentions this letter but says both Tancred and Daimbert sent letters to Bohemond inviting him to march against Jerusalem with all his forces and take possession of the city before one of Godfrey’s heirs could take it. Daimbert’s letter was carried by his secretary Morel; he was captured near Laodicea by the garrison of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who was then in Constantinople to meet Emperor Alexius.180 In any event, Bohemond could not have received Daimbert’s letter because he had been captured by the Turks.181 Patriarch Arnulf opposed Daimbert, who had deposed and replaced him, as did Garnier of Grey, Galdemar Carpinel, Rudolph of Mouzons, Godfrey’s chamberlain, and Matthew, his steward.182 Count Garnier of Grey, who had seized the Tower of David, refused to surrender it to Daimbert or hand the city over to him. Acting on his own, he secretly sent Bishop Robert of Ramla to inform Baldwin of Godfrey’s death and ask him in the name of the knights and princes of Jerusalem to come as quickly as possible to take over the kingdom.183 When Godfrey’s death was announced, Daimbert had promised Tancred the fief of Haifa, but Tancred, who was suspicious because Godfrey had promised it to Galdemar Carpinel, abruptly halted the siege. When Daimbert assured him that if the city were captured, it should be awarded to the Crusaders, Tancred took that statement to mean that Haifa should go to him. So he resumed the siege until it fell on August 20, 1100, with the help of the Venetians.184 With Haifa taken, Tancred proceeded to establish himself in the city. But his fortunes changed in August when the papal legWilliam of Tyre, History, 1: 419–421; Ralph Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 94. 180 Yewdale, Bohemond I, 93–94; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 1: 318. 181 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 524. 182 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 526; Nicholson, Tancred, 115–116. 183 William of Tyre, History, 1: 417–418. 184 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 521–523; Kugler, Albert, 267; Cafari, Genuensis, 376–378. 179

466

THE CRUSADES

ate Maurice of Porto, who had newly arrived with a Genoese fleet at Laodicea, asked him to assume the regency of Antioch, since his uncle Bohemond had been captured by Gümüshtigin (Malik Ghazi) ibn Danishmend, the lord of Melitene (Malatya) and Sebastea (1097–1105).185 Tancred himself was eager to take over the kingdom of Jerusalem after Godfrey died. But the citizens of Jerusalem told him that Godfrey’s brother, Baldwin of Boulogne, the lord of Edessa, had already been chosen to succeed him, and unless he swore an oath of allegiance to the new king, they would not let him enter the city. Angry, he refused their demand and withdrew in October 1100 to Jaffa. The inhabitants of Jaffa did not welcome him, however, and Tancred prepared to invest the city, stopping only when he learned that Baldwin, who was coming to receive his new kingdom, had reached Haifa.186 By now it was too late for Baldwin’s opponents to thwart his election or hinder his coming to Jerusalem to assume the kingship.187 On October 2, 1100, Baldwin left Edessa for Jerusalem, but he did not go emptyhanded. Matthew of Edessa reports that before he left, Baldwin exacted from the inhabitants of Edessa great quantities of gold and silver.188 On October 9 he was received with alacrity in Antioch. From there he went to Tripoli on October 21, after meeting at Laodicea with the papal legate Maurice of Porto. The Arab lord of Tripoli, Abu Ali ibn Ammar, who was not on good terms with Duqaq, the lord of Damascus, offered tents and provisions to Baldwin and his men, and warned him that Duqaq and Janah al-Dawla, lord of Hims, had massed their troops with the intention of cap-

Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 135; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 177; William of Tyre, History, 1: 411; Azimi, Tarikh Halab, 360–361; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 203; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 307, trans. Chibnall, 5: 355; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 524–525; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 598–590 (188–189F); The Anonymous Edessan, 62 of the Syriac text, 74 of the English, 80–81 of the Arabic; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 83 of the Syriac text, 237 of the English; Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, ed. Sami al-Dahhan (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 145; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 93. 186 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 531–532; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 137. 187 Hagenmeyer, ed., Chronologie, 8: 362–363, No. 503; 363–364, No. 504; 369– 370, No. 509; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 527, 531–532; Kugler, Albert, 20; Röhricht, 17; Andressohn, Ancestry, 122; Nicholson, Tancred, 116–117. 188 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 177. 185

JERUSALEM

467

turing him.189 Baldwin met and defeated the Muslim forces at a narrow pass near the mouth of the Gog river, and he and his men captured many of their horses and arms.190 After a hazardous journey, Baldwin and his entourage arrived in Jerusalem about December 21, 1100, after passing through several towns including Haifa and Jaffa. The clergy and Christians of Jerusalem went out joyfully to welcome him to the city as their lord and king. On Christmas Day 1100, Baldwin was anointed and crowned king by Patriarch Daimbert in the Church of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem.191 Galdemar Carpinel complained to Baldwin that although Godfrey had promised Haifa to him, Tancred was still holding it. Baldwin twice asked Tancred to come to Jerusalem to answer Carpinel’s accusation, but he refused. After a third message Tancred consented to meet Baldwin at Nahr al-Aujaa, a stream between Jaffa and Arsuf. But the meeting appears to have accomplished nothing; Baldwin returned to Jerusalem, and Tancred went to Palestine to look after his possessions.192 The impasse was resolved in March 1101 when a delegation from Antioch arrived in Palestine to ask Tancred to become regent of that principality in the absence of his uncle Bohemond, with the understanding that if Bohemond could not return to Antioch, it would pass to Tancred by the hereditary right of succession.193 This was the second time the people of Antioch had invited Tancred to become their prince.194 The opportunity struck him as more propitious than before, and he decided to settle his problems with Baldwin before leaving. When they met in Haifa on March 8, 1101, Tancred ceded Haifa and Tiberias, but reserved the right to reclaim them if he returned from Antioch several months later.195 Baldwin gave Tiberias to Hugh of Falkenburg and Haifa to Galdemar Carpinel; Tancred, accompanied by his knights, left Haifa for Antioch, arriving there about March 9.196 When Bohemond was Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 138. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 138–139; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 528–530; William of Tyre, History, 1: 422–423; William of Malmesbury, History, 454–455. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 207, incorrectly says that Duqaq won a victory over the Franks. 191 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 148; William of Tyre, History, 1: 427–428. 192 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 537–538; Fink, “The Foundation,” 382; Nicholson, Tancred, 120–121. 193 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 151. 194 William of Tyre, History, 1: 428; Röhricht, 17. 195 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 150–151. 196 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 538; William of Tyre, History, 1: 428; 189 190

468

THE CRUSADES

released from captivity in 1103 and returned to Antioch, Tancred rather ungraciously surrendered the principality. His fiefs in Syria reverted to Baldwin, and he had nothing except two small towns.197 In recognition of his services, Bohemond bestowed upon him and his heirs the greater part of the principality of Antioch, and he handed the whole principality over to Tancred when he returned to France in the fall of 1104.198 After the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, the supreme prize for which they had suffered and fought so much, and crowned Baldwin as its king, how did their new kingdom fare, surrounded by hostile Muslims? How did the Crusaders treat their coreligionists, particularly the Syrians and the Armenians, who had lived under Muslim rule since the seventh century? These native Christians must have expected they would be better treated by the Latins, although they differed with them on some doctrines. But these expectations were not entirely realistic, for occasionally they fell victim to some of the Frankish leaders. The Kingdom of Jerusalem proper in The Holy Land was born anemic. It was small, having scarcely any cities besides the small towns of Bethlehem and Jaffa.199 (The Frankish principalities of Edessa (al-Ruha), Antioch, and Tripoli were held as fiefs of Jerusalem, but in many ways were semi-independent.)200 From the beginning it lacked manpower.201 Some Crusaders stayed in Syria, but many more returned home, believing that by capturing Jerusalem they had fulfilled their spiritual duty toward Christendom. Fulcher of Chartres, chaplain to Baldwin of Bouillon, says that as they returned home, the kingdom of Jerusalem was depopulated, and “there were not enough people to defend it from the Saracens (Muslims) if only the latter dared attack us.”202 Astonished, Fulcher asks how it was possible that so many Muslims and so many kingdoms feared to attack the little Kugler, Boemund und Tankred (Tübingen, 1862), 20, and Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: G. Grotesche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1880), 71; Nicholson, Tancred, 121–122. 197 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 709; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 98. 198 William of Tyre, History, 1: 451, 460. 199 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 149; William of Malmesbury, History, 448–449. 200 John L. La Monte, Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 187. 201 Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972), 68. 202 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 149; J. L. Cate, “The Crusades of 1101,” in A History of The Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 344.

JERUSALEM

469

Frankish kingdom and its humble people. Why could the Muslims not gather from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria hundreds of thousands of fighters to march courageously against it? They were, he says, like innumerable locusts in a little field, capable of devouring the Franks, who then had no more than 300 knights and a like number of foot soldiers to defend Jerusalem, Jaffa, Ramla, and Haifa. The Franks were afraid even to assemble these knights if they wished to attack their Muslim foes. They not only had no manpower, but were in dire need of horses. The Europeans who sailed to Syrian ports could not bring horses with them, and Jerusalem itself was far inland. Even the people of Antioch could not help the Franks in Jerusalem, nor could the Franks help those in Antioch. The situation of the Franks in Jerusalem was depressing. Fulcher says that as true Christian believers, confident in God’s providence despite their small numbers the Franks continued to fight their enemies, sustained by His mercy and His reward of eternal life. In other words, God was on their side.203 The Muslims also believed that Allah was on their side, but the reality is that although the Franks lacked strength, the Muslims were weakened and torn by internal quarrels and divisions. Ibn al-Athir correctly says the Franks were able to control the lands of Islam (meaning Syria) because the Muslim leaders and their armies were busy fighting each other. Thus, the Muslims were divided and lost everything.204 Baldwin was well aware that Jerusalem itself was almost destitute of inhabitants. He did not have enough people to perform the kingdom’s administrative functions, not even enough to protect the entrance to the city or defend its walls and towers. Jerusalem’s Muslim and Jewish inhabitants had been almost annihilated when the Franks captured it. Those who fled were not allowed to return; only Christians were allowed to remain in the city. The Latins were so few in number that they scarcely filled one street.205 The number of Syrians, the original citizens of Jerusalem, had been immensely reduced over time due to their trials and tribulations. After the Crusaders took Antioch and began marching to Jerusalem, the Muslims had punished the Christian inhabitants. They executed many Syrians, regardless of age or sex, for the most trivial offenses. The Muslims distrusted them and accused them of inviting the Crusaders to come and destroy them and their lands. To alleviate Jerusalem’s population shortage, Baldwin looked to Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 149–150. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 220. 205 William of Tyre, History, 1: 507; Prawer, “The Settlement,” 491. 203 204

470

THE CRUSADES

the region beyond the Jordan, where Christians lived in villages under harsh conditions of servitude and were forced to pay tribute to their Muslim overlords. He promised these people improved conditions if they moved to his realm. Soon many of them took their wives, children, flocks, and households and came to Jerusalem, some even without being invited. Baldwin settled these people in the underpopulated sections of the city.206 With the settlement of the non-Latin Christians, Jerusalem began to enjoy relative prosperity but still could not rival the coastal cities. It was a spiritual symbol, the center of Christian worship. But it was an inland city, not a seaport and commercial emporium attractive to European sailors and traders. Prawer observes that the merchants of southern Italy and France were of great importance to the colonization of the Holy Land. Given the involvement of the Western Europeans in the Crusades, it may seem surprising that there was no Italian quarter in Jerusalem. But the Italians and other Latin merchants could not do business in an inland city whose retail activity depended on the diverse merchandise unloaded in the seaports and transported to the interior.207 With his small military force, Baldwin had to choose his battles with the Muslims. He fought the Turks sporadically and met the Fatimids in three battles at Ramla between 1101 and 1105. In the first, he had only 260 knights against a vastly superior Egyptian force. The Franks won a great victory and captured a great quantity of arms, and the Fatimid commander Sa’d al-Dawla al-Qawasi lost his life when he fell from his horse.208 But Baldwin’s luck ran out the next year, when the Fatimids surprised him and his 200 knights on their way to Ramla on May 17. He was soundly defeated and lost Stephen of Blois and Stephen, count of Burgundy, Milo of Bray, Harpin of Bourg, William Sans-Avoir and his brother Simon, and many other brave knights. He fled in disguise to Arsuf, barely escaping with his life. From there he rode his mare Ghazala (Gazelle) to Jaffa and related his sad tale.209 In the summer of 1105, the Egyptians sent an expedition by sea against Baldwin commanded by Sana al-Mulk Husayn, son of the Wazir alAfdal, who had appealed for help to Tughtigin, the Turkish lord of Damas206 William of Tyre, History, 1: 507–508; Joshua Prawer, “The Settlement,” 495– 496, and The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 135. 207 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 150; Prawer, “The Settlement,” 499–500. 208 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 535, 549; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 214–215. 209 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 169–170; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 302–303, trans. Chibnall, 5: 347; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 215; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 593; William of Malmesbury, History, 463–467.

JERUSALEM

471

cus. Despite their religious differences (Tughtigin was a Sunnite, al-Afdal a Shi’ite), Tughtigin sent a force led by Isbahbad Sabawa, one of his aides. Ironically, Artash (Baktash, son of the Seljuk Taj al-Dawla Tutush), who was angry with Tughtegin for having usurped Damascus from him, joined forces with Baldwin, accompanied by a hundred men.210 Ebermar, who was now patriarch of Jerusalem, accompanied Baldwin’s forces with the crucifix. The battle took place on August 27, and the Fatimids were badly beaten. The Franks also lost many men. Ibn al-Athir says that no one really won this battle because the Franks lost 1,200 men and the Muslims lost a similar number.211 Over the course of his reign (1100–1118) Baldwin achieved several military successes and expanded his dominion. The weakness and division among the Muslims enabled him to control most of the eastern Mediterranean seaports, which were essential to the survival of his small kingdom.212 They were the only outlets through which he could receive aid, however meager, from the West. For this reason he attacked Sidon in 1106 and, with the help of the Pisan and Genoese sailors who arrived in August 1108, he managed to take the city.213 Baldwin eventually captured most of the seaports, including Acre (Akka), Ascalon, Tyre, and Sidon. In 1115 he built the fortress of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal) in the Transjordan region, to protect that part of his kingdom and levy taxes on Muslim caravans leaving Syria for Egypt or the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The next year he extended his influence to the port of Ayla on the Gulf of Aqaba, which became the southernmost point of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.214 He reportedly visited the Greek Monastery of Mount Sinai, but did not claim any territory in the region.215 In 1118 Baldwin led a small expedition to Egypt. On March 14, his men attacked and plundered Pelusium (al-Farma), but much to their surprise the townspeople had fled, leaving their belongings behind.216 After burning the Mosque of al-Farma and its masjid, he turned westward to Tin-

Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 148–149. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 228–229. 212 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 210–211; Fink, “The Foundation,” 402–404. 213 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 632–634; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 253. 214 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 215–216. 215 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 703; Fink, “The Foundation,” 406. 216 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 221, n. 1. 210 211

472

THE CRUSADES

nis, on one of the mouths of the Nile.217 Baldwin apparently began to suffer from an old wound, probably received in 1103. He was placed on a litter to be carried back to Jerusalem, but on reaching al-Arish (Rhinocolura), about fifty miles east of al-Farma, he died, most likely on Palm Sunday, April 7, 1118.218 At his death, Baldwin had extended his tiny kingdom tremendously, but he and his successors could not eliminate the threat of the native Muslims, who remained in control of major cities like Aleppo, Hama, and especially Damascus, and could always penetrate the weakest and most fragile part of the kingdom.219 The Syrians and the Armenians represented only a small stratum in the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem.220 Having lived under the feudal system, the Franks applied it in the East. At the top of the social pyramid stood the Frankish prince, nobles, and knights, alone considered the “Staatsvolk” of the kingdom.221 They and their households were a minority in Jerusalem, as well as in the principalities of Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli, but they had tremendous political power. They advised the king on matters of administration, war and peace, and even the line of succession. Such concerns were traditionally the prerogatives of the nobles and clergy, but it is also possible that Franks of lesser status participated in them.222 Another stratum consisted of knights and warriors in the Frankish armies. Because of the lack of Frankish women, they intermarried mostly with Armenian women, giving rise to a new group, the pullani [Polains]. The Arabs used the derogatory term ibn Fulan (‘son of so-and-so’) to describe the new hybrid offspring of Franks and natives. According to Jacques de Vitry, the pullani were so called either because they were newcomers (pullets, compared with the Syrians) or because, due to the dearth of women, the Franks who remained in the Holy Land invited women from the kingdom of Apulia in

Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 314; Fink, “The Foundation,” 407. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 222, n. 5. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 314, says that Baldwin took a swim in the Nile and inflamed an old wound, which led to his death. 219 James Westfall Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 300– 1300, 1 (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1959), 396–397. 220 For a useful account of the role of the Syrians, Armenians, and Byzantines in this period, see Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 214–232. 221 Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Latins, Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Variorum Reprints (London, 1983), 176–177. 222 Mayer, “Latins,”176. 217 218

JERUSALEM

473

Italy, the nearest European country, and married them.223 One source says that the pullani “were not unlike the Eurasians or half-castes of India.”224 The pullani played a significant role in the destruction of the social fabric of the kingdom of Jerusalem. De Vitry, who has nothing good to say of them, declares, “They were brought up in luxury, soft and effeminate. They were more used to baths than battles, addicted to unclean and riotous living, clad like women in soft robes, and ornamented even as the polished corners of the Temple.”225 Moreover, unlike their fathers, who courageously fought and defeated the Saracens (Muslims), the pullani became so slothful and timid that they could not withstand the assaults of the Muslims. They were corrupt and cruel even to their wives, whom they did not trust but kept under locks in abject seclusion, not allowing them even to see their nearest of kin. No state, he says, can survive the existence of such a degenerate population, lacking all basic virtues.226 The native Syrians and Armenians stood at the bottom of the Franks’ feudal pyramid. The Crusaders hated them because of their doctrinal differences and distrusted them, believing that at times they collaborated with the Byzantines. Yet the Crusaders needed these people because of their skills as craftsmen and artisans. The Syrians were in fact serfs, living under less favorable conditions than the villeins in Europe who tilled the soil and planted vineyards.227 Their lot was so bad that they regarded the centuries under their former overlords, the Arabs and the Byzantines, as a golden age. In urban areas, the Syrians and Armenians were the backbone of the middle class, with the right to own property and an autonomous administration with their own magistrates, but they had no voice in the state.228 They were better businessmen than their European counterparts, especially the Italians, because they understood the native culture, but this does not mean that the Christian colonies in Syria in the twelfth century could not prosper. The natives’ influence was clear in the country’s civil administration; when the Crusaders established themselves in Syria, they found it wise to retain Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, 58. See also M. R. Morgan, “The Meaning of the Old French Polain, Latin Pullanus,” Medium Aevum 48 (1979): 40–50, and The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuations of William of Tyre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), Appendix II, 194–195. 224 Thompson, Economic, 398. 225 Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, 64. 226 Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, 65. 227 Vitry, The History of Jerusalem, 58. 228 Mayer, “Latins,” 177. 223

474

THE CRUSADES

many of the laws of the Christian population, together with elements of Islamic law as the Muslims applied it to their Christian subjects. Upon the advice of the Latin patriarchs, princes, and barons, Baldwin of Bouillon adopted a code of laws titled Lettres du Sépulcre (Canons of the Holy Sepulcher), which was applied to all those who dwelt in his kingdom.229 Although many Muslims lived in the kingdom, very few were found in Jerusalem, and fewer still are mentioned by Latin sources. They were given a small role in the internal administration, but were generally treated as chattels of the state. While the Syrians at least enjoyed some political rights, the Muslims in the kingdom of Jerusalem had none.230 In church matters, Baldwin sought to establish the pope’s authority in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land. Since Pope Urban II had launched the Crusades, it was only fitting that the Church of Jerusalem, the mother church of Christendom, should be put under papal authority. Indeed, after the capture of Antioch several Frankish leaders wrote to Urban on September 11, 1098, informing him of their success and urging him as the vicar of the Blessed Peter to come to Antioch and seat himself on the throne of his predecessor. They made it clear that if he would join them to finish the pilgrimage he had inaugurated and help them liberate Jerusalem and the Sepulcher of the Lord, the whole world then would be obedient to him. Fulcher of Chartres does not name Baldwin as one of those who sent the letter, but does mention his two brothers, Godfrey and Eustace.231 It is thus not surprising that Baldwin sought to establish the pope’s authority in the kingdom of Jerusalem. His intention in placing Jerusalem under the direct authority of the pope was to curb the ambition of Patriarch Daimbert, who wanted the city under his own clerical authority. Baldwin may also have hoped to subordinate the Latin bishoprics of the other Frankish principalities to the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, who in turn would be subject to the authority of the pope.232 William of Tyre says that at the suggestion [of the Latin clergy], Baldwin decided to put all the cities and provinces under the authority of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem, i.e., the authority of the Church of Rome. He urged Pope Paschal II to issue a bull to this effect. The pope assented and issued a bull on June 8, 1111, telling 229 Prawer, “The Settlement,” 499; Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, “The Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957): 302–303; Thompson, Economic, 399–400. 230 Mayer, “Latins,” 175–176. 231 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 107–112. 232 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 312.

JERUSALEM

475

Baldwin, “I grant that whatever cities of the infidels you have taken or shall take hereafter shall be under the rule and authority of the church of Jerusalem.”233 He also wrote the Latin Bishop Gibelin to this effect: “Thus . . . beloved brother and co-bishop . . We grant to the church of Jerusalem these cities and provinces which have been acquired by the grace of God through the blood of the glorious King Baldwin and his armies.”234 This action displeased Bernard, the Latin bishop of Antioch, who felt that granting such privilege to the bishop of Jerusalem would lessen his own authority, but Pope Paschal wrote him to allay his fears and assure him that his authority would not be affected.235 The Frankish domains in the East (the Levant) prospered through European trade. The cities in the Kingdom of Jerusalem produced various raw materials that could be exported to Europe. The exchange of commercial goods between East and West yielded enormous profit. But the kings of Jerusalem profited little from this fortune, spending most of it on military forces and the church. The Latins received the greatest share of this wealth. Their clergy grew in power and wealth, mostly due to the gifts lavished on them by the people and the kings. The Latin patriarch of Jerusalem could claim all the kingdom as his own property. Many clergymen owned food shops and bakeries. They grew so rich and powerful that by 1120 they prevailed upon King Baldwin II of Le Bourg to exempt the foodstuffs coming into the city from customs duties.236 They became landowners and even held properties in Europe. They were also exempt from taxes, and in some instances they held the right to navigate on rivers like the Adana without being taxed. But their wealth, in the form of land, orchards, market rights, and port privileges, weakened rather than strengthened the church. It deprived the state of so much necessary revenue that a decree was issued to restrict the gifts made to the church. The land was sold, and orchards were leased to small farmers and gardeners who made payments in kind. Members of the military orders and nobility who believed the church had beYael Katzir, “The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Primate of the Latin Kingdom,” in Crusade and Settlement, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985), 171, quoting Paschal II, “Epistolae et Privilegia,” in Patrologia Latina, 174: 289. 234 Katzir, “The Patriarch,” 169, 171. 235 William of Tyre, History, 508–511. 236 Prawer, “The Settlement,” 497; Prawer, “The Jerusalem the Crusaders Captured: A Contribution to the Medieval Topography of the City,” in Crusade and Settlement, Edbury, ed., 1–16. 233

476

THE CRUSADES

come rich at their expense began to emulate the church in the acquisition of wealth, and as a result antagonism and divisiveness became the dominant forces in the kingdom.237 Since the Crusaders defeated the Muslims in the East and founded several principalities, Jerusalem being the most important, the First Crusade was a great success. John France declares, "The victory of the First Crusade precipitated great changes in the ideological and political conflicts of Europe, in the politics of the Levant, and in the trading habits of the Mediterranean basin."238 But the overall impact of the Frankish presence on the Muslim East was ephemeral, for many of the changes did not last. Indeed, despite its prosperity and its location at the center of the kingdom, Jerusalem was weak strategically. The Franks were able to rule it for nearly a century not because they were strong and had the upper hand over the Muslims, but because there was no unified Muslim power in the Holy Land to challenge them. Jerusalem was far from Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, and the other cities of northern Syria, the center of operations for the Muslims, who needed to defeat the Franks there before marching on Jerusalem. Their main objective was not Jerusalem but Edessa, in the extreme northern part of the Latin hegemony. Mosul, in northern Mesopotamia, became an important center of Muslim power and was allied with Damascus by Imad alDin Zangi, atabeg of Mosul (1127–1146) and founder of the Zangid dynasty, to become a formidable opponent of the Franks. As we shall see, the Zangids’ conquest of Edessa in 1144 was a major disaster for the Franks in the East. The Franks’ situation worsened with the rise of Saladin, who began his political career in Egypt and was shrewd enough to capture the Zangid state and unite Egypt and Damascus under his rule. Although the Franks skirmished with the Muslims periodically and tried to drive a wedge between Egypt and Syria, they saw the danger of the new Muslim threat and reached a temporary accommodation with Saladin. But it did not last, and the final blow came in 1187 when the Franks lost Jerusalem.

Thompson, Economic, 407; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 483–486. John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 2. 237 238

14 THE FRANKS AS RULERS Before 1097, the East was plagued by constant warfare involving the Syrians, Armenians, Arabs, and Turks; friction among these groups was an accepted part of life, though some cities were relatively peaceful.1 The Franks’ arrival and military successes added more friction to an already turbulent area. It is an oversimplification to maintain, as some modern Muslim writers do, that the Franks were imperialists who seized the lands of the East, molested their people (especially Muslims), and destroyed their way of life. The Muslim Turks, who had taken control of the Byzantine territory of Asia Minor in the eleventh century, fought against one another and against their fellow Muslims, the Kurds, for self-interest, power and domination. To maintain their political power, some Turkish rulers even allied themselves with the Franks against other Turks. Although the Franks committed atrocities against the Muslims and treated them badly, their conduct was no worse than that of the Muslims against the Christians. The Crusaders killed many Muslims en route to Jerusalem, and when they captured it in 1099 they massacred some 30,000 more.2 They also killed many Muslims at Caesarea in 1101, at Tortosa the next year, at Acre in 1104 (where the English killed 300 Muslims in 1119), and at Tripoli in 1109, when the Genoese spared only those Muslims who were protected by the Frankish king.3 Nevertheless, the Franks’ dominance in the East (Levant) was brief and precarious. They were a minority, a tiny speck in a sea of Muslims, and their numbers remained low because there H. A. R. Gibb, ed., Introduction to The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades (London: Luzac, 1967), 14–32, in H. A. R. Gibb, Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, ed. Yusuf Ibish (Beirut: The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974), 30–44. 2 The Anonymous Edessan, 60 of the Syriac text, 73 of the English translation, 79 of the Arabic translation. 3 Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, R. H. C. Occ., 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1867), 607; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 243. 1

477

478

THE CRUSADES

were few Frankish pilgrims coming to the East. In these circumstances they were vulnerable and had to rely on the indigenous Christians, mostly Armenians, to preserve their shaky rule. Had it not been for the deep-rooted dissension among the Muslim rulers in Syria, the Franks would have been hard pressed to maintain a stable existence for nearly 193 years, from the occupation of Antioch in 1098 to the fall of Acre in 1291. They ruled in Antioch from 1098 to 1268, in Jerusalem from 1099 to 1178 and again from 1229 to 1244, in Nabulus from 1099 to 1187, in Caesarea from 1101 to 1187, and in Tyre from 1124 to 1292.4 Only recently has some fragmentary evidence about the life of Muslims in the East during this period come to light, not enough to provide a comprehensive and accurate picture of their life under Frankish rule.5 The Muslim chronicler Hamdan ibn Abd al-Rahim al-Atharbi (1071–1147/8), who lived in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, was perhaps the person best qualified to write about the Muslims under Frankish rule; he had a remarkable career under both Frankish and Muslim rulers. Sadly, only fragments of his chronicle survive.6 Diya al-Din ibn Abd al-Wahid al-Muqaddasi (1173– 1245) wrote a short account of the flight of Muslim Hanbali peasants from Nabulus to Damascus from the 1150’s on, but it pertains only to a small minority and does not offer a full picture of what happened to the Muslims in those areas.7 In the Kingdom of Jerusalem there were apparently many Muslims, mostly peasants, who lived in peace under Frankish rule. The 4 Benjamin Z. Kedar, The Franks in the Levant, 11th to 14th Centuries (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), 135–136 and Jean Richard, The Crusades 1071–1291 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 100–108. 5 For a comprehensive treatment of this subject, see Kedar, The Franks in the Levant, 135–174; Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approach toward the Muslims (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 42–57; Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonization in the Middle Ages (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972), 47–52; Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Latins, Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” London, 1983), 175–192. 6 Claude Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque d’Antioche (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1940), 41–42; Kedar, The Franks, 137. 7 Diya al-Din Abd al-Wahid al-Maqdisi, Sabab Hijrat al-Maqadisa ila Dimashq, in M. A. Dahman, ed., Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ali Ibn Tulun, al-Qala’id alJawhariyya fi Tarikh al-Salibiyya, 1 (Damascus, 1980), 68; Daniella Talmon-Heller, “Arabic Sources on Muslim Villagers under Frankish Rule, “ in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500, Alan V. Murray, ed., (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 103–117; Kedar, The Franks, 138; Richards, The Crusades 1071–1297, 100–108.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

479

Frankish chronicler Ernoul says that when Thoros, lord of Armenia (Thoros II, lord of Cilicia 1152–1168), visited Jerusalem in the mid-1160’s, Saracens lived in all the villages in the Frankish kingdom, and he urged Amalric I (king of Jerusalem, 1163–1174) to evict the Muslims from his kingdom and resettle it with 30,000 Armenian warriors in order to defend his realm.8 There is no evidence that King Amalric accepted this advice, and the incident is not reported by any other source. As the Franks settled the lands they had conquered and established their own principalities, their treatment of their Muslim subjects became more lenient. The evidence suggests that the condition of Muslims in the Latin state of Jerusalem was far better than that of Muslims in their own lands. Fulcher of Chartres wrote in 1125 that confidence reconciles the strangest races, perhaps referring to the peaceful condition of the diverse peoples living under the Franks’ rule. Like many of their Syrian Christian neighbors, the Muslims engaged in farming. The Spanish Muslim traveler Ibn Jubayr (1144–1217), who traveled in a caravan from Tibnin to Akka (Acre) in 1184–1185, reports that the Muslim peasants lived in peace and were very little imposed upon by the Franks. They even owned their own homes. Like the Syrian Christians, however, they paid the Frankish landowners taxes, whether in cash or in kind (mainly fruits), in return for the use of the land. Ibn Jubayr says the condition of these Muslims was so much better than that of their coreligionists in neighboring Muslim countries that he fears they might be enticed to convert to Christianity. He stresses the fact that in the coastal region of Syria, the Muslims owned the land where they lived and worked. He and the men in his caravan were invited to a banquet by the Muslim village headman, the steward of the Frankish lord, and spent a night being beautifully entertained by their host. Ibn Jubayr adds that all business operations were conducted in the divan at Akka with courtesy and gentility, with no force threatened and no surcharge imposed.9 We learn from al-Muqaddasi that some Hanbali Muslims attended the mosque of the village of Jamma’il to perform the Friday prayer and listen to the khutba (sermon).10 The inChronique D’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, M. L. De Mas Latrie, ed. (Paris: M. V. Jules Renouard, 1871), 28–29. 9 Rihlat Ibn Jubayr (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1964), 274–275, reproduced in R. H. C. Or., 3: 448–449, and trans. R. J. C. Broadhurst as The Travels of Ibn Jubayr (London: Jonathan Cape, 1952), 316–317; Mayer, “Latins, Muslims and Greeks,” 181. 10 Al-Maqdisi, in Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ali Ibn Tulun, al-Qala’id alJawhariyya fi Traikh al-Salibiyya 1 (Damascus, 1980), 68; Kedar, The Franks, 138, n. 10. Cf. Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, “Some Aspects of Muslim-Frankish Christian Rela8

480

THE CRUSADES

habitants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were heterogeneous, at least in religion. There were Christians of many denominations, Jews, and Muslims of diverse ethnic origin and religious affiliation. They seem to have had little religious friction or animosity. Yet these facts do not negate the fact that some Frankish leaders mistreated both Muslim and non-Muslim natives. Reginald of Châtillon’s intercepting and robbing Muslim caravans and Joscelin II’s looting of the Syrian Monastery of St. Barsoum are two cases in point. But the Muslims, especially the Turks, acted the same as the Franks, killing, ravaging and extorting the native Christians. Since the Franks relied heavily on the Christian natives, especially the Armenians, who were the majority of the inhabitants of northern Syria and particularly of Edessa, the center of the Frankish principality, it is imperative to understand whether the Franks’ treatment of them contributed to the weakness of their kingdom, which led ultimately to the loss of Jerusalem. How did the Franks treat the Syrians and the Armenians, who formed the bulk of the Christian population in Syria? The Franks not only were of a different race but also held differing theological views. Yet these Christians overlooked their differences, mindful that they were fighting a common enemy, the Muslims. When Baldwin of Boulogne became lord of Edessa (1098–1100), he ingratiated himself with the Armenian population by taking an Armenian wife, but he aroused their enmity when he tried to convert Edessa into a Latin city; as king of Jerusalem, however, he made the same error by trying to make his kingdom a vassal of the pope. Faced with a population shortage, King Baldwin brought Syrian Christians from Transjordan and settled them in Jerusalem. Once they were there, they began to build churches, including those named for St. Abraham, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Jacob near the Holy Sepulcher of the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobites), St. Elias, and St. Saba, near David’s tower.11 But their conditions and relations with the Franks were not always favorable. Needing their support, Baldwin showed tolerance and allowed them to restore their churches, yet as a follower of the Church of Rome he tried to establish the authority of the pope in the East. Michael Rabo says that after they captured Antioch, the Franks usurped the churches of the Greeks (Byzantines) tions in the Sham Region in the Twelfth Century,” in Christian-Muslim Encounters, Yvonne-Yazbeck Haddad and Wadi Zaidain Haddad, eds. (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995): 194–197. 11 J. Prawer, “The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem,” Speculum 27 (1952): 496–497.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

481

and expelled their clergy, then installed their own patriarch and bishops for most of the cities of Syria.12 Why should have they done this, unless they intended to establish the authority of the pope in Syria? But later Michael Rabo is more positive about the Franks’ treatment of other Christians, especially those of his own communion. He compares them with the Byzantines to show how badly the latter had treated his own (Syrian) church and people. Around 1112, under Emperor Alexius Comnenus, he says, the affairs of his church were fairly peaceful because the “Chalcedonian Greeks were besieged in the Sea of Pontus (the Black Sea) by the sons of Magog (the Turks).” Thus engaged, they had no time to persecute the (Syrian) Orthodox as they had done previously, but while they were still under siege, the Byzantines kept using the Syrians of their own communion to coax the non-Chalcedonian Syrians to embrace their faith. He says the priests and shepherds of his church were kept safe from harm by the Franks, who controlled Antioch and Jerusalem. But the Franks did not oppress the Chalcedonian Syrians (or Rum Orthodox), despite their differences with them on some doctrinal issues, especially the doctrine of the filioque, and other traditions. Michael’s optimism reaches a high pitch when he praises the Franks for their amicable attitude toward their fellow Christians: “To the Franks, all Christians were one although they spoke different languages. They considered every one who worshiped the Cross as a Christian without argument or disputation.”13 Michael Rabo’s apparent benevolence toward the Franks should be understood as referring to their activities when they had newly arrived on Byzantine soil. After they established a foothold and founded principalities in Antioch, Tripoli and Edessa, and a kingdom in Jerusalem, some of their princes plainly were interested in protecting their own territorial and political interests rather than the well-being of the native Syrian and Armenian Christians. They installed a Latin patriarch, one of their own, and ordained bishops for the cities of Tarsus, al-Missisa (Mopsuestia, Mamistra, Misis), Edessa, Manbij, Afamiya, Tripoli and Laodicia (Latakia). They chose bishops in Cyrrhus, Jabala, Mar’ash (Germanicia), and Harim. Their new patri12 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 588, 590; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 185, 191; J. W. Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 300–1300 (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1959), 1: 406. 13 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 606–607 (French, 221–222).

482

THE CRUSADES

arch of Jerusalem ordained bishops for Bethlehem, Hebron, Samaria, Yafa (Jaffa, Joppa), Nazareth, Caesarea, and Beirut, and after they captured Sidon, they chose a bishop for it as well.14 The contention between Rome and Constantinople over the control of Christendom in the East is beyond this study. Still, it is clear that the Franks intended to establish their own religious tradition of “papal supremacy” and cooperate with the native Christians, especially the Armenians, whose assistance far exceeded that of the Maronites of the Mountain of Lebanon. William of Tyre, the earliest Latin source on this point, discusses the assistance given the Crusaders by the Maronites, who he says were Monothelite heretics who were restored to the Orthodox faith, i.e., that of the Church of Rome, by Aimery (Amalric), the third Latin patriarch to preside over the Church of Antioch. He describes these people, whose number is estimated at over 40,000, as a stalwart race of valiant fighters who gave great service to the Christians in the difficult engagements they frequently had with the enemy. He joyfully reports their conversion to the Catholic faith, but says nothing about intermarriage between them and the Crusaders.15 Jacques de Vitry, the thirteenth-century bishop of Acre and later of Jerusalem, also discusses the Maronites, saying they were called by this name after their teacher, one Maro (Marun), a heretic who taught that Christ had only one will and one energy (Monothelitism). De Vitry, apparently relying on the history of William of Tyre, says these Maronites professed the Catholic faith in the presence of Amalric, Latin Patriarch of Antioch.16 The truth is that the Maronites did not become adherents to the faith of the Church of Rome until the late sixteenth century.17 They gave less support to the Franks than other Syrian and Armenian groups. They were confined to their homeland in the Mountain of Lebanon, while other Syrians and Armenians, who made up the bulk of the Christian population of Greater Syria, stretched from Edessa in the north to the farthest point of Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 590 (French, 190–191), gives the name of only one of these Latin bishops, Brikha (Benedict) of Edessa. 15 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 1: 458– 459. 16 Jacques De Vitry, The History of Jerusalem AD 1180 (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896), 79–80. 17 For a thorough analysis of the Maronites and their adherence to the Church of Rome, see Matti Moosa, The Maronites in History (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986, reprinted Gorgias Press, 2005.). 14

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

483

Palestine. Thus, it is not surprising that the Muslims’ main target was not Jerusalem but Edessa, the first Frankish principality in northern Syria, with the largest population of Armenians and Syrians. The Franks were not so benevolent toward the native Christians as Michael Rabo suggests, and in some cases treated them badly. Matthew of Edessa reports such ill treatment in 1101–1102, early in the rule of Baldwin I of Boulogne (brother of Godfrey of Bouillon), and expresses utter disgust at the Franks’ conduct and mistreatment of other Christians. He says they had abandoned religious righteousness and wallowed in sin. He especially berates the sinful acts of their clergy, who ministered in the holy church in Jerusalem, and is outraged because they appointed women to serve at the Holy Sepulcher and all the monasteries in Jerusalem, saying, “all these were very great sins in the eyes of God.” Moreover, the Franks were so audacious as to expel the Armenians, Byzantines, Syrians and Georgians from all the monasteries. But when they saw the enormity of their deeds, they removed the women from service in the monasteries and restored these Christians to their duties.18 Baldwin II of Le Bourg succeeded his relative Baldwin of Bolougne as the ruler of Edessa in 1100. William of Tyre, noting that he was surnamed Aculeus (“sharp” or “pointed”), praises him for his noble birth and character, but chiefly for his loyalty and great experience in military affairs.19 Matthew of Edessa extols him as one of the more illustrious of the Franks. He was valiant, a great warrior, a man of exemplary conduct who loathed sin, yet was humble and modest. Unfortunately, these excellent qualities were overshadowed by his avarice and his insatiable love of wealth, coupled with a lack of generosity. Yet he was very orthodox in his faith, and “his ethical conduct and basic character were quite solid.”20 Today one might truly call him schizophrenic. Baldwin of Le Bourg tried to strengthen his position in Edessa by seeking the allegiance of the Armenians and offering them better treatment than his predecessor. He showed political sagacity by establishing amicable relations with the Armenian Church and its clerics.21 To show his desire to 18 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 179. 19 William of Tyre, History, 1: 517. 20 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 221–222. 21 R. Grousset, L’Empire du Levant d’Orient Historie de la Question (Paris, 1964), 298.

484

THE CRUSADES

unify the native Christians, he married Morphia, daughter of Gabriel, the Armenian governor of Melitene, a vassal to the governor of Edessa.22 The Armenians in turn joined forces with Baldwin against the Turks, and when he fought the battle of Harran (Balikh) against Shams al-Dawla Jekermish (Chökürmish), Turkish lord of Mosul, and Sukman ibn Artuk, Turkish lord of Mardin, on May 7, 1104, most of the casualties were Armenians. He also supported the Syrian Bishop Abu Ghalib Bar Sabuni, who had rebelled against the authority of his own patriarch.23 Baldwin also was pleased to have strong support from his cousin, Joscelin I of Courtenay, who along with Harpin, viscount of Bourges, had joined the Crusades in 1101 under the banner of Stephen of Blois.24 As Joscelin had neither lands nor wealth, Baldwin in 1102 conferred upon him an extensive part of the county of Edessa west of the Euphrates, containing such cities as Coritium (Cyrrhus, Qurush), Aintab, Turbessel (Tall Bashir), Ravendan (Rawandan) and Duluk, in the hope that “he may not be compelled to turn to a stranger to earn a livelihood.”25 William of Tyre extols Joscelin for his wisdom, temperance, and most of all his sagacity and earnest care in administering the lands Baldwin granted to him.26 He became to all intents and purposes Baldwin’s second in command in the county of Edessa, which was perfectly situated as a buffer between the Seljuk lords of Aleppo and Khurasan, who still threatened his principality. No sooner had Joscelin became lord of Edessa than the Artukid Sukman, lord of Hisn Kifa, attacked the city of Saruj, some fifteen miles southwest of Edessa, which had been under the authority of Sukman’s nephew Nur al-Dawla Belek. Saruj was rich and populous, with many MusAlbert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 648; William of Tyre, History, 1: 450, 522; N. Iorga, L’Armenie Ciliciénne (Paris: J. Gamber, 1930), 93; Harold S. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099–1118, “ in A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 392; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem, 1 (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1935): 438, and 2: 868; Cahen, La Syrie, 230. 23 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593 (French, 197). 24 Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, trans. Thomas Forester, 3 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 289; also trans. Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 5 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996), 325. 25 William of Tyre, History, 1: 450; Robert Lawrence Nicholson, Joscelyn I, Prince of Edessa (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1954), 5. 26 William of Tyre, History, 1: 451. 22

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

485

lims and Christians, including many merchants. Its rich plain was also home to many villages. While Baldwin of Boulogne still ruled Edessa, the Armenians living on the banks of the Euphrates had placed themselves at the Franks’ disposal and harried Saruj. Belek, realizing that Saruj could not survive in the midst of Christian lands, sent envoys, offering to surrender the city to Baldwin if the Franks would not harass the Turks any more. Baldwin agreed and named Fulcher of Chartres (not to be confused with the historian of the same name) as governor of Saruj. But Fulcher did not honor the terms of the covenant Belek and Baldwin had made. He arrested Ubayd, the Muslim administrator of Saruj, along with his brother and members of his clan, and exacted from them enormous amounts of gold, thereby becoming rich and powerful.27 When Mu’in al-Dawla Sukman heard that the Franks had captured Saruj, he raised a great army and besieged it, relying on some Muslims in the town. Learning of this, Baldwin of Le Bourg went out with Fulcher to fight him. In a violent battle in January 1101, the Franks were thoroughly defeated, and Fulcher was killed (according to Matthew of Edessa) or captured (according to the Anonymous Edessan). The Turks took Saruj except for the citadel, where its Latin bishop Papios and some soldiers took refuge. Baldwin and three of his men barely escaped to the citadel, and some leading citizens went there and brought him back to the city. A few days later, Baldwin went to Antioch to appeal to Tancred for help. The Turks kept attacking the citadel, forcing the city’s inhabitants to reach an agreement with the Turks.28 Twenty-five days later, Baldwin returned with reinforcements, 600 horsemen and 700 infantry, and engaged the Turks in battle in early February 1101. Seeing the Franks’ great force, the Turks weakened and many of them fled. Baldwin carried the day and entered Saruj, killing many Muslim inhabitants and taking others captive, including women. Antioch and all the lands under the control of the Franks were filled with captives, says Matthew, while the city of Saruj flowed with blood.29 The Anonymous Edessan says the Muslims in Saruj, sorely afraid and believing The Anonymous Edessan, 64 (English, 76; Arabic, 84). The Anonymous Edessan, 65 (English, 76; Arabic, 85); Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 177–178, mentions the agreement but says nothing about its terms. 29 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 178; Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ad al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 138; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 208; Aliyya Abd al-Sami’ alJanzuri, Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya (Cairo, 1975), 90–92. 27 28

486

THE CRUSADES

the Christians would show them no mercy, locked the gates and manned the wall, waiting for an army of Turks to help them. The Franks urged them to stop this obstinacy and promised not to annihilate them. When they would not listen, the Franks announced that every Christian in the town should wear the badge of the cross. Then they roared like lions and jumped from the citadel into the town. Like butchers, they slaughtered thousands, even tens of thousands of people, as the Christians huddled miserably around the citadel for survival.30 Encouraged by this victory, Baldwin conducted an expedition in September–October 1103 against the Artukids of Mardin. He slaughtered the Turks and led their lord Uulgh-Salar and many other men and women to Edessa as captives, along with a great amount of booty, including flocks of sheep and thousands of horses, cattle, and camels.31 In November 1103, he invaded the towns of Ja’bar and al-Raqqa, which were under the authority of Salim ibn Malik of the Bani Uqayl, captured a great number of cattle, and took many people captive.32 The Anonymous Edessan alone among the Eastern sources reports an attack on Edessa by Shams al-Dawla Jekermish, the Turkish lord of Mosul, before the battle of Harran. He says that when Jekermish learned the Franks had captured Saruj, he went with a great army to fight them. As the Turks approached Edessa, the Frankish garrison went out to fight them outside the city’s east gate. Many foolish Edessans, grabbing their shields and swords, boldly went out to fight the Turks. Seeing them in disarray, the Turks retreated a little, giving them an opportunity to advance. As they approached the plain, the Turks cheered one another on, then eagerly leapt on them from every side. The Edessans fled but found the city gates closed; turning back, they could not reach the bridge over the moat, and many fell in. The Turks slaughtered them; the moat was filled with corpses, and the water flowed with blood. Having burned the countryside and laid it to waste, Jekermish departed.33 Despite this incident the Franks still had the advantage, even though the Turks had greater numbers and controlled the whole region from Mosul to the gates of Edessa and Antioch. The Turks suffered from pernicious dissension. From 1098 to 1104 two brothers, Berkyaruk and Muhammad, were engaged in a struggle for control of the Seljuk state. In 1098, MuhamThe Anonymous Edessan, 66 (English, 77; Arabic, 86). Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 192. 32 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 217–218. 33 The Anonymous Edessan, 67 (English, 78; Arabic, 86–87). 30 31

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

487

mad was hailed in Baghdad as Sultan Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad. Later Berkyaruk replaced him and was proclaimed sultan, receiving a precious gift from the Abbasid caliph, merely a puppet of the Seljuks. Soon Muhammad gained the upper hand, expelled Berkyaruk, and once more was proclaimed sultan in Baghdad. Ibn al-Athir laments that because of their power struggle, corruption prevailed, properties were looted, blood was shed, and the country lay in ruins.34 There was another struggle for control of Mosul. Before his death in 1102, Qiwam al-Dawla Kerbogha, the Turkish governor of Mosul, had given instructions that one of his men, Sankarja, should succeed him. But another of Kerbogha’s supporters, Musa, killed Sankarja and became lord of Mosul as the deputy of Sultan Berkyaruk. He was soon challenged by Jekermish, who had already seized Nisibin and now coveted Mosul. Musa appealed to Sukman, the son of Artuk, offering the fortress of Hisn Kipha and 10,000 dinars for his help. But he was killed by Jekermish’s pages at the village of Kratha as he went out to welcome Sukman. Jekermish marched against Mosul and, after a siege of several days, made peace with the inhabitants and became lord of the city.35 Yet the Franks’ situation remained precarious, especially in Edessa, and it was made worse by a horrendous defeat at Harran in 1104. Four years earlier, they had been challenged and humiliated by the Turks in a battle for the city of Melitene, then governed by the Armenian Gabriel. The citizens hated Gabriel not only because he had abandoned the “monophysite” faith, but also because he had oppressed the poor people in and around Melitene more cruelly than the Turks.36 After the Franks captured Edessa, Gabriel tried to help them take control of Melitene, where a group of Armenians had ruled some areas since the time of Pilardos (Philaretus). As the Danishmends’ attacks against Melitene intensified, Gabriel asked Bohemond I of Taranto, prince of Antioch, to save him and his city. (He had already promised three times to deliver the city to the Franks.) As evidence of mutual interest between himself and the Franks, he offered his daughter Morphia in marriage to Bohemond, with Melitene as her dowry (she eventually married Baldwin of Le Bourg, count of Edessa and later king of Jerusalem).37 Bohemond was confident he would be able to capture Melitene, but when he reached the area under the Armenians’ control, they Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 218–219. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 208–210. 36 Fulcher of Chartres, 135, esp. n. 4. 37 The Anonymous Edessan, 61, 63 (English, 74; Arabic, 81).. 34 35

488

THE CRUSADES

double-crossed him and appealed to Malik Ghazi Gümüshtigin ibn Danishmend (ruled 1097–1104) for help. Michael Rabo says Gabriel suspected that if Bohemond captured Melitene, his rule over the city would end. When Bohemond reached the town of Jafna, en route to Melitene, Gabriel would not let him enter. He continued to stall until the Danishmends arrived, set up ambushes against Bohemond, and in July 1100 captured him and Richard of the Principate, who was in his company.38 Matthew of Edessa blames Bohemond’s defeat and capture on negligence, saying that he and Richard went to meet the Muslims without appropriate precautions. Their troops had laid down their weapons and donned women’s clothing to look like captives, but the deception failed and they were defeated by Ibn Danishmend.39 Through Gabriel’s treachery the Turks established a stronger foothold in his domain. Malik Ghazi ibn Danishmend sent Bohemond to Sebastea, then laid siege to Melitene; he finally entered the city on Wednesday, September 18, 1102, and plundered it.40 He forbade the killing of any person, declaring the people were his share of the victory, and returned them to their homes. He brought bread, oxen, and other necessities from his country and offered them to the people, and they were satisfied. He appointed for them a governor named Basiligh (Basil, Vasilag in Armenian), a just and upright man. Bar Hebraeus says Ibn Danishmend transferred Bohemond from Sebastea to Melitene and sold him (he does not say to whom) for 100,000 dinars.41 Matthew of Edessa says 38 Fulcher of Chartres, Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913), trans. Frances Rita Ryan as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969), 135; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 524; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 589 (French, 188). 39 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 176–177; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 82–83 (English, 236–237); The Anonymous Edessan, 61–62 (English, 74; Arabic, 80–81); William of Tyre, History, 1: 411; Ralph Bailey Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924), 92–93; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 320–321; E. Honigmann, “Malatya,” in C. E. Bosworth et al., eds., The Encyclopedia of Islam, 6 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991): 230–231. 40 The Anonymous Edessan, 75, n. 3 of the English translation, gives the date as 1103. 41 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 83 (English, 237), presents these events in almost exactly the same words as Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 590 (French, 188).

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

489

when Baldwin of Le Bourg and the Franks in Antioch heard of Bohemond’s defeat, they pursued Ibn Danishmend, but he took Bohemond and Richard to Pontic Neocaesarea (Niksar) in chains.42 Meanwhile, the Lombards, having heard of the capture of Bohemond while they were in Constantinople, wanted to secure his release and conquer his captors, but they were dissuaded from this foolhardy venture by Stephen of Blois, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, and Emperor Alexius.43 Ibn al-Athir says seven Frankish counts sought to save Bohemond. They came to a citadel called Angoria (present day Ankara), captured it, and killed the Muslims there. They proceeded to another citadel controlled by Isma’il ibn Danishmend and besieged it. The Franks, whose number he puts at 300,000, were ambushed and massacred, except for 3,000 who were wounded but managed to escape by night.44 Ordericus Vitalis says that Emperor Alexius was filled with joy on learning that the Danishmend Turks had captured Bohemond, who he believed had wrongfully taken Antioch from him. He sent envoys with rich gifts to Ibn Danishmend, urging him to send Bohemond to Constantinople for a ransom of 100,000 dinars. But Malik Ghazi ibn Danishmend refused to release the man the Turks called “the little God of the Christians.”45 Bohemond was eventually released in May 1103, when Kogh Vasil, Baldwin of Le Bourg, and Bernard, the Latin patriarch of Antioch, paid his ransom.46 Matthew of Edessa says that Bohemond was ransomed for 100,000 dahekans and released through the effort of Kogh Vasil, who donated 10,000 dahekans and collected the rest from throughout his territory, while Tancred contributed nothing. After Bohemond was released, Kogh Vasil received him at his palace with great honor. He gave Bohemond and those who had brought him gifts worth 20,000 dahekans, and shortly before he left for Antioch, Bohemond took a Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 177. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 563–564; James Lea Cate, “The Crusade of 1101,” in M. W. Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 354; James A. Brundage, “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio,16 (1960): 391–392. 44 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 203. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 559, puts the number at 200,000, still an exaggeration. Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 19, says the figure should be divided by at least ten. 45 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 307–308, and trans. Chibnall, 5: 355–357. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 610, says Alexius offered Ibn Danishmend 260,000 bezants for Bohemond. 46 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 611–613; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 96; William of Tyre, History, 1: 451, n. 49. 42 43

490

THE CRUSADES

solemn oath and became an adopted son of the Armenian prince.47 The Anonymous Edessan says that Bohemond was ransomed for a large quantity of gold and returned to Antioch. Surprisingly, although Tancred had done nothing to help secure his release, Bohemond appointed his nephew as governor of Antioch and then sailed home, where he died.48 Ordericus Vitalis presents a rather fantastic legend about Bohemond’s release not found in other sources. He says the news of Bohemond’s capture by the pagans spread all over the world. All Christendom mourned for him, and even the pagans paid him honor in his prison cell. Prayers were offered by the church to deliver him from the hands of his enemies. As in the Old Testament God had delivered Abraham, Joseph, Tobias, Daniel, and others from their captors, He would deliver Bohemond. Moreover, as the apostles and preachers were persecuted and suffered injuries when they arrived as beggars in foreign lands but were protected by God, so He would miraculously save Bohemond from captivity. The miracle was performed by Melaz, the daughter of Ibn Danishmend. Beautiful, wise, and rich, she had great influence in her father’s house. Melaz admired the Franks and wanted to help Bohemond. She bribed the dungeon guards and descended to talk with the captives about the Christian faith while her father, busy with other matters, paid little attention. Melaz told the captives that she had heard about the Franks’ vaunted chivalry and wanted to experience it. Bohemond responded that if she would let them go with her to the battlefield, they would show her how skillfully they could handle the sword and the lance. She agreed, but only after having Bohemond swear by his Christian faith to obey her orders. She said she would summon all the guards, and the captives were to overwhelm them and cast them into the dungeon. They then went out to the battlefield to aid Ibn Danishmend, who was engaged in a ferocious battle with Sultan Kilij Arslan. After Kilij Arslan was defeated, the Frankish captives returned to their dungeon as they had promised. Despite the victory Melaz’s father, irate because she had consorted with the Christians, called her a shameless harlot. But Melaz successfully entreated her father to free the captives. Ibn Danishmend spoke with Bohemond about making peace, promised to release 47 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 192, adds that Ibn Danishmend gave Richard of the Principate, Bohemond’s sister’s son, to the Emperor Alexius in return for a great sum of money. Ter-Gregorian (Galust) Inskederian, Die Kreuzfahrer und Beziehungen zu den armenischen Nachbarfürsten bis zum Untergange der Grafschaft Edessa (Weida, i. Th.: Druck von Thomas und Hubert, 1915), 63, follows Matthew’s account. 48 The Anonymous Edessan, 61–62 (English, 74; Arabic, 81).

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

491

the captives, and even offered his daughter in marriage. Bohemond and his companions, including Richard of the Principate, went with Melaz to Antioch, where she was baptized and converted to Christianity. Bohemond told her that he could not marry her because he was at war with Alexius, the Byzantine emperor, adding that he had endured many trials and feared that still greater trials awaited him. He told her there were many men better and more handsome than he, and she should choose one of them as a husband. He suggested Roger, the son of Richard of the Principate, and Melaz accepted his advice and married him.49 A wedding banquet was prepared, at which Bohemond served as a steward. Ordericus Vitalis closes by noting that after Bohemond and Tancred died (in 1111 and 1112, respectively), Roger became ruler of the principality of Antioch but was killed two years later by the Persian Ilghazi.50 Far more than Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the principality of Edessa was conscious of its relations with the Seljuk Turks. Baldwin of Le Bourg realized that the very existence of his domain depended on controlling as much Turkish territory as he could. The city of Harran, fourteen miles southeast of Edessa, was of vital importance. Between Edessa and Harran flowed a river whose waters irrigated the adjacent plain, producing abundant crops. By long-standing tradition, everything that grew on one side of the river belonged to Harran, while whatever grew on the opposite side belonged to Edessa. Baldwin intended to lay claim to all the crops that belonged to Harran, to secure sufficient provisions for his own people. He constantly attacked Harran, not realizing that his attacks depleted the city’s The Anonymous Edessan, 78 (English, 85; Arabic, 99), says Roger married the sister of Baldwin of Le Bourg. 50 Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 309–322, trans. Chibnall, 5: 359–379. For more on this legend see F. M. Warren, “The Enamoured Moslim Princess in Ordericus Vitalis and the French Epic,” PMLA 29 (1914): 341–358. Roger was killed along with 7,000 of his fellow Christians on June 27–28, 1119, by the forces of Il-Ghazi, the Artukid governor of Mardin (1117–1122), at al-Balat, between two mountains near Darb Sarmada, to the north of al-Atahrib (Zaranda). The massacre came to be known as ager sanguinis (The Field of Blood). See Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 224; William of Tyre, History, 1: 530–531; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 699 (French, 204–205); The Anonymous Edessan, 82 (English, 88; Arabic, 104); Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 150; Robert L. Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States, 1118–1144,” M. W. Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 413; R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare 1097–1193 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 179. 49

492

THE CRUSADES

resources. For many years he prevented its citizens from cultivating their fields, and their lack of food caused them great stress. He may have thought that a lack of provisions would make Harran a cold prey for him and the other Frankish leaders.51 Moreover, Harran suffered because several ambitious Turks, taking advantage of the city’s desperate situation, were involved in a power struggle. Qaraja, one of the mamluks of Sultan Malikshah (d. 1092), had ruled Harran tyrannically since 1103, incurring the hatred of the citizens. While he was out of the city one of his men, Muhammad alIsfahani, took it over, with popular support. But in the spring of 1104, alIsfahani (reportedly while drunk) was killed by Chavli Saqaveh, one of Qaraja’s men, who declared himself governor of Harran.52 It was at this time that Baldwin of Le Bourg, Joscelin I of Courtenay, Bohemond, and Tancred laid siege to Harran. They were joined by three leading clerics—Bernard of Valence, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Benedict, archbishop of Edessa, and Daimbert, the former patriarch of Jerusalem, then living in Antioch under Bohemond’s protection.53 The Franks’ leaders brought in all the Armenian troops (most were apparently from the county of Edessa, an indication that Baldwin relied heavily on them) and thus formed a formidable army.54 Their move against Harran apparently alerted the squabbling Turkish lords in the region to the impending danger. Putting their animosity aside, two powerful Turkish lords, Shams al-Dawla Jekermish of Mosul and Mu’in al-Dawla Sukman ibn Artuk of Mardin and Hisn Kipha, agreed to discuss the rescue of Harran in order to please Allah and receive his reward. They met at Ras al-Ayn on the Khabur river, and as a result of their rapprochement they raised a substantial army. Seven thousand Turks under Sukman and 3,000 Turks, Kurds, and Arabs led by Jekermish marched against the Franks in the spring of 1104.55 William of Tyre, History, 1: 457. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 221. 53 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 178; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 193; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 614–615; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis, R. H. C. Occ. 3 (Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866), 710; William of Tyre, History, 1: 456; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 403–404; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 7; Janzuri, Imarat, 94–95; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 443. 54 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 19; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 614. 55 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 143, also in H. A. R. Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle, 60; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 221; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 614; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 710; Bernhard Kugler, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885), 51 52

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

493

When the Frankish forces laid siege to Harran the inhabitants, suffering from lack of food, waited for the Muslim forces, but they were delayed. As the pressure of famine increased and hope of relief by the Muslim lords appeared futile, the townspeople held counsel and decided to surrender the city rather than have it captured and destroyed. They went forth and surrendered unconditionally to the Franks. Michael Rabo says the citizens of Harran welcomed the Franks and handed them the keys to the city, but Baldwin of Le Bourg refused to accept them, fearing his men would enter the city and devastate it. His action intensified the quarreling among the Frankish leaders.56 A dispute arose between Bohemond and Baldwin over which of them should receive the city first and whose standard should lead the way into the city. Consequently, the surrender was deferred to the next day. Meanwhile, the Muslim forces under Sukman and Jekermish, supplied with ample provisions, arrived near the city. Shrewdly, the Muslim leaders devised a plan to divide their troops into two contingents. One group was to engage the Franks and keep them busy, irrespective of the outcome, allowing the other to deliver food supplies to the beleaguered city. The Muslim leaders had little hope of achieving military success or even putting up a show of strength. Their main purpose was to rescue the townspeople from starving to death.57 Soon after daybreak on May 7, 1104, the two sides engaged in a violent battle at Nahr al-Balikh (the Balikh river), and the Muslims carried the day. Baldwin of Le Bourg, Joscelin I of Courtenay, and Archbishop Benedict of Edessa were taken captive, and Tancred and Bohemond barely escaped with their lives to Edessa. Benedict was rescued, perhaps by his jailer, reportedly a Christian renegade.58 The Muslims built a mosque on the spot 337; Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, A.D. 378–1278, 1 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 320–324; Fink, “The Foundation,” 389; André Beaumont, “Albert of Aachen and the County of Edessa,” in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, L. J. Paetow, ed. (New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928), 127; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 7, esp. n. 8, offers critical remarks. 56 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593 (French, 195). 57 William of Tyre, History, 1: 458. 58 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 178; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 614– 616; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 710; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 193; William of Tyre, History, 1: 458–459; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 143, and trans. Gibb, 60; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 220–223; Badawi Abd al-Latif Awad, ed., Tarikh al-Fariqi, 274; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593 (French, 195); The Anonymous Edessan, 70 (English, 80; Arabic, 90–91); Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 43; Nichol-

494

THE CRUSADES

where the battle was fought, called Bayt Ibrahim [Abraham’s House].59 It is hard to estimate the losses on both sides, since the sources do not agree on this point.60 The victory encouraged the Muslim inhabitants of Harran to vent their vengeance on the Christians of Edessa, causing them much sorrow.61 William of Tyre laments, “Never during the rule of the Latins in the East, whether before or after this event, do we read of a battle so disastrous as this one, which resulted in so terrible a massacre of brave men and so disgraceful a flight of the people of our race.”62 Ibn al-Qalanisi sees in the Franks’ defeat at Harran a victory for the Muslims and Islam. He says the Franks’ determination flagged, while that of the Muslims sharpened “to support religion, fight the mulhidin [heretical Christians], and spread the glad tidings of their victory.”63 The Franks’ defeat at Harran not only doomed the county of Edessa but had a profound effect on their position in the East. It destroyed the legend that they were invincible and ruined any chance they might have had to expand eastward and capture Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate. It kept Bohemond from expanding the principality of Antioch at the Muslims’ expense and offered Ridwan, lord of Aleppo, a chance to exact his revenge on Antioch.64 It also revived the hopes of Emperor Alexius for the weakening of the Franks, allowing him to regain the towns they had captured which belonged to his empire.65 Bohemond and Tancred fled to Edessa and tried to reorganize their forces. But the tragedy of defeat seems to have turned into a blessing for Tancred. The knights, Archbishop Benedict, and the leading citizens of Edessa asked him to assume the regency of the city until Baldwin was released from captivity. He quickly accepted the offer, while Bohemond returned to Antioch and put the possessions of Joscelin I of Tall Bashir under his protection. Shortly afterwards Jekermish, the lord of Mosul, marched against Edessa with a great force and pitched camp outside son, Tancred, 141–144; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 8–11. 59 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593 of the Syriac text, 195 of the French translation. 60 Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 141, n. 51, gives the best estimate of losses and summarizes the accounts of the different sources. 61 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 193. 62 William of Tyre, History, 1: 459. 63 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 143, and trans. Gibb, 61. 64 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 44; Fink, “The Foundation,” 389. 65 A.A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 410.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

495

the city on the plain, which was covered with the Turks’ tents. Tancred, now in charge of Edessa, had only a small Frankish force.66 He called on the city’s Armenians to face the Turkish threat, and they rallied around him enthusiastically. He appealed to Bohemond to come quickly to his aid, since he could not face the Turks alone. Although Ridwan attacked Antioch, Bohemond marshaled an army of 300 cavalry and 500 foot soldiers. He headed for Edessa, but saw it would take him a week to get there. When Tancred learned that Bohemond’s aid would be delayed, he urged the people of Edessa to fight to the death. Filled with spirit, they conducted a surprise raid against the Turks, who were tired (and perhaps had too much to drink). Tancred’s mostly Armenian force took the Turks by the sword, and just then Bohemond arrived with his force and joined in the rout. Defeated, Jekermish returned to Mosul while Tancred concentrated on reinforcing Edessa.67 But when Bohemond returned to Antioch, he faced a new threat; although Ridwan had not participated in the battle of Harran, he waited with his army near the Euphrates to see the outcome. On learning of the Franks’ defeat, he hastened to rebuild the towns and fortresses near Aleppo. The Franks had treated the Armenian residents of some of the nearby towns badly, inspiring them to shake off their tyranny. In June 1104 the Armenian citizens of Artah surrendered to the Muslims, and the towns of Ma’arrat Misrin and Sarmin soon followed suit. Meanwhile Shams al-Khawas, lord of Rafaniya, rebuilt the fortress of Suran, east of Shayzar. He also conquered Latmin, Albara, Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, and Kafartab, whose inhabitants fled to Antioch, and delivered all these towns to Ridwan. Only the fortress of Hab remained in Christian hands. Thus the principality of Antioch, which once had extended almost to Aleppo, shrunk greatly.68 Bohemond, who had his hands full fighting the Turks, also had to deal with the Byzantines. Emperor Alexius demanded that the Franks hand over the towns they had liberated from the Turks, reminding them of the oath Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 616; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 712; William of Tyre, History, 1: 459; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 407; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 43. 67 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 61, gives Tancred’s message to Bohemond; Janzuri, Imarat, 380–381, gives an Arabic translation of the letter; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 408. 68 Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, Sami al-Dahhan, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 148–149; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 100–101; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 45; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 404–405. 66

496

THE CRUSADES

they had sworn to him. When Bohemond refused, Alexius resorted to force and sent his fleet, commanded by Contacuzenus, to Laodicea to challenge him. Contacuzenus laid siege to the city, occupying the harbor, and immediately erected a citadel and chain of towers to keep the Franks’ ships from leaving or entering. With Laodicea under siege, he tried to recover the fortresses of Argyrocastron, M’Arqab, and Gabala, which had formerly paid tribute to the Muslims, extending up to the border with Tripoli. Alexius had also sent a land force under Monastras, but before it reached Laodicea, Contacuzenus captured the harbor, although the citadel was still held by a Frankish force of 500 foot soldiers and 100 horsemen. Alarmed, Bohemond took his remaining men and hurried to Laodicea, where he had a futile meeting with Contacuzenus. Bohemond’s force attacked the city; he was driven back by the Byzantines but forced his way into the citadel and brought provisions to the beleaguered Frankish garrison, then returned to Antioch, perhaps thinking there was no reason to doubt the loyalty of the men in the garrison.69 Fortunately for the Byzantines, the people of many towns in Cilicia revolted because of their bad treatment and expelled their Frankish garrisons. Monastras took advantage of the situation to occupy Longinia, Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra.70 The loss of these towns (especially Laodicea) concerned Bohemond, for he had no viable land or sea force to challenge both the Byzantines and the Turks. Meanwhile Raymond of Saint-Gilles, an ally of Emperor Alexius, was expanding his territories to the south of the principality of Antioch. With his army (which had suffered great losses at Harran) challenged by the Byzantines and his financial resources depleted, Bohemond realized that he had no choice but to go to the West to seek men and money, then return to the East to fight both the Turks and the Byzantines. He held a council in Antioch at the Church of St. Peter and invited Tancred. He explained that he was returning to Europe and had appointed his nephew Tancred to govern the principality of Antioch in his absence. In the autumn of 1104, he sailed for Italy, accompanied by his friend Patriarch Daimbert, and reportedly took with him a great number of jewels and precious gifts and a copy of the Gesta Francorum.71 Bohemond arrived in Bari in January 1105. He may 69 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth A. Dawes (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 296–297; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 101. 70 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 297; Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 712; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 192; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 78–79; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 414. 71 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, 712–713.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

497

have visited Pope Paschal I with Daimbert and obtained his approval to conduct a crusade against Emperor Alexius.72 He went in March 1106 to France, where he married Constance, daughter of King Philip I (1060– 1108).73 Matthew of Edessa reports that the widow of Stephen of Blois asked Bohemond to take her as his wife, and when he refused, she had him thrown in chains. After several days, he finally gave in and married her.74 Most of the time Bohemond was busy recruiting men for a new expedition. He returned to Apulia at the end of 1106 with a great number of men—French, Italians, Spanish, English, and Germans. Marching through Byzantine territory with his men, he attacked Durazzo (Dyrrachium), a Byzantine citadel on the Adriatic.75 But his expedition failed miserably, due to shortness of food and provisions, sickness among his men, and most of all a lack of sea power. Overwhelmed by Alexius’s force, Bohemond surrendered and accepted the Peace of Devol, dictated by the emperor, whereby he would become the emperor’s vassal and return all the towns he had captured in the East. He also agreed to the replacement of the Latin patriarch of Antioch by a Byzantine cleric. Finally, he pledged to fight against his nephew Tancred if he refused the conditions of this treaty. Bohemond swore solemnly on the cross that he would fulfill the provisions of the agreement.76 Thus, his hope of establishing a great Norman empire in the East was shattered. After his abject surrender he never returned to the East. The saga of this distinguished Norman ended when he fell ill and died at Apulia on March 7, 1111, leaving an heir, Bohemond II, by his wife Constance.77 When Tancred went to Antioch in 1104 to take charge of his uncle’s principality, he left in his place his cousin Richard of Salerno (Richard of the Principate) as count of Edessa (1104–1108). In Tancred’s absence,

72 Frances Rita Ryan, ed., Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 192, n. 1; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 106. 73 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 181; William of Tyre, History, 1: 472; Ordericus Vitalis, trans. Forester, 3: 365–367. 74 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 194. 75 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 194. 76 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 193, and William of Tyre, History, 1: 471–472, mention the treaty but say little about it. For details of the agreement see Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 350–357; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 127–129; Vasiliev, History, 2: 411. 77 William of Tyre, History, 1: 472. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 194, says Bohemond died in his native land without being able to return to the East.

498

THE CRUSADES

Richard treated the people of Edessa badly.78 According to Syriac sources, he was wicked, tyrannical, and avaricious. He humiliated and imprisoned many townspeople. He committed atrocities, despite being only a temporary ruler and not the true lord of Edessa.79 Many Armenians were dissatisfied with the way the Franks were treating them. Ibn al-Qalanisi states that when Tancred was at war with Fakhr al-Muluk Ridwan, the Turkish Seljukid lord of Aleppo (1095–1113), the Armenians of Artah, seeking to help Fakhr al-Mulk ibn Ammar, lord of Tripoli, against the Franks, delivered their town to Ridwan because of the grievous tyranny and injustice inflicted upon them by the Franks.80 Although most sources do not specify what the Franks did, Matthew of Edessa describes their mistreatment of the Armenians in the town of Ablastain (Albistan, Arabissus, in West Armenia) in 1105–1106, after Richard of Salerno, the new count of Edessa, became involved in a conflict with Jekermish, Turkish lord of Mosul. The people of Ablastain, he says, suffered so much from the harassment and molestations of the Franks that they allied themselves to the “infidels” and secretly sent a messenger to ask the Turks to occupy their town. At the same time, they told the Frankish commander to leave the town before the Turks attacked it. On hearing this demand, he became furious and turned against the people, but he was defeated and most of his men were slaughtered. The Frankish forces killed as many as three hundred townspeople in a day. They devastated the country, and the land became desolate; vineyards withered, fields were covered with thistles, and springs dried up. Still worse, because of the Franks’ heinous deeds, friendship and happiness gave way to hatred and discontent. Not even the church was immune to their evildoing. Churches were closed and people stopped going to them to pray. Altars and baptismal fonts were destroyed, and priests were humiliated and imprisoned. The mysteries of the Cross were hidden from view, and the fragrant incense used during holy services disappeared. Chapels were destroyed and priests scorned. Truth was subverted, righteousness rejected, and the dreadful judgment of Christ forgotten. All of these abominations, says Matthew, were caused by the raving Franks, whose leadership had passed into the hands of unworthy men. Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 616. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593 (French, 195); The Anonymous Edessan, 70 (English, 80; Arabic, 90–91); Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 197; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 616; Fink, “The Foundation,” 393. 80 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 148, and trans. Gibb, 69; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 150. 78 79

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

499

His description of the hideous acts of the Franks recalls the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremiah.81 Baldwin of Le Bourg, who had been taken captive in 1104 by Sukman, the lord of Mardin, was kidnapped shortly afterwards by Jekermish and then fell into the hands of another Turk, Chavli (Jawli) Saqaveh, who ruled Mosul briefly in 1107. The Seljuk Sultan Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad, viewing Chavli as a threat, commissioned his general Sharaf al-Din Mawdud to take the city from him. Needing money and allies to fight Mawdud, Chavli left Mosul for Qal’at Ja’bar (Ja’bar Fortress) on the Euphrates, taking Baldwin with him. It was about this time that Joscelin I of Courtenay, lord of Tall Bashir, gained his freedom and tried to have Baldwin released. Michael Rabo says that a group of men from Tall Bashir, evidently Armenians, made a deal with Joscelin’s captors to let him go; they themselves would stay as hostages until he returned with the ransom. The captors put the hostages in prison, awaiting Joscelin’s return, but they made a hole in the prison wall and escaped. Thus, Joscelin gained his freedom without paying ransom.82 Ibn al-Athir says Joscelin ransomed himself by paying 20,000 dinars, but gives no details. He adds that Chavli gave Baldwin gifts and released him with the proviso that he would pay a sum of money as ransom, support Chavli with money and men, and free the Muslim captives in his prison. When Chavli was sure that these conditions had been met, he sent Baldwin to Qal’at Ja’bar and delivered him to the hands of its governor, Salim ibn Malik. Soon Joscelin came to Qal’at Ja’bar and offered himself as a hostage in place of Baldwin, who was released and went to Antioch. Chavli later took Joscelin’s brother-in-law and Baldwin’s brother-in-law as hostages, and released Joscelin to urge Baldwin to fulfill the conditions he had imposed. But while Joscelin was on his way to Antioch, he attacked and pillaged Manbij. Some of Chavli’s men, traveling with Joscelin, reproached him for his perfidy, but he answered that the city of Manbij did not belong to them.83 Bar Hebraeus says that after gaining his freedom, Joscelin immediately sought to ransom Baldwin. Realizing Chavli was in dire need of money, he reached an agreement whereby he would pay 30,000 dinars to free Baldwin, who then would release the Muslim captives in Edessa. The 81 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 197–198; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 83, follows Matthew of Edessa. 82 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 594 (French, 195); The Anonymous Edessan, 71–72 (English, 80–82; Arabic, 91–93), gives substantially the same account. 83 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 260–261.

500

THE CRUSADES

agreement also stipulated that Baldwin would support Chavli with men and war materials against the Seljuks.84 Other Syriac sources give a different account of how Joscelin ransomed Baldwin of Le Bourg. Through the mediation of the Muslim lord of Qal’at Ja’bar, Baldwin’s ransom was fixed at 70,000 dinars. Joscelin managed to collect only part of this sum (Michael Rabo says 30,000 dinars, the Amonymous Edessan says 25,000). He delivered the money to the lord of Qal’at Ja’bar, offering himself as a hostage until he could come up with the rest of the ransom. When the lord of Mosul (Chavli) heard of this offer, he was anxious to see Joscelin, who he had heard was handsome and valiant. The lord of Qal’at Ja’bar gave Joscelin clothes, a horse, and Frankish arms, and sent him to Mosul. On seeing him, Chavli was so taken by his handsome figure that he reduced Baldwin’s ransom by 10,000 dinars; Joscelin gratefully kissed the ground before him, and Chavli responded by reducing the ransom another 10,000 dinars. Then he invited Joscelin to a sumptuous feast. The next morning, the lord of Mosul went out in a parade with his army and (after having him disarmed) ordered Joscelin to ride with him. When the people saw how handsome and majestic Joscelin was, they were overwhelmed, and for this the lord of Mosul excused him from paying the remainder of Baldwin’s ransom. Chavli showed Joscelin great kindness. They swore they would not fight each other so long as they lived, but rather help each other in time of need. Chavli gave Joscelin gifts, remitted the whole of Baldwin’s ransom, and let Joscelin depart in safety.85 Thus Baldwin of Le Bourg gained his freedom in 1108 after nearly five years of captivity. Surprisingly, although Joscelin strove to have Baldwin ransomed and released, Tancred and Bohemond did not trouble themselves to help him. Their indifference shows their jealousy and their ambition for power and possessions. Perhaps they considered Baldwin’s captivity of great benefit to them.86 The Anonymous Edessan says that no one was concerned about the fate of Baldwin of Le Bourg and Joscelin, especially

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 84–85 (English, 242); Fink, “The Foundation,” 393. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 201, says Joscelin ransomed Baldwin by paying Chavli 30,000 dahekans. 85 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 593–594 (French, 195). The Anonymous Edessan, 71–72 (English, 80–81; Arabic, 91–93), differs only slightly; see Janzuri, Imarat, 104–107. 86 Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1292 (Innsbruck, 1898), 51. 84

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

501

Tancred, who resented them, and Richard of the Principate, who held their lands and used them as he liked.87 Proving that politics makes strange bedfellows, the Muslim Turks now became allies of the Franks. Following his release, Baldwin went to Antioch to ask Tancred to return the principality of Edessa. Tancred refused, saying he had administered Edessa for four years and it would be difficult for him to give it up. He may have hoped to add Edessa and most of Cilicia to his principality. Seeking to pacify Baldwin and determined to keep Edessa, he offered him aid in the form of weapons and horses and (according to Ibn al-Athir) 30,000 dinars.88 Furious, Baldwin left Antioch and went to Tall Bashir to meet with Joscelin. Tancred followed him there, hoping to reconcile with him, but realized that he had no choice but to fight the joint forces of Baldwin and Joscelin if Baldwin insisted on keeping Edessa. The parties tried but failed to solve the problem through negotiations, and Tancred returned to Antioch. William of Tyre reports that Bernard, the Latin patriarch of Antioch, tried to reconcile Baldwin and Tancred and seemed for a while to have succeeded.89 Ibn al-Athir also says that the patriarch, honored by his own people as Muslims honor an Imam, acted as peacemaker between the two parties. On September 18, 1108, he said that each man should return in peace to his principality. But when Baldwin returned to Edessa, he showed great tolerance and gratitude toward his new ally Chavli by releasing and arming 160 Muslim captives, mostly from the district of Aleppo. On September 28, 1108, he crossed the Euphrates to deliver the captives and money to Chavli, and on the way he released more Muslim captives from Harran and other towns. At about this time Baldwin became involved in a conflict over religious issues. There were 300 Muslims in Saruj, and Chavli had rebuilt their mosques. But when the Muslim lord of Saruj recanted Islam and embraced Christianity, Chavli’s followers were enraged and beat him for abandoning and vilifying Islam. The Muslims and Franks were sharply divided because of this apostate. On learning of the controversy, Baldwin of Le Bourg de-

87 The Anonymous Edessan, 69–70 (English, 80; Arabic, 91). Nicholson suggests that Joscelin may have acted the same as Tancred and Bohemond. I cannot agree, because Joscelin did everything in his power to have Baldwin of Le Bourg released; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 13. 88 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 262–263; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 84–85 (English, 242). 89 William of Tyre, History, 2: 34–35.

502

THE CRUSADES

clared that the man was of no worth to the Franks or the Muslims and had him killed.90 The peace between Baldwin and Tancred, effected by the good will of the Latin patriarch of Antioch, could not eradicate their feelings of animosity or prevent armed conflict between them. Baldwin called on Chavli to join him in his struggle against Tancred, and he complied.91 He found another strong ally in Kogh Vasil (Basil), the Armenian lord of Kesum and Ra’ban (d. 1112), with whom he had amicable relations and through whose efforts in fact he had been ransomed. When Baldwin asked for help in reclaiming Edessa, Kogh Vasil provided him with 1000 horsemen and 2000 foot soldiers.92 With Kogh Vasil on his side, Baldwin and Joscelin asked Chavli to join them in fighting Tancred, an action Matthew of Edessa calls a “wicked thing, something which was not pleasing in the eyes of God.”93 Ironically, Tancred sought the help of another Turk, Ridwan of Aleppo. In September 1108 the forces of Baldwin and Joscelin met those of Tancred and Ridwan near Manbij, on the road between Edessa and Aleppo. Tancred was victorious in the fierce battle that followed; Baldwin fled, taking refuge at the fortress of Ravendan (Rawandan), while Joscelin took shelter in Tall Bashir.94 It is estimated that the Christian forces lost about 2000 men.95 When the people of Edessa learned of Baldwin’s defeat, they were saddened, thinking he had died and fearing that Tancred or Richard of Salerno might be encouraged to take control of Edessa. They held a meeting at St. John’s Church, attended by the Frankish chief priest Papios, to decide who should be lord of Edessa. While they were deliberating, Baldwin and Joscelin suddenly appeared and asked about the nature of the meeting. Told that the people were discussing who should rule the city, they took the gathering as an act of disloyalty. The two Frankish leaders became furious and wantonly pillaged everything in sight. They inflicted harsh punishment on the Christian inhabitants, even gouging the eyes of many. They attempted to gouge the eyes of the Armenian Bishop Stephen, but the people Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 262–263; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 112. The Anonymous Edessan, 73 (English, 82; Arabic, 93), says that Joscelin asked the lord of Mosul (Chavli) for help. 92 Ibn al-Athir al-Kamil, 1: 262. 93 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 201, appears to object because two Christian leaders sought the help of a Muslim against another Christian leader. 94 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 201; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 649; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 112–114; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 19–22. 95 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 153. 90 91

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

503

saved him by paying a ransom of 1000 dahekans. Matthew of Edessa says the Franks committed these atrocities because they believed every vicious accusation against the townspeople and did not hesitate to shed innocent blood.96 Whatever friendly relations had existed between the Franks and Armenians in Edessa now gave way to distrust. The Armenians saw the Franks as people whose hostility surpassed that of the Muslim Turks, with whom they had once allied themselves against their fellow Christians.97 In the conflict between the Franks and the Turks, the Armenians paid a heavy price. In 1109 Chavli was replaced as governor of Mosul by Sharaf al-Din Mawdud Altontash (al-Tuwaynaki).98 The following year the Seljuk Sultan Muhammad, son of Malikshah, commissioned Mawdud to fight the Franks, hoping to curtail their advances into Syria. His first target was Edessa.99 Matthew of Edessa says Mawdud attacked there because Baldwin of Le Bourg wanted to engage Tancred in a second war. So, motivated by arrogance, he and Joscelin conceived a plan unworthy of any Christian and invited Mawdud, a mighty and ferocious warrior, to come to their aid. Mawdud agreed and raised an army of 100,000 men to invade Edessa.100 He was joined by Sukman al-Qutbi (Sukman ibn Artuk), lord of Khilat and Miyafarqin (1100–1110), and Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi ibn Artuk, lord of Mardin (1107–1122).101 When the Muslim army reached Harran, Mawdud summoned Baldwin to call on him, but Baldwin, fearful, refused. Mawdud believed that he had been deceived by Baldwin and marched against Edessa. Baldwin asked his cousin, King Baldwin of Jerusalem, to come to his aid and dispatched Joscelin to obtain reinforcements.102 But the king was then engaged in besieging Beirut, which was about to fall into his hands when he received the message. Finally, after capturing the city in May 1110, he marched with his Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 201–202. Bernhard Kugler, Boemund und Tankred Fürsten von Antiochien (Tübingen, 1862), 39–40; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 443. 98 Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, ed. Rev. Anton Salihani (Beirut: alMatba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1958), 199; Awad, Tarikh al-Fariqi, 275. 99 The Anonymous Edessan, 75–79 (English, 83–85; Arabic, 95–98). 100 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 203–204. 101 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 169; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 154; The Anonymous Edessan, 75–79 (English, 83–85; Arabic, 95–98). Ferdinand Chalandon, Essai sur le Règne d’Alexis I, 1081–1118 (Paris: A. Picard, 1900), 251, calls Sukman “Kokman.” Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 35–43, gives a full account of these campaigns. 102 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 204. 96 97

504

THE CRUSADES

army to rescue Edessa. He was joined by Bertram, son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Tripoli (1109–1121).103 Tancred apparently did not care about helping to save Edessa, and Baldwin of Le Bourg reportedly accused him of plotting with the Muslims against him and his principality.104 Fulcher of Chartres, however, says that Tancred appealed to King Baldwin of Jerusalem to aid the Christian cause, and that Baldwin entrusted his kingdom to caretakers and hastened to war, bringing with him Bertrand (Bertram), count of Tripoli.105 The Muslim army laid siege to Edessa in April–May 1110. They devastated the countryside, destroyed the monasteries, and cut down the orchards around Edessa. Many of the villagers were shut up in the town and, along with the citizens of the city, suffered from a shortage of food.106 Meanwhile, the armies of Baldwin of Boulogne and Bertram, on the way to Edessa, were joined near Samosata by the Armenian leaders Kogh Vasil and Abu al-Gharib. Even Tancred, who had seemed reluctant to join the Frankish forces, yielded and joined them with 1100 horsemen.107 As Ibn alQalanisi observes, the Franks forgot their differences and animosities and agreed solemnly with one another to remain steadfast in battle and to meet adversity resolutely.108 When the Christian forces reached Edessa, Mawdud lifted the siege and withdrew to Harran, clearly trying to draw the Franks into unknown territory where he could more easily defeat them.109 When Baldwin saw Mawdud’s treacherous plan, he turned back and camped opposite the fortress of Shenaw, northwest of Harran, in Muslim territory. At about this time Tancred arrived with his forces. Baldwin planned to have a pitched battle with Mawdud, but decided first to supply Edessa with provisions and escort those citizens who so desired to leave the city, for they were near starvation and wanted to escape this tribulation. A great number of townspeople and villagers departed for Samosata. At this point, says Matthew of Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 672; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 204; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 169; The Anonymous Edessan, 74 (English, 82; Arabic, 94). 104 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 670. 105 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 201. 106 The Anonymous Edessan, 73–74 (English, 82; Arabic, 94). 107 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 205; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 88. 108 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 169, and trans. Gibb, 102; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 154. 109 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 169; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 205. 103

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

505

Edessa, two apostate Franks went to Mawdud and maliciously told him that the entire Frankish army had withdrawn and fled. On hearing this report, Mawdud pursued the Franks and massacred many of them like a butcher, without mercy. Those who fled jumped into the river and were drowned. The Turks pillaged their possessions, as the Franks on the other side of the Euphrates helplessly witnessed the horror. Mawdud returned afterwards to Harran and then to his own territory, laden with captives and countless booty.110 Apparently satisfied that he had dispersed the Franks, he did not track them down. He had devastated the whole region and left Edessa in ruins. So there was nothing more for him to do but return to his own country. King Baldwin went back to Jerusalem, Tancred to Antioch, and Baldwin of Le Bourg to Edessa.111 Mawdud’s campaign against the Franks and Edessa apparently did not satisfy those zealous Muslims who wanted an all-out jihad. Their feelings were further inflamed when an ambassador of the Emperor Alexius arrived in Baghdad. Ibn al-Qalanisi says the conflict between the Byzantines and Franks at the time was so vehement that “mutamallik al-Rum (Emperor Alexius)” dispatched a messenger to the Seljuk Sultan Muhammad, urging him to fight the Franks and expel them from Syria before they could establish a threatening position in the country.112 The emperor said he had gone to war to prevent the Franks from traversing his dominion, but that if they continued to have designs on the land of Islam, he would give them free passage and assistance.113

Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 205–206; The Anonymous Edessan, 74–75 (English, 83; Arabic, 95), says that through the instrumentality of Satan, a Frank who had a grudge against his lord told Mawdud that the Franks were in full flight, faint from hunger, and weakened by fatigue, and if he pursued them, he would inflict great losses on them. 111 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 675. 112 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 173, uses the phrase mutamallik al-Rum, i.e., the one who rules over the Rum (Byzantines); Chalandon, Essai, 252. Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle, 112, n. 1, translates it as “tyrant,” saying mutamallik means “would-be king” or “self-proclaimed king”. In fact, it means “the person who rules,” and carries the same connotation as malik (king). Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 121, n. 1, is clearly incorrect in translating the term as “usurper.” It is doubtful that Ibn al-Qalanisi used it in a derogatory sense. 113 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 173–174; Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle, 112– 113. 110

506

THE CRUSADES

Shortly after the Byzantine ambassador arrived, a group of prominent Hashimite Sharif Muslims from Aleppo and some Sufi (mystic) merchants and jurists came to Baghdad and met at the sultan’s mosque on February 17, 1111. Weeping and lamenting the Franks’ humiliation of Islam, the slaughter of Muslim men, and the enslavement of women and children, they appealed to the caliph to defend Islam. They were so distraught that they prevented the people from praying in the mosque and even broke the pulpit. According to Ibn al-Athir, the people of Baghdad cried to the sultan, “Don’t fear Allah! The king of the Rum (Emperor Alexius) has more zeal for Islam than you, for he sent you an ambassador urging you to fight [the Franks].”114 Asked by the caliph al-Mustazhir bi Allah to take care of this matter, the Seljuk Sultan Mahmoud readied another expedition, commanded by his son Mas’ud and Sharaf al-Din Mawdud, atabeg of Mosul, to march against the Franks in 1111.115 Clearly the emperor would support the Franks, his coreligionists, in their fight against the Muslims. But he wanted them out of Syria because the country belonged to him, and they had not kept their oath to restore to him all the land and cities they captured. His appeal to the Seljuk sultan should be viewed in this context. The expedition led by Mawdud and Mas’ud was joined by Sukman alQutbi, lord of Khilat; Aylingi and Zangi, the sons of Bursuq and lords of Hamadhan and Khuzistan; the Kurdish Ahmad Beg (Ahmadil), lord of Maragha in Azerbayjan; Kutib Abu al-Hayja, lord of Arbil; and Iyaz, son of Il-Ghazi of Mardin. The Muslim forces massed near Sinjar in northern Iraq and then marched on Edessa in the spring of 1111. They camped there for five days but could not capture the city. They withdrew and, before crossing the Euphrates, laid siege to Tall Bashir, whose lord was Joscelin of Courtenay.116 Fortunately for Joscelin, the Muslims were not of one mind. After forty-five days, he gave a large sum of money to Ahmad Beg; he in turn convinced the Turks to lift the siege and go to Aleppo to relieve its lord Ridwan, who had asked them for help against Tancred.117

Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 280. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 173; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 279–280. Some sources confuse this expedition with one the previous year. The campaigns of 1110 and 1111 may rightly be taken together as Mawdud’s first expedition against Edessa. See Ashur, al-Harka, I: 316–317, and Janzuri, Imarat, 143–144. 116 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 207; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 280-281; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 158–159; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 463. 117Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 681; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 159. 114 115

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

507

When the Turkish forces reached Aleppo, they ravaged the country, killed many people, and took others captive. Ridwan, fearing the Turks more than he did Tancred, shut the gates of the city before them and made an alliance with his foe Tancred.118 Some citizens of Aleppo did not like what Ridwan had done and tried to oppose him, but he captured some and imprisoned them in the citadel of Aleppo, and stationed some of his troops and others belonging to the Batini sect to guard the city walls. The gates of Aleppo stayed shut before the Turkish forces for seventeen days.119 The Turkish army withdrew and went to the district of Ma’arrat al-Nu’man, to reclaim what Tancred had captured. There Mawdud was joined by Tughtigin, the lord of Damascus, who was expected to add more strength to the Muslim forces. But Tughtigin grew suspicious that the other Muslim leaders, especially Mawdud, intended to take Damascus from him.120 The expedition was a failure because of the dissension among the Muslim leaders. They not only did not trust each other but allied themselves with the Franks against one another. During this time, Matthew of Edessa reports, Tancred treated Kogh Vasil, ruler of Kesum and Ra’ban, rather badly.121 Having failed in his fight against Baldwin of Le Bourg for control of Edessa, he turned his military activities against his Muslim neighbors. He intended to expand the principality of Antioch by capturing as much as he could of the domains of Aleppo and Edessa. He tried to impose his authority on the principality of Tripoli but was challenged by Bertram, son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who had come to Syria in 1108 to take his father’s place in Tripoli. Tancred met him when he arrived in the port of Saint Simeon (al-Suwaydiyya), but then expelled him from Antioch when he refused to join in an alliance against the Byzantines.122 To save Tripoli from Tancred, Bertram placed it under the protection of King Baldwin of Jerusalem, who warned Tancred to cease hostilities against Bertram. Eventually, both men declared their

Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 682; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 281–282. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 84 (English, 244), says Ridwan shut the gates of Aleppo in Mawdud’s face. 119 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 159; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 462–463. 120 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 282; Ibn al-Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya, ed. Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963), 17–18; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 84 (English, 244). 121 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 211. 122 Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 665–666. 118

508

THE CRUSADES

allegiance to the king.123 In 1109 Tancred seized Banyas, on the Mediterranean between Laodicea and Antartus, and annexed it to his principality. Next he took Jabala, then ruled by Fakhr al-Mulk ibn Ammar, the former lord of Tripoli. The town, suffering from a food shortage, could not resist. Tancred easily occupied it on July 12, 1110, as Ibn Ammar escaped safely.124 Still full of ambition, Tancred began to attack the emirate of Aleppo, ruled by Ridwan. He marched against Atharb and offered safety to its Muslim farmers. Ridwan, forced to make peace, paid Tancred an enormous sum of money, surrendered the fortress of Zardana, and released the Armenian captives held in Aleppo. Conditions in Aleppo deteriorated so much that most of its inhabitants fled.125 But Ridwan soon formed an alliance with Tughtigin, lord of Damascus. The two pledged to support each other with money and men.126 Facing united opposition, Tancred gave up attacking Ridwan’s domains and decided instead to attack the Armenian Kogh Vasil, probably in the summer of 1112. Matthew of Edessa says he attacked and conquered the city of Ra’ban. Then he marched against Kesum, camping on the plain below a spring near the town of Thil. Kogh Vasil assembled 5000 men but still did not venture to engage Tancred in battle. Finally, the two made peace; Tancred gave Ra’ban to Kogh Vasil, and the Armenian prince handed over the district of Hisn Mansur, along with the fortified towns of Persin, Raghtip, Hartan, Toresh, and Uremn. Tancred returned peacefully to Antioch.127 In 1112, says Matthew of Edessa, the “vicious and bloodthirsty beast Mawdud” led yet another expedition against Edessa, this time without help from other Muslim amirs. He split his army into two forces, leaving one at Edessa while the other attacked Saruj. Joscelin, taking 100 horsemen and 100 foot soldiers, entered Saruj and attacked the Turks, killing 150 of their men and taking five of their officers as captives; the rest fled to Mawdud’s camp near Edessa. As Mawdud marched on the city, whose inhabitants were not expecting an attack, certain perfidious citizens told him, “Have compassion on us and we will deliver Edessa into your hands.” But 123 For an extensive account of these events see R. L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (New York: AMS Press, 1978), 180–190. 124 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 274. 125 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 278; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 155–157. 126 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 163. 127 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 211; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 97; Nicholson, Tancred, 223.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

509

Joscelin, who had returned to Edessa, rushed against Mawdud’s men, assaulted a tower they had captured, and hurled them all from the walls, saving Edessa from the clutches of the Turks by his bravery. After eight days, having failed to capture the well-fortified city, Mawdud withdrew and returned to his country, humiliated and discredited.128 Ibn al-Athir says Mawdud had not taken sufficient precaution and was surprised and overwhelmed by Joscelin. The Franks took a great number of horses and massacred many soldiers.129 Michael Rabo, whose account is close to that of Matthew of Edessa, says that some Armenians, seeing that the Turks invading the area of Edessa had reached its wall, plotted with them and helped them enter one of the fortresses, believing they would occupy the city in the absence of its leader.130 The Anonymous Edessan gives a slightly different account. He says that Mawdud came to Edessa during the harvest season and camped outside the city. He laid waste the land and crops, cut down the trees, and told the citizens, who were in great distress, that they would receive many benefits if they surrendered the city to him. At this time, ten perfidious Armenians conspired with Mawdud to betray the city to him. But Joscelin, acting heroically, scaled the wall and approached the enemy. When the Turks in the tower saw him, they showered him with arrows and stones. He managed to enter the tower and cut down the ladder with his sword, and the Turks on it fell to their deaths. Then he climbed onto the roof alongside the Turks. Twice they struck him from above and broke his shield. To protect himself, he took a sack full of chaff (on which the guards had slept), held it above his head, and climbed bravely among them. The Turks fled; he struck some with his sword, others threw themselves down and were killed. Mawdud, having failed to capture Edessa, returned to his country. Meanwhile Joscelin, angry at the conspirators, turned against all the citizens of Edessa, causing much bloodshed. The Franks sought out those who had betrayed them and seized many people, without regard for their guilt. They burned, tortured, and executed many townspeople, and cut off the hands and noses and put out the eyes of many others.131 It is thus clear that some Armenians were unhappy enough with their Frankish rulers to seek the Turks’ help 128 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 209–211; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 181, and trans. Gibb, 126. 129 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 210. 130 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 594–595 (French, 196); Grousset, Histoire, 1: 473, and 2: 873–874. 131 The Anonymous Edessan, 75–79 (English, 83–85; Arabic, 95–98).

510

THE CRUSADES

against them. Although the conspiracy of the Armenians of Edessa with Mawdud failed, it points up the unstable internal situation and the chasm between the Franks and the native Christians. The Armenians were displeased by the way they were treated not only in Edessa but throughout the region, and especially by the way the Franks, especially Tancred, treated their leader, Kogh Vasil, for no reason except that he intended to affirm the Armenian entity and supremacy in the region. Mawdud, committed to jihad against the Franks, continued to fight them despite his failure in the campaign against Edessa. In 1113, “the bloodthirsty and savage amir Mawdud” again marched against Edessa with a tremendous number of troops, while Baldwin of Le Bourg was in the town of Tall Bashir. Some perfidious, evilthinking Franks reported to Baldwin that many Armenians were plotting to hand the city over to Mawdud. Baldwin believed them and sent Paynes, count of Saruj, to Edessa with orders to expel all the inhabitants. He apparently carried out the order, and the Franks put the helpless inhabitants to the sword, shedding much innocent blood. Most of those evicted from Edessa went to live in Samosata. Those who stayed in the city took refuge in the Church of St. Theodore, then were moved to the citadel under strict guard. Baldwin found he could not rule a nearly empty city with the few remaining Syrians and loyal Armenians. The administration of the city became a burden to him, and he decided in February 1114 to call back the exiles from Samosata. Many returned, but the relations between Baldwin and the Armenians were permanently strained. They considered him their persecutor and hated the Franks for treating them badly. Matthew of Edessa says the Franks’ actions revealed their perverse nature and contempt for others: “In return for all the benefices the inhabitants of Edessa showed the Franks, the Franks recompensed the faithful Christians of this city with evil and malice.”132 Whereas Matthew of Edessa says Mawdud’s 1113 expedition targeted Edessa, Ibn al-Athir says that it was aimed at King Baldwin of Jerusalem and Joscelin, with the main encounter near Tiberias in Palestine. He asserts that King Baldwin’s incursions against Bilad al-Sham (Syria) had caused the prices of commodities to soar. After Tughtigin, lord of Damascus, apprised Mawdud of the situation, they raised a great army and marched to fight the Franks. They camped near Tiberias for twenty-six days and cut off the food supply, vainly hoping to draw the Franks into a fight. The Muslims eventu132 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 212–213; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 1: 491, and L’Empire du Levant, 299. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 45–51.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

511

ally left and ravaged Baysan and other towns, and their leaders returned to Damascus.133 The Armenian exiles returned to Edessa and kept their peace, but they could not forgive the Franks for ill-treating them. Soon they tried to spite the Franks by allying themselves with the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks’ attack on Edessa offered them such an opportunity. After Mawdud was assassinated by a Batini (Isma'ili Shi’ite) in Damascus on October 2, 1113, the Seljuk Sultan Muhammad entrusted the city of Mosul to a new governor, Qasim al-Dawla Aksunkur, whom he ordered to continue the fight against the Franks.134 In 1114 Aksunkur led a great army, joined by the forces of Tamirek, governor of Sinjar in northern Iraq, and others, including his son Imad al-Din Zangi, of whom we shall say much later. Aksunkur marched against Jazirat ibn Umar, whose governor, the deputy of Mawdud, surrendered to him and joined his army, and then against Mardin, whose governor also joined forces with him. He had 15,000 cavalry when he attacked Edessa in May 1114. He besieged the city for more than two months, fighting the Franks and the Armenians.135 The Franks captured nine of Aksunkur’s men and crucified them on the city walls; aroused by this act, the Muslims fought with great determination and killed fifty prominent Frank knights, but then began to suffer a food shortage and were forced to lift the siege and depart.136 It was at this point that the Armenian King Dgha Vasil, the adopted son of Kogh Vasil, sent a messenger to Aksunkur al-Bursuki proposing an alliance against the Franks. Matthew of Edessa says that Dgha Vasil and his father’s widow, who had inherited and jointly ruled the independent principality of Kesum and Ra’ban after Kogh Vasil died in October 1112, having learned that Tancred of Antioch (who had already captured Kesum) desired to possess their principality, viewed Aksunkur as an ally who could save them from Tancred.137 Aksunkur accepted Dgha Vasil’s offer, on the condiAthir, al-Kamil, 1: 288–290. The Anonymous Edessan, 77 (English, 85; Arabic, 98) and Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 86 (English, 245) make little mention of this campaign. 134 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 187; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 290, and al-Tarikh alBahir, 4–8, 19; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae, 700; The Anonymous Edessan, 77–78 (English, 85; Arabic, 98). 135 Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 19. 136 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 292–293. 137 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 211; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 594– 595 (French, 198–199), wrongly gives the name of the widow as “Kogh Bakis”, 133

512

THE CRUSADES

tion that he be allowed to collect the Jizya to demonstrate that Kesum and Ra’ban had become his vassal principality. Ibn al-Athir says that upon the death of Kawasil (Kogh Vasil), his widow, who ruled the kingdom of Kesum, Ra’ban and Mar’ash, communicated with Aksunkur her intention of submitting to his authority, and he in turn sent the amir Sunkur Darraz (“the Tall”), whom she received with honor and lavished with gifts.138 When Baldwin of Le Bourg learned of the proposed alliance of Dgha Vasil and his father’s widow with the Seljuk Turks, he became furious, regarding their action as a great treachery against Christianity and a threat to the Latin principalities in Syria and lower Asia Minor. He invaded the Armenian principality of Kesum and Ra’ban in 1115, but without great success. Apparently Dgha Vasil appealed to the Armenian Thoros I, son of Constantine, Roupenid ruler of Partzapert (1100–1129) in Cilicia. Matthew of Edessa says Thoros summoned Dgha Vasil, treacherously seized him, and delivered him to Baldwin, who tortured him and took all his territories by force, thus destroying Armenian sovereignty in Kesum and Ra’ban. Betrayed and deprived of his possessions, Dgha Vasil went with some troops to Constantinople, where they were received by the Byzantine emperor with great honor.139 Kogh Vasil’s widow was an ambitious woman who sought to control the territory of her late husband. While she negotiated with the Seljuks, she pressured Kourtig, guardian of the boy Dgha Vasil, to pillage the monasteries of the Syrians, who shared the Armenians’ religious beliefs and like them had been victimized by the Byzantines and the Turks. Kourtig, whom Michael Rabo calls an evil man who hated the Syrians, usurped the Red Monastery from the Syrians in Kesum, expelled the inmates, and handed over the monastery to the Armenian Catholicos Gregorius and the Armenian monks. He also expelled Syrian monks from five monasteries in the region of Zabar, called the Monasteries of Beth Qinaya [The Reed Monasteries] which were under the control of Baldwin, lord of Kesum and Mar’ash.140 After Kesum and Ra’ban fell into his hands, Baldwin of Le Bourg felt encouraged to seize other Armenian principalities, especially the citadel of who was actually the boy Dgha Vasil’s wet nurse, not his mother. A man named Kourtig was the boy’s guardian. 138 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 293, gives the date of Kogh Vasil’s death as 1114 (not 1112) and does not mention Dgha Vasil. 139 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 219–220. 140 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 595 (French, 199); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, (English) 246–247.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

513

Birta (Arabic al-Bira), ruled by the Armenian Abu al-Gharib. Accompanied by his nephew Galeran, count of Saruj, and a host of Frankish forces, Baldwin attacked al-Bira, thus engendering “more hatred against the Christians than against the Turks.”141 Abu al-Gharib resisted bravely, but finally surrendered in 1117 after a year-long siege. The Anonymous Edessan says that when he realized that the siege would be prolonged and no one would come to his rescue, he agreed to surrender the citadel to Baldwin on condition that Galeran marry his daughter. The condition was accepted; Galeran married Abu al-Gharib’s daughter and received Birta and all the surrounding territory as her dowry.142 Matthew of Edessa says Baldwin of Le Bourg overthrew the Armenian princes one by one, dealing with them more harshly than the Muslims had. He harassed those princes who were not under the Turks’ rule and sent them into exile. He destroyed Kogh Vasil’s principality and expelled its leaders, who took refuge in Constantinople. Still not satisfied, he ruined the Armenian Prince Bagrat, who lived in Ravendan (Rawandan), not far from Cyrrhus near Aleppo, and pillaged his principality. He captured Constantine, the Armenian lord of Gargar, and threw him in chains into prison in the citadel of Samosata, where he died; following a great earthquake, his body was found on the bank of the Euphrates.143 The Franks were apparently motivated by a desire to seize the Armenians’ treasures. Matthew of Edessa says he would write more about their evil deeds but did not dare because the Armenians were under their authority and power.144 Having subjugated the Armenian princes and taken control of their territories, Baldwin of Le Bourg by now felt more secure than ever in his principality. In complete confidence he left Edessa in 1118 to become the ruler of the kingdom of Jerusalem.145 He felt no one was better qualified to succeed him as lord of Edessa and defend the northeast front of the Latins’

Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 220. The Anonymous Edessan, 80 (English, 86; Arabic, 101). 143 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 220. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 595 (French, 200), says a violent earthquake took place and many houses in Samosata collapsed. Constantine and many others perished in the ruins. See Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, (English) 247. 144 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 221. 145 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 225; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 221; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 314; The Anonymous Edessan, 80 (English, 86; Arabic, 101); Fink, “The Foundation,” 405. 141 142

514

THE CRUSADES

domains than Joscelin I of Courtenay. Thus Joscelin replaced Baldwin in Edessa, and the two leaders were finally reconciled.146 Joscelin I tried to be more conciliatory toward the Armenians than Baldwin of Le Bourg had been. Abandoning his former cruel nature, says Matthew of Edessa, he took a very humane and compassionate attitude toward the city’s inhabitants.147 William of Tyre says both Baldwin and Joscelin supplied Edessa with adequate food and arms, and thus it became more formidable than other nearby cities.148 But Joscelin battled constantly with Ilghazi, the Turkish Artukid ruler of Mardin (1107–1122), and his nephew Nur al-Dawla Belek.149 Like earlier Frankish leaders, Joscelin took an Armenian wife, the sister of Leon I, Armenian Roupenid prince of Cilicia; the marriage produced a son, Joscelin II.150 After her death Joscelin married Marie, sister of Roger of Antioch, receiving the fortress of Azaz as her dowry.151 Going to Antioch to bring her to Edessa, he crossed the Euphrates and stayed the night in Birta. There he was informed by people from Murayba and Umqa and the province of Birta that a number of Turks were pillaging the region. Joscelin and Galeran marched against the supposed Turkish marauders, unaware that they were an army of 4000 horsemen under Nur al-Dawla Belek, the lord of Aleppo, Hanzit, and Hisn Ziyad (Khartabert, Kharberd, Kharput). Unbeknownst to Joscelin and Galeran, Belek was camped at a spring called Haig [Spring of Life] in the province of Edessa, near Rashkifa. Trying to rescue the country from Belek, Joscelin and Galeran mounted swift horses and pursued the Turks, thinking they could find them in the Rashkifa district. They marched from night to midday, consumed by heat, dust, and thirst. When they saw Belek’s camp, they realized their small force was no match for his great army. As they went to the river to seek water for themselves and their horses, the Turks struck them down one by one. Then 146 The Anonymous Edessan, 80, 83 (English, 86, 88; Arabic, 101, 105); Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 225; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 52; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 474. 147 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 225. 148 William of Tyre, History, 2: 141. 149 On Joscelin’s wars with the Artukids, see Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 52–61. 150 William of Tyre, History, 2: 52; The Anonymous Edessan, 108 (English, 275; Arabic, 133). 151 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 600 (French, 210); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 87–88 (English, 250). The Anonymous Edessan, 86–87 (English, 90–91; Arabic, 109–110), says Joscelin married Roger’s daughter, not her sister. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 62, n. 351.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

515

the Turks surrounded them, capturing Joscelin and Galeran and twenty-five to sixty knights on September 13, 1123, and brought them to Edessa.152 Belek told the citizens of Edessa he would release his captives if they surrendered the city to him, but when they refused and insulted him, he took Joscelin and Galeran to Hisn Ziyad.153 Matthew of Edessa says Belek took Joscelin and Galeran to Kharberd (Khartabert, Kharput, Hisn Ziyad) in chains and threw them into prison, while twenty-five of their comrades were taken to Balu a town east of Khartabert on the Euphrates.154 Sadness and fear fell upon the faithful Christians, and because of their grief the Christians of Edessa did not celebrate the feast of the Cross that year.155 Ibn al-Athir reports that when Joscelin was captured, he was placed in a camel’s skin which was then sewn shut. He was asked to surrender Edessa but refused. Seeking to be released, Joscelin offered to pay great amounts of money and free many Muslim captives, but his offer was rejected. Belek took him to the fortress of Khartabart with his cousin Guliam (Galeran), “a devil of the kuffar (infidels),” and many prominent knights.156 According to Ibn al-Adim, Belek asked Joscelin and Galeran to hand over the fortress in exchange for their freedom, but they refused, saying, “We and our lands are like loads carried by camels. When a camel becomes wounded, its load will be shifted to another. Now what was in our hands has become the property of someone else.”157 The misfortune of Joscelin’s capture was soon compounded by the capture of King Baldwin II. While he was in Antioch, Baldwin learned that Joscelin had been taken captive and decided to rescue him. In April 1123, he assembled troops to fight Belek and rescue Joscelin. He appointed Geoffrey the Monk, a brave and mighty man and a most fervent Christian, to take over Edessa and his own kingdom in the absence of himself and Joscelin.158 Belek was then ravaging the regions of Gargar, Samosata, and Hisn Mansur. Baldwin came from Samosata to Kesum, planning to rescue Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 208, and trans. Gibb, 166. The Anonymous Edessan, 86–87 (English, 90–91; Arabic, 109–110); Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 63, and “The Growth of the Latin States,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 418. 154 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 228–229. 155 The Anonymous Edessan, 89 (English, 91; Arabic, 112). 156 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 344. 157 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 206. 158 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 229–230; The Anonymous Edessan, 88 (English, 91; Arabic, 111); Grousset, Histoire, 2: 875. 152 153

516

THE CRUSADES

the inhabitants. On hearing that Baldwin was in Kesum, Belek collected his force and camped at the river Singa (Ptolemy calls it the Singas). Baldwin, unaware that Belek and his army were nearby, took a few knights with him and reached the Singa bridge, less than a mile away. Most of his cavalrymen were far off. Suddenly Belek’s men sprang from their hiding place like wolves and captured King Baldwin, his sister’s son, and many others (on the fourth day of the Week of White Apparel, according to the Syriac sources).159 Belek took the prisoners to Gargar and tortured them until Baldwin was forced to surrender Gargar. The Anonymous Edessan says that earlier, Belek had told Joscelin and Galeran, then imprisoned at Hisn Ziyad, that he would bring Baldwin to join them.160 So it happened six months later, according to Ibn al-Qalanisi and Ibn al-Adim, that Baldwin was in chains in a deep dungeon in the fortress of Hisn Ziyad together with Joscelin and Galeran.161 Baldwin’s capture was a great loss to the Franks in Syria, although the affairs of his kingdom ran smoothly under Eustace Grenier, lord of Caesarea and Sidon, who was chosen as regent. After Eustace died in June 1123, William of Bury, lord of Tiberias, was chosen to replace him.162 The Anonymous Edessan describes Belek’s good administration and character, showing his defense of the poor and his treatment of his Christian subjects. Under Belek, he says, the land was delivered from the thieves and brigands who infested it and robbed the poor. Peace prevailed in the land. It was reported that Belek would hang a Turk if he stole even a crust of bread from a poor person. He never allowed anyone in his domain to

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 600 (French, 210–211); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88 (English, 251). 160 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88 (English, 251), says Hisn Ziyad and Khartabart designate the same place. 161 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 209, and trans. Gibb, 167; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 211. I have generally followed The Anonymous Edessan, 88–89 (English, 91–92; Arabic, 111–112). Slightly different accounts are given by Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 239–240; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 229; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 603 (French, 211); and William of Tyre, History, 1: 540–541. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 352–353, says King Baldwin fought Belek not to save Joscelin, but to curb the influence of Belek, who had besieged the fortress of Gargar near Khartabart. See Grousset, Histoire, 1: 587; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 162; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 65; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 513; Janzuri, Imarat, 121. 162 William of Tyre, History, 1: 547. 159

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

517

harm the Christians, even by a simple word, much to the credit of this Turkish lord.163 The liberation of Baldwin, Joscelin and Galeran is related by both Western and Eastern sources, but with varying details. In mid-August 1123, four months after Baldwin II was captured, a number of Armenian soldiers, variously given as fifteen, twenty, or fifty, left the fortress of Beth Hisni (Behesni) in the Kesum mountain, having bound themselves by an oath to rescue the captives.164 They plotted with Godfrey the Monk and the queen and went to Hisn Ziyad. Ten of them carried grapes, fruits, and fowls, pretending to be poor peasants complaining that their steward had done them wrong. The others stayed behind, ready to help carry out the plot. When they reached the upper gate of the fortress, there were only two or three guards; the others were at a banquet given by the commander for his officers, who had had too much drink. When the guards went to tell the commander about the visitors, the Armenians seized the swords hanging between the gates and killed the porter and everyone they found. Quickly they summoned their comrades from beyond the walls; they shut the gate, killed everyone inside, and occupied the fortress, with the help of Armenians from the city, and began seeking the prisoners. Joscelin, the first one rescued, vowed to King Baldwin that he would not rest until he had reached Jerusalem and raised an army to release him. The captives reportedly made him swear not to change his clothes, eat meat, or drink (except the wine of the Eucharist) until he had collected troops and rescued them. He went to Kesum, Tall Bashir, and Antioch, and then, on the advice of Patriarch Bernard, to Jerusalem. The people were happy, believing the king and Galeran would soon be safe and they would control the treasure of Hisn Ziyad, and Joscelin began gathering troops to free Baldwin and the rest of the captives. Word of the disaster was sent to Belek in Aleppo. When he heard that Khartabart had been taken by deception, the Turks rushed and laid siege to it by night, investing the fortress closely, so that no one could go in or out. By setting up catapults and ordering mining operations, he succeeded in demolishing the tower. He tortured all the Armenians in it who had betrayed him and had them flayed alive. Belek kept only King Baldwin and his The Anonymous Edessan, 89 (English, 92; Arabic, 112). Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 247; William of Tyre, History, 1: 541; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 600 (French, 210–211); The Anonymous Edessan, 89 (English, 92; Arabic, 112); Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 353; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 213. 163 164

518

THE CRUSADES

kinsman Galeran, moving them to Harran, where they were imprisoned.165 In 1124 he took the captives to Aleppo and imprisoned them in its citadel.166 After failing to rescue the captives, Joscelin and his men turned their vengeance against the province of Aleppo, which belonged to Belek. Jocelin attacked Buza’a, in the Wadi of Batnan, and then Hailan, destroying Muslim shrines, cutting down trees, and taking captives. On the western bank of the wadi, he destroyed Muslim graves and the shrine of Dakka.167 Retaliating against his sacrilegious act, the religious judge of Aleppo, Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Khashshab, with the support of Aleppo’s Muslim leaders, destroyed the altars of the city’s Christian churches, changed their doors, and converted them into mosques.168 Resenting a cross placed atop the minaret of the city’s great mosque in 1102 on the orders of Ridwan (then the lord of Aleppo), Ibn al-Khashshab had it destroyed.169 Ibn al-Adim says several churches were converted; even a cathedral became a mosque, named alSarrajin. Ibn al-Khashshab left only two churches as traces of the Christian community.170 The Anonymous Edessan says that early in May 1123, Ibn al-Khashshab ordered the Christians to rebuild two mosques that Joscelin had destroyed. But the church stewards said, “We will not do this, for we should thereby open a door against ourselves, so that wherever a mosque is destroyed, we must rebuild it out of church funds.” On Friday, at the judge’s order, thousands of Muslims with carpenters’ tools and axes rushed to the churches. They entered the Church of Saint Jacob, broke the pulpit and the angels of the altar, defaced the sacred images, cut an opening in the south wall of the sanctuary and prayed there, and made it a mosque. They did the same thing with the Greek church of Theotokos (the Virgin Mother of God) and the Nestorians’ church. They sacked the churches and the cells of the bishops. The Malkites fled to Antioch, and the Orthodox Syrians (Jacobites) to Qal’at Ja’bar; all of these events reportedly happened on May 6, 1123.171 William of Tyre, History, 1: 544; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 230; The Anonymous Edessan, 92 (English, 93; Arabic, 115–116); Adim, Zubdat, 2: 213. 166 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 217. 167 The Anonymous Edessan, 93 (English, 94; Arabic, 116) 168 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 214–215. 169 Sibt ibn al-Ajami, Kunuz al-Dhahab, 1: 191, quoted in Janzuri, Imarat, 172, n. 142. 170 Adim, Zubdat, 1: 214–215. 171 The Anonymous Edessan, 93 (English, 94; Arabic, 116–117). 165

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

519

Joscelin continued to invade Shabakhtan, Turkoman and Akrad. He seized over 10,000 sheep and cattle, killed many Muslims, and took others captive. He invested Jabbul and its environs, then went to Dayr Hafir and asphyxiated its inhabitants with smoke in the caves, exhumed graves, and looted the dead. In 1124 some of Belek’s men encountered a group of Franks at Azaz, near Aleppo; after a fierce fight at Mashhala they killed forty Franks and took their belongings. Others, wounded, fled to Azaz.172 At this time Galeran went to Belek and offered to deliver the fortress into his hands. But Belek put the king and his nephew in chains once more, threw them into prison, and went to encamp at Manbij. At this point Hassan ibn Gümüshtekin, the lord of Manbij, who was defending the city’s citadel, sent a messenger to Joscelin and Geoffrey the Monk, asking them for aid and promising to hand over Manbij in return. In the ensuing battle between Joscelin and Belek’s forces, the Turks were defeated and Belek was mortally wounded by an arrow.173 Ibn al-Adim says that Gümüshtekin’s brother Isa shot Belek, then pulled the arrow from his collarbone and spat on him, declaring, “This one has killed many Muslims.”174 To be sure of Belek’s death, Joscelin asked his men to search for the body, which they recognized from the markings on his armor. They cut off his head and carried it with congratulations to Joscelin. Placed in a sack, the head was taken to Antioch, Tyre, and then Jerusalem as a token of Joscelin’s success.175 The valiant Geoffrey the Monk was also killed. Belek’s army fled to Aleppo, and the Turks proclaimed his uncle’s son, Husam al-Din Timurtash ibn Ilghazi, as their leader in his place.176 After Belek’s death on May 6, 1124, King Baldwin II, who had been moved to Aleppo, passed into the hands of Timurtash. While he was in prison there, says Matthew of Edessa, Joscelin and the queen made a pact with Timurtash to ransom him, agreeing to hand over the king’s daughter and Joscelin’s son as hostages and to pay him 100,000 dahekans, but Adim, Zubdat, 2: 216–217. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 232; The Anonymous Edessan, 93–94 (English, 94; Arabic, 117). 174 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 219. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 335, says no one knows whose arrow killed Belek. 175 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 262–263; William of Tyre, History, 2: 16. 176 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 220. Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 356, says that Timurtash loved a life of ease and quiet, and to escape the constant state of warfare with the Franks in Syria he had settled in Mardin in 1122. See Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 603 (French, 218). 172 173

520

THE CRUSADES

Galeran and King Baldwin’s nephew remained in Timurtash’s clutches and were eventually executed.177 The other Syriac sources confirm that Timurtash ransomed the king and his sister’s son for 100,000 dinars, and that the lord of Shayzar played an important role in Baldwin’s release.178 Baldwin was in captivity about sixteen months, from April 18, 1123 to August 29– 30, 1124.179 The Muslim sources give a different account of Baldwin’s release. Ibn al-Adim says that Timurtash, through the mediation of Abu al-Asakir Sultan ibn Munqidh, the lord of Shayzar (who sent his children and his brothers’ children to Timurtash as hostages until the negotiation was settled), made an agreement with Baldwin to release him for a payment of 80,000 dinars, of which 20,000 was to be paid in advance. After the initial payment was made, Timurtash released Baldwin from his chains and honored him at a banquet. He also gave the king a royal outergarment, a golden headgear, and slippers, and returned the horse Belek had taken from him on the day of his capture. Baldwin agreed to restore to Timurtash the towns of Azaz, Zardana, and Kafratab, and not to aid Dubays, the son of Sayf al-Dawla Sadaqa, Mazyadid Shi’ite lord of Hilla (1107–1134), who had rebelled against the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustarshid (1118–1135); after the caliph expelled him from Iraq, he went to the Jazira and Syria and allied himself with the Franks. Timurtash then sent Baldwin to the fortress of Shayzar, where he was held until the lord of Shayzar received the hostages (Baldwin’s daughter and Joscelin’s son).180 Usama ibn Munqidh, an eyewitness to these events, says there were in Shayzar certain hostages, including Frankish and Armenian knights, whom Baldwin, the Franks’ King, had offered as security for the financial obligation which he owed to Husam al-Din Timurtash.181 Michael Rabo gives an account of Dubays’s rebellion not found in other sources, but seems to confuse Dubays with his father Sadaqa I, lord Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 232–233; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 65–72. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88 (English, 251); Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 603 (French, 211). 179 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 275. 180 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 221–222. See Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab al-I’tibar, trans. Philip Hitti as An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), 150. 181 Usama ibn Munqidh, An Arab-Syrian Gentleman, 133. Adim, Zubdat, 2: 222, says the twelve hostages included Baldwin’s daughter, Joscelin’s son, and other Franks (who may have been knights, as Usama says), but does not mention Armenian knights as being among them. 177 178

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

521

of Hilla from 1086 until his death in 1107. When al-Mustarshid became caliph, he says, he expelled the entertainers from his father’s royal house and burned their musical instruments; he also expelled 3000 pretty women who had been his father’s boon companions. On hearing this, the Muslims became outraged, saying those who were entrusted with the faith (the caliphs) secretly led a dissolute life, and that this was the cause of the Arab state’s decline. Dubays revolted against the caliph and accused him of moral depravity like his father, but the Turks sided with the caliph. Dubays, angered, left to ally himself with the Franks and brought them to Aleppo, hoping that after capturing it they would hand it over to him.182 Although King Baldwin was released from captivity, the hostages he had given, including his five-year-old daughter Yvette, were neither released nor redeemed.183 Ibn al-Adim says Abu al-Asakir ibn Munqidh held the hostages because Baldwin had reneged on his agreement with Timurtash. Baldwin sent Timurtash a letter informing him that his patriarch, Bernard of Valence, whom he could not contradict, had objected to his agreeing to surrender Azaz and other cities and fortresses to Timurtash and pay a ransom for his freedom. The letter makes it clear that Baldwin had not willfully violated his agreement with Timurtash, but was unable to comply with it because he had been censured by the patriarch. The communications between Baldwin and Timurtash show that the hostages were not likely to be released.184 King Baldwin apparently decided the only way to end the impasse was to fight Timurtash. He found an ally in Dubays, lord of Hilla, who joined the Franks and urged them to capture Aleppo, saying its citizens favored him because he was a Shi’ite like themselves and would quickly surrender the city to him.185 After Salim ibn Malik, lord of Qal’at Ja’bar, brought Dubays together with Joscelin and Baldwin, he entered into an agreement with them, whereby he was to receive Aleppo and the Franks wiould have its possessions, together with other places within the province of Aleppo.186 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 607 (French, 211), errs in saying that Dubays revolted in the time of al-Mustazhri, father of al-Mustarshid. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88 (English, 252), corrects this mistake. 183 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 275; William of Tyre, History, 2: 21. 184 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 222–223. 185 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 360, 394. 186 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 223; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 234, says Dubays and the Franks made an alliance but gives no details. Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 72, and “The Growth of the Latin States,” 1: 423–424, argues incorrectly that Baldwin broke his 182

522

THE CRUSADES

In October 1124 Baldwin and Joscelin marched against Aleppo, joined by Dubays and his company, which included Isa ibn Salim ibn Mali; the Artukid Yaghi Siyan, son of Abd al-Jabbar, lord of Balsh (Balis), and Sultan Shah, Ridwan’s son, whom the Artukids had removed from his position as lord of Aleppo.187 When Timurtash learned that Aleppo was about to be attacked, he went to Mardin to ask his brother Sulayman for help, but Sulayman was sick, near death, and unable to help. So Timurtash remained there, awaiting his brother’s death so that he could replace him as lord of Mardin. When the citizens of Aleppo saw that Timurtash had delayed too long in Mardin, they concluded that he had failed to get aid from Sulayman. They appealed to Sayf al-Din Aksunkur al-Bursuki, lord of Mosul, to take possession of the city and save them from the infidels.188 Al-Bursuki left for Aleppo; at al-Rahba, he was joined by Zahir al-Din Tughtigin, lord of Damascus, and Samsam al-Din Kirkhan, son of Qaraja, lord of Hims. En route he sent a message to the people of Aleppo, saying he could not reach the city while the Franks were attacking it. So that he could help them effectively, he told them, they should surrender the citadel to his deputies and prepare to seek refuge there if the Franks took the city. They agreed, and alBursuki marched on, arriving on January 29, 1125 to a joyous welcome by the citizens of Aleppo. He stayed there a while, then went back to Mosul.189 The arrival of this large Muslim force evidently kept Baldwin II from capturing Aleppo. He and his allies withdrew as the Muslim forces moved to the stronghold of al-Atharib, which had belonged to the Franks. Baldwin retired to Antioch and finally returned to Jerusalem in April 1125, after two years’ absence.190 The Anonymous Edessan, however, says that for nine months the Franks and Dubays besieged Aleppo, attacking it from every direction. The people of the city began to suffer from a shortage of food and provisions and were forced to eat unclean animals. They were about to surrender the city when a messenger came to report that al-Bursuki, lord of Mosul, was on his way to save them. Dubays urged the Franks to let him lead an army to the Euphrates to prevent al-Bursuki from crossing and attacking Aleppo, but the “stiff-necked” Franks rejected his advice. Meanwhile, al-Bursuki agreement with Timurtash, and he and Joscelin then negotiated with Dubays. 187 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 223–224. 188 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 212, and trans. Gibb, 172–173; Athir, alKamil, 1: 360–361, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 25; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 223. 189 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 360–361. 190 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 274–275.

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

523

crossed the Euphrates at night and reached Aleppo. The citizens opened the gates for him, and he attacked with fury, forcing the Franks to retreat and take refuge in the Jawshan mountain. Ten days later, they went to Antioch. The Turks pursued them as far as Atharb and took all their belongings, and al-Bursuki returned to Aleppo with great joy.191 Ibn al-Adim gives a similar account, but reports many abominable acts allegedly committed by the Franks. He states that at the siege of Aleppo they cut down trees, destroyed Muslim shrines, and exhumed Muslim graves, then carried the coffins to their tents and used them as vessels for food. They robbed the dead and attached ropes to the legs of bodies that had not yet decayed and dragged them in plain view of the Muslims. Some of them cried, “This is your Muhammad!” or “This is your Ali!” Ibn alAdim says that whenever the Franks captured a Muslim, they cut off his hands and male organ and handed him over to the Muslims, but adds that Muslims did the same thing to any Frank they captured.192 King Baldwin II had his hands full of problems. He had not only to look after his own kingdom but, as regent of Antioch, to protect that principality. His most immediate problem was the growing influence of Aksunkur al-Bursuki, who had become a foe to be reckoned with. In 1121, the Seljuk Sultan Mahmud made al-Bursuki lord of Aleppo and al-Jazira, Sinjar, Nisibin and other cities.193 Since his lordship was also acknowledged by Tughtigin, lord of Damascus, and Kirkhan, son of Qaraja, lord of Hims, the Franks’ position in Syria was seriously threatened. Al-Bursuki also won the support of Sultan ibn Munqidh, lord of Shayzar, whom he visited in March 1125, and who sold him (for 80,000 dinars) the Frankish hostages, Baldwin’s daughter and Joscelin’s son.194 Confident of his strength, al-Bursuki began attacking some towns within the principality of Antioch. He laid siege to Kafartab and captured it in May 1125, before Baldwin II and Pons, lord of Antioch, who was with him, could get to it. He then besieged Zardana, twenty-five miles southwest of Aleppo, but soon left it to attack Azaz, twenty-five miles north of Aleppo.195

191 The Anonymous Edessan, 97–98 (English, 96–97, Arabic 121–122). Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 234, and Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 607 (French, p. 221), mention this event only briefly. 192 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 224–225. 193 Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 24. 194 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 230–231; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 173. 195 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 278–279, calls Azaz “Hasar”.

524

THE CRUSADES

On June 11, 1125, in a ferocious battle with the Franks, the Muslims were badly defeated and lost a great number of men.196 The Anonymous Edessan says that the Turks lost 2000 men, but al-Bursuki escaped with some troops and was chased by the Franks to Aleppo. On arriving there, he charged his son Mas’ud with the city’s administration and left for Mosul to raise a new army.197 Ibn al-Adim, however, says that after their defeat the Muslims negotiated briefly with the Franks and agreed to share Jabal alSummaq [The Black Mountain] and other places then held by the Franks.198 Baldwin also had to deal with Tughtigin of Damascus, who supported alBursuki. On January 25, 1126, he met Tughtigin’s forces at March Suffar, southwest of Damascus. Tughtigin was beaten and lost many men.199 While the Franks chased his fleeing troops, a contingent of Turks attacked the Frankish camp and stole everything in their tents.200 Baldwin again found himself face to face with the Muslims when Pons, the son of Bertram, count of Tripoli (1112–1137), attacked Rafaniyya in the Apamea district on March 31, 1126. Shams al-Khawas, the town’s ruler, appealed to Tughtigin and al-Bursuki for help, but Rafaniyya was unable to hold out and surrendered to Pons and Baldwin II after an eighteen-day siege.201 As a result, the Franks controlled the road between Antioch and Jerusalem and were able to assure the safety of the principality of Antioch.202 Al-Bursuki, who had raised an army, marched to al-Raqqa in Syria and camped at the fortress of al-Na’ura on the Euphrates, some eight miles from Aleppo. Joscelin I communicated with al-Bursuki, proposing that he take over half of the villages between Azaz and Aleppo and that they should fight over other places. Al-Bursuki accepted these terms.203 Fulcher of Chartres says that al-Bursuki gathered an army and marched to Syria, where he attacked the fortress of al-Atharb but failed to capture it. Baldwin II, along with Joscelin, rushed to oppose him, although they faced another threat from an Egyptian fleet that was attacking the ports of the Kingdom Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 234–235; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 231. The Anonymous Edessan, 100–101 (English, 98; Arabic, 125); Athir, alKamil, 1: 362–363. 198 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 231; William of Tyre, History, 2: 25. 199 William of Tyre, History, 2: 27–30; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 606 (French, 223). 200 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 212–213. 201 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 216; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 232. 202 Grousset, Histoire, 1: 641. 203 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 232. 196 197

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

525

of Jerusalem.204 The forces of Baldwin II and Joscelin camped at Imm, thirty-three miles west of Aleppo and Artah. According to Ibn al-Adim, Baldwin dispatched a message to al-Bursuki, offering to surrender Rafaniyya to him in return for his withdrawal from the country. Al-Bursuki agreed and withdrew. But the Franks soon violated the agreement, believing that they would not have peace with al-Bursuki unless they held all the villages which they had agreed the previous year to share with the Muslims. Al-Bursuki declined, but it appears that he was unwilling to fight the Franks. He himself withdrew to Qinnesrin and Sarmin, while his forces went to al-Fu’a and Danith. The Franks marched to Ma’arrat Misrin, but because of a shortage of food and provisions, they returned to their own territories in August 1126.205 Tughtigin fell ill and was carried by a litter to Damascus. Al-Bursuki retreated to Aleppo and then to Mosul, where he was murdered by a group of Batini Assassins in the mosque on Friday, November 26, 1126. That night he dreamed that a pack of dogs had attacked him, and he killed some of them. When he related the dream to his companions, they advised him to leave his house for a few days, but he refused. The dream came true when he was attacked by ten Batini Assassins; after he killed some, the rest overpowered him and killed him.206 Michael Rabo shows the assassination of al-Bursuki in a different light. He says that in 1129 (not 1126), Joscelin entered the district of Amid, pillaged the city up to its gate, and annihilated the Turks and the Kurds in the Shuma Mountain. Husam al-Din, the lord of Mardin, then had in his custody two famous Frankish knights, one called Bar Noul (probably Renault or Arnault), and another called Galeran. Al-Bursuki gave him an ultimatum: kill these knights, or he would destroy his city. Husam al-Din then killed the knights. Almost immediately, however, he heard reports that al-Bursuki had been stabbed by an Ismaili (assassin) while he was praying in the mosque on Friday. The sword did not penetrate al-Bursuki’s body because he was wearing a shield. The assassin was captured, but he gestured to two accomplices Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 298. Adim, Zubdat, 2: 233–234; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 77–78; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 528–529. 206 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 365, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 41; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 214; William of Tyre, History, 2: 32, says al-Bursuki was stabbed to death by his servants and other members of his household; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 236, says he was killed by people from his nation called Hajji; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88 (English, p. 252); Adim, Zubdat, 2: 234–235. 204 205

526

THE CRUSADES

to finish the task; they stabbed al-Bursuki in the belly, beneath his shield, and he died. When Husam al-Din learned of the death of al-Bursuki, who had threatened to destroy his city, he regretted killing the two Frankish knights.207 Al-Bursuki’s son, Izz al-Din Mas’ud, succeeded him as ruler of Mosul. Believing that his father’s killers were from the city of Hama, he went to Syria. His march into Syria alarmed Tughtigin, lord of Damascus, who, thinking Mas’ud intended to invade his territory, prepared to fight him. Izz al-Din Mas’ud besieged al-Rahba, whose governor eventually had to surrender it to him, but he was suddenly struck by a severe illness and died at a young age in 1127.208 After al-Bursuki’s death and that of Tughtigin in 1128, Syria (especially Aleppo) fell into utter chaos, suffering greatly from a lack of leadership, which the Franks exploited. The Franks were so aware of the situation of the Muslims that when al-Bursuki died, Baldwin II dispatched a message to Izz al-Din, who was then in Aleppo, informing him of his father’s death.209 After Mas’ud died, there was a power struggle among several men, including Kuman (Tuman), Qutlugh Abah, Fada’il ibn Badi’, and Badr al-Dawla Sulayman ibn Abd al-Jabbar, who finally took over the city, with the citizens’ approval. Taking advantage of the chaotic situation, Joscelin marched against Aleppo but left after its people offered him a bribe.210 Like their Muslim foes, the Franks also suffered from dissension, in the form of a rivalry between Joscelin and Bohemond II. When the elder Bohemond died, his son and namesake was living with his mother in Apulia, Italy, where he remained until he was eighteen. Whether (as the Anonymous Edessan says) he was invited by Baldwin II to come to Antioch and take over his father’s principality or not, Bohemond II sailed for Syria with twenty-two ships, ten of them oared, arriving at al-Suwaydiyya, the port of Antioch, in September 1126.211 Usama ibn Munqidh, whose father, the lord of Shayzar, had a strong relationship with the Franks, says Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609–610 (French, 225). Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 217; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 366, 374. Adim, Zubdat, 2: 237, says Mas’ud was poisoned. 209 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 366. 210 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 389–390, says that Baldwin II came to Aleppo on the heels of Joscelin; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 237–238; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 79. 211 The Anonymous Edessan, 101 (English, 98; Arabic, 125); Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 237; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 297–298; William of Tyre, History, 2: 32–33; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609 (French, 224); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88–89 (English, 253); Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 175–176. 207 208

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

527

that a ship arrived at al-Suwaydiyya carrying a lad in rags. This lad appeared before Baldwin II and introduced himself as the son of Bohemond, and Baldwin delivered Antioch to him.212 According to Fulcher of Chartres, when Bohemond II came to Antioch, Baldwin II went out with a magnificent procession and received him warmly, to the cheers of the people. Baldwin turned over to him all his land (the principality of Antioch) and married him to his second daughter, Alice. He promised to give him the throne of the kingdom after his death, but for the present he gave him Antioch and Cilicia. After the wedding, Bohemond took his seat on the throne and the assembled nobles took an oath of fealty to him. Thus, the houses of Jerusalem and Antioch were bound together. Then Baldwin II returned to Jerusalem.213 But the rivalry between Bohemond II and Joscelin quickly turned into hostility. Bohemond II turned out to be ambitious and aggressive, like his father, and was even more zealous in defending the goals of the Franks. Such traits did not escape Usama ibn Munqidh, who said, “That devil, the son of Bohemond, proved a terrible calamity to our people.”214 In 1127 Bohemond II retook Kafratab, which Aksunkur al-Bursuki had captured in 1125. In 1128, he attacked Shayzar, which belonged to the father of Usama ibn Munqidh, and the next year he captured the fortress of Qadmus.215 Joscelin saw Bohemond II as a rival. Taking advantage of the chaotic situation, he marched on the city in 1127, only to find that Bohemond had done the same. The two Frankish leaders found themselves fighting for possession of whatever they could get of Syria.216 William of Tyre says the reasons for the enmity between Joscelin and Bohemond are unknown and notes that, contrary to honorable customs, Joscelin sought help from a band of infidel Turks. He ravaged the land of Antioch with sword and fire and subdued its Christian inhabitants. All this happened without the knowledge of Bohemond II, who was fighting the

Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab al-I’tibar, trans. Hitti, 150; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 476, and by the same author, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 99. 213 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia, 303; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 237; William of Tyre, History, 2: 33; The Anonymous Edessan, 101 (English, 98; Arabic, 125); Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 80, n. 421. 214 Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab, 150. 215 William of Tyre, History, 2: 33–34; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 81, n. 422. 216 B. Kugler, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: G. Grotesche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1880), 116. 212

528

THE CRUSADES

Turks.217 Michael Rabo blames Bohemond II for the strife with Joscelin. He says that Bohemond, whom he calls arrogant, tried to impose his authority over all the Franks, causing dissension and warfare among them. Joscelin seized this opportunity to ravage the district of Antioch, plundering whatever he could find, but did not oppress the city’s inhabitants. His actions outraged the Latin patriarch of Antioch, Bernard, who ordered the churches closed and the celebration of the Eucharist, prayers, pealing of bells, and the burial of the dead suspended. Finally, Joscelin and Bohemond were reconciled and Joscelin gave back what he had stolen.218 Michael Rabo may have based his account on that of Matthew of Edessa, who says that because of his forceful character and great power, Bohemond II succeeded in making all the Franks, including Joscelin, the count of Edessa, subjugate themselves to his authority.219 King Baldwin II hurried to Antioch to meet with Bohemond II and Joscelin before the situation became worse, perhaps fearing that their dispute would give the Muslims an opportunity to harass them. With the help of Patriarch Bernard, he succeeded in reconciling them. William of Tyre asserts that Joscelin yielded to the entreaties of Baldwin and Bernard because he was overcome suddenly by a serious illness. Fearing the prospect of death, he repented his evil deeds and vowed that if God saved his life, he would make peace with Bohemond II and pay him homage. When he had recovered, Joscelin swore fealty to Bohemond in the presence of the king and the patriarch. With the two lords reconciled, King Baldwin II returned to Jerusalem.220 Michael Rabo, however, says that when Joscelin assaulted Aleppo in 1128 (the actual date was 1127), the Turks, who could not fight him, made peace and pledged to pay him 12,000 dinars annually. But some Turks incited others from Azaz to eliminate Joscelin. They administered poison to him and six of his knights. The knights died, but through the care of physicians Joscelin’s life was saved. When he recovered, he had those who had poisoned him and their children killed.221 William of Tyre, History, 2: 34. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609 (French, 224); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88–89 (English, 253). 219 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia, 237. 220 William of Tyre, History, 2: 34–45; Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 82. 221 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609 (French, 224). Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 88–89 (English, 253), says the Turks of Aleppo bribed Joscelin’s Frankish cooks with gold, then made him and six of his knights drink deadly poison. 217 218

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

529

The reconciliation with Joscelin was not the end of Bohemond’s trouble. He had to face the Turks and the Roupenid Armenians, who ruled Cilicia. Conditions in Cilicia became chaotic after the death of Thoros I, ruler of Partzapert in 1129, followed shortly by the poisoning death of his son Constantine. Since Constantine had no heir, Thoros’s brother Leon became the new ruler in 1130 and began to quarrel with Bohemond II. The chaos in Thoros’s principality whetted the appetite of both the Danishmend Ilghazi, the lord of Melitene and parts of Cilicia, and Bohemond. Ilghazi, whose power had been enhanced by Thoros’s death, became even more powerful when Cassianus, a Byzantine governor of the region of Pontus in northeast Asia Minor, voluntarily surrendered the fortresses in the region to him; in return, Ilghazi gave Cassianus protection and required him to join his army.222 During this time, Armenian marauders from Cilicia had been attacking and plundering Ilghazi’s territory. Angered, he decided to attack the Armenians and ravage their country. Bohemond II had likewise suffered from the lawless actions of these Armenians, and he also prepared to march against Cilicia. The Turkish and the Frankish forces happened to invade Cilicia from opposite sides, each unaware of the presence of the other. But while Ilghazi had a strong force, Bohemond had only a few knights. The Armenian prince Leon managed to avoid encountering both invading forces. The Turkish and Frankish forces met in a fierce battle at Anazarba (Ayn Zarba) in February 1130. After losing a number of men, the exhausted Franks took refuge on a high mound. The Turks surrounded and annihilated them, including Bohemond II. They could not identify him at first, but when they realized the body was that of Bohemond, they cut off his head, scalped it, and kept his beautiful hair. Then they took the head, along with the arms and the horses they had taken from the Franks, to Ilghazi, who in turn sent it to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad.223 Ilghazi’s annihilation of Bohemond II provoked the amazement of the Anonymous Edessan: “How strange! The father of Ilghazi took the father of this Bohemond captive, while the son Ilghazi destroyed the army of his son, the young Bohemond II, and killed him.”224 222 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609 (French, 227); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 89 (English, 255). 223 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 609 (French, 227); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 89 (English, 255). 224 The Anonymous Edessan, 102 (English, 99; Arabic, 126–127).

530

THE CRUSADES

Bohemond’s untimely death caused problems of succession. He and his wife Alice, the daughter of King Baldwin II, had only one child, a daughter named Constance. The people of Antioch lamented that without a prince, they would face the danger of an attack by their enemies, the Turks. They held a council and summoned King Baldwin to come to Antioch and solve their problem, and he agreed to do so as quickly as he could. But his daughter had other ideas; although her young daughter Constance was sole heir to the principality of Antioch, the ambitious Alice planned to disinherit her and rule Antioch herself. To effect this plan, she sent a message to Imad al-Din Zangi, atabeg of Aleppo, asking him to assist in confirming her as the ruler of Antioch; in return, she would become his dependent. The messenger was captured and brought before King Baldwin II. He confessed all the details of the plot and was put to death. Baldwin rushed to Antioch, taking with him his son-in-law Fulk, count of Anjou.225 Baldwin was refused entrance to the city on Alice’s orders, but the Frankish dignitaries of Antioch, including Peter Latinator, a monk of St. Paul, and William Aversa, who opposed her, had the gates opened, and Baldwin and Fulk entered the city. With reluctance Alice appeared before her father, who was indignant at her behavior. The king placed Antioch under his own authority until Constance was of age; to appease his daughter, he granted her the coastal cities of Laodicea and Jabala.226 Ibn al-Adim says Baldwin captured some of the men who had plotted with his daughter and had their hands and legs cut off.227 The Franks’ situation worsened with the death of King Baldwin II on August 21, 1131. Preparing for his death, the king had invited Fulk of Anjou to come to the East as heir to the kingdom. Fulk arrived in the spring of 1129; on June 2 of that year he married Melisend, Baldwin’s eldest daughter, receiving Tyre and Acre as dowry, and so became Baldwin’s sole heir.228 Fulk and Melisend were crowned and consecrated by William, the Latin William of Tyre, History, 2: 51–52, n. 16; Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 203. 226 William of Tyre, History, 2: 44–45; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 612 (French, 230), says Joscelin came to Antioch with Baldwin II; Bar Hebraeus, 89 (English, 255); Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 88–89, and “The Growth of the Latin States,” 1: 431; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 184. 227 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 246–247. 228 William of Tyre, History, 2: 51; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 614–615 (French, 236), incorrectly places Baldwin’s death and the marriage of Fulk to Melisend in the year 1135. 225

THE FRANKS AS RULERS

531

patriarch of Jerusalem, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on October 14, 1131.229 The new king was faced with intrigues by Baldwin’s daughter Alice. Taking advantage of her father’s death, she conspired with William, lord of the fortress of Sihyoun, Pons, lord of Tripoli, and Joscelin II of Edessa to take control of the government of Antioch. On discovering her intrigues, the Frankish knights in Antioch appealed to King Fulk to thwart her plan. But when he arrived in Tripoli, Pons refused to let him enter the city. Fulk put Pons and his supporters to flight and captured some of his men. Finally, through the mediation of loyal advocates of peace, the new king and Pons were reconciled. Before departing Antioch, Fulk left the principality in the hands of Rainaud Masoire, a capable man of high birth.230 At the behest of his wife Melisend, the king allowed her sister Alice to return. to Antioch. Alice sought to marry her daughter Constance to the son of the Byzantine emperor; the Frankish princes of Antioch and the clergy were outraged, fearing the city would fall into the hands of the Greeks. To solve the problem, King Fulk recommended that Constance marry Raymond, the son of Count William of Poitou, then at the court of King Henry of England. On arriving in Antioch, Raymond married Constance and became ruler of Antioch. Distressed, Alice retired to Laodicea, where she lived in semiseclusion until her death in 1136.231 The death of King Baldwin II was followed shortly by that of Joscelin. Although exhausted by a long illness and awaiting death, Joscelin, the formidable Frank, still had some energy left for combat. Marauders had been attacking and ransacking the fortress of Tall Arran, between Aleppo and Manbij, and Joscelin went out with a force to defend his territory. He ordered tunnels dug under the fortress to undermine the attackers. When he entered the tunnels to examine the work himself, bricks fell upon him and he was almost buried alive. He was rescued but had suffered many fractures. He was carried on a litter to Tall Bashir. Meanwhile, reports had reached him that Ilghazi ibn Danishmend was marching with his forces against the principality of the Armenian Roupenids. Despite his ill health, Joscelin summoned his son and namesake, telling him to go out and challenge Ilghazi. When the son, a coward, began to make excuses, Joscelin took matters into his own hands and went out with a force to challenge Ilghazi. Realizing that Joscelin had come out to challenge him, Ilghazi beWilliam of Tyre, History, 2: 51. William of Tyre, History, 2: 55. 231 William of Tyre, History, 2: 59–60, 77–79. 229 230

532

THE CRUSADES

came frightened and returned to his own country. Joscelin marched on to Duluk; there he died and was buried in the village church.232

William of Tyre, History, 2: 51–52, says that Joscelin went to challenge Sultan Kilij Arslan. See Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 614 (French, 236); The Anonymous Edessan, 103 (English, 99–100; Arabic, 128); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 89 (English, 255); Nicholson, Joscelyn I, 91. 232

15 THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS AND THE FALL OF EDESSA While the Franks were involved in internecine disputes, they also faced a rising threat from the Zangids. For years, Joscelin and King Baldwin II had fought with the Muslim lords of Syria, including Imad al-Din Zangi, whose help Baldwin’s daughter Alice sought in her attempt to gain control of the principality of Antioch. Perhaps the Franks believed that the Zangids were simply another group of Muslims who would soon be engaged in constant quarrels among themselves, much to their own advantage. They do not seem to have considered seriously the stated intention of Imad al-Din Zangi to unite his people and drive them out of Syria. But this new Muslim lord’s threat was different and extremely devastating. The rise of the Zangids was the beginning of the end of the Franks’ power in Syria, and eventually it led to their loss of Jerusalem. Before we discuss the Zangids, it is appropriate to examine the situation of the Franks and the Muslims in Syria. No historian has done this with more insight than Ibn al-Athir, who asserts that when Imad al-Din Zangi came to power (1127), the Muslims in Syria were weak, while the mushrikun (polytheists, the Christian Franks) were strong. The Franks’ kingdom had grown tremendously, extending from Mardin and Shabakhtan in Syria to alArish in Egypt, and from al-Jazira to Nisibin and Ras al-Ayn. Their military detachments harassed travelers as far away as Diyarbakr. They controlled all the roads leading to Damascus except the one through al-Rahba. Fearful Muslim merchants traversed the country at great risk to their lives as well as their merchandise. The Franks had become powerful enough to subdue the lands and peoples of Islam. They exacted tribute from the Muslims simply to keep them under control. They even sent messengers to Damascus to ask whether the Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians the Muslims had taken captive wished to stay under Muslim rule or return to their own people. Those who chose to stay were free to do so, but the Franks took those who wanted to leave into their own territory. In the true spirit of Islam, which regards the Muslims as superior to all non-Muslims, Ibn al-Athir la533

534

THE CRUSADES

ments that this state of affairs demonstrates the Muslims’ humiliation and their loss of power and prestige to the Christian infidels. To show the Franks’ highhandedness, he says they took half the city of Aleppo and divided everything with the Muslims, even the mill situated at Bab al-Jinan (Gardens Gate), only a few miles from Damascus. In short, the condition of the Muslims in Syria was at its lowest point.1 Ibn al-Athir was correct. The Muslims’ culture not only in Syria but also in Iraq and Egypt was in a shambles. The Abbasid caliph was a mere figurehead; the true power was in the hands of the Seljuk sultans. Syria was ruled by various Turkish atabegs who often acted independently of the sultans. Egypt was ruled by the Shi’ite Fatimids, who on account of religious differences were enemies of the Sunnites of Iraq and Syria, and sometimes even allied themselves with the Franks against their fellow Muslims. The weakness of the Abbasid caliphate encouraged Dubays ibn Sadaqa ibn Mazyad, the Arab ruler of the city of Hilla in Iraq, to defy the authority of both the caliph and the sultan. A Shi’ite, Dubays did not regard the Abbasids or the Sunnite Seljuks as friends. His father, Sadaqa ibn Mazyad (1086–1107), had controlled the region around Hilla and attempted to carve a state of his own in southern Iraq. He became so formidable that he arrogated to himself the title of Sayf al-Dawla (Sword of the State); Ibn al-Athir calls him Amir al-Arab (Prince of the Arabs).2 He even supported the Seljuk Sultan Muhammad, son of Malikshah, against his brother Berkyaruk. But when the sultan realized that Sadaqa was a Shi’ite (he was also accused of being a Batini, or Isma’ili Assassin), he had him killed in 1108. In a show of magnanimity, he apologized to Sadaqa’s wife for killing her husband and allowed his son Dubays to take his father’s place. Dubays proved more ambitious than his father; in 1120 he attacked and pillaged Baghdad. He defiantly pitched his tent opposite the palace of the Abbasid Caliph alMustarshid bi Allah (1118–1135), who asked the Seljuk Sultan Mahmud, son of Sultan Muhammad (1118–1131) for help.3 The sultan ordered Aksunkur al-Bursuki, atabeg of Mosul, to fight Dubays, but when the two met in battle in 1122 on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, al-Bursuki was defeated. With more help from the Seljuks, Dubays finally was defeated in the 1 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahirfi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya, Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963), 32–33. 2 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 247. 3 Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 329–330.

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

535

spring of 1123 at al-Mubaraka, between Baghdad and al-Kufa. He fled first to Basra and then to Qal’at Ja’bar in Syria, where he allied himself with the Franks and incited them to capture Aleppo.4 The Egyptian historian of the Crusades, Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, notes sadly that while the Franks were establishing their foothold in Syria and northern Iraq, the Abbasid caliphate, which was supposed to lead the Muslim forces against the Franks, was not strong enough to protect itself against the Turks.5 The rift between the Abbasids and the Seljuks grew wider. The Caliph al-Mustarshid had hoped to free himself of the Seljuk yoke by building up his own army, but he was betrayed by his deputy in Baghdad, Yaranqush al-Zakawi, who defected to the Seljuks and convinced Mahmud to march on Baghdad with a great force. The caliph offered him precious monetary gifts and implored him not to attack Baghdad, but the sultan refused. To save his life the caliph, weeping, left his palace with his women and entourage and camped west of Baghdad. Worse yet, he was betrayed by the Kurdish lord of Arbil, who also defected to the Seljuk cause. When Sultan Mahmud’s forces began to pillage Baghdad, the caliph appealed to Imad al-Din Zangi for help. Zangi rushed to save him, and as he and his force reached Baghdad, Mahmud sued for peace. The sultan, still more powerful than the caliph, appointed Zangi as his deputy over Iraq, apologized for his attack on Baghdad, and forgave the citizens of Baghdad for revolting against him.6 Like the Abbasid state, the Seljuk state was unable to challenge the Franks due to weakness and internal dissension. When Sultan Mahmud came to power in 1118, he was only fourteen years old. He was inclined to pleasure and left the affairs of state to his ministers and his uncle, Sharaf alDin Anushirwan Sanjar, but Sanjar was less interested in the conflict between the Muslims and Franks in Syria than in extending his authority to Persia. Meanwhile, the Rum Seljuk lords of Anatolia, who were constantly in conflict with each other and the Danishmends, and occasionally with the Byzantines, had no time left to think of their brethren in Syria, who were being threatened by the Franks.7 Thus, the Franks benefitted from the Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 346–348. Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-alMisriyya, 1963), 1: 549. 6 Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 368–371, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 28–31. 7 For a detailed account of the activities of Sinjar, see Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 318–323; Abd al-Mun’im Muhammad Hasanayn, Salajiqat Iran wa al-Iraq (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1970), 108–118, largely follows Ibn al-Athir. 4 5

536

THE CRUSADES

weakness of the Abbasid and the Seljuk states in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, until the Zangids’ rise to power. They also benefited from the political turmoil in the Fatimid caliphate of Egypt. The strong Vizir alAfdal, the son of Badr al-Din al-Jamali, was killed on December 5, 1121, and no other capable Egyptian emerged to run the government. Like the Abbasids and the Seljuks, the Fatimid caliphate was waning, a fact that allowed the Franks to enjoy moderate security and peace until they were challenged by Imad al-Din Zangi.8 This anomalous state of affairs in the East was further complicated by an extreme Shi’ite sect, the Isma’ilis, also known as Batinis or Assassins. Their main objective was to eliminate the power of the Sunnite Abbasids and the Seljuks. To achieve this objective, al-Hasan ibn al-Sabbah (d. 1124), their very able chief, built up an elaborate organization of his followers with various degrees, like those of the Masonic movement. The initiation of the members into these degrees was conducted in utmost secrecy. The last degree was that of the Self-Sacrificers, usually credulous young men taught to kill. These young men were drugged with hashish (and hence were called ‘Hashshashin’ or Assassins) and then were taken to a famous citadel called Alamut, captured by al-Sabbah, where, in a place like the paradise described in the Quran, they indulged in eating, drinking, and mating with black-eyed virgin nymphs. After tasting this luxurious life, they would be drugged again and transported to the presence of al-Sabbah. He would ask them where they were, and they would say they were in paradise. He would then tell them that if they followed his orders, killed the person he named, and died while carrying out their mission, they would return to the same place. These gullible, green young men became the most brutal instrument used to eliminate prominent Sunnite leaders.9 The Isma’ilis played havoc with the Abbasids, the Seljuks, and occasionally the Franks. One of their first victims was Nizam al-Mulk, the prominent Vizir of the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah (assassinated in 1092), renowned for his administrative ability, justice, and magnanimity.10 In 1103 R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jerusalem 1 (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1934), 530. 9 There is extensive source material on the Assassins. See Bernard Lewis, The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam (New York: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1968), and by the same author, “The Ismai’lites and the Assassins,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 99– 131; Ashur, al-Haraka, 550–560. 10 Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, H. F. Amedroz, ed. 8

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

537

the Batinis assassinated Janah al-Dawla, the lord of Hims, and three years later they killed Khalaf ibn Mula’ib, lord of Apamea, at the urging of Abu Tahir al-Sa’igh al-Ajami of Aleppo.11 In 1109, some Isma’ilis occupied the fortress of Shayzar, taking advantage of the absence of its Muslim lords, the Banu Munqidh, who had gone to observe the Christian celebration of Easter. But the lords of Shayzar returned to save their fortress, and with the help of its people they annihilated the Batinis.12 The same Batinis also eliminated Sharaf al-Din Mawdud, atabeg of Mosul, in 1113. Ironically, while they were causing havoc to both the Abbasids and the Seljuks, Ridwan, the Seljuk lord of Aleppo, hired them to kill his opponents for lack of religious faith.13 There were many Batinis in Aleppo, and Ridwan may have feared them and tried to win their support. After Ridwan died in 1113, his son Alp Arslan al-Akhras (the Stammerer), the maternal grandson of Yaghi Siyan, lord of Antioch, was urged by Sa’id ibn Badi, the governor of Aleppo, to eliminate the Batinis. Sultan Muhammad told him that his father had refused to deal with the Batinis, but he should kill them.14 Al-Akhras gave this task to Ibn Badi; he arrested the Batinis’ leader, Abu Tahir al-Sa’igh, with a group of his followers and killed many, but some managed to flee and took refuge with the Franks.15 But by 1114, Sa’id ibn Badi had fallen out of favor with al-Akhras, who imprisoned him and then released him after he paid a ransom. Ibn Badi went to stay with Salim ibn Malik, the lord of Qal’at Ja’bar, and, on learning that Ilghazi, son of Artuk, lord of Aleppo, was in the vicinity, went to ask him for help in returning to Aleppo. But on the way, Sa’id ibn Badi and two of his sons were attacked by Batinis with knives. Ibn Badi, badly wounded,

(Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 121; Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Tawarikh Al Seljuk, al-Shaykh al-Fath ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Bundari, abr., M. th. Houtsma, ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1889), 62; Hasanayn, Salajiqat, 73. 11 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 149–150; Bernard Lewis, “The Sources for the History of the Syrian Assassins,” Speculum 27 (1952): 485–486. 12 Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab al-I’tibar, P. Hitti, trans. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), 153; Athir, al-Kamil, 272. 13 Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 290–291. 14 Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, Sami alDahhan, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 168. 15 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 189; Athir, al-Kamil, 291; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 168–169.

538

THE CRUSADES

was carried back to Qal’at Ja’bar, but another Batini attacked and killed him.16 Although Sultan Muhammad occupied the Batinis’ Persian fortress, Shah Dhar, and killed many more of them,17 they grew stronger and continued their murderous activity. By 1126, when they killed Aksunkur alBursuki, ruler of Mosul, they were so powerful that their leader Bahram took control of the fortress of Banyas. After his uncle Ibrahim was killed, Bahram fled Baghdad to Syria, where he became the Batinis’ chief propagandist. He gathered around him many followers, often violent, and acted in secrecy. He moved from Aleppo to Damascus, whose lord Tughtigin treated him kindly, not because he esteemed him, but because he feared him. Bahram’s followers increased in number, and he had more power than Tughtigin’s vizir, Abu Ali Tahir ibn Sa’d al-Mazdaghani. When he wanted a fortress for himself and his followers, al-Mazdaghani gave him Banyas. Soon Bahram began to persecute the Sunnite Ulama and jurists, who were afraid to speak even one word against him.18 From Banyas he sent his propagandists to spread the Isma’ili call and assassinate those who opposed them. The Batinis took new fortresses, including Qadmus.19 The ambitious Bahram tried to extend his authority to Wadi al-Taym, in the district of Ba’lbak, which was populated by Druze (Arabic Duruz), Nusayris, and Magians, led by al-Dahhak. Bahram attacked them in 1128, but al-Dahhak, with a force of a thousand men, killed Bahram and a great number of his men; the rest of his followers fled to Banyas. Bahram was succeeded by Isma’il al-Ajami, whom al-Mazdaghani also treated gently. Tughtigin finally realized how dangerous these Batinis were and decided to get rid of them, but died in 1128 without acting against them. His son and successor, Taj al-Muluk Buri, retained his minister alMazdaghani, who supported the Batinis and favored their deputy in Damascus, Abu al-Wafa, whose power exceeded that of Buri himself. Ibn alAthir says that al-Mazdaghani sent messages to the Franks, offering to hand Damascus over to them in exchange for the city of Tyre. To carry out this plan al-Mazdaghani, working with Isma’il al-Ajami, placed guards at the gate of the mosque in Damascus, so that the Franks could come in and take over the city. When Buri learned of the plan, he summoned al-Mazdaghani Adim, Zubdat, 2: 170, 186–187. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 151. 18 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 215; Athir, al-Kamil, 366–368. 19 Athir, al-Kamil, 383. 16 17

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

539

and had him killed; his head was fixed above the gate of the citadel. Buri ordered that all the Batinis be killed; Ibn al-Athir says 6,000 of them were killed during Ramadan in September 1129.20 Al-Ajami appealed to the Franks and offered them Banyas in exchange for protection, but he died later that year and was buried in Banyas.21 Taj al-Muluk Buri’s best efforts could not destroy the Batinis’ power. On May 7, 1131, two Persian Assassins who had entered his service as soldiers attacked him, inflicting serious wounds from which he died the following year.22 In 1135 fourteen Batinis attacked and killed the Caliph alMustarshid, whom the Seljuks had banished to Azerbayjan. The assassins cut off his head, flayed him, and left him naked. Nearly two days later, some people of Maragha carried him to the town, wrapped him in a shroud, and buried him in the cemetery of Sunkur al-Ahmadili.23 Thus, the Muslims in the East were in a state of disarray when Imad al-Din Zangi came on the scene. Ibn al-Athir describes Zangi’s rise as an act of Allah’s providence, designed to save the Muslims from their enemies: When Almighty God saw how [unable] the princes of Islam were to protect the Muwahhidin (Unitarian Muslims) from their powerful enemy (the Christian Franks), who had subdued and humiliated them, he intended to raise someone who would avenge them against the Franks and shoot the “Devils of the Cross” with heavenly missiles to annihilate them. God perused the list of his brave, sagacious and honorable ones; of his choicest men, he saw no one more fitted, resolute and determined than the Shahid (martyr) Imad al-Din Zangi to carry out this mission.24

Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, however, calls Zangi a ruthless opportunist who ruled his territories with a rod of iron, a tyrant and an oppressor, with a tigerlike character and a lionlike fury. He did not decline to use violence, nor did he show kindness. He controlled Syria from 1128 until he was killed Athir, al-Kamil, 383–384. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 224; Athir, al-Kamil, 385. 22 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 230; The Anonymous Edessan, 105 (English, 2: 18; Arabic, 131); Lewis, “The Ismai’lites,” 118. 23 Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 50. In 1140, the Batinis took the fortress of Masyaf through a deceptive strategy. In 1152 they killed Raymond II, the lord of Tripoli. Later, they also tried to kill Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin). They were not crushed until the mid-thirteenth century, when the Mongol Hulago destroyed their fort at Alamut. 24 Athir, al-Tarikh, 33–34; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 1999), 112. 20 21

540

THE CRUSADES

in 1146. He was feared for his authority and hated for oppression. But Allah destined that he would close his life with happiness and Shahada (martyrdom) and enabled him to carry on the jihad, which is the best of the principles of worship.25 Carole Hillenbrand correctly states that Ibn al-Athir’s statements cannot be reconciled with those of al-Isfahani, but we must realize that Ibn al-Athir had a different perspective. To him Zangi was the shahid through whom God blessed the Muslims to fight the Franks; without him, all of Syria would have been lost.26 The most plausible explanation of Ibn al-Athir’s attitude is that what mattered to him as a Muslim was Zangi’s struggle against the infidels, not his perfidious action against his fellow Muslims. Imad al-Din Zangi was born into a prestigious and powerful family. His father, Qasim al-Dawla Aksunkur al-Hajib, was one of Sultan Malikshah’s commanders and one of his most reliable confidants.27 As a reward for his distinguished abilities, the sultan offered him Aleppo. When his father was killed by Malikshah’s brother Tutush in 1094, Zangi, then only ten years old, enjoyed the protection of his father’s mamluks, especially Zayn al-Din Ali. When the Seljukid commander Kerbogha captured most of Syria and then Mosul in the name of Sultan Berkyaruk, he summoned these mamluks and asked them to bring Imad al-Din to him. He told them that Imad al-Din was like his own son, and he himself would take the primary responsibility for his upbringing. Zangi joined Kerbogha in his attack against Sukman, son of Artuk, lord of Amid, and showed extraordinary bravery.28 Zangi served under the atabegs of Mosul, Jekermish (d. 1106) and Chavli Saqaveh (Jawli/Jawali Saqawa). When Chavli rebelled against Sultan Muhammad and fled to Syria in 1108, Zangi allied himself with Mosul’s new governor, Sharaf al-Din Mawdud. He took part in Mawdud’s struggle against the Franks in Syria and reIsfahani, Tawarikh Al Seljuk, 205. Athir, al-Tarikh, 38, and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 379–380; Hillenbrand, The Crusades, 113 and by the same author, “Ambominable Acts: The Career of Zengi,” in The Second crusade: Scope and Consequence, Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch, eds. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 111–132; Isfahani, Tawarikh Al Seljuk, 205. 27 Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 15; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar alDawlatayn, 1 (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870): 27–28; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed., 1 (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 11. 28 Athir, al-Tarikh, 16. 25 26

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

541

mained in his service until the Batinis assassinated him in a Damascus mosque in 1113. Zangi continued to serve under Juyush Beg, the new governor of Mosul, and fought in Edessa, Saruj, and Samosata.29 He later joined Aksunkur al-Bursuki in his campaign against Dubays ibn Sadaqa, the prince of Hilla, and finally became the governor of Wasit and then Basra before 1126, when Sultan Mahmud charged him with subduing the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustarshid.30 In 1127 the sultan named him governor of Mosul, on the recommendation of al-Qadi Baha al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn alShahrzuri and Salah al-Din Muhammad al-Yaghisiyani.31 Having established himself in Mosul, Zangi turned his attention to other parts of Iraq and Syria. He captured al-Jazira, whose inhabitants surrendered to him peacefully. Soon other cities, including Nisibin, Sinjar, Saruj, and al-Bira fell into his hands. About this time Joscelin, count of Edessa, sent a message asking Imad al-Din Zangi for a brief truce. Zangi accepted, needing a respite to consolidate his power and regroup his forces before he battled the Franks.32 Aleppo was his next and most important target. The city was in great turmoil, since the Franks had taken half its people and possessions. The citizens appealed to Zangi for help and promised to obey his authority. He accepted their offer, and on the way he occupied Manbij and Buza’a. On June 18, 1128, he marched into Aleppo, whose inhabitants quickly hailed him. He set out immediately to put the city’s affairs in order.33 Imad al-Din Zangi proved more ambitious and resilient than the other atabegs, who were constantly fighting one another. A man of vision, he believed it was his destiny to unify the Muslims of Syria and Iraq before he challenged the Franks.34 Although his position among the Muslims was by now secure, he moved to strengthen it by marrying Khatun, daughter of Ridwan, former lord of Aleppo. This marriage gave him a claim to the Athir, al-Tarikh, 19–20; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 27. Athir, al-Tarikh, 24–29; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 88 (English, 253); W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 121–122. 31 Athir, al-Tarikh, 34–35; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 31–32; the Anonymous Edessan, 104 (English, 101; Arabic, 130), inexplicably names Salah al-Din, Nasir al-Din, and Zayn al-Din Ali as those who urged the sultan to appoint Zangi as leader. 32 Athir, al-Tarikh, 37, and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 377-378; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 36. 33 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 244–245; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 37–38; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 565. 34 Stevenson, The Crusaders , 123. 29 30

542

THE CRUSADES

rights of the Seljuks in Syria, and in 1129 he also acquired from Sultan Mahmud a royal decree establishing his authority over all Syria.35 Zangi’s advantage was enhanced when Samsam al-Din Kirkhan ibn Qaraja, lord of Hims, and Sultan ibn Munqidh, lord of Shayzar, submitted to his authority, having decided it was futile to defy this strong leader. The city of Damascus was the prize Zangi cherished, and he was determined not to let it slip through his hands. Its lord, Taj al-Muluk Buri, had faced a threat of invasion by Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, in 1129. Zangi, pretending that he planned to fight the Franks, appealed to Buri to help him. Buri sent his son Baha al-Din Siwinj and some of his men, to whom Zangi gave assurances of his good intentions. Not thinking Zangi intended to encroach on his territory, Buri instructed Siwinj, then in Hama, to raise an army which included the amir Shams al-Khawas. Zangi welcomed Siwinj’s forces with great honor and feigned interest in them, but then betrayed them. Apparently Kirkhan Qaraja, the lord of Hims, who was in Zangi’s company, had instigated him against Buri. Zangi arrested Siwinj and other leaders of his force and pillaged their camp. He attacked and captured Hama after learning it was unguarded, and then marched on Hims. He asked Kirkhan’s sons to hand the city over to him, but they refused. He laid siege to the city for forty days without success, then turned against Kirkhan and tortured him. He returned to Mosul, taking with him Kirkhan’s son Siwinj and a number of leading citizens of Damascus. After a lengthy negotiation he reached an agreement with Buri to release his son and men; Buri agreed to a ransom of 50,000 dinars, but did not pay it. Ibn al-Athir, who describes these events at length, says that Zangi made a big mistake.36 Ibn Wasil says that Zangi consulted some hypocritical Muslim jurists who issued a fatwa allowing him to turn against Kirkhan’s son and his army. He says Zangi perpetrated a shameful act for which people rightly criticized him, for there is nothing more repulsive than perfidy.37 Zangi returned in 1130 to Syria, where he attacked al-Atharb and defeated the Franks. He attacked the fortress of Harim, near Antioch, but left after its people agreed to pay him half the city’s revenue. He also attacked the towns of Tall Bashir and Ma’arrat Misrin, held by the Franks.38 The Artukid lords of Syria could Adim, Zubdat, 2: 244; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 40; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 566. Athir, al-Kamil, 386–387; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 228; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 245–246. 37 Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 41–42. 38 Athir, al-Kamil, 388–389; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 254; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 42–43. 35 36

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

543

not tolerate Zangi’s formidable power in Syria and Iraq, which threatened their own authority. Tamirtash, son of Ilghazi, lord of Mardin, his cousin Rukn al-Dawla Dawud ibn Mu’in al-Din Sukman, and other Artukid amirs assembled an army of 20,000 men; they fought Zangi at Sarji, between Mardin and Nisibin, but he routed them and took possession of Sarji.39 Imad al-Din Zangi’s effort to create a united front against the Franks in Syria was temporarily thwarted by dissension among the Seljuks after the death of Sultan Mahmud in 1131. His son and successor Dawud faced great resistance from his uncles, the most formidable of whom was Seljuk I, lord of Persia. Taking advantage of the family split, the Caliph al-Mustarshid supported Seljuk I against his brothers, and Mas’ud, another of Dawud’s uncles, asked Zangi for help. Zangi responded by marching on Baghdad to fight both the caliph and Seljuk, but was defeated at Takrit in 1133. Encouraged by Zangi’s defeat, al-Mustarshid marched on Mosul with a force of 30,000 men in the summer of 1133. Zangi, perhaps intimidated by such a great force, left Mosul in the hands of his deputy, Nasir al-Din Chaqar.40 He returned the next year to attack Baghdad, this time joined by Dubays ibn Sadaqa of Hilla, but he was beaten again and fled to Mosul.41 He suffered another blow when Shams al-Muluk Abu al-Fath Isma’il, atabeg of Damascus, attacked his territory in Syria and occupied Hama. Thus, the edifice of unity which Zangi had tried to create was destroyed by the Muslims themselves.42 Ironically Isma’il, who had come to power by capturing Banyas from the Franks and subduing his own brother Shams al-Dawla Muhammad, lord of Ba’lbak, but later became cruel and tyrannical, found himself in such a predicament that he had to appeal to Zangi for help. He had taken into his service a Kurd named Badran who knew nothing of Islam or its laws. Having no sense of justice, Badran oppressed both men of high station and common people and exacted money illegally from them. Isma’il himself was given to sexual immorality, abhorrent behavior, and avarice, and increasingly inclined toward low and unworthy actions.43 He had alienated his best 39 40

48.

Athir, al-Kamil, 389–390. Athir, al-Kamil, 398–399, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 47–48; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 47–

Athir, al-Tarikh, 43; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 43, 47–48. Grousset, Histoire, 2: 55. 43 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 245, trans. H. A. R. Gibb, as The Damascus Chrinile of the Crusades (London: Luzac, 1967), 228–229, calls Badran “Bertram;” Athir, al-Kamil, 403. 41 42

544

THE CRUSADES

men; Sayf al-Dawla Yusuf ibn Firuz, his chamberlain, fled to Tadmur (Palmyra).44 His subjects hated him for his bad conduct and attempted to get rid of him. Sensing that he was about to lose his position, Isma’il appealed to Zangi to rescue him, offering to hand over Damascus in return. While Zangi prepared to march on Damascus, reports came in February 1135 that Isma’il had been killed in a plot arranged by his mother, Safwat al-Mulk Zumurrud, and replaced by his brother Shihab al-Din Mahmud.45 Zangi marched to al-Ubaydiyya; from there he sent a delegation to ask the citizens of Damascus to surrender the city. The people resented Zangi’s march against their city; he besieged and attacked it, but faced strong resistance organized by Mu’in al-Din Unur, a mamluk of Tughtigin, the former lord of Damascus. He realized that capturing Damascus would require him to sacrifice a large number of men. When the Caliph alMustarshid sent Zangi a message ordering him to lift the siege and come to Baghdad to help him fight the Seljuk Sultan Mas’ud, he was forced to sign a peace with the Damascenes in March 1135 and return to Aleppo.46 In the spring of 1135 Zangi extended his military activity in Syria, occupying al-Atharb, Zardana, Tall Aghdi, Ma’rrat al-Nu’man, and Kafartab.47 In April 1136, Sayf al-Din Sawar (or Aswar), Zangi’s deputy in Aleppo, attacked the Franks near Laodicea and captured over 7000 men, women, and children and 100,000 cattle. They destroyed most of the city of Laodicea, then went on to attack the fortress of Shayzar. Ibn al-Athir says that Bilad al-Sham (Syria) was filled with captives and cattle, and the Muslims were extremely happy when the Franks could not challenge them.48 Having seen Zangi’s successful opposition to the Franks, the Muslim leaders of Damascus in 1137 assembled a great expedition to attack the Frankish principality of Tripoli, commanded by a certain mamluk named Bazwash. He met Pons, son of Bertram, the lord of Tripoli, in battle; Pons was defeated and fled to the hills of Lebanon, but was captured by the inhabitants and killed.49 He 44

255.

Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 245; Athir, al-Kamil, 404; Adim, Zubdat, 2:

Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 245–246; Athir, al-Kamil, 404–405; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 256– 257. 46 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 248; Athir, al-Kamil, 404–405; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 258; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 671; Wafa Juni, Dimashq wa al-Mamlaka al-Latinyya fi alQuds 1098–1174 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1997), 154–158. 47 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 259. 48 Athir, al-Kamil, 416–417. 49 Athir, al-Kamil, 414–416; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 137; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 45

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

545

was succeeded by his son Raymond II, who vowed to avenge his father. But the defeat of Pons showed that the Franks were not invincible and encouraged Zangi to continue challenging them. In June 1137 he tried to capture Hims, then governed by Mu’in al-Din Unur, deputy of the Buris, atabegs of Damascus. But when he learned that the Franks were on their way to rescue Hims, he changed his plans and went to attack the Frankish fortress of Ba’rin (Montferrand), in the land of Tripoli, near Hama. In 1137 Zangi struck the first great blow against the Franks at Ba’rin, which belonged to Raymond II, the new lord of Tripoli. Zangi, whom William of Tyre calls “a very wicked man and most cruel persecutor of the Christians,” evidently sought to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Tripoli after the death of Pons. In the face of this danger, Raymond appealed for help to his uncle, King Fulk of Jerusalem, who assembled a force and marched to Ba’rin.50 At about the same time, the Byzantine Emperor John Comnenus II (1118–1143), son of Alexius I, led his army into Cilicia and took the towns of Tarsus, Adana, Mamistra, and Anazarba (Ayn Zarba), and then advanced, hoping to capture Antioch. He was motivated by revenge; at Constantinople the princes of the first Crusade had promised his father to hand over these cities, which once belonged to the Byzantine Empire, but they did not keep their pledge.51 The Syriac sources, however, say that Emperor John attacked these cities because he was angry with Prince Leo, the Roupenid Armenian, who resented the Byzantines’ encroachment on his territories. He captured Leo, along with his wife and sons, and sent them to Constantinople. Then he marched against Antioch but failed to capture it.52 King Fulk received a message from the people of Antioch asking for assistance, but he was preparing then to march to rescue Raymond of Tripoli. After consulting with his men, Fulk decided to march against Zangi first, and then go to help Antioch.53 In a fierce battle, Fulk was defeated and lost over 2000 men. Ray573–574. 50 William of Tyre, History, 2: 85; Athir, al-Kamil, 421. 51 William of Tyre, History, 2: 83–84. 52 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 93 (English, 264); Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 621 (French, 245); the Anonymous Edessan, 108–109 (English, 275–276; Arabic, 133–135); Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 415–417: Grousset, Histoire, 2: 85; Ferdinand Chalandon, Jean II Comnène (1118–43) et Manuel I Comnène (1143–80), 2 (Paris: Picard, 1912), 115–116; Nicolas Iorga, L’Armenie Cilicienne (Paris: J. Gamber, 1930), 94. 53 William of Tyre, History, 2: 85–86.

546

THE CRUSADES

mond and some knights were taken prisoner, while Fulk and some of his men sought refuge at Ba’rin. They had no time to take food and provisions and soon, struck by hunger, were forced to kill and eat their horses. Fulk called on Joscelin II of Edessa and the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem for help. Meanwhile, Zangi intensified his siege of the fortress of Ba’rin, confident of success. Fulk saw no option except to negotiate for a surrender, hoping to be allowed to leave in peace. Zangi initially rejected his offer, but when he learned that Frankish reinforcements were coming, he changed his mind and allowed Fulk and his men to leave after paying him 50,000 dinars. After he was released, Fulk met the forces of Antioch and Edessa near Acre and thanked their commanders for their sympathy and willingness to help. Zangi turned Ba’rin over to Shams al-Din Lajin; it was held by his sons until the time of Nur al-Din, the son of Imad al-Din Zangi, who delivered it to the commander Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam.54 When the Byzantine Emperor John Comnenus II attacked Cilicia and wrested many towns from Prince Leo the Armenian, Raymond of Poitiers, the lord of Antioch (1136–1149), could not hope for help from King Fulk of Jerusalem, who was busy with Zangi at Ba’rin. To save his principality, Raymond, with Fulk’s approval, made an agreement with John Comnenus whereby he would rule Antioch as the emperor’s deputy and swear allegiance to him. The emperor did not enter the city himself, but was satisfied to have his banner hoisted on its citadel.55 Thus, by March 1138 the Franks and Byzantines had formed a united front against Zangi. In April they captured the fortress of Baza’a, between Aleppo and Manbij. The Muslims they captured there were taken to al-Atharib, west of Aleppo on the road to Antioch, and imprisoned, but Zangi’s deputy Sawar attacked al-Atharib and released them.56 In the same month, Christian forces attacked the fortress of Shayzar. Zangi, however, managed to create a rift between the Franks and the Byzantines. He would send a message to the Byzantine emperor, William of Tyre, History, 2: 85–92; Athir, al-Kamil, 421–423; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 259; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 72–74: Aliyya Abd al-Sami’ al-Janzuri, Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya (Cairo, 1975), 266–271; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 574–575. 55 William of Tyre, History, 2: 93: Stevenson, The Crusaders , 138–139; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 100; Chalandon, Jean II, 134–135; Vasiliev, History, 2: 416; Robert L. Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States, 1118–1144,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 439. 56 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 265–266: Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 78. William of Tyre, History, 2: 49–135, discusses in detail the conflict between Zangi and the Frankish forces. 54

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

547

hinting that the Franks did not trust him and planned to desert him. Then he would send the Franks a message saying the emperor planned to seize all their possessions in Syria. Soon, says Ibn al-Athir, the two sides began to fear and distrust each other.57 Zangi’s clever ruse paid off. The Franks soon withdrew from Shayzar. Zangi sent his forces to occupy al-Ma’arra and Kafartab in May 1138, Baza’a in September, and al-Atharib in October.58 Thus, the Franks’ power in Syria began to crumble. Zangi had not yet fulfilled his ambition to control all of Syria and drive out the Franks. He was focused on two major cities – Damascus, held by the Buri atabegs, and Edessa, held by the Franks. He had attempted to capture Damascus but faced fierce resistance from its people. He concluded that if he could not take it by force, perhaps an easier way was to get it through marriage. He proposed marriage to Safwat al-Mulk Zummurud Khatun, the widow of Taj al-Muluk Buri, atabeg of Damascus; in return he would take Hims, which was under the Buris’ authority. The marriage transaction was completed in June 1138. Zangi took Hims and compensated its governor, Mu’in al-Din Unur, by giving him another fortress.59 Subsequent events proved Unur to be more astute than Zangi. Later in 1138 the atabeg of Damascus, Shihab al-Din Mahmud, son of Taj al-Muluk Buri, was murdered in bed by three of his close associates. Unur immediately summoned Shihab al-Din’s brother, Jamal al-Din, lord of Ba’lbak, and installed him as the new atabeg of Damascus. Zangi thus lost his chance at controlling the city through his marriage to Safwat al-Mulk.60 Although his wife urged him to avenge her against Unur, Zangi preferred to forget about Damascus for a while. He attacked and captured Ba’lbak in October 1139. He returned to attack Damascus in 1140 after the death of its atabeg Jamal al-Din, who was succeeded by his son, Mujir alDin Abaq, but he encountered strong resistance from Mu’in al-Din Unur.61 As Zangi intensified his attacks against Damascus, Unur appealed to King Fulk of Jerusalem, even proposing to deliver Banyas to him and offering the sons of Damascene nobles as hostages in exchange for his support. After much deliberation Fulk agreed to assist Unur and the Damascenes against Zangi, “the most cruel enemy, and a menace to both kingdoms.”62 Ibn alAthir, al-Kamil, 427–428; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 81–82. Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 74–79. 59 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 262. 60 Athir, al-Kamil, 431–432. 61 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 269–271; Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 59. 62 William of Tyre, History, 2: 105–106. 57 58

548

THE CRUSADES

Qalanisi, who relates their agreement, says that Unur exaggerated the danger posed by Zangi, stating that if he occupied Damascus, the Franks would lose their hegemony in Syria.63 Fulk marched on Banyas and occupied it in 1140. Meanwhile, Zangi attacked Hawran and reached the Ghota (Gardens) of Damascus. On the night of June 22, 1140, he raided Damascus, frightening its people. Since he had only a small force he could not capture the city, but he returned to his own territory with an enormous amount of booty. The Franks reached Damascus and met with its ruler, Mu’in al-Din Unur.64 From this time until 1144, when he attacked Edessa, Zangi directed his efforts against the principality of Antioch.65 King Fulk, meanwhile, sought to increase the security of his kingdom by building several fortresses: Safad, between Damascus and Acre; Yabna, on the road to Ascalon; Tall Safita, between Bethlehem and Ascalon; and Beth Jibrin, south of Tall Safita, which he gave to the Knights Hospitallers.66 He also built the fortress of Kerak east of the Dead Sea to enhance the protection already afforded by the fortress of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal).67 Fulk died on November 10, 1142, after falling from his horse. He was succeeded by Baldwin III, his underage son by his wife Melisend, daughter of King Baldwin II.68 A new chapter in the struggle between Zangi and the Franks would soon begin. Although Imad al-Din Zangi clearly cherished the hope of capturing Damascus, the opposition he faced from its people and the collaboration of Mu’in al-Din Unur with King Fulk temporarily kept him from fulfilling that goal. He may have felt he needed to destroy the Franks’ power in Syria before the Muslim cities, especially Damascus, would yield to his authority. The primary center of Frankish power was Edessa, and capturing it would achieve his dream of uniting Syria under his rule and even challenging the Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 272. William of Tyre, History, 2: 106–109; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 273: Athir, al-Kamil, 435–436. 65 Stevenson, The Crusaders , 147–149. 66 Grousset, Histoire, 2: 138; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 146: Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972), 83, 133, 265; E. J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London: Methuen, 1931), 34; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, “The Templars and the Teutonic Knights in Cilician Armenia,” in The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, T. S. R. Boase, ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978), 94; Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 34. 67 William of Tyre, History, 2: 127; Stevenson, The Crusaders , 146. 68 William of Tyre, History, 2: 134–135, 139. 63 64

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

549

Franks’ dominion of Jerusalem. Thus, the situation afforded an ideal opportunity for him to strike. Edessa was a center of Christianity for the first century of the Christian era. In Imad al-Din Zangi’s time, it was inhabited chiefly by Armenians and Syrian Orthodox (Jacobites).69 Ibn al-Athir says Edessa (al-Ruha) was the noblest city of the Christians, one of the “Patriarchal Sees” after Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Constantinople, and for this reason the conquest of Edessa was the grandest of all conquests.70 There were other reasons why Zangi wanted to capture the city. For one thing, the Franks’ hatred of the Muslims and the proximity of Edessa to their territory made it a great threat to them. Moreover, the Franks had not only fortified Edessa but added several nearby fortresses which allowed them to invade Muslim territory as far away as Diyarbakr, Mardin, Nisibin, Ras al-Ayn, and al-Raqqa. Most important, it grieved the Shahid (martyr) Zangi to leave Edessa in the hands of the kuffar (infidels), controlled by Joscelin II, his knights, and his men.71 Thus, in the period between the death of King Fulk and the elevation to the throne of his underage son Baldwin III, whose mother Melisend became his guardian, “accursed Zangi with a mighty host laid siege to Edessa.”72 Imad al-Din Zangi was the first of the Muslim leaders to use the sensitive symbol of jihad to unite the strife-torn Muslim East and defeat the infidel intruders, the Christian Franks. As we have seen, Ibn al-Athir imputed his rise to divine providence, declaring that when Allah saw the weakness of the Muslim princes and their inability to defend the Muslim religion, he found no one among his chosen men better qualified to lead them. Zangi systematically challenged the Franks until in 1144 he finally captured Edessa, one of their most prized possessions. Several factors facilitated this victory. Primary among these were the conflict between the Franks and the Byzantine state and the ongoing feud between Raymond, prince of Antioch, and Joscelin II, prince of Edessa.73 The enmity between these two became so intense that neither of them was concerned about the disasters it caused. Rather, says William of Tyre, “Each rejoiced in the distress of the other and William of Tyre, History, 2: 140. Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 66–67. In fact, Edessa was not considered a See, but it was a very important center of Christianity. 71 Athir, al-Tarikh, 67. 72 William of Tyre, History, 2: 140. 73 For a detailed account of the conflict between the principalities of Antioch and Edessa, see al-Janzuri, Imarat, 273–294. 69 70

550

THE CRUSADES

exulted over any untoward mischance.”74 But one of the most decisive factors in the loss of Edessa was the attitude and actions of its prince. Joscelin II succeeded his father Joscelin I at his death in 1131. Unlike his father, he lacked the qualities expected in a ruler. The Anonymous Edessan says, “He was a stupid youth and void of understanding.”75 William of Tyre is likewise unkind, calling Joscelin far inferior to his father. Short, with dark hair and a broad face scarred by smallpox, bulging eyes and a prominent nose, he was given to excessive revelry and drunkenness, licentiousness, and uncleanliness of the flesh. Although Joscelin II was known for his generous disposition and military prowess, due to his lack of energy and sinful behavior he lost much of the land (the County of Edessa) that his father had so ably ruled.76 His attitude toward the Byzantines, the Franks, and the local Syrians may have contributed to this loss. He meddled in the Syrians’ ecclesiastical affairs, leading them to despise him and collaborate with the Muslims against him. He even treacherously robbed the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, greatly revered by the Syrians. He had strained relations and rivalry with both Raymond of Poitiers, prince of Antioch (1136–1149), and the Byzantines. Worst of all, he showed little if any concern about the imminent Muslim danger in the person of Imad al-Din Zangi, atabeg of Mosul, who since 1128 had begun to assert his hold over Syria. Arab writers also attest to Joscelin’s courage and military prowess. Ibn al-Athir says, “Joscelin, may Allah curse him, was indisputably one of the tyrants and devils of the Franks. He was extreme in his hatred of the Muslims. He was always in the vanguard of the Franks in their warfare because of his courage, sound mind, and hatred and cruelty toward al-Milla al-Islamiyya (the Muslim nation). By his captivity all Christendom suffered a great loss.”77 As ruler of Edessa, Joscelin II had amicable relations with its Armenian citizens, mainly because he himself was half Armenian. His mother was the sister of the Armenian Prince Leon I (1123–1135), whose niece Arda had married Baldwin I of Boulogne.78 He was closer to the Armenians William of Tyre, History, 2: 141. The Anonymous Edessan, 103 (English, 99–100; Arabic, 128); Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 613 (French, 232). 76 William of Tyre, History, 2: 52–53; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 193, follows William of Tyre; Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States,” 432, n. 18. 77 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 480–481, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 66, 102; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, 2: 301. 78 William of Tyre, History, 2: 52, esp. n. 12. 74 75

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

551

than his father, favoring them over the Syrians. Ibn al-Adim calls him “Joscelin the Armenian.”79 The tragic fall of Edessa (and later most of the Frankish strongholds in Syria) may to a large extent be blamed on his lack of vision and determination. By nature he preferred an easy life of pleasure. So he went to live in Tall Bashir (Turbessel), away from disturbance, showing no concern for Edessa. As the city’s Syrian and Armenian inhabitants were mostly traders, not men of arms, its protection was left entirely to mercenaries who did not receive regular wages and often had to wait a year or more to collect what was due them.80 Worse yet, Joscelin II and Raymond of Poitiers were antagonistic and hateful toward one other. The root cause of their hostility was prejudice and political rivalry. Joscelin, born in the East and half-Armenian, saw Raymond, a relative newcomer, as an intruder. Moreover, he owed some of his territory to his status as a vassal of the prince of Antioch.81 King Fulk of Jerusalem (1131–1143) had urged them to reconcile in order to overcome the Muslim threat, but there was no such pressure from Baldwin III, a mere child, under the regency of his mother Melisend. The shrewd Imad al-Din Zangi took advantage of this dissension to strike a blow against Edessa, the bulwark of the Latin states. It commanded the trade route from Mosul to Aleppo and separated the Muslims of Iraq from the Seljuks of Rum (Asia Minor). As long as it was in Latin hands, it remained a menace to Muslim lands and people.82 Thus, armed conflict between Zangi and Joscelin was inevitable. Michael Rabo says that Imad alDin Zangi had pursued Kara Arslan of Hisn Ziyad, who asked Joscelin II for help, offering as a reward the fortress of Beth Bula. Joscelin sent an army to help Kara Arslan, not realizing that it was not in his interest to oppose Zangi, a Turk pursuing another Turk. Zangi used this action as a pretext to attack Edessa. After hearing that Joscelin had temporarily gone to Antioch and the people of Harran that Edessa had no garrison to protect it, he attacked the city on November 28, 1144.83 The Anonymous Edessan, however, states that Joscelin gathered his army and went to pillage a region on the banks of the Euphrates, near Balis 79 Ibn al-Adim, Bughyat al-Talab fi Tarikh Halab, ed. Suhayl Zakkar, 1 (Damascus, 1988), 321. 80 William of Tyre, History, 2: 141. 81 William of Tyre, History, 2: 140–141, esp. n. 10. 82 Stevenson, The Crusaders , 153. 83 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 629 (French, 260–261), gives the date as 1145; see Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 94–95 (English, 268–269).

552

THE CRUSADES

and al-Raqqa (Callinicus). Imad al-Din Zangi attacked the Artukids and wrested from them the towns of Dara, Tall Mawzalt, Jomlin, and Shabakhtan. The Artukids appealed to Joscelin for help and gave him the fortress of Babula, in the district of Gargar. Joscelin prepared to fight, but the crafty and prudent Imad al-Din Zangi made peace with the desperate Artukids, knowing that Joscelin was in no position to fight him. Zangi, who had besieged Amid, kept sending spies to see whether there was a garrison in Edessa. After he received reports from Fadl Allah Ja’far, a prominent Muslim of Harran who hated the Edessans, that there were no Frankish troops there, he sent one of his valiant men, Salah al-Din al-Yaghisiyani, to attack Edessa or, if he could not take the city by storm, to besiege it and gather information about its fighting strength. Meanwhile, he sent a messenger to the people of Edessa asking them to surrender peacefully, saying he did not want to destroy the city.84 If Salah al-Din and his men had reached Edessa the night they marched, they would have captured it without trouble because its citizens were unprepared, but they lost their way and found themselves on the road to Harran. They immediately turned around and laid siege to Edessa on Tuesday, October 28, 1144. They came to a cemetery and killed some people. On discovering that the city was weak, they sent messages to Imad al-Din Zangi by pigeon, urging him to rush to their aid. Zangi arrived two days later with an enormous force. He pitched his tent on the northern side of Edessa, on a hillock near the Sa’at Gate (Gate of the Hours), above the Church of the Confessors. The Persian Jamal alDin, who was in charge of Imad al-Din Zangi’s revenues, pitched his tent on a nearby hillock, and Salah al-Din, Zangi’s chief commander, camped on a hillock near the cemetery where the celebrated Syrian Saint Ephraim was buried. Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk, lord of Arbil and Shahrzur, camped near the boundaries of St. Barsoum; Dubays ibn Sadaqa al-Mazyadi, lord of Hilla, settled at the Kasas Gate. Other commanders, including Abu Ali, governor of Za’faran, the lords of Sebaberk, Ayn al-Dawla, lord of Shabakhtan, and Husayn, lord of Manbij, pitched their tents in other parts of the city. Zangi’s force included a great number of Kurds, Arabs, and Aleppines. Edessa had no standing garrison and was too weak to challenge this multitude. Its people were cobblers and weavers, silk merchants and tailors, priests and deacons. Edessa had three bishops then—a Latin, Bishop Papios, a Syrian, Basilius Bar Shumanna, and an Armenian, Iwannis (John), 84 The Anonymous Edessan, 118–119 (English, 280–281; Arabic, 144–145); see Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 68–69.

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

553

who refused to surrender the city. Papios sent messengers to Antioch and Jerusalem asking for help, but no response came from Antioch, and the help from Jerusalem was too late. The city was in total chaos, and there was no leader to determine a course of action because Joscelin was absent. One fact stands out: in this turbulent situation the people of Edessa, both Syrians and Armenians, cooperated fully with the Franks to defend the city and its citadel, despite the bad treatment they had suffered from the Franks.85 Imad al-Din Zangi offered the people time to surrender before he destroyed the city, saying, “Fools, you see that there is no hope of saving your lives; why do you watch and hope? Have mercy on yourselves, your sons and daughters, your wives and houses, and your city, in order that it shall not be laid waste and empty of inhabitants.”86 But they responded very foolishly, offering insults and taunts. Meanwhile, some of Zangi’s men showered the city walls with stones propelled by engines, while others were digging under the walls of the city and filling their foundation with wood, naphtha, and sulphur to burn them down. The citizens of Edessa fought heroically and tried to fill the ditches. The whole city was busy; even the women, girls, and boys, weary and exhausted, carried stones, water and other materials to the laborers who were trying to shore up the foundation. The situation was horrendous beyond measure. The Syrian bishop, Basilius Bar Shumanna, consulted with the other two bishops, and they agreed to send a message to Imad al-Din Zangi accepting his ultimatum for surrender. Unfortunately, an ignorant man named Hasnun al-Qazzaz snatched it from the messenger’s hand and tore it to pieces. Finally a section of the wall collapsed, and the people worked in vain to rebuild it. Imad al-Din Zangi decided there was no point in waiting further; he attacked the city and captured it on Saturday, Christmas Eve 1144.87 Six thousand people lost their 85 Saint Nersès Schnorhali (d. 1172), Élégie sur la prise d’Édesse, R. H. C. Or. 1, E. Documents Arméniens, E. Dulaurier, ed. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1869), 226– 268, esp. 245–255; Aziz Atiya, The Crusades: Historiography and Biography (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 42. For a partial Arabic translation, see alJanzuri, Imarat, Appendix X, 386–395. 86 The Anonymous Edessan, 121 (English, 282–283; Arabic, 147). 87 On the capture of Edessa by Imad al-Din Zangi, see Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 638 (French, 277–278); the Anonymous Edessan, 118–136 (English, 2: 281–286; Arabic, 145–163); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 268–270. See W. R. Taylor, trans., “A New Syriac Fragment Dealing With Incidents In The Second Crusades,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 11 (1929–1930), 122. Taylor does not name the author; Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Aphram Barsoum (d.

554

THE CRUSADES

lives on that day alone. Imad al-Din Zangi allowed his troops to pillage the city for three days, and the atrocities they committed were beyond description. Men and women, young and old, brides and bridegrooms, priests and deacons, and especially children were put to the sword.88 Many of them were suffocated, and the corpses were piled high. Others were taken captive. But the Anonymous Edessan says that Imad al-Din Zangi spared about 10,000 men, women and children who had been captured by his troops.89 The priest Gregory writes in his continuation of the history of Matthew of Edessa that Imad al-Din Zangi ruthlessly shed a tremendous amount of blood. He respected neither age nor youth, but had old men and children slaughtered like lambs. He so terrified the inhabitants by the sword that the victimized people fled to shelter in the Citadel of Maniacs. Brothers 1957) says he was a Syrian monk named Sahdo who later became metropolitan of Jerusalem as Ignatius Sahdo, and died at the start of the thirteenth century. See Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab al-Suryaniyya, 4th ed. (Holland: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987), 398–399, trans. Matti Moosa as The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Pueblo, CO: Passeggiata, 2000), 148, 2nd ed., Gorgias Press, 2003), 449. The story of Ignatius Sahdo is biography No. 217 in Chapter Two, Biographies of Scholars and Writers of the Second Period; Gregory the Priest, The Continuation of Matthew of Edessa, in Matthew of Edessa (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 243–244: Schnorhali, Élégie, 226–268, and trans. Janzuri, Imarat, 386–395; Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 279, and trans. Gibb, 266– 268; William of Tyre, History, 2: 140–143; Roger of Hoveden (Howden), Chronica, trans. Henry T. Riley as The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 1 (London, 1853, AMS Press, 1968): 249. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 235–236; Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States,” 446; Sir Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “Zengi and the Fall of Edessa,” in A History of the Crusades, Baldwin, ed., 1: 449–462; J. B. Segal, Edessa The Blessed City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 245–248; Janzuri, Imarat, 295– 300; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 602–607; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 93–94, al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Isma’il Abu al-Fida, al-Mukhtasar fo Akhbar al-Bashar, in R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872): 26; Yusuf al-Dibs, Tarikh Suriyya, 6 (Beirut: Dar Nazir Abboud, 1900), 67. 88 Otto, Bishop of Freising, Chronica, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow with title The Two Cities: A Chronical of Uuniversal History to the Year 1146 A. D. edited by Austin P. Evans (New York: Octagon Books, 1966), 440, and by the same author, Gesta Frederichi I Imperatoris, trans. Mierow as The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 71–73. The reference here is to the letter of Pope Eugenius III to King Louis VII of France, in which he mentions the calamities which befell Edessa; William of Tyre, History, 2: 143; Jean Edwards, The Crusades 1071–1291, 146–155. 89 The Anonymous Edessan, 123, 125 (English, 283–285; Arabic, 148–151).

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

555

did not take care of their brothers, nor did fathers and mothers have pity on their sons and daughters. Because of this painful situation, those who rushed to seek refuge in the citadel failed to reach it; as many as two thousand died of suffocation in the crowd, reportedly including the bishop of the Franks.90 The Anonymous Edessan, however, says that the bishop was killed by an axe blow to the head as he rushed to the citadel, and many priests, deacons, and monks were slain.91 Michael Rabo laments: What tongue could speak, and what hand would not tremble if it tried to relate the calamity which befell Edessa on Saturday, December 23, 1144? The Turks with rattling swords and lances entered the city. They slaughtered old men, children, men and women, suckling babes, priests, deacons and monks, brides and bridegrooms. What a painful story! The city of Abgar, the friend of Christ, was trodden because of our sins. You could see the priests killed and the deacons slaughtered, the sub-deacons mangled, the churches looted and the altars turned upside down. What a calamity! Fathers deserted their own children and mothers lost compassion for their children. Some fled to the mountain, while others gathered their children as the hen does to the chicks, waiting to die or be taken captive. Some older priests carried with them coffins containing relics of saints and martyrs. In the midst of this affliction they kept repeating the words of the Prophet (Micah 7:9): “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.” They kept praying until they were silenced by the sword. Their bodies were found later, stained with

Gregory the Priest, The Continuation of Matthew of Edessa, 243 The Anonymous Edessan, 123 (English, 284; Arabic,. 149–150). Otto, bishop of Freising (d. 1158), The Two Cities, 439–440, writes, “near the beginning of the one thousand one hundred forty-fifth year from the incarnation of the Lord, during the very festival of the Holy Nativity of Christ, there befell in the East, in consequence of the sin of the Christian people, a sad and lamentable misfortune. For Zangi, prince of Aleppo in Syria, with a … horde of Saracens, besieged Rohais (Ruha/ Edessa). On the very day of the Lord’s Nativity … Zangi, having stormed the city, slew at the edge of the sword all Christians in it together with the bishop of the city, or reduced them to the terrible bondage of slavery. He foully polluted the church of Christ and particularly the basilica of the Blessed Mary (ever virgin) where the body of the apostle Thomas is buried … He brought unfitting things into this church in mockery of the Savior… Having exterminated our people or made them subject to payment of tribute, he stationed Saracens (Muslims) there to inhabit the city.” 90 91

556

THE CRUSADES their own blood while their hands clung to the coffins of the relics of saints and martyrs.92

Thousands of those wretched people who fled to the citadel trod on one another and died at its gate because the Franks inside would not open it, having orders from the Latin Bishop Papios not to open it until he himself arrived. When Papios came and the gate was opened, he could not enter because of the piled-up corpses. When he tried to squeeze through, a Turk struck him dead with an arrow. After Imad al-Din Zangi went through the city and saw the horrible carnage, he ordered the killing stopped. He came upon the Syrian Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna, who had been dragged along by the Turks with a rope. When he saw this old man with his shaven head, Zangi inquired about him and was told his identity. He chided the bishop for not delivering the city into his hands and sparing the wretched people from being killed. The bishop answered courageously that what had happened was much better than surrendering the city. Imad al-Din Zangi asked how this could be, and the bishop replied in eloquent Arabic, “As for you, you should be proud because you have defeated us by the power of the sword. As for us, you will regard us with respect when you know that we swore not to betray the Franks and stood by our word. Now we pledge not to betray you, since God has willed that we become your slaves.” When Imad al-Din Zangi saw the bishop’s courage and realized that his words were logical and rational, he ordered that he be clothed and brought to his tent, and asked the bishop for advice regarding the destiny of the city. Thus peace was restored; a herald proclaimed that those who had escaped the sword should return to their homes, and those who had taken refuge in the citadel were given a pledge of amnesty and surrendered. The Turks, says Michael Rabo, left a few Armenians, Syrians and Greeks alive, but they killed all others, meaning the Franks. Imad al-Din Zangi treated Bishop Basilius with honor and dignity and entrusted him with the repatriation of the inhabitants of Edessa who had left. In this manner many were saved. Bishop Basilius occupied a distinguished position throughout Imad al-Din Zangi's rule over Edessa until the latter’s murder in 1146.93

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 629 (French, 260–263); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 94–95 (English, 268–270). 93 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 629 (French, 260–263); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 94–95 (English, 268–270). 92

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

557

According to the Anonymous Edessan, many Frankish men, women and children and priests and deacons had taken refuge in the citadel, with a quantity of gold, silver, vessels, and raiment. Imad al-Din Zangi ordered them brought out. As they came out, many townsmen joined them because Zangi had sworn to take them across the Euphrates, after which they could go wherever they wished. The commander Salah al-Din al-Yaghisiyani entered the citadel and took the hand of Metropolitan Basilius, who was in the citadel, and said to him, “Reverend! We want you to swear on the cross and the Gospel that you will be true to us, for you know that all of you deserve death because you have resisted our sultan (Imad al-Din Zangi) and insulted our prophet. Now we are ready to be gracious to you, since we have freed all of your captives. Also, you ought to know very well that this city, like the capital city, prospered for two hundred years after the Muslims captured it. Today it is fifty years since the Franks took Edessa and ruined it and its district, as you see. Our sultan, protected by Allah, is ready to be good to you; so live in peace, sheltered under his authority, and pray for his life.”94 Salah al-Din’s men brought out the Syrians and the Armenians who were in the citadel, and they returned to their homes. But they robbed the Franks of all they had, gold, silver, jewels, and church vessels – chalices, patens, and crosses. They separated the priests and dignitaries from the rest, stripped off their clothes, and sent them naked to Aleppo. They also separated the craftsmen among the prisoners, each man by his trade. They tortured about two hundred of the rest. They used some as targets for their arrows and killed others by the sword; all were annihilated. Imad al-Din Zangi tried to act graciously toward the inhabitants of Edessa. After asking Bishop Basilius to keep his covenant with the Muslims, he gave the Edessans cattle, oxen, and fodder, and appointed Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk, the lord of Arbil and Shahrzur, as governor of Edessa, with other seven chiefs and a great number of troops. The Anonymous Edessan lauds Kuchuk for being just and kind toward the Edessans, allowing them to ransom their captives.95 Gregory the Priest, who gives a very short account of the disaster at Edessa, has nothing good to say about Imad al-Din Zangi, declaring he ruthlessly shed much blood without respect for the elderly or the innocent. He adds that when this tyrant saw that his soldiers were slaughtering people ruthlessly and mercilessly as if they were animals, and that many had died, 94 95

The Anonymous Edessan, 125 (English, 285; Arabic, 151–152). The Anonymous Edessan, 123–126 (English, 284–286; Arabic, 150–152).

558

THE CRUSADES

among them the Frankish Bishop Papios, he became deeply sorry and commanded his soldiers to sheathe their swords. But he ordered the Franks who had been taken prisoner slain, and their women and children led into captivity. Then “the arrogant conqueror” stopped the butchery of the people of Edessa, not out of benevolence, but because his troops had had enough of shedding blood and taking booty. Showing his arrogance, Zangi boasted that over the years no great and eminent warrior, other than himself of course, had been able to control this city blessed by Christ.96 Michael Rabo and the Anonymous Edessan to some extent share the sentiment of Gregory the Priest regarding Imad al-Din Zangi’s attitude, but seem more tolerant toward Zangi. The Muslim sources agree with the Syriac sources that Imad al-Din Zangi took advantage of Joscelin’s absence and took Edessa by the sword, and that great numbers of Armenians and Franks perished. Ibn al-Qalanisi says that Zangi’s troops proceeded to kill and pillage, taking enough captives and booty to delight their hearts. After inflicting havoc on the city and its people, he ordered his men to sheathe their swords and stop looting. He ordered the rebuilding of the destroyed houses and properties and pacified the people.97 Ibn al-Athir also says that Zangi captured Edessa by the sword, and that his men went on killing and looting. He declared the city open to the carnage wrought by his men. They turned crosses upside down, annihilated its priests and monks, killed its knights and brave men, and filled their hands with booty. But when Zangi saw the city, he liked it. He regretted the havoc he had caused and decided that it was not a good policy to destroy it. He ordered his men to free the Edessan men, women and children whom they had taken captive and allowed them to return to their homes, together with their belongings. All the captives went home, and only a few were lost. But Ibn al-Athir also relates a revealing anecdote about Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk, Zangi’s deputy, who was with him when Edessa was taken. Among the women captives was a beautiful damsel who fell into his hands, but he had to give her up when Zangi ordered all female prisoners released. Later Zangi’s son Nur al-Din (who succeeded his father in 1146) attacked Edessa again, and among the captives was the same beautiful woman. Nur al-Din sent her to Zayn al-Din, who immediately had his way

96 97

Gregory the Priest, Matthew of Edessa, 242–244. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 279–280, and trans. Gibb, 266–268.

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

559

with her and came out smiling, telling his men that he had rushed to make love with the woman for fear that he would lose her as he did before.98 It is clear that Imad al-Din Zangi targeted the Franks rather than the Syrians and Armenians who had been the Turks’ subjects before the Franks took over the city, and that his main objective was to free the city from Frankish rule.99 Lamenting the slaughter of the Christians, William of Tyre quotes Psalms 94:6, “They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.”100 But Ibn al-Athir quotes the Quran, Sura Houd 11:102, “Such was the scourge which your Lord has visited upon the sinful nations. His punishment is stern and harrowing,” to show with obvious satisfaction that the calamity that befell Edessa was a divine punishment of these same Christians. Thus the kuffar were frightened and fled before the believers.101 Ibn al-Athir relates how divine providence helped the Muslims capture Edessa. Sitting in the presence of the Frankish king of Sicily, he says, was a learned Muslim man from the Maghrib (Morocco) whom the king greatly honored. While the Muslims were attacking Edessa, the king had sent an army to invade north Africa. Turning to the learned Moroccan, he said, “See what our army has done to the Muslims. Where was your Muhammad, who did not come to their aid?” The learned man, half-asleep, opened his eyes and said, “He was present at the capture of Edessa.” Everyone laughed at his words, but the king told them not to laugh, for he would not say what he had said without foreknowledge. Shortly the king received the news that the Muslims had captured Edessa. Ibn al-Athir follows this anecdote with another. He says that a righteous Muslim saw the Shahid (martyr) Imad alDin Zangi in a dream after he was killed, and he was in a perfect state. The righteous Muslim asked him, “What did Allah do to you?” Zangi replied, “He forgave me.” The man said, “Forgave you for what?” Zangi said, “He forgave me for capturing Edessa.”102 The destiny of Edessa was sealed. Most of its Christian citizens were massacred or taken captive, and the Muslims settled down in the city. Some Christians escaped to Jerusalem;

Athir, al-Kamil, 457–458, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 87; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 49. Athir, al-Kamil, 444–445, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 69; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 94, follows Ibn al-Athir; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 190; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 237; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 605–607. 100 William of Tyre, History, 2: 143. 101 Athir, al-Kamil, 444–445, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 69. 102 Athir, al-Tarikh, 70; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 37, follows Ibn al-Athir. 98 99

560

THE CRUSADES

there they found no place of refuge except the convents, which with much difficulty provided them with food and shelter.103 The loss of Edessa, the center of the Franks’ power in Syria, was the beginning of the end of their domination. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, ruled by Melisend, the mother of the underage Baldwin III, was too far away to influence the outcome of the battle in Edessa, and the Latin principalities of Antioch and Tripoli were too weak to challenge the Turks in Syria. It is fair to say that Edessa’s falling under the control of Imad al-Din Zangi (and later of his son Nur al-Din) foreshadowed the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187. It was the result of the Franks’ weakness, not the Turks’ unity or Zangi’s military prowess. Far from united, the Turks were suffering from divisions and dissension. Seljuk amirs fought one another, and the Abbasid caliphs fought all of them, for since the eleventh century they had been intent on retrieving the power and the domains they had lost to the Seljuks in Syria.104 In a difficult situation, the Franks tried to weaken the Turks’ influence by allying themselves with the Artukid rulers of Damascus and Mardin. As a token of this alliance, they offered the town of al-Bira (Birta), on the east bank of the Euphrates, to the ruler of Mardin. Forty days after capturing Edessa, Imad al-Din Zangi ordered his men to march against al-Bira, which was held by Joscelin II; he attacked it from Maundy Thursday to the evening of Easter Sunday, in the middle of March 1145. Zangi’s troops met fierce resistance from the citizens but routed them. The Frankish force of Raymond III, count of Tripoli, commanded by Robert the Fat and another man also named Robert, tried vainly to rescue the city. They embarked in two armed boats with weapons and provisions, but as they approached the fortress, they foolishly sounded a trumpet; the Turks, forewarned, rushed upon them from every direction. Some of the men jumped into the water and were caught by the enemy. Robert the Fat jumped into the river and, walking through mud, reached a village on the west bank of the Euphrates. The Turks came to the village and found him hidden in a barn full of straw. They seized him and brought him to Imad al-Din Zangi, who sent him to prison in Aleppo. The other Robert, with only a few men, continued to fight but was struck in the eye by an arrow and died instantly.105 Sahdo of Edessa, cited in Taylor, “A New Syriac Fragment,” 122, 124. Hasan Habashi, Nur al-Din wa al-Salibiyyun (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1948), 37; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 608–609. 105 The Anonymous Edessan, 127–128 (English, 286–287; Arabic, 153–154). 103 104

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

561

Imad al-Din Zangi left al-Bira after receiving a report that his deputy in Mosul, Nasir al-Din Chaqar, had been assassinated.106 While Zangi was occupied at al-Bira, Alp Arslan, son of the Seljuk Sultan Mahmud, apparently went to Mosul. Some of his men had told him that the city and all the surrounding area belonged to him, and if he got rid of Chaqar, he would surely possess them; so Chaqar was killed. When Zangi learned of Chaqar’s death, he feared he would lose the city to Alp Arslan. He rushed back to Mosul, executed those who had assassinated Chaqar, and appointed Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk as deputy in his place. Ibn al-Adim says that Zangi killed Farrukhshah (more properly Farrukhanshah), who had killed Chaqar.107 The Franks, fearing Zangi would return, thought they could save al-Bira by offering it to the Artukid Najm al-Din, lord of Mardin, but that action did not benefit them, since the city was still given to the Muslims. In fact, the Franks eventually lost all their possessions east of the Euphrates.108 The Syrians who had fled to Samosata and other towns in 1144 returned to Edessa on the order of Zangi, who was charitable toward them. Their conduct, however, was far from honorable. Michael Rabo says briefly that at this time, the strife in the Syrian Church became active.109 The Anonymous Edessan elaborates on the dangerous and evil actions of the Syrians, both clergy and laymen. Like dogs or wolves, the clergy devoured each other with hatred and vilification and caused great problems for their shepherd, Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna. They and the wealthy men of the Syrian community ignored the counsel of the bishop, who vainly implored them to change their wicked ways. Of all the priests the worst was Abdun, a wicked and immoral man, the source of all the trouble within the church. He was so evil that he did not reform even after losing his own son during the siege of Edessa. He continued his unjust acts, blaspheming the Sacraments and lying about prophecies and the Holy Scriptures. Bishop Basilius says he personally heard these blasphemies from Abdun’s own mouth and Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 632–633 (French, 284–285); the Anonymous Edessan, 128–129 (English, 286–288; Arabic, 154–156); Isfahani, Tawarikh, 205; Athir, al-Kamil, 446, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 71; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 41; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 95–96. 107 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 281, says Zangi killed Farrukhanshah, who killed Chaqar; Athir, al-Kamil, 448, says Farrukhshah was the brother of Alp Arslan (whom he calls al-Khafaji); Isfahani, Tawarikh, 205–206, refers to Farrukhshah as al-Khafaji. See the Anonymous Edessan, 129 (English, 288; Arabic, 155–156). 108 Athir, al-Kamil, 448; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 95–96. 109 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 632–633 (French, 284–285). 106

562

THE CRUSADES

felt guilty for not rebuking him, fearing he would retaliate. Another evil man was the priest Barsoum, son of Isma’il, whom the Anonymous Edessan calls base and stupid. He had no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, the power of God, or the love of Christ. His chief traits were iniquity and godlessness. He constantly violated church canons. When the Muslims occupied Edessa, he ingratiated himself with them by spying for them and caused incalculable losses to the Christian community. In the morbid and threatening atmosphere, says the Anonymous Edessan, the Christians of Edessa suffered more under the Turks than under the Franks. Although some Franks had married women of Edessa who retained their religion, during the Turkish occupation many women voluntarily married Turks and converted to Islam. Within a year of the Muslim occupation, he says, over a hundred Edessan women married pagans (Muslim Turks). So God was angry with them, and delivered them to calamity.110 The Syriac writers generally praise Imad al-Din Zangi for his treatment of the Christians of Edessa. Michael Rabo states simply that Zangi came to Edessa, encouraged the Syrians, and treated all the Christians with compassion.111 The Anonymous Edessan gives more detail. He reports that five days after the fall of Edessa, Imad al-Din Zangi, accompanied by his governors, chiefs, commanders, and councillors, came to Edessa on Tuesday of the Festival of Pentecost. He passed the east gate and entered by the north gate, where the town had been captured. His men had repaired the breaches and rebuilt the seven towers destroyed by the siege engines, inscribing on them in Arabic the story of the capture of Edessa and the name of Imad alDin Zangi. Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna, together with clergy, deacons, the Christian congregation, and a huge crowd of Muslims from various quarters came to welcome him. The atabeg (Zangi) received the Christians warmly. He took the Gospel and kissed it. Greeting the bishop and asking about his health, he said, “I have come for your sake to provide for your needs.” Despite Imad al-Din Zangi’s magnanimous treatment of the Christians, his men showed little respect for the church buildings. They destroyed the Church of the Confessors outside the city and used stones from it to rebuild the city walls. Near the Church of Saint Yuhannan (John) they also built a magnificent citadel in which Zangi lodged. Because the Franks had beautified the church, renewed its bricks, and changed its roof, they set 110 111

The Anonymous Edessan, 131–132 (English, 288–289; Arabic, 156–158). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 633 (French, 267–268).

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

563

guards to save it from damage. Many bishops and patriarchs were buried in it. The Franks’ bishops were buried behind the pulpit. A slab of red marble on Papios’s tomb had engraved on it the story of his death. The bodies of King Abgar and Saint Addai the Apostle had been placed in a gilded silver coffin. When the city was captured, the coffin was stolen and the bones scattered. The believers later collected many fragments, put them in an urn, and placed it in the northern part of the Church of St. Theodore, which belonged to the Syrians. As an act of vengeance, the Muslims also took two churches where the Franks had prayed; they converted the church of St. Thomas to a stable and made the church of St. Stephen a fodder barn. Furthermore, they destroyed the churches of St. Theodore and St. Michael the Angel on the south side of the city, and used the stones to repair gaps in the wall and the upper citadel. The Muslims also completely rebuilt the mosque, which had formerly been the residence of the Franks’ bishop. Imad al-Din Zangi entered by the gate of al-Sa’at (Hours), went down to the springs, and inspected them carefully. Then he went to the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle, where he ate. He went next to the round spring called the Spring of Abgar, named for the king whose court had stood there. That night he went up to St. John’s Church, where he made his headquarters, around which his chiefs pitched their tents. In the morning he summoned the bishop and inquired about a well south of the town, where lepers where healed. The bishop told Zangi the well was said to have the divine power of healing because the man who stole the kerchief with which Christ rubbed His face at His crucifixion dropped it into this well. When Zangi heard the story, he said, “I believe that the blessing of Christ is able to work miracles.” Suffering much from gout in the feet and wanting to be cured, Zangi mounted his horse and went to the well, drew water from it, and washed his feet. On the site stood the ruins of a monastery; only the altar remained. Zangi ordered that an inn be built for the sick who might come there to be healed, and that all the surrounding fields become part of the property (this order was not fulfilled because of his assassination). Afterwards Imad al-Din Zangi visited the Syrian churches and contemplated their beauty. He ordered that two great bells be mounted on their tops, as was the custom of the Franks. Before leaving, he admonished the bishop and the congregation to guard the town and not to betray his government. To stabilize Edessa, he also brought 300 Jewish families and settled them there.112 112

The Anonymous Edessan, 132–136 (English, 289–291; Arabic, 158–162).

564

THE CRUSADES

The following year, Imad al-Din Zangi left Edessa and sent his troops to attack the supposedly impregnable Qal’at Ja’bar (the fortress of Ja’bar, once called Dawser), vowing not to leave until he had reduced it to his power.113 While sleeping outside the fortress wall on the night of Saturday, September 14, 1146, the day of the Festival of the Cross, he was stabbed to death by two of his trusted eunuchs, who then fled to the fortress.114 His wise old commander, Salah al-Din al-Yaghisiyani, took Zangi’s son Nur alDin Mahmud to Aleppo, installed him as ruler of the city, and seized the enormous treasure stored there. The Turks did not bury Imad al-Din Zangi immediately; some of his men carried his body to al-Raqqa, where he was buried.115 There are varying accounts of Zangi’s death. Ignatius Sahdo of Edessa says he was killed in his sleep one night by some Christians.116 Bar Hebraeus relates two different stories about Zangi’s murder. By one account, during his attack on Qal’at Ja’bar, as Zangi sat in his tent inspecting a bowl of gold made for him, one of his slaves (also his armor-bearer) struck him with a sword from behind and cut off his head. According to the other story, one night, as Zangi was sunk in a drunken sleep, three of his slaves killed him. His murderers fled to the foot of the wall and called to the sentries, “Pull us up that we may give you some good news.” The sentries lowered a basket and pulled them up one by one. When they reached the top, they said, “We have just killed Zangi, and at present no man knows about it.” The sentries blew the horns and cried out to those below, “Rise up and bury your lord who has been killed, before he stinks!” When the people went to Zangi, they found him dead.117 Gregory the Priest, the Armenian source, says that Zangi was assassinated by his eunuch acting alone118 Ibn al-Qalanisi also says Zangi was murdered by a single eunuch of Frankish origin, whose name he gives as Yaranqash. Harboring hatred toward Zangi for some unknown reason, the eunuch took advantage of his drunken stupor to kill him.119 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani likewise says that Yaranqash killed Athir, al-Kamil, 451–453; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 98–99. The Anonymous Edessan, 137 (English, 291; Arabic, 163). 115 The Anonymous Edessan, 138 (English, 292; Arabic, 164). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne,634 (French, 268), says Imad al-Din Zangi was drunk and was assassinated on Sunday, September 15, 1146. 116 Taylor, “A New Syriac Fragment,” 122. 117 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 96 (English, 271). 118 Gregory the Priest, Matthew of Edessa, 244. 119 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 284–285, esp. n. 1 (citing Ibn al-Azraq alFariqi, Tarikh al-Fariqi), and trans. Gibb, 271. Ibn al-Qalanisi, 288, and Abu Shama, 113 114

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

565

Zangi. He says it was Zangi’s custom to have Turkish, Armenian and Greek young men stand guard around his bed as he slept. They began to revel and make noise, and he rebuked them and told them to quit. The young men, who had intended to kill him, seized the opportunity; Yaranqash, the ringleader, fell on the drunken Zangi, slaughtered him, and took his personal ring.120 Ibn al-Adim also says that the eunuch Yaranqash killed Zangi and came to Qal’at Ja’bar shouting, “Raise me up! I have killed the atabeg!” The men in the fortress answered, “May Allah curse you. By killing him you have practically killed all the Muslims.” Unlike Ibn al-Qalanisi and alIsfahani, he says it was Zangi’s son Nur al-Din who took the ring from his father’s finger.121 Ibn al-Athir, however, says that while Zangi was sleeping (he does not mention his being drunk), a band of his mamluks (freed slaves) attacked him but did not kill him. As they fled to the citadel, some men inside shouted to Zangi’s men that he had been murdered. They rushed to find him, and (as one of Zangi’s men told Ibn al-Athir’s father) he had still a spark of life. Seeing the man, Zangi thought he intended to kill him and pointed a finger at him, as if to beg him for compassion. Awed by his dignity, the man stood still and said, “My lord, who did this to you, that I may kill him?” But Zangi could not speak. Momentarily, he pronounced the Shahada (Muslim testimony of faith) and breathed his last.122 The Franks were jubilant over the death of Imad al-Din Zangi. One gloated, “What a happy coincidence! A guilty murderer, with the bloody name Sanguinus, has become ensanguined with his own blood.”123 The Arab sources, however, praise him for his handsome appearance, strong character, and great achievements.124 Despite Zangi’s magnanimous treatment of Kitab, 1: 46, say Yaranqash was later captured and taken to Aleppo and then to Mosul, where he was killed. 120 Isfahani, Tawarikh, 208–209; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 42, follows al-Isfahani. 121 Adim, Zubdat, 2: 281–282, 285. Interestingly, Adim, Zubdat, 2: 219, and Athir, al-Kamil, 355, say that when Nur al-Din Belek, Artukid ruler of Aleppo, was killed in 1124, he drew out the arrow that had hit him in the collarbone and said, “This (arrow) has practically killed all Muslims.” 122 Athir, al-Kamil, 453, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 74; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 43, who follows Ibn al-Athir; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 99–100. 123 William of Tyre, History, 2: 146, esp. n. 18, where the editors observe that William evidently could not resist the temptation to indulge in a pun at Zangi's death. 124 Athir, al-Kamil, 453–455; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 100–106.

566

THE CRUSADES

the Christians of Edessa, the fact remains that his men destroyed and defiled Christian churches, turning some into stables and granaries and converting one into a mosque. It is no surprise that William of Tyre calls him “that greatest persecutor of the Christian faith.”125 The assassination of Imad al-Din Zangi was happy news for Joscelin II, who was anxious to recapture Edessa. With Zangi dead, he believed, his government would be in chaos and his chiefs would fight one another for leadership and forget about Edessa. In fact, Zangi’s death did cause a rift between his two sons, Sayf al-Din, who controlled Mosul, and Nur al-Din Mahmud, who with the support of Salah al-Din Muhammad ibn Ayyub alYaghisiyani established himself in Aleppo. His territory was divided between them, with the river Khabur as a natural boundary.126 At first the brothers fought for control of their father’s state, but they finally reconciled, and Sayf al-Din submitted to the authority of Nur al-Din so that other rulers, especially the Franks, would know they were in full agreement.127 Zangi’s death emboldened his enemies, who surrounded his domain, hoping to pounce and capture whatever they could. Mu’in al-Din Unur, a mamluk of Zahir al-Din Tughtigin, atabeg of Damascus, who ruled in the name of his master’s grandson, sent a force to occupy Ba’lbak, then ruled by Najm al-Din Ayyub ibn Shadhi, the father of Saladin, and make the rulers of Hims and Hama his subjects.128 Unur, who had made an alliance with Baldwin III of Jerusalem against the Zangis, now reconciled with Nur alDin and gave his daughter in marriage to him.129 In the east, the Artukids reclaimed the towns that Imad al-Din Zangi had captured, while Raymond of Poitiers, the lord of Antioch, marched against Aleppo and Hama and slaughtered many Muslims.130 William of Tyre, History, 2: 158. Isfahani, Tawarikh, 209; Athir, al-Kamil, 455–456, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 76; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 109–110; the Anonymous Edessan, 138 (English, 292; Arabic, 164); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 96 (English, 271); Stevenson, The Crusaders , 154; Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Latin States Under Baldwin III and Amalric I, 1143–1177,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 531. On the situation after Zangi’s death see Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 46–50, mostly based on the account of Ibn al-Qalanisi. 127 Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 111–112. 128 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 287–289, and trans. Gibb, 272–273. 129 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 289, and trans. Gibb, 275; William of Tyre, History, 2: 147–148. 130 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 96 (English, 272–273). 125 126

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

567

Joscelin II, then in Tall Bashir, saw the chaotic condition of Imad alDin Zangi’s domain and thought the time was ripe to recapture Edessa.131 He appealed to Baldwin, lord of Kesum and Mar’ash, who promised to help. Meanwhile, says William of Tyre, a deplorable thing happened in Edessa, which the Muslims did not firmly control. While Nur al-Din Zangi was briefly detained at Mosul by matters pertaining to his succession, the citizens of Edessa secretly sent messengers to inform Joscelin II that the Turks had abandoned the city, except for a few left to guard the citadel. They begged Joscelin to assemble an army and rush to Edessa, promising they would surrender it to him.132 Ibn al-Athir and other Muslim sources say that Joscelin II initiated the contact with the people of Edessa, mostly Armenians, urging them to revolt against the Muslims and surrender the city to him.133 To Joscelin, the recovery of Edessa meant the reversal of the Muslims’ victory. But he had underestimated the Turks’ determination to protect their authority after Imad alDin Zangi’s death. Moreover, he received no help from Raymond of Poitiers, who was angry at both Joscelin and Baldwin 134 Ibn al-Qalanisi says Joscelin brought together Franks from many places and attacked Edessa unexpectedly, in conspiracy with the native Christians. He occupied the city and killed its Muslim inhabitants. But when Nur al-Din Zangi received word that Joscelin had taken Edessa, he decided to attack the city. Accompanied by his commander Sayf al-Dawla Sawar (Sevar) and about 10,000 horsemen, he captured Edessa and forced Joscelin to flee. Nur al-Din Zangi pillaged the city and took many of its people captive.135 Ibn al-Athir says that after the murder of the “martyred atabeg [Imad al-Din Zangi],” Joscelin sent a message from Tall Bashir to the Armenian inhabitants of Edessa, urging them to revolt against the Muslims and surrender the city. He specified a day when he would arrive. After the people of Edessa responded positively to his message, Joscelin attacked and occupied the city but could not seize the citadel.136 Gregory the Priest does not mention any Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 288; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 239–240. 132 William of Tyre, History, 2: 156–157. 133 Athir, al-Kamil, 457, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 86; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 290; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 110–111. 134 The Anonymous Edessan, 138 (English, 292; Arabic, 165). 135 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 288, and trans. Gibb, 274; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 90–91. 136 Athir, al-Kamil, 457, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 86; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 290; Wasil, 131

568

THE CRUSADES

plot involving the Christians of Edessa, but says that Joscelin and Baldwin joined forces to attack the city and took it by surprise. Joscelin was unsuccessful, however, because the Turks regrouped and after five days retook the city by storm. Gregory’s account includes a lengthy and highly sentimental eulogy offered for Baldwin by the priest Barsegh.137 The Syriac sources give a different account of Zangi’s conquest of Edessa. The Anonymous Edessan says that when the Turkish governor of Aleppo (Nur al-Din Zangi) heard that Joscelin and Baldwin had assembled their troops in Duluk with the intention of attacking Edessa, he sent messengers to urge the governors of Edessa to be alert and guard the city, for he had no idea in which direction they might move. On receiving the message, the Turkish governors promptly made sure there were sufficient provisions in the city’s fortresses. They also made the Christians swear fealty and took fifty Christian builders, craftsmen, and smiths as hostages. The Christians of Edessa were so terror-stricken that every evening they gathered with the Franks near the Abgar Monastery.138 On Sunday, October 27, 1146, the Franks arrived in the vicinity of Edessa and hid in a nearby valley till the evening. When it was dark many of their valiant foot soldiers approached the southern part of the city, which was unguarded. Aided by the Armenians guarding the wall, they climbed up ladders to two towers. When the Muslim sentries advanced to learn who was there, the Franks attacked them, killing some and throwing others down outside the wall. Once they were on the wall, they shouted praises to God and opened the gates, and the other Frankish fighters and horsemen entered the city as the Turks took refuge.139 At this point, says the Anonymous Edessan, the foolish Franks ceased fighting and ignored the Muslim sentries in the towers. Instead, they began plundering the houses and shops of both Muslims and Christians. Many Muslims took refuge in the fortifications, while others slid down by the wall at night and escaped to Harran. Joscelin II sent for the Syrian metropolitan (Basilius Bar Shumanna) and asked him to prepare siege engines to attack the forts. But all their efforts proved futile because some forts were too tall, and others were too well manned. For six days the poor city suffered misery. When the Franks saw

Mufarrij, 1: 110–111. 137 Gregory the Priest, Matthew of Edessa, 244–257. 138 The Anonymous Edessan, 138–139 (English, 292–293; Arabic, 164–165). 139 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 237 (French, 271).

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

569

that they could not occupy even one fort, they became distressed and frightened. Shortly, however, a spy from the enemy camp came to tell Joscelin, “Be ready, you and those who are with you. The forces from Aleppo and Manbij, mainly Turkomans and other people, have arrived, and they are hiding in the mountain. Tomorrow they will surround you in a circle. They are preparing to capture you while you are inside the city and annihilate you.”140 When Joscelin II heard this report, he was stricken with fear and uncertain what to do, because a great number of Turkish troops had already arrived and spread out in the mountains and in the city’s southern plain. Distressed and frightened, he thought of sneaking out of the city by night. But how could he get through the Muslim force without being detected? Finally, on the third hour of the night, the Franks opened the northern gate, the Gate of the Sa’at (Hours), and began moving out. When the Christian inhabitants of Edessa saw that the Franks were leaving them to the Muslim oppressors, they were stricken with terror and trembling fell on them. The town was in total confusion, the air filled with bitter screams from women and children, mothers calling to their children who did not answer, lost children wandering in every direction searching for their mothers. Many were trampled to death by beasts and cattle. In every road many men and women, infants and children, even animals lay shamefully crushed. No one could help them. Such was the disgraceful exit of the natives, who left houses full of goods and basic necessities with their doors open, lamps lighted, and beds ready.141 In their predicament, the Franks came upon an evil and destructive plan. They resolved to attack the Muslims, who still had them surrounded. Joscelin and those with him in the rear pounced on the nearby enemy on the left, i.e., the west. When Baldwin of Kesum heard the trumpets sound and saw that Count Joscelin had attacked, he himself advanced on the right. The Anonymous Edessan, 140 (English, 293–294; Arabic, 166–167). The Anonymous Edessan, 138–142 (English, 292–295; Arabic, 168–172). William of Tyre, History, 2: 160, writes similarly: “The cries of women and children rose up, mingled with sobs and sighs. Mothers were calling for their lost children, and lost children were looking for their mothers. Children who wandered aimlessly looking for their mothers were trampled by horses, mules and ponies and no one was found to save them. In their attempt to make their way to the gate, armed soldiers, men, women and children pathetically crushed each other. Thus, the people grievously exited the city, leaving behind their homes full of goods and all necessities; the doors open, lamps lighted and beds ready.” 140 141

570

THE CRUSADES

The Frankish horsemen charged in utter confusion, without order. The Turks gave way on either side as the leaders charged past impetuously, then attacked from the rear and broke through their ranks. The Franks no longer thought of cohesion or order, only safety. They fled in disgrace, casting away their spears, shields, coats of mail, and all their armor, even the swords in their hands, for they were completely gripped by fear. Joscelin was wounded in the thigh by an arrow but managed to escape to Samosata. Baldwin, a handsome youth, was struck by an arrow, but no one knew who he was.142 Many priests, deacons, and monks also perished. Ibn al-Qalanisi says the Armenians and other Christians of Edessa were almost annihilated by the sword. The Muslims looted the entire city, even the goods and valuables of Joscelin and Baldwin, seizing huge amounts of furniture and personal items, and took many captives. They returned to Aleppo and other regions rejoicing over their victory and its spoils.143 On November 3, 1146, the Muslims became masters of Edessa which had not been sacked since its founding in the days of the Greek Seleucus, 1460 years earlier. Under Imad al-Din Zangi in 1144 the city had been pillaged for only three days; this time the looting went on for a whole year. The Turks went about the city digging and searching through secret places, foundations, and roofs. They found many treasures hidden in the time of the fathers and elders, many of which the inhabitants knew nothing about.144 They found treasures of the Syrian Church—crosses, Gospels, chalices, patens, censors, Holy Chrism jars, and many other items, all made of gold and silver. They stole expensive covers, drapes, and curtains from the altars, together with copies of anaphoras (liturgical books) which kings of old had donated to the church. These had been sent to Edessa by Saliba, a faithful Edessan, and another faithful man named Kimash, both of whom lived in Constantinople and managed the church’s business there. Every year they sent generous donations to the churches, monasteries, and poor people, but the wicked Abdun intercepted these gifts, concealed them, and finally appropriated them. Thus Edessa was ruined, and its inhabitants were scattered and sold as captives in many lands.145 The Anonymous Edessan continues the story of the tragedy of Edessa, saying that those who escaped the sword found refuge in the fort. William of Tyre, History, 2: 161. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 288. 144 The Anonymous Edessan, 145–146 (English, 296–297; Arabic, 171–172). 145 The Anonymous Edessan, 146 (Arabic, 172–173). 142 143

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

571

At nightfall they left the fort in groups of five and ten. Some, including the Syrian Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna, made it to Samosata, which was then near the domain of the Franks. The Armenian bishop was captured and sold in Aleppo. Only a few priests were safe; most of them were either killed or taken captive. Abdun, the chief priest (the Anonymous Edessan calls him the chief of disorder and the great troublemaker), was captured by the Turks outside the city gate. He fell into a ditch and began crying out, offering a hundred dinars to anyone who would pull him out. A Turk descended into the ditch, took his purse of gold, and slew him, and his body became food for dogs.146 The Christians living east of the Euphrates, especially those of Mardin, Shabakhtan and Sebaberk, lent a helping hand to the afflicted Edessans. But those who lived west of the Euphrates, especially the priests, monks, and bishops, showed no mercy—only wickedness, and hardness of mind and soul.147 The Muslim sources give few details about the attack on Edessa. They mention briefly that Nur al-Din Zangi captured the city, let it be pillaged, and took many of its people prisoner. Ibn al-Qalanisi says the Muslims rejoiced in their victory and their hearts were strengthened after they had lost courage and felt their cause forsaken.148 But to the Christians what happened to Edessa was calamitous. With a grievous voice like that of the prophet Jeremiah in his Lamentation, Michael Rabo says: O cloud of wrath, the day void of mercy, and the heavy and multiple affliction of the sons of Edessa. O night of death and the morn of hell and the day of desolation which stunned the sons of the wretched city. Who can speak or hear of what happened without shedding tears? The mother and her nursing child whom she carried on her shoulder were struck together by one arrow, and no one could repel it. The hooves of the persecutors’ horses tread upon them unexpectedly. They were squeezed in the press of wrath. Arrows fell upon them at night like rain, and in the morning it was even denser because of the number of arrows and lances that massacred them while they walked through the path of blood. The Frankish cavalry escaped because they could not defend the people, and their infantry took refuge in a nearby abandoned fortress. The earth cried out because of the enormity of the calamity which befell 146 The Anonymous Edessan, 146 (Arabic, 172–173); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 273). 147 The Anonymous Edessan, 148 (English, 297–298; Arabic, 174). 148 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 288, and trans. Gibb, 275; Athir, al-Kamil, 457; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 110–111.

572

THE CRUSADES the Christians. The corpses of priests, deacons, monks, dignitaries, and poor people were piled up. Those who died were luckier than those who remained alive. Those who were still alive suffered incredible torment. They fell into the midst of the fire of the Turks’ wrath. The Turks made them shed their clothes and shoes. They tied their hands behind them, beating them and forcing them, men and women, to walk naked alongside their horses. The Turks flayed the bellies of those who fell due to fatigue and torture, then left them dead to stink and become food for birds of prey. The air was foul with the stench of corpses and Athur (the district that extends from Syria proper to the north of Iraq) was crowded with captives.149

The result was that Edessa lost its Syrian and Armenian inhabitants, and the Christian population decreased dramatically. Michael Rabo estimates that in the Turks’ two occupations of Edessa in 1144 and 1146, some 30,000 were killed and 16,000 were taken captive, while only a thousand men made it to safety. No women or children remained; some were killed, and others were scattered through many countries. Edessa, desolate, was the picture of horror, clothed in black and drunk with blood. It was filled with the stench of the corpses of its sons and daughters, who were left to predators. It became the abode of jackals, and no one entered it except those searching for treasures. Its enemies, the people of Harran and others, ransacked its churches and the homes of its leading citizens and gloated over its destruction.150 Michael Rabo had every reason to weep over the fate of Edessa, the center of Syrian Christianity and home of the great School founded by St. Ephraim (d. 373). It was the great Edessa, the Blessed City which, Muslim writers say, at one time housed over 300 churches and numerous monasteries.151 Several contemporary Muslim writers, all Egyptians, see the fall of Edessa and the atrocities committed by Nur al-Din Zangi and the Turks differently. Hasan Habashi, in a very brief account of Zangi’s attack on Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 635–637 (French, 270–272); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 237 (English), repeats Michael Rabo’s narrative; Janzuri, Imarat, 384–385, gives an Arabic translation. 150 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 637 (French, 272); N. Iorga, Brève Histoire des Croisades (Paris, 1924), 92–93; Janzuri, Imarat, 353. 151 Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Ali (Ibn Hawqal), Surat al-Ard, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Maktabat al-Hayat, 1964), 204; Abu al-Abbas al-Qarmani, Akhbar al-Duwal wa Athar al-Uwal fi al-Tarikh, Ahmad Hutayt and Fahmi Sa’d, eds., 3 (Beirut: Alam al-Kutub, 1992): 373; Janzuri, Imarat, 361–365. 149

THE RISE OF THE ZANGIDS

573

Edessa, says nothing about the atrocities the Turks committed there.152 Husayn Mu’nis dismisses the whole event with a few words, saying Nur alDin punished and killed those Armenians who had betrayed the Muslims, and out of fear the Christians of Edessa left the city.153 Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur says, “As for the Christians of Edessa, they deserved to be punished for their treachery. They were not benefitted by Joscelin II, who fled and left them to learn a harsh lesson from Nur al-Din's forces… the Turks did not distinguish between the Christian Franks and the native Syrian and Armenian Christians. They slaughtered them by the sword, and drove their women and children as captives to Aleppo.”154 Aliyya Abd al-Sami alJanzuri seems to be more thorough and objective. Although she does not treat at length the atrocities committed by the Turks, she offers a broader view of the fall of Edessa, based on Syriac, Armenian, Latin and Arab sources, which she cites in several appendixes. She discusses in detail the churches of Edessa, indicating those which remained intact and those which the Muslims converted into mosques, and mentions briefly the meddling by Joscelin II in the affairs of the Syrian Church.155 William of Newburgh (1136–1198) rightly says that Edessa, the center of Christianity in Syria, lay in ruins; its Christian inhabitants were the victims of both the Franks’ ambition and the Turks’ atrocities.156 He is perhaps the only writer who blamed Joscelin II for the fall of Edessa. Jocelin, says William of Newburgh, had violated the daughter of an Armenian citizen of Edessa who, as an act of revenge, betrayed the city to the Saracens (Muslims).157 Joscelin II, who should have rallied the Christians to fight the Turks, recapture Edessa, and reinforce his crumbling authority, was too involved in the pursuit of pleasure to assume such an awesome responsibility. Instead, as we shall soon see, when he realized his purse was empty, he found it most expedient to rob the wealthy Syrian Monastery of Mar Barsoum. The Franks, and particularly Joscelin, bear the greater blame because they continued to interfere in the affairs of the Syrian Church, compoundHabashi, Nur al-Din, 74–76. Husayn Mu’nis, Nur al-Din Mahmud: Sirat Mujahid Sadiq (Cairo: al-Sharika al‘Arabiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1959), 205. 154 Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 613–614. 155 Janzuri, Imarat, 359–371. 156 Willelmi Parvi, Canonici De Novoburgo (William of Newburgh), Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. and trans. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (London: Kraus, 1964): 58–59. 157 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 58–59. 152 153

574

THE CRUSADES

ing its problems. We should note here that the Syrian Church was in constant turmoil caused by recalcitrant and disobedient bishops, seeking either earthly gain or the patriarchate. This turmoil can in large degree be attributed to the rigid legalism of some patriarchs like Abu al-Faraj Athanasius VI of the Camra family and their insistence on observing the letter of church laws which even at the beginning of the eleventh century, at the height of the Middle Ages, seemed to be harsh and unbearable. Like the Byzantines before them, the Franks made themselves arbiters of the Syrians’ ecclesiastical problems and thus weakened their own ability to govern.

16 THE SECOND CRUSADE (1146–1148) There are two major questions for scholars regarding the Second Crusade (1146–1148): to what extent was it a consequence of the fall of Edessa, and how many expeditions to the East were there?1 As we have already seen, the capture of Edessa in December 1144 by Imad al-Din Zangi was a great blow to the Franks in the East. The city was a stronghold of Christianity for the native Syrians and Armenians as well as the Franks. Economically and strategically, it was of utmost importance to the well-being of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Its loss jeopardized the Franks’ presence in the East, for it was widely thought that after subduing Edessa, the Muslims would take aim at the Latin principality of Antioch and even Jerusalem itself. Thus, the news of Edessa’s fall alarmed the West and goaded it into action. The result was the launching of the Second Crusade (1146–1148). According to Steven Runciman, the enthusiasm that followed the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 had long since died down in the West. Although some European pilgrims still went to the East, there was no Frankish force there strong enough to challenge the Muslims. The West needed a shock to arouse its enthusiasm, and the disaster at Edessa provided it; “the news of the fall of Edessa horrified the West.”2 Following Runciman’s reasoning, one might rightly conclude that the fall of Edessa was the immediate cause of the Second Crusade. But one may The sources on the Second Crusade are extensive. See Virginia G. Berry, “The Second Crusade,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed., 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 463–464; Giles Constable, “The Second Crusade As Seen By Contemporaries,” Traditio 9 (1953): 213–279; Michael Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade and the Cistercians (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992); Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001); James A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 95–96. 2 S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 1: 248–249. 1

575

576

THE CRUSADES

also argue that the capture of Edessa gave Western Christians an added incentive to retain possession of the Holy Land. After the Crusaders recaptured the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslims in 1099, the spirit that led to that success had waned. The unthinkable loss of Edessa in 1144 kindled fears that the Muslims might even retake Jerusalem and spurred Western Christendom to continue the struggle against the infidels. In his letter to the English people, also sent to the clergy and people of Eastern France and Bavaria, St. Bernard of Clairvaux does not mention Edessa by name but laments, “the earth is shaken because the Lord of heaven is losing his land . . . And now for our sins, the enemy of the Cross has begun to lift his sacrilegious head there, and to devastate the land, the land of promise . . . if there should be none to withstand him, he will soon invade the very city of the living God . . . and defile the holy places which have been adorned by the blood of the immaculate lamb.” He urges the people to gird themselves and take up arms with joy and zeal in order to “take vengeance on the heathen, and curb the nations.”3 Clearly, St. Bernard is primarily concerned about the possibility of losing the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem; he says nothing about recapturing Edessa. Indeed, if the objective of the Western expeditions to the East, especially those of King Conrad III of Germany and King Louis VII of France, was to free Edessa from Muslim hands, why they did not attack and recover it from the Zangids? Why did they instead go on to attack Damascus, which in 1146 was not even held by the Zangids? And why, when Raymond of Poitiers (1136–1149), lord of Antioch, urged them to attack Aleppo, the center of the Zangids’ power, did they reject his advice? Moreover, argues Areyh Graboïs, if the loss of Edessa poised a serious threat to the existence of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the logical thing to do was to fight against Imad al-Din Zangi rather than attack the weak principality of Damascus.4 That King Louis VII even intended to participate in a military expedition was doubtful; he was primarily concerned with making a pilgrim-

Letter No. 391 to the English people, also sent to the people of Eastern France and Bavaria, in Bruno Scott James, trans., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), 460–463, hereafter cited as Letters of St. Bernard. Excerpts are quoted in Otto of Freising, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 76–78. 4 Areyh Graboïs, “The Crusade of King Louis VII: A Reconstruction,” in Crusade And Settlement: Papers Presented to R. C. Smail, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Cardiff: University College Press, 1985), 94. 3

THE SECOND CRUSADE

577

age to the Holy Land to atone for his sins.5 In 1845, Heinrich von Sybel asked why, if Edessa was so important to the well-being of the Latins in the East, they showed no enthusiasm to recover it after it was lost. Indeed, he says, they did not even send a delegation to the kings of France and Germany for help, nor did they expect a European expedition to come to their rescue.6 Bernhard Kugler quotes von Sybel, but explains that perhaps he was not aware that the Latins in the East were in no position to rally against the Zangids, who had established a united front against them.7 To von Sybel and to Kugler, who follows him, this European expedition against the East was an action motivated mostly by “spiritual devotion,” which surprised even the Latins in Syria.8 Moved by the disaster at Edessa, Pope Eugenius III (1145–1153) in December 1145 issued his Quantum praedecessores, addressed to King Louis VII of France. Some twelfth-century historians believe that the crusade was a direct response to the capture of Edessa. William of Newburgh has no doubt that this was the case. He notes that Rohesia (Edessa), which withstood the ravages and persecution of the Romans under the Emperor Valens (364-378) and the mistreatment of the Byzantines, lay now in ruins.9 But as our narrative of the Second Crusade unfolds, we shall see that all the events that followed the march against the East indicate that the recovery of Edessa did not figure in the expeditions of Louis VII and Conrad III, or even in other secondary expeditions. Although in preaching at the Christmas assembly of Bourges in 1145, Bishop Geoffrey of Langres emphasized the loss of Edessa, the assembly was not enthusiastic about sending an expedition to save the city. Some writers like Paul Alphandéry and Alphonse Dupront therefore argue that despite the importance of Edessa, its fall was not the real cause of the Second Crusade, but merely a pretext. In fact, the Graboïs, “The Crusade,” 97. Heinrich von Sybel, “Über den zweiten Kreuzzug,” in Kleine historische schriften, 1 (Stuttgart J. G. Cotta’schen, 1880–1897): 415–456, esp. 429–430 (originally published in Zeitschrift für Geschichteswissenschaften, 4 (1854): 192–228. 7 Bernhard Kugler, Studien Zur Geschichte Des Zweiten Kreuzzuges (Amsterdam: M. Hakkert, 1973), 84. 8 Von Sybel, “Über den zweiten Kreuzzug,”429–430; Kugler, Studien, 84. 9 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. and trans. Richard Howlett as Chronicle of the Reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden, Kraus, 1964), 58; Peter W. Edbury, “Looking Back on the Second Crusade: Some Late Twelfth-Century English Perspective,” in Michael Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade and the Cistercians (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 164. 5 6

578

THE CRUSADES

Second Crusade was deeply rooted in the crusading spirit that had developed in western Europe independent of the events in the East, and for this reason it ended in a fiasco.10 The number of expeditions in the Second Crusade is also open to debate. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, writers have concentrated on the two major expeditions to the East by King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany. In his pioneering 1845 article on the Second Crusade, von Sybel wrote only of these two ventures; in his 1866 monograph. The German historian Bernhard Kugler does the sane. Almost two decades later, the German historian Wilhelm Bernhardi focused on these expeditions but also treated the expeditions against Lisbon and against the pagan Slavs called Wends by the Germans.11 The number of expeditions launched by the Christian West against the Muslims in the East and in the Iberian Peninsula and against the Slavs (Wends) was not clearly defined until 1953, when the provocative article of Giles Constable appeared. Basing his theory on the chronicles of medieval Europe, Constable lists and discusses several expeditions other than those of Louis VII and King Conrad III. He mentions a third force, commanded by Amadeus III of Savoy, which moved south through Italy and then joined the army of King Louis at Constantinople in 1147. Another expedition, commanded by Alfonso of Toulouse, left the south of France and reached the Holy Land in the spring of 1148. Meanwhile, a joint Anglo-Flemish naval force assisted the king of Portugal in capturing Lisbon from the Muslims and presumably arrived in the Holy Land in 1148. Another important expedition, led by the Genoese naval force, sacked Minorca in 1146 and laid siege to Almeria; in 1148, this force rushed to help Emperor Alfonso VII of Castile capture Almeria and Tortosa.12 Constable recognizes the magnitude and scope of these campaigns, which had no precedent in the Middle Ages. He poses two questions: were they interrelated, and if so, by whom were they formed and organized? After examining primary and secondary medieval sources, Constable concludes that some of these campaigns were generally or specifically connected. He mentions Otto of Freising (1110–1158), a participant in the 10 Paul Alphandéry and Alphonse Dupront, La Chretiente et l´idée de Croisade, 1 (Paris: A. Michel, 1954): 160–169. 11 Wilhelm Bernhardi, Konrad III (Berlin: Duncker and Humboldt, 1975), 565– 579 on the Slavs, 581–590 on Lisbon. See Brundage, The Crusades, 97–105. 12 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 213–214.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

579

Second Crusade, who referred to the campaign against the Wends and the capture of Lisbon and Almeria. At the same time, however, he realizes that Otto’s mentions of Lisbon and the Wends (whom he does not identify by name) occur in isolated passages, and that he had only a broad concept of the Second Crusade.13 Still more important, Constable is uncertain whether the original sources on the capture of Lisbon say anything about the expedition’s origin. He mentions a Latin manuscript, De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, which, together with three letters written by a participant in this expedition, is called the “Teutonic Source,” but adds, “Neither, however, clearly states what were the origins of the expedition or whether it was inspired by the preaching of the Second Crusades.”14 Jonathan Phillips raises a fundamental question: “If the Holy Land was the ultimate target of the 1147 expedition, where did the siege of Lisbon fit into this?”15 This action seems to be only a peripheral event that does not fit into the main scheme of the 1147 expedition to the Holy Land. Citing the account of H. V. Livermore, Phillips demonstrates that there were ties between King Alfonso Henriques I of Portugal and the Crusaders, who helped him to capture Lisbon.16 Constable then quotes Helmold of Bosau, an authority on the early history of the Slavs (written 1164–1172), to show that the Second Crusade 13 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 220; Otto of Freising, The Deeds, 76, says that “the Saxons refused to set out for the Orient because they had as neighbors certain tribes that were given over to filthiness of idolatry, and in like manner took the cross with a great following of their people.” He adds, 130, “There came also to the same court ambassadors of the people of Genoa, who not long before this time (1146) had captured Almeria and Lisbon, renowned cities in Spain.” 14 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 221. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, trans. Charles Wendell David as The Conquest of Lisbon (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), is a unique manuscript on the capture of Lisbon. There is also a Portuguese translation by José Augusto de Oliveira, Conquista de Lisboa aos Mouros (Lisbon, 1936), with preface by Engenheiro Augusto Vieira da Silva. On the author’s identity, see Harold Livermore, “The ‘Conquest of Lisbon’ and its Author,” Portuguese Studies 6 (1990): 1–16. David, 49, was the first to call the three letters the “Teutonic Source.” See Susan Edgington, “Notes and Documents: the Lisbon Letter of the Second Crusade,” Institute of Historical Research 69 (1996): 328. 15 Jonathan Phillips, “St. Bernard of Clairvaux, The Low countries, and the Lisbon Letter of the Second crusade,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48 (1997): 492. 16 H. V. Livermore, A History of Portugal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), 56–63, and “The ‘Conquest of Lisbon’ and its Author,” 8–9; see Phillips, “St. Bernard of Clairvaux,” 492, and Foreword to David, trans., De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, xviii-xx.

580

THE CRUSADES

should be considered a campaign not only against the East but also against the Slavs (Wends) and Spain.17 Helmold writes, “The initiators of the expedition, however, deemed it advisable to designate one part of the army for the eastern regions, another for Spain, and a third against the Slavs who live hard by us.”18 Since Constable does not challenge Helmold’s statement, Phillips concludes, “Constable suggests that the crusading expeditions to the Levant (East), the Baltic and the Iberian peninsula in 1147-49 all formed one part of a single enterprise which served to extend the borders of Christianity.”19 But while Helmold speaks of three campaigns, this writer sees no indication that the three campaigns were designed as one set of interrelated expeditions, as Constable has concluded. What Helmold probably meant is that the three campaigns were simultaneous: nowhere does he state explicitly that they were pre-planned, nor does he discuss how and by whom they were designed. After a thorough examination of the medieval sources on the Second Crusades, Constable declares, “ . . . in the minds of many contemporaries these campaigns were regarded as parts of a whole, a concerted effort against Islam and pagans by one Christian pilgrim army.” In the same breath, he affirms that “by the spring of 1147 they (Pope Eugenius III and his Curia) viewed and planned the crusade not simply as one campaign against the Moslems in the Holy Land but as a general Christian offensive, and had incorporated into this plan practically every major military expedition against non-Christians of these years.”20 Other writers also say the Second Crusade was “planned on a huge scale” or was a “war on three fronts.”21

17 Francis Joseph Tschan, “Helmold: Chronicler of the North Saxon Missions,” The Catholic Historical Review 16, No. 4 (1931): 380. 18 Helmold, Priest of Bosau, The Chronicle of the Slavs, trans. Francis Joseph Tschan (New York: Octagon Books, 1966, hereafter cited as Helmold), 172; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 223, says Helmold wrote his chronicle in 1167– 1168. See Alan Forey, “The Second Crusade: Scope and Objectives,” Durham University Journal 86 (1994): 165. 19 Jonathan Phillips, “Papacy, Empire and the Second Crusade,” in Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 15. 20 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 265. 21 J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London, 1987), 97; J. RileySmith, ed., Atlas of the Crusades (London, 1991), 48; Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 165.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

581

In 1994, Alan Forey challenged Constable’s assumptions, basing his view on the same sources.22 He maintains that the contemporary sources on the Second Crusade are limited in their coverage of events. They mention only one area of combat, although they allude to what happened elsewhere. The important contemporary writer Odo of Deuil, King Louis VII’s chaplain, who accompanied him to the East and wrote a detailed narrative about that expedition, says nothing of the fight on other fronts. 23 Otto of Freising, who was personally involved in the Second Crusade, refers to the campaign against the Wends and to the capture of Almeria and Lisbon, but only separately from his discussion of the campaign against the Muslims in the East. His contemporary, the English chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, says that while both Conrad and Louis were defeated at Damascus, “Meanwhile a naval armament few in number, the largest part of which was English and trusting only in God, reduced to subjection the city of Lisbon in Spain and with it another place called Almeria, and all the neighboring country.”24 Obviously, Huntingdon does not say that this expedition and the one commanded by the kings of France and Germany were interrelated or planned as a single venture. Although De expugnatione Lyxbonensi and the Lisbon letter state that those Crusaders who took part in the attack against Lisbon intended to march to the Holy Land, they are silent on the events beyond this attack.25 Like Constable, Forey seems to accept the statement of Helmond of Bosau, that those who initiated the crusade decided to split the army into several sections on different fronts; yet he dismisses Helmond, whose chronicle was written twenty years after the crusade, by saying he “tried to fit the expeditions into a pattern which was not apparent to other communicators.”26

Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 165–175. Odo of Deuil, De Perfectione Ludovici VII in Orientem, trans. Virginia Gingerick Berry (New York: W. W. Norton, 1948); Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 165. 24 Thomas Forester, ed. and trans., The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), 286. 25 Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 166. For the Lisbon letter see Susan B. Edgington, trans., “Appendix: The Lisbon Letter,” in Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 61–67, and Helmut Gleber, Papst Eugen III 1145–1153: unter besonderer Betücksichtigung seiner politischen Tätigkeit (Jena, 1936). Livermore, “The ‘Conquest of Lisbon’,” 8, says the connection between the conquest of Lisbon and the Second Crusade “remains insufficiently explored.” 26 Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 168–169. 22 23

582

THE CRUSADES

Of critical importance in dealing with these conflicting views is whether St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Pope Eugenius III (considered the originator of the Second Crusade) advocated fighting on many fronts.27 St. Bernard, with his effective preaching and letters, was able to marshal most of the men in the cities and castles of the West to join in the venture. In a letter to Pope Eugenius on behalf of Samson, archbishop of Rheims, he says of those who intended to join the cause, “As to the rest, you have ordered and I have declared and I have spoken, and they are multiplied above number. Towns and castles are emptied; one may scarcely find one man among seven women, so many women are there widowed while their husbands are still alive.”28 But whether they envisaged the crusade as a series of campaigns on multiple fronts is questionable. Constable states that St. Bernard “regarded the crusade as embracing the efforts of all Christian Europe.”29 This is not to say that he advocated a military war against all fronts. In his letters, he saw the crusade simply as a collective effort of Western Christendom against the infidels (Muslims) of the East.30 Although he supported the campaign against the Slavs (Wends) and may even have instigated it, St. Bernard was not involved with any military campaigns except the one directed against the Muslims in the East. In his letter to All the Faithful, dealing with the expedition against the Slavs, he says that these pagans, used by the Evil One (Satan) to oppose Christianity, should be subdued because they are an impediment to the expedition to the East: “And so God grant that the pride of these people may be speedily humbled and the road to Jerusalem not closed on their account.”31 In his bull Quantum praedecessores, issued in December 1145 and reissued in March 1146 as Divina dispensatione, Pope Eugenius supported campaigns against both Iberia and the Wends in eastern Germany as a response to the initiative of Alfonso VII. Forey, who reproduces a substantial portion of the pope’s letter to Al27 Gleber, Papst Eugen III, 39–53; Jonathan Phillips, “Papacy, Empire and the Second Crusade,” Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 15. On what the Second Crusade meant to the papacy and Pope Eugenius III see Rudolph Hiestand, “The Papacy and the Second Crusade,” in Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 32–53. 28 Letters of St. Bernard, No. 324, 399; Brundage, 91. 29 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 247. 30 Letters of St. Bernard, No. 391,460–463, Ailbe J. Luddy, Life and Teaching of St. Bernard (Dublin, 1927, rpt. 1937, 1950), 527–530; Brundage, 91–93. 31 Letters of St. Bernard, No. 394, to All the Faithful,.466–468; Brundage, The Crusades, 94–95.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

583

fonso VII, admits that the pope clearly presented several expeditions on different fronts as having the same purpose and as being divinely inspired. But he says that the pope was referring only to three campaigns launched against the infidels, and not to the campaigns against Lisbon and Barcelona. He doubts whether the pope even had knowledge about the Lisbon campaign until it was over.32 Forey contests Constable’s statement that the medieval sources he examined show that in the minds of many contemporaries these campaigns were regarded as parts of a whole, a concerted effort against Islam and paganism by one Christian “pilgrim army” . . . However narrow the concept and fortuitous the policy of Eugene III and the Curia in their origins and development, however much they made use of movements which originated outside the church, it is clear that by the Spring of 1147 they viewed and planned the crusade not simply as one campaign against Moslems in the Holy Land but as a general Christian offensive, and had incorporated into this plan practically every major military expedition against non-Christians of these years.33 Forey contends that there is little justification for the claim that in the spring of 1147 Pope Eugenius viewed or planned the crusade as a single campaign against the Muslims in the Holy Land or as a general offensive against non-Christians, for the term “plan” implies “a deliberate purpose which the pope had in mind.” Although the pope wanted to see infidels on all the borders of Christendom vanquished, “it is difficult to perceive what practical advantage the pope could have envisaged from launching attacks simultaneously on different fronts.”34 Forey concedes that few commentators declared that the campaigns against the Wends and Lisbon had their origin in the preaching for the Holy Land; only the chronicle of Helmond of Bosau saw these campaigns as part of a concerted plan, and even that source failed to mention events in the Iberian peninsula.35 Whether these expeditions were interrelated by plan or constituted a concerted effort by one Christian pilgrim army, the fact remains that, taken together, they are evidence of the determination of Christian Europe to challenge Islam, whether on European soil or in the East. The Second Crusade, says Constable, “aroused soldiers on every frontier of western Christendom and incorporated them under the common cross of pilgrimage,” Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 171. Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 265. 34 Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 171. 35 Forey, “The Second Crusade,” 172. 32 33

584

THE CRUSADES

mostly against Islam.36 This statement reinforces the thesis of this author, that the Crusades were essentially a conflict between Christendom and Islam, motivated by religion. Word of the fall of Edessa reached the West in November 1145. Our major source on this point is Otto of Freising, who was present at the Curia with Pope Eugenius III at Viterbo and then went to Vitralla, to which the pope moved in December. Otto says a delegation of Armenian bishops met with the pope in regard to the unification of their church with that of Rome, but this meeting had no bearing on events in the East. Whether these bishops said anything about the fall of Edessa is purely a matter of conjecture. What is more important is that Otto says he heard Hugh, bishop of Jabala in Syria, whom he designates only by the letter N, “. . . make pitiful lament concerning the peril of the church beyond the seas since the capture of Edessa, saying that he was minded on this account to cross the Alps to the king of the Romans and the Franks to ask for aid.37 Similar embassies from Antioch and Jerusalem arrived at the same time in France, begging for forces to dispel the danger which had already arisen and drive away further harm.38 These pleas from the East apparently moved Pope Eugenius III to issue the bull Quantum praedecessores, addressed to his “Very dear son in Christ, Louis the illustrious and glorious king of the Franks, and to all God’s faithful people throughout France,” at Vitralla on December 1, 1145.39 The pope reminded the king and his people of the action of his predecessor Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 276. Otto of Freising, Chronica, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow as The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146 A. D. (New York: Octagon Books, 1966), 443. For a critique of Otto’s account see John G. Rowe, “The Origins of the Second Crusade: Pope Eugenius III, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Louis VII of France,” in Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade, 79–82. 38 Chronica Mauriniac (The Chronicle of Morigny), in Martin Bouquet, ed., Receuil des historiens Gaules et de la France, 12 (Paris: 1783–1904): 88, in Watkin Williams, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1952), 262; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 466. William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 163, says exaggeratedly, “messengers went about to people and nations everywhere spreading these reports.” 39 The full text is in Otto of Freising, Chronica, 71–73; Brundage, The Crusades, 86–88; see Charles-Joseph Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, trans. and ed. H. Leclercq, vol. 5 (Paris, 1912), 804–807, esp. n. 2. 36 37

THE SECOND CRUSADE

585

Pope Urban II, who summoned the sons of the Holy Roman Church to free Jerusalem, where “our savior willed to suffer for us and left behind for us as a memorial of his passion his glorious sepulcher from the heathens who had defiled that city.” He described the loss of Edessa relating how the city’s archbishop, clergy, and other Christians had been slain and the relics of the saints had been given over to the infidels, to be trampled upon and scattered. He called upon the king of France and his people to oppose the multitudes of infidels, save the Eastern Church, and liberate those Christians who have been taken captive. Finally, like Urban II, Pope Eugenius granted absolution and forgiveness of sins for those who would undertake the journey to the East, and absolved those who were burdened by debt from paying the interest past due, even if they were already bound by pledge and oath to do so.40 The immediate response to the pope’s call for the rescue of Edessa is not known. Berry says, “A strange silence concerning Quantum praedecessores follows. The next plan for succor comes from another quarter – the Christmas court of Louis of France at Bourges.”41 On December 25, 1145, King Louis VII held an assembly at Bourges for the occasion of his coronation. There, says Odo of Deuil, the king’s chaplain and chronicler of his expedition to the East, “revealed for the first time to the bishops and magnates of the realm, whom he had purposely summoned for his coronation, the secret in his heart.”42 Otto of Freising declares, “Louis was impelled by a secret desire to go to Jerusalem,” stating that the king was determined to fulfill a vow made by his brother Philip, whose desire to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem was prevented by his death in 1131.43 Others say he wanted to make the pilgrimage to atone for his burning of Vitry-le-Brûlé in 1143, when he was at war with Theobald II, count of Blois-Champagne.44 As his troops captured the city, the church and 1,300 people who had taken

Otto of Freising, Chronica, 71–73. Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 467. For an opposing view see George Ferzoco, “The Origin of the Second Crusade,” in Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade, 92– 99. 42 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 7. 43 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 70; Gleber, 38. 44 Gleber, Papst Eugen III, 39. On Theobald and King Louis of France, see Theodore Evergates, “Louis VII and the Count of Champagne,” in Gervers, ed., The Second Crusade, 109–117. 40 41

586

THE CRUSADES

refuge in it were consumed by flames. Louis also felt guilt for having prevented Pierre de la Châtre from entering Bourges as its archbishop.45 At the coronation, Godfrey de la Roche, bishop of Langres, spoke in his episcopal capacity about the devastation of Edessa, the arrogance of the Muslims, and the oppression of the Christians. He admonished those present to fight for their king to help the Christians. Although many were moved to tears, most held back. The king himself burned with zeal for the cause and had contempt for worldly things, but he did not immediately respond to the bishop’s urging (apparently he had not yet received the papal bull). Abbot Suger of St. Denis, the king’s most trusted adviser, thought an expedition to the East was unwise and tried to dissuade him from such an endeavor.46 It was finally decided to consider the matter again in an assembly to be held at Vézelay, Burgundy, on March 31, 1146, and meanwhile to elicit the opinion of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, considered the spiritual prime mover of the Second Crusade.47 St. Bernard said it was inappropriate for him to give an answer on such a weighty matter, which should be left to the consideration of the pope. King Louis therefore sent an embassy to Rome to discuss the undertaking. The delegates were received warmly and heard words “sweeter than honeycombs.”48 On March 1, 1146, Pope Eugenius reissued his bull Quantum praedecessores, in which he emphasized his guidance of the movement of a crusade.49 Pondering the example set in the First Crusade by his predecessor Pope Urban, who won the unity of peace with the Church across the water and the two patriarchal sees of Antioch and Jerusalem, Pope Eugenius gave permission to the king of France to embark upon a crusade to the East in order to extend the Christian faith. He also granted St. Bernard, who was looked upon by the peoples of France and Germany as a prophet and apostle, the authority to preach a holy war against the infidels and move the people into action.50 Thus empowered, St. Bernard, who was present at the assembly at Vézelay, began to preach on Palm Sunday (March 31, 1146). His effort met with such enthusiasm that “the king and many nobles with

45 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 518; Williams, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 210, 216, 263; Berry, ed., Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 7, n. 3. 46 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 8–9. 47 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 70. 48 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 9. 49 Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 468. 50 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 70–71; Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 9.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

587

him received the sign of the cross, which had been sent by the pope.51 Because there was not enough room to accommodate the crowd, a wooden platform was erected in a nearby field so St. Bernard could speak from an elevation. Odo of Deuil says he mounted the platform, accompanied by the king, who wore the cross. Following the king’s example, other nobles and commoners began demanding crosses. When there were no more, St. Bernard tore his own garments into crosses and offered them to the crowd. Odo says that miracles happened at that time, evidence that what was happening pleased God, i.e., that the crusade he preached was the work of God.52 Among those who received the cross, says Otto of Freising, were Thierry of Flanders and Henry, son of Thibaud of Blois (Theobald II, count of Blois-Champagne, 1103–1152), and other barons and noblemen of the kingdom who also volunteered for military service.53 Other dignitaries included Louis’s wife, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine; the king’s brother, Count Robert of Dreux, and his uncle Amadeus III of Maurienne; William, count of Nevers, Archibald of Bourbon, Enguerrand of Coucy, and Alfonso Jordan of Toulouse, son of Raymond of Toulouse (Saint-Gilles), a leader in the First Crusade. Among the prelates were Godfrey de la Roche and Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux.54 Finally, it was resolved that the crusade should set out at the end of a year, that is, sometime in 1147.55 An expedition of such magnitude also required the participation of other leaders of Christendom. To rally them to support him in this undertaking, King Louis sent messages to Roger II of Sicily, the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180), King Conrad III of Germany, and King Géza of Hungary, apprising them of his plan for a crusade to the East. From Roger of Sicily and Manuel I he wanted assurance of his army’s safe passage through their territory and the ability to procure sufficient provision of food in fair markets. They both responded favorably.56 Roger of Sicily sent back noblemen who promised to supply the king’s troops with food, provisions, shipping, and other necessities. The truth is that Roger was not so much interested in a religious war as in furthering his own poOdo of Deuil, De Profectione, 9; Brundage, The Crusades, 90. Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 9–10; A. J. Luddy, Life and Teaching of St. Bernard (Dublin: M. H. Gill & Sons, 1927), 523–524. 53 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 73–74. 54 Chronica Mauriniac, 12: 88, quoted in Williams, 265; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 469, gives a full list of names. 55 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 9. 56 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 11. 51 52

588

THE CRUSADES

litical interest and protecting his domain. He had subdued Apulia, much to the anger of the pope and King Conrad III. His fleet had also subdued a large part of Muslim north Africa. In other words, Roger was so ambitious that an alliance with him would be difficult. He was also a pretender to the throne of Antioch and an enemy of Raymond of Poitiers, the lord of that city and uncle of Queen Eleanor, the wife of King Louis VII. For these reasons Pope Eugenius III and King Conrad III feared Roger. Emperor Manuel I also feared and mistrusted Roger, who actually attacked Greece in 1147. His fleet reached as far as Corfu and stormed Corinth, Thebes, and Athens, carrying off a great amount of booty and captive women.57 It was with good reason that Manuel called Roger the common foe of all Christians.58 Odo of Deuil, who does not disguise his prejudice, says the emperor, “whose name I ignore because it is not recorded in the book of life, inscribed on a long scroll extravagant flattery, called King Louis a friend and a brother, and made a great many promises which he did not fulfill.”59 While St. Bernard was preaching the crusade in western Gaul with great enthusiasm, he was informed in letters of a certain Cistercian monk named Ralph (Raoul, Radulf, Rudolf) who was preaching without authorization in the Rhineland at Cologne, Mainz, Worms, Speyer, and Strassburg, and inciting the people to kill the Jews before marching against the Ishmaelites (Muslims). Bernard decided to turn his attention to the eastern kingdom of the Franks, to exhort the people and the princes to take the cross and to stop the evil of Ralph.60 St. Bernard wrote to Archbishop Henry of Mainz, a good man of faith who used his home as a refuge for the persecuted Jews, that Ralph was full of arrogance and wanted only to make a name for himself. He cited the words of Jesus, declaring that all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52), adding that it was far better for the Church to convert the Jews than to put them to the sword. He 57 Otto of Friesing, Chronica, 69–70; Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy, 1016–1154 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1912), 223–226; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 470–471; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957), 340; Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 56–58. 58 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 236. 59 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 11. 60 Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn, Sefer Zekhiriah, or The Book of Remembrance, in Shlomo Eidelberg, ed. and trans., The Jews and the Crusades: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades (Hoboken, New Jersey, 1996), 121–122; Otto of Freising, Chronica, 74; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 245.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

589

condemned the destruction of the Jews, saying, “The Lord regards with favor him who renders good for evil and love for hatred. . . . Otherwise, where do the sayings come from, ‘Not for their destruction I pray,’ and ‘When fullness of time comes all Israel will be saved.’?”61 In brief, St. Bernard considered the killing of the Jews contrary to the teaching of the prophets and the apostles. In his letter to the English people, also sent to the archbishops, bishops, and all the clergy and people of Eastern France and Bavaria, he says, “the Jews are not to be persecuted, killed or even put to flight . . . the Jews are for us the living words of the Sacred Scriptures, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are the living witness of our redemption.” If the Jews are wiped out, he asks, “what will become of our hope for their salvation, their eventual conversion?”62 Otto of Freising gives a slightly different version, reporting that St. Bernard (whom he does not mention by name) said, “God saith the Church shall let me see my desire upon my enemies, ‘slay them not’ (Psalms 59:10–11). For they are living tokens unto us, constantly recalling our Lord’s passion.”63 When St. Bernard learned that his letters had not stopped the recalcitrant monk from preaching against the Jews, he decided in late October 1146 to go personally to challenge Ralph in the Rhineland, preaching the crusade against the Muslims in the East. In November he arrived in Mainz and warned Ralph, who had received great support from the citizens, to stop preaching without authority. He finally prevailed and ordered Ralph to return to his monastery.64 Helmold of Bosau mentions many miracles which St. Bernard wrought in Germany, including the healing of a lame and blind boy.65 St. Bernard took the opportunity while in Germany to meet with King Conrad III and urge him to join the crusade, as the king of France had already done. In November he met King Conrad privately in Frankfurt-onMain and asked him to take the cross, but Conrad declined, on the pretext that he wanted to consult with other princes before making such a move. Discouraged, Bernard wanted to return to Clairvaux, but the bishop of 61Letters

of St. Bernard, No. 393 to Henry, archbishop of Mainz, 465–466, quoting Psalms 59: 11–21 and Romans, 11: 25–26; Helmold, 171. 62 Letters of St. Bernard, No. 391, 460–463; Luddy, Life and Teaching, 530–531; Williams, Saint Bernard, 266–267; Gilbert Dahan, “Bernard de Clairvaux et les juifs,” Archives Juives 23 (1987): 59–65. 63 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 78. 64 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 75. 65 Helmold, 171.

590

THE CRUSADES

Constance prevailed on him to stay and preach in his diocese.66 Several factors may have prevented Conrad from taking the cross: the chaotic state of affairs in Poland, which needed attention; the conflict between Pope Eugenius III and the Romans; the shaky relationship with Roger II of Sicily; and the hostility of Welf VI, duke of Bavaria, and Henry of Saxony to Conrad.67 St. Bernard had another opportunity to press his case when King Conrad convened a diet at Speyer on Christmas 1146, for the occasion of his coronation. He preached there but again failed to convince the king to take up the cross. Two days later, at the feast of St. John the Evangelist, he preached a sermon in which he portrayed Conrad appearing before the Supreme Judge (Jesus Christ), called to account for his ingratitude and his refusal to rush to the deliverance of the Holy Sepulcher. King Conrad broke down, fell to his knees, and tearfully told St. Bernard that he was most willing to obey the call of his Savior. The whole crowd cried out, “Praise to God!” Many dignitaries, princes and illustrious men followed the king’s example and took the cross, including his nephew, Prince Frederick Barbarossa, who later succeeded him on the throne. This event was followed by many miracles, performed both in public and private. St. Bernard had achieved a great victory; to him, Conrad’s taking the cross was the “Wonder of Wonders.”68 Pope Eugenius was preaching the crusade in southern Italy, preparing to leave for France, when he learned that Conrad had taken the cross. While the pope was enthusiastic about King Louis’s decision to take the cross and was pleased by Christendom’s coming together to march to the Kugler, Studien, 98. Bernhardi, Konrad III, 532–533. 68 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 74–75; Helmold, 171–172; Kugler, Studien, 99–100; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 526–531; Austin Lane Poole, “Germany, 1125–1152,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957): 353; Luddy, Life and Teaching, 539–540; Williams, Saint Bernard, 273–274; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 475. H. Cosack, “Konrads III Entschluss zum Kreuzzug,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtesforschung 35 (1914): 283–288, says Conrad may have decided to take the cross not because of St. Bernard’s preaching but because of a report that his enemy Welf VI (Guelph), duke of Bavaria, had taken the cross on Christmas Eve. But Cosack doubts whether Conrad had even been informed about Welf’s taking the cross when he himself decided to do so. See Austin Lane Poole, “Germany, 1125–1152,” 353, n. 1. For a different opinion, see Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 473–474, n. 10. 66 67

THE SECOND CRUSADE

591

East, he and his Curia were dismayed by Conrad’s decision. They argued that Conrad should carefully think about the administration of his realm during his absence on the crusade. The pope sent Cardinal Dietwin to tell the king that he had acted without papal permission. Conrad had already taken the cross and could not retreat, but he sought to avoid a misunderstanding with the pope. The pope must also have felt that Conrad’s absence would weaken his own already precarious position in Germany and Italy. He desperately needed Conrad’s help against the citizens of Rome, who had rebelled and driven him from the city on Christmas 1145. Since then the pope had been in exile, and Rome was under the grip of the anti-clerical rebel Arnold of Brescia.69 St. Bernard had already written to the people of Rome, rebuking them for their rebellion: “Why, O Romans, do you offend the princes of the world who are your special patrons? Why do you arise against the king of the earth and the Lord of heaven, by your intolerable ravings, and by attacking rashly and sacrilegiously the Holy and apostolic see, which is uniquely exalted by divine and royal privileges? O foolish and senseless people! O people void of brains and heart! What is Rome now but a body without a head?” He entreated the people for the love of Christ to be reconciled with their rulers, that is, “to Peter and Paul, whom you have driven from your midst in the person of Eugenius, their vicar and successor.”70 Bernard left Speyer on January 3, 1147; passing through several cities, he arrived on January 9 at Cologne, where he preached the crusade. He was delighted that a large crowd of young men enlisted in the army of the cross. Leaving Cologne, he arrived on February 2 at Châlons-sur-Marne, to find King Louis VII and the delegates of King Conrad III and Welf and other princes and nobles meeting to discuss the particulars of the campaign. He was received with great honor and spent two days in close consultation with the princes, much to the displeasure of the people, who were anxious to see and hear him.71 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 256. See John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis Quae Supersunt, ed. Reginald L. Poole (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), lix-lxx of the preface, 63–65 of the text, trans. Marjorie Chibnall as The Historia Pontificalis of John of Salisbury (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 63–64 (citations hereafter are to the 1986 edition); Bernhardi, Konrad III, 550; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 257. 70 Letters of St. Bernard, 391–394. 71 Luddy, Life and Teaching, 540–541; Williams, Saint Bernard, 276–277; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 477. 69

592

THE CRUSADES

In the same month King Conrad called a conference in Regensburg to discuss the question of the crusade. Bernard could not attend but delegated Adam, abbot of Ebrach from the Cistercian house in Würzburg to represent him. After celebrating Mass, Adam climbed the pulpit, read the letters of Pope Eugenius and St. Bernard, and persuaded almost all of those present to receive the cross. Three bishops—Henry of Regensburg, Reginald of Passau, and Otto of Freising, Conrad’s half-brother—accepted the cross, as did Welf, the duke of the Bavarians, the king’s brother Henry, and a great number of highwaymen and robbers. Soon afterward, Vladislav, duke of the Bohemians, Ottokar, margrave of Styria, and the illustrious Count Bernard of Carinthia took the cross with many of their followers.72 On February 16, 1147, King Louis VII called a general meeting at Êtampes, attended by a throng of spiritual and temporal magnates and by ambassadors of the king of Hungary, the Byzantine emperor, and Roger II of Sicily. St. Bernard related the success he had had in Germany, especially in convincing King Conrad and many dignitaries to take the cross. The major question discussed was the route the expedition should take to the Holy Land. King Roger’s delegates suggested that the expedition should journey by sea through Sicily, since Roger had promised to provide ships and provisions to convey the men all the way to Joppa (Yafa). Doing so, they argued, would save time and protect the troops on the dangerous and tiring journey. The delegates also said that they had offered this course for the expedition because of the Byzantines’ treachery. They were supported by Godfrey of Langres, who had great sympathy toward Roger of Sicily and distrusted the Byzantines, who he said had not been faithful to the Crusaders in the First Crusade. But King Louis and his counselors disregarded the Sicilian delegates’ suggestion and stated that they would rather follow in the footsteps of the First Crusaders and journey overland through Greece. At this point, Odo of Deuil says, “King Roger’s messengers went away confounded, like men in grief, foretelling to us the Greek trickery which we later experienced.”73 Then came the question of who would administer the state while King Louis was absent in the Holy Land. The king asked St. Bernard to select a board of ministers, who would be trusted with this task. After some discussion, Abbot Suger of St. Denis and Count William III of Nevers were chosen to shoulder this responsibility. William excused himself Otto of Freising, Chronica, 75–76; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 541–544. Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 15; Kugler, Studien, 103; Williams, Saint Bernard, 278; Luddy, Life and Teaching, 544; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 478–479. 72 73

THE SECOND CRUSADE

593

on the grounds that he intended to leave the world and become a Carthusian monk. Suger, who at first declined, finally relented and was appointed sole regent. Before the assembly dispersed, it was decided to postpone the departure of the expedition from Easter to June 15, 1147.74 On March 13, 1147, King Conrad III convened a diet in Frankfurt, attended by St. Bernard and messengers of King Louis VII of France, to confirm amicable relations between the two kings. The most pressing matter discussed was the defense of the state during the king’s absence in the Holy Land. After some deliberation, Conrad’s ten-year-old son Henry was chosen by all the princes as king. On Sunday, March 30, Conrad went to Aachen and had his son crowned.75 The archbishop of Mainz was appointed his guardian and regent, and Wibald of Stavelot and Corvey as another guardian. It was decided that the German army should leave by the middle of May, before the French, who were planning to leave at the start of June. There were two reasons for marching first: to preserve the German army’s food supply, which would be insufficient if the two armies marched together, and to prevent friction between the Germans and the French.76 Conrad, aware that Pope Eugenius III was unhappy about his having taken the cross, decided at this time to reconcile with the pope. He sent Bishop Bucco of Worms, Bishop Anselm of Havelburg, and Abbot Wibald of Corvey, who met with the pope at Dijon and presented a letter in which Conrad admitted that he had been quick to take the cross. He declared that the Holy Spirit, which changes directions at will, suddenly overcame him and gave him no time to seek the pope’s advice before taking the cross. The pope accepted this excuse and may have been feeling lenient toward Conrad when he met with St. Bernard at Clairvaux and discussed his attitude. Conrad asked to meet with the pope on April 18 at Strassburg, near Frankfurt, but the pope declined.77 Early in 1147 the Pope, accompanied by many cardinals, traveled to France through Mont Genèvre Pass. On April 6 he met with St. Bernard, whom he had not seen for six years. On April 11, he issued his bull Divina dispensatione.78 He met with King Louis VII and his court at Dijon, and around April 20 he took up residence at the abbey of St. Denis. 74 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 3, 15, 21; Williams, Saint Bernard, 278; Luddy, Life and Teaching, 544–545; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 478–479. 75 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 78–79. 76 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 545–548. 77 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 550; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 479. 78 For this bull see Paul Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 180: 1203–1204.

594

THE CRUSADES

At the diet of Frankfurt, the Germans seemed to be united in their decision to march against the Muslims in the East. Soon, however, things took a different turn. One part of the army headed for the Holy Land, another for Spain, and a third for eastern Europe to fight against the Slavs. Although the crusaders were in fact split into three forces, Helmold of Bosau overstates the case in stating that this division of the army was intended or designed by the initiators of the Second Crusade, the kings of France and Germany.

THE EXPEDITION AGAINST THE SLAVS (WENDS) While the army had expected to fight against the Muslims of the East, the leaders of the Saxons, the members of the Bohemian ruling family, and the Dacians and Westphalians who had taken the cross decided to march against the pagan Wends (Slavs) east of the Elbe, intending to either annihilate them or convert them to Christianity.79 Otto of Fresising says “ . . . the Saxons refused to set out to the Orient because they had as neighbors certain tribes (Slavs, Wends) which were given over to the filthiness of idolatry. These Saxons took the cross in order to assail these races in war. Their crosses were different, in that they were not sewed to their clothing but were brandished aloft atop a wheel (circle).”80 Constable says the campaign against the Wends shows not only a connection with the crusade, but “the savage spirit that inspired the expedition against the Wends.”81 The preaching and the miracles of St. Bernard in the winter of 1146– 1147 in the Lowlands and Germany inspired the rulers of Saxony and Bohemia to begin an attack on the Wends. Why should St. Bernard, whose preaching aimed to arouse Western Christians to march against the Muslims 79 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 224, quotes Vincent of Prague, Saxo Grammaticus, and the anonymous continuation of the Chronicle of Siegebert, a monk of Gembloux. On this last, see Reginald L. Poole, ed., John of Salisbury, lxxxvi-lxxxvii of the preface and Chapter VIII, and trans. Chibnall, 2–4, 95. On the distribution of the Slavic tribes see Helmold, 48–52, and James Westfall Thompson, “The German Church And The Conversion Of The Baltic Slavs,” The American Journal of Theology 20 (1916): 206–208. 80 Otto of Freising, Chronica, 76. 81 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 224; Margret Bündung, Das Imperium Christianum und die deutschen Ostkrieg vom zehnten bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert, Historische Studien, ed. Edeberg (Berlin, 1940), 35–50.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

595

in the East, change his course to stir up a crusade against the pagans? Perhaps he feared the Slavs would take advantage of the vulnerable state of Europe and attack the rear of the crusading army. Whatever the reason, he preached a sermon against the pagan tribes living east of the Saxons and Moravians. In his letter To All the Faithful, he says that because the Lord has entrusted to him the preaching of this crusade, he wants them to know that the dignitaries who met at Frankfurt are armed against the pagans (Slavs) and are determined to wipe them out or convert them to Christianity. He promises the crusaders against the Slavs the same privileges offered to those who march on to Jerusalem. He admonishes them under no circumstance to make a truce with these people in exchange for tribute, until they either convert or are wiped out. He reminds his audience that they are the ministers of Christ, and therefore it is demanded of them that they watch faithfully over God’s work. Finally, he enjoins them to meet at Magdeburg on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul to prepare for their march.82 Clearly, the Saxons would have not decided to attack the Slavs without the blessing of Pope Eugenius III, who says in the bull Divina dispensatione, “Certain of you [Germans], however, are desirous of participating in so holy a work and reward and plan to go against the Slavs and other pagans living towards the North and subjugate them.”83 The plan to fight the Slavs was not new. It was a continuation of the warfare between them and the German princes, landlords and colonists who since the eighth century had been pushing the boundaries of their territory eastwards and northwards against their neighbors.84 Some writers see the expedition against the Slavs as part of the political and economic “Drang nach Osten” by the Germans throughout the early Middle Ages. To the German writer Margret Bündung, the expedition against the Slavs was less a knightly crusade than evidence of the German princes’ ambition to expand their borders.85 Thompson says the reason for the Wendish Crusade was “to break the power of the Baltic Slavs and annex their territory to the German kingdom. It was a sinister mixture of bigotry and lust for land.”86 Constable cautions that while the campaign against the Slavs was not totally 82 Letters of St. Bernard, No. 394, 466–468; Otto of Freising, Chronica, 76–78; Helmold, 170–172; Brundage, The Crusades, 94–95. 83 Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 180: 1203–1204; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 255; Gleber, Papst Eugen III, 50. 84 Brundage, The Crusades, 104. 85 Bündung, Das Imperium, 50; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 225. 86 Thompson, “German Church,” 381.

596

THE CRUSADES

separate from the German princes’ desire for economic gain and particularly land, one should not ignore the religious motives and overemphasize the dichotomy between the religious and the secular aspects of the campaign. Relying on the work of Tancred Borenius, he says medieval sources regarded the campaign against the Slavs as a pilgrimage, and the soldiers who wore the cross in that campaign were no different from the crusaders who marched against the Muslims in the East in the First Crusade.87 Another consideration about the expedition against the Slavs is that since they were pagans, their conversion to Christianity was necessary to end their warfare and integrate them into the German state. No sooner did the Slavs learn of the imminent German attack than they began to rebel. Niclot, lord of the Obotrite (Abodrite, according to Helmold) tribe, the ablest leader of the Baltic Slavs, prepared his defense.88 To discourage the Germans from entering the sea on the bay of Wismar, he fortified Dobin on Lake Schwern, intending the town to be a refuge for those who might flee the assault. He urged Adolph of Holstein, with whom he had a peace agreement, to stay out of the conflict, but Adolph replied that he could not oppose the German crusaders. Niclot said he had promised to be Adolph’s eyes and ears in the land of the Slavs, and thus far he had kept them from giving him trouble. Why then did he deny Niclot’s friendship in time of need? Henceforth he would not hinder the Slavs but would leave Adolph to his own devices.89 When Niclot saw it was impossible to prevent the German expedition from marching against him, he decided to take the offensive. He secretly prepared a naval force, crossed the sea, and reached the mouth of the Trave River, planning to strike the province of Wagria before the Saxons got there. On June 26, 1147, Niclot’s ships went through the mouth of the Trave. He attacked Lübek and burned the town’s ships at the harbor. The people of the city, celebrating the feast of Saints John and Paul, were too drunk to offer resistance. The Slavs massacred 300 of them but failed to capture the castle. They did not stop at this point but went on ravaging the whole province of Wagria, killing, burning, and taking women and children captive. They also destroyed the whole region of Dargune and the country below the Trave, which had been settled by the Westphalians, Hollanders, Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 225, 237–238. Helmold, 175; Thompson, “German Church,” 381. 89 Helmold, 176; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 566; Lane-Poole, “Germany, 1125– 1152,” 354. 87 88

THE SECOND CRUSADE

597

and others. But they did not destroy the villages of the Schwentine plain, nor did they touch the property of the men who lived there. Because of its strong location, the city of Eutin was spared destruction.90 Then the Slavs attacked the region of Süssel to destroy the colony of the Frisians there. Many Frisians had already returned to their homeland; barely a hundred were left, and they took refuge in a fortress. The Slavs besieged it but realized they could not take it without bloodshed. They asked the Frisians to come out and surrender with their arms. Some wanted to surrender, but a priest named Gerlav charged them to fight to the last man. He himself fought with great courage, despite losing an eye and being wounded in the abdomen. When the Slavs learned that Count Adolph was coming with a great army to fight them, they returned to their ships and departed, carrying off their captives and booty.91 Meanwhile, the Saxon leaders, including Duke Henry, his rival Albrecht the Bear, and Conrad, duke of Zähringen, gathered with their forces at Magdeburg on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, ready to march.92 Pope Eugenius appointed Bishop Anselm of Havelberg as his chief delegate to the army; many other high-ranking clergy joined the army, among them Bishops Friedrich of Magdeburg, Rudolph of Halberstadt, and Werner of Münster.93 Without further delay, 40,000 men commanded by Duke Henry the Lion, Conrad of Zähringen, and Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen set out for Niclot’s stronghold at Dobin. Meanwhile, from Denmark came reinforcements commanded by Kings Sevin and Canute, who had resolved their dispute over succession to the throne after the death of Eric III in 1146. Many more men came, including forces from Poland, Prussia and Russia. The joint armies besieged Dobin.94 The Slavs fought fiercely and on July 31 defeated the Danes, but could not destroy their fleet. It was rumored that the Germans received bribes to abandon their Danish allies to a horrendous fate. The Crusaders were anything but united. The Danes wanted to continue the fight, but the Saxons declined. To put an end to the conflict, Count Henry of Holstein proposed that the Slavs should become subjects to the Saxons and pay them tribute, 90

354.

Helmold, 177–178; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 568–569; Lane-Poole, “Germany,”

Helmold, 179–180. On these leaders see Helmold, 175–176. 93 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 569; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 479. 94 Helmold, 180; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 572–573; Lane-Poole, “Germany,” 355; Brundage, The Crusades, 104. 91 92

598

THE CRUSADES

but that idea was instantly rejected as contrary to the instructions of St. Bernard.95 The Danes also agreed to stop fighting if the Slavs would release their prisoners. The truth is that the Saxons were less interested in annihilating the Slavs than in keeping them as a tributary population. They asked the Slavs to embrace Christianity, but said they could later follow their own religion, and to release the prisoners. The Slavs agreed, and so the siege of Dobin ended. But once they were free, the Slavs renounced Christianity and released only the old and infirm Danish prisoners. The whole expedition ended in failure.96 The fate of the second contingent of the 60,000-man army was just as disastrous. Led by Archbishop Albrecht the Bear of Brandenbürg and Conrad of Meissen, the army crossed the Elbe into Slav territory, destroying and burning villages and towns. They razed the city of Malchow and its pagan temple. They crossed into Pomerania and split into two groups. One, led by Abbot Wibald, laid siege to Demnin; the other, under the command of Bishop Heinrich of Olmütz, joined with some Moravian princes and marched against Stettin, but was dissuaded from occupying the city by the Pomeranian Bishop Adalbert, a pupil of Otto of Bamberg, who convinced them that the city was already Christian and attacking it would run contrary to their purpose of subduing the pagans. The crusade’s objective turned out to be more mundane than the conversion of pagans. The clergy in the army contended with the princes over possession of the land. Instead of destroying the country, they sought to obtain land either for themselves or for the Church. Discouraged by the dispute between the clergy and the princes, Bishop Wibald returned to Corvey but could only complain how much he had suffered. In sum, the crusade against the Slavs (Wends) was a total failure.97

THE CONQUEST OF LISBON After the fall of Edessa, all of Europe was aroused to fight not only the Muslims in the East but the Moors in the Iberian peninsula. In essence, the Bernhardi, Konrad III, 574; Lane-Poole, “Germany,” 355. Helmold, 180–181; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 574; Lane-Poole, “Germany,” 355; Brundage, The Crusades, 104. 97 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 575–576; Lane-Poole, “Germany,” 355–356; Brundage, The Crusades, 104–105. 95 96

THE SECOND CRUSADE

599

Second Crusade embodied a conflict between Christendom and Islam. While the kings of France and Germany were making preparation to march with their forces to the East, Spain and Portugal were intent on fighting the Muslims and regaining the territory that had been lost to them. The struggle of the Christians of the Iberian peninsula against the Muslim invaders began when the Muslims overran Spain and Portugal in the eighth century. It intensified during the First Crusade (1095–1099), when knights were drawn from Spain to join the war and were given absolution of sins and other privileges by Pope Urban II and Pope Paschal II, who urged the Castilians not to abandon their battle against the Moors to go to the Holy Land. Pope Paschal asked them to stay home, combat the Muslims, and obtain penance. Thus, for them the war against the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula, in essence a crusade, took precedence over the primary campaign, whose objective was to retake the Holy Land. As the warfare between the al-Muwahhidun (Almohads) and al-Murabitun (Almoravids) intensified before and during the Second Crusade, the situation in alAndalus became more unstable.98 This instability offered the Spanish and Portugese Christians the opportunity to continue their fight against the Muslims and regain a considerable portion of their land. The second force of the crusading army included men of diverse nations, customs, and speech who had been influenced by the preaching of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.99 They came from Cologne, Flanders, Frisia, and Normandy. According to the Lisbon letter, the men of Cologne sailed on April 27, 1147, the eighth day after Easter, and on May 19 reached the English port of Dartmouth, Devon, where they met with Englishmen, Normans, Scots, and Bretons.100 The whole expedition was divided into three parts. One, under Count Aerschot, consisted of forces from the territories of the Roman Empire; the second included men from Flanders and 98 Joseph F. O’Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), 229–233; Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of León-Castilla Under King Alfonso VII, 1126–1157 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 91–92; Matthew Bennett, “Military Aspects of the Conquest of Lisbon, 1147,” in Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 71–72. 99 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 53; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 257. 100 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 53; Susan Edgington, “Albert of Aachen, St. Bernard and the Second Crusade, and the Lisbon Letter,” in Phillips and Hochs, eds., The Second Crusad 63; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 258; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 481; Tschan, ed., Helmold, 175, n. 2, says the Germans sailed from Köln (Cologne) on April 17 and reached Dartmouth on May 19.

600

THE CRUSADES

Boulogne, under Christian Chistelles; the third, commanded by four constables, included the ships and men of Norfolk and Suffolk under Hervey of Glanville, the men of Kent under Simon of Dover, the men of London under Andrew (probably of Buccuinte), and the rest under Saher of Archelle.101 The bulk of the Englishmen, mostly humble folk, were recruited from the eastern and southern counties of England and from the seaports as far as East Anglia and Bristol. These men, says David, were not only familiar with the sea but also accustomed to working together.102 The author of the De expugnatione Lyxbonensi does not give the number of the men who assembled at Dartmouth, but says that they assembled there in about 164 vessels.103 It is difficult to estimate their number, although some sources put it at 13,000.104 Henry of Huntingdon says the largest part of the expedition was supplied from England, but David says it is not unlikely that the combined forces from Boulogne, Flanders, and the region of Cologne outnumbered the English contingent.105 To maintain peace, unity, and friendship among these people, who spoke different tongues, the leaders of the expedition drew up a strict code of conduct for all to abide by. The author of De expugnatione Lyxbonensi says their law had strict penalties, specifying the loss of a life for a life and a tooth for a tooth (in keeping with Old Testament law). How serious they were about the integrity of their mission and the need for internal discipline is shown by the fact that they forbade all sorts of display and costly garments. Although there were women in the expedition, they were ordered not to appear in public. It was ordained that clergy and laity should gather weekly in chapels unless there was an emergency which required them to meet separately. Each ship would have its own priest, and everyone should made confession weekly and participate in the communion on Sunday. They further decreed that for every thousand troops, there should be two

101De

expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 56–57; Edgington, “The Lisbon Letter,” 61–66; Phillips, “St. Bernard of Clairvaux,” 490. 102 David, ed., De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, Introduction, 13. 103 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 53. 104 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 579–580; Tschan, ed., Helmold, 175, n. 2. Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “English Crusaders in Portugal,” in Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations, Edgar Prestage, ed., (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971), 9–10, says there were 190 vessels with 10,000 men on board. 105 The Chronicle of Henry Huntingdon, 286; David, ed., De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 14, Introduction.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

601

elected judges, through whom the constables would settle cases and manage the distribution of money.106 Having established these ordinances, the expeditionary forces sailed from Dartmouth on May 23, 1147. Two days later they sighted the coast of Brittany. After touching different places despite rough sailing and a severe storm, on June 16 they finally reached the city of Oporto, on a channel of the Douro River. The city’s bishop, Peter Pitôes, came to welcome them, saying he had learned in advance of their coming through a letter he had received the previous day from King Affonso Henriques (ruled 1139–1185). How the king knew about this expedition is unknown. But he wrote to the bishop that if by chance the Franks’ ships should come to Oporto, he should see to their needs, conclude an agreement, and come to see him; moreover, he should offer himself and whatever else they might desire as security.107 The day after they arrived, a large group of Crusaders gathered at the cathedral, where the bishop celebrated mass and delivered a long sermon in Latin, with interpreters ensuring that everyone could understand it in his own language.108 In a powerful sermon full of Biblical quotations, he told the Crusaders that since the Moors first vengefully smote Spain with the sword, only a few Christians were left under the yoke of servitude. Only a few of the cities, castles, villages, and shrines of saints remained, and they were in ruins. Even his own city had been reduced to the appearance of an insignificant village.109 He told them that the mother church appealed to them for help. She sought vengeance at their hands for the blood of her sons. The bishop stressed the fact that their help here was more needed than in Jerusalem, their original destination. He urged them to repay force with force, quoting the words of Jesus (Matthew 26:52, obviously out of context): “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”110 To justify the validity of using force to accomplish a noble aim, he quoted St. Augustine, who wrote to Donatus the priest, “an evil will must not be allowed its liberty, even as Paul, who persecuted the church of God, was not

De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 57. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 69; Edgington, “The Lisbon Letter,” 63. 108 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 71–85; Reinhold Röhricht, “Die Kreuzpredigten gegen den Islam: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christlichen Predigt in 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 6 (1884): 556. 109De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 77 110 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 79–80. 106 107

602

THE CRUSADES

permitted to carry out his worst intentions.”111 The bishop went on to quote St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew and St Jerome’s letter to Riparius. He called on them to heed the salutary counsel of St, Augustine to Count Boniface, take up arms, and engage the enemy in battle, for God was with them.112 In closing, the bishop told the Crusaders that king Affonso had already departed with an expedition against Lisbon, but he knew about their coming. All the bishop wanted was for the crusaders to rush to aid the king, who awaited their response. But before making that choice, they decided to wait for the Flemish and Count Arnold of Aerschot, a number of whose ships had been scattered by the storm, and to send for John, bishop of Braga. The bulk of the forces stayed eleven days in Oporto, during which they enjoyed the fair sale of both wine and other delights by the goodwill of the king. When their compatriots arrived, the fleet reassembled and left Oporto, accompanied by bishops, and entered the river-channel called the Tagus. On June 28, 1147, the eve of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Crusaders reached Lisbon.113 Meanwhile, King Affonso Henriques was engaged in battle with the Muslims. We should note that this was not his first attempt to fight the Muslims and reclaim Lisbon, for on July 25, 1139, he had gained victory against them at Ourique.114 In 1140 or 1142, a force of English and Norman Crusaders and men from Southampton and Hastings, commanded by Willelmus Vitulus and his brother Radulfus, sailed along the Douro River, and Affonso Henriques sought their help against the Muslims. While they invested Lisbon from the sea, he attacked it by land. Although they ransacked the outskirts of the city, the Christian forces could not challenge the Muslims and had to withdraw. Unfortunately, no details of this campaign are known.115 Between 1140 and 1147, the king continued his attacks on the Muslims, taking advantage of the dissension between the Almoravids and Almohades. In March 1147, shortly before the Crusaders arrived, he captured Santarem, the central town of the Tagus region (called Shantarin by the Arabs). Santarem was as important strategically as Lisbon, for capturing De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 81. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 84–85. 113 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 85, 91, 97; Edgington, “The Lisbon Letter,” 63; Brundage, The Crusades, 98. Brundage, 97–104, translates part of De expugnatione Lyxbonensi. 114 Livermore, A History of Portugal, 64–65; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 258. 115 Livermore, A History of Portugal, 71–72. 111 112

THE SECOND CRUSADE

603

it cut off the Muslims’ access to the Tagus River and prevented them from linking up with the Muslims to the south. Affonso Henriques realized he could not capture Lisbon alone, but he offered the churches of Santarem to the Templars and promised that if by chance God helped him recapture Lisbon, he would station them in the city.116 The leaders of the expedition went with the bishops to make a deal with the king. On June 29 Affonso arrived with his army, and almost everyone, rich or poor, went to meet him. He asked the Crusaders to choose men to negotiate the conditions of an agreement. Affonso promised them that although his harassment by the Muslims had depleted his resources, he would enrich them with gifts to convince them to remain with him at the siege of Lisbon. He assured them that whatever his land had, they could regard as delivered to them. But he urged them to aid him against the Muslims because of their better nature rather than their desire for money. The Flemish seemed to agree with the king, but the men of Southampton and Hastings, led by Willemus and Radulfus, together with those who had taken part in the siege of Lisbon five years earlier, accused him of treachery. They thought it more profitable to leave and harass Muslim shipping between Spain and Africa, and then move on against Jerusalem. But at the last moment, Hervey de Glanville saved the situation with an eloquent speech that persuaded the dissidents to stay.117 The Crusaders’ representatives met with the king and concluded an agreement. The king agreed to cede the spoils to the Crusaders who aided him in the siege. On capturing the city, they could hold it until they had finished ransacking it; they could also keep the captives for ransom and receive any money paid for them. But when all this was done, they were to hand the city over to him. Afterwards the city and the subjugated lands would be divided among them, according to their respective ranks, with the king reserving the power of an “advocate.” The king also agreed to free the Crusaders who stood with him at the siege of Lisbon and their heirs in perpetuity from the commercial tax (pedatica). Finally, he swore that he would not withdraw from the Crusaders except in case of mortal sickness, or if the Muslims should attack his territory from elsewhere. To confirm the agree116 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 234; Livermore, A History of Portugal, 73– 74; A. H. De Oliveira Marques, History of Portugal, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972): 63; Bernard F. Reilly, The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain, 1031–1157 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), 212. 117 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 100–111, reproduces Hervey de Glanville’s speech.

604

THE CRUSADES

ment, twenty sure hostages, including both bishops and laymen, were given by the king on pledge and oath. The Crusaders likewise took an oath and gave twenty hostages.118 Helmold of Bosau says, “ . . . the king of Galacia asked the crusaders to give him the unoccupied city. As allies they had first divided the booty among them.”119 The council decided to delegate the archbishop of Braga, the bishop of Oporto, and a few other men to the Muslims to ask them to surrender Lisbon. Approaching the city, they found its alcayde (Arabic al-Qa’id, ‘commander’ or ‘governor’) standing at the wall with an elder, possibly a Mozarab or a chief Muslim cleric. The archbishop of Braga said, “We demand that the see of this city be under our law, and that these men go back unbidden to the land of the Moors whence they came from, taking with them their goods, women and children. You Moors and Moabites fraudulently seized the realm of Lusitania from your king and ours . . . You are holding our cities and landed possessions unjustly—and for three hundred and fifty years you have so held them—which before that were held by Christians.” He warned the Muslims of Lisbon to consider their safety while there was time, “for it is an old adage that the gladiator decides in the arena.”120 The Muslims’ response was negative. One of their elders told the archbishop that they (the Christians) had already determined to take the city. But he could not wonder enough about them, for “while a single forest or district suffices for many elephants and lions, neither the land nor the sea is enough for you. Verily, it is not the want of possessions but ambition of the mind which drives you on.”121 He further accused them of interfering with their destiny, saying they labeled their ambition “zeal for righteousness” and misrepresented vices as virtues. He added that the Muslims had not yet decided whether to hand the city over to the Christians unconditionally. While once the city was theirs, he said, now it belonged to the Muslims, and if God so willed, they would keep it. In brief, the Muslims were defiant and refused to surrender Lisbon to the Christians under any circumstances. There was no choice but to invest the city.122 Lord Saher of Archelle and the other leaders met in council with King Affonso Henriques, and the decision was made to attack the city the next 118 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 111–115; Brundage, The Crusades, 99–100; Livermore, History of Portugal, 77. 119 Helmold, 175. 120 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 115–119. 121 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 121. 122 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 125.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

605

day, July 1. The Crusaders’ forces assembled in a Muslim cemetery and were drawn up in battle array. The Muslims initiated the fighting but suffered heavy losses. The Christians drove them back to the city gates and took control of the suburbs. On the morning of July 2, the Muslims attempted to drive the Christians back but were shut in by the king’s guard and the Christians’ allies. The Normans and the English arranged for 500 men (from a total force of 4,000) to stand guard each night, so that after eight nights the rotation would begin again with the first watch. They also stationed eight small boats with armed men in the river to monitor the city. But the Muslims, having the advantage of being inside the city, continued to make repeated sorties and resorted to subtle and abusive tactics to break down the Christians’ morale. They jeered that while they were away from home, their wives would cheat on them. They would not even care whether they returned home, since they would have numerous bastard children born in their absence. They continually mocked the Christians, warning them that even if they survived, they would return home in poverty and misery.123 Furthermore, the Muslims constantly attacked the blessed Mary (the Lord’s mother) with abuses and insults, saying it was unworthy for the son of a poor woman to be venerated as God himself. They maintained that there was only one God, who has no partners to share in his divinity. Because God is omnipotent, it would be unworthy and unexplainable for him to be confined to human form; to believe this, said the Muslims, was nothing less than madness and contrary to their salvation. Denigrating Christianity completely, the Muslims displayed the symbol of the cross before the Crusaders with mockery. They spat upon it and wiped the filth from their posteriors with it, then urinated upon it as a vile object and hurled it at the Christians.124 Their shameful actions pointed up the sharp and irreconcilable conflict between Islam and Christianity. When the Crusaders had been at the siege of Lisbon for a fortnight, the men of Cologne and the Flemings began building war-engines, including a sow, a ram, and a moving tower, while the rest of the army built a movable tower ninety-five feet high. The Muslims also built towers; the men of Cologne and the Flemings shattered them with five mangonels, but the Muslims tenaciously fought back, destroying and burning one tower and inflicting heavy losses on the Christians. The besiegers’ morale was becom123

De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 129–131; Matthew Bennett, “Military Aspects,”

124

De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 131–133.

79.

606

THE CRUSADES

ing low, and they began to complain. One night, however, a Muslim skiff with ten men on board tried to slip away toward the castle of Palmela. When they were pursued, the men aboard it fled. They left behind letters addressed to Abu Muhammad Sidrey ibn Wazir, the lord of Évora and Beja, asking for immediate help. Some days later the Christians found the body of a Muslim carrying Sidrey ibn Wazir’s reply; he was on peaceful terms with King Affonso Henriques and could offer no assistance. This reply boosted the Crusaders’ morale and exposed the weakness and desperation of the Muslims in Lisbon.125 The Muslims’ plight was intensified by lack of supplies and hunger, which caused the poor to desert. Still, their armed men continued to resist. The fighting continued in October without victory on either side. But on October 21, a breakthrough finally appeared. The Crusaders, who had been mining the walls for several weeks, finally finished building a bridge on the river and prepared to enter the city. The Muslims rushed to defend the wall at the point that was threatened. But they perceived that the Crusaders were now in a strong enough position to seize the city. They also realized that they would be defeated, and if the city were captured, their lives would not be spared. In their anguish, they cried out with a loud voice and put down their arms. King Affonso’s general Fernando Captivo and Hervey de Glanville were chosen to meet with the Muslim leaders. A truce was granted, five hostages were received as a guarantee, and fighting was suspended. On the morning of October 22, the men of Cologne and the Flemings went to the king’s camp to determine what “those crafty fellows” (Captivo and de Glanville) had gained from this truce. When questioned, they said that they were in favor of handing the city over to the king and delivering the gold, silver, and all other property of the Muslim citizens into the Crusaders’ hands.126 But when the hostages were handed over to King Affonso rather than to themselves, the Crusaders thought the king had betrayed them. They were inflamed with anger against both Fernando Captivo and Hervey de Glanville.127 The situation was made worse when a certain renegade priest from Bristol, a man of very low morals who afterwards was arrested among thieves, incited the Crusaders against Hervey de Glanville, saying he had handed the hostages to the king. Although Glanville was ab-

125

De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 137. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 165–167. 127 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 165; Livermore, History of Portugal, 79. 126

THE SECOND CRUSADE

607

sent, many disgruntled men shouted, “Away with the wretch, let him be punished!”128 Seeing the uproar, the Muslim hostages resorted to dissimulation and tried to change the terms of the commitment they had made. The situation was saved when a council was held and the Muslim hostages agreed that if their alcayde and his son-in-law could retain their property and all the Muslims in Lisbon received their food, the city would surrender completely to the Christians; otherwise, the only option was to continue the struggle. The Normans and the English, feeling burdened by the war and tired of the conflict, agreed to the Muslims’ concession. But the men of Cologne and the Flemings determined that nothing should be left to the enemy. After some deliberation, they were convinced to concede only that the alcayde should be given food and all his property, and his Arabian mare should be given to the count of Aerschot, who had greatly coveted it. But the next day, October 23, the English and the Flemings attempted to enter the city at the point of the sword. They even rushed to the camp to snatch the hostages from the king and kill them. There was a great rift between the king’s forces and the Crusaders, with the prospect of armed combat. But tranquility was finally restored when the leaders of the Crusaders swore their fealty to King Affonso as long as they remained in his country. When this matter was settled, the surrender terms the Muslims had insisted on the day before were conceded.129 According to the Lisbon Letter, the alcayde agreed to the terms of the settlement: the Crusaders would get all the Muslim citizens’ possessions, including gold and silver, and the king would keep the city with the despoiled Muslims.130 It was also decided that 140 men from the English force and 160 Germans and Flemings should enter the city peaceably before everyone else and occupy the upper castle, to let the Muslims bring their money and possessions acknowledged under oath. If Muslims concealed their possessions, their houses would be searched, and those found to have concealed anything of value faced having their heads cut off. After the city had been completely ransacked, the Muslim population should leave. The city gates were opened. But the men of Cologne and the Flemings, contriving deception by a clever argument, obtained the consent of the other forces that sought the honor of entering the city first. Over two hundred of De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 169. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 175. 130 Edgington, “Albert of Aachen,” 65. 128 129

608

THE CRUSADES

them slipped into the city, mingling with the men who had already been chosen to enter, and with some whom they let in through a breach in the wall, which was open on their side. But none of the English forces presumed to enter, except for those who already had been designated.131 Thus on October 24, 1147, the city of Lisbon surrendered, ending a seventeen-week siege. The archbishop and his fellow bishops led the way, with a banner bearing the sign of the cross. The king and the Christian leaders followed and entered the city with tears of joy, honoring God and the Virgin Mary. Meanwhile, King Affonso Henriques made the circuit of the walls of the upper castle on foot.132 The Crusaders also occupied the fortress of Sintra to the west and Palmela, south of the Tagus River. Unfortunately, tempted by greed, the men of Cologne and the Flemings resorted to pillage. They went about breaking house-doors and violating the most private areas of every house. Violating right and justice, they insulted the Muslim citizens of Lisbon and drove them out. They snatched away everything that ought to be common property. They brutally butchered the city’s aged Mozarab bishop, cutting his throat. The count of Aerschot seized the alcayde’s mare with his hands and held onto her so tightly that, because of an emission of blood, she lost her foal. The alcayde condemned the abominations committed by the men of Cologne and the Flemings, while the Normans and the English washed their hands of such rapine. The despoiling of the city continued from Saturday morning, October 25, to Wednesday, October 29. When the looting ended, the organization of the city began. Pedro Viegas was named governor of Lisbon.133 Gilbert of Hastings was chosen by the crusading force as bishop of the city, with the assent of the king and the clergy and was consecrated by Bishop John of Braga. On November 1, 1147, All Saints’ Day, the temple was purified by the archbishop and his four fellow bishops, to the glory of and honor of the name of Christ and His most holy Mother, and the episcopal jurisdiction of the see of Lisbon was extended to cover the towns and villages from Alcácer to Leiria, and from the western sea to the city of Êvora.134 Says the author of De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, “God has delivered the enemies of the cross into our hands De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 175. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 173–175; Livermore, History of Portugal, 80; Bennett, “Military Aspects,” 83–84. 133 Livermore, History of Portugal, 80. 134 De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 179–181. 131 132

THE SECOND CRUSADE

609

. . . and divine vengeance has pressed upon them such severity that we see the city in ruins and the castles overthrown, the fields depopulated, and the land reduced to solitude with no inhabitants.” Yet, he reasons, this is God’s judgment upon sinful people, not only the Muslims, for it could also be inflicted on sinful Christians.135 Some Muslims and Mozarabs remained in Lisbon. Most enjoyed relative freedom and continued to practice their laws and customs, but some were enslaved. Many of the Muslims who left went to Alcácer, which marked the border of the Muslim territory. 136 With their task done, some Crusaders wintered in Lisbon until February 1, 1148, and then journeyed to the Holy Land. Others chose to remain perpetually in Lisbon, enjoying the privileges, especially land ownership, bestowed upon them by the king.137

THE CONQUEST OF ALMERIA Early in 1146 Alfonso VII, king of Castile and Léon (1126–1157) was engaged in war and then in negotiating peace with the Andalusian Muslim lords. Meanwhile, a Genoese fleet commanded by Caffaro (Cafarus) and his colleague Obertus Turris landed at Fornells, a port on the northeastern coast of the island of Minorca, then held by Almoravids. The Genoese disembarked and for four days pillaged the island, taking many captives, then moved southwards to pillage Maó, the main port of Minorca.138 Then they moved onto the Spanish mainland to Almeria, an important port of call for them as the busiest maritime commercial center of Muslim Spain, then in the Almoravids’ hands.139 They looted the ships anchored in the harbor and De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, 183–185. Livermore, History of Portugal, 81. 137 Edgington, “Albert of Aachen,” Appendix, 67; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 590, says those who journeyed to the Holy Land hoped to have similar success. 138 Caffaro, Annali Genovese di Caffaro e de’soui continuatori, ed. L. T. Belgrano, 1 (Genoa, 1890): 33–34; John Bryan Williams, “The Making of a Crusade: The Genoese anti-Muslim Attacks in Spain, 1146–1148,” Journal of Medieval History 22 (1997): 31. 139 On the importance of Almeria, see O. R. Constable, Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial Re-Alignment of the Iberian Peninsula, 900–1500 (Cambridge, 1994), 18–19; Blanca Gari, “Why Almeria?An Islamic Port in the Compass of Genoa,” Journal of Medieval History 18 (1992): 211–23; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” esp. 215–217. 135 136

610

THE CRUSADES

laid siege to the city. Terrified, the citizens of Almeria agreed to pay the Genoese an indemnity of 113,000 gold morabetinos (a Muslim Andalusian coin); 25,000 was to be paid immediately, and the rest within eight days. When the Almoravid governor of the city, Ibn al-Ramimi, refused to pay the balance, the Genoese renewed the siege but the approach of winter forced them to abandon the city. Caffaro says that the fleet returned to Genoa in triumph, with large amounts of money.140 In late September 1146, while the Genoese were still besieging Almeria, they sent a delegation to Alfonso VII, who was besieging Cordoba, proposing a joint attack on Almeria the following summer.141 Alfonso saw this as his great opportunity to capture these two cities and reduce the power of the Muslim lords. He accepted the offer and sent an envoy, the bishop of Astorga, to ask Count Ramon Berenger IV of Barcelona, King Garcia Ramirez of Navarre, and William VI of Montpellier to join his army “for the redemption of their souls.”142 Meanwhile, the bishops of Toledo and Leon summoned the faithful to battle and promised them rewards in both lives—absolution of sins, and gifts of silver, heavenly crowns, and whatever gold the Moors had. So the trumpets of salvation sounded through the regions of the world, and Spanish and French soldiers gathered under the Emperor Alfonso, described as the New Charlemagne.143 The Genoese and the Pisans had already developed a thriving trade in the western Mediterranean, but it was threatened by Muslim pirates from Spain. Thus, it was to the benefit of the Genoese to join forces with Alfonso VII to combat the Muslims’ piracy. 144 It was agreed that Alfonso would pay the Genoese 20,000 morabetinos (30,000, according to Caffaro) within thirty-one days, with another 10,000 to be paid the next Easter. He also agreed to give the Genoese one-third of the city if the attack was successful, and to let them maintain their own factories, markets, churches, warehouses, baths, and ovens there. Finally, it was stipulated that the Genoese should be granted safe conduct throughout Alfonso’s kingdom and Caffaro, Annali, 1: 33–35; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 32. Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris: Chronica Hispana Saeculi XII, ed. E. Falque, J. Gill and A. Maya, in Corpus Christianorum Medievalis, 1 (Turnhout, 1990): 246–247; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 32–33; Constable, Trade and Traders, 235. 142 Chronica Adefonsi, 247; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 32; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 229, 233. 143 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 229. 144 O’Callaghan, History, 231. On the relations of the Genoese with Almeria, see Gari, “Why Almeria?,” 211–231. 140 141

THE SECOND CRUSADE

611

be exempted from port taxes.145 The fulfillment of this agreement was made contingent on reaching a similar agreement with Barcelona. Shortly afterwards the Genoese made a similar agreement with Barcelona, in which they pledged that after capturing Almeria they would support Alfonso in laying siege to Tortosa, on the lower Ebro River. The latter agreement contained no pledge of money but reiterated the privileges granted to the Genoese in the agreement with Alfonso VII. The Genoese were to be ready in May 1147.146 According to Caffaro’s account of the capture of Almeria and Tortosa, in early 1147 Pope Eugenius III permitted the Genoese to participate in the expedition in Spain. Since the Saracens of Almeria had for a long time captured, imprisoned, and killed Christians, some of whom out of fear abandoned God’s laws and invoked the diabolical name of Muhammad, says Caffaro, “God did not fail to exact vengeance for such a great shedding of blood; for the Genoese, warned and called by God through the Apostolic See, swore to lead an army against the Saracens of Almeria.”147 While Caffaro says unequivocally that Pope Eugenius III and his Curia backed the Genoese expedition against Almeria, other writers say there is only slender evidence that the Apostolic See in 1146–1147 was in contact with Alfonso VII or that the pope was informed about his plans. Thus, it is not clear that the pope’s efforts were focused on the Spanish phase of the Crusade.148 It was not until he issued his second bull Divina Dispositione on April 13, 1147, that he spoke of preparations for the attack on the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula.149 In that month he wrote to Alfonso VII that he was glad to Caffaro, Annali, 33–34; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 32. For these agreements see Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 227, n. 73, 9: 229; Rudolf Hiestand, “Reconquista, Kreuzzug und heiliges Grab: Die Eroberung von Tortosa 1148 im Lichte eines neuen Zeugnisses,” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spanien 31 (1984): 155–157; Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 33, n. 16; Reilly, The Contest of Christendom and Muslim Spain 1031–1157, 93–94. 147 Caffaro, Ystoria captionis Almarie et Turtuose, in Belgrano, ed., Annali Genovese, 1: 79, trans. John Bryan Williams in “The Making of a Crusade,” 48; see Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ed., Caffaro, De Captione Almeria et Tortuose (Valencia, 1973); Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 227, n. 73. Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 48–53 (Appendix 1), provides a translation. 148 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 258; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 476. 149 Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 180: 1203–1204; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 479; Reilly, Contest of Christendom, 95; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 255–256, says the first bull Divina Dispositione was issued on October 5, 1146 to the clergy of 145 146

612

THE CRUSADES

grant his request to conduct an expedition against the tyranny of the infidels.150 Alfonso’s force left Toledo in May 1147 and reached Calatrava, probably on June 4, and in mid-July continued its march to Almeria. Along the way it forced the towns of Baeza and Ubeda to surrender. In midAugust, Alfonso was apparently joined by the force of King Garcia Ramirez of Navarre, with some 50 men-at-arms and 250 foot soldiers. The Genoese arrived at Capo de Cata (Cape Cato) on the Gulf of Almeria, only to find that Alfonso had not yet arrived. They waited there a month, anxious to press ahead because they were close to Almeria. Because their anchorage was exposed, they sent one of their leaders, Otto de Bonovillano, to Baeza to seek Alfonso’s protection. 151 But Alfonso had already dismissed the bulk of his army and had only 400 knights and 1,000 foot soldiers. When informed that the Genoese had arrived, he regretted having dismissed his army. He promised to come, but evidently he took his time. On August 19, 1147, Alfonso departed Baeza with 2,000 men and 400 horses. By September 1 he reached the coast. There he was joined by a Genoese force estimated at 63 galleys and 163 smaller vessels. 152 As late as August 5, Ramon Berenger IV, count of Barcelona, had arrived with a fleet carrying 53 knights and their horses.153 Count William VI of Montpelier reportedly came with two of his sons and forty knights; other fighting men from France joined his force.154 The combined troops of these two leaders must have numbered 600 to 700 men, and the entire attacking force is estimated at 15,000.155 The Christian forces besieged Almeria vigorously for seven weeks. Day and night, the Saracens emerged to attack the Christian army but were driven back into the city. The Genoese positioned their siege towers, took two of the city’s towers, and destroyed eighteen feet of the wall. Frightened, the Muslims met secretly with two legates of Alfonso VII, the Count of Italy. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, 180: 1345–1346; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 258; Carl Erdmann, “Der Kreuszzugsgedanke in Portugal,” Historische Zeitschrift 141 (1929–1930): 23–53, esp. 32. 151 Reilly, 98. 152 Caffaro, Ystoria, in Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 49; Arteta, ed., De Captione Almeria et Tortuose, 21–29; Reilly, 98–99. 153 Caffaro, Ystoria, in Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 49. 154 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 233, n. 105. 155 Reilly, 99. 150

THE SECOND CRUSADE

613

Urgel and King Garcia Ramirez of Navarre. On October 16, 1147, says Caffaro, they pledged 1,100 morabetinos to Alfonso if he would withdraw and abandon the Genoese. When the Genoese leaders heard this, they decided to take the city themselves.156 The next day, they arrayed their forces in twelve companies, each with 100 armed men and its own battle-flag. The Genoese leaders appeared before Alfonso and Count Ramon Berenger and beseeched them to order their men into battle. Alfonso agreed and went out to find that the Genoese troops were already in the field. Meanwhile, negotiations between the Castilians (represented by the Count of Urgel and King Garcia of Navarre) and the Muslims of Almeria were going on, but evidently without success. On October 17 the Christian troops stormed Almeria and took the citadel.157 Caffaro says they entered the city without battle cries and captured it, including the citadel. He adds that the Genoese swords spilled a great amount of Saracen blood; 20,000 Muslims were killed (10,000 in the devastated part of the city) and another 20,000 (more likely half that number) in the citadel. In addition, 10,000 women and children were taken captive. Within four days the Muslims surrendered their troops and the citadel and gave the Genoese 300,000 morabetinos to release the prisoners. The Genoese leaders held out 60,000 morabetinos to pay for the debt owed to Genoa, which amounted to 17,000 Genoese pounds. The rest they divided between their galleys and other ships. They left Otto de Bonovillano and 1,000 men to guard the city. Two other leaders, Obertus Turris and Ansaldus de Auria, sailed to Genoa and with the money they had acquired paid the debt to Genoa and built a new consulate in the city.158 The military activity of Alfonso VII after this point seems to be obscure. Recently Simon Barton has pointed out that, far from being inactive, Alfonso VII in the summer of 1148 conducted a campaign against the city of Jaén in the south. He does not cite any decisive result of this campaign, but he maintains that Caffaro, Ystoria, in Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 49–50. Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 35, n. 29. 158 Caffaro, Ystoria, in Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 50–51. On the capture of Almeria, see Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tilmisani al-Maqqari, Nafh al-Tib min Ghusn al-Andalus al-Ratib wa Dhikr Wazirihi Lisan al-Din Ibn al-Khatib, ed. Ihsan Abbas, 4 (Beirut: Dar Sadir,1968): 462; Forester, ed., The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, 286; O’Callaghan, History, 231, says the city was garrisoned by the Emperor (Alfonso VII); Reilly, 100; Peter Rassow, “Die Urkunden Kaiser Alfons’ VII. von Spanien,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10, No. 3 (1928): 362, lists the dates of the actions of Alfonso VII, based on the imperial archives in Madrid. 156 157

614

THE CRUSADES

although its details are still obscure, “like the campaigns to conquer Almeria, Lisbon, and Tortosa, it should be viewed in the context of a general offensive backed by the papacy to destroy the power of Islam in the peninsula.”159

THE CONQUEST OF TORTOSA After leaving Almeria, the Genoese brought their whole army to Barcelona. They hauled their galleys and boats up on land. Although they had been separated from their families for a whole year, they spent the winter there for the honor of God and the city of Genoa, waiting to march against Tortosa the next summer. They sent messages to Genoa, asking for reinforcements and weapons. On June 29, 1148, they moved against Tortosa; on July 1 they entered the Ebro River (Caffaro calls it the Tortosa) with the entire fleet. When they were two miles from the city, they halted and met with Count Ramon Berenger IV of Barcelona and his knights. Caffaro reports that some Genoese who had been chosen to carry their flag went with some of Count Ramon’s knights to scout the city’s neighborhoods and determine where and how to deploy their soldiers. They decided that half of the Genoese soldiers should be stationed by the river, along with some knights serving Ramon Berenger and William of Montpellier. The rest of the soldiers should pitch their tents on the top of a mountain which Caffaro calls Mount Magnara. English knights, along with Templars and many other foreign knights, camped up the river.160 On returning from Almeria, Ramon Berenger IV apparently turned his attention to the capture of Tortosa, on the mouth of the Ebro River. His desire to recapture Tortosa was not new. Since 1113–1116, the counts of Barcelona had tried to recapture the city with the support of the Holy See. Realizing that the Catalan navy was too weak to take Tortosa by force, Ramon Berenger III in 1116 negotiated unsuccessfully with Genoa and Pisa 159 Simon Barton, “A Forgotten Crusade: Alfonso VII of Léon-Castile and the Campaign of Jaén (1148),” Historical Research 73, No. 182 (2000): 312–320, esp. 319–320. 160 Caffaro, Ystoria, in Williams, “Making of a Crusade,” 52. As in the capture of Almeria, Caffaro gives his fellow Genoese great credit at the expense of others, especially Ramon Berenger IV. But there is much more to the capture of Tortosa than he has related.

THE SECOND CRUSADE

615

for an attack against the city. Still, the intention of the count and the church was to liberate the whole Ebro Valley from the Muslim presence. This task fell to Ramon Berenger IV.161 Ramon had actively supported Alfonso in capturing Almeria, but Tortosa was of special significance. Because it was in his homeland, Catalonia, he felt it had to be restored to the Christians. The capture of Tortosa was even more urgent because by 1147, Ramon Berenger was also regent of Aragon; thus, both Aragon and the great part of Catalonia were under his leadership.162 The city had been an important economic and military center before it fell to the Moors in the eighth-century. Since the time of Louis the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne (814840), Tortosa had resisted attacks by the Christians. To the Muslims, the maritime towns of the Ebro valley, including Tortosa, were a stronghold of border towns (thughur) protecting their hinterland. For the Christians, recapturing these maritime towns was essential to the restoration of their country. The campaign to retake Tortosa received a great spiritual boost from Pope Eugenius III, who in a bull issued on June 22, 1147, urged the Christians to assist Ramon Berenger in taking by storm the infidels and enemies of the Cross of Christ.163 On July 1, 1148, the joint forces of Count Ramon Berenger IV of Barcelona, Count Armengol of Urgel, Count William VI of Montpellier, Count Bertrán of Toulouse, the viscounts of Béarn and of Narbonne, the Templars and Hospitallers, Englishmen (probably part of an Anglo-Flemish group en route to the Holy Land which had also joined the campaign against Almeria) and many other foreigners, and a Genoese sea force (which had spent the winter in Barcelona) arrived at Tortosa and laid siege to it.164 The Muslims of Tortosa fought the Christians vigorously and killed many of them, but also lost many of their own. Tortosa was well fortified, but its strong walls and citadel could not withstand the formidable Christian forces. The Christians moved their siege towers into position; one of these towers made its way into the city, and as Caffaro says with no little

Nicolas Jaspert, “Capta est Dertosa, Clavis Christianorum: Tortosa and the Crusades,” in Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade, 92–95. 162 Jaspert, “Capta est Dertosa,” 94–95. 163 Jaspert, “Capta est Dertosa,” 94–95. 164 Caffaro, Ystoria, 52; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 227, n. 73, and 233; Constable, “A Note On The Route Of The Anglo-Flemish Crusaders of 1147,” Speculum 27 (1953): 526; Hiestand, “Reconquista, Kreuzzug und heiliges Grab,” 156–157; Reilly, 103; Jaspert, “Capta est Dertosa,” 95. 161

616

THE CRUSADES

exaggeration, “the Genoese soldiers, the bravest soldiers of God, began to break down the walls.”165 To facilitate the city’s capture, the Genoese dug a trench beside the citadel and filled it with timber, rocks, and dirt. Although many thought the ditch was useless, the Genoese moved onto it a siege tower with 300 men. The Muslims began to throw 200-pound rocks and broke off the corner of the tower, which the Genoese immediately repaired. Meanwhile, many of Ramon Berenger’s forces deserted because they had not been paid, and Berenger was left with only 20 knights. With enthusiastic adulation of the Genoese, Caffaro says that those brave men who had tasted victory at Almeria assembled and swore they would not retreat from Tortosa until they had captured it.166 The Christians continued to fight day and night and battered the walls of the citadel, the palace, and the houses with rocks thrown by artillery. Terrified, the Muslim inhabitants sent messages offering to surrender the city to Ramon Berenger and to the Genoese, on the condition that there be a forty-day cease-fire, and offered as security 100 Muslims of noble birth as hostages. Hoping to receive aid from the Muslims of Valencia during the forty-day truce, the Muslims promised to surrender if no outside help came. The Christians agreed, but no help came. Valencia was too weak to offer aid. The Muslims of Tortosa had no choice but to surrender. They raised the flags of Ramon Berenger IV and the Genoese in the citadel. Without further delay, after six months of siege the city of Tortosa surrendered to Berenger and the Genoese on December 30-31, 1148.167 Tortosa’s Muslims were granted freedom of worship and the right to retain their officials and property, but the houses in the heart of the city, still in Muslim hands, were to surrender within a year.168 With this issue settled, Berenger offered a third of the city to the Genoese, who would also have their own officials, churches, baths, and markets. One-fifth was given to the Templars, perhaps to fulfill a grant Berenger had made to them in 1143. A little less than one-fifth was given to his seneschal, Guillem (William) Ramon de Montcada.169 According to Caffaro, when Tortosa was captured, Caffaro, Ystoria, 52. Caffaro, Ystoria, 52. 167 Caffaro, Ystoria, 52–53; O’Callaghan, History, 232; Reilly, 103; Jaspert, “Capta est Dertosa,” 97. 168 Reilly, 103. 169 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 231, n. 99, and Reilly, 193, differ somewhat regarding the apportionment of Tortosa. 165 166

THE SECOND CRUSADE

617

the Genoese took one-third of the city, and Berenger two-thirds. The Genoese army returned home in the following year (1149).170 Having finished with Tortosa, Ramon Berenger IV marched against Lérida, Fraga, and Mequinenza, three cities in the Ebro valley, all of which surrendered on October 24, 1149. The reconquest of the Ebro valley, begun by King Alfonso I (1104–1134), of Aragon and Navarre, had now been accomplished, making it a Christian domain.171 But while the Christians were achieving complete success in Spain and Portugal, the expedition to the East, led by Kings Conrad III of Germany and Louis VII of France, was an abysmal failure, as we shall see presently.

170 171

Caffaro, Ystoria, 53. Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 231–232; O’Callaghan, History, 233.

17 THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST OF KINGS CONRAD III AND LOUIS VII: FAILURE AND CONSEQUENCES The expedition of Kings Conrad III and Louis VII was larger than the campaigns against the Slavs and against the Muslims of Spain and Portugal. Measured by the number of its fighting men and the amount of equipment, it was even larger than the First Crusade. The two kings were determined to march against the Muslims of the East, avenge the loss of Edessa, and prevent the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Holy City itself, Christendom’s most cherished symbol, from falling into the Muslims’ hands. Never had two such powerful monarchs combined their efforts to accomplish such a task. Once they had taken the cross and made preparations, they set off for the East. The German army went first, followed within a month by the French army. The Byzantine chronicler John Kinnamos (called Cinnamus by English writers) speculates that each of these armies boasted of being more battleworthy, but they may simply have hoped to conserve the food supply by marching separately.1 The German army was heterogeneous, including a large number of Italians and men drawn from various German states.2 It included bishops, prominent citizens, and even women. The women, says the Greek chronicler Niketas Choniates, rode not in the manWilhelm Bernhardi, Konrad III (Berlin: Duncker and Humboldt, 1975), 598, says the size of these armies has been exaggerated, with estimates ranging from 75,000 to 1,600,000. John Kinnamos (Cinnamus), Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 60, sets the number at 900,000. See William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 165. 2 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. and trans. Stubbs as Chronicle of the Reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 2 (Wiesbaden, Kraus, 1964), 65. 1

619

620

THE CRUSADES

ner of women but unashamedly astride horses. They wore masculine garb and carried lances and weapons just like men.3 After celebrating Easter at Bamberg, in mid-May 1147 King Conrad led his troops in battle array, moving to Regensburg by way of Nuremberg. On May 29 the German army reached Ardacker (Arddadger) and pitched camp. Conrad waited a few days for other forces to arrive, then proceeded almost to the farthest border of his realm and halted not far from the Fischa River. After celebrating Whitsunday, some of his forces sailed down the Danube, entered Hungarian territory in mid-June, and on July 20 reached Branits, on the Bulgarian border; others marched south of the Danube and, after suffering some losses, united with the other force at Branits.4 The German army’s arrival in his territory alarmed King Géza II of Hungary (1141–1162), who had defeated Henry II (“Jasomirgott”), duke of Bavaria, at the Leitha River in 1146 and thus was considered the enemy of the Germans.5 He feared that Conrad might help Boris, a pretender to the throne of Hungary, to usurp his power. Conrad, however, was not interested in dabbling in the internal affairs of Hungary. His goal was to reach Constantinople and then the Holy Land. After some negotiation, Conrad succeeded in exacting a large payment from Géza for his noninterference.6 Conrad and Louis were aware that once they were on Byzantine territory they had to deal with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180), since they had to pass through his country. They had also to deal with the Turks, with whom Manuel had periods of war and peace. Like Alexius Comnenus in the First Crusade, Manuel was not sure of the sincerity of the two kings toward him and his empire. Before the Germans entered Bulgarian territory he was alarmed, thinking the Germans might put an end to his rule. Like Alexius, Manuel expected Conrad III and Louis VII to swear fealty to him and become his vassals, and to hand over to him any 3 Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magouilas as O City of Byzantium (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 35. 4 Otto of Freising, Gesta Frederici I imperatoris, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow as The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, 79; Bernhard Kugler, Studien Zur Geschichte Des Zweiten Kreuzzuges (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1973), 111–113; Virginia G. Berry, “The Second Crusade,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed., 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 483–484. 5 Otto of Freising, 68–69. 6 Odo of Deuil, De Perfectione Ludovici VII in Orientem, trans. Virginia Gingerick Berry (New York: W. W. Norton, 1948), 35–37; Kugler, Studien, 112–113; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 483–484.

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

621

territory they captured in Asia Minor.7 Manuel was also apprehensive about recent developments in Antioch, whose lord, Raymond of Poitiers, had agreed to become the vassal of Manuel’s father, Emperor John II Comnenus (1118–1143), at Constantinople in September 1137. Manuel was unsure whether Raymond would have the same relationship with him, for his close family ties with Louis VII made it unlikely that he would support the Byzantine state.8 Clearly, Raymond intended to use the Second Crusade to protect his principality. But Manuel’s hands were already full. From 1144 to 1146 he had fought Mas’ud (ruled 1116–1156), the son of Kilij Arslan; he defeated him and burned some of his towns, but did not make peace with him. Frightened by the advancing German army, he rushed to conclude a treaty of alliance with Mas’ud. This action made no sense; he had already written to King Louis VII of France that although the Byzantines had been by turns at peace or war with the Seljuk Turks, the capture of Edessa meant they could no longer hope for peace with the Turks. Moreover, it was illogical because Manuel had already defeated Mas’ud. Clearly, Manuel was determined to retake Edessa himself.9 Although Manuel’s attitude must have infuriated the Crusaders, he tried to strengthen his alliance with the Germans. After all, he was bound by family ties to Conrad, since he had married Conrad’s sister-in-law Bertha of Sulzbach (renamed Irene).10 He hoped that Conrad would help him contain the ambitious Norman King Roger II of Sicily, who had already dispatched a fleet which attacked Greece and reached as far as Corfu. The Normans took Corinth by storm, plundered Thebes, and attacked Athens.11 Finally, Manuel apparently thought a G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1957), 339; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallender, 1936), 2: 227–228. 8 Robert L. Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States, 1118–1144,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 439; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 158–160; Ostrogorsky, History, 338–339. 9 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 28, nn. 18–19; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 2: 264–266; Berry, The Second Crusade, 490; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 638; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 275–276. 10 Otto of Freising, 54; Niketas, O City, 32. 11 Otto of Freising, 69; Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower It7

622

THE CRUSADES

successful Crusade would offer strength to the Latin principalities in the East, especially the principality of Antioch, whose lord Raymond of Poitiers was his enemy.12 For these reasons Manuel dispatched two emissaries, Demitrius Macrembolites and Alexander of Gravina, to ask Conrad about his true intentions. The emperor, they said, was willing to help the Crusaders traverse his domain and would supply them with provisions and markets. All they had to do was to swear solemn oaths that their passage would truly be Godloving and peaceful. Conrad and his nobles took the oath and assured the delegates that their intention was not to fight their fellow Christians but to march to the East and fight the Muslims.13 Having given this assurance, Conrad’s army crossed into Bulgarian territory around July 20. At Nish, Michael Branas, the Bulgarian provincial governor, provided the Germans with food and necessities. When they reached Sardika (Sofia), two Byzantine aristocrats, Michael Palaiologos and another whose name is not known, welcomed them and gave them necessities.14 To this point the Germans had made no trouble. They advanced peacefully and did nothing contrary to the Byzantines’ interest. But their difficult passage through a rugged mountainous area exhausted their supplies. When they finally reached the rich plains around Phillippopolis, they began to plunder and even forced the locals to move supplies to their camp. Kinnamos says Conrad was entirely unaware of what was happening; he either paid no attention to the accusers or ascribed the reports of maltreatment to the folly of the multitude.15 But Niketas says that Michael Atalikos, the bishop of the province, protested to Conrad about the misdeeds of his men, and that Conrad cruelly mistreated those who brought in grain from various sources and refused to pay them in silver.16 On hearing of these disturbances, Emperor Manuel I sent an army commanded by Prosouch, a Turk by birth but raised as a Greek, who followed the Germans at a distance but did not confront them until they got to Adrianople (Edirne). A distinguished kinsman of Conrad who had fallen ill was housed at a monasaly (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1912), 227. 12 Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 338–339; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 486. 13 Niketas, O City, 36; Helmold, 172–173; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 260; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 484. 14 Kinnamos, Deeds, 60–61. 15 Kinnamos, Deeds, 61. 16 Niketas, O City, 37.

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

623

tery there with his money and possessions. Some ruffian Greeks attacked him, stole his possessions, and set his quarters on fire. Conrad’s nephew Frederick (Barbarossa), who was camped some distance away, returned to Adrianople, burned the monastery where the German was lodged, and captured and killed some men. Prosouch drove Frederick back, but avoided open conflict with the Germans. Eventually, he and the Germans settled the situation and peace was restored.17 Apprehensive about Conrad’s intent, Manuel fortified his capital and sent Andronicus Opos to remind the Germans of the oath they had taken not to harm his kingdom and advise them to cross to Asia Minor at the ferry-crossing, Abydos (Chanakkale Boghazi) on the Dardanelles, rather than the Bosporus at Constantinople.18 But Conrad rejected this advice, perhaps because he did not want the Byzantine emperor dictating to him or because he was waiting for the French expedition to reach Constantinople.19 On September 7, after reaching a pasture-rich valley near the town of Cherevach (Cheorobacchoi, present-day Catalca), just west of Constantinople, the Germans were struck by a natural catastrophe. Swollen by heavy rain, the Melas and Athyras rivers flooded most of the plain and swept away their tents, arms, and horses. Some men drowned as they slept, and others barely escaped with their lives. Some were fortunate enough to reach Frederick’s camp, not far from the scene of the tragedy, where they attended a Mass singing not with joy but with bitterness.20 Those who survived continued the march and on September 10 reached Constantinople. Hearing of the catastrophe, Emperor Manuel expressed compassion for the Germans and sent members of the aristocracy to console them. Conrad, not satisfied, demanded that Manuel meet him en route to the capital city. But the two monarchs did not meet, and the Germans remained at Philopotium. Conrad may have considered investing Constantinople. But when he saw its walls, towers, and other fortifications, and saw that the Greeks were prepared for an assault, he realized it would not be easy to capture the city.21 Manuel wanted the Germans to cross the Straits to Asia Minor and provided rowboats, ferryboats, and fishing boats for that purKinnamos, Deeds, 61; Niketas, O City, 37. Kinnamos, Deeds, 62. 19 Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 485. 20 Otto of Freising, 80–81; Kinnamos, Deeds, 63; Niketas, O City, 37–38; Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 49; Helmold, 173. 21 Kinnamos, Deeds, 64. 17 18

624

THE CRUSADES

pose.22 Conrad initially said it was against his judgment to cross, but finally he yielded. Perhaps he was anxious to reach the East before the French army, then on its way to Constantinople; but after negotiating an agreement with the emperor, by late September he and his army crossed the narrow straits at the Arms of St. George (Hellespont). Then they entered Asia Minor, part of which was under the authority of Constantinople, and the rest under the Sultan of Iconium.23 Odo of Deuil, relying on the testimony of Greeks who tried to count the troops, exaggeratedly estimates Conrad’s army at 900,566 men.24 When the Germans reached Nicaea, Conrad asked Emperor Manuel for a guide to lead his army through Asia Minor. Manuel sent Stephen, head of the Varangian Guard, for this purpose. He also provided them with food supplies, and market wares were set on the roadside.25 Instead of marching along the western coast, where he could find protection in the Byzantine towns and fortresses, Conrad pushed his army eastward through the interior of Asia Minor, right across Seljuk territory. But his half-brother Bishop Otto of Freising, perhaps displeased by the actions of his peers, split off from the main force, taking with him Bishop Udo von Zeitz, Count Bernard von Kärnithen, and 14,000 soldiers, and traveled south along the coastal road.26 In the middle of October 1147, Conrad left Nicaea and headed to Iconium (Konya). Some dispute arose between him and the Byzantine guide, and Stephen left them on October 25.27 Without a reliable guide, the Germans were exposed to unexpected danger. No sooner had they reached Dorylaeum (Ekishehir) than a small Seljuk force under the command of a certain Mamplanes attacked them on October 27, killing a large number and taking others captive. Conrad himself had to retreat to Nicaea with the remnant of his army.28 Kugler places the blame for this Kinnamos, Deeds, 57; Helmold, 174. Kinnamos, Deeds, 57; and 64–67, reproduces the letters exchanged by Manuel and Conrad. See Kugler, Studien, 124–129; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 616–619; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. and trans. Richard Howlett with the title Chronicle of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1: 65. 24 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 51. 25 Kinnamos, Deeds, 67. 26 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 51, 83; Kugler, Studien, 150. Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 267, says the group led by Otto of Freising was mostly noncombatant. 27 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 83–85. 28 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 638 (French, 276). 22 23

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

625

disaster on Conrad himself, saying he favored the nobles in his army and neglected the poor soldiers, who could hardly pay for their equipment or arms. The slow progress through the rugged, mountainous terrain also caused unrest within the army. Conrad blamed the guide Stephen for the army’s slow movement. Fearing for his life, Stephen deserted the army one night and fell into the hands of the Turks.29 The German army also faced hostility from the natives. One source says the emperor prevented the Crusaders from acquiring foodstuffs, and as a result many of them starved.30 Whenever they approached the gates of a city, the citizens did not display their wares but rather let ropes down the wall, so that they could pull up the money for whatever goods they wanted to buy. Sometimes they were cheated by the citizens, who took the money and gave nothing in return. Some natives inhumanely mixed lime with barley groats, which the troops ate and died. Michael Rabo, Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, calls this sordid incident shocking and says many Germans were annihilated not by war but by sheer evil treachery, adding that the incident deserves to be recorded for future generations.31 The Greek chronicler Niketas Choniates, who relates this episode, says, “Whether all this, in truth, was commanded by the emperor, as was rumored, I do not know with certainty; it was nonetheless an iniquitous and unholy deed. The emperor’s purpose was neither in doubt, nor was it cast in the shadow of the curtain of falsehood.” Surprisingly, almost in the same breath Niketas says, “ . . . all the ills the emperor himself had contrived were present, and he commanded other to inflict such harm so that these things should be indelible memorials for posterity,” indicating that the emperor was responsible for these sordid incidents.32 Odo of Deuil, who accompanied the French army, says, “ . . . the German emperor, betrayed by [Emperor Manuel’s] guide, had been forced to withdraw, and many thousands had been killed by Turkish arrows.”33 Helmold of Bosau writes, “What shall I say of the king of Germany and those who were with him? Led into a very great desert through the treachery of the legate of the King of Greece (Emperor Manuel I), who was supposed to have conducted them into the territory of the Persians (Muslim Turks), they all perished of Kugler, Studien, 152–153. William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 65. 31 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 638 (French, 275–276); Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 97 (English, 274). 32 Niketas, O City, 39. 33 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 83, 89. 29 30

626

THE CRUSADES

hunger and thirst.”34 It is extremely astonishing that Otto of Freising, Conrad’s half-brother, and Conrad himself say nothing of this tragedy; on the contrary, they speak highly of Emperor Manuel. There appears to be no other evidence that the Byzantines actually betrayed the Crusaders, although some sources say the emperor minted debased money and offered it to the Italian soldiers to pay for their needs.35 While Conrad had his difficulties with the emperor, King Louis VII of France was headed eastward with a force of cavalry and infantry, including Franks, Flemings, Normans, Britons, Angles, Burgundians, and men from Provence and Aquitaine.36 With him came those nobles who had taken the cross at Vézelay and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (niece of Raymond of Poitiers, lord of Antioch), who had been queen of France for ten years.37 They were led through the Rhone valley under the auspices of Alfonso Jordan, count of Toulouse, the son of Raymond of St. Gilles of the First Crusade. On June 8, 1147, King Louis VII (then 26) departed from the church of St. Denis camped outside the city of Metz, awaiting the army’s arrival. He enacted several laws and rules for securing peace and other requirements for the journey. He sent Bishop Alvisus of Arras and Abbot Leo of St. Bertin ahead to Worms, to ensure that the army would have suitable means for crossing the Rhine. King Louis arrived in Worms on June 29, and the people received him with honor. As the army crossed the Rhine, Louis decided to wait for Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux, and his Norman and English troops; he sent emissaries to Regensburg to meet Emperor Manuel’s messengers, who had been waiting for the French king for some time. Helmold, 174. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, trans. Chibnall, 54, also attributes the Christians’ misfortunes not only to the actions of the Turkish forces but also to the emperor’s deceit. 35 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 630; Giles Constable, “The Second Crusade As Seen By Contemporaries,” Traditio 9 (1953): 273; A.A Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 2: 420; Virginia Berry, ed., Odo of Deuil, 89, n. 5. Niketas, O City, 39, and Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 41, report the emperor’s use of base money, but Ferdinand Chalandon, “The Earlier Comneni,” The Cambridge Medieval History 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), 348, says the practice of coining such money was not peculiar to Manuel but was started by Emperor John Comnenus. 36 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 65. 37 Berry, ed., Odo of Deuil, 16–17, n. 44, 57, 77, 79, has little good to say about Eleanor; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 262. 34

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

627

Arnulf and Godfrey, bishop of Langres, apparently joined the army as papal legates. There was constant friction between them, probably due to their temperament and attitudes. Arnulf, a student of law who wrote Latin poems, was eloquent and highly diplomatic, and inclined to cooperate with the Byzantines; he even led a pro-Byzantine faction in the army. Godfrey, however, was prudent and high-minded. The two seldom agreed; whatever one of them recommended the other decried.38 John of Salisbury, who doubts they were papal legates, says both were smooth-tongued, extravagant and (he says mischievously) devoid of the fear of God. Few men if any, he says, had caused more harm to the Christian army. Each had his own devout followers, from whom he received large sums of money. There was constant commerce between the two bishops and the people of Worms, whom they absolved in the name of the pope (claiming to be his representatives), thus accumulating great wealth along the journey.39 Eventually, the French and the citizens quarreled over foodstuffs, and the Crusaders even threw the sailors into the river. Peace was restored when wise men restrained the fools on both sides. Because of the soaring food prices and crowded conditions, William III, count of Montferrat (the king’s uncle), and William VIII, count of Auvergne, split from the main force, taking their troops through the Alps to Apulia and then to Constantinople.40 The French army moved on June 29 to Regensburg, where King Louis summoned the delegates of the Byzantine emperor to his presence. After the usual greetings, they delivered the emperor’s letters, which contained two important provisions: that the king should not claim any city or stronghold in the emperor’s realm but hand it over to the emperor, and that this agreement should be confirmed by the nobles’ swearing an oath. The question of the emperor’s domain was discussed thoroughly. Some said the king should not give up any captured cities or strongholds freely; the emperor could buy them or take them by force. Others said that the emperor’s domain should be defined, to avoid any future territorial dispute. Finally, a settlement was reached, whereby certain men swore on behalf of the king to the security of the emperor’s realm, and the delegates swore on behalf of the emperor to provide sufficient markets and other things necessary to the king’s army; but they could not reach agreement on the second provision Berry, ed., Odo of Deuil, 22, n. 8, and 70, n. 24. John of Salisbury, 54. 40 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 21–23; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 487. 38 39

628

THE CRUSADES

and left it for the king and the emperor to resolve when they met. When the negotiation ended, one of the delegates, Demetrius Macrembolits, who had already interviewed Conrad in Hungary, departed hastily, while the other remained. As the emperor’s letters had requested, Alvisus of Arras, Bartholomew the chancellor, Archibald of Bourbon, Manasses of Bulles, Evrard of Breteuil, Anselm the seneschal of Flanders, and Evrard of Barres, lord of the Temple, were sent on to Constantinople to meet with Emperor Manuel I.41 The army took fifteen days to cross Hungary and reached the Byzantine border at the end of August. King Louis, whose financial resources were almost depleted, wrote to Suger asking for additional funds. Then they crossed the Danube and took the main road through the Balkans. The French Crusaders found it difficult to acquire sufficient food because the German army, which preceded them, had consumed most of the foodstuffs. The natives, who had been mistreated by the Germans, feared that they would suffer the same treatment from the French. Thus, there were frequent altercations between the two groups. But with strong efforts Michael Branas, duke of Sofia, who was always close to King Louis, restored peace for the inhabitants and obtained part of the market for the French Crusaders. On September 6 the army reached Philoppopolis, where they learned that Bishop Alvisus of Arras, one of the delegates to Constantinople, had died the day before.42 While crossing Bulgaria, the king had no news from his delegates to Constantinople, but he received many reassuring messages from the emperor and empress. At Adrianople, Byzantine officials (as they had done with Conrad) urged King Louis to bypass Constantinople, take the road to Sestus, and cross the Arm of St. George (Hellespont) into Asia Minor, but the king chose to follow the path of the German army.43 A few days later he arrived in the area of Constantinople. He wanted Conrad to wait for him on the European side of the strait, but Conrad had already crossed to Asia Minor. (John of Salisbury says the Germans were so jealous that they refused to have anything to do with the French, including shipping their baggage across the Hellespont. They would not even wait for the king of France and

Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 27–29, n. 22; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 262. 42 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 45. 43 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 59. 41

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

629

his army to arrive.)44 The king also learned that some French troops who had reached Constantinople in September and refused to cross over with Conrad were attacked by some Pecheneg (Byzantine mercenaries), but were rescued by the French envoys.45 Although Louis VII received good news from Manuel daily, he was anxiously waiting for word from the envoys he had sent to Constantinople. Occasionally there was some communication between Manuel’s wife Bertha of Sulzbach and Queen Eleanor, probably of a courteous rather than political nature.46 Finally Godfrey of Langres and the other French envoys came and told the king of the difficulties the armies had had with the Byzantines. They urged him to attack the rich land, with its castles and cities, and even capture Constantinople itself. They also pressed him to ask Roger II of Sicily, who was then vigorously attacking Manuel’s domain, to bring his fleet and join forces against the emperor. But Louis refused this advice, saying he had come to fight the Muslims, not Christians.47 Meanwhile King Louis, determined not to behave haughtily to the Byzantines as Conrad did before him, welcomed the emperor’s delegates, Michael Palaiologos and Michael Branas, and vowed he had good intentions toward the emperor and would do no harm to the Byzantines. Then he went to meet the emperor personally. As he neared Constantinople, the nobles, clergy, and lay people went out to receive him with honor. The two sovereigns, who were the same age but different in manners and dress, met and exchanged embraces and kisses. After the emperor asked about his present state and his wishes for the future, the king took his leave and went to lodge in the palace called Philopation.48 Later the emperor led him on a tour of the city and its shrines. But their amiable meeting was marred by a disturbance. Some men in the king’s army burned many houses and cut olive trees, either for want of wood or because of sheer arrogance or drunkenness. King Louis immediately took measures to punish the perpetrators by having their ears, hands, and feet cut off, but still he could not control the folly of the whole group. In a lengthy account of the dealings between Louis and Manuel, Odo shows that he still did not trust the Greeks. As expected, the emperor said John of Salisbury, 54. Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 53; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 489–490. 46 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 57. 47 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 59; Kugler, Studien, 146–147. 48 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 61; Kinnamos, Deeds, 69–70. 44 45

630

THE CRUSADES

that if the Franks captured a town or castle, they should deliver it to him. But he also demanded the marriage of a kinswoman of the king, traveling with Queen Eleanor, to one of his nephews, and the homage of the barons to himself. In return, he promised ships for the army’s crossing and markets everywhere. He also gave rich gifts to King Louis, and to each baron he gave presents appropriate to his estate. The king’s crossing was delayed because some of his men disagreed over the emperor’s demands, or because they were waiting for Amadeus II of Maurienne, William III of Montferrat and William VIII of Auvergne, who had arrived near Constantinople, to enter the city.49 When the emperor delayed further, King Louis decided to break camp. In mid-October he crossed over the Arms of St. George without waiting for the nobles to come. After reaching Nicaea on November 2 or 3, Louis received a messenger, Frederick, duke of Swabia (the future Frederick Barbarossa), sent to inform him of the tragic defeat of Conrad by the Turks.50 Deeply grieved by the news, the king held counsel with his people. They suggested that he wait for Emperor Manuel, who was camped nearby at the castle of Lupar (Lapodium). William of Tyre says that King Louis, escorted by Frederick, set out with some of his nobles to meet with the emperor.51 Louis and Conrad finally met at the German headquarters. After exchanging the customary salutation and kisses of peace, they reaffirmed their intention to march to the East.52 But they abandoned the route Conrad had taken and decided instead to take the inland route along the shore and get to Antioch via Philadelphia (Alasheher). They passed Philadelphia and Pergamum and came to Smyrna. After traversing rugged, mountainous paths they finally managed in early November 1147 to reach Ephesus, which housed the tomb of St. John of the Revelation.53 King Louis stayed there for a few days to allow his army to recuperate. But then messengers brought letters from the emperor, urging him to take refuge in the imperial castles because the Turks had assembled a force to combat him, and warning that he could not

Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 77–79. Berry, ed., Odo of Deuil, 78, n. 30, says some suggest that Manuel hid his demands from the French while he was awaiting the arrival of these nobles, perhaps intending to hold them as hostages. 50 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 73, 97; Bernhardi, Konrad III, 638, n. 22; William of Tyre, History, 2: 173. 51 William of Tyre, History, 2: 173. 52 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 97–99, 103; William of Tyre, History, 2: 173. 53 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 103, 107; William of Tyre, History, 2: 174. 49

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

631

restrain his people from vengeance.54 Perhaps the emperor meant that the Turks, who had defeated the Germans, were sure to fight and defeat him; perhaps he meant he could not restrain the vengeance of the Greeks of Asia Minor, who had been outraged by the Crusaders’ bad behavior.55 King Louis seems not to have heeded the emperor’s caveats; the army resumed its march and camped at the Meander River. The Turks attacked, trying to prevent them from using the river’s waters, but the French crossed to the other bank, killed many of them, and took numerous prisoners, thanks to the bravery of Count Henry of Meaux, son of Theobald, Theodric of Flanders, and Count William VI of Mâcon.56 After staying one night in the valley of Decervion, where King Louis wanted to celebrate Christmas, the army moved to Laodicea, arriving there on January 3 or 4, 1148. Before they reached the valley, Conrad had left for Constantinople. Odo of Deuil says he regretted not having visited the emperor and returned to spend the winter with him.57 But Kinnamus says Conrad came back to Constantinople because he could no longer bear the insults of the French regarding his defeat. The emperor, eager to create a split between the two kings, welcomed Conrad back and gave him a splendid reception.58 Others say that Conrad fell ill at Ephesus, and on learning of his illness, the emperor brought him to Constantinople, where he was treated by the emperor’s personal physicians or by the emperor himself. He recovered and then left for the East.59 But in a letter to Wibald of Corvey, Conrad says he and many others became ill, and the illness kept him from proceeding on the march with King Louis. When the emperor heard of Conrad’s illness, he and his wife (the sister of Conrad’s wife) urged him to come to Constantinople to recover.60 The emperor and his wife received Conrad with distinguished honor and lavished gifts upon him and his nobles, and they remained in the capital until the winter of 1148.61 Early in January, King Louis and his men plodded for twelve unpleasant days toward Adalia (Antalya). The march was difficult and food scarce, Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 109. Kugler, Studien, 166. 56 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 109–111, esp. n. 11. 57 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 109. 58 Kinnamos, Deeds, 70–71; William of Tyre, History, 2: 147. 59 Bernhardi, Konrad III, 650; William of Tyre, History, 2: 181; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 498. 60 Odo of Deuil, ed. Berry, 108, n. 10. 61 William of Tyre, History, 2: 147. 54 55

632

THE CRUSADES

with the result that many poor perished from famine.62 Because of these difficulties there was fear that the army might break up or retreat. But the Templars, who had more experience in warfare than other knights, promoted the formation of a fraternity between themselves and the army, saying all should take an oath that they would not decamp and would obey their leaders’ orders. They were fortunate in having only insignificant skirmishes with the Turks before they reached Adalia on January 20, 1148.63 On February 2 Landulph, one of the emperor’s messengers who had made part of the journey with the Turks, anticipated the death of the Crusaders. If they complained to the emperor about their adversity, Landulph was ready with an answer. But because they were too exhausted and hungry to complain, no one approached the emperor on this point. But Landulph, whom Odo of Deuil calls the emperor’s accomplice, forced the nobles to reconfirm the pact they had made with the emperor for the sake of market privileges. Finally the Crusaders received sufficient amounts of food, but at high prices.64 At Adalia the king and his men had to decide whether to go to Antioch by sea or by land, along the southern coast to Cilicia. They chose the sea route because the Turks, who were far from the coast, posed less danger to them. Since there were too few ships to carry the Crusaders, King Louis went by sea and his army followed. Passing Isauria and Cilicia on his left, Louis arrived at Antioch’s port of St. Simeon (al-Suwaydiyya) on March 19, 1148. When Raymond of Poitiers, lord of Antioch (1136–1149), learned that the king had landed in his domain, he went out to receive him with the nobles and magnates of the city. Raymond was overjoyed to see the king, hoping that with his help he could restore his lost country east of the Orontes River and crush the power of Nur al-Din Zangi in Aleppo. He delegated a host of nobles with rich gifts to win the king’s favor. He was counting heavily on Queen Eleanor, who had come with the king to Antioch. She was the eldest daughter of Raymond’s brother Count William of Poitiers.65 Raymond, claiming that one goal of the Second Crusade was to recapture Edessa from the Zangids, who targeted Edessa and Antioch more than the other Latin principalities, argued that the Crusaders should first attack William of Tyre, History, 2: 179, calls the city Attalia. Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 125, 129; William of Tyre, History, 2: 178–179, mistakenly says they arrived in January 1146. 64 Odo of Deuil, De Profectione, 129; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 272. 65 William of Tyre, History, 2: 179. 62 63

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

633

Aleppo to prevent Nur al-Din from using it as a base.66 Likewise, Joscelin II hoped that the Crusaders might win back his lost domain, by freeing Edessa and then challenging the Muslims in other parts of Syria.67 Yet another prince, Raymond II of Tripoli (1137–1152), sought to use his kinship with the king through his French mother to recover the fortress of Ba’rin, which he had lost to the Muslims.68 But it appears King Louis was lukewarm toward such plans. When Raymond’s idea was not well received, he decided to fight the Muslims alone. He assembled an army with the intention of attacking the city. He counted on the extremist Shi’ite Assassins, who had allied themselves against the Sunnite Nur al-Din because he had banned the Shi’ite formula “Come to the best of work” from the Sunnite call for prayer and had forbidden the Shi’ites to insult the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.69 Yet another prince, Raymond II of Tripoli (1137–1152), sought to use his kinship with with the king through his French mother to recover the fortress of Ba’rin, which he had lost to the Mulsims.1361 Surrounded by princes seeking to advance their own interests, King Louis thought he should continue the journey to Jerusalem. Since he took the cross at Vézelay, his ultimate objective had been to visit the Holy Sepulcher in fulfillment of his vow. The behavior of his wife Eleanor may have convinced him to leave Antioch, for it was rumored that she had had illicit relations with Raymond of Poitiers. William of Tyre says that when the king refused to adopt his plan to attack Aleppo, Raymond became frustrated; his attitude changed, and he resolved to deprive the king of his wife. Eleanor, a frivolous, pleasure-seeking woman of questionable morals, found her pious husband unfit for her and responded warmly to Raymond’s designs. When King Louis discovered her imprudent conduct, he sought the advice of his chief nobles and quickly departed for Jerusalem, taking his wife with him.70 John of Salisbury says that Raymond’s attention to the queen and his constant conversation with her aroused the king’s suspicion, and when the king was preparing to leave, Raymond made every effort to keep her. When the Hasan Habashi, Nur al-Din wa al-Salibiyyun (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1948), 52; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-alMisriyya, 1963), 2: 628. 67 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 278–279. 68 Ashur, al-Haraka, 629. 69 Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, ed. H. F. Amedroz (Beirut: Matba’at al-Ad al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908), 301; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 1: 56. 70 William of Tyre, History, 2: 180–181; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 504. 66

634

THE CRUSADES

king tried to force her to go with him, she invoked the sanguinity of her marriage to him and argued that she could not remain as his wife (the late Bartholomew, bishop of Laon, had determined that the king and queen were related in the fourth and fifth degree, but whether this calculation was credible is uncertain). Finally, persuaded by Terricus Gualerancius, a eunuch and one of the king’s secretaries, Eleanor was torn away and forced to leave for Jerusalem with the king.71 Some writers, however, attribute this incident to the behavior of the king himself, saying he should have listened to the advice of the great prince Raymond, who treated him honorably. They argue that if the king had gone along with Raymond’s plan, more than one city would have been recovered from the Muslims.72 About this time Alfonso Jordan, count of Toulouse and son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, landed at the port of Acre with his wife and children. On his way to Jerusalem he stopped at Caesarea, fell sick and died. It is said that he was poisoned, but the perpetrator was not discovered. Some accused Melisend, queen of Jerusalem, saying she acted on orders of her sister Countess Hodierna, Raymond’s wife. Alphonso’s death was greatly mourned because he had been expected to play a significant role in the Second Crusade and perhaps lay claim to Tripoli, once his father’s principality.73 On learning that King Louis had left Antioch and was on his way to Tripoli, the nobles sent Patriarch Fulcher of Jerusalem to welcome him to the Kingdom. They were afraid that the king might reconcile with Raymond of Antioch and tarry in Tripoli. This did not happen, and the king continued on his way to Jerusalem, arriving in mid-April, 1148. King Conrad, who left Constantinople with his nobles on ships provided by the emperor, had already entered Jerusalem after landing at Acre; his half-brother Otto of Freising arrived in Jerusalem with the survivors of his army a week later, on April 4, along with Bishop Stephen of Metz and Henry of Toul, brother of Count Thierry of Flanders. These distinguished rulers assembled near Acre in the spring of 1148, to discuss the best means to save or even expand the kingdom of Jerusalem. There were no representatives from the principalities of Edessa, Antioch, and Tripoli. The lords of Edessa and Antioch were engaged in defending 71 72

280. 73

280.

John of Salisbury, 52–53. William of Tyre, History, 2: 181; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 279– William of Tyre, History, 2: 181–182; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2:

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

635

their domains against Nur al-Din Zangi, and the count of Tripoli had much trouble at home to settle. Since these lords had their own ambitious agendas, their presence would have disrupted the council. Among the laymen were Conrad’s brother, Duke Henry of Austria, Duke Welf, and his nephew Frederick, the illustrious duke of Swabia.74 In King Louis’s company were Godfrey, bishop of Langres; Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux; Guy of Florence, cardinal-priest of the church of Rome; Count Robert of Perche, the king’s brother; and Count Henry of Troyes, the son of the elder Count Theobald and son-in-law of the king. With the king also were Count Thierry of Flanders, brother-in-law of the king of Jerusalem, Ives de Nesle of Soissons, and other nobles, including the elder Balian of Ibelin, Humphrey of Toron, and Guy of Beirut.75 The kingdom of Jerusalem was represented by the young King Baldwin III with his regent mother Melisend, Patriarch Fulcher, the archbishops Baldwin of Caesarea and Robert of Nazareth, and the bishops Rorgo of Acre, Bernard of Sidon, William of Beirut, Adam of Banyas, and Gerald of Bethlehem, with Robert, master of the Temple and Raymond, master of the Hospitallers. Notably missing was the archbishop of Tyre.76 Some of the Lisbon crusaders may also have been present.77 It is most unfortunate that William of Tyre, who relates these events, does not say much about this august and important council. He notes only that after the various divisions in the council offered their arguments pro and con, it was agreed by all to attack and lay siege to Damascus, considered a great menace to the kingdom and the principalities. A herald was sent to proclaim that all troops should be ready to undertake the attack against Damascus.78 The decision to attack Damascus, rather than Edessa or even Aleppo, meant a drastic change in the course of this Crusade, whose original purpose was to restore northern Syria and retake Edessa. While the early kings of Jerusalem had sought to defend the whole kingdom, including the northern principalities of Edessa, Antioch, and Tripoli, the focus now was solely on the protection of the kingdom of Jerusalem, which in fact was less threatened by the Zangids than other Latin principalities. For all intents and purposes the plan of Raymond of Poitiers to attack Aleppo was dropped. The decision to attack Damascus was a great folly. William of Tyre, History, 2: 184. William of Tyre, History, 2: 185; Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 506. 76 There is speculation that William of Tyre, then only eighteen, was himself present at Acre. See William of Tyre, History, 2: 185, esp. n. 4. 77 Berry, “The Second Crusade,” 506. 78 William of Tyre, History, 2: 186. 74 75

636

THE CRUSADES

Although Damascus would be a great prize and capturing it would cut off the Muslims of Egypt and North Africa from those in Syria, it was then in the hands of the Burid Mujir al-Din ibn Abaq, whose powerful governor Mu’in al-Din Unur was quite friendly toward the Franks.79 Unur was so intent on keeping Damascus out of the control of the ambitious Nur al-Din Zangi that he was even ready to cooperate with the Franks if Nur al-Din attacked his city. The barons living in the region should have known better, but the council had taken the decision to attack Damascus, and there was no going back on it.80 On May 25, 1148, the united armies left for Tiberias, led by the Cross of Salvation. In mid-July the entire army was conducted by the shortest course along the Sea of Galilee to Banyas (Caesarea Philippi), where they received information about the situation in Damascus and the surrounding area. After crossing part of Mount Lebanon near Caesarea Philippi, they went on until on Saturday, July 24, they reached Damascus and al-Ghuta, where the famous gardens of Damascus stretched for five miles, and where they enjoyed plenty of water and fruits.81 After a bitter struggle, the Christian army pushed the Muslims back into the suburbs.82 They occupied some villages, including al-Mazza and al-Rabwa. King Conrad managed to reach the western part of the city, where he camped at al-Maydan al-Akhdar (Green Square). The Muslims believed that he intended to take Damascus next.83 John of Salisbury says that according to the best authorities, the Christian forces would have captured the city if they had persevered for fifteen days. The townsmen, overwhelmed and in despair, wondered at the courage of the men who crossed the rivers, hampered neither by fortifications nor by armed resistance.84 But the Muslims regrouped and fought back. Their force was a conglomeration of men, including jurisconsuls (among them an old man named Yusuf ibn dhi Nas al-Findalawi al79 Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, in R. H. C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 467; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Wasil, Mufarrij, Mufarrij alKurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al’Awwal, 1953), 1: 112. 80 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 281. 81 William of Tyre, History, 2: 187, inadvertently says these events occurred in 1147. 82 John of Salisbury, 57. 83 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 298; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 468; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 52. 84 John of Salisbury, 57.

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

637

Maghribi, who was killed soon afterwards, and Abd al-Rahman al-Halhuli), zuhhad (pious men) and men from all over the region, Turks and volunteers.85 The Muslims began to assault Damascus from the western side, near al-Maydan al-Akhdar. But something sinister happened at this point. According to William of Tyre, some avaricious nobles in the Christian army who had accepted bribes persuaded the three kings, Conrad, Louis, and Baldwin III, the leaders of the Christian army, to move their forces to the other side of the city, which faced south and east, where there were no orchards the Muslims could use for protection. The move proved disastrous because that side of the city was too far from abundant fruits and water. As their food supplies began to fail, the Crusaders realized that they had been treacherously deceived, but it was too late.86 Some even attributed the treachery to the Templars.87 It is astonishing that while the Syriac sources relate this treachery, the Arab sources are silent on it. Michael Rabo lays the blame on Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem. He says that the citizens of Damascus secretly contacted him, saying he should not be misled by the great king (Conrad), who would not let him pass by Jerusalem if he controlled Damascus. They sent 400,000 dinars to Baldwin and 100,000 to the lord of Tiberias. The two took the money and returned home. But when they tested the money, they found it was made of copper.88 Bar Hebraeus says that although he read five different Arabic manuscripts, he did not find this story in them, and only the blessed Mar Michael [Rabo] recorded it in his writing.89 The Anonymous Edessan also ascribes the treachery to Baldwin III and not to the Muslims. He says that when King Conrad and the other kings made a resolute assault against Damascus, the citizens of the city, in distress, wanted to surrender. But the jealousy of the Franks was their undoing. The king of Jerusalem reasoned that if these foreigners (the Germans and French) took Damascus, they would also take his land from him. So Baldwin secretly contacted the Muslim defenders, asking what they would pay him if he convinced the foreign kings to go away. The Muslims, overjoyed, paid him 100,000 dinars. Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab al-I’tibar, 94–95, trans. Philip Hitti (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), 124; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 52; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 468. 86 William of Tyre, History, 2: 191. 87 John of Salisbury, 57. 88 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 639 (French, 276). Chabot, 276, n. 1, gives the name of the lord of Tiberias as Elinand. 89 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 274). 85

638

THE CRUSADES

On his advice, the kings shifted their camp to an unsuitable site. When they found that the king of Jerusalem was faithless, they became angry and left Damascus for Acre.90 William of Tyre, who personally interviewed scholars and others whose memory of those times was still fresh, found conflicting opinions about the Crusaders’ betrayal. Some blamed it on Count Thierry of Flanders, others blamed it on Raymond of Poitiers, lord of Antioch, and still others said that the Muslims had bribed certain persons with large sums of money and brought about this great disaster. William says that since there were different opinions, he could not reach a definite conclusion on the subject. This episode of treachery lacks documentation, and no one knows what exactly happened.91 Meanwhile, Mu’in al-Din Unur sent his deputies to the towns and fortresses in the neighborhood of Damascus to appeal for help. Many men rushed to his aid. He also appealed to Sayf al-Din Ghazi I, lord of Mosul (1146–1149), who responded by assembling a force and taking with him his brother Nur al-Din Zangi, then camped at Homs. Sayf al-Din sent a message assuring Unur that if with his help the Franks were defeated and Damascus was once more safe, he would never contest his right to possess it. Unur, a masterful tactician, wanted to create a rift between the Franks in Syria and the European forces that had come to help them. He wrote to inform King Baldwin and his men that the king of the East (Sayf al-Din Ghazi) was on his way to help. He told them that if they did not withdraw, he would deliver the country to Ghazi, an outcome they would regret. “What is the logic you are using,” he warned, “to help these [European Christian leaders] against us, when you know that if they capture Damascus, they will deprive you of all your coastal country? On my part, if I sensed weakness to fight you, I would surrender Damascus to Sayf al-Din, and you would lose all your possessions.” They responded that they would abandon the king of the Germans (Conrad) but demanded recompense. Baldwin and his men made Conrad feel so intimidated by what Unur had said that he left the siege of Damascus and departed to his own country. As a reward, Unur gave them Banyas.92 John of Salisbury says that when they streamed into the plain and were debating what they should do, some men in the army, The Anonymous Edessan, 149 (Arabic, 175–167; English, 299). For a thorough analysis of these events, see A. J. Forey, “The Failure of the Siege of Damascus,” Journal of Medieval History 10 (1984): 13–23. 92 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 469, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963), 89; Kugler, Studien, 196, n. 49; Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 2: 265; Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 2: 633–634. 90 91

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

639

including some Templars, advised him that since they had come unprepared for a long siege, it would be wiser to return to Jerusalem and come back with better preparation. Conrad accepted their advice and raised the siege. Thus, he says, that most Christian king (Conrad) was betrayed and deceived.93 Finally, the Crusaders were faced with fierce Muslim resistance. Their situation was aggravated by lack of provisions and water and especially by the intolerable heat of the summer. By the end of July, they decided to lift the siege of Damascus and leave. In September 1148, Conrad sailed from Acre and reached home via Constantinople. King Louis spent six more months in the Holy Land and finally sailed home in 1149. William of Tyre ends this sad episode by noting that “our people returned without glory.”94 The failure of the Second Crusade was disastrous to the West and to the future of the Latin kingdom in the East. Many have tried to find a justification or rationale for this grievous event.95 Evidently, the Crusaders failed to achieve their objectives because of their internal dissension and their conflict with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus, who expected Louis VII and Conrad III to swear fealty to him and become his vassals, and to hand over to him any territory they captured. Otto of Freising and St. Bernard of Clairvaux, churchmen and Cistercians deeply involved in the Second Crusade, as might be expected, rationalize this failure from a religious point of view. Otto says that although the expedition “was not good for the enlargement of boundaries or for the advantage of bodies, yet it was good for the salvation of many souls.”96 But no one was blamed for the failure of this crusade quite as much as St. Bernard. After all, he was the leading force behind it, and with the miracles he performed and the support of Pope Eugenius III he transformed it into an enormous military expedition. Resigned to the divine scheme of things, he undertook to defend his action, and his defense was a sort of apology for the failure of the crusade. To his critics, who asked, “Where is their God? (Psalms 113:2)” he responded that while it might seem that God had rendered justice on the world while forgetting His mercy, God’s justice and mercy are inseparable. When Moses led the children out of the land of Egypt, he said, God John of Salisbury, 57–58. William of Tyre, History, 2: 195. 95 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 266–276, is perhaps the first writer to elaborate the opinions, pro and con, regarding the failure of the Second Crusade. 96 Otto of Freising, 105–106; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 220. 93 94

640

THE CRUSADES

showed them mercy by saving them from bondage, and justice by punishing them in the wilderness for the sin of rebelling against Him. In brief, St. Bernard accepted the failure of the Second Crusade as caused by sin and apologized for it, but he took it to be a small matter to be judged by those “who call evil good and good evil, whose darkness is light, whose light is darkness.”97 Some viewed the disaster as God’s punishment for the Crusaders’ sins. Helmold of Bosau says, “Oh, the judgment of the Most High! So great was the disaster of the army, and so inexpressible the misery of those who bemoan it with tears to this day.”98 In Henry of Huntingdon’s view, the Crusaders lost because they lacked God’s favor. Otherwise, he asks, how is it possible that a great army commanded by the King of France and the emperor of Germany was defeated, while the much smaller force that attacked Lisbon had triumphed? Truly, he says, “God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.”99 Likewise, William of Newburgh says God punished the Crusaders because of their immoral actions. He quotes the prophets: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord (Jeremiah 17:5),” and, “Woe to them because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them. (Hosea 7:13)”100 The author of the Annales Herbipolenses (of Würzburg) says the disaster occurred because God allowed the Western church, on account of its sins, to be cast down. Clearly referring to St. Bernard and other preachers, he says certain pseudo-prophets, sons of Belial, seduced the Christians with empty words. They convinced all sorts of men by vain preaching to march against the Saracens (Muslims) with the intention of liberating Jerusalem. Those who followed them included not only common people but kings, dukes, marquises, and other powerful men, and clergy of all ranks who thought they were motivated by allegiance to God. But they were in error and fell on their heads. He adds that other men, motivated by their desire for novelty, went to the East to learn about new lands. Others, suffering Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione Libri Quinque, in The Crusades: A Documentary Survey, J. A. Brundage, ed. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 122–123; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 267. 98 Helmold, 177. 99 Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, T. Forester, trans. (London: Henry G. Bohm, 1853), 286. 100 William of Newburgh, Henry of Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, T. Forester, trans. (London: Henry G. Bohm, 1853),, 1: 66. 97

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

641

from poverty at home, went to fight not to defeat the enemies of Christ’s cross, but to escape the service of their lords or to find relief from their debts and servitude. But very few could be found who had not bowed their knees to Baal and were in fact ready to shed their own blood for the holy of holies.101 Clearly the failure of the Second Crusade had caused both church and state much damage, a fact that did not escape Pope Adrian IV a decade later. Writing to King Louis in 1159, the pope warned the king against undertaking a crusade against the Muslims in Spain. He reminded the king that his earlier incautious journey to Jerusalem did not receive the hoped-for profit but rather was disastrous to the Church of God, to almost all the Christian people, and to the Holy Roman Church, which was blamed as the source of such great peril.102 Defeating the Christians and forcing them to withdraw from Damascus was a source of great joy to the Muslims. It raised their morale and dispelled the myth that the Franks could not be defeated.103 They no longer feared that Europe might attempt attacks against them . Now they had only the Franks in Syria to deal with. The victory also emboldened Nur al-Din Zangi to consolidate his power and take the initiative by attacking them to diminish their power in Syria.104 It is rightly said that the failure of the Second Crusade “marked a turning-point in the story of Outremer.”105

AFTERMATH OF THE SECOND CRUSADE: THE STRUGGLE FOR SYRIA The failure of the Second Crusade and the withdrawal of King Louis VII and King Conrad III and their forces from Syria left Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem and Nur al-Din Zangi as the two powerful leaders contending for Syria. Each sought to consolidate his power in the region by seizing as much of the other’s territory as possible. As we have seen, Baldwin III tried Annales Herbipolenses, in Brundage, ed., The Crusades, 121–122; Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 268. 102 Constable, “The Second Crusade,” 275. 103 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 300; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 53–54. 104 Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East, 163–164. 105 Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 291. Hoch elaborates this idea in “The Price of Failure: the Second Crusade as a Turning Point in the History of the Latin East,” Phillips and Hoch, eds., The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 180–200. 101

642

THE CRUSADES

but failed to capture Damascus. Had he succeeded, the whole situation of the Franks in Syria would have drastically changed and the position of Nur al-Din Zangi would have been tremendously weakened. The two leaders were now face to face; their strategy and tactics would have a great impact not only on the destiny of the Frankish principalities in Syria, but on that of the Latin kingdom. When the proposal by Raymond of Poitiers, lord of Antioch, to attack Aleppo, the center of Nur al-Din’s power, was rejected, he resolved to fight Nur al-Din alone. He assembled an army with the intention of attacking Aleppo, but Nur al-Din Zangi became aware of his plan and went on the offensive against Raymond. In late 1148 Nur al-Din Zangi attacked and ravaged the province of Antioch, a major center of Christianity in Syria. This action pleased Joscelin II, who was angry because Raymond had refused to assist him when the Muslims attacked and devastated Edessa. Nur al-Din, welcoming the enmity between them, sent a delegation to Joscelin II and concluded a treaty of friendship with him; the two met on the plain between Azaz and Aleppo and swore to uphold their covenant. Michael Rabo says that the Franks and the Turks mingled, dining and drinking together, and that the treaty caused the fall of the Franks.106 To all intents and purposes, Joscelin II surrendered his authority to Nur al-Din Zangi and became his client. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, reports came from Aleppo that Nur alDin had led his troops against the Frankish domains and captured many Franks; but then the lord of Antioch (Raymond) assembled his troops and made a surprise attack, inflicting great losses and capturing baggage-trains and animals, and Nur al-Din fled to Aleppo after losing only a few men.107 In contrast, Ibn al-Athir says that in this year (1148) Nur al-Din Zangi defeated the Franks at Yaghra in the vicinity of Antioch. After learning that the Franks were ready to attack Aleppo, he marched against them. In a ferocious battle, the Franks were beaten and lost a great number of men, and some of their leaders were captured. Nur al-Din Zangi sent some of the booty and the captives to his brother Sayf al-Din Ghazi, to the caliph in Baghdad, and to Sultan Mas’ud. Ibn al-Athir says that Ibn al-Qaysarani immortalized this battle in an ode describing the feats of Nur al-Din Zangi.108 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 641 (French, 282). Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 302–305, and trans. Gibb, 288–289. 108 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 471. The name Yaghra has different readings and may be Bosra, as some writers assume. See Stevenson, The Crusaders, 165, n. 3. 106 107

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

643

The Syriac sources give a different account of what happened at Yaghra. Michael Rabo says after capturing Aleppo, Nur al-Din marched against Antioch, looting the whole region en route. He laid siege to Yaghra while Raymond of Poitiers was away from Antioch. On learning that Nur al-Din planned to attack Antioch, Raymond returned to the area, accompanied by an Arab Assassin whose name Michael Rabo does not give (in fact, he was Ali ibn Wafa, chief of the Assassins of Masyaf, who bore a grudge against Nur al-Din Zangi and collaborated with the Franks). The Muslims were defeated at Yaghra and fled, naked and confused.109 Similarly, the Anonymous Edessan says that Nur al-Din laid siege to Yaghra and waged war against it while the governor of Antioch, Raymond of Poitiers, was away at Jabala, on the coast. When Raymond heard of the siege, he marched with his army against Nur al-Din and defeated the Muslims with a surprise attack. Nur al-Din fled to Aleppo with two hundred of his horsemen after losing 20,000 men. The Franks looted the tents of the Muslims, including that of Nur al-Din himself, and carried off gold and silver, male and female slaves, drums and trumpets, songstresses and musicians. When the governor entered Antioch, the citizens received him with jubilation, and the Christians rejoiced immensely at his victory. With the Franks was an Arab amir named Ali ibn Wafa, an adversary of Nur al-Din Zangi.110 But the Franks seem to have become complacent after their triumph. Although Nur al-Din was assembling his forces to attack them again, they paid no heed to the imminent danger. They neglected to fortify their fortresses and protect their villages and property. Soon Kara Arslan, the Artukid lord of Hisn Ziyad (modern Kharput in Turkey), invaded the region of Amid, looting and destroying. Meanwhile, Joscelin II gathered troops, supposedly with the intention of recapturing Edessa, but instead his men pillaged and robbed the regions of Edessa and Harran. The Muslims chased him and massacred a great number of his men.111 In the summer of 1149, Nur al-Din assembled his men and assaulted Harim, on the eastern bank of the Orontes. Realizing that he needed reinforcements, he called on Mu’in al-Din Unur (d. 1149), formerly a commander for Tughtigin, the Turkish atabeg of Damascus, who sent the Kurdish Mujahid al-Din Buzan ibn Ma109 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 645 (French, 288); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 275 of the English translation. See Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “The Career of Nur al-Din,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 515. 110 The Anonymous Edessan, 153–154 (English, 300; Arabic, 180). 111 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 645 (French, 288).

644

THE CRUSADES

min with a sizable detachment of troops.112 After destroying Harim and the surrounding villages, Nur al-Din laid siege to the fortress of Inab (Napa), near Aleppo, at the edge of the Rugia valley. Raymond of Poitiers hastened to its defense, despite having only 4,000 horsemen and 1,000 foot soldiers, while Nur al-Din’s force included 6,000 horsemen, augmented by numerous Turkomans who had eagerly joined his army.113 The Assassin Ali ibn Wafa advised Raymond not to march against Zangi, whose men surrounded him on all sides. He told him instead to return home and protect his domain until the Turks dispersed. If they attempted to penetrate his region, then he should fight and defeat them. But Raymond apparently did not heed this advice and opted to plunge himself and his men into the heat of the battle. At nightfall the Turks encircled the Franks, and their end was at hand. Turning to Raymond, Ali ibn Wafa said, “We have fallen because you did not listen to me. But listen and let us escape, that a few of us may be saved, for an immense force is surrounding us. If they find us in the morning, they will annihilate us.” The unfortunate Raymond did not listen. The Muslims attacked and slaughtered most of the Franks, and Raymond and Reginald of Kesum, whom Michael Rabo calls “the lion’s cub,” perished.114 The Anonymous Edessan gives a more detailed account. He says Zangi assembled an army three months after his defeat at Yaghra, toward the end of 1148, and besieged the fortress called Inab in 1149. On learning of his forthcoming attack, Raymond of Poitiers went out to challenge him. Nur al-Din learned from his spies that the Franks had only a small, inferior force. He ordered the trumpets sounded and began the attack, and the Franks were defeated. Raymond, Ali ibn Wafa, and Godfrey of Mar’ash (actually Reginald of Mar’ash) perished. Nur al-Din Zangi took many captives and laid waste the land of the duke (Raymond). He also captured Harim, Imm (a village halfway between Aleppo and Antioch), and Artah, and the villages in the neighborhood of Harim.115 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 304, and trans. Gibb, 290–291. Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 476, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla alAtabegiyya, 98–99; Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub, 1: 120. 114 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 646 (French, 289); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 275); the Anonymous Edessan, 154–155 (English, 301: Arabic, 180–181); Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric I,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 533; Gibb, “The Career of Nur alDin,” 515–516. 115 The Anonymous Edessan, 154–155 (English, 300; Arabic, 180–181). 112 113

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

645

The Muslims rejoiced at the death of Raymond of Poitiers, “a Frankish tyrant and one of their great men.”116 Ibn al-Qalanisi says the accursed prince (Raymond) was found stretched out among his guards and his knights. He was recognized, and his head was cut off and carried to Nur alDin, who presented the bearer with a handsome gift.117 William of Tyre says Raymond fought heroically but, exhausted and no longer able to fight, was slain. In token of his victory, and to increase his own prestige, Nur al-Din sent Raymond’s head and arm, which he had cut off and placed in a silver box, to the caliph of Baghdad.118 Michael Rabo says it was a sinister day for the Christians, who suffered a severe blow. The inhabitants of Antioch did not realize the calamity that had befallen them until the Muslims laid waste their land and took the people captive.119 The death of Raymond of Poitiers brought grief to the people of Antioch, who recalled with lamentation the great achievements of this valiant man, while Christians from faraway regions also felt bitter sorrow.120 Meanwhile, Nur al-Din Zangi besieged Antioch, and the whole region was at his mercy. Its people disagreed about what to do. Michael Rabo says that some of them were ready to make peace with the Muslims, while others appealed to the King of Jerusalem (Baldwin III) for help.121 Ibn alQalanisi says that when the garrison defending Antioch saw the destruction of the city, its men surrendered to Nur al-Din on the condition that their lives be spared.122 Indeed, it was impossible for the Christians of Antioch to challenge the mighty force of Nur al-Din. Raymond’s death was a calamity. His wife, Constance, scarcely twenty-two at the time, was left with two sons and two daughters to care for. She had neither the time nor the experience Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 476; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 121. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 305, and trans. Gibb, 292; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 57–58. 118 William of Tyre, History, 2: 198, incorrectly gives the date as June 28, 1148, rather than June 29, 1149. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 674 (French, 289), says that Nur al-Din sent Raymond’s head to Baghdad. Gregory the Priest, Continuation of Matthew of Edessa, A. E. Dostourian, trans. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 257, says tersely that the prince of Antioch and a great number of Christians were killed. See also Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 326; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 638. 119 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 645–646 (French, 289). 120 William of Tyre, History, 2: 199. 121 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 289–290). 122 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 305, and trans. Gibb, 293. 116 117

646

THE CRUSADES

to take charge of the principality of Antioch, but she received some help from the wealthy and able Aimery, Latin patriarch of Antioch, who took care temporarily of the immediate needs of the people. Relief also came from King Baldwin III of Jerusalem, who mustered troops and entered Antioch. His presence brought comfort to the disheartened people, but it was of a psychological rather than military nature.123 With Raymond of Poitiers dead, the Christians had no apparent leader but Count Joscelin.124 But Joscelin, being selfish and inclined to a life of ease and pleasure, was not the man to challenge the Muslims. Not caring at all about the death of Reginald of Kesum and Mar’ash, he sought to add those towns to his own domain through his daughter, Reginald’s widow.125 His responsibility, however, was not to become Reginald’s heir, but to restore Antioch to Frankish hands. He did invade and occupy Mar’ash, but was forced to withdraw when he learned that Sultan Mas’ud had come forth on the Feast of the Holy Cross (in 1150) and besieged the town.126 When Mas’ud tightened the siege against Mar’ash, the inhabitants had no choice but to surrender after receiving his pledge to protect their lives. After becoming lord of Mar’ash, he allowed the Franks, along with their bishop and priests, to leave for Antioch. But as soon as they left, he dispatched forces who massacred them on the road. In the Muslim occupation of Mar’ash, the church lost many cherished items, including chrism jars, chalices, patens, censors, and furniture.127 Joscelin foolishly attempted to challenge Mas’ud over Mar’ash, but was pursued to Tall Bashir. Nur al-Din Zangi, who was nearby, did not want Joscelin, who was still his client, to lose his land to the Seljuks of Rum. When he realized he would have to face Nur alDin head-on, Mas’ud found it propitious to withdraw, taking his captives with him.128 William of Tyre, History, 2: 200. Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 257. 125 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 290). Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 275), says that when the lord of Kesum was killed, Joscelin ruled over Kesum and Beth Hisne. 126 Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 257–258; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 290); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 275); Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 327. 127 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 290). 128 Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 258; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 290); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 97 (English, 275); Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 2: 327. 123 124

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

647

Meanwhile, Kara Arslan, Artukid lord of Khartabirt and Hisn Kifa in the Jazira in upper Mesopotamia (1148–1174), sought to expand his domain at the expense of the Armenians of Gargar. He attacked the northern region of the principality of Edessa and succeeded in capturing Gargar, north of Samosata, and Hisn Mansur. According to the Armenian Gregory the Priest, they fell upon the Christians and captured four hundred of them. They also caught Basil, the lord of Gargar, “whom Kara Arslan treated with great honor and gave lands as if he were his own brother.” But he took the Armenian prisoners to Samosata, guarded by his troops.129 Michael Rabo, however, states that when Kara Arslan saw that the Turks had occupied several regions of the Franks, he dispatched his forces against Babula on the banks of the Euphrates River. Terror-stricken, the people of Gargar took refuge in the mountain where the Monastery of Mar Barsoum stood. The areas around the monastery teemed with men and women; the monks complained of the great crowd of refugees, but could not expel them because they had relatives among the monks and attendants at the monastery. When the Turks entered the region of Gargar, they found the villages deserted. On learning where the people had fled, they proceeded toward the mountain on Sunday, August 15, 1149, and surrounded the monastery on three sides. The next morning they attacked, stealing oxen and other property. Three attendants of the monastery were killed, while the Muslims lost only two men. The Muslim attackers sent a legate who said, “We honor this saint (Mar Barsoum) and offer him vows. We have not come to do harm to the monastery. Our target is those who sought refuge in the monastery, whom we will not treat as slaves if you deliver them to us. We will also return to you everything that we have taken and will restore the refugees to their villages.”130 One group of monks wanted to hand the refugees over to the Muslims, another refused to do so. Their dispute might have become more heated, were it not for the interference of a wise and pious elder who asked representatives of both groups to meet with the Muslim attackers. He told the Muslims that if they did not intend to enslave the refugees, they should let some of the leaders go with him to their prince Kara Arslan in Hisn Ziyad. When the monks saw that the Muslims were dishonest, they refused unanimously to hand over any refugee, even if that refusal caused their death. The Muslim attackers set fire to the houses, vineyards, and presses outside the monastery, but soon departed after stealing some oxen 129 130

Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 258. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 290).

648

THE CRUSADES

and sheep and capturing some refugees. The monks went to Hisn Ziyad to see Kara Arslan, who heard their story and restored to them everything his men had taken.131 The Syrians considered this attack on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum utterly evil. Their Patriarch Michael Rabo, who had been a resident monk and abbot there, asserts that God did not forget the wicked deeds the tyrant Joscelin II had done there and eventually punished him. He refers to the fact that in June 1148 Joscelin II, needng funds, had pillaged the same monastery; nevertheless, his struggle with the Turks continued, and his situation worsened, and ended in disaster (See Chapter 18). According to Michael Rabo, divine wrath came upon Joscelin for his iniquities. Mas’ud, who had besieged Tall Bashir briefly in 1149, returned in the summer of 1150 to occupy Kesum, Behesni, and Ra’ban and then again besieged Tall Bashir. Meanwhile, Nur al-Din Zangi had captured the fortress of Azaz, northeast of Antioch.132 The whole region under Joscelin’s authority was swarming with Turks. With Tall Bashir under siege, the Franks, Syrians and Armenians cried out in fear for divine aid. Terrified at the imminent loss of Tall Bashir and his domains, Joscelin II sought the intercession of Mar Barsoum. He ordered that the coffin containing the saint’s hand be brought out and placed on the city wall. In his presence, and within eyesight of the Turks, the clergy and the people, with heads bared, offered supplications. Joscelin promised to return the coffin when the Turks lifted the siege, and not to take anything belonging to the monastery. At the people’s insistence “the tyrant” finally pleaded for forgiveness and acknowledged that what had happened was caused by divine retribution. As Joscelin turned to Mar Barsoum for deliverance, God in His mercy softened the heart of Mas’ud, who agreed to make peace on condition that Joscelin become his subject. Mas’ud then lifted the siege and departed, and Joscelin sent a message to the monks of the monastery asking for forgiveness. Some monks traveled to Tall Bashir to bring back the coffin containing Mar Barsoum’s hand. As they carried it through towns and villages, the townspeople, carrying censors and torches, welcomed it with joyful chants. The coffin reached the monastery at the beginning of January 1150.133

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 276 of the English translation. 132 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 310. 133 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 291–292). 131

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

649

Whether because of divine retribution (as Michael Rabo says) or because of the dissension within the Franks’ ranks, Joscelin II was seriously weakened by the two-pronged attacks of Nur al-Din Zangi and the Seljuks of Rum, but soon returned to his iniquities “as a dog returns to its vomit.” He had made peace with the Turks, but it did not last long. In the same year (1150) his former ally Nur al-Din Zangi attacked his domain, killed many people, and captured two fortresses. Meanwhile Kara Arslan, Artukid lord of Hisn Ziyad, sent Diya, one of his great commanders, who attacked Gargar, occupied a fortress near the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, and took 500 men prisoner. They also found in the fortress a number of items taken from the monastery when Joscelin ravaged it. The Byzantines and the Franks joined forces in an attempt to rescue the people in the fortress of Gargar. They discussed their plan with Basil, Armenian lord of Kesum and Hisn Mansur, and assembled 500 horsemen and a large number of foot soldiers, with a thousand sacks of grains as provisions. As they drew near the fortress undetected, they made the mistake of leaving their families outside the fortress, believing they would triumph despite being outnumbered. Their effort turned out disastrously. The Turks achieved a great victory, killing most of the Greeks and the Franks and capturing Basil, Krikor of Gakhtai, and Mahi (Mahius), the Frankish governor of Kesum. Michael Rabo says that Kara Arslan showed magnanimity toward the defeated enemy. He freed the prisoners, restored the fortresses to their governors, and gave Basil the regions of Andaher and Samha after he surrendered Gargar. Likewise, after surrendering Sagahman, Krikor received Gakhtai in return. Thus, the Turks controlled Gargar, Gakhtai, and Hisn Mansur.134 In the aftermath of the failure of the Second Crusade, Nur al-Din Zangi consolidated his power by capturing as many Frankish strongholds in Syria as possible, in order to weaken them before striking a final blow against them. He was now astride two powers – Damascus, which was in the hands of the Burids and the powerful Mu’in al-Din Unur, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. To bring the whole of Syria under his control, he had to capture Damascus. But he knew that Damascus would ask King Baldwin III of Jerusalem for help, and the joint forces of Damascus and Jerusalem would be too much for him to handle. He decided to wait for the right opportunity to present itself to capture Damascus, and a few years later, it came. 134 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 648–649 (French, 294–295); Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 258.

650

THE CRUSADES

Like Nur al-Din Zangi, King Baldwin III of Jerusalem took advantage of the failure of the Second Crusade to strengthen his position. Having failed to take Aleppo, he decided to expand his authority to the weaker part of southern Syria, especially the port of Ascalon, then held by the Fatimids of Egypt. Jerusalem had no viable port, and Ascalon was of vital importance to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. It could serve as a vital link between the kingdom and Europe, but not while it was under Fatimid rule. Thus, Baldwin determined to capture Ascalon and cut it off from its base in Egypt to facilitate communication with the Christian centers in Europe.135 The Fatimids appeared to be a cold prey for Baldwin III because of the dissension within their caliphate; in the twelfth century, the real power was in the hands of powerful vizirs. To take revenge on some amirs who had plotted against him, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hafiz li Din Allah (1131– 1149) appointed his elder son Hasan as his vizir. Hasan, wicked and bloodthirsty, carried out his father’s wish by eliminating those amirs who had opposed his father; he is said to have killed more than thirty in one night. But the ambitious Hasan went too far, attempting to usurp power from his father. Fearing power would slip from his hands, al-Hafiz asked one of his lieutenants to assemble some men and fight Hasan, but he defeated them and placed his father under his control. Displeased with these chaotic events, some amirs demanded that al-Hafiz hand Hasan over to them; otherwise, they would kill both him and his son. Al-Hafiz yielded to their demand and asked a Jewish physician to poison Hasan, but he declined, saying he would not administer poisonous drugs. Al-Hafiz then gave the task to a Muslim physician, who gave Hasan a poisonous potion. When Hasan died in 1135, al-Hafiz appointed a Christian, Taj al-Dawla Bahram, as his vizir. Bahram, who was of Armenian origin, used Armenians in the government, much to the displeasure of the Muslims.136 After al-Hafiz died in 1149, he was succeeded by his younger son al-Zafir bi Amr Allah (1149–1154), who appointed Abu al-Fath ibn Massal al-Maghribi as his vizir. But Ibn Massal was soon challenged and replaced as vizir by another powerful amir, al-Adil ibn Sallar (d. 1154).137 William of Tyre, History, 2: 202–203. Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarukh, 393, 406–407, 474–475. 137 Athir, al-Kamil, 475. Ibn al-Qalanisi alone, Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq, 308, calls Ibn Massal ‘Abu al-Fath ibn Massal al-Maghribi’. Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab, tran. Hitti, 31, refers to Ibn Massal as Najm al-Din Ibn Massal and Ibn Sallar as Sayf alDin Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Sallar. (Hitti writes the name as Ibn Masal.) Ibn Sallar was killed in his bed by the Amir Abbas, son of Ibn Sallar’s wife, whom he had 135 136

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

651

Taking advantage of the anomalous situation in Egypt, Baldwin III decided to capture Ascalon from the Fatimids and sent messengers throughout the Kingdom of Jerusalem to announce his intention. Many dignitaries of the realm and bishops responded to the call including Fulcher, patriarch of Jerusalem; Bernard de Tremelay, master of the Temple; Raymond, master of the Hospital; Hugh of Ibelin, Philip of Nabulus, Humphrey of Toron, Reginald of Châtillon, Walter of St. Omer, and many other nobles and bishops.138 Baldwin III and the nobles felt utmost concern about Ascalon, for as long as it remained in Muslim hands, the southern part of the Latin kingdom would be exposed to attack. Moreover, the Fatimids would not only defend it against the Franks but keep supplying it with food and weapons, thus perpetuating its threat to the safety of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.139 Thus, prior to the marching against Ascalon, probably during the winter of 1149–1150, the Franks decided to make preparations to reinforce the city of Gazza, a significant point in the defense line against Ascalon. In time, Gazza was rebuilt and assigned to the Templars.140 When the Fatimids learned that the Franks had decided to attack Ascalon, their vizir al-Adil ibn Sallar sent Usama ibn Munqidh as his messenger to Nur al-Din Zangi asking for help. Ibn Sallar asked Usama to take with him a gift of 6,000 Egyptian dinars and loads of expensive clothes, brocade, and turbans to Nur al-Din and ask him to attack Tiberias in order to divert the Franks from attacking Ascalon.141 In April 1150, Usama met with Nur al-Din Zangi at Bosra, south of Damascus, and delivered this message. Nur al-Din, who was then planning to attack Damascus, refused, saying, “The people of Damascus are our enemies and the Franks, too, are our enemies. I trust neither of them in case I go in between them.” Usama’s original mission failed, but he succeeded in convincing Nur al-Din to help him assemble a force to fight the Franks. Nur al-Din agreed and assigned some of his men to join Usama.142 Obviously, Nur al-Din was not as interested in Ascalon and the Fatimids who controlled it as he was in capturing the greatest prize, Damascus. raised as a son. Abbas cut off his head and took it to the Caliph al-Hafiz. It is said that he replaced Ibn Sallar as vizir. See Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 320. 138 William of Tyre, History, 2: 218. 139 William of Tyre, History, 2: 220; Baldwin, “The Latin States,” 536–537. 140 Baldwin, “The Latin States,” 534. Cf. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 308, and Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab, trans. Hitti, 34. 141 Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab, 34–35. 142 Usama ibn Munqidh, Kitab, 39; Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 2: 652, 654.

652

THE CRUSADES

Once it was clear that Nur al-Din had no interest in helping the Fatimids, the Franks went ahead with their plan to capture Ascalon. At the beginning of January 1153, they besieged the city. King Baldwin III, Peter, archbishop of Tyre (predecessor of the historian William of Tyre), and many princes of the church and lay people set up their tents separately and blockaded Ascalon by land. The Frankish fleet of fifteen ships, commanded by Gerard of Sidon, blockaded the city from the sea. The siege continued for two months without a decisive outcome. The Franks met in council, and King Baldwin commanded all sailors and knights in his realm not to return home but to join the siege with pay. The Franks stormed Ascalon ferociously, but were quite disheartened when the townspeople defended their city tenaciously. The siege went on for three more months with no sign that the city would surrender. The morale of the townspeople was raised when re-inforcements—seventy galleys and other ships laden with arms, men, and food coming from Egypt—arrived at the harbor of the city. Encouraged, the Muslims went on the offensive but failed to resist the prowess of the Christians and lost many men.143 During the siege, Reginald of Châtillon went to King Baldwin, asking (and receiving) his permission to wed Constance, the young widow of Raymond of Poitiers, lord of Antioch. William of Tyre, expresses surprise that such a lady, the widow of a distinguished man, should stoop to marry an ordinary knight, but does not mention Reginald’s service at ascalon.144 The Anonymous Edessan notes that “Raymond [Reginald] having fought heroically at Ascalon, asked the King” for permission to marry the wife of the lord of Antioch. When the King consented, he went to Antioch for the marriage, then returned to the siege of Ascalon.145 As the Franks were about to take Ascalon, Nur al-Din Zangi realized that capturing the city would not stop the Franks from challenging him in Syria proper. Thus, he decided to take immediate action. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, perhaps the only Muslim writer to relate this event, Nur al-Din called on the fighting men from all over the Muslim countries, including Turkomans, to join him in saving Ascalon. Even Mujir al-Din Abaq, the Burid lord of Damascus, who was a friend of the Franks, joined him. En route to Ascalon, Nur al-Din captured the fortress of Aflis (Afis), three William of Tyre, History, 2: 221–224; Athir, al-Kamil, 491 William of Tyre, History, 2 : 224. 145 The Anonymous Edessan, 156 of the Syriac text, 301 and 182 of the Arabic translation; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 649. 143 144

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

653

miles east of the town of Sarmin, then under the control of the Franks. He killed the Frank and Armenian occupants of the fortress and pillaged its possessions. Meanwhile, the people of Ascalon kept appealing to Nur alDin to come to their rescue, and both he and Mujir al-Din Abaq of Damascus attacked Banyas on May 16, 1153. But for some reason not mentioned by Ibn al-Qalanisi, dissension arose between the two Muslim lords; Mujir alDin departed for Damascus, and Nur al-Din went to Homs. The Muslim expedition against Ascalon failed.146 Still, Nur al-Din’s primary objective was not Ascalon but Damascus. Realizing that he could not take it by force, he resorted to a much easier and convenient political stratagem. As the siege of Ascalon dragged on and the power and morale of the townspeople began to wane, Zangi determined to take Damascus peacefully. In May 1151, he sent a messenger to Mujir alDin with a strong ultimatum, accusing him of mistreatment and oppression of the people of Damascus, then marched against the city and besieged it. But the next month the Franks rushed to the aid of Mujir al-Din, forcing Nur al-Din to retreat. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Mujir al-Din told Nur al-Din’s messenger, “The sword is between you and us. The Franks will send a sufficient number of men to help us if you decide to attack us.”147 Nur al-Din lifted the siege of Damascus in June 1151, only to return to besiege it once more in the next month. This time, too, he failed to capture the city, but signed a peace with its dignitaries and departed.148 After a prolonged siege, the fighting men of Ascalon became too demoralized to fight. The Franks assaulted the city vigorously. They built an enormous, well fortified wooden tower and drove it close to the wall of the city. Aboard it were valiant fighting men who stormed Ascalon with stones and arrows, killing any citizen who dared leave his house or appear in its market place. Feeling they could fight no more, the citizens of Ascalon decided to surrender the city to the Franks. They sent envoys to King Baldwin and the patriarch, informing them that they had decided to surrender the city and asking the Franks to offer the citizens amnesty for their lives. The king conferred with his nobles and then called the envoys to tell them that he would make an agreement with the people of Ascalon. The king and certain chosen nobles gave their solemn oath that they would honor the agreement. With this the citizens of Ascalon released all the Frankish hosQalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 320–321. Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 309; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 70. 148 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 316. 146 147

654

THE CRUSADES

tages, and the envoys returned to their own country. A number of Frankish knights accompanied them, with the intention of raising the king’s standard over the tower of the city as a sign of victory. Although the citizens of Ascalon were allowed to stay unmolested, many Muslim citizens who feared the Christians chose to leave the city. They set out with their wives and children, servants and maidservants, carrying with them their paraphernalia. Honoring the agreement, King Baldwin III provided them with guides as far as al-Arish on their way to Egypt.149 William of Tyre says that King Baldwin III, the patriarch, the prelates of the realm, and a host of clergy entered Ascalon on August 19, 1153, singing hymns and spiritual songs, led by the Cross of the Lord. The Cross was placed in the principal mosque of the city, a building of exceeding beauty, which later was converted into a church in honor of the apostle Paul.150 With the capture of Ascalon, the Franks took control of the seacoast of Syria and Palestine from Alexandretta in the north to Gazza in the south. Deprived of important maritime bases, the Muslims could no longer challenge the supremacy of the Franks.151 The capture of Ascalon and the weakness of the government of Damascus, whose lord, the Burid Mujir al-Din Abaq, William of Tyre calls “a dissolute and worthless man,”152 enticed the Franks to attempt immediately to extend their authority to Damascus. They attacked Damascus, killing, pillaging, and taking captives, and forced Mujir al-Din to pay them tribute, which every year a Frankish envoy came to Damascus to collect. Moreover, the Franks freed men and women who had been enslaved by the Muslims. They offered them the choice to remain in Damascus or leave it. But the humiliation of paying a tribute to the Christian Franks was too much for the Muslim citizens of Damascus to bear. Blaming their weak and subservient lord Mujir al-Din, they became extremely angry and revolted against Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 321; William of Tyre, History, 2: 224–233, esp. 232–233, gives a detailed account of the siege and surrender of Ascalon, 224– 233; the Anonymous Edessan, 155–156 of the Syriac text, 301–302 of the English translation, and 182 of the Arabic translation. 150 Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 321; William of Tyre, History, 2: 232–233. On 233, n. 55, the editors of William of Tyre say that he was present at this ceremony. He was about 23 years old at the time and still a student, probably at Jerusalem, which was not far away. 151 Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 106; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 340; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 655–656. 152 William of Tyre, History, 2: 225. 149

THE EXPEDITION TO THE EAST

655

him. They arrested him and detained him in the citadel of the city with a certain Mu’ayyid al-Din ibn al-Sufi.153 When the news of the revolt reached Nur al-Din Zangi, he decided to capture Damascusthis time by force if necessary. But after some deliberation he decided not to use force, knowing that many Muslims would be killed if he engaged the Franks in fierce battle. He tried to avoid Muslim bloodshed. He knew that the citizens of Damascus were displeased with Mujir al-Din Abaq, especially now that they had become subjects to the Franks. So he resorted to a stratagem to take the city. Nur al-Din Zangi began writing to Mujir al-Din, meanwhile sending him gifts to assure him of his friendship and good will. Sometimes he would falsely tell him that certain amirs of Damascus were plotting to hand the city over to him (Nur al-Din), and warning him to be aware of their plots. Mujir al-Din, believing Nur al-Din’s false reports, arrested some amirs and confiscated their fief lands. One of these was Ata ibn Haffaz alSulami, a loyal servant of Mujir al-Din and an able administrator of his government. Mujir al-Din arrested him and decided to kill him. Al-Sulami begged Mujir al-Din not to kill him, saying that if he studied the case carefully, he would find out that the whole matter was only a strategem concocted by Nur al-Din to deceive him. Mujir al-Din would not listen and had al-Sulami killed. Moreover, Mujir al-Din gathered many nobles of Damascus and held them in the citadel. When Nur al-Din learned that his maneuver had succeeded, he moved immediately to besiege Damascus. Scared and confused, the gullible Mujir al-Din appealed to King Baldwin III of Jerusalem for help. He offered him large sums of money and the possession of the citadel of Ba’lbak if the Franks assisted in averting the siege of Damascus by Nur al-Din. But Baldwin III was reluctant to help, perhaps fearing an unnecessary showdown with Nur al-Din. The situation in Damascus had become too chaotic to be controlled by Mujir al-Din. Many citizens of Damascus with whom Nur al-Din had been secretly communicating revolted against Mujir al-Din, making it easier for him to capture Damascus. On April 15 he entered Damascus through the eastern gate. Mujir al-Din escaped to the citadel for protection. He offered Nur al-Din all the arms and other equipment he had stocked in the citadel. As a benevolent gesture, Nur al-Din asked Mujir al-Din to surrender the city, promising to give him the city of Homs instead. Mujir al-Din consented and left Damascus for Homs. From there he wrote to urge the citizens of Damascus to restore 153

Athir, al-Kamil, 494–496, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 106–107.

656

THE CRUSADES

him to his former position. When Nur al-Din learned of this action, he did not harm him but asked him to leave Homs and instead gave him the town of Balis. Mujir al-Din was displeased to have a tiny town like Balis and left for Baghdad where he lived near the Nizamiyya School until his death.154 With the occupation of Damascus, Nur al-Din Zangi became the master of all Syria. He went on to challenge the Franks and capture whatever territories they still held until his death in 1174.

Qalanisi, Dhayl Tarikh Damashq, 328–329, and 328, n. 1, reports the account of al-Fariqi, who says that Mujir al-Din was still living in the year 1167; Athir, alKamil, 496–497 and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 106–107. 154

18 THE FRANKS AND THE SYRIAN CHRISTIANS The Franks’ interference in the affairs of the Syrian Church seriously weakened their ability to keep the allegiance of the native population in Edessa and elsewhere. This interference was particularly evident in the case of Abu Ghalib bar Sabuni, brother of Bishop Sa’id bar Sabuni, which alienated the Syrians and turned them against the Franks. Abu Ghalib, a monk from the Arnish Monastery near Kesum and Ra’ban, was chosen as bishop of Edessa by Patriarch Abu al-Faraj Athanasius VI in 1101 and took the name Basilius at his ordination. Learned like his brother, but also impetuous and rebellious, he disobeyed both the patriarch and canon law. Forty days after his ordination he became involved in a dispute with the patriarch over some copies of the Gospels deposited at the church in Edessa. The rebellious priest Abdun had sold these Gospels, the property of the patriarchate, to the Syrian congregation of Edessa, using the proceeds to bribe the men in authority to help him keep his position. When the patriarch demanded their return, Abu Ghalib signed a pledge that he would not carry out his religious duties as bishop until he had returned the Gospels. But as soon as he was ordained, he broke his word, claiming that the Syrian dignitaries of Edessa would not allow him to hand over the Gospels. The patriarch sent Abu Ghalib a letter suspending him from service as bishop and denying him the right to style himself as chief priest. Abu Ghalib answered that the patriarch had no right to suspend him from service because the Edessans, not he, refused to deliver the Gospels to him. As a result the Syrian congregation of Edessa was split into two factions, one backing the defiant bishop, the other supporting the patriarch. Abu Ghalib challenged the patriarch’s authority and angered him still further by continuing to ordain priests and deacons. The church in Edessa was thus in a chaotic condition. What is important, says Michael Rabo, is that the Frankish governor of Edessa, Baldwin II of Le Bourg, supported Bishop Abu Ghalib. Syrian and Frankish delegations asked the patriarch to pardon Abu Ghalib, but even when Bishop Dionysius bar Modyana of Melitene (d. 1120) and seventy Syrian leaders went to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and prostrated themselves before him, he refused. The patriarch promised to convene a synod 657

658

THE CRUSADES

to look into Abu Ghalib’s case, but did not keep his word. Worse still, he removed the old and learned Bishop Dionysius from his diocese for supporting Abu Ghalib.1 As the dispute between himself and Patriarch Athanasius went from bad to worse, Abu Ghalib turned to the Franks to solve his problem. He took his case to Bernard of Valence, the Latin Patriarch of Antioch (1100–1136), making the Orthodox (i.e., Syrian) Church the subject of criticism by outsiders. Patriarch Athanasius, who was then at the Aqshar Monastery near Antioch, was commanded by the Latin patriarch to proceed to Antioch. The Franks took him to St. Peter's Cathedral (called Cassianus) and asked him to pardon Abu Ghalib bar Sabuni, but again he refused. The Franks used this refusal as a pretext to act against Patriarch Athanasius and the Syrians. They brought him to their church, treated him with deference and respect, and told him, “Be kind and pray over this bishop (Abu Ghalib) for the sake of our city Edessa.” The patriarch replied, “The bishop has outdone his iniquity.” The interpreter misunderstood him and told the Franks he was asking for money. The Franks said, “This is simony (selling church offices for money) and not in the spirit of St. Peter. It is not worthy of Christians to dismiss a chief priest from his office for money.” As no one who understood the patriarch could be found, the Frankish interpreter said to him, “If you are dealing with money according to your church canons, consider that today you have been offered 10,000 dinars, and therefore you will release this bishop, who resorted to us.” Patriarch Athanasius did not answer (evidently because he did not understand the interpreter), but promised to pray for Bar Sabuni. The Franks gave him a sheet of paper and asked him to absolve the bishop in writing. As he took the paper and started writing, he looked at Bishop Sabuni and said, “Abu Ghalib, look what you have dragged me into.” Abu Ghalib answered insolently, “If I am Abu Ghalib (father of the victorious one), know that you are Abu al-Faraj (father of release from grief and sorrow).” At this the patriarch lost his temper and threw away the paper. He stretched out his neck and said, “Cut off my head; I will not absolve this man.” The Franks ordered the patriarch and the bishop beaten. A Frankish bishop told the Latin patriarch, “Although these two wretches have acted Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 592–594; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 196–198. 1

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

659

disgracefully and deserve to be beaten, it is not appropriate to use beating inside the cathedral.” Shortly the Franks’ anger cooled down, and they let the patriarch and those in his company go to the Syrian Church of the Mother of God in Antioch. But they forbade him to leave the city until they had convened a council to decide the case, and invited their bishops to attend the council. Patriarch Athanasius remained in the church, dejected, locked in a cell, permitted to talk to no one. Grief overcame the Syrian clergy and congregation. Five days later the Syrian priests asked the philosopher Abd al-Masih ibn Abi Durra of Edessa, a Chalcedonian who loved the patriarch and admired his piety, to see him. Abd al-Masih visited the patriarch in his cell and, in a friendly conversation, evidently convinced him that if he hoped to be released, he should offer money to Roger of Salerno, then governor of Antioch (1112–1119). The patriarch accepted this advice, and Roger ordered that he be allowed to leave Antioch and return to his monastery, telling the Latin patriarch, “You have no authority over the Syrians.”2 The patriarch went soon afterwards to Amid and settled in the Monastery of Qanqart. Because of the controversy over Abu Ghalib, the bishop of Edessa, Patriarch Athanasius VI tightened his grip on the city’s Syrian Christians. He ordered that the Syrian cathedral be closed and its bells stop ringing, with the result that disturbances in the city intensified. The Syrian priests rebelled and attacked one another. Thereafter, the communicants began to baptize their children in the churches of the Franks.3 As if the trouble over Abu Ghalib bar Sabuni were not enough, another dispute arose between Al Camra, the patriarch’s family, and the leaders of the Qarya family, who lived in Qanqart, regarding the ownership of certain land and other properties. These dignitaries complained to the governor of Amid against the patriarch, who in response excommunicated one of them, the deacon Ishaq (Isaac) of Qarya. Consequently, the dispute within the church became uncontrollable. Deacon Ishaq urged the governor Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 598–600 (French, 207–210). The Anonymous Edessan, 299–300 (Arabic, 235–238), gives a different account of the dispute between Patriarch Athanasius and Bishop Abu Ghalib, and does not describe the patriarch’s appearance before the Latin patriarch in Antioch or his beating in the church. He says only that the patriarch was summoned to Antioch, where Baldwin, count of Edessa, Joscelin I of Courtenay (later count of Edessa), and King Baldwin I of Jerusalem interceded on his behalf, to no avail, after which the patriarch left Antioch and returned to the Monastery of Dowayr (al-Dawa’ir). 3 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 602 (French, 212–213). 2

660

THE CRUSADES

to let the patriarch leave Amid, since he was old and did not have much longer to live. The governor, anxious to expropriate the patriarch’s possessions and impatient for him to die, visited the Monastery of Qanqart and asked him to pardon Ishaq, but the patriarch refused. The governor became angry, but the patriarch calmed him down by offering him gold. He realized he was a prisoner in Amid and desired freedom of movement. He sent Mikha’il Bar Shumanna, from the Syrian renowned Shumanna family, to appeal to Count Joscelin I to intercede on his behalf with the governor of Amid to let him leave the city. Joscelin responded by threatening to destroy Amid if the patriarch was not permitted to leave, and the governor of Amid reluctantly acquiesced. The grateful patriarch went to see Joscelin in Tall Bashir (Turbessel) and thank him for his support. He stayed there a few days and then returned to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum. On Pentecost Day, as he was performing the Eucharistic Service, just before praying for the Holy Spirit to descend and sanctify the Elements, he suffered a stroke and asked Bishop Timothy of Gargar to finish the service (Bishop Abu Ghalib also attended). Six days later, on June, 8, 1130 he died and was buried in the Monastery of Mar Barsoum.4 A synod headed by Bishop Dionysius of Kesum selected Yuhanna Modyana (the Confessor) as the new patriarch. The bishops took the patriarch-designate to Tall Bashir to meet with Joscelin, who pledged to support him, and Yuhanna Modyana was ordained on February 17, 1129, at the Great Church of the Franks, in the presence of Joscelin and other prominent men. Through Joscelin’s mediation, the new patriarch issued an order pardoning Abu Ghalib bar Sabuni along with the bishop of Sijistan, whom the former patriarch had excommunicated and expelled from his diocese. In compensation for the loss of his diocese, the bishop was offered the dioceses of Samosata and Samha, but was rejected by their congregations. Eventually, he went to Jerusalem and joined the Friars (Knights Templar). Ironically, he fell into an oven and was burned to death, fulfilling a prophetic warning by Patriarch Athanasius, who had once told him, “If you desert the diocese of Sijistan, you will never deserve to be buried [according to church canons].”5

The Anonymous Edessan, 302 (Arabic, 340–341). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 612 (French, 231); Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Yuhanna Modyana; the Anonymous Edessan, 303–304 (Arabic, 341–342). 4 5

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

661

For many centuries, no saint held the love and adoration of the Syrians more than Mar (Saint) Barsoum (d. 458), the chief ascetic Syrian monk of his time. Like his contemporaries, Patriarch Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabug, he was an avid opponent of the controversial Council of Chalcedon and a defender of the faith of One Incarnate Nature of the Divine Logos. After he died, his right hand was preserved in a gilded coffin; when a monastery bearing his name was founded in 790 near Melitene, the monks kept the hand as a relic. The monastery of Mar Barsoum thrived until Joscelin II ravaged it in 1148 and carried its treasures to Tall Bashir, but then declined until the seventeenth century, when it stood deserted and in ruins.6 In the twelfth century, the preserved hand of Mar Barsoum was the cause of controversy for both the Byzantines and the Franks. The Syrians believed it possessed divine power to heal and perform miracles (even today, Syrian Christians are known for their ardent belief in the intercession of saints). The Greeks (Byzantines) scoffed at them, claiming that the miraculous power of the saint’s hand was sheer fiction. The test came in 1134, when swarms of locusts invaded the city of Edessa, leading the Christians to seek Mar Barsoum’s help. They brought out the coffin containing the saint’s hand to ward off the locusts. The Greeks (as was their bad custom, says Michael Rabo) urged the Franks to open the coffin to see whether it contained the saint’s right hand. The monks refused, saying that doing so would cause havoc to the region. The Greeks in turn claimed that the coffin was empty. The monks were forced to take the coffin to the Franks’ church and open it. Immediately a violent sound like thunder shook the place. A dark cloud covered the sky and began to pour down hailstones. The people shouted, “Lord, have mercy! Help, Saint Barsoum!” The Franks, laymen and clergy alike, fell on their faces before the coffin, weeping. The Greeks fled and went into hiding. When the hailstorm subsided, the people conducted prayers for three days. The miracle wrought by the hand of Mar Barsoum astonished even the Muslims. When the Muslims of Harran learned of it, they asked the monks to visit them, but the monks preferred to return to the monastery. Crowds of people of all faiths went out to re6 For a detailed account of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and its treasures, including his embalmed right hand, see Rev. Bulus Bahnam (later Bishop Gregorius), “Dayr Mar Barsoum Qurb Malatiya” (The Monastery of Mar Barsoum Near Melitene), in Lisan al-Mashriq, Nos. 4–6 (Mosul, Iraq, 1951): 153–208; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Patriarch Mikha’il (Michael) Rabo.

662

THE CRUSADES

ceive them with prayers and supplications. The locusts did not harm the crops but moved to unplanted grounds, where they devoured grass. Those who saw the miracle glorified God, each in his own tongue.7 The Franks’ presence in southern Asia Minor, where there was a large Syrian and Armenian population, clearly irritated the Byzantines, who had lost dominion over their former subjects and for better or worse had to deal with the Franks. The Byzantines, frustrated at losing power and prestige, tried to use doctrinal controversies to drive a wedge between the Franks and the area’s Christians. After the Franks established their own religious hierarchies in Jerusalem and many cities of Asia Minor, a conflict among the Latin dioceses required the intervention of the pope. According to Michael Rabo, the pope sent a legate to Jerusalem to investigate the situation, establish peace and order in the churches and monasteries, and conciliate the clergy. But no sooner did he begin the investigation than he died—by poisoning, some say.8 After the death of the first legate, the pope sent another, identified as Albéric, bishop of Ostie, to pursue the investigation.9 The new legate removed the Latin Patriarch Radulf from office in November 1139 and put in place another patriarch, who succeeded in reconciling the clergy and controlling the situation. While the legate carried out his duties, the Byzantines stirred him up against the Syrians and the Armenians, telling him they were “heretics,” i.e., anti-Chalcedonians. The legate went to Duluk (Doliche) and met with the Armenian Catholicos Krikor (Gregory III, 1113–1166), whom he took by force to Jerusalem.10 On Whit-Monday in April 1140, Albéric convened a church meeting attended by the Frankish patriarch and clergy and the Armenian Catholicos and clergy. Also present were Ignatius, the Syrian bishop of Jerusalem, Armenian princes, and Joscelin and other Frankish leaders. The council told 7 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 616–617 (French, 238–239); Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 90 (English, 257–258). 8 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 626 (French, 254), does not name the papal delegate; Chabot, ed., 255, n. 3 of the French translation, identifies him as Pierre, the archbishop of Lyons, but says he died on May 28, 1139, contradicting Michael Rabo’s assertion that the papal delegation came in 1143. 9 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 626; Chabot, ed., 255 of the French translation, n. 4. 10 Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 196 and 338, n. i by the translator.

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

663

the Byzantines, “You have accused the Syrians and the Armenians of heresy. Explain this heresy to us.” They answered, “We will never attend a council unless our [emperor] attends it too.” Thus their hypocrisy was exposed, and all those attending the council realized that they were far from the truth. Meanwhile, the Syrians and the Armenians presented tracts containing their doctrines, in their own languages. These were read and translated into Italian, and the council acknowledged the orthodoxy of their doctrines. The Franks asked the Syrians and the Armenians to swear not to change their doctrine, which contradicted that formulated by the Council of Chalcedon. The Syrians agreed, but the Armenians refused to do so and were accused of being Phantasiasts and Simonites.11 What Joscelin II said at the council or how he reacted is not known. But shortly afterwards, he again interfered in the affairs of the Syrian Church, this time in connection with the ordination of a new Syrian patriarch. Yeshu Bar Qatra, a pious deacon chosen by a synod of twelve bishops, was ordained in 1139 and took the name Athanasius. Some unnamed people, apparently including the bishop of Jihan, slandered the new patriarch to Joscelin II, claiming his ordination was uncanonical. Joscelin then summoned Timothy, bishop of Gargar, to Samosata to inquire whether the patriarch’s ordination was legal, but Timothy did not support the bishops’ claim. Joscelin, already angry at the patriarch for not having visited him (presumably to pay homage), ordered that his name should not be proclaimed in the region under his influence. Patriarch Bar Qatra, unable to challenge Joscelin’s authority, left Melitene for the Monastery of Mar Barsoum. There he learned that Joscelin II had arbitrarily transferred Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna from Kesum and proclaimed him as bishop of Edessa. Faced with the unpleasant prospect of losing the congregation in Edessa on account of this appointment, the pa11 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 626 (French, 56). Phantasiasm was the doctrine of Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus in southwest Asia Minor, who asserted the incorruptibility of the Body of Christ and was accused of believing that the Body of Christ was not real but a fantasy. Julian was still living in 536, but nothing is known about him after that date. The controversy over the incorruptibility of the Body of Christ is too detailed to be related here. See T. W. Davids, “Julianus,” in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, William Smith and Henry Wace, eds., 3 (London: John Murray, 1882), 475–476. Simony, the practice of selling church offices for money, is named for Simon Magus, the magician at Samaria who offered money to the Apostles Peter and John if they would grant him the power of the Holy Spirit, which they possessed. See Acts 8: 14–25.

664

THE CRUSADES

triarch chose the lesser evil by confirming Basilius bar Shumanna as the new bishop of Edessa. In his place he ordained Iliyya, a learned man, as bishop of Kesum, giving him the name of Iwannis (John) at his ordination. Not until early 1144, when Joscelin II returned from the coronation of Baldwin III at Jerusalem on December 23, 1143, did Patriarch Athanasius visit Joscelin II at Tall Bashir and reconcile with him and with the bishops who opposed him in the case of Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna.12 After Imad al-Din Zangi captured Edessa in late December 1144, Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna fled to Samosata for safety. Some people from Edessa betrayed him to Joscelin II on the grounds that he was plotting with the Turks. They told Joscelin, “If he (the bishop) slipped from your hand, he will return to the Turks. Therefore, he should die, lest he entice those who fled and bring them back to the Turks.” Joscelin arrested the bishop and imprisoned him alongside Muslim captives in the fortress of Romaita, where he remained for three years. After his release he went about collecting charity to ransom some of his own people who had been taken captive by the Turks. He went to Antioch and then to Jerusalem, where King Baldwin III and the Latin patriarch welcomed him. Next he traveled to Mosul, where he met Zangi’s deputy Zayn al-Din, who showed him compassion and appropriated a stipend for his living expenses. He then went to Amid to see Patriarch Athanasius Bar Qatra, who assigned him the diocese of Sebaberk, then under the authority of the bishop of Edessa. Bishop Basilius died in 1169.13 Joscelin II, short of funds, had set his eye on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, planning to steal its sacred objects and furnishings. In this regard he resembles King Henry VIII of England, who centuries later looted the wealth of the monasteries of his country. Michael Rabo offers two reasons for Joscelin’s plundering of the monastery: first, his action was the wages of the sins of its inmates, who chose the broad path that leads to perdition; second, just as King Solomon of Israel forsook the God of his forefathers and succumbed to pagan worship and abominable lusts, Joscelin likewise hardened his heart and gave himself over to vile action, making light of the great power dwelling in the remains of Saint Barsoum. He did not reveal his evil intent to any of his men, lest they inform the monks that Joscelin was about to loot their monastery. To carry out his devilish scheme, Joscelin Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 626, 629 (French, 256, 259); Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Athanasius Yeshu Bar Qatra. 13 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 638 (French, 277–278). 12

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

665

gathered his forces and pretended he was marching to pillage the Muslim territory. Three days after reaching Harran in northern Mesopotamia, he climbed the Hura (White) Mountain and camped at the Iza fountain, in northwestern Claudia. When the Muslims learned of his invasion, they fled. Joscelin told his men that since his plan to invade the Muslims’ region had failed, they should offer prayers at the nearest monastery before returning home. On the fateful morning of Saturday, June 18, 1148, Joscelin II sent a messenger to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum to inform the monks that he wished to visit. The monks were joyful that the Prince of the Christians planned to visit their monastery and offer prayer. They went to the south gate to welcome him, raising the Cross and the Gospels. Joscelin dismounted and prostrated himself before the Cross with seeming humility. He and his men approached, accompanied by some Franks who had just arrived in the East. The monks did not try to prevent them from entering the monastery, even though they were armed. While the monks were hopeful that they had come to donate gold and money to the monastery, however, the miscreant Joscelin actually intended to rob it. The monks decked out the church, brought out the relics of Mar Barsoum, and set them on a stool before the Franks. Joscelin offered prayers before the relics, placed a piece of paper on the altar, and left to sit on the porch outside the church. He gathered the monks and said, pointing to a Frank standing nearby, “This is my cousin who has just come from Rome, and he wishes to see the tower in the upper part of the monastery.” The abbot ordered that his wish be granted. When the Frank, who was actually a military commander, entered the tower with his soldiers, Joscelin ordered the infantrymen to shut the gate and position themselves at the tower. He sent five of his men to search the tower for valuables, but they found only an old monk and two attendants. Disappointed, Joscelin gathered the monks and locked them up in the church. He then summoned some of their elders and accused them of informing the Turks of his arrival in the nearby city of Melitene and thus allowing them to escape. The monks assured Joscelin of their innocence. If what they said was true, he said, then they should give him the possessions of the region of Melitene which the Muslims had deposited with them, for he was told that the Muslims had left enormous wealth in their custody: “You have the obligation to give these possessions to the Christians (Franks), to make them more powerful and take revenge on the Muslims who have pillaged the monasteries of the region of Zabar. I am now in need of these possessions.” The monks said that if they did so, they would no longer be able to live safely with the Muslims in the Melitene region. At this

666

THE CRUSADES

point, Joscelin grew angry and asked the elder monks to leave the church. He locked them up in the house of Saba, called Kano. He sent Frankish priests to the church to take all the silver patens, chalices, incense bowls, censors, crosses, candles, fans (rounded, with bells and portraits of Cherubim and Seraphim), Gospels, and books. His men also searched the monks’ cells and took whatever they found, including gold, silver, brass, iron objects, vestments, and church furniture. When some of the Friars (Knights of the Temple) saw what had happened, they told Joscelin, “We joined you to fight the Muslims and help the Christians, not to plunder churches and monasteries.” They left without eating or drinking.14 Joscelin and his men spent all Saturday plundering. They searched the monks’ cells and the attendants’ rooms again, seeking more valuables. Joscelin found a golden cross and smashed it into pieces, distributing them to his men. He loaded the booty on twelve mules belonging to the monastery and left, taking fifty monks with him. On the evening of Sunday, June 19, 1148, he came to a place called “The Elephant’s Vineyard,” where he left a garrison of 155 Frank and Armenian thugs. On Monday he released the monks, who arrived at Hisn Mansur the next day. Before doing so, however, he told them not to leave the monastery empty, lest the Muslims return to occupy it, and demanded that they pay him 10,000 dinars to leave the monastery alone. The frightened monks by then had nothing to pay Joscelin with, for he had stolen all they had. In their desperation, they brought him their most precious possession, the coffin containing the hand of Saint Barsoum, along with the vessels of four monasteries (Mar Abhai, Sarjisiyya, Madiq and Harsafta) which had been deposited with them for safekeeping. Joscelin’s henchmen stole quantities of wheat, wine, honey, clothing, and other goods, and carried them with the coffin containing Mar Barsoum’s hand to Tall Bashir, Joscelin’s stronghold. The Syrians and Armenians of Tall Bashir implored Joscelin to send the monks back to the monastery. He agreed after taking 10,000 dinars as bond from some Edessans who were then at Tall Bashir, keeping five monks and three elders in his custody along with the relics of Mar Barsoum. He let the rest of the monks return to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum in August 1148, accompanied by Iwannis, bishop of Kesum, and the abbot Lazarus. Joscelin’s egregious action against the monks of the monastery must have affected the conscience of some of his men. In a dream, 14 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 242–243 (French, 285–287); the Anonymous Edessan, 151–153 (Arabic, 177–180; English, 300, n. 2).

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

667

three of his men saw the monastery glimmering with light and the figure of Mar Barsoum standing majestically at its highest point, asking them to go and tell Joscelin to bring the monks back to the monastery. After they related their dream, Joscelin, whom Michael Rabo calls “the second Pharaoh,” promised to free the monks but then stalled. His heart was softened only when members of his family told him that they had seen the coffin of Mar Barsoum’s hand shining like the sun and a sword of fire issuing from it, and heard a voice saying, “O Joscelin, if you do not let me alone and repatriate the monks to the monastery, I will annihilate this region with the sword.” Upon hearing this, he allowed the two monks, David and Jacob, to return to the monastery on September 5, 1149. But he kept the coffin containing the saint’s hand until the monks of the monastery paid him an additional 5,000 dinars.15 On returning, the monks and their Bishop Iwwanis immediately expelled the Armenians from the monastery. When they saw that the altar of the church lay in ruins, they wept bitterly all day long. They proceeded to rebuild the altar and the rest of the monastery. The troops Joscelin had left behind asked the monks to swear that they would not bar Joscelin or his son, should either wish to enter the monastery. The monks reluctantly complied. The troops remained at the monastery for seventy days, during which no Divine Eucharist (Holy Communion) or any other service was conducted. Following the patriarch’s orders, Bishop Iwannis rededicated the altar of the church, confirmed Lazarus as abbot, and appointed a sexton and a supervisor for the monastery. The monks and attendants donated whatever they could to save the monastery from Joscelin’s grip. They collected 5,000 dinars from the faithful who visited the monastery and brought the money to Joscelin in December 1150. He gave them back the hand of Mar Barsoum, but admonished them to pay the balance. They presented to him a certain person who offered a surety for the payment of the other 5,000 dinars. Thus, the monks brought back the holy hand of Mar Barsoum.16 Sadly, Michael Rabo says the Byzantines rejoiced at Joscelin’s plundering of the monastery.17 Ironically Joscelin, a Christian Frankish prince, was rebuked by a Turkish Muslim ruler, Dawla, for violating Christian principles by plundering the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, on which his own father Ghazi, the Turkish Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 647 (French, 291–292). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 642–643 (French, 283–285); the Anonymous Edessan, 152–153 (Arabic, 178–179). 17 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 651 (French, 289). 15 16

668

THE CRUSADES

governor of Melitene, had imposed heavy taxes. When Dawla heard that Joscelin had invaded the monastery, he thought that the monks had deliberately surrendered it to escape paying the taxes. He told the people of Melitene, “I will take revenge on you because you delivered the fortress (monastery) to the Franks.” Thus the monks, who had already seen their monastery plundered, now had to face Dawla’s vengeance. They were so distressed that they suspended prayer and the pealing of the church's bell for three days. Relief came when Dawla discovered that the monks had not simply handed the monastery over. His wrath against the Christians of Melitene abated, and he assembled an army to fight the small garrison Joscelin had stationed in the monastery, captured it, and evicted the Franks. Through providence, twelve monks and fifty attendants managed to take some of the oxen and other property belonging to the monastery and went to Melitene to await their destiny. An old monk named Ibrahim, nicknamed “Sorodim,” went to see Dawla. He told him, “Coming to the region of Melitene will cause you great loss because you cannot occupy the region militarily. Also, the method of robbery will not succeed. Wait a little, and we will draw up a plan for the occupation of the region.” Dawla, appreciating this counsel, lavished gifts on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and exempted the monks from paying taxes for that year. He asked them to swear to abide by this covenant, and they did. Joscelin asked for peace and sent Dawla this message: “You have plundered the monasteries of the region of Zabar under my authority. But I have taken the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, which is more important than any other. It is like an eagle among the fowls of the air. See, I have returned the monastery to you.” Dawla answered, “We, like you, seek peace. But tell me, how can you affirm your quest for peace while you have proven that you have no faith? The Muslims swear by their Book, and the Christians swear by the Cross and the Gospel. But you yourself have violated the sanctity of the Gospel and have broken the Cross into pieces. You have nothing to do with the Christian faith. Reveal your true faith, whether you are a Jew or a pagan, that we may establish peace with you on the basis of your faith.” Thus, says Michael Rabo, “The barbarous Muslim Turk censured the Christian liar.” Finally Joscelin II was defeated and captured by the Muslims, the monks returned to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, and through God's providence things were straightened out between the Muslims and the monks.18

18

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 643–644 (French, 286–288).

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

669

Joscelin’s iniquities and barbarous treatment of the Syrians were not unpunished. He was struck with disaster en route to Antioch with 200 horsemen. It is not clear whether he was trying to have a showdown with the Muslims or to escape. Although Michael Rabo says Joscelin thought he could face a thousand Muslims with that small force, Bar Hebraeus says he left Tall Bashir hoping to meet with a ship in the harbor of Antioch, which indicates that he and his men intended to escape by sea.19 When they reached Azaz (Hazart) at night, they were frightened by a noisy band of Turkomans and fled. As Joscelin ran, he thought he saw a tree in his way and stumbled to the ground. (In fact, the men with him said there was no tree.) A Turkoman saw him lying on the ground, hurt by the fall. He did not recognize him but, knowing that he was probably a Frank, thought he could sell him to the Christians. He carried him to a nearby village and met a Jew who saw him and told the villagers that it was Joscelin. Realizing that he had a fortune in his hands, the Turkoman carried Joscelin to Aleppo, whose governor, Nur al-Din Zangi, bought him for a thousand dinars. Nur al-Din had Joscelin II chained and thrown into prison.20 While Joscelin was in prison, the Muslims showered him with gifts and coaxed him to recant Christianity and embrace Islam, but he adamantly resisted. Then he was threatened with torture, but he courageously withstood the threats and persisted in his Christian faith, confessing that what had happened to him was because of his sins. Joscelin II sent a message to the monks of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and to the Christians in that region, asking them to pray God to accept his penance. He spent nine years in prison, from 1150 to 1159. As his end drew near, he asked to be taken from his cell to Ignatius, the Syrian bishop of Aleppo, who received his confession and administered the Holy Communion. After his death the Muslims handed his body over to the Christians, who buried him in the church. A great number of Christians and Muslims attended his funeral, bewildered by all that had taken place.21 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 649 (French, 295); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 98 (English, 276–277). 20 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 648–649 (French, 295); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 98 (English, 276–277); Gregory the Priest, Continuation of Matthew of Edessa, A. E. Dostourian, trans. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 258, says simply that Joscelin was taken prisoner by “the hideous and ferocious detester of Christ and brought to the city of Aleppo.” 21 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 648–649 (French, 295); Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 98 (English, 276–277). 19

670

THE CRUSADES

The Anonymous Edessan offers a slightly different account of Joscelin’s capture and his treatment by Nur al-Din Zangi. He says that when Joscelin heard that the lord of Mar’ash had been killed, he left Azaz and marched with a band of troops to capture Antioch. When he came to Cyrrhus, between Homs and Hama, as he prepared to cross to the village of Shaykh al-Dayr, a group of Turkomans jumped out of the bushes and seized him. Joscelin asked them to take him to Azaz and offered to give them whatever they asked. They took him to Shaykh al-Dayr, not knowing who he was. The Christians of the village, recognizing him, tried to buy him from the Turkomans for sixty dinars. But when a Jew passing through the village, a dyer by trade, told the Turkomans that the man was Joscelin, they took him to Aleppo. Nur al-Din Zangi had his eyes gouged out and cast him into prison, where he remained in heavy chains for nine years until his death.22 William of Tyre, showing no sympathy for Joscelin, says that while he was in prison, bound with heavy chains, wasted by mental and physical suffering, “He reaped the result of his dissolute ways and came to a wretched end.”23 Among Muslim writers, Ibn al-Athir gives the most detailed account of Joscelin’s end. In 1151, he says, Nur al-Din marched to the country of Joscelin the Frank north of Aleppo, including Tall Bashir, Ayntab, and Azaz, with the intention of besieging and capturing them. Although he praises Joscelin for his courage and prudence and mostly for being “the undisputed Frankish knight,” he says that upon learning Nur al-Din Zangi had assembled an army to fight him, Joscelin went to challenge him. He defeated the Muslims and captured Nur al-Din’s armor-bearer and took him to Mas’ud, sultan of the Seljuks of Rum, telling him, “This is the armor-bearer of your son-in-law; you will face what is much worse.” Nur alDin, greatly distressed, decided to take revenge. He summoned a group of Turkoman chiefs and promised them a generous bounty if they captured and delivered Joscelin to him, dead or alive. They sent spies to locate him. When Joscelin went out hunting one day, a band of Turkomans captured him. He offered them money to set him free, and they agreed to do so if he delivered the money immediately, whereupon he sent someone to bring it. The Anonymous Edessan, 154–155 (English, 301; Arabic, 180–181). William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 201; Gregory the Priest, Continuation, 258, likewise asserts that Joscelin was punished because he acted against the will of God. 22 23

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

671

Meanwhile, a Turkoman went to Abu Bakr Majd al-Din ibn al-Daya, Nur al-Din’s deputy in Aleppo, and told him Joscelin had been taken. Ibn alDaya sent troops who captured the Turkomans and Joscelin, bringing him to Nur al-Din. Ibn al-Athir gloats over Joscelin’s capture, calling it the greatest victory because he was “a tyrant devil, cruel and too hard on the Muslims; all of Christendom was afflicted by his capture.” Nur al-Din later occupied many of Joscelin’s towns, including Tall Bashir, Ayntab, Duluk (Doliche), Azaz, Cyrrhus, Rawandan (Ravendan), and the fortresses of alBara, Tall Khalid, Kafrlatha and many others.24 Ibn Wasil gives still another version, as related by the amir Mu’ayyid al-Dawla ibn Munqidh, who says that when Joscelin left Tall Bashir at night and felt the need to sleep, he told some of his men to continue their march; he would follow later with others, whom he ordered to stay with him. As he slept, a band of Turkomans happened to pass by. Seeing them, Joscelin’s companions fled, and the Turkomans captured Joscelin, not knowing who he was. As they marched the next morning, an Armenian who was passing by recognized him. He approached him and kissed his hand. When the Turkomans asked who the man was, the Armenian said he was Joscelin, lord of Tall Bashir. When the news of Joscelin’s capture reached Majd alDin ibn al-Daya, he summoned the Turkomans and offered them a bounty, raising it until they were satisfied. When Nur al-Din came to Aleppo, he blinded Joscelin and killed him.25 Joscelin II was not the only Frankish prince to loot the Christian churches and monasteries. Bohemond III, son of Raymond of Poitiers and prince of Antioch (1163–1201), did so too around 1181, but not on the same scale. He first married the princess Theodora, niece of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus, but then divorced her to marry Sybil, “who had a reputation of practicing evil art.”26 The Latin patriarch of Antioch then excommunicated not only Bohemond and the priest who married him to Sybil, but the whole Christian population of Antioch. He ordered an end to the church bells’ pealing, the celebration of Holy Communion, and even Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 480–481, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963), 101– 103; Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, Sami al-Dahhan, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 301–302. 25 Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al’Awwal, 1953),1: 124. 26 William of Tyre, History, 2: 453. 24

672

THE CRUSADES

burial of the dead. Ignoring the patriarch’s condemnation, Bohemond compounded his sin by plundering the churches and monasteries. The Frankish princes and judges and the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem interceded on behalf of Bohemond, and he returned his ill-gotten gain to the churches and monasteries. He also expelled from his domain several noblemen who had taken refuge with Roupen (Reuben) III (1175–1185), Armenian ruler of Cilicia, who received them with honor and gave them splendid gifts.27 But the actions of Joscelin II and Bohemond III appear to be exceptions rather than the rule. There were many occasions when the Franks showed justice toward their fellow Christians, the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobites). In 1138 a Syrian monk, Michael of Mar’ash (Germanicia), an inmate of the Kasliyud Monastery in the Black Mountain who had gone to Jerusalem to enter the Monastery of Mary Magdalene, wrote a ten-page tract in Syriac about the restoration of the villages of Beth Arif and Adasiyya, which had been usurped by a prominent Frankish prince.28 Michael says that in 1137 a prince whom he calls Gonfrey (Godfrey), one of the Franks who stormed Jerusalem in 1099 and killed countless Muslims, usurped the two villages, which belonged to the Syrian community. Although he does not identify the prince further, he seems to be Godfrey of Ascha, a companion of Godfrey of Bouillon, the first king of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.29 Godfrey of Ascha apparently took advantage of the vulnerability of the Syrian church in Jerusalem to claim the villages, but soon he was captured by Muslims and taken to Egypt in chains. Many years later, an Armenian 27 William of Tyre, History, 2: 454–457; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 429–430; M. W. Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 597, n. 7. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 725–726 (French, 388–389), says the marriage of Bohemond III to the woman of ill repute was finally legitimized and peace prevailed. 28 This eyewitness account, which was appended to a church prayer book, was published with commentary by M. L’Abbé Martin as “Les Premieres Princes des Croisades et Les Syriens Jacobites de Jérusalem,” Journal Asiatique 12 (NovemberDecember 1888): 471–491 and 13 (January 1889): 33–79, containing the Syriac text and French translation. See Patriarch Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab al-Suryaniyya, 4th ed. (Holland: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987), 375, trans. Matti Moosa as The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Pueblo: Passeggiata Press, 2000), 140. 29 Gérard Dédéyan, “Les colophons de manuscrits arméniens comme sources pour l’histoire des Croisades,” in The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, John France and William G. Zajac, eds. (Ashgate, 1998), 96–97.

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

673

bishop (whom Michael does not identify) visited Egypt and prevailed on the Fatimid Caliph al-Hafiz li Din Allah (1131–1149) to release Godfrey, by then an old man.30 The Syrian Bishop Athanasius Kaddana, who had built two churches and a monastery and done other renovations in these villages, was unhappy about Godfrey’s release. When Godfrey returned from captivity, he claimed the two villages as his own. King Fulk of Anjou (1131–1143), then in Beit Jibrin, ordered his deputy in Jerusalem to restore the villages to him. The Malkites, who adhered to the formula of the Council of Chalcedon, rejoiced when the antiChalcedonian Syrians lost the two villages. But the Syrians managed to reverse the king’s order through the intervention of his wife Queen Melisend (daughter of Baldwin II).31 Michael the monk says that Melisend was charitable toward the Syrian church and people, having great compassion for them not only because of their loss of the two villages but because of the hardships, anxieties, and persecution Bishop Ignatius had suffered. She sent a messenger to tell her husband of the Syrians’ suffering and the expenses they had undergone to build churches in the two villages, and explained that Beth Arif and Adasiyya had belonged to the Syrian community since Arab times, i.e., since the Arabs occupied Jerusalem in the seventh century. She beseeched him to assist the Syrians by restoring the villages to them, and she commanded the king’s princes and ministers to aid Bishop Ignatius, assuring them that she would consider their help a great favor. Accordingly, Bishop Ignatius and Godfrey of Ascha appeared before the king in Beit Jibrin. After a few days of deliberation, the king ordered that the two villages be restored to the bishop. Godfrey took an oath before the king and those present that he would not harass the Syrians any more, and the bishop promised to pay Godfrey 200 dinars to compensate for his loss.32 Ignatius Sahdo, a monk from the Monastery of Mary Magdalene (and later the Syrian metropolitan of Jerusalem), tells a similar story, and his eyewitness account should be considered reliable. He says that in 1148, Jerusalem was filled with many poor refugees who had escaped the destruction of Edessa by the Zangids four year earlier. Because the Syrian convents could L’Abbé Martin, “Les Premieres Princes,” 13: 42–45 of the Syriac text. See Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Queen Melisend of Jerusalem,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972): 95–182. 32 L’Abbé Martin, “Les Premieres Princes,” 13: 46–49 of the Syriac text. Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972), 222, mentions Melisend’s favor toward the Syrians in this case. 30 31

674

THE CRUSADES

not afford to provide food for them, many died from hunger. Ignatius Romanus, then the metropolitan of Jerusalem, took compassion on the refugees and tried to help them, but he was in financial difficulty because he had had to purchase the village of Dayr Da Krieh (The Village of the Sick), which belonged to the monastery but had been captured by the Muslims and recaptured by the Franks. He appealed to King Baldwin III and his mother, Queen Melisend, for help in regaining the village. Having great respect for Romanus, they ordered the owner of the village (not identified) to return it to the Monastery of Mary Magdalene. The king asked the metropolitan to compensate the owner, buy the village, and secure a deed, legally witnessed and sealed. Metropolitan Romanus agreed to pay 1,000 gold dinars to receive the deed—a large amount for a man who tried to help the poor and needy. But God, who works in mysterious ways, provided an unexpected donor who paid the amount, and the metropolitan was able to use the 1,000 dinars to buy food for the poor and needy.33 After relating this incident, Hans Eberhard Mayer asks whether it could have any connection with the two villages of Beth Arif and Adasiyya.34 But this is unlikely, for if the incidents were related, Ignatius Sahdo would surely have had some knowledge of the two villages and would have referred to them. In some instances even the Franks invoked the divine healing power of the Syrian Saint Mar Barsoum. Michael Rabo relates one such incident. After Joscelin II was taken captive and thrown into prison, the only son of a Frankish leader fell from a tree at his home in Antioch and broke his heel. His parents spent an enormous amount of money on his treatment, but to no avail, and grew very distressed. The boy’s mother, Isabel, having heard of the saint’s miraculous healing power, prayed tearfully, asking him to intercede and heal her son. Knowing that a monk of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, named Saliba, regularly carried a portrait of the saint and visited the homes in Antioch to impart his blessings, the boy’s parents invited the monk to their home. The next day, Saint Barsoum appeared to the boy’s mother dressed as a king. She asked who this king was, and the crowd said that he was Saint Barsoum. The saint asked her to build a church on a space in her house; then he appeared to the monk carrying his portrait and told 33 W. R. Taylor, “A New Syriac Fragment Dealing With Incidents In The Second Crusades,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 11 (1929–1930): 124. For elucidation of this tract, see Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur, trans. Moosa, 34–35; Bar Hebraeus, 142 (English, 398–399). 34 Mayer, “Studies in the History,” 139, n. 72.

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

675

him to go to the house of Henry the Frank and build a church in its garden, showing him three altars to be contained in it. When his vision recurred, the monk Saliba became alarmed and related it to Bishop Basilius bar Shumanna of Edessa, who was then in Antioch. The monk and the bishop were skeptical about this vision, but shortly afterwards the boy's parents came to report the saint’s appearance to the mother. Bishop Basilius and the monk Saliba carried the portrait of Mar Barsoum to the Franks’ house and began to pray for the healing of their son, and the boy’s parents joined them in prayer. The boy, who appeared deep in sleep, instantly cried out in a loud voice and jumped to his feet, to the consternation of his parents and other family members. They saw him look up and stretch out his hand, as if someone were trying to hold him. Meanwhile, the boy’s parents prepared candles and incense. By now a great crowd had gathered at the site. Turning to his parents and the crowd, the boy said, “Mar Barsoum, accompanied by a host of monks, appeared to me carrying a golden cross which shone with bright light that filled the whole house. He held my hand and told me not to be afraid. He said he had come because of the prayers and the faith of my mother.” The boy asked Mar Barsoum how he could stand up while his heel was broken; then Mar Barsoum touched his heel and he was made whole.35 The boy’s parents, ecstatic, proceeded immediately to the Great Church, followed by a throng of people. From there they went to see the queen (presumably Melisend of Jerusalem). A huge crowd of Franks, Armenians, and Syrians accompanied the queen to the house where the miracle had taken place. Bowing to the ground, the queen wept as the people took earth from that spot for blessing. The boy’s parents began to build a church under the supervision of Saliba. Michael Rabo, then the abbot of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, says that he himself, together with the monastery’s elders, attended the dedication ceremony of the new church on Sunday, December 9, 1157, in the time of Reginald of Châtillon, count of Antioch, Baldwin III, king of Jerusalem, Aimery, Latin patriarch of Antioch, and the Syrian Patriarch Athanasius Bar Qatra. Also at the service were the Armenian Thoros II, lord of Cilicia; Queen Melisend; Henry and his wife Elizabeth (Isabel); and all the Frankish, Armenian, and Syrian leaders, together with a host of Syrian priests and deacons and Frankish and Arme-

35

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 651–653 (French, 300–304).

676

THE CRUSADES

nian monks. The Byzantines, who did not participate in the dedication of the church, “died from anger.”36 This incident speaks volumes. It shows that even the Franks, who like the Greeks espoused the Council of Chalcedon, were ready to accept the intercession of a Syrian saint and honor him by building a church. They demonstrated tolerance towards the native Syrian Christians—unlike the Greeks, who had been unable to rid themselves of their long-standing doctrinal prejudice, which had weakened Syria and made it a cold prey to the Arabs. From the seventh century on, the Syrians and the Greeks fell victim to the new masters, who held them both in contempt, treating them as dhimmis (protected people) as long as they paid the jizya (poll-tax). Yet for many years, says Michael Rabo, Muslim Turks and Kurds visited the Monastery of Mar Barsoum to commemorate the saint and seek healing. When Michael Rabo undertook a project to bring water through a duct to the monastery, he was encouraged by both Christians and Muslims. Both groups shared a belief in the divine power of Saint Barsoum to heal the sick, a phenomenon which transcended the religious boundaries between them.37 Although some of the Frankish princes committed outrages against the Syrians, Patriarch Michael Rabo enjoyed extremely amicable relations with the leaders of the Latin Church. Shortly after his ordination as patriarch on September 1, 1167, he visited Mardin and then Edessa, where Bishop Basilius Bar Shumanna received him with great honor. Next he went to Jerusalem; the Latin patriarch there welcomed him with great pomp, perhaps, as Bar Hebraeus says, “to spite the Greek Patriarch of Antioch, whom he disliked.”38 According to the Anonymous Edessan, he then went to Antioch, entering the city with great pageant and honor. The Franks brought him to the Church of St. Peter and seated him on the throne of St. Peter in the Cassianus wing, in the southern part of the church.39 He spent the winter and celebrated Easter in Antioch and ordained many bishops before leaving at the beginning of June.40 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 651–653 (French, 300–304). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 678 (French, 321); Bahnam, “Dayr Mar Barsoum,” 162–163. 38 Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Mar Mikha’il (Michael) Rabo. 39 Seating Michael Rabo on the throne suggests that the Franks regarded him as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, and provides proof that St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch and its patriarchate before he left for Rome. Indeed, even today the Church of Rome on January 18 commemorates St. Peter as the founder of the 36 37

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

677

Over a decade later, Patriarch Michael Rabo was invited to travel to Rome to help resolve the issue of a heresy that had arisen in Syria. A group of Franks, mostly in the province of Antioch, rejected the doctrine of the Consubstantiation, i.e., that upon the consecration of the Bread and the Wine during the Eucharist, these elements turn into the Real Body and Blood of Christ, a basic belief of the universal church until it was challenged during the Reformation. Moreover, these Franks allowed the abominable practice of the communal use of women. These dissident Franks asserted that true belief is not to uphold such a doctrine, but to excel in charitable work by helping the poor and loving one another. As their numbers increased to several thousands, they established their own bishops, and many governors followed them. Naturally, the leaders of the traditional church considered their rejection of the doctrine of Consubstantiation a heresy. In Rome, their leader convened a universal council in 1178 to restrain them. Michael Rabo, who was then on a visit to Antioch, says that the Pope of Rome, whom Chabot identifies as Pope Alexander III (d. 1181), who called the Third Lateran Council in March 1179, sent a delegation to the Latin patriarch of Antioch and Jerusalem on account of the heresy of the Franks. The patriarch in turn sent the bishop of Tarsus and two priests to ask Michael Rabo to travel to Rome with him to help combat this heresy. Michael Rabo could not go to Rome, but wrote a treatise explaining “when and how Satan created this heresy and how our own church Fathers condemned it.”41 Inviting a Syrian patriarch to a council convened by a Frankish church leader was an unusual act of tolerance, for the Roman Catholic Church considered the Syrian church “heretical.” Almost six decades later, another Syrian patriarch received honored treatment from the Franks. Patriarch Ignatius III (1222–1252), accompanied by several bishops, visited Jerusalem and was received with great honor and pomp by the Frankish Frères (Knights Templar). When they saw that he could hardly walk because of his gout, they carried him by hand Church of Antioch and its first patriarch. See Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th. ed., 13: 696. 40 The Anonymous Edessan, 307 (Arabic, 346), is somewhat vague about the dates of the patriarch’s ordination and his journeys to various cities. If the patriarch was actually ordained in September 1167, he must have spent Easter of the next year in Antioch. Surprisingly, Michael Rabo does not mention these events, possibly because of his characteristic humility. 41 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 700–701, 718 (French, 347–348, 377, esp. 377, n. 1).

678

THE CRUSADES

through Bab al-Amud (the Pillar Gate), designated for the entrance of kings and patriarchs into the city. They took him and his entourage to the Monastery of Mary Magdalene, which belonged to the patriarch’s community and at the time housed seventy Syrian monks. While the patriarch was there, a problem concerning the application of canon laws arose between him and the Frères. An Ethiopian monk of noble origin named Thomas entreated the patriarch to ordain him a metropolitan for Ethiopia. According to established canon laws, the Syrian patriarch had no authority to ordain a bishop of another church without the approval of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, who had sole jurisdiction over Ethiopia. But it happened that the Alexandrian Patriarch Cyril Laqlaq (Luqluq) had recently ordained an Egyptian Coptic bishop for Jerusalem without the approval of the Syrian patriarch, who had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the city. Apparently, the number of Copts in Jerusalem and Syria had increased so much that they appealed to their patriarch to ordain a bishop for them. They also complained that they had to attend religious services conducted in the Syriac language, which they did not understand. In retaliation against the Alexandrian patriarch’s action, Patriarch Ignatius III himself violated canon law by ordaining Thomas as metropolitan for Ethiopia, after sending Bishop Dionysius Saliba of Claudia to ask the Frankish Frères their opinion about his plan to do so. When the Frères learned that the Syrian patriarch had ordained Thomas, they became outraged, but since he was a guest, they tried to avoid any trouble within the Christian communities in Jerusalem. The prior of the Knights of the Temple told the patriarch that he had not purchased Jerusalem or captured it by his sword and pointed out that they had received him with great respect and honor, out of respect for the laws of Christ. He added that when the patriarch sought their opinion, they told him that the ordination of Thomas was against church laws and that he should not do it. “Why then,” the prior asked, “did you hasten to do such a thing, and what was the reason for doing it? Why did you reject our advice?” The stunned patriarch’s face turned pale, and he could not answer. But Bishop Dionysius Saliba came to his rescue. Speaking in Syriac (which the Franks could not understand), he asked the patriarch to tell the Frankish Knights of the Temple that he (the bishop) was to blame for the patriarch’s ordination of Thomas. The patriarch then said that Bishop Dionysius had returned with word that the Frankish prior had approved of Thomas’s ordination. He added that he did not intend to reject their advice or the honor they had bestowed on him. When they asked whether the patriarch was telling the truth, Bishop Dionysius said he was. The Knights of the Temple then were

THE FRANKS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS

679

convinced that the prior had misunderstood the patriarch’s message because of the language difference, and they accepted the bishop’s explanation. The grateful patriarch thanked Bishop Dionysius for saving him from an awful predicament and praised his shrewdness and acumen.42 The action of the Knights of the Temple was more an evidence of respect for canon law than of interference in the affairs of the Syrian Church. We should not overlook the fact that although the Franks lost Jerusalem in 1187 to Saladin, they managed to regain control of the city according to the ten-year treaty of Jaffa, concluded on February 18, 1229 between the Emperor Frederick II of Sicily and Sultan al-Kamil Muhammad (1218– 1238), son of al-Malik al-Adil, brother of Saladin.43 When Patriarch Ignatius Dawud visited Jerusalem, the city was under Frankish control. The comment by the Roman Catholic priest Ishaq Armala that in 1240 Patriarch Ignatius III sent Pope Innocent IV a letter proclaiming his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, and that he renewed his conversion in 1247 with the Maphrian Yuhanna bar Ma’dani (later patriarch, d. 1263), is historically groundless.44 Michael Rabo seems also to have had good relations with King Baldwin IV (“the Leper,” reigned 1174–1185) of Jerusalem, and his father King Amalric before him. In September 1179, Michael Rabo left Antioch and met in Acre (Akka) with young King Baldwin, who received him warmly. The patriarch told the king of his father’s charter regarding the treatment of the Syrians and obtained a similar charter from Baldwin. Unfortunately, Michael Rabo does not disclose the contents of these charters, which must have been for the benefit of the Syrians and their patriarch, since otherwise he would have not bothered to mention them.45

Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Ignatius Dawud; Rev. Ishaq Armala, al-Hurub al-Salibiyya fi al-Athar al-Suryaniyya (Beirut: al-Matba’a alSuryaniyya, 1929), 219–220. 43 Badr al-Din al-Ayni, Iqd al-Juman, R H C. Or., 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 187–190, says handing Jerusalem over to the Christians was one of the greatest calamities ever to befall Islam; Thomas C. Van Cleve, “The Crusade of Frederick II,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 454–455; Runciman, A History of The Crusades, 3: 187. 44 Armala, al-Hurub, 220. 45 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 720 (French, 379). See Röhricht, 385. 42

19 THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE More than any other Muslim writer, Ibn al-Athir has discussed the character and achievements of Nur al-Din Zangi, who he says died from al-khawaniq (angina) in 1173-74.1 Ibn al-Athir says he read the history of the rulers before and after Islam and found no sovereign except al-Khulafa al-Rashidun (the Rightly Guided Caliphs) and the Umayyad Caliph Umar ibn Abd alAziz (reigned 717-720) to be more praiseworthy for his conduct, justice, and fairness than al-Malik al-Adil Nur al-Din. He lauds Nur al-Din for his indifference to worldly things and for his strict adherence to Islamic law, devotion and piety, adding that he spent long hours in prayer, even at midnight and early morning. He was a very strict Muslim who practiced the rules of the Muslim faith seriously. A part of his faith was jihad (holy war), for which he was called to make Islam triumph. He was a Sunnite of the Hanafite school, but without prejudice against Muslims of other schools.

Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 1: 602, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi alDawla al-Atabegiyya, Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub alHaditha, 1963), 161; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 55; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 1: 228, follows Ibn Shaddad; Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, Sami al-Dahhan, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 340; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al’Awwal, 1953), 1: 262–263; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 107 of the Syriac text, and trans. Budge, 302, where khawaniq is rendered as strangury, a disease marked by the painful and slow discharge of urine; Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1291 (Innsbrug, 1898), 358; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 394, n. 62. 1

681

682

THE CRUSADES

He was abstemious in his food, simple in his dress, and chaste in sexual matters. He glorified the Islamic Shari’a (law), which impacted his work and conduct. Ibn al-Athir goes on to enumerate Nur al-Din’s achievements, like the establishment of Dar al-Adl (The House of Justice) in Damascus, the building of schools in Aleppo, Hama, and Damascus not only for the Sunnites but also for the Shafiites, and the founding of a great hospital in Damascus where rich and poor Muslim people were treated alike. He also built inns and lodges for the Sufis and homes for the orphans, staffed by men who taught the Quran. The most famous of the many mosques he built is the one that bore his name, al-Jami al-Nuri (The Nuri Mosque) in Mosul, with the tallest minaret in the whole Muslim world, known today as al-Jami al-Kabir (the Great Mosque).2 In brief, if one follows Ibn al-Athir, he will conclude that Nur al-Din Zangi was “the most ideal Muslim” in every respect. His domain extended far and wide, from Mosul to all of Syria, Egypt, and Yemen.3 But Ibn al-Athir shows a dark side of Nur al-Din Zangi’s character in discussing his treatment of the Christians. He says “Nur al-Din (May God have mercy on his soul)” used a great deal of trickery, duplicity, and deception in dealing with the Franks, and thus was able to control most of the regions they had formerly held. An example of his stratagem is what he did to the Armenian Malih (Mleh), son of Leo I, Roupenid ruler of Cilicia (1173–1175). He kept deceiving, coaxing him and offering him estates until he won him over and used him to fight against the Franks, the Byzantines, and even his own people. Supported by Nur al-Din, Malih captured the major cities of Adana, Mamistra (al-Mississa) and Tarsus in Cilicia in 1173 and defeated the Byzantine forces, killing many. He sent thirty of their leaders as prisoners and plenty of booty to Nur al-Din, who in turn sent some of them along with the booty to the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi bi Amr Allah (1170–1180) with a letter informing him of the victory, because some of the caliph’s troops had participated in it. Asked why he dealt with Malih as Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 576–577. Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162–175, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 602–606; Sulayman Sai’gh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1 (Cairo; al-Matba’a al-Salafiyya, 1923), 179–181, 219; Sa’id al-Daywachi, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1 (Baghdad: The Iraqi Academy, 1982): 335; Husayn Mu’nis, Nur al-Din Mahmud: Sirat Muhahid Sadiq (Cairo: al-Sharika al-‘Arabiyya li alTiba’a wa al-Nahr, 1959), 180–182; N. Elisséeff, Nur al-Din: un grand prince musulman de Syrie au temps des Croisades (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1967), 64–65; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 1999– 2000), 132–141. 2 3

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

683

he did, Nur al-Din said that he used him to fight against his own people and to stop him from challenging his (Nur al-Din's) troops.4 The Armenian writer K. L. Astarjian says that Malih had a bad upbringing which affected his life and behavior. He vacillated between several religions and at one time joined the Templars, but then turned against them. Malih embraced Islam before he became involved with Nur al-Din Zangi, who influenced him to invade Cilicia and conspire against his own brother Thoros.5 To William of Tyre, Malih was a most wicked man. When his brother Thoros II died in 1168, the nobles chose Thomas, a nephew of Thoros and Malih on his sister’s side, as administrator of Thoros’s principality. Thomas was well-born but totally unqualified for this position, and Malih, taking advantage of his weakness, quickly seized control of the principality. To buttress his power, he betrayed his own people and defected to Nur al-Din Zangi and offered him allegiance. Nur al-Din welcomed this renegade and, on well-defined terms favorable to himself, provided Malih with a sizable cavalry force. Malih was the first of his [Armenian] people to violate the customs of his ancestors. He not only invaded and occupied the major cities of Cilicia, but also dispossessed the Knights Templar of their holdings there, although at one time he had belonged to their order. He formed an alliance with Nur al-Din and the Turks, on terms appropriate for brothers. By his actions, says William, he rejected the law of God and did immense injury to the Christians. Realizing that Malih and Nur al-Din repesented a great danger to their domains, King Amalric I of Jerusalem (1163–1174) and the governor of Antioch joined forces to fight Malih. Amalric sent several envoys to Malih asking to meet and discuss the situation with him, but without success. War became inevitable. No sooner did he march against Malih in Cilicia than reports reached him that Nur al-Din had attacked Petra in Arabia Secunda. As Amalric and the Franks continued to drive toward Cilicia, however, another messenger brought word that Nur al-Din, who apparently was not yet in a position to challenge the Franks, had abandoned the siege.6 The Syriac sources partly agree with this account. They say that before Thoros II, governor of Cilicia, died in 1168, he gave instructions that his Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 588–589, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 169; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 235; Nicolas Iorga, L'Armenie Cilicienne (Paris: J. Gamber, 1930), 98. 5 K. L. Astarjian, Tarikh al-Umma al-Armaniyya (Mosul: Matba’at al-Ittihad alJadida, 1951), 214–215. 6 William of Tyre, History, 2: 386–387. 4

684

THE CRUSADES

youngest son (apparently under age) was to succeed him, and Thomas, the son of his aunt, should serve as his administrator. Deprived of the chance to succeed his brother, Malih became furious and contacted Nur al-Din, who supplied him with an army of Turks. He attacked and ravaged Cilicia, capturing 16,000 youths and maidens, men and women, and monks and bishops, and carried them to Aleppo; there he sold them to merchants and gave the proceeds to the Turks who had supported him. Hoping to appease him, the Armenians of Cilicia met with him and offered him half the country. Malih accepted the offer and assured them under oath that the other half would go to Thoros’s young son, but soon he broke his oath and took possession of all Cilicia, with its towns and fortresses. He then took his vengeance on his opponents. He gouged the eyes of many bishops and governors and cut off their hands and feet. He flayed others alive and cast their bodies to wild animals.7 When Amalric learned of Malih’s ill treatment of the Christians, he came to fight against him. Malih sought the Turks’ help, but the king routed them and Malih sought refuge in his fortress. When the king besieged the fortress, he began to feel pain. Finally, he repented and apologized for his bad deeds, swore an oath of fealty to the king, and promised never to join the Turks.8 Malih’s end came in 1175, when his army commanders revolted against him because of his abominable deeds. He left his camp at night and fled to one of his fortresses. The guards, who were in collusion with the army leaders, captured Malih, cut him into pieces, and threw him to the dogs. They brought his cousin Roupen, son of Stephen, who had been hiding in Tarsus out of fear of Malih, and installed him as their king. As soon as he took power, however, Roupen retaliated by killing those who had murdered Malih, on the pretext that they had treated him cruelly.9 7

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 103 of the Syriac text, 292 of the English transla-

tion. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 695–696; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 337; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 103 of the Syriac text, 295 of the English translation. 9 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 710–711 of the Syriac text, 361 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 176–177 of the Syriac text, 205 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 305 of the English translation; Frédéric Macler, “Armenia,” Cambridge Medieval History, 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1170–1171. 8

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

685

The Anonymous Edessan’s view of Nur al-Din is similar to that of Ibn al-Athir. He says that Nur al-Din was a schemer, cunning, and very strict in observing Islamic laws. It is said that he neither drank wine nor allowed others to do so. He banned the singing, merriment and dancing enjoyed by other Muslim sovereigns. It is even said that no one heard him laugh. He ate alone, and only once a day. He was not lecherous, nor did he marry many women, as was the reprehensible custom of the Muslim sovereigns. He wore simple dress, fasted constantly, and read the Quran. He acted with justice and offered alms to poor Muslims and even to pious Christians. He persisted in strengthening Islamic laws and customs in the countries he had conquered, and abolished all taxes and excises in the countries under his control. And if he learned that an injustice had been done, he was quick to compensate the victim. He never punished anyone without a trial and reliable testimony. His camp was free from rowdiness, frivolous play, and clamor.10 But the Anonymous Edessan, Michael Rabo, and William of Tyre show this Turkish ruler in an unfavorable light when they describe his treatment of the native Christians. William of Tyre says that Nur al-Din was a just prince, valiant and wise, and a religious man according to the traditions of his people, but also a persecutor of the Christian name and faith.11 Michael Rabo and the Anonymous Edessan show that the Christians suffered greatly from Nur al-Din’s oppression and persecution. When his brother Qutb al-Din Mawdud, lord of Mosul died in 1170, he went to take control of the city and instigated the Muslim jurists against the Christians, whom his brother had treated kindly. He was extremely strict about observing the times of prayer and not drinking wine, and was so devoted to observing the tenets of Islam that the Muslims nicknamed him “al-Nabi” (The Prophet), because he believed that he was like Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. He even expected Allah to talk to him face to face, as he did to Moses. Some of the Muslims who mocked him for his belief and called him a “prophet” sarcastically told him that he, being a divine personage, had appeared to them in the masjid, and he believed them.12

10 The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197–198 of the Arabic translation. 11 William of Tyre, History, 2: 394. 12 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 705–706 of the Syriac text, 353 of the French translation.

686

THE CRUSADES

To endear himself more to the Muslims, Nur al-Din hardened his heart against the Christians and ordered that new Christian churches and monasteries be demolished. When he reached the city of Nisibin, the Muslims clamored that the Christians were restoring their churches, and he ordered them destroyed. The Muslims pulled down the wall of the Great Church of St. Jacob of Nisibin, which had been held by the Nestorians since the fifth century (when Iraq was part of the Persian empire), and stole religious articles and about a thousand books. They did the same thing to churches elsewhere. Because Nur al-Din hated the Christians, says Michael Rabo, he appointed one of his relatives, Ibn Asrun, as judge and sent him throughout Syria to demolish every new addition to the churches built in the time of his father and his brother. Everywhere he went, Ibn Asrun asked the Christians for a bribe. If he received it, he would swear that the buildings added to the church were old, thus saving it from destruction; otherwise, he ordered it demolished. When Nur al-Din learned what Ibn Asrun had done, he fired him. Meanwhile, encouraged by his oppression of the Christians, the Muslims of Mardin usurped the Church of the Forty Martyrs.13 From Nisibin, Nur al-Din marched to capture Sinjar, north of Mosul, and then laid siege to Mosul itself.14 When he reached the city, the Kurds who lived in the neighborhood of the Monastery of Mar Matta (today called the Monastery of Shaykh Matti, 25 kilometers northeast of Mosul), having heard that Nur al-Din was oppressing the Christians, seized the opportunity to destroy the monastery. They attacked it at night, but the monks, who were ready to repel them, destroyed their ladders and even killed some of the marauders. The Kurds then attacked the monastery in daylight, but the Syrians in the neighboring villages came to its aid and drove them away. The Kurds finally resorted to trickery and made a false peace with the monks, who paid them thirty dinars as a sign of their peaceful intention. The monks fell into the trap and told the villagers to go home. As they were leaving, the Kurds immediately gathered on top of the mountain and rolled down a huge rock that hit the monastery wall, creating an opening close to 13 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 705 of the Syriac text, 352 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation. 14 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 697–698 of the Syriac text, 339–340 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 195–196 of the Arabic translation.

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

687

the aqueduct leading to the monastery's cistern.15 The monks immediately filled the opening with stones and lime, but the Kurds attacked them with arrows; as they retreated, the Kurds unsheathed their swords and chased them inside, killing fifteen of them.16 The monks, few in number, were no match for the 1,500 Kurds; only those who had taken refuge in the monastery’s upper citadel escaped death. The Kurds pillaged the monastery, carried off whatever they could load onto their beasts, and left. After they had gone, the monks in the citadel removed the rest of the books and religious objects and went to Mosul. The Monastery of Mar Matta was desolate, and the monks would not dare to live in it. The Syrians of Mosul hired men and paid them thirty dinars to guard and prevent the Kurds from doing more damage. On learning what the Kurds had done to the monastery, the governor of Mosul sent troops out and killed a great number of them. In retaliation, the Kurds destroyed nine villages in the Nestorian district, looted and burned the houses, and killed their inhabitants.17 The Anonymous Edessan adds that the Kurds also attacked the Monastery of Mar Sergius (also called al-Mu’allaq Monastery) in the Barren Mountain.18 When Nur al-Din Zangi occupied Mosul, it was ruled by Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, the son of his brother Qutb al-Din Mawdud who had originally chosen his son Imad al-Din to succeed him as atabeg of Mosul, but then changed his mind and designated his younger son, named for his uncle, Sayf al-Din Ghazi I (d. 1149). This change was made through the machinations 15 The rock is still lodged in the wall of the monastery, as this author has personally observed during several visits there. 16 The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197 of the Arabic translation. 17 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 678–679 of the Syriac text, 340–341 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, 3: 263–265; Patriarch Ignatius Yaqub, Dafaqat al-Tib fi Tarikh Dayr al-Qiddis Mar Matta al-Ajib (Zahla, Lebanon: Matba’at al-Rasi, 1961), 88. 18 The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197 of the Arabic translation. In the spring of 1951 this author, with the students of St. Ephraim the Syrian Seminary in Mosul and its principal Rev. Bulus Behnam (ordained a bishop the next year), visited this monastery, which stands partly in ruins. Moses Bar Kipha (d. 903), a prominent Syrian writer, philosopher, and theologian, was educated at the Barren Monastery, between Sinjar and Balad in northern Iraq. For his biography, see Patriarch Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab alSyrianiyya, 2nd ed. (Aleppo, Syria, 1956), 434–441, and trans. Matti Moosa with the title The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Pueblo, CO: Passeggiata Press, 2000, 131–133, rpt. Gorgias Press, 2003), 398–404.

688

THE CRUSADES

of the eunuch Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih, the tutor of Qutb al-Din’s children. Although he was a Christian from the province of Antioch, he pretended to be a Muslim. He plotted with Khatun, the daughter of Husam alDin Timurtash and mother of Sayf al-Din, to have her son replace Imad alDin as lord of Mosul. On learning of the conspiracy, Imad al-Din asked his uncle Nur al-Din for help in reclaiming the governorship. According to Ibn al-Athir, Nur al-Din not only disparaged Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih for his injustice, but detested him both for his part in the conspiracy and for his Christian faith. Abd al-Masih offended the Muslims of Mosul because he loved the Christians and helped them. Others say Nur al-Din tried to subjugate Mosul because of his jealousy of Abd al-Masih, who administered the city so wisely and capably that Sayf al-Din was governor only in name.19 Realizing that the people of Mosul would not resist Nur al-Din’s attack because they were inclined toward him, Abd al-Masih sent emissaries to sue for peace. According to Ibn al-Athir (and Bar Hebraeus, who appears to follow him), Abd al-Masih demanded a pledge of safety for his own life and a promise that Nur al-Din would not usurp power from his nephew. Nur al-Din replied that he had come not to snatch the city or the kingdom from his brother’s sons, but to save the people from the authority of Abd alMasih; he pledged to spare Abd al-Masih but said he would expel him from Mosul. Peace then prevailed, and Nur al-Din entered Mosul. He took quarters in the citadel and appointed another eunuch, Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, to administer the city’s affairs. But he left the government of the city and the whole province of Mosul to his nephew Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, and after seventeen days he departed for Syria. He took Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih with him, but changed his name from Abd al-Masih (Servant of Christ) to Abd Allah (Servant of Allah) and offered him a generous living allowance.20

19 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 573–576, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 146; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 186, who follows Ibn al-Athir; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 331; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 191–193; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 295, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 213–214; Sa’igh, Tarikh, 1: 178–179; Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, abridged by Qiwam al-Din al-Fath ibn Ali al-Bundari, ed. Ramadan Sheshen (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1971), 93–94. Another edition of this work is by Fathiyya al-Nabrawi (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji bi Misr, 1979). 20 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 574–577, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 153; Adim, Zubdat, 2: 332–333; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 192–193; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 105– 106 of the Syriac text and trans. Budge, 295–297, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, ed. Anton Salihani (Beirut, 1958), 213–214.

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

689

When Nur al-Din Zangi was in Mosul, says Michael Rabo, he “was intoxicated with vainglory because the Muslims considered him a prophet.”21 He oppressed the Christians by introducing new measures against them. He burdened them with taxes and the jizya. He ordered them to wear sashes around their waists and not to grow their hair long, so that they could be distinguished from the Muslims (making them the object of mockery). He ordered that the Byzantine Christians wear a red patch on their shoulders, to distinguish them from other people.22 He also ordered that no Christian should ride a saddled horse or mule. He expelled all Christian secretaries from government departments and from the governor’s court except Deacon Abdun, a wealthy old man known for his wisdom and knowledge. Soon after Nur al-Din left Mosul, however, the Christians were relieved from his iniquitous measures through the magnanimity of his nephew, the good governor Sayf al-Din Ghazi II (atabeg of Mosul, 1170–1176).23 To enhance his standing among the Muslims, Nur al-Din used every conceivable method to humiliate the Christians. He became more arrogant, especially after capturing Syria, Egypt and Athur (northern Iraq). Michael Rabo says Nur al-Din acted as if he had conquered the whole earth and tried through various measures to denigrate the Christians so that the Muslims would regard him as their Imam (religious leader). As if instigated by Satan, Nur al-Din wrote to the caliph (the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustanjid, 1160–1170), “The words of the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran, indicating that the Muslims should do no harm to the Christians for five hundred years, have become invalid because of the passage of those years. Therefore, it is imperative to annihilate the Christians in the regions under the influence of the Muslims. Any Christian who refuses to embrace Islam should be killed.”24 He also expressed his desire to have an audience with the caliph to explain further the letter’s contents. The letter scared the caliph, who thought Nur al-Din’s intention was to deceive him, capture Baghdad, and become caliph in his place. The caliph, all the more suspiMichael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 697 of the Syriac text, 340 of the French translation. 22 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 698 of the Syriac text, 342 of the French translation. 23 The Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 710 of the Syriac text, 360–361 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 302 of the English translation. 24 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 698–700 of the Syriac text, 344–345 of the French translation. 21

690

THE CRUSADES

cious because he knew that Nur al-Din fancied himself a prophet, did not respond to his initiatives. When al-Mustanjid died, he was succeeded by his son al-Mustadi (1170–1180), who had his Vizir killed because he hated the Christians. Much to the relief of the Christians, the new caliph was favorably disposed toward them, as if to spite the Vizir. As a sign of his tolerance, the caliph released the Syrian dignitaries of the Tuma family, who had been detained by his father, and restored their homes and churches to them. The released Syrians told the caliph how his father had discovered the deception of Nur al-Din and rejected his emissaries. The new caliph wrote to Nur al-Din, “You have no right to pretend to be a prophet and enact laws like Allah. You have misunderstood the true words of Muhammad regarding the years. Allah did not order us to kill people without cause.”25 After receiving this message, Nur al-Din Zangi felt ashamed and sent other messengers asking the caliph to let him visit his father’s tomb. The caliph, knowing his real intention was to occupy Baghdad, rejected this request and even threatened to challenge him if he did so. His action certainly favored the Christians, whom Nur al-Din hated. To Michael Rabo, it was a divine action showing that God had not forgotten His people. Doleful but thankful, he wrote, “Although God had caused the Muslim Arabs and Turks to rule over us because of our sins, He did not for one day deny us His mercy, but always protected us from our haters and showed mercy to His church.”26 Nur al-Din Zangi’s persecution of the Christians appears to have encouraged other Muslim rulers to usurp Christian churches. In 1170 the eunuch Mu’ayyid al-Din, governor of Mardin, appropriated the nave of the Syrian Church of the Forty Martyrs and gave it to the Muslims, who annexed it to their mosque. The next day he fell off his mount and felt guilty, believing that his fall was a divine punishment for what he had done to the church. He wanted to restore the nave to the church, but did not for fear of offending the Muslims.27 This incident was followed the same year by anMichael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 699–700 of the Syriac text, 344–345 of the French translation. 26 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 698–700 of the Syriac text, 344–345 of the French translation. 27 Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Michael Rabo; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 695 of the Syriac text, 337–338 of the French translation (because of a lacuna in the Syriac manuscript, the name of the eunuch is missing; Chabot, 337, apparently relying on Bar Hebraeus, writes the name as Amin al-Din, though Bar Hebraeus gives it as Mu’ayyid al-Din); the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of 25

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

691

other, no less grievous to the Christians, involving a monk, Hasan bar Kulaib (or Kumaib) of the Abkar Monastery in the Mountain of Mardin.28 A conflict apparently arose involving him, his two brothers (also monks), and other inmate monks of the monastery over his bad conduct, for which Hasan bar Kulaib was stripped of his position as a monk. In a fit of anger, he embraced Islam and fled to Jerusalem, where he felt guilty and returned to Christianity. The governor of Mardin arrested his two brothers and the other monks, who were tortured to death. The Muslims of Mardin used his conversion to Islam as a pretext to capture the Abkar Monastery and convert it to a masjid for the use of Muslim Kurds.29 In 1172, the Muslims of Mardin also seized the Syrian Church of St. Thomas after a Syrian man named Barsoum committed adultery with a Muslim woman. He was arrested and tortured almost to death, and his possessions were confiscated. Because Barsoum had renovated the Church of St. Thomas at his own expense in the time of the governor Husam al-Din, the Muslims, arguing that the church was his personal property, claimed it and converted it into a mosque. The Christians of Mardin, grieved to the extent that they blasphemed against divine justice, tried to reclaim the church, but their action angered the Muslims more against them. They lodged a complaint and asked the governor to restore their church to them, but his heart was hardened and he rejected their complaint, thus creating more aggravation and pressure for the Christians.30 Not surprisingly, Nur al-Din’s death in May 1174 brought feelings of relief not only to the Christians, but to Muslim rulers who were discontented with his strict observance of the Islamic law, particularly because he forbade them to drink wine or engage in any kind of merriment.31 The chief reaction to Nur al-Din’s death came from his nephew Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, who occupied Nisibin and abrogated the laws enacted by his uncle. Althe Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation. 28 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 709 of the Syriac text, 360 of the French translation, gives the name as Bar Kumaib. Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Michael Rabo, writes it as Bar Kulaib. 29 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 698 of the Syriac text, 340 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History. 30 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 700–701 of the Syriac text, 347–349 of the French translation. 31 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 705–706 of the Syriac text, 352 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation.

692

THE CRUSADES

Isfahani says he destroyed the place in the mosque where Nur al-Din had inscribed the restrictive laws and allowed the public drinking of wine.32 It is more plausible that, as the Anonymous Edessan says, Sayf al-Din destroyed the stone tablet over the door of the masjid of Nisibin, on which Nur alDin had inscribed his instructions including the anathemas on those who violated them. Also, although he allowed public consumption of wine, he restored the poll and land taxes that his uncle had abolished. Shortly after Nur al-Din Zangi died, the Muslims demolished the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Edessa. They used some of the stones to rebuild the city’s wall and fortress, but carried most of them away to build a masjid in Harran. The Muslims also tore down the northern part of the Great Church of the Apostles (the part left intact later fell down) and carried the stone to the fortress. At the same time, they tore down the chancel of the Church of St. Stephen and the chancel of the Church of Forty Martyrs, which was adjacent to their masjid.33 Although Sayf al-Din Ghazi seems to have been more tolerant than Nur al-Din, the Christians were still harassed by the Turks, whose rulers were clearly partial to the Muslims and frequently interfered in the religious or ecclesiastical affairs of the church, as Michael Rabo relates firsthand. As patriarch, Michael Rabo was often opposed by rebellious and recalcitrant bishops and clergy who could not abide his strict observance of the church’s canon laws. When he was called to serve as patriarch, he says, he felt it his duty to respect and defend holy laws against accepting a bribe to ordain a clergyman or usurping a diocese or congregation because of the influence of a political ruler, laws which had been violated or ignored. For this reason he was opposed by several bishops, including Iwannis Denha of al-Raqqa (Callinicus), whose congregation had lost confidence in him because of alleged misconduct and wanted him replaced. The patriarch convened a council at the Monastery of Mar Hananya (now the Za’faran Monastery near Mardin in Turkey) to consider the case. After the testimony, the council was convinced of the bishop’s irreligious actions and decided to confine him to a monastery for three years until he improved his conduct. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, 161–162; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 9, appears to follow al-Isfahani. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 709–710 of the Syriac text, 360–361 of the French translation, says Sayf al-Din Ghazi did the same thing after occupying Saruj and al-Raqqa. 33 The Anonymous Edessan, 171 of the Syriac text, 199 of the Arabic translation. 32

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

693

Denha at first accepted the council’s verdict, but then went to Mardin to complain to Nestorian leaders against Patriarch Michael Rabo. When the Nestorians learned the truth about his case, they expelled him. Bishop Denha then turned to Najm al-Din, the Muslim governor of Mardin, and offered him a bribe to have Michael Rabo killed. The governor sent some men who arrested the patriarch and made him appear before the governor as a criminal, accompanied only by Abu Kir, archdeacon of the church of Mardin. The governor addressed the patriarch harshly but, after hearing the case, expelled Bishop Denha and dismissed his complaint. The bishop, still determined to spite the patriarch, went to Mosul and slandered Patriarch Michael Rabo to Sayf al-Din, the lord of Mosul, promising to pay him a thousand dinars. Soldiers arrested Michael Rabo and brought him to Sayf al-Din, who was then in Nisibin. The soldiers ushered the patriarch, together with two bishops and a number of monks, into the presence of Sayf al-Din’s deputy, who said, “Since Allah has placed you [the Christians] under our control, you should not resist the royal decree. You should fulfill the royal order of the victorious king (Sayf al-Din), or else you will be humiliated and tortured. Our king has ordered that this bishop should have jurisdiction over the dioceses of al-Raqqa, Harran, Saruj, and Habura (alKhabur). Accordingly, you should return peacefully to your place or something harmful will take place.” Michael Rabo courageously answered that divine laws are instituted by three Books: the Torah (Old Testament) of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Christians, and the Quran of the Muslims. He asked the deputy to search these three books and see for himself if God had ordered the rulers to administer the countries by their worldly authority. Faith, he contended, should be administered by choice and not by compulsion. He declared that the just Muslim rulers who came after Muhammad had to the present day observed the interdicts of God and never violated them. According to the command of God, these rulers imposed on the Christians the jizya (poll tax) and obedience, but they did not interfere in matters of faith. “If you try to alter the course followed by former Muslim rulers,” he added, “then know that what you do is not against me but against Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. You would violate their Books, or in other words you would be violating the commands of God.” Worse still, he said, the deputy believed Bishop Denha’s complaints against him. If he would do more investigation, he would easily find they were lies. In fact, the dioceses which the deputy said were in the bishop’s jurisdiction were still under the control of Sayf al-Din Ghazi II. Said Michael Rabo, “If he (the bishop) was appointed by your order, why then he is rejected by their congregations? He has committed a

694

THE CRUSADES

crime against our laws and resorted to your royal authority to force me to violate the laws of God. I would rather have my head cut off than step on these laws.” At this point he extended his neck and told the deputy to cut off his head. The deputy entered Sayf al-Din’s tent, then came out and led the patriarch into his presence, forbidding anyone to accompany him. When Michael Rabo stood before Sayf al-Din, he invoked God's blessing on him. The deputy said, “O patriarch, ask God’s blessing because Sayf alDin Ghazi has ordered that your laws should be executed, and no one will disobey you.” Michael Rabo repeated his blessing and thanks, then left with tears in his eyes. The bishops and monks were jubilant, while the slanderer (Bishop Iwannis Denha) was disappointed. Persisting in his evildoing, the bishop tried another tactic to have Michael Rabo condemned. He shouted in the midst of the Muslim throng, “Know all of you that this old man is a deceiver. He is laboring in the lands of the Muslims to convert them to Christianity, and here is the evidence.” The bishop began to read a letter Michael Rabo had written about the monk Hasan bar Kulaib, who had converted to Islam. The Muslims, greatly agitated by it, tried to stone the patriarch. The monks with him fled, and he stood alone before the Muslims carrying stones in their hands to kill him. By chance some Muslims from Mardin, the city of Hasan bar Kulaib, were present and testified that he was a Christian monk, not a Muslim. The angry crowd apparently believed them and let the patriarch go in peace. Sayf alDin Ghazi II provided him with a letter of authority and the patriarch returned to his place safe. But this was not the end of the wickedness of Bishop Iwannis Denha. He went to Baghdad and lodged a complaint with the Abbasid caliph, but Patriarch Michael Rabo wrote to the Syrian believers in Baghdad about the case, and the caliph expelled Bishop Denha. The bishop returned to Antioch, where he met with Patriarch Michael Rabo and asked his forgiveness. In a true gesture of Christian love, the patriarch accepted the bishop’s apology and sent him to the Edessan Mountain to await appointment to an available diocese.34 Michael Rabo relates another episode involving clergymen who from sheer avarice turned to earthly (i.e., Muslim) rulers to oppress their own Syrian people and achieve their goals. The antagonist in this case was Ignatius, the avaricious bishop of Tur Abdin, who obtained money through Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 707–709 of the Syriac text, 357–360 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, the biography of Michael Rabo. 34

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

695

various means. Michael Rabo admonished him to abandon his unworthy behavior and adhere to the laws of the church, but he did not obey. One Sunday morning he left the worship service and went to the governor, as was his custom, asking him to throw into prison monks, priests, and laymen on a variety of charges. That night, a group of Kurds captured him and beat him badly, but his companions managed to flee. Not satisfied with merely beating him, the Kurds drove a stake into his buttocks and left him near death. Some passersby found him, and as they pulled the stake from his bottom he died. It is said that he was responsible for the deaths of a number of Syrian believers, but it is not known whether they were killed by Ignatius himself or by those whom he had instigated.35 His case clearly shows that there were renegade and outright immoral clergymen within the church who oppressed their own people, as did their worldly rulers. It also shows the sad state of the patriarchs of the Syrian Church, who had to struggle to save their church and authority not only from the Muslim Turks and their rulers, but from bishops and other clergy whose immoral and evil actions aggravated their situation and weakened the church’s spiritual authority. The men who created particular difficulty for Patriarch Michael Rabo by seeking the aid of Muslim rulers against him were Theodore bar Wahbun and Karim bar Masih. Theodore was a native of Melitene, the son of the priest Sohda bar Wahbun. His godfather, the patriarch, brought him to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, made him his personal secretary, and treated him with kindness and love. At the monastery, Theodore proved to be an avid reader, acquiring profound secular and spiritual knowledge, but he lacked spiritual wisdom and particularly the fear of God. He was rebellious and arrogant, with an inflated ego because of his knowledge.36 Blinded by false pride and ambition, Theodore turned against his benefactor, seeking to usurp the office of the patriarchate. To achieve this goal he resorted to treachery, manipulation, and bribery of Muslim governors. In 1180 he plotted to split the church with the aid of some bishops who were displeased with the patriarch for his strict implementation of canon laws, which they had violated. Theodore bar Wahbun tried to stir trouble in Melitene, but the congregation had him expelled from the city. He fled to Edessa and then to Jerusalem, inciting the congregations against the patriarch. He failed at this, Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 710–711 of the Syriac text, 362–363 of the French translation. 36 The Anonymous Edessan, 312 of the Syriac text, 350 of the Arabic translation. 35

696

THE CRUSADES

but succeeded in convincing four bishops to help him become a patriarch. They contacted the governor of Amid, Abu al-Qasim Hasan (Abu al-Qasim Nisan, according to Bar Hebraeus), and offered him money if he would help them to install Theodore as patriarch. The governor was ready not only to violate the canons of the Christian church, which he did not respect or understand, but to violate the laws of Islam for money. Shortly afterwards, he invited Bar Wahbun to become patriarch. Bishop Ibrahim of Amid, who had been removed from his diocese for violating church laws, was to deliver the invitation, disguised as a Turkish officer, but his mission failed due to the sudden death of the governor, who was succeeded by his son.37 The rebellious bishops called on the new governor and showed him the invitation his father had sent, offering him more money if he would help make Bar Wahbun patriarch. The bishops’ action enraged the Syrian congregation of Amid, who told the new governor, “We will never permit our faith to be destroyed.” He replied, “If your patriarch visits us, we will expel Bar Wahbun.” After the congregation invited the patriarch, he agreed to go to Amid and meet with the governor, but the subsequent evil action of his opponents disturbed him and the church. As the patriarch left the Monastery of Mar Barsoum to travel to Amid, the rebellious bishops entered the church in Mardin, locked the doors, and ordained Theodore bar Wahbun as patriarch in a night service. In the morning they disguised themselves in different clothing and left for Mosul to meet with the Maphrian Mar Yuhanna.38 Karim Bar Masih had a hand in the ordination of Bar Wahbun. Bar Masih came to Mardin, the seat of the patriarch’s diocese, and usurped it by offering gold to the governor. He invited Theodore to Mardin and proclaimed him patriarch, even though he had been condemned not only by the patriarch and his clergy, but by the maphrian and the clergy of the East. Upon hearing of Bar Masih’s action, the Syrians of Mardin, together with the monks of the neighboring monasteries, notably the Monastery of Mar Hananya (Za’faran Monastery), appealed to Patriarch Michael Rabo to appoint a bishop for them. The patriarch chose a learned and articulate monk named Modyana (Confessor), from the Edessan mountain, and ordained J. B. Chabot, ed., Michael Rabo, 384, n. 4 of the French translation, says Abu al-Qasim’s son was Baha al-Din Mas'ud, later deposed by Salah al-Din (Saladin), but does not cite any source for this assertion. 38 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 721–723 of the Syriac text, 382–384 of the French translation. 37

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

697

him as bishop of Mardin. But the new bishop, unable to become an officer of the church without the governor’s approval, was forced to offer the governor the same amount of gold Bar Wahbun had offered him to obtain his investiture as a bishop.39 In Mosul, Theodore Bar Wahbun and his collaborators asked the Maphrian Mar Yuhanna (d. 1189) to approve Bar Wahbun as patriarch, but he refused. Disappointed, the conspirators traveled aimlessly from place to place. At the town of Dara, between Nisibin and Mardin, the leading Syrian dignitaries urged them to forsake their machinations and obey the patriarch (Michael Rabo). After learning that the conspirators were in Dara, the Maphrian Yuhanna and some bishops went there, captured them, and brought them to the patriarch in chains. At a council convened by the patriarch, they admitted their guilt in writing and asked his forgiveness. Soon, however, Theodore Bar Wahbun, violating his promise to forsake his evil ways, resorted again to deception. Some of his allies hired ruffian Kurds to hide him at night until the patriarch had left the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, where the council met. The patriarch convened another council which also condemned Bar Wahbun, but he refused to leave the monastery, asking instead for forgiveness. The meek, compassionate patriarch accepted Theodore’s false apology, allotted him a cell at the monastery for his residence, and promised to ask the council to reconsider his condemnation. But no sooner did the patriarch leave to go to the Monastery of Mar Hananya than some other rebellious monks helped Bar Wahbun escape by lowering him in a basket from the monastery’s wall. He fled to Damascus, where he approached Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) and offered him money to proclaim him as patriarch in the regions under his authority. He even wrote a letter slandering the patriarch, hoping that Saladin would destroy him. When the letter was read to him, Saladin inquired about Theodore and, after learning from some Christian believers in his service about his odious conduct, had him expelled. Frustrated, Theodore Bar Wahbun went to Jerusalem and began stirring trouble between the Franks and the Syrian minority, especially against Metropolitan Athanasius, who had been chosen to head the diocese of Jerusalem in 1184. Athanasius already had strained relations with the Franks because of a dispute over the Monastery of Mary Magdalene, which be-

39 The Anonymous Edessan, 316–318 of the Syriac text, 355–357 of the Arabic translation.

698

THE CRUSADES

longed to the Syrians but had been usurped by the Franks.40 He had offered the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem a thousand dinars to return the monastery to the Syrians. The Syrian Church endured deplorable hardships because of the ownership dispute, which was further prolonged because of the Muslims’ occupation of Jerusalem. Bar Wahbun then went to Mardin and Mosul, where he offered bribes to the Turkish governor and his associates, hoping they would proclaim him a patriarch. His action encouraged Muslim governors everywhere to demand money for their help. Next, he turned to the Armenian Catholicos (Gregory IV, 1173–1193), then residing in the Qal’at Romaitha, asking his assistance as he had done with the Latin patriarch in Jerusalem. The catholicos, believing Theodore’s false promises, expelled the Syrian bishop from his diocese and placed the Syrians of Cilicia under his authority, and Theodore Bar Wahbun dared to call himself patriarch. He continued his actions against Patriarch Michael Rabo and lavished enormous amounts of money and gifts on the Turkish governors in Syria and Beth Nahrin, hoping they too would declare him patriarch. Bar Wahbun’s efforts were frustrated when his principal supporter, Catholicos Gregory, died in 1193, and his machinations ended when he died forty days later.41 The death of the miscreant Theodore Bar Wahbun brought some relief to Patriarch Michael Rabo and his church, but he had still to deal with Karim Bar Masih, a monk from the Monastery of Mar Matta. Karim bar Masih belonged to the family of Jabir, which was originally from Takrit but, like many Syrian Takritians, had settled in Mosul. Rebellious and ambitious, he was as much a troublemaker as Bar Wahbun, whose ordination as patriarch he had supported in 1192. Mosul had a Muslim judge named Muhyi alDin whom the governor greatly respected, and whose advice he always heeded (the governor's lieutenants hated him, but did not dare harm him). Judge Muhyi al-Din was in charge of collecting the tribute imposed on all the monasteries and their properties, including the Monastery of Mar Matta. After Maphrian Yuhanna died in 1189, Bar Masih, hoping to succeed him, sought the aid of this judge to achieve this goal. He took a boat down the On the Syrian Monastery of Mary Magdalene, see Rev. Yuhanna Dolabani, “Al-Suryan fi Filistin aw Dayr Maryam al-Majdaliyya,” al-Hikma 9 (June, 1928): 434–443. 41 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 722–724 of the Syriac text, 386–388 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, the biography of Michael Rabo. 40

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

699

Tigris to Takrit, the maphrian’s seat, to usurp the See of the Maphrianate.42 The archimandrite and some monks of the Monastery of Mar Matta, some Syrian Takritian leaders from Mosul, and four bishops (Ignatius Gabriel Yuhanna bar Hindi, bishop of Urmia in Azerbaijan, Yuhanna Ruwad Marqia, bishop of Ba’arbaya, Saliba, bishop of the Monastery of Mar Matta, and Basilius Matta bar Shuwayk, bishop of Baghdad) wrote in support of Bar Masih and brought him to the patriarch to be ordained a maphrian. But other clerics, including the priest Abu Mansur Bar Tibun and the monks Yaqub and Shamtah of the Monastery of Mar Matta, wrote to the patriarch that Bar Masih was an insolent person who had surrounded himself with a band of wicked men.43 Michael Rabo says that the Syrian congregations of Mosul and Takrit had informed him that they would never accept him as their maphrian because of his immoral conduct. The patriarch, who had also heard about Bar Masih’s conduct from the late Maphrian Yuhanna, felt he had to find a suitable person for this high office. To foil the plan of Bar Masih and his collaborators, the clergymen prevailed on the patriarch to choose his nephew Yaqub, a learned and venerable man who was ordained a maphrian at the Monastery of Saint Dumit in the province of Mardin in 1189, taking the name Gregorius.44 When the other bishops, whom Michael Rabo calls “the gang of Bar Masih,” learned that their plan had failed, they bribed the governor, who issued an order naming Karim Bar Masih as maphrian.45 At the Monastery of Mar Matta, they ordained Bar Masih a maphrian and named him Dionysius.46 But things did not turn out as Bar Masih had wished, for judge Muhyi al-Din died soon afterwards. The Christians of Mosul asked the eunuch Mujahid al-Din, who hated Muhyi al-Din, to help restore their lawful Maphrian Gregorius, who for two years had been barred from entering Mosul because Muhyi al-Din had subjected them to Bar Masih’s authority, in violation of church laws. Mujahid al-Din agreed to help and provided them with letters of passage and a messenger, and they sent a delegation to fetch the maphrian, then at the Monastery of Mar Hananya, and brought him to 42

The Anonymous Edessan, 323 of the Syriac text, 362 of the Arabic transla-

tion. See Yaqub, Dafaqat al-Tib, 85. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 732 of the Syriac text, 402–403 of the French translation. 45 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 406 of the French translation, says they paid him 2,000 gold pieces and 500 red pieces. 46 Yaqub, Dafaqat al-Tib, 85. 43 44

700

THE CRUSADES

Mosul with great joy and pomp. When Bar Masih reached Takrit, the Syrian congregation rejected him and he returned to Mosul, frustrated. As soon as he arrived, the officers of the Syrian Church had him placed in their custody. The maphrian and the bishops met to discuss his case and demanded that he return all the gold he had extorted from the Syrian churches. When he did not comply, they met with the clergy and congregation in the Church of the Takritians in Mosul and defrocked him, then sent him back to prison. A year later, his brother paid four hundred dinars, and Bar Masih was freed. Curiously, Michael Rabo says that in 1190, under pressure from his bishops, he delegated Bishop Gabriel, abbot of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, and Bishop Abu al-Faraj, then in charge of the patriarchal office, to Sultan Salah al-Din (Saladin) to explain Bar Masih's machinations to him. Before they reached Damascus, while Saladin was besieging Akka (Acre), the two bishops were arrested as spies and thrown into prison, losing everything in their possession. But they were rescued through the effort of Muzaffar al-Din, son of Zayn al-Din, lord of Edessa, and finally obtained letters of support from Saladin.47 After three years of humiliation and condemnation, Bar Masih returned to his old ways. After paying the governor of Mosul 1,000 dinars, he was allowed to proclaim himself bishop of Mosul and its environs. Encouraged by the Muslim governor’s support, he donned the garb of a bishop and traveled around the province of Mosul hoping to gather followers, but failed. Meanwhile, he was hounded by his creditors, who demanded that he settle his debts. Since he had no money, he was thrown into prison and remained there for eighteen months. Out of goodness and perhaps pity, Maphrian Gregorius had him released from prison. A year after his release he was finally forced to pay his debts. At the very end of his Chronicle, Michael Rabo states that toward the end of 1194, Maphrian Gregorius and four bishops came to see him at the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and offer allegiance to him. But as soon as they returned to their dioceses, Bar Masih slandered the maphrian to the governor, stating that he had left his diocese and would never return. But when the maphrian and the bishops returned in early 1195, Bar Masih was put to shame, and the maphrian was received warmly by his flock and the governor.48 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 406 of the French translation. Unfortunately, Rabo does not explain why he sought Saladin’s intervention in the case of Bar Masih and what role Saladin played in this matter. 48 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 738 of the Syriac text, 412 of the French 47

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

701

After Patriarch Michael Rabo died in 1199, Bar Masih caused more trouble for the church. He was imprisoned again and then released through the intercession of Maphrian Gregorius. Because he could not pay the huge debts he had incurred, he fled from Mosul to Mardin, then to Amid, and from there to Miyafarqin, where with the governor’s help he was able to become a bishop of the Syrian flock. But he was condemned by a church council and later absolved by the new Patriarch, Athanasius Saliba the Bald. On December 24, 1204, he died in Miyafarqin; he was buried by the Nestorians, who felt sorry for him after the Syrian Church refused to bury him because of his evil actions and the contention and discord he had caused within the church.49 Around 1175, a sharp conflict arose between the Armenians and the Turks over the Samson (Sasun) Mountain, above Miyafarqin, which the Armenians had controlled since the time of the Assyrians (some Kurds also lived in the mountain and claimed it was theirs). With the help of the governor of Miyafarqin, the Turks occupied its fortresses and expelled the Armenians, and for five years they fought the Armenians living in Miyafarqin and Mardin. The governor oppressed and starved the Armenians, forcing them to surrender the fortresses to the great Armenian lord of Khilat (Akhlat) on Lake Van, Sukman II, Nasir al-Din Muhammad (1128–1183), known as Shah Armen.50 A miscreant Armenian lord named Bakhyan lost his share of the mountain to the Turks and sought to control one of the fortresses. The Armenians gave him several villages, but this gift was not sufficient to satisfy his ambition. He converted to Islam, thinking the Muslim Turks would offer him a fortress. Much to his disappointment, he was repulsed, and his conversion to Islam benefited him nothing.51 About 1201, before the death of Bar Masih, trouble arose between the Syrians of the village of Bartulli, east of Mosul, and the village’s Muslim translation, 49 The Anonymous Edessan, 328–330, 340–341 of the Syriac text, 367–368, 379–380 of the Arabic translation. 50 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 710 of the Syriac text, 361 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 147 of the Syriac text, 202 of the Arabic translation, faults the governor of Mardin, rather than Miyafarqin. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 303 of the English translation, apparently places this event in the year 1174. 51 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 730 of the Syriac text, 369 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 147 of the Syriac text, 202 of the Arabic translation.

702

THE CRUSADES

khatib (preacher). The Anonymous Edessan says that the Syrian Christians complained against him to the village head, who had him whipped. The preacher went one Friday to the Great Mosque in Mosul (built by Nur alDin Zangi) and provoked a disturbance against the Christians. A large mob of Muslims joined him and left the mosque to go to Bartulli and destroy it. But when they reached the city gate (Bab al-Jisr, the gate of the bridge over the River Tigris), they found it locked. Disappointed, they returned and vented their anger on the Great Church of the Syrian Takritians. They smashed its doors and sanctuary and pillaged everything inside—beautiful church vessels, splendid curtains, crosses, Gospels, golden patens and chalices, and other magnificent brass items. They broke into the office of the maphrian, who was absent, and stole his belongings. They destroyed the closets and doors, and even dug into the floor and took great quantities of provisions, including seeds and grains stored in parts of the church.52 The persecution of the Christian communities, particularly the Syrians of the diocese of the Monastery of Mar Matta, worsened beginning in the first quarter of the thirteenth century. The whole northern region of Iraq was a theater of conflict between the lords of Mosul, descendants of Imad al-Din Zangi, and the lords of Arbil. On his deathbed, al-Malik al-Qahir Izz al-Din Mas’ud II (reigned 1210–1218) made his freed slave Badr al-Din Lulu (1180–1259) the administrator for his ten-year-old son Nur al-Din Arslan Shah II (1218–1219), who succeeded him as atabeg of Mosul; he gave the citadels of ‘Aqra and Shush to his younger son, Imad al-Din, who later made Aqra the seat of his government.53 Because of Nur al-Din’s tender age, his uncle Imad al-Din tried to gain control of his state. The able administrator, Badr al-Din Lulu, obtained from the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir li Din Allah (1180–1225) a patent of investiture for Nur al-Din, but he still had to face the ambitious Imad al-Din, who was supported by Muzaffar alDin Kukburi, lord of Arbil.54 Nur al-Din died in 1219 and was succeeded by his brother Nasir al-Din Mahmud, then only three years old. After the death of Nasir al-Din in 1233, Muzaffar al-Din and Imad alDin attacked the fortress of Imadiyya in northern Iraq, and Badr al-Din 52

tion.

The Anonymous Edessan, 210 of the Syriac text, 239 of the Arabic transla-

53 Athir, al-Kamil, 2: 126–127; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 227; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 132 of the Syriac text, 371 of the English translation, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 229, 232; Daywachi, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1: 309–310. 54 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 132 of the Syriac text, 371 of the English translation, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 229, 232.

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

703

Lulu had his hands full trying to repel their forces and protect his state. This conflict seriously impacted the lives and safety of the Christians in the region. In the battle against Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, Badr al-Din fled to Mosul and then to Balad, hoping to gather sufficient troops. Muzaffar alDin chased after him and camped behind the hill of the fortress of Nineveh, but when he saw that Badr al-Din was about to crush him, he departed for Arbil.55 While he was on his way there, some Kurds of Shahrzur in his company kidnaped a Syrian Christian bride from the village of Beth Sakhraya (today called Basakhra). The villagers pursued the Kurds, killed some of them, and freed the kidnaped bride. When Muzaffar al-Din heard of this he became furious, especially when he learned that the villagers had disgraced themselves and honored his enemy by shouting, “Long live the staff of gold, Badr al-Din!” In his anger, he sent troops who attacked the village of Beth Sakhraya and killed 300 villagers who had taken refuge in its church. Then the troops marched to the village of Bartulli and cut off the hands of young men with their swords.56 In 1220 some chiefs of the Yezidis (known today as the Devil Worshipers) in the villages north of Mosul rebelled against Badr al-Din Lulu and plundered the village of Jabbara in the region of Nineveh, whose inhabitants were Syrian Christians, and killed its men, women and children.57 After the death of Nasir al-Din Mahmud, Badr al-Din Lulu became the atabeg of Mosul.58 At his death in 1259, he was succeeded by his son alMalik al-Salih Isma’il (reigned 1259–1261). In 1261, the Christians of Mosul and the province of Nineveh suffered tragedy when al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il, accompanied by Kurds, decided to force the Christians of the province of Nineveh to plunder and kill other Christians. His plan was foiled by Shams al-Din ibn Yunus of Bashiqa, who alerted the people of the province to the forthcoming danger and urged them to leave with him for Arbil. Many Christians believed him and departed to Arbil on the Thursday evening of Pentecost. On learning of the their departure, al-Malik al-Salih Isma'il changed his mind and abandoned the idea of slaughtering them, but in the confusion, the Kurds in Mosul attacked the Christians, plundering their possessions and killing everyone who refused to embrace Islam. A great For details see Athir, al-Kamil, 2: 128–137. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 133 of the Syriac text, 374–375 of the English translation; Yaqub, Dafaqat, 94. 57 Yaqub, Dafaqat, 94 58 Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1: 166; Daywachi, Tarikh, 1: 321–323. 55 56

704

THE CRUSADES

majority of priests, deacons, and dignitaries converted to Islam to save their lives as the Kurds ravaged the country outside Nineveh, killing and robbing Christians. They attacked a convent in the village of Beth Khudayda (modern Qaraqosh) and killed the Christians hiding there.59 They assembled thousands of horsemen and footsoldiers, attacked the Monastery of Mar Matta, and made war on the monks for four months. They set up ladders, planning to scale the wall, but the monks prevailed and burned the ladders. The Kurds hewed a mass of stone from the mountain above the monastery and rolled it toward the wall. The stone split in two; each part made a breach in the wall, but one remained stuck in it. The Kurds rushed toward the monastery, but the monks and the Syrian villagers inside fought back fiercely with stones and arrows and prevented them from entering. In the foray the archimandrite Abu Nasr of Bartulli was knocked out, and a few men were wounded slightly by arrows.60 Weary of fighting, the monks sued for peace and pledged to give the Kurds all the hangings, curtains, and equipment of the church, and to collect gold, silver and jewelry for them. The Kurds were also anxious for peace because they had heard that the Mongols were coming to invade the region. Before they departed, they took a very large amount of property from the monastery, valued at 1,000 gold dinars.61 At that time the Syrian inhabitants of Beth Sakhraya and other natives of Nineveh took refuge in the Monastery of Mar Daniyal (St. Daniel), also known as Dayr al-Khanafis, or the Monastery of Beetles, near the village of Bartulli. But when they left it and crossed the river Zab to go to Arbil, the amir Kutulbeg accused them of coming from the side of the enemy and killed them all, men and women alike. When Sayf al-Din, lord of Jazirat ibn Umar, heard that his brother al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il had fled to Syria, he also prepared to flee. But before he fled, he rounded up the Christians and threw them into prison until they paid him 2,000 gold dinars. On Ascension Day 1261, as the Christians remained in prison in a state of despair, Sayf alDin distributed the gold among his troops, but finally 70,000 Kurds surrounded him and carried him off to Syria, and Jazirat ibn Umar was left without a lord. Two scouts, Izaz Bash and Muhammad, a captain of the Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 159 of the Syriac text, 439–441, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 282–284. 60 On Abu Nasr of Bartulli, see Barsoum, al-Lulu, 539–540, and trans. Moosa History of Syriac, 484–485. 61 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 441 of the English translation. 59

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

705

guards, made themselves rulers of the region. They released the imprisoned Christians after exacting 7,000 dinars from them, killing only two of them who had had communication with the Mongols.62 Abu Nasr of Bartulli (d. 1290), who was archimandrite of the Monastery of Mar Matta, lamented these events in a 36-page ode which has fortunately survived.63 He says that the wicked Kurds forced the priests to deny their Apostolic faith and plunged the deacons into the abyss of apostasy. They ruined the monks’ chastity and kept the believers from confessing the Holy Trinity. Those who refused to recant their faith were crowned with martyrdom. Out of envy, the evil marauders destroyed the churches and monasteries and had no mercy on the altars, the Table of Life, and the holy books. They even violated the Holy Scriptures. No church in all Athur, Nineveh, Rahubuth, Banuhadra (modern Duhuk), and Jazirat ibn Umar was left undefiled. The celebrations of the Holy Eucharist ceased because of the adversities which befell the believers, and the Monastery of Mar Matta became the fortress of refuge for those who fled the sword and sought peace and tranquility.64 Thus, it is apparent that the native Christian communities of Syrians and Armenians suffered external oppression by their rulers and, especially in the case of the Syrians, internal dissension. This dissension, stirred by mutinous clergymen like Bar Wahbun and Bar Masih, caused the high officers of the church and their communities to fall prey to greedy Muslim rulers, who relished the hefty bribes the rebellious clergy paid them. This was an unspeakably sad period for the native Christians, because it brought boundless pain to honorable leaders like Patriarch Michael Rabo and tremendously weakened their churches and communities, causing many people to embrace Islam in order to escape external oppression and internal conflict caused not only by avaricious Muslim rulers but by the clergy, who were contending for money or the control of more dioceses. One has only to read what is left of the Chronicle of the Anonymous Edessan to realize how deplorable was the internal state of the Syrian Church shortly after Michael Rabo died in 1199.65 62

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 160 of the Syriac text, 441 of the English transla-

tion. Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur, 540, trans. Moosa, Passagiata, 160 and Gorgias, 484 says he found a copy of this ode in Diyarbakr, copied in the handwriting of the Maphrian Barsoum II al-Ma’dani. 64 Yaqub, Dafaqat al-Tib, 96, gives a translation of this ode. 63

706

THE CRUSADES

The Christian communities also had the misfortune of being the victims of warfare between two Muslim groups, the Turks and the Kurds. Starting in 1185, the Turkomans waged war for eight years against their neighboring countries—Armenia, Athur (northern Iraq), Syria, and Cappadocia. The Turkomans, says Michael Rabo, were nomads and tent dwellers. They spent the winter in the abundantly verdant plains south of Syria, where there was no snow or frozen ground. In the spring they moved to the northern region, where there was plenty of grass for their cattle, moving in herds so large they blocked the highways. The Kurds, who often committed robbery, stole the Turkomans’ horses, cows, camels and other animals, and skirmishes between the two sides occasionally brought casualties. To protect their cattle, the Turks began traveling in caravans. After they learned that two hundred Kurds were about to ambush them in the region of Shabakhtan, near Mardin, the hostilities escalated into warfare, with the result that 10,000 men fell on both sides. Angered, the Kurds brought together 30,000 men from the regions of Nisibin and Tur Abdin, while the Turkomans massed near Khabur. The Kurds were beaten and fled, and the bodies of their dead littered the area between the River Khabur and Nisibin. Soon afterwards, two more battles between the Turkomans and the Kurds took place in the district of Mosul. The Kurds were again defeated and fled to the mountain areas bordering Cilicia to protect their families and cattle, but the Turkomans attacked, stole their possessions, and annihilated them—men, women, and children. The Turks sent groups of scouts into the mountains and plains of Syria and Mesopotamia, and whenever they found Kurds, they killed them without mercy and for no reason.66 The other Eastern sources shed little light on the conflict between the Turkomans and the Kurds. Ibn Shaddad notes briefly that in 1183 a battle was fought between the two sides, and that many men were killed.67 Indeed, there was severe ethnic conflict in Saladin’s army between the Turks and the Kurds, who did not trust each other.68 This conflict between the Kurds 65 The Anonymous Edessan, 335–345, 348–350 of the Syriac text, 374, 379, 380–384, 386–388 of the Arabic translation. Unfortunately, there are many gaps in the cited pages, and we lack information which would have shed more light on the dissension within the Syrian Church. 66 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 732 of the Syriac text, 400–402 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 321–322 of the English translation. 67 Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya, 87. 68 Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya, 313; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Ak-

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

707

and the Mamluks apparently was so vehement and disruptive that it attracted the attention of the Franks. The Muslims’ aim was to capture King Richard Lion-Heart and bring him to Saladin.69 The Anonymous Edessan says that the Turkomans became more ferocious when Saladin fell ill for four months in 1183 at Harran, to which he returned after failing to capture Mosul. The Kurds did not dare appear openly on the highways. The Turkomans invaded their villages and drove them from their mountain abodes, forcing them to live in towns under most miserable conditions. Thereafter, the Turkomans became inured to bloodshed, pillage and annihilation.70 Michael Rabo says the Christians suffered little harm in the first years of the Turkomans’ conflict with the Kurds, i.e., before 1185. But as it turned into warfare, the Turks became aware that the Kurds often hid their possessions in Christian villages. Moreover, because the Turkish governors did not stop the Turkomans from looting and killing, the Kurds moved into Greater Armenia. After annihilating the Kurds, the Turkomans attacked Armenia and took 26,000 Armenians captive and sold them as slaves. They set fire to the villages and to the Garabed Monastery, and killed all its monks and pillaged its books and possessions. Their troops occupied Tall al-Arabs fortress in the region of Shabakhtan and sold its occupants into slavery. Next they slaughtered 170 Syrian men in Tall Bisme, near Mardin. When the rulers saw the destruction of their territory and the decimation of their village populations, they fought against the Turkomans, especially in the provinces of Claudia and Melitene. In the village of Amrun in Claudia, the Turkomans killed many people, including 200 Syrian men. Says Michael Rabo, no one can describe the carnage and devastation during eight years (1185–1193) of warfare among the Turkomans, Kurds, and Arab Muslims.71 hbar al-Dawlatayn, 2: 199. 69 Ambroise, L’Estoire de la guerre Sainte, ed. Gaston Paris, in Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France (Paris, 1897), 453–454, and trans. Merton Jerome Hubert in verse as The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, with notes by J. L. La Monte (New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 414–415, and trans. Edward Noble Stone as The History of the Holy War (Seattle: The University of Washington, 1939), 148–149; Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, trans. and ed. Helen J. Nicholson as Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 359. 70 The Anonymous Edessan, 195 of the Syriac text, 225 of the Arabic translation. 71 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 732 of the Syriac text, 400–402 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 321–322 of

708

THE CRUSADES

The Syrians and the Armenians, who had no stake in this warfare, paid the price in lives and possessions. Even small Syrian Christian communities like Bartulli and Mosul were not immune to the antagonism and destructive acts of their Muslim neighbors. Not surprisingly, the numbers of the Christian Syrians and Armenians in greater Syria, Mesopotamia and southern Turkey fell drastically, while the number of Muslims increased. Michael Rabo relates several events that shed light on the Turkish rulers’ treatment of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and their recognition of the saint’s power. In one case Feridun, lord of Melitene, and his profligate brother Muhammad fought over control of the city. Muhammad was soundly beaten and fled Melitene to join the Franks in Antioch. When conditions there did not suit him, he went to Sultan Kilij Arslan II of the Seljuks of Rum, hoping that the sultan would give him Melitene, but instead he received Heraclea (present day Ereghli in Turkey). Soon, however, Heraclea was taken from him. Muhammad went to the Turks in the East (Syria), only to be captured by Nur al-Din Zangi and imprisoned at al-Bira, on the bank of the Euphrates, where he lived off the charity of the people. While he was in prison the monks of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, who feared Nur alDin Zangi, bravely extended charity to him because he loved their monastery. When Nur al-Din died in 1174, Muhammad was released from prison; he learned that his brother’s wife, who hated her husband, had already left Melitene and gone to her family in Hisn Ziyad (modern Kharput in Turkey). He followed her there, and her family encouraged him to seize control of Melitene. He sought the divine intercession of Mar Barsoum and pledged that if he was successful, he would exempt the monastery from taxes. Disguised as a beggar, he went by night to Melitene with two of his followers. They took him to the house of one of his supporters, where he remained in hiding for two days. On Sunday, February 15, 1175, Muhammad and his companions sneaked into his brother’s palace. They found a ladder on the ground, set it against the wall, and climbed down into the garden, where they found Feridun and an aged nanny sleeping. Muhammad struck his brother a fatal blow to the head, cut off his head, and took the keys of the city and the citadel. He boldly went through Melitene carrying his brother’s head, and everyone who saw him rushed to offer support. Fifteen men swore allegiance to him that night. The next morning he went with a hundred men to the citadel, to proclaim that the city had a new lord. The Christians of Methe English translation.

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

709

litene, scared, hid in their homes. But the Turks mounted their horses and gathered at the entrance of the citadel, with swords in hands. There was a great commotion, and rumors about the fate of their lord swirled. When Muhammad dropped his brother’s head from the wall, they faced the reality that their prince had been killed and pledged allegiance to Muhammad. After taking control of Melitene, Muhammad proposed exempting the Monastery of Mar Barsoum from taxes, but the monks felt that such a gesture would outrage the Muslims of Melitene against them and insisted on paying the taxes imposed on them. They proposed to pay him 300 dinars annually and asked to be exempted only from the additional tax of 700 dinars imposed by Feridun. It appears that Muhammad finally gave in to the monks, but as compensation he gave them the Monastery of Mar Dumit (Demete), near Melitene.72 But the most remarkable episode Michael Rabo relates is in connection with Kilij Arslan II, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1155–1192), who came to Melitene in 1181 and inquired about Michael Rabo, then the patriarch. He sent him a friendly letter, together with a patriarchal staff and twenty red (gold) dinars, which caused much astonishment. The next year Kilij Arslan came again; having heard of the trouble Theodore bar Wahbun had caused, he sent a letter inviting the patriarch to Melitene. When he arrived, he was uncertain but felt that something unusual was happening. The sultan sent a messenger to tell him that he had ordered that the patriarch should enter into his presence according to the tradition and practice of the Christians, preceded by crosses and the gospel. The following day, three amirs and a host of horsemen came to accompany him with honor to meet Sultan Kilij Arslan, but the patriarch remained suspicious. On the morning of Thursday, July 8, 1182, he and his companions entered Melitene. To his surprise, the sultan, his troops, and the townsmen came out to welcome him. The Christians, with torches lit and crosses fixed on their spears, raised their voices, chanting. The sultan approached the patriarch and asked him not to dismount or shake his hand, then opened his arms and embraced Michael Rabo. The two men communicated through an interpreter, and when the patriarch felt that the sultan was truly attentive, he began to talk freely, supporting his points with testimonies from the Scriptures and from nature, interspersed with exhortations. As the sultan listened, his eyes filled with tears, and the patriarch thanked God. Overjoyed, the Christians raised a cry 72 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 710–712 of the Syriac text, 362–364 of the French translation.

710

THE CRUSADES

of thanks and praise when they saw the Worshiped Cross hoisted over the heads of the sultan and the Muslims. In this manner the throng entered the church, and at the end of his sermon, the patriarch blessed the sultan and the people. The next day the sultan informed the patriarch that he had abolished the taxes imposed on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and confirmed his order with a royal rescript.73 On Sunday, the sultan sent the patriarch a hand, plated with gold and silver and inlaid with jewels, along with relics of St. Peter. Michael Rabo stayed in Melitene a month, and every day the sultan sent him gifts. The two discussed questions about God, Christ, the prophets, the apostles, and other matters. When the sultan left Melitene, he invited the patriarch to accompany him, and on the way the patriarch engaged in a lengthy conversation with Kamal al-Din, a Persian philosopher traveling with the sultan. As the patriarch offered more testimonies from the Scriptures, the sultan praised the Syrians’ wisdom and expressed joy over them. The patriarch attributes the attitude of Sultan Kilij Arslan II not to himself but to the mercy of God, who chose to comfort his small flock and the Syrian Church. Although the sultan’s purpose in conferring such great honor on the Syrian patriarch is not known, his magnanimous attitude stands in contrast to that of the Christian prince, Joscelin II, who unashamedly robbed the Monastery of Mar Barsoum.74 After he departed Melitene, Kilij Arslan invaded the Byzantine territory and captured twelve fortresses. Later, in a letter to Michael Rabo, the sultan attributed his victory over the Byzantines to the power of the patriarch’s prayer: From Kilij Arslan, the great Sultan of Cappadocia, Syria and Armenia to Patriarch Michael, the friend of our state, who resides in the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and who prays for our success. We declare that God has glorified the affairs of our state at this time by your prayer. From ancient Philadelphia (Alashehr, Turkey), the son of the king of the Rum [apparently Emperor Andronicus Comnenus (1183–1185), grandson of Alexius I] came with his sons to offer submission to our throne. We dispatched with him an army of forty thousand men. The enemies gathered in large numbers in the Great City (Constantinople) and prepared Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 725 of the Syriac text, 391 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, ed. Albert Abouna, 187 of the Syriac text, 216 of the Arabic translation, esp. n. 4. Abouna erroneously says that Kilij Arslan imposed a tax on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum. 74 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 725–727 of the Syriac text, 390–393 of the French translation. 73

THE CHRISTIANS UNDER TURKISH RULE

711

for war. But God gave victory to our army and chased and defeated the enemies of our state so badly that they will never be able to rise against us for a long time to come. Our army occupied the great fortress of Diyadin and controlled the region extending beyond the fortress and the seashore, which has become subject to us. Now we administer that region, which has not been subject to the Turks before, according to the laws of our state. It should be said that verily God has given us all this [victory] because of the power of your prayer. Therefore, we beseech you not to cease praying for our state. Farewell.75

Never had a Byzantine emperor or a Frankish prince asked a Syrian patriarch to pray for his triumph over his Muslim enemies. The letter clearly shows the sultan’s genuine belief in the power of prayer. Why else would Kilij Arslan have written this letter, knowing that the patriarch had no political or military power? Did he hope to coax the Syrian Christians to support him? This is doubtful, for in his Chronicle Michael Rabo never even suggests that his people were military aggressors or voluntarily took part in the warfare involving the Byzantines, Franks, and Turks.

75 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 728 of the Syriac text, 394–395 of the French translation.

20 THE RISE OF SALAH AL-DIN AL-AYYUBI (SALADIN) Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, whom Western sources call Saladin, played a major role in the history of the Crusades. He managed to do what other Muslim leaders, most notably Nur al-Din Zangi, could not do: in 1187 he fulfilled his people’s cherished hope by wresting Jerusalem from the hands of the infidel Franks and restoring it to Muslim control. The capture of Jerusalem had been the ultimate objective of Nur al-Din Zangi, who assembled a great Muslim army from Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to invade Jerusalem, but was stopped by death in May 1174. It was left to Saladin to harvest the crop which Nur al-Din had sown. Jerusalem was the main spiritual target of the Franks' invasion of the East, for whose sake incredible blood was shed. Likewise, to the Muslims it was a revered city whose restoration symbolized the triumph of their faith over the infidels. It is not surprising that since his death in 1193 Muslims have regarded Saladin as the supreme defender of their faith.1 Saladin was born at Takrit (in present-day Iraq) in 1137. His father, Najm al-Din Ayyub Shadhi, the governor of Takrit, and his family were descended from the Rawadiyya Kurds, natives of the city of Dwin, once the capital of Armenia.2 According to an anonymous Latin source, Saladin’s See Muhammad Rajab al-Bayyumi, Salah al-Din Qahir al-Udwan al-Salibi (Saladin, Vanquisher of the Crusades’ Aggression, Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1988). 2 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, R.H.C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 561–562; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 1: 3, note 1; Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Khallikan, Wafayyat alA’yan wa Anba Abna al-Zaman, R.H.C. Or., 3 (Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1968), 399– 400; V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1953), 124–125, follows Ibn Khallikan; Stanley Lane-Pool, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khayats, 1964), 3–5; Andrew S. Ehrenkreuz, Saladin (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972), 26–27. For a critical review of 1

713

714

THE CRUSADES

parents were not descended from nobility but were common people of obscure birth.3 According to an apocryphal account by the author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, he had his first taste of power under Nur al-Din Zangi. Reportedly he collected money from a group of girls in Damascus who were not allowed to sell their bodies unless they had obtained his permission, at a steep price. He acted as a pimp, and through lavish living he won the financial support of the common people. Both Najm al-Din and his younger brother Asad al-Din Shirkuh came to Iraq and entered the service of Mujahid al-Din Bahruz, the eunuch governor of Takrit who loved the Christians. Noting that the older brother was wiser and more prudent, the governor made him administrator of Takrit, and Najm al-Din took Asad al-Din with him.4 But when Asad al-Din became involved in a dispute with a Christian secretary and killed him, Mujahid al-Din Bahruz, who loved the secretary, expelled them from Takrit. Najm al-Din fled with his son Salah al-Din and his brother to Imad al-Din Zangi, lord of Mosul, who received them with honor and offered them estates, and they prospered under him. When Imad al-Din Zangi captured Ba’lbak, he appointed Najm al-Din ibn Ayyub governor of its citadel. After Zangi was killed at Qal’at Ja’bar in 1146, Mujir al-Din Abaq, lord of Damascus, and his atabeg Mu’in al-Din Unur urged Najm al-Din Ayyub to surrender Ba’lbak to them and offered to compensate him by giving him estates in Damascus. Realizing that he was no match for them, Najm al-Din accepted their terms.5 When Nur al-Din, the son of Imad al-Din Zangi, assumed power, Asad al-Din Shirkuh joined his service and became his most trusted associate. In recognition of his gallantry and bravery in battle Nur al-Din offered him the cities of Hims and al-Rahba.6 Wanting to capture Damascus from its lord Mujir al-Din Abaq, Nur al-Din ordered Asad al-Din Shirkuh to write to ask his brother, then in Damascus, to help him capture the city. Ehrenkreuz’s book see D. S. Richards, “The Early History of Saladin,” The Islamic Quarterly 17 (July-December, 1973): 140–159. 3 Helen L. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 26–27. 4 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 561; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 7; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 6; Gregorius Abu al-Farj Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 102 of the Syriac text, 288 of the English translation, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal A. Salihani, ed.(Beirut: al-Matba’a al Ctholikiyya, 1958), 212–213. 5 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 562; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 8–9. 6 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 561–562; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 128.

THE RISE OF SALADIN

715

The brothers agreed to help, but demanded in return estates in Damascus beyond what they already had. Nur al-Din Zangi acceded and swore an oath to fulfill their demands. After he captured Damascus, he gave Najm al-Din Ayyub and Asad al-Din Shirkuh the highest positions in his government, making the latter the chief commander of his army. This was the beginning of the rise to power of Asad al-Din, his brother Najm al-Din Ayyub, and most significantly Najm al-Din’s son Saladin.7 Egypt offered the opportunity for the two brothers and Saladin to rise to power. It was under the rule of the Shi’ite Fatimid caliphs, but their authority over the country had greatly declined. Much of the government was in the hands of powerful wazirs (ministers) like Abu Shuja’ Shawar ibn Mujir al-Sa’di (d. 1169), governor of Upper Egypt, whose power was nearly that of the caliph.8 Ibn al-Athir remarks that the conflict among these wazirs weakened the Fatimid state, and finally the government slipped from their hands.9 In 1163 Shawar managed to assume full authority over Egypt by eliminating his rival Majd al-Islam al-Adil, son of the powerful Vizir alSalih Abu al-Gharat Talai’i ibn Ruzzik, an Armenian, who was killed by the Fatimid Caliph al-Adid (1160–1171).10 But he treated the Caliph al-Adid with contempt, and another wazir, Abu al-Ashbal Nur al-Din Ali Dirgham ibn Sawwar (nicknamed “al-Mansur”) expelled him from Egypt. Shawar went to Syria and urged Nur al-Din Zangi to occupy Egypt and reward him by installing him as his lieutenant over Egypt. He pledged to give Nur alDin one-third of Egypt’s revenues if he helped him drive out Dirgham ibn Sawwar and regain his position as wazir.11 At first Nur al-Din was hesitant to send troops to Egypt, since he was busy fighting the Franks in Syria. But he agreed, induced by Shawar’s gifts and promises, and perhaps hoping that Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 561–562; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 10. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 6, says that Nur al-Din trusted and depended on Najm al-Din Ayyub and advanced him to positions of higher importance. 8 Nicholson, Chronicle, 27. 9 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 527–529; Kamil al-Din Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, Sami al-Dahhan, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954), 2: 315–316; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 137–139. 10 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 519–520; the Anonymous Edessan, 163 of the Syriac text, 191 of the Arabic translation. 11 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 532–533, Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, Ramadan Sheshen, ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Kitb al-Jadid, 1971), 60; Abu Shama, Kitab alRawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 1: 130; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 315–316. 7

716

THE CRUSADES

once his army was stationed in Egypt, he might seize the kingdom for himself.12 Thus, in 1164 Nur al-Din Zangi dispatched to Egypt a military force of 10,000 men commanded by Asad al-Din Shirkuh, who took along his nephew Saladin, then twenty-seven.13 Reportedly he offered gifts to Philip, son of Guy, Frankish lord of the fortresses of Karak and al-Shawbuk on the road to Egypt, to let the expeditionary forces pass.14 He told Asad al-Din Shirkuh to restore Shawar to his former position as wazir and avenge him against Dirgham ibn Sawwar.15 Dirgham ibn Sawwar in turn appealed for help to Amaury (Amalric) I, king of Jerusalem (1163–1174), promising to pay a huge amount to be fixed by the king and, most importantly, to conclude an alliance with the king whereby Egypt would become subject to Frankish rule.16 The forces of Asad al-Din Shirkuh and Shawar, which reached the delta region before the Frankish troops sent by Amaury arrived, defeated Dirgham's army at Tall Basta. By May 1164, Shirkuh and Shawar reached Cairo; Dirgham ibn Sawwar fled, having been deserted by the army, the people, and the caliph, but was struck by an arrow from one of his own men and died.17 Shirkuh restored Shawar to his former position as a wazir of Egypt, but a conflict soon arose between the two.18 Ibn al-Athir says that Shawir acted treacherously against Shirkuh and reneged on his pledge to pay Nur al-Din and Shirkuh for their assistance in restoring him to power. When Shirkuh asked Shawar to fulfill his pledge and commanded him to return to Nur al-Din Zangi in Syria, Shawar did not respond. Then Shirkuh sent his troops, who took the city of Bilbays (Bilbis, Balbis) and the eastern provWilliam of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the See, E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 303. 13 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 532–533; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 316–317; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1:137–139; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 102 of the Syriac text, 289 of the English translation, says Nur al-Din Zangi could find no man better than Asad al-Din Shirkuh to lead the expedition to Egypt. 14 The Anonymous Edessan, 164 of the Syriac text, 192 of the Arabic translation. 15 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 42–43; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 60; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 533; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 316; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 138–139. 16 William of Tyre, History, 2: 304; G. Wiet, L'Égypt arabe de la conquête arabe à la conquête ottomane, 642–1517 (Paris, 1937), 291, 294. 17 William of Tyre, History, 2: 305; Wiet, 294. 18 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 43; the Anonymous Edessan, 163 of the Syriac text, 191 of the Arabic translation; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 534; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 60. 12

THE RISE OF SALADIN

717

ince of Egypt, prompting Shawar to ask the Franks to drive Shirkuh out of Egypt.19 In 1167, Shirkuh returned to Egypt with Saladin to fight Shawar and Amalric. He occupied Alexandria, but when the Egyptians and the Franks pursued him, he left the city in charge of his nephew Saladin and went to Qus, in upper Egypt. The Egyptians and Franks besieged Alexandria for four months until it surrendered to them. After peace was concluded, Shirkuh returned to Damascus and King Amalric to Jerusalem.20 Ibn Shaddad, more credible because he was an aide and close associate of Saladin, says that after restoring Shawar to power, Shirkuh was driven by greed to seek control of Egypt. He traveled and studied conditions throughout Egypt, and concluded that it was a country in total disarray, without leaders, whose affairs were managed by deception. He went back to Syria, but thought constantly about returning to Egypt and taking control of the country and even discussed his plan with Nur al-Din Zangi. Eventually Shawar became aware of Shirkuh’s greed and determination to retake Egypt. Frightened by this prospect, Shawar communicated with the Franks and asked for help. Learning of this contact, Nur al-Dn Zangi and Shirkuh feared that if the infidel Franks occupied Egypt, all the Muslim lands would be an easy prey for them. Thus, Nur al-Din sent Shirkuh to Egypt with an army that arrived at the same time as the Frankish army under King Amaury of Jerusalem. Shirkuh chose not to attack Cairo but rather to strengthen his forces in Bilbays, where he could receive help from the Kinana Arabs living there. Meanwhile Shawar, commanding an Egyptian army, marched to join Amalric in a three-month siege of Bilbays. The conflict was resolved when Shawar agreed to pay Shirkuh an additional 30,000 dinars and promised that he and Amaury would leave Egypt. (In fact, Amaury found it urgent to leave Egypt because Nur al-Din Zangi had taken advantage of his absence to attack the Frankish domains in Syria.) While Ibn al-Athir places these events at the end of 1164, Ibn Shaddad puts them in 1166.21 The Syriac sources relate these events with slight variations. Bar Hebraeus says that Shawar concluded from Shirkuh’s actions that he was Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 534–535; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 61; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 316–318; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 139–141. 20 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 546–551; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 61; Khallikan, Wafayyat, 3: 404–406; the Anonymous Edessan, 165 of the Syriac text, 193 of the Arabic translation. 21 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 42–44; Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 532–535; Adim, Zubdat alHalab, 2: 316–317; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 137–139; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 61. 19

718

THE CRUSADES

eager to seize the sovereignty of Egypt, and therefore he contacted the king of Jerusalem for help. The Egyptians allied themselves with the Franks and attacked Shirkuh at Bilbays, shutting him up there for three months. Many people died from hunger and the sword. Finally, when Shirkuh saw he had no escape and his men were despondent, he asked the Egyptians and Franks to swear to let them leave the country emptyhanded, and they got what they wanted. Amaury returned to Jerusalem, and Shirkuh to Damascus with a few of his men.22 The year 1168 saw the death of Asad al-Din Shirkuh in his last expedition against Egypt and the rise of Saladin to power. According to Ibn Shaddad, the Franks, motivated by greed, reneged on their peace agreement with Shirkuh and invaded Egypt. When Shawar learned of the invasion, he sought help from Nur al-Din Zangi, who sent an army under Shirkuh. Saladin, who accompanied Shirkuh, told Ibn Shaddad personally that he hated to go to Egypt at this time but had no choice.23 Bar Hebraeus says King Amaury was not keen about invading Egypt but felt compelled by his nobles to do so. He reasoned that all of Egypt was on their side, and if he attacked, the Muslims, who hated the Franks and were inclined toward Nur al-Din, would appeal to him to come and rescue them. But Amaury was voted down; he attacked Bilbays, and his army plundered it and took its inhabitants captive.24 Then the Franks laid siege to Cairo. Fearing that what had happened at Bilbays would also happen to them, the city’s inhabitants manned the walls and fought the Franks bravely. It was then, say the Syriac sources, that Nur al-Din Zangi for the second time dispatched an army to Egypt under Asad al-Din Shirkuh, who encamped near Cairo. His purpose was not to help the Egyptians but to control Egypt. When he arrived in Cairo, he presented himself to the Caliph al-Adid, who honored him. But the caliph, scared of his wazir Shawar, who controlled the government of Egypt, took pains not to treat Shirkuh with obvious adulation. He did not Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 103 of the Syriac text, 289 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 165 of the Syriac text, 192–193 of the Arabic translation. 23 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 46, Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 562–563; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 65; William of Tyre, History, 2: 344–359, gives a lengthy, detailed account of this expedition and its consequences 24 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 104 of the Syriac text, 293 of the English translation. The Anonymous Edessan, 166 of the Syriac text, 194 of the Arabic translation, adds that more than four thousand people were killed and the city became deserted. 22

THE RISE OF SALADIN

719

serve the customary refreshments, instead planning to hold a banquet for Shirkuh and the amirs with him and then eliminate them, but his son alKamil persuaded him not to carry out the plot, saying that it would be better to be killed by Muslims than by Franks.25 When Shirkuh and his men saw that Shawar was procrastinating, Saladin, Izz al-Din Jurdik, and others plotted to kill him, but Shirkuh prevented them from doing so. One day Shirkuh went to visit the tomb of the Imam al-Shafi’i to receive his blessing. Shawar, as was his custom, went out searching for Shirkuh to pay him a daily visit. He met Saladin and his companions, and told them to accompany him to meet with Shirkuh. While they argued, Saladin and his companions threw Shawar off his horse, as his men fled. They did not kill Shawar but detained him in a tent, awaiting Shirkuh’s orders. On learning of the situation, Shirkuh rushed to the tent and prepared to kill Shawar but stopped, telling Saladin they should not eliminate Shawar without the consent of Caliph al-Adid. When Shirkuh and Saladin told the caliph of their plan, he urged them to kill Shawar because he had usurped the caliph’s power. Thus, Shawar was killed by order of the Caliph al-Adid, his house was plundered, and Shirkuh became the ruler of Egypt.26 Asad al-Din Shirkuh visited the caliph, who called him al-Mansur (the victorious) and named him to replace Shawar as wazir and commander of the armies. With no rivals, Shirkuh became firmly established in his position. He employed only those whom he trusted and divided the country among the troops who had come with him to Egypt. But just two months later, on March 23, 1169, Shirkuh died from khanuq (angina), and Saladin emerged as the powerful master of Egypt.27 The Anonymous Edessan’s account of these events varies only slightly from those of Bar Hebraeus and Ibn al-Athir. He relates that when Shawar 25 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 553–562, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 140; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 104 of the Syriac text, 294 of the English translation. 26 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 559–560, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 140; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 77–78; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 327; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 104–105 of the Syriac text, 294–295 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 166 of the Syriac text, 194 of the Arabic translation; William of Tyre, History, 2: 357. According to Ibn al-Athir and William of Tyre, Shawar’s head was cut off and carried to the caliph’s palace. 27 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 48; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 167–168; Athir, al-Kamil fi alTarikh, 1: 561, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 141; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 81; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 328; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 157. For a detailed account of Saladin in Egypt see Yaacov Lev, Saladin in Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1998).

720

THE CRUSADES

saw that the government of Egypt was slipping from his hands, he plotted against Shirkuh and his men, inviting them to a banquet with the intention of killing them. But Shirkuh learned of the plot and decided not to attend, feigning illness. Shawar himself rode to Shirkuh’s tent to invite him to the banquet. Shirkuh came out to receive him and instantly his guards, who had been informed of the plot, pounced upon Shawar and killed him. Shirkuh mounted Shawar’s horse and marched through Cairo to the palace of the caliph, who was confined there and had only nominal authority over Egypt. Shirkuh took control of the government and became mighty and successful. The Anonymous Edessan says that when he took full authority in Egypt, he burdened the citizens with taxes and tributes. He showed cruelty toward the Christians, increasing the poll and land taxes imposed on them. He abolished their ancient traditions and ordered them to gird themselves with sashes, not to cover their heads with kerchiefs, and further not to ride horses or mules. In that year (1169) over 14,000 Christians embraced Islam in Egypt, presumably to avoid being taxed as non-Muslims. Before his death, Shirkuh handed over the government of Egypt to his nephew Saladin.28 Saladin apparently underwent a change of character upon assuming power after the death of his uncle. He began to play politics, lavishing generous gifts on his troops and friends to strengthen his position and gain their loyalty. It was only then, says Ibn Shaddad, that he stopped drinking wine, forbidden by the Quran, and foreswore his life of pleasure to begin a life of toil and seriousness.29 The Anonymous Edessan says Saladin was gallant, sagacious, and an excellent administrator. But as he sought to control Egypt, he found out that many prominent men and servants of his uncle Shirkuh did not want him to rule. So he began to distribute wealth and treasure to them until he gradually succeeded in overcoming the difficulties which faced him.30 Saladin’s rise to power was anything but fortuitous, due largely to his exceptional talents. It was also, to a great extent, a result of miscalculation by the Fatimid Caliph al-Adid. Many prominent leaders in the army Nur alThe Anonymous Edessan, 166 of the Syriac text, 194–195 of the Arabic translation. 29 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 48; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 104–105 of the Syriac text, 295 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 162–163, 168; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 565, and, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 140–141. 30 The Anonymous Edessan, 167 of the Syriac text, 195 of the Arabic translation. 28

THE RISE OF SALADIN

721

Din Zangi sent to Egypt were eager to become wazirs (vizirs) of Egypt after Shirkuh’s death, among them Saladin’s maternal uncle, Shihab al-Din Mahmud al-Harimi. Also seeking to become wazirs were the Amir Ayn al-Dawla al-Yaruki, Qutb al-Din Khosro ibn Talil, and Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad alHakkari al-Mashtub.31 But the caliph summoned Saladin to the palace and named him to succeed his uncle Shirkuh. Ironically, al-Adid chose Saladin because his advisors told him that there was no one among them who was younger, i.e., more inexperienced and weaker than he. They reasoned that if the caliph appointed Saladin as his wazir, he would be under their control. Moreover, they planned to put some of their men in key positions in the army in order to win it to their side, so that they would have a great number of fighting men to protect Egypt. Once they had that power, they could either keep Saladin as wazir or get rid of him.32 According to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, after Shirkuh died, his men decided that Saladin should succeed him and forced the Caliph al-Adid to appoint him as Wazir of Egypt. The caliph did so and supplied Saladin with a document of investiture. At first hesitant to accept the caliph’s invitation, he finally obeyed. At the palace the caliph conferred upon him the insignia of the Wizara, a turban and a cloak, and named him al-Malik al-Nasir (the Victorious King). Saladin returned to the residence of his uncle Shirkuh, now the rightful Wazir of Egypt.33 But none of the amirs who had coveted the office of the Wizara would obey Saladin or serve him. The jurist Diya al-Din Isa al-Hakkari, whose task it was to persuade them to accept Saladin as Wazir, told Qutb al-Din Khosro ibn Talil the people had acknowledged Saladin and there were no dissidents except himself and Ayn al-Dawla al-Yaruki. He reminded Qutb al-Din that he and Saladin had one thing in common, their Kurdish origin, and he should not deprive him of authority and grant it to the Turks.34 Alone among the amirs, Ayn al-Dawla al-Yaruki refused to recognize or serve Saladin and returned with his men to Nur al-Din Zangi in Syria. Saladin established his foothold in Egypt as the deputy of Nur al-Din Zangi, whose name he proclaimed in the Friday khutba as the ruler of Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1:563–564, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 141–142; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 328; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 168–169. 32 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 564, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 142; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 168–169. 33 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 81; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 170, who follows al-Isfahani; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 173. 34 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 564–565, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 142; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 169. 31

722

THE CRUSADES

Egypt. All Egyptians received orders not from Saladin but from Nur al-Din. In his communications with Saladin, Nur al-Din addressed him as the Asfah Salar Saladin (Saladin, Commander of the Army), to show that he himself held the real power as the sovereign of Egypt.35 Gradually, however, Saladin began to win the people over by lavishing on them gifts and money which had been collected by his uncle. Even the Caliph al-Adid himself contributed money to Saladin. From then on Saladin waxed strong while alAdid grew weaker. Meanwhile, Nur al-Din Zangi learned that the Franks were preparing to invade Egypt. He dispatched a force under Saladin’s older brother Shams al-Dawla Turanshah to help Saladin. But Nur al-Din, who was unsure of Saladin’s loyalty, warned Turanshah that if he went to Egypt to help Saladin only because he was his brother, as Joseph of the Old Testament helped his brothers, he would defeat the purpose of his mission and merit punishment. But if Turanshah should act as his deputy and help Saladin as if he were in fact serving Nur al-Din, the only ruler of Egypt, then he would have Nur al-Din’s blessing.36 Whether Turanshah supported his brother is less important than the fact that Saladin, driven by personal ambition, was preparing to become the sole ruler of Egypt. Sooner or later he thought he would have to confront Nur al-Din Zangi and become independent of him to establish the Ayyubid state in Egypt.37 But in an unlikely turn of events, the deaths of the Caliph al-Adid and Nur al-Din Zangi in 1174, paved the way for Saladin not only to control Egypt but to capture all of Nur al-Din’s kingdom. The conflict between Saladin and Nur al-Din had begun in 1171, when Nur al-Din ordered Saladin to meet him with the Egyptian troops at Karak (Crac des Moabites, Krak of Moab). The year before, Nur al-Din had laid siege to Karak when he fought the Frankish barons known in Muslim sources as Hunfry (Humphrey III of Toron, lord of Banyas and then Karak), and Philip ibn al-Daqiq, also al-Raqiq or Rafiq (Philip of Milly).38 35

Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 565, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 142; Wasil, Mufarrij,

I: 173. 36

Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 143; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 84–85; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1:

170. Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 564–565, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 142. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 91, nn. 5, 6; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 570–571, and al-Bahir fi al-Tarikh, 144; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 329–330; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 183; Sir Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “The Career of Nur al-Din,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 526. 37 38

THE RISE OF SALADIN

723

But this time he needed help from Saladin and his Egyptian troops. Saladin responded and besieged the fortress of Shawbak (Krak (Crac) des Montréal), built in 1115 by King Baldwin I, south of the Dead Sea, 85 miles from Jerusalem and 80 miles north of the Red Sea. The Franks in the fortress asked Saladin for peace; he gave them ten days to surrender the fortress, and they agreed. When Nur al-Din Zangi heard what Saladin had done, he left Damascus to fight the Franks on a different front. Saladin’s men told him if Nur al-Din attacked and defeated the Franks on one front while he was on the other, he would have no standing and would lose Egypt to Nur al-Din. They added that if Nur al-Din marched to al-Shawbak, Saladin would have no choice but to meet with him and would be subject to his command. Nur al-Din would either approve of his action or remove him from his position in Egypt. In either case, Saladin would be the loser. The best thing was for him to return to Egypt. Saladin agreed and returned to Egypt, leaving al-Shawbak in the hands of the Franks. To justify his action, he wrote to Nur al-Din explaining that in his absence conditions in Egypt had become chaotic; some Alawi Shi’ites had tried to gain control of the country, and if that happened, it would be lost to Nur al-Din Zangi. He also complained that he could not march with his troops to Karak because it was too far from Egypt. Nur al-Din did not accept these pretexts; he became furious and decided to march to Egypt himself and drag Saladin out of it by force. Hearing of Nur al-Din’s intention, Saladin summoned his leaders to discuss the situation. Taqi al-Din Umar, his young nephew, suggested that if Nur al-Din was intent on fighting, they should fight and prevent him from taking Egypt. Some at the meeting agreed with his idea, but Saladin's father, Najm al-Din Ayyub, insulted them and Taqi al-Din, telling them to shut up and sit down. He said to his son, “I am your father and this is Shihab al-Din al-Harimi, your uncle, and we love you more than anyone else. By Allah, if I and your uncle were in the presence of Nur al-Din, we would do nothing but kiss the ground before him. Even if he commanded us to cut off your head with a sword, we would obey him. If this is our case, what do you think others would do? If your amirs (commanders) should meet Nur al-Din face to face, they would shake in their saddles. These countries belong to Nur al-Din, and we are his slaves and deputies. If he wishes to relieve you of your position, we will obey his command. Do you know that when Nur al-Din hears that you have rebelled against him, he will leave everything, pursue you, and eliminate you?” Saladin’s father urged his son to send an envoy to Nur al-Din and tell him with humility that he was his slave subject and the affairs of Egypt were not yet settled, and that fear of the Franks prevented him from joining him at Karak. Saladin did as

724

THE CRUSADES

his father had advised. When Nur al-Din received his message, his wrath against Saladin calmed down. There is no evidence, however, that Saladin sent Egyptian troops to assist Nur al-Din.39 In 1171, Nur al-Din Zangi sent a message to Saladin ordering him to stop proclaiming al-Adid as caliph and instead proclaim in the Khutba the name of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi in Baghdad (reigned 1170–1180).40 The reason is obvious; al-Adid was Shi’ite, and Nur al-Din and the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad were Sunnites, and the Sunnites had never accepted the Shi’ites’ claims about the office of the caliphate. Bar Hebraeus puts Nur alDin’s determination to eradicate Shiism in Egypt in its proper perspective, saying that he was an avid hater of the Arabs (Shi’ite Muslims) who were descended from Ali.41 The Sunnites considered the Shi’ites heretics and usurpers of the caliphate, which they asserted belonged only to themselves. Nur al-Din Zangi ordered Saladin to discredit al-Adid as the rightful caliph, but Saladin feared that if he stopped proclaiming the name of al-Adid in the Friday khutba, the Shi’ite majority in Egypt might revolt against him. He was in no position to offend the Egyptians and undermine the stature he had already gained among them. But Nur al-Din put great pressure on Saladin to follow his orders regarding al-Adid. The matter was very serious, and Saladin sought the advice of his men about how to handle it. While they were deliberating what to do, Muhammad ibn al-Muwaffaq al-Khayushani, a Persian known as al-Alim (the learned), volunteered to switch the proclamation from al-Adid to the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi, since the Egyptians were reluctant to initiate this action. One Friday he climbed the pulpit and proclaimed the name of the Abbasid caliph (as a legitimate caliph). On the next Friday, Saladin ordered preachers all over Egypt to follow suit; thereafter, Shiism faded in Egypt and was replaced by Sunnite Islam.42 As part of abolishing Shiism, Saladin also razed Dar al-Ma’una (something like a police Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 582–583, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 158–159; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 106–107 of the Syriac text, 300–301 of the English translation. 40 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 111; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 194. 41 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation. 42 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 578–579, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 156, says he had met al-Khayushani in Mosul; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 194; Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, 1: 196; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 200–201; Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 333; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 106–107 of the Syriac text, 300 of the English translation. See also Dr. Mustafa Jawad, review of the first volume of Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 544. 39

THE RISE OF SALADIN

725

department, used as a prison) and Dar al-Adl (house of justice) and built Shafiite schools on their sites. He also replaced Shi’ite judges with Shafiites and installed a Shafiite as chief judge for all of Egypt.43 When Saladin proclaimed the name of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi instead of al-Adid, Nur al-Din Zangi was pleased and delegated Shihab alDin ibn Abi Asrun to deliver the glad tidings to al-Mustadi. In appreciation, the Abbasid caliph praised Nur al-Din and honored him, by sending him gifts with one of his prominent aides, Imad al-Din Sandal al-Muqtafawi; he also sent Saladin gifts of lesser value.44 The caliph was so pleased with Saladin that he bestowed upon him the title of al-Sultan al-A’zam (The Great Sultan).45 As a sign of the Abbasids’ preeminence in Egypt, their insignia, black flags, were hoisted over the pulpits. Thus, for the first time since the tenth century, Egypt was restored once more to Sunnite Islam under the nominal authority of the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad.46 The Caliph al-Adid was very sick, and no one, not even his aides or members of his family, told him that Saladin had stopped proclaiming his name as caliph. He died without knowing that his name had been removed from the khutba.47 If he recovered, they thought, he would learn the truth, and if he died, why should they deliver the sad news and make whatever was left of his life miserable? Just before his death al-Adid sent a message asking Saladin to see him, but he declined, suspecting a ruse. Afterwards, Saladin learned that the caliph was sincere in wishing to see him and regretted that he did not accept the invitation.48 Abu Shama, however, states that al-Adid’s son Abu al-Futuh, whom he met in 1230 while he was imprisoned at Qal’at al-Jabal in Egypt, told him that his father called Saladin to appear before him, and he did. He also asked for his children, who were still

43 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 578; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, 1: 191; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 198. 44 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 115–117; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 197–199. 45 The Anonymous Edessan, 167 of the Syriac text, 195 of the Arabic translation. 46 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 117; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 580–581, and alTarikh al-Bahir, 157. 47 Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 333, is the only Eastern source to report that the caliph knew before he died about the removal of his name from the khutba. 48 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 580–581, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 156; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 202; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 106–107 of the Syriac text, 300 of the English translation.

726

THE CRUSADES

young, to come to his presence and instructed Saladin to take care of them. Abu al-Futuh says that Saladin took good care of the children.49 According to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, when al-Adid died, Saladin sat as was customary to receive condolences. He wept bitterly and grieved greatly over the death of al-Adid. Meanwhile, he took possession of alAdid’s palace and everything therein. In fact, he had arranged before his death to take possession of the caliph’s wealth. He had al-Adid’s family confined to the palace of Barjawan in the district of the same name and appointed his eunuch Baha al-Din Qaraqosh to supervise them. To make sure that al-Adid’s relatives would not make trouble for him, Saladin had them detained in a hall in the same palace, under strict surveillance. He even segregated the men from their women, lest they have children and increase in number. Gradually, their numbers decreased and their provisions and allowances diminished. Saladin also drove out the caliph’s slaves; he set some of his bondmaids free, sold some, and offered the rest as gifts to his men. He kept whatever palace treasures pleased him, gave away some as gifts, and sold many more. These treasures, collected over generations, included jewels, precious objects such as no king had ever possessed, a long emerald staff, and 120,000 manuscripts, transcribed in different scripts, seven loads of which were carried to Damascus. Al-Isfahani gives a long list of the various items, old and new, cheap and precious, of gold, silver, and cloth. There were so many that their sale continued for ten years.50 Bar Hebraeus states that Saladin acted maliciously to decimate the Fatimid royal line. He says that Saladin shut up the caliph’s sons and members of his household in prison, and removed the males from the females so that their posterity might be cut off. And when he set free the caliph’s slaves and handmaidens, the fatalist Sunnites were overjoyed because Saladin had stripped the heretic (Shi’ite Fatimid) caliphs of their sovereignty, saying that they were descended not from Ali and Fatima but from a man who was a Jew and Magian.51 Poets composed numerous verses such as, Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 194; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 194, follows Abu Shama. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 112–113, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 194–195, 199– 200; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 580–581, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 157; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 202–203. 51 The dispute of the Shi’ites and Sunnites over the Fatimid Shi’ites’ claim that they were descended from Ali, cousin of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, and his wife Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter, lies beyond the scope of this study. For a summary of the Fatimids’ claims, their origin, and their rise to power, see M. Canard, “Fatimids,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2 (1965): 850–862. 49 50

THE RISE OF SALADIN

727

“The kingdom of Pharaoh (the Fatimids) has come to an end, and that of Joseph (son of Jacob) has begun.”52 Although Bar Hebraeus does not name the poets who composed odes denigrating the Caliph al-Adid, Abu Shama tells us that the main poet was Imad al-Din al-Isfahani himself.53 The Anonymous Edessan says that Saladin plotted to kill Caliph alAdid li Din Allah and in fact had him killed, but he gives no details about the plot or the nature of Saladin’s machinations to get rid of the caliph.54 Later in his narrative, he asserts that al-Adid died of poisoning. He says that after Saladin took control of Egypt, he thought of eliminating the caliph. When the caliph learned of his plan, he licked the seal of his ring, which contained a deadly potion, and departed this life.55 William of Tyre also blames Saladin for the death of al-Adid. He states that at the beginning of his rule, Saladin visited the caliph to pay him homage, which he owed him. He struck his lord to the ground with a club and slew him. Then he put all the caliph’s children to the sword, so that he would be subject to no higher authority and might rule as both caliph and sultan. William adds that Saladin, knowing that of the hatred between the Egyptians and the Turks, feared that if he appeared before the caliph, he might be killed, and thus acted to forestall the caliph, who he thought was preparing to eliminate him.56 It is worth noting that this story is related by three different writers—one Latin, another Muslim (Yahya ibn Abi Tayy), and the third Syrian—who never met or knew one another. William of Tyre’s account regarding the fate of al-Adid’s treasures is borne out by Muslim and Syriac sources. He says that on the death of the Caliph al-Adid, Saladin seized his wealth and all his royal treasures for himself, together with everything of value in the palace, and lavished on his soldiers so much that within a few days the wardrobes of the royal palace were emptied. Unlike other sources, Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 106–107 of the Syriac text, 300 of the English translation. 53 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 195–199. 54 The Anonymous Edessan, 167 of the Syriac text, 195 of the Arabic translation. See the account of Yahya ibn Abi Tayy in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 196. 55 The Anonymous Edessan, 173 of the Syriac text, 201 of the Arabic translation. 56 William of Tyre, History, 2: 359, esp. n. 21; the editors say (despite the testimony of the Anonymous Edessan and Yahya ibn Abi Tayy) that this account of the caliph’s death is not supported by other sources, and that William of Tyre may have confused Saladin’s action here with his part in the destruction of Shawar and his family. 52

728

THE CRUSADES

William of Tyre says that some of al-Adid’s sons were secretly saved by their father’s loyal adherents, with the hope that some of them might regain control of Egypt in the future. This did not happen, and the Fatimid royal line in Egypt was no more.57 As long as Nur al-Din Zangi was still living, Saladin was subservient to him, acting as his deputy in Egypt. Although Saladin was tempted to act on his own, independent of Nur al-Din, he knew that doing so would risk arousing Nur al-Din’s wrath against him and perhaps even provoke him to invade Egypt to remove Saladin from power. Saladin gave proof of his allegiance by attacking the fortresses of Karak and al-Shawbak in compliance with Nur al-Din’s orders. But after having established his power in Egypt and made many gains, he was unwilling to surrender such gains easily. Ibn al-Athir says Saladin and his household thought of establishing and owning a state which would become their home in case Nur al-Din tried to oust them from Egypt.58 Perhaps for this reason, Saladin at the end of 1172 dispatched an expedition under his brother Shams al-Dawla Turanshah to seize the country of the Nubians as a haven for Saladin and his family.59 The Nubian country was, as Saladin found out, poor and worthless. In 1174 he sent his brother to occupy Yemen, which became part of Saladin's domain.60 But control of Nubia and Yemen was not so important as the challenge of the Muslims’ formidable enemies, the Franks. Saladin’s star had begun rising in 1168 when, as Nur al-Din’s deputy and military commander, he fought King Amalric I of Jerusalem for control of the ports of Alexandria and Damietta (Dimyat) in the Nile delta. The next year, the Frankish forces left Damietta and other seaports, and the Muslims secured their heWilliam of Tyre, History, 2: 359. Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 204–211, gives an account of the Fatimids and the end of their power in Egypt. 58 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 594–595. 59 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 585–587, 595–596, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 710; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 361; the Anonymous Edessan, 171 of the Syriac text, 200 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 301–302 of the English translation. 60 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 208–209, 216–217; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 171 of the Syriac text, 200 of the Arabic translation. 57

THE RISE OF SALADIN

729

gemony over the eastern part of the Mediterranean. The Latins’ strategy was to alienate Saladin and Egypt from the Zangids in Syria and Palestine, where they had established their kingdoms, and thus weaken the Muslims. Amalric was so dismayed by Saladin's control of the northern sea ports of Egypt that he dispatched an envoy to ask the kings of Europe to send a force to rescue their brethren in the east.61 But the mistrust and alienation between Nur al-Din Zangi and Saladin was growing. Ibn al-Athir astutely notes that Saladin took care not to expand his conflict with the Franks, so as to use them as a buffer between himself and Nur al-Din. Rightly or wrongly, he says, Saladin believed that if Nur al-Din succeeded in eliminating the Franks, he would turn and take Egypt from Saladin. But Nur al-Din already knew that Saladin was not serious about fighting the Franks when he attacked their fortresses at Karak and Shawbak in 1173. Although Saladin had complied with the order to dispatch troops to these fortresses, he feared that when Nur al-Din’s troops arrived, they would betray him and eliminate him. To avoid committing his troops to a battle with the Franks, Saladin used as a pretext the sickness of his father, whom he had left in charge of Egypt in his absence. He objected that if anything happened to his father, Egypt would slip from Saladin’s hands and Nur al-Din would likewise lose it. Thus, Saladin hurried back to Egypt without waiting for Nur al-Din to arrive at the fortresses of Karak and al-Shawbak. But Saladin’s father had already died before he returned to Egypt, and the excuse of his father’s sickness was no longer valid. Aware that Saladin was stalling, Nur al-Din Zangi decided to invade Egypt himself and remove him from power. But when Nur al-Din died in 1174, the whole arena was left to Saladin.62 From his start as a deputy of Nur al-Din Zangi in Egypt until his victory over the Franks in 1187, Saladin succeeded in controlling the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates, a marvelous achievement for one man. As we shall see, his phenomenal success in controlling the state of Nur al-Din, fighting the Franks, and finally wresting Jerusalem from them could not have been realized without the dissension within the ranks of the Franks and the deaths of two formidable leaders, Nur al-Din Zangi and Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 568–569, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 143; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 179–183; William of Tyre, History, 2: 360; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallender, 1936), 2: 539. 62 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 153–154; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 602–603, and alTarikh al-Bahir, 161; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 220–223. 61

730

THE CRUSADES

King Amalric of Jerusalem, within forty days of each other in 1174.63 Runciman rightly states that the deaths of Nur al-Din and Amalric, neither of them expected, saved Saladin and opened the gateway for his victories to come.64 The death of Nur al-Din Zangi created problems of succession. His son and heir, al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il, was only eleven years old. Ibn alAthir says that Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam took charge of al-Salih’s upbringing and the administration of his state, while Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says that al-Adl Abu Salih ibn al-Ajami assumed that responsibility.65 All the chief men in Nur al-Din’s service swore oaths of fealty to him, and in Egypt Saladin also proclaimed him as his master and stamped his name on the coins.66 To obviate any conflict arising from Nur al-Din’s death, the judge Kamal al-Din al-Shahrzuri urged Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam and the other leading amirs under Nur al-Din to consult with Saladin about alSalih’s guardianship. After all, he said, “Saladin is one of the mamluks of Nur al-Din and his deputy. It is in our interest to consult with him and not exclude him from this matter, else he will use his exclusion as a pretext to rise against us, especially because he is more powerful than all the amirs and might even drive them out and himself become the tutor and guardian of al-Malik al-Salih.” But they rejected this counsel, fearing that if Saladin were in charge of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’l, he might oust them from their positions.67 Clearly Nur al-Din’s prominent amirs knew of Saladin’s ambition and were cautious about getting him involved in the affairs of state of his master's son. Future developments proved them right. The guardianship Amalric died on July 11, 1174. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 707 of the Syriac text, 356, n. 2 of the French translation, incorrectly gives the date as the beginning of July 1175. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation, says Amalric died in the month of Ayyar (May) 1174. William of Tyre, History, 2: 359, n. 63, says Amalric died on July 11, 1173. 64 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 300. 65 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 606–607; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 159; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 230. 66 Athir, al-Kamil, 1: 606–607, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162–163;.the Anonymous Edessan, 170 of the Syriac text, 198 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation. 67 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 607, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 3. 63

THE RISE OF SALADIN

731

issue was finally solved when Shams al-Din Ali ibn al-Daya took control of Aleppo and Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik (Ibn alMuqaddam) became the guardian and educator of al-Malik al-Salih in Damascus.68 A more serious problem for Saladin was Nur al-Din’s nephew Sayf alDin Ghazi II, lord of Mosul. Because he did not like his uncle’s strict Muslim discipline, particularly his ban on drinking wine, Sayf al-Din rejoiced on hearing of his death, immediately lifted the ban, and gave himself to a life of pleasure.69 Taking advantage of al-Malik al-Salih’s tender age, the ambitious Sayf al-Din tried to seize for himself a large area of Nur al-Din's state. Having obtained the approval of the lords of Mardin, Nisibin, Hisn Kifa, and other cities, he came to Beth Nahrin and took possession of Harran, Edessa, and Khabur. The person then ruling Edessa, a black eunuch of Nur al-Din, surrendered the city and asked instead for Qal’at al-Za’faran (Saffron Citadel), in Jazirat ibn Umar; Sayf al-Din readily agreed. Next he occupied Saruj and al-Raqqa, taking possession of all the territory along the Euphrates except Qal’at Ja’bar, which was nearly impregnable, and Ras al-Ayn, which belonged to his cousin Qutb al-Din, lord of Mardin. He then attacked Aleppo and Damascus. He sent the people of Damascus a message asking them to hand over al-Malik al-Salih, but they refused and sent envoys to ask for peace. One of his men, the Amir Izz al-Din Mahmud Zulfindar, told Sayf al-Din that he already possessed more land than his father and it was in his interest to return to Mosul.70 But the situation in Syria was much more complicated because some of the lords feared Sayf al-Din might occupy Damascus and remove alMalik al-Salih Isma’il from power. Shams al-Din ibn al-Daya, captain of the host of Aleppo, urged the nobles of Damascus to send al-Malik al-Salih to him, warning that he might otherwise lose Aleppo. On learning of Ibn alDaya’s contact with the nobles, Saladin rebuked them for not informing him about Sayf al-Din’s occupation of the countries of his former master, and especially for not asking him for help. Sounding virtuous and disinterested, he told them, “If Nur al-Din had known that there was one among Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 608, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 161; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 9. 70 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 709–710 of the Syriac text, 360–361 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 171 of the Syriac text, 199–200 of the Arabic translation; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 609–610, 620, and al-Tarikh alBahir, 163, 175; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 5–6; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107–108 of the Syriac text, 302–303 of the English translation. 68 69

732

THE CRUSADES

you more responsible and vigilant than myself, he would have handed over to him the kingdom of Egypt. But now I am coming (to Syria), for it is right for me to serve my lord and the son of my lord (al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il) and not you, and to restore to him the countries captured by his cousin.”71 The nobles did not believe Saladin, however, suspecting that he had designs on Nur al-Din’s state. Ibn al-Athir says one of the amirs, Kamal al-Din al-Shahrzuri, urged Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam and the others to send al-Malik al-Salih to Aleppo to collect troops, fight Sayf al-Din, and reclaim the lands he had seized after the death of Nur al-Din, but this advice was rejected on the grounds that if the boy went, he would be totally under the control of Shams al-Din ibn al-Daya, the most powerful of the Zangids in Aleppo.72 The nobles of Damascus, leery of Ibn al-Daya’s design to control Damascus, refused. But after Sayf al-Din captured Jazira, Ibn al-Daya sent the eunuch Sa‘d al-Din Gümüshtigin (whom Nur al-Din had appointed governor of Mosul in 1171) to Damascus to bring al-Malik al-Salih to Aleppo with a necessary force. But no sooner did al-Malik al-Salih arrive in Aleppo than Gümüshtigin detained Ibn al-Daya, usurped his position, and became al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il’s sole tutor and minister.73 The Zangid amirs in Damascus, afraid that Salah al-Din would invade Syria, appealed to King Amalric of Jerusalem to conclude peace and offered in return to pay him a tribute. There could not have been a more opportune time for Amalric to respond to the appeal from Ibn al-Muqaddam, who was in control of Damascus and of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il.74 He also threatened the Franks that he would invite either Sayf al-Din Ghazi, nephew of Nur alDin, or Saladin himself to occupy Damascus. He reminded them that Saladin had been afraid to invade Syria while Nur al-Din was alive. With Nur alDin dead, that fear was removed, and if Ibn al-Muqaddam and the other amirs appealed to him, he would not hesitate to rush to their aid.75 By that time King Amalric had already reached Banyas and occupied it. Although he had appealed to Amalric for help, Ibn al-Muqaddam was afraid his acAthir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 607–608, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 176–177; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 7. 72 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 607–608, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 163. 73 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 614- 615, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162–163, 175; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 8–10. 74 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 303 of the English translation; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 231–232. 75 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 610–611; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 7. 71

THE RISE OF SALADIN

733

tion might enrage Saladin and offer him a legitimate reason to invade Syria. Thus, he gathered troops and pretended to defend Banyas, although he had no intention of fighting the Franks. Finally, he concluded peace with Amalric and agreed to pay him a tribute. But within a few days Amalric fell sick and died at Acre, forty days after the death of Nur al-Din.76 Ibn al-Muqaddam and the other amirs of Damascus evidently realized that they were caught between Sayf al-Din Ghazi II and Saladin. Ibn alAthir makes it clear that they concluded peace with the Franks because they were afraid that one or the other would cross into and occupy Syria. When Saladin learned that the amirs of Damascus had made peace with the Franks, he was outraged. He wrote to al-Malik al-Salih and the amirs with him, condemning their action and declaring that he had no intention of taking possession of al-Salih’s territory. He wanted only to use Syria as a base to fight the Franks.77 He despised the Syrian people for their weakness78 and believed that the rapprochement between the amirs of Damascus and the Franks was directed against him personally.79 Though he was in no position to march against Damascus, the opportunity soon presented itself. What served Saladin most was the fact that the amirs of Damascus totally distrusted Ibn al-Muqaddam, who was in full control of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il and the affairs of the state in Aleppo. They feared that he would extend his control over al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il once the boy was transferred to Damascus. To solve their predicament, the amirs of Damascus asked Sayf al-Din Ghazi II to come and take possession of the city. He declined and, in a show of good will, wrote to Gümüshtigin and his young charge that he would restore to al-Malik al-Salih all the lands he had occupied. Sayf al-Din may have suspected that they wanted to lure him to Damascus so that his cousin al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il and his troops could attack him from the rear and annihilate him. He may also have refused to come to Damascus because if he did so the amirs, especially Ibn al-Muqaddam, would have no choice but to invite Saladin to come to Syria and take over the city.80 This was Saladin's opportunity to take possession of Nur al-Din’s domain. He marched on Syria with 700 men, evading Frankish troops on the 76 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 303 of the English translation; William of Tyre, History, 2: 359. 77 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 611; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 168–169. 78 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 233. 79 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 8. 80 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 615–616, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 176–177.

734

THE CRUSADES

way, and occupied Bosra, whose governor was one of the amirs who supported him. He reached Damascus at the end of November 1174 and took quarters in his father’s house, known as the al-Aqiqi residence. He sent for the judge Kamal al-Din al-Shahrzuri and dispatched him to advise Raihan, who was in charge of the citadel of Damascus, to surrender it to Saladin.81 Saladin tried to legitimize his occupation of the citadel and the city by declaring, “I am the mamluk (slave) of al-Malik al-Salih and want only to support him, serve him, and restore to him the countries which have been taken from him.”82 Once Saladin took possession of the citadel of Damascus, he laid his hands on its treasures, which not only enriched him but also helped him established a firmer foothold in Syria. Meanwhile, says Ibn al-Athir, he showed his obedience to al-Malik al-Salih by addressing him as his mamluk, proclaiming his name in the Friday khutba, and minting money bearing his name.83 Saladin reportedly said that because of his allegiance to Nur al-Din Zangi, he was more worthy than anyone else to have custody of al-Malik alSalih Isma’il, and that if the amirs continued to hold power, there would be no unity among the Muslims and the infidels (Franks) would control the countries of Islam. He expressed his love for and allegiance to the house of Zangi, declaring that he and those who suspected his good intentions were on opposite poles. He wrote to Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam, “We wish nothing for the Muslims except that which will unite them, and for the house of the atabeg (Nur al-Din Zangi) what will protect its roots and branches and drive harm away, and will procure what benefits it.”84 The contemporary Egyptian writer Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur asserts that Saladin’s march on Syria was motivated not by personal ambition or desire for gain but by his wish to unify the Muslims and end the dissension within Nur al-Din Zangi’s former state in order to challenge the Crusaders.85 This may be true, but the historical facts show that Saladin was ambitious and opportunistic. His aim to control the state of his master Nur alDin was not so benevolent as it might appear on the surface. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 177; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 11; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 59; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 616. 82 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 616–617, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 177. 83 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 617, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162–163. 84 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 168, also cited in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 234; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 18. 85 Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat alAnglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 742. 81

THE RISE OF SALADIN

735

H.A.R. Gibb maintains that after the death of Nur al-Din Zangi, the centralized military power he had built collapsed. Any man who intended to reconstruct this power had either to absorb the whole Zangid structure into a powerful military empire, or to build on the foundation of moral unity laid down by Nur al-Din. Judging by Saladin’s course of action, one is tempted to say that he chose the first course. In fact, says Gibb, the secret of Saladin’s success is that he adopted and carried through the second. Gibb says Saladin was ambitious but at the same time simple; his ambition arose from the simplicity of his character and the direction of his vision. He seems to justify Saladin’s effort to conquer the Zangids’ domain on the ground that he wanted to rescue the Muslim body politic from the demoralized condition which had permitted the establishment and continued survival of the crusading state. In sum, Gibb argues, Saladin’s intent was to awaken the Muslims to their moral and religious duty and unite them to fight against their enemies, the Franks.86 Gibb may have a point, but he seems to have completely overlooked the methods Saladin used to conquer the Zangids’ domain. He is right in saying that Saladin was ambitious, but calling him a simpleton ignores his tactical actions. Saladin’s intention was not so altruistic as Ashur has asserted. He was ambitious and greedy for personal power, using the youth of Nur al-Din’s son as a pretext to persuade the Syrians of his supposed noble intention of protecting al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il and his domain. It is true that he wanted to subdue the Muslim lords of Syria to create one unified state. But he was still greedy for power. The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi rightly says that the more Saladin had, the more he wanted, and thus he strove with all his might to seize the inheritance of his lord Nur al-Din Zangi.87 If Saladin was sincere in desiring to protect his master’s son, why did he appoint his own brother, Sayf al-Islam Tughtigin, as governor of Damascus, supposedly ruling in the name of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il? And why did he try to win over the people of Damascus by lavishing on them enormous amounts of money and gifts and abolishing the taxes and excises im-

H.A.R. Gibb, “The Achievement of Saladin,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 33, No. 1 (1952), rpt. in Sir Hamilton A.R. Gibb, Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, ed. Yusuf Ibish (Beirut: The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974), 166–167. 87 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 28–29. 86

736

THE CRUSADES

posed on them by Nur al-Din?88 Ashur himself seems to have forgotten that he said Saladin’s intention in coming to Syria was to protect al-Malik alSalih from the danger of the Crusaders and to restore the parts of his domain that had been usurped by his cousin Sayf al-Din, lord of Mosul: “Under this cover, the cover of restoring these domains and defending al-Malik al-Salih and administering his state, Saladin proceeded to execute his policy of restoring the united Islamic front to its former condition, which included the whole region from north Iraq to Egypt.”89 Clearly he was using Syria and al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il as tools to achieve his ambition of extending to Syria the empire he had begun in Egypt. The Syriac sources seem to be more accurate in revealing Saladin’s true intentions. Michael Rabo states that Saladin, using Sayf al-Din’s occupation of Harran and Edessa as a pretext, marched on Damascus and gained control of the city and its environs. Although he declared publicly that he was coming to rescue al-Malik al-Salih, his mother, and his legal guardians, who were in Aleppo, they feared and distrusted him. He sent an envoy to say that he was only a soldier serving his young master, planning to be his guardian and fight his enemies, but they would not open the gates of Aleppo to the envoy. Michael Rabo says that Saladin scattered throughout Syria the wealth he had brought from Egypt as he would scatter dust, and finally concluded peace with the Franks. Sayf al-Din Ghazi, lord of Mosul, sent his forces to expel Saladin, believing they would easily overwhelm him, but they mocked him, calling him “a dog set to assail his master.”90 To appease Sayf al-Din’s men, Saladin sent a messenger to tell them kindly, “We are the sons of one house, and we should not be divided.” Not believing this message, they insulted and attacked the messenger, giving him no chance to escape. But Saladin’s forces assailed Sayf al-Din’s men and captured most of them and took their arms, horses, and camels. When Saladin saw them fleeing, he took off his helmet and told his men, “Don’t kill anyone, for they are our brothers.” He released the captives after supplying them with money and horses, and thus became more popular among the Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 20; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 59. Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 742–743. 90 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 713 of the Syriac text, 365 of the French translation. Chabot translates this passage as “a dog that barks against his master.” But the Syriac verb used here means “to attack”, not “to bark at”. Gibb, “The Achievement of Saladin,” rpt. in Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, 167, quotes the same passage from Chabot’s French translation. 88 89

THE RISE OF SALADIN

737

Muslims.91 The Anonymous Edessan says that Saladin came out of Egypt with a huge army, transporting enormous wealth. He marched against Damascus, pretending that he had come to help the son of Nur al-Din and buttress his power, but in fact he was continuously intervening in the affairs of the state of al-Malik al-Salih.92 Similarly, Bar Hebraeus says Saladin marched on Damascus, pretending to help the son of his lord Nur al-Din, but persuaded the eunuch Rihan, governor of the citadel of Damascus, to open the gate for him. He then allowed his brother Sayf al-Islam Tughtigin and his men into the citadel, but continued to proclaim al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il as ruler.93 After leaving Damascus, Saladin marched on Hims but could not take its citadel. He left an aide in charge of Hims, then marched against Hama and occupied it.94 All the while, Saladin declared his obedience to Nur alDin’s son, saying he had come to protect Syria from the Franks and restore to al-Malik al-Salih the countries Sayf al-Din had captured from him.95 He reached Aleppo at the end of December 1174 and stayed in the vicinity five months, but the people would not surrender the city to him. Saladin viewed Aleppo as the key city in Syria, the seat of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il’s government and the center of political and administrative power. If he occupied it, the whole state of Nur al-Din Zangi would fall into his hands. He dispatched envoys to the city’s leaders, promising allegiance to the son of his master and declaring that he was only an army general, and if he entered Aleppo, the government would remain in the hands of al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il. But, the Anonymous Edessan says, the leaders were already aware of his stratagem. They refused to let him into the city, fearing that the young ruler might fall into his grip. Frustrated, Saladin began to wage war openly against al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il. He occupied the whole region extending from the ranges of the Mountain of Lebanon to Aleppo.96 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 712–713 of the Syriac text, 364–365 of the French translation. 92 The Anonymous Edessan, 179 of the Syriac text, 207 of the Arabic translation. 93 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 303 of the English translation, seems to follow Muslim sources. See Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 178, and Athir, alKamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 616–617. 94 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 180. 95 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 618. 96 The Anonymous Edessan, 179 of the Syriac text, 207 of the Arabic translation. 91

738

THE CRUSADES

Bar Hebraeus gives a vivid picture of Saladin’s actions as he prepared to occupy Aleppo. He says that Saladin camped near the mountain of Jawshan near Aleppo, causing fright among the city’s amirs. They sent heralds through the city, asking the people to gather in the square of the Iraq Gate. They urged al-Malik al-Salih to go forth and tell the people about their danger and to save him from the invader Saladin. With tears in his eyes, alMalik al-Salih told the people, “Sons of Aleppo, I am your orphan. I have been brought up among you. I have neither father nor mother except you.” As he broke into tears, everyone wept and said, “We, all of us, are your slaves and will die for you.” Bar Hebraeus says that the Franks complained to Saladin, “This is not a thing which should be done, for you are bringing evil instead of good to the house of your lord . . . ” They warned Saladin that if he did not heed them and turn away from Aleppo, they would march against him. And when Saladin saw that things were not going according to his will and he failed to persuade the sons of Aleppo, he turned and went to occupy Ba’lbak.97 According to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir, the twelveyear-old al-Malik al-Salih gathered the people of Aleppo and told them, “You know the charity my father did for you, how he loved you and how he treated you. I am your orphan. This tyrant and ingrate (Saladin), having denied the charity my father did him, has come now to usurp my country. He heeds neither Allah nor men.” Having said this, al-Malik al-Salih wept, and the people wept with him.98 This incident shows how frightened the amirs of Aleppo were by the threat Saladin posed to their city. If they had believed he was sincere, they would have delivered the city into his hands. But they did not trust him. The amirs not only asked the Franks for help, but also appealed to the Assassins (Batinis) to kill Saladin. Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, al-Malik al-Salih’s guardian, contacted Rashid al-Din Sinan, the “Old Man of the Mountain,” Grand Master of the Isma’ilis (Assassins) in Masyaf in western Syria, and offered him a large sum of money to have Saladin killed. Rashid al-Din Sinan sent some of his men to Saladin’s camp to assassinate him. When they arrived, Nasih al-Din Khumartigin, the lord of Buqubays Fortress, recognized them. When he asked what business they had, they inflicted deadly wounds on him. One of 97

tion.

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 304 of the English transla-

98 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 238; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 618.

THE RISE OF SALADIN

739

the assassins tried to stab Saladin with a knife but was slain by Tughrul, the amir of Chandar. The rest were routed and killed, and the assassination plot failed.99 Meanwhile, the amirs also appealed to Raymond III, count of Tripoli (1152–1187), to rush to their aid, promising to pay him a hefty reward if he rescued them from Saladin.100 To Raymond and the Franks, this was a golden opportunity to halt Saladin’s advance into Syria. In fact, his capture of Damascus alarmed the Franks, who realized that unless they stopped this ambitious man, he might capture Aleppo and thus become a more formidable adversary than they had ever anticipated.101 William of Tyre seems more than other writers to have been alarmed by Saladin’s control of Syria. After enumerating the cities Saladin captured, he states that Saladin took it for granted that Aleppo and the young lord alMalik al-Salih Isma’il would come into his power through the efforts of certain traitors. King Baldwin IV (“the leper”) and his nobles gathered and decided to send Raymond III of Tripoli with an army to oppose Saladin’s advance. The expedition departed at the beginning of January 1175, continuing till the end of April of that year.102 According to a Muslim source, Raymond tried to negotiate with Saladin over Aleppo rather than fight. He communicated with Saladin to determine his interest in peace, seizing the opportunity to point out that the Franks were united against him. But Saladin paid no attention to this threat and responded that he was not one to fear the Franks. In retaliation, he ordered his troops to attack and plunder Raymond’s own city, Tripoli, from which they returned with enormous booty.103 Having failed to convince Saladin to negotiate, Raymond attacked Hims to divert his attention from Aleppo. At the beginning of February 1175, Saladin left Aleppo and rushed to rescue Hims. In turn, Raymond left Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 239; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 181, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 240; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 618–619; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 24; Lane-Poole, Saladin, 138–139; Ehrenkreutz, Saladin, 132; P. H. Newby, Saladin In His Time (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 71. 100 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 182. 101 Marshall Withed Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140–1187 (New York: AMS, 1978), 28–29; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 209–210, Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 365–367; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 620–621. 102 William of Tyre, History, 2: 405. 103 Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 239. On Raymond's campaign, see Grousset, Histoire, 2: 622–627. 99

740

THE CRUSADES

Hims and went to Hama and al-Rastan, having achieved his objective of saving Aleppo from Saladin.104 From a letter Saladin sent to his brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din Abu Bakr, it appears the people of Aleppo who fought Saladin most ferociously were Christians. He says they appealed to their Crosses and assaulted Islam by their hostile action.105 It is reported that as an expression of gratitude, the eunuch Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, governor of Aleppo, set free the Franks’ leaders held as prisoners in the citadel, including Reginald of Châtillon and Joscelin II of Courtenay.106 Apparently, they had been taken captive by Nur al-Din Zangi at Harim in August 1164 along with Raymond III, and were taken in chains to Aleppo and imprisoned.107 William of Tyre voices dismay because the Franks did not inflict a decisive defeat on Saladin.108 Nevertheless, Marshall W. Baldwin credits Raymond III with two major achievements: he managed to free the hostages to guarantee the payment of the rest of his ransom, and he prevented Saladin at least temporarily from capturing Aleppo. Recognizing that the Franks were dangerous opponents, Saladin chose to make peace with them rather than engage in a battle whose outcome was uncertain.109

104 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 619–620, appears to confuse Raymond III of Tripoli with Raymond of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse, who died on February 28, 1105. Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 181, says “the accursed Count of Tripoli” retreated from Hims. 105 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 240. 106 G. Schlumberger, Renaud de Châtillon (Paris: Plon, 1898), 144; Ashur, alHaraka, 2: 745. 107 William of Tyre, History, 2: 199; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 537–540; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 144–145; Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 239; the Anonymous Edessan, 161–162 of the Syriac text, 303–304 of the English translation, 188–189 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 102 of the Syriac text, 288 of the English translation; Röhricht, Geschichte, 318–319; Grousset, Histoire, 1: 460–462; Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis, 13. 108 William of Tyre, History, 2: 404–445 passim. 109 Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis, 29.

21 CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION Saladin’s objective of creating a united Muslim front to challenge the Franks was far from an accomplished reality. The amirs of Aleppo who served the young al-Malik al-Salih were more fearful than ever that Saladin’s true intent was to take possession of their lord’s state. Although his threats and bribes had failed to convince them to surrender the city to him, they knew that Saladin had captured most of Syria and threatened the Zangids’ power. Recognizing how ambitious he was, they wrote to Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, the lord of Mosul and nephew of Nur al-Din Zangi, that if he allowed Saladin to take Aleppo, he should not hope that Mosul would remain his.1 With Saladin threatening war, Sayf al-Din responded by sending to Aleppo an army commanded by his brothers Izz al-Din Mas’ud and Izz al-Din Zulfindar to fight him. He asked his older brother, Imad al-Din Zangi II, lord of Sinjar, to join the expedition, but he refused, apparently because Saladin had promised to add Mosul to his domain. When Sayf al-Din saw that his brother was in league with Saladin, he attacked Sinjar but failed to capture it because it was too well fortified; he then made peace with his brother and returned to Mosul.2 Clearly war against Saladin was the only solution. Sayf al-Din marshaled an army under the command of Izz al-Din Mas’ud, who was joined Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 108 of the Syriac text, 304 of the English translation. On the dispute between Saladin and the men of Aleppo, see Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 620–621. 2 Athir, al-Kamil, 620–621; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 3; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 3: 60; the Anonymous Edessan, 197 of the Syriac text, 208 of the Arabic translation, says that Sayf al-Din Ghazi II did not participate in the expedition against Saladin. 1

741

742

THE CRUSADES

by the troops of Aleppo. They and the citizens of Aleppo went out and encamped against Hama. Sayf al-Din sent an envoy to Saladin at Homs, demanding that he restore all the fortresses he had taken without the authority of al-Malik al-Salih. Saladin tried to appease Sayf al-Din by offering him the cities of Hims and Hama in exchange for being allowed to establish his authority over Damascus, and promised to make him al-Malik al-Salih’s deputy in that city. Saladin said that he had come not to make war with the son of his lord, but to protect him, his kingdom, and his treasures. Sayf alDin rejected his offer, saying it was imperative that Saladin give back all the country he had captured from the Zangids and return to Egypt. This response displeased Saladin greatly. Sayf al-Din and his men took Saladin lightly and treated him arrogantly, thinking that he was timid and faint-hearted, and told him not to tarry in Syria but to return to Egypt. If he would not do so, they thought, there was no option but to fight.3 Sayf al-Din Ghazi and his men were confident that they could easily defeat Saladin; when he sent an envoy to tell them politely that they belonged to one house and should not be divided, they did not even let the man escape. Saladin wanted to negotiate personally with Sayf al-Din Ghazi but met instead with his prominent aides, including Sa'd al-Din Gümüshtigin and al-Adl Shihab al-Din Abu Salih al-Ajami, and negotiated peace terms. He agreed to surrender all the fortresses he had captured, keeping only Damascus and acting as a deputy of al-Malik alSalih. He also agreed to mint coinage in the name of al-Malik al-Salih and give back everything that had been taken from the treasury. But after he had accepted all these terms, when the Zangids decided that his armed forces were not so numerous and strong as they had believed, they went beyond their original demands and asked him to surrender al-Rahba and its possessions. He replied that al-Rahba belonged to his cousin, Nasir al-Din Muhammad ibn Asad al-Din Shirkuh, and he could not return it to them.4 Thus the negotiations failed, and there was nothing left but the sword. In the ensuing battle at Qurun Hama (The Horns of Hama) at the end of April 1175, Saladin defeated the Zangid army of Mosul dispatched by Athir, al-Kamil, 620–621; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 304 of the English translation. 4 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, abridged by Qiwam al-Din alFath ibn Ali al-Bundari, ed. Ramadan Sheshen (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1971),187; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 31–32; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar alDawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 1: 248. 3

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

743

Sayf al-Din Ghazi.5 He captured their possessions and took some men captive, but then felt compassion for them and set them free.6 Michael Rabo says that when Saladin saw his enemies flee, he took off his helmet and shouted to his men, “Don’t kill any of them, for they are our brethren.” He released the captives after furnishing them with money and horses, and thus gained fame among the Muslims.7 When the amirs of Aleppo heard of Saladin’s great victory, says Michael Rabo, their fear increased and they sent gifts to the Frankish lord of Antioch (Bohemond III, prince of Antioch 1163–1201), to induce him to rush to their aid. Suddenly the doors of Aleppo’s prison were opened and the prisoners were ransomed and allowed to leave Aleppo after they had lost all hope of gaining freedom. Raymond IV, count of Tripoli, was sold for 80,000 dinars, Joscelin II for 50,000, and Reginald of Châtillon for 120,000. Several times a ransom was paid to set Reginald free, but he chose to have other captives freed instead, then was freed with the rest.8 Unable to make peace, Saladin marched against Aleppo and besieged it. History records that he did not capture Aleppo, but he did terminate the proclamation of al-Malik al-Salih in the Friday khutba and removed his name from the coinage.9 Some sources say al-Malik al-Salih sent envoys to Saladin to sue for peace. Under his original proposal, Saladin would keep control of Damascus and leave Homs, Hama, and the rest of Syria to alMalik al-Salih. When Saladin rejected these terms, al-Malik al-Salih offered al-Ma’arra and Kafartab, and later added Ba’rin to Saladin’s domain. He accepted these terms and swore that the name of al-Malik al-Salih would be proclaimed in all the lands under his control, and that whenever there was Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 188–190; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 59–60; Yahya Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 249–250; Sulayman Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil (Cairo: alMatba’a al-Salafiyya, 1928), 2: 182–183. 6 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 62. 7 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 713; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 365; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 304 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 179 of the Syriac text, 208 of the Arabic translation. 8 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 713 of the Syriac text, 365 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 305 of the English translation. 9 Athir, al-Kamil, 621–622; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 32. 5

744

THE CRUSADES

need, he would come to the aid of al-Malik al-Salih. When the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad heard of Saladin’s victory, he sent him royal apparel (a robe of investiture), a sword, a flag, and a Patent of Sovereignty (customary diploma).10 Stanley Lane-Poole and other Western sources say that the caliph conferred on Saladin such titles as “King” or “Sultan” of Egypt and Syria.11 Lane-Poole justifies Saladin’s acceptance of such lofty titles on the grounds that Saladin, having been repulsed in every attempt at conciliation with alMalik al-Salih, felt he had been absolved of fealty to him, and “in the circumstances there was no reason why he should not take to himself the dignity of King.”12 Lane-Poole’s reasoning here is rather lame and unsustainable. He seems to have ignored Saladin's repeated affirmations that he was only a servant of al-Malik al-Salih and would do everything in his power to protect him and his kingdom. Clearly he reneged on his profession of loyalty and revealed his true intention, to become a Sultan or King, replacing his master as the rightful lord of Syria. Muslim writers often refer to Saladin as Sultan – in particular his companion Ibn Shaddad, who titled his biography of Saladin al-Nawadir alSultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, describes him throughout the work as Sultan. Whether Saladin personally adopted such a title or not, those in his service considered him a Sultan.13 Bar Hebraeus’s statement that upon accepting the terms of peace, Saladin swore fealty to al-Malik al-Salih and kept his name on the coins is supported only by Ibn al-Athir. The other Muslim sources clearly indicate that he stopped proclaiming al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il as the lawful ruler of the Zangid state and removed his name from the coins. The Egyptian writer Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur correctly says Sala10 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 191–192; Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab alRawdatayn,1: 250; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 59–60. Athir, al-Kamil, 622, says that the caliph’s gifts were delivered to Saladin by an envoy; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 304–305 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 33–34. 11 Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khavats, 1964), 142; W.B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 210; R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 365–366. 12 Lane-Poole, Saladin, 142. 13 G. Wiet, L’ Égypte Arabe (Paris, 1937), 335–336; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 1 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 746, n. 4, says, “It should be noted that Saladin absolutely did not take the title of Sultan, although some historians like Ibn Wasil and Ibn Shadded were eager to give it to him.”

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

745

din’s victory at Qurun Hama “removed the veil from his true situation. Not only did it please him to terminate the mention in the khutba of al-Malik alSalih, denying his position as the lord of Syria, and to remove his name from the coins. Saladin went a step further by adopting the title ‘The King of Egypt and Syria’. He was recognized as such by the Abbasid caliph.”14 Having said this, how then can Ashur defend what he calls Saladin’s altruistic action in marching against Syria and his objective of restoring a united Muslim front against the Franks, while overlooking his personal greed and ambition for power? Sayf al-Din Ghazi found the defeat of his army at Qurun Hama humiliating and thought that al-Malik al-Salih had been too hasty to seek peace with Saladin. He wrote to the people of Aleppo, rebuking them and attributing their action to weakness, and urged them to break the peace agreement and continue fighting him. At the same time, however, he tried to make a peace treaty with Saladin and sent an envoy to Damascus to negotiate an agreement. When Saladin asked if the envoy had brought with him evidence of Sayf al-Din’s good will, he mistakenly presented a copy of the oath of allegiance the people of Aleppo had sworn to Sayf al-Din. Furious, Saladin asked, “How is it possible that the people of Aleppo have sworn an oath to support Sayf al-Din, while at the same time they swear the same oath that they will never act without first consulting with us and receiving our approval?” Saladin concluded that the people of Aleppo were not sincere in requesting a covenant of peace with him.15 Meanwhile, Sayf al-Din sent an envoy to Raymond III, count of Tripoli, seeking an alliance with him against Saladin. Badly needing the Franks’ aid, he released some of their nobles who had been imprisoned there by Nur al-Din Zangi in 1164 and allowed them to be ransomed for set prices. The Franks were eager to rush to his aid against Saladin, and Sayf al-Din made them swear they would always be his allies.16 While Sayf al-Din mustered twenty thousand fighting men from Aleppo and Mosul, Saladin could only marshal six thousand men. Sayf al-Din made peace with his brother Imad al-Din and asked him to rush to his aid against Saladin. He made the same appeal to the lords of Hisn Kifa and Mardin and others. As he Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 746. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 195–196; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 36–37; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 305 of the English translation. 16 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 305 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 38. 14 15

746

THE CRUSADES

reached Aleppo he was joined by Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, the city’s administrator, with the Aleppine army. Meeting his cousin al-Malik al-Salih at the citadel of Aleppo, he embraced him and wept.17 Saladin sent an envoy to warn Sayf al-Din Ghazi not to resort to war, saying, “If I am defeated, my defeat is of no significance because I am only a slave fleeing from his master. But if you are defeated, your defeat will be a disgrace because you are the son of kings.” Sayf al-Din spat in the face of the envoy and insulted him.18 The Anonymous Edessa says that Sayf al-Din marshaled a huge army and reached Edessa. He sent envoys to Saladin, asking him to give back all the countries he had usurped from his young cousin or be ready for war. Saladin answered craftily, “I am a slave of the son of Nur al-Din, and for him I have left Egypt in order to restore stability to his state. I am willing to return to him not only the countries in my possession, but those now in your hands which belonged to his father.” Then Sayf alDin left for Aleppo.19 The forces of Sayf al-Din Ghazi and Saladin finally met at Tall alSultan, on the road between Aleppo and Hama, on April 22, 1176.20 According to some sources, Sayf al-Din’s forces numbered 60,000. Saladin, with only 12,000 men, won a decisive victory and put the armies of Aleppo and Mosul to rout. He took possession of their tents and plundered their treasures. He captured many nobles from Mosul, including Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih, but soon set them free and gave them horses and gifts.21 When Saladin captured Sayf al-Din’s camp, he saw all about him the signs of his extravagance. He found enormous amounts of treasure and a large number of birds (turtle-doves, doves, and parrots), grasshoppers in cages, and a hundred wanton young female singers. He called one of the men in charge of the cages, al-Muzaffar al-Din al-Ma’arri al-Aqra’ (the Bald) and Athir, al-Kamil, 622; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 37. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 712–713 of the Syriac text, 365 of the French translation. 19 The Anonymous Edessan, 180 of the Syriac text, 208 of the Arabic translation. 20 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 201–206; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 62, and Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 254; Athir, al-Kamil, 622–623; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 38–39; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 712–713 of the Syriac text, 365 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 180 of the Syriac text, 208 of the Arabic translation. 21 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 204; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 306 of the English translation. On the capture of Abd al-Masih, see Shaddad, alNawadir, 62, cited in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 254. 17 18

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

747

told him, “Take these cages to Sayf al-Din and give him our greetings, and say to him, ‘Return to your state of enjoyment with your birds, for they are safe and will not cause you to fall into danger.’”22 Michael Rabo says that when the battle began, Sayf al-Din’s commanders fled because Saladin had already bribed them generously. Sayf alDin fled too, riding a camel, and barely escaped to Mosul in disgrace. He killed some of those who had betrayed him and expelled the others.23 The Anonymous Edessan likewise says Sayf al-Din’s forces were defeated because of treachery within their ranks. They fled, and very few were saved. After an almost impossible effort, Sayf al-Din made it on his horse (not a camel) to a village on the Euphrates river. His horse collapsed and died from fatigue. The villagers offered him a beast, and he disguised himself and finally reached Mosul.24 Al-Isfahani says that Sayf al-Din rushed to Mosul, cursing war and fighting, and resumed the life of pleasure and entertainment.25 After leaving Aleppo, Saladin encamped against the fortress of Beza’a in May 1176 and took it. In the same month he marched against Manbij and took it from its lord, Qutb al-Din ibn Yinal ibn Hassan, against whom he was angry.26 Michael Rabo says Saladin appropriated Qutb al-Din ibn Yinal’s possessions and imprisoned him for five months; on being released, he went to Mosul. The governors of Tall Bashir, Ayntab, and other parts of Syria immediately came to Saladin and offered him allegiance.27 Saladin then besieged Azaz for thirty-eight days and waged a ferocious campaign against it; although he lost a great number of men, he finally captured and de-

Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 204; Ibn Abi Tayy and Shaddad in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 255; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 306 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 39–40. 23 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 713 of the Syriac text, 366 of the French translation. 24 The Anonymous Edessan, 180 of the Syriac text, 208–209 of the Arabic translation. 25 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 207. 26 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 207–209, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 256; Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 257; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 623; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 42–43; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 306 of the English translation. 27 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 713 of the Syriac text, 366 of the French translation. 22

748

THE CRUSADES

stroyed it in June 1176.28 During the siege of Azaz, the Batinis (Assassins) made a second attempt on his life. While sitting in the tent of one of his commanders, Saladin was wounded in the head by a knife-wielding Batini. He struggled with the Assassin but could not stop him from stabbing him in the neck. One of his amirs managed to get hold of the man’s knife and, despite being wounded, did not release it until he killed the Batini. Two more Assassins attacked Saladin but were killed. Saladin rode to his tent, frightened and dazed, with blood running down his face, not believing he was still alive.29 After conquering Azaz in 1176, Saladin marched against Aleppo and laid siege to it. The Aleppines feared that the siege would be too long and they would eventually weaken, while Saladin realized he could not take the city by force. With both sides preferring to negotiate, a peace treaty was concluded by Saladin, al-Malik al-Salih of Aleppo, Sayf al-Din of Mosul, and the lords of Hisn Kifa and Mardin. Meanwhile, al-Malik al-Salih (with the advice and counsel of his men) sent his little sister to Saladin to ask a favor of him. Because she was the daughter of his master Nur al-Din Zangi, Saladin received her with honor and inquired what she wanted. When she asked for Qal’at Azaz, he acceded to her request.30 As we shall see later, Michael Rabo says Saladin returned Azaz to al-Malik al-Salih under pressure from the Franks. Another source says al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il sent his sister alKhatun to Saladin at night. Saladin rose to his feet, kissed the ground in deference to her, and wept for her father, Nur al-Din. When she asked him to restore Azaz to the house of the Zangids, he replied, “Very well. I hear and obey.” He not only gave her Azaz, but offered her jewels, money, and numerous gifts, and made an agreement restoring to al-Malik al-Salih’s possession Hama and all the countries he had conquered, as far as Egypt.31 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 209; Athir, al-Kamil, 623; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 44–45; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108 of the Syriac text, 306 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 181 of the Syriac text, 210 of the Arabic translation. 29 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 210–211, and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 258–259; Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 258–259; Athir, al-Kamil, 623–624; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 44–45; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 62, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 258–259. 30 Athir, al-Kamil, 625; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 63, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 261; Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 261; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 46; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 307 of the English translation. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 214–216, discusses the peace negotiations between Saladin and the Aleppines but does not mention the episode involving al-Malik al-Salih’s sister. 31 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 261 relates this incident without identifying his source. 28

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

749

Once peace was concluded, Saladin decided to return to Egypt. Before he did, however, he married Ismat al-Din, daughter of Mu’in al-Din Unur and widow of Nur al-Din Zangi, and made his brother Shams al-Din Turanshah governor of Damascus.32 Why should he have married the widow of his master Nur al-Din, the lord of all Syria? Judging from other historical developments of that time, this writer believes the marriage was part of Saladin’s long-cherished dream of controlling the domain of his Zangid master. His attacks against Damascus and other key cities in Syria and his siege against Aleppo are evidence of his unbridled ambition. His claim that he was merely protecting young al-Malik al-Salih and stabilizing his government was merely a pretext to disguise his true unscrupulous intention. Interestingly, Saladin’s successful invasion of Syria and his marriage drew the attention of the anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, who observes that after Nur al-Din died, Saladin married his wife, put his heirs to flight, and seized control of the government of the kingdom of Damascus. Saladin’s new wife, he says, “raised up a rich man from a pauper, the lofty from the humble, a ruler from a slave.”33 There is much truth in this statement, but Abu Shama’s view (ostensibly citing alIsfahani) that Saladin married Nur al-Din’s widow “as an act of deference, and to protect her chastity and honor” is lame.34 Evidently, Abu Shama misquotes al-Isfahani, who says clearly that Saladin’s purpose in marrying Nur al-Din’s widow was “to adorn his governance and through her achieve success.”35 The Egyptian writer Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur says Saladin married Nur al-Din’s widow to gain power and be seen as his heir, to strengthen the ties between himself and the Zangids’ house, and thus to gain help in realizing his future political objectives.36 Saladin’s objective was to unite the Muslims against the Franks. But as history shows, he was obsessed with personal ambition, seeking to carve for Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 221, 230–231; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 51; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 263–264; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 307 of the English translation. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 63, reports only that Saladin left his brother Turanshah as governor of Damascus. 33 Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, trans. Helen J. Nicholson as Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 28; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. and trans. Richard Howlett as Chronicle of the Reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden, Kraus, 1964), 241. 34 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 263–264. 35 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 230–231. 36 Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 750. 32

750

THE CRUSADES

himself a huge state at the expense of his lords the Zangids. His marriage to Nur al-Din’s widow was part of his effort to control the whole Zangid state. As we have seen, he abolished the proclamation in the khutba of alMalik al-Salih as ruler and removed his name from the coins. Ashur corrctly says that Saladin’s intention in marrying the widow was to demonstrate that “he was the heir of Nur al-Din.”37 One may well ask why Saladin sought to be Nur al-Din’s heir when he already had one, his young son al-Malik alSalih Isma’il. Whatever the case may be, in 1176, when Saladin became the lord of Syria and Egypt, he emerged as the only formidable power the Franks would have to reckon with in the coming years. Once he concluded peace with the citizens of Aleppo, Saladin marched against the Assassins to punish them for their attempts on his life. He besieged the Batinis’ center, Masyaf, and set up engines of war against it. He destroyed the town, killed many of its inhabitants, and drove away their cattle. He would have annihilated Masyaf were it not for his maternal uncle, Shihab al-Din Mahmud al-Harimi, lord of Hama, who successfully interceded on behalf of his neighbors and convinced Saladin to depart.38 Ibn alAthir offers a different reason for Saladin’s withdrawal from Masyaf. He says that Sinan, Grand Master of the Assassins, sent a message urging Shihab al-Din al-Harimi to intercede with Saladin on their behalf and threatening that if he refused to do so, the Isma’ilis would kill him along with Saladin’s household and his amirs. The threat apparently frightened al-Harimi, who convinced Saladin to lift the siege against Masyaf. Ibn al-Athir adds that Saladin’s men had become weary of warfare and desired rest. Their hands were full with the booty they had seized from the army of Mosul and the country of the Isma’ilis. When they asked Saladin for permission to return to their homes and rest, he agreed and returned to Egypt with his army.39 Yahya ibn Abi Tayy says that Saladin made peace with Sinan, master of the Isma’ilis, and left their country to return to Damascus primarily because he feared that the Franks, who controlled al-Sham al-A’la (upper Syria), would take advantage of his engagement with the Assassins to seize most of Syria.40 Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 750. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 218–219; Ibn Shaddad, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 261; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 48. 39 Athir, al-Kamil, 626; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 264–267, offers odes of praise for Saladin’s return to Egypt and his entry into Cairo. 40 Yahya ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 261. 37 38

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

751

Saladin had also to deal with the Franks, who attacked him while he was besieging Aleppo. When its leaders appealed to the Franks for help, says Michael Rabo, they responded by sending Reginald of Châtillon, who had been released from prison. Reginald attacked Saladin’s army and destroyed most of it. Then the Franks entered the region of Damascus, destroying property and taking many captives. It was only under pressure from the Franks that Saladin returned Azaz to the lord of Aleppo (al-Malik al-Salih) and concluded peace with the leaders of Aleppo, the Franks, and al-Malik al-Salih and then returned to Egypt.41 This account seems at odds with those of other sources. William of Tyre says Baldwin IV (the leper), together with Raymond III, count of Tripoli, attacked the region of al-Biqa in Coele-Syria during August 1175. Raymond suddenly led his men into the vicinity of Ba’lbak (Heliopolis), where they destroyed everything. Meanwhile, Shams al-Dawla Turanshah (whom William of Tyre calls Semsedolus), Saladin’s brother and deputy in Damascus, came with his forces to repulse the Franks. Both sides fought valiantly; Shams al-Dawla, however, was defeated and fled to the steep hilly country. The Franks seized most of the enemy’s cattle and an enormous amount of plunder, while losing a only few men.42 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir tell yet another story. They say that in 1176, after Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik ibn al-Muqaddam, lord of Ba’albak, learned that some Franks had attacked alBiqa, within his dominion, he ambushed and killed many of them, taking two hundred captives and dispatching them to Saladin. Meanwhile, Shams al-Dawla Turanshah learned of the Franks’ raid on al-Biqa and marched to engage them in battle at Ain al-Jarr, but could not defeat them. He fled, and the Franks captured some of his men, including Sayf al-Din Abu Bakr ibn al-Salar, a prominent leader of the Damascenes’ army. The Franks spread throughout the province of Ba’lbak and recouped some of the losses inflicted on them by Ibn al-Muqaddam.43 Saladin returned to Egypt, reaching Cairo at the end of September 1176. A conflict arose involving the Byzantines, the Seljuk Turks of Rum, and the Danishmends. According to Syriac sources, the conflict started Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 713 of the Syriac text, 366 of the French translation. 42 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 412–413. 43 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 219–220; Athir, al-Kamil, 627; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 215, n. 4, seems not to have read the accounts of al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir. 41

752

THE CRUSADES

when Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180) was attacked by a wild boar and was rumored to have died (in fact, he soon recovered). Taking opportunity of the turmoil caused by the rumor, Kilij Arslan II, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1155–1192), invaded the emperor’s territory. The emperor was outraged because Kilij Arslan seemed ungrateful for the benefits he had bestowed on him, and even more so because he had invaded the region of the Danishmend amirs, who were on good terms with the emperor. The amirs fled to Constantinople, seeking refuge with the emperor and urging him to fight Kilij Arslan. He assembled a huge army and marched against the sultan’s Turkish territory. He put pressure on the Turks by stationing his army in two towns which he had rebuilt, hoping Kilij Arslan would agree to return the lands he had taken from the Danishmends. The sultan refused, and war between the Byzantines and the Turks resulted. Thousands of Turks lost their lives, while others were taken captive. But the Turks entered the Byzantines’ unguarded territory and ravaged it. They killed all the men and captured about 100,000 women and children, whom they sold to merchants in countries as far away as Persia. The Turks drove the captives in herds like cattle until Cilicia, Cappadocia, Armenia, and Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia) were filled with them. It was a sad spectacle which compelled weeping and lamentations.44 Furious, Manuel dispatched 30,000 troops led by his nephew to capture Neo-Caesarea and install the Danishmend amir Dhu al-Nun as its governor. The Byzantines besieged the city for twelve days, but just as they were about to capture it, they failed because of a deceptive stratagem. The Turks forced the city’s Christian inhabitants to write a letter in Greek to the Byzantines, stating that the Danishmend Turk Dhu al-Nun, who had led them to Neo-Caesarea, was a traitor, working with his Seljuk Turk kinsmen in the city to annihilate them. When the stupid Greeks besieging the city read the letter, says the Anonymous Edessan, they thought that the Lord had deserted them and fled the city, trembling in fear. The Turks inside the city emerged and chased the Byzantine troops, shouting, “King (Emperor) Manuel has died!” They killed over a thousand men and stole everything they had. Dhu al-Nun was captured and put in chains.45 Emperor Manuel’s Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 714–715 of the Syriac text, 368–369 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 182 of the Syriac text, 211 of the Arabic translation. 45 The Anonymous Edessan, 182 of the Syriac text, 211 of the Arabic; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 108–109 of the Syriac text, 306 of the English translation. 44

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

753

nephew, John the protosebastos, a man of distinguished liberality and munificence, lost his life.46 On learning of his nephew’s death, Emperor Manuel marched to the Turkish frontier. Kilij Arslan ordered his men to burn the villages and barns to deprive the Byzantines of food, and to pollute the springs and wells by throwing the corpses of dogs and asses in them. Then he fled to a mountainous area near Iconium. About five thousand Byzantines, with their wagons laden with food, animals, armor, engines of war, and religious items, came within a short distance of Iconium and entered a narrow mountain pass (Myriokephalon, Turkey, known today as Chardak Boghazi) where there was no water. The Turks kept their distance; instead of attacking directly, some 50,000 of them encircled the Byzantines camp, attacked it from the rear, and plundered its provisions. The Byzantine troops, desperate when they realized that they had no provisions, were even more frightened as the Turks rolled rocks down on them from the mountain, killing both men and beasts. They fled in confusion, piling on top of one another in the pass. Emperor Manuel sent an envoy to Sultan Kilij Arslan asking for peace. The sultan, who was also in a difficult position, readily agreed. Delegates from both sides shuttled between the two camps all night long by torchlight. Finally. peace was reached in the morning, and the emperor delivered to the sultan the cities he had built. The Turks, unhappy, insulted the sultan because he had agreed to peace. The emperor asked the sultan to send three amirs to escort him to his camp, lest the Turks attack him. When the Turks broke the peace and continued to attack the Byzantine camp, killing some men, the emperor ambushed the Turks and killed about twenty thousand. Upon his arrival in Constantinople, the emperor sent to the sultan a quantity of gold and a cross, in which was inlaid a piece of wood from the Crucifixion. To dramatize his victory over the Byzantines, the sultan sent to all the amirs, to the caliph in Baghdad, and to the sultan of Khurasan, men and women captives, armor, and the heads of some Byzantine soldiers, mounted on lances or pulled by horses’ tails. The victims were displayed throughout the streets, while people danced at the sight.47 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 714–715 of the Syriac text, 368–369 of the French translation, says Dhu al-Nun escaped to the northern region, where the Byzantines captured him and waited for the emperor’s orders concerning him. 46 William of Tyre, History, 2: 414. 47 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 716 of the Syriac text, 370–372 of the

754

THE CRUSADES

The Anonymous Edessan offers a more graphic account. He says that the Turks attacked the Byzantine camp from the rear and stole about fifty bags of golden dinars. The Byzantines fled, hungry, thirsty, and in pain. Iconium was still far away. The Turks sent someone to inform the sultan of their feat, and he came to their camp at night, preceded by torches. When the Byzantines heard the sounds of drums and trumpets mingled with people’s cries, they became very frightened and yelled to the emperor, “Please, lord, have mercy on us and leave the gold to the Turks, so they can pick it up and stop torturing us.” The emperor knew such an action would do him no good, but sent an envoy to tell the sultan, “Remember the former affectionate relation between us. I came to this country by my own choice, but was deceived by your own kinsman (i.e., Dhu al-Nun, the Danishmend) and was dragged into it. So grant mercy and peace, and I will give back to you the three cities which I have recently built, together with other places.” The sultan agreed and kept fifty men of the emperor's family as hostages and sent troops to rescue the emperor. But the Turks, not satisfied, pursued the rescuers and kept plundering until they and the emperor reached Constantinople. Thus, Manuel’s campaign against the Turks came to a miserable end.48 The disastrous defeat of the Byzantines at Myriokephalon in September 1176 seriously upset the political and military balance in the East, ending any hope Emperor Manuel had of breaking the Turks’ hold on Asia Minor. The loss was so calamitous that some writers liken it to the Byzantines’ defeat at Manzikert in 1071. Marshall W. Baldwin says, “For the Latin East the defeat was crucial. Militarily, Byzantium never recovered.”49 William of Tyre says that disaster was so deeply impressed on Manuel’s heart that never again did he exhibit joy and cheerfulness, no matter how much his own people comforted him.50 Having overpowered Emperor Manuel, Sultan Kilij Arslan II was now in control of Sebastea and all the Danishmends’ possessions in Asia Minor. In 1178 he marched against Melitene, whose governor was a Danishmend, and besieged it for four months. The French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 307 of the English translation. 48 The Anonymous Edessan, 184–185 of the Syriac text, 212–213 of the Arabic translation. 49 Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 594. 50 William of Tyre, History, 2: 415.

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

755

governor feared that his nobles and his troops, pressed by hunger, might hand him over to the sultan. He sent a message asking the sultan to guarantee his security for life. The sultan agreed and gave him Kesum instead of Melitene, plus a thousand dinars. The Danishmend governor left for Hisn Ziyad, and the sultan entered Melitene on September 25, 1178.51 Staying in Egypt throughout 1177, Saladin believed that the Franks and Byzantines intended to invade the country. He was correct, for in that year Emperor Manuel prepared a fleet of seventy galleys to invade Egypt, perhaps to compensate for his humiliating defeat by Sultan Kilij Arslan II. King Baldwin IV could not participate in this campaign because of his illness, but in August 1177 Philip I of Alsace, count of Flanders, whom alIsfahani calls “the greatest idol of kufr (infidelity)”, landed in Acre.52 On arriving in Jerusalem, the count was received with pomp by the clergy, the masters of the Templars and Hospitallers, and the chief laity. Baldwin offered him unlimited power to administer the kingdom in both peace and war.53 After discussing the matter with his followers, Philip declined the king’s offer, stating that he had come not to receive any power but to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He urged the king to appoint someone else to govern the kingdom and promised to obey him as he would his own lord, the king of France. King Baldwin IV then asked him if he would accept the leadership of the coming campaign against Egypt, which had been arranged with the emperor of Constantinople long before, but he refused. After obvious equivocation, the count finally revealed that his true mission was to arrange for the marriage of his kinswoman Sibyl (Sibylla), daughter of King Amalric I (1163–1147). Here William of Tyre digresses to elaborate on “the wicked plan which the count was endeavoring to carry through.”54 Among Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 716–717 of the Syriac text, 373–374 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 186–187 of the Syriac text, 217– 218 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation. 52 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 266; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 64, and Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 275, both follow al-Isfahani. 53 William of Tyre, History, 2: 417; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 242. S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 414, Stevenson, The Crusaders, 216, and J. Richard, Le Royaume Latin de Jerusalem (Paris, 1953), 56, say that Baldwin offered to make Philip regent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem if he would lead the campaign against Saladin in Egypt. 54 William of Tyre, History, 2: 418. 51

756

THE CRUSADES

the men who had accompanied the count of Flanders on his journey east was Robert (the advocate) of Bethune, a man of great influence. With help from Count William of Mandeville, another companion, he tried to convince Philip of Flanders that he could turn the whole kingdom of Jerusalem to his advantage. The advocate of Bethune, who owned extensive hereditary estates in Flanders, promised to relinquish them to the count if he would arrange the marriage of his two sons to King Amalric’s two daughters, Sibyl and Isabel. The count agreed and endeavored to bring about the double marriage.55 Sibyl had already married William Longsword, son of William Montferrat, who arrived in the Holy Land in October 1176. But William died at Ascalon in June 1177, while his wife was three months pregnant with his child, the future Baldwin V. His death caused a problem of regency which could be resolved only if Sybil remarried.56 After conferring with the king, the barons informed the count that it was against their longstanding custom for a widow, especially one who was pregnant, to marry within one year of the death of her husband, because that would not be considered a suitable period of mourning. (As we shall see, this custom was not upheld when Sibyl’s sister Isabel, then pregnant, was married to Henry II of Champagne after her husband, Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, was assassinated in 1192.) But they would approve of the marriage if the count himself would name a suitable person to marry the princes. The count, offended by this reply, finally abandoned his plan for the marriage of Amalric’s daughters.57 Roger of Hoveden gives a different account of this matter. He says that Philip, earl of Flanders, sent Robert, the advocate of Bethune, and Roger, castellan of Courtrai, to inform King Henry II of England that King Louis of France (Louis VII, 1137–1180) had asked him to arrange the marriage of the eldest daughter of his brother Matthew, earl of Boulogne, to his son Philip, and Matthew’s other daughter to Louis, son of earl Theobald, and to give them to no one else without the approval of King Henry. The count of Flanders also asked King Henry for the money he had promised for the soul of his brother Matthew, in order to maintain the knights he had promised to defend the land of Jerusalem. The king delegated his chancellor William of Tyre, History, 2: 419. William of Tyre, History, 2: 415–419; Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 1: 593, and Raymond III of Tripolis and The Fall of Jerusalem (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936), 31. 57 William of Tyre, History, 2: 420. 55 56

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

757

Walter of Constance and Ranulf of Glanville, to whom the count promised that he would not marry his nieces to anyone else without the king’s approval, but in fact he later reneged on this oath. 58 Hans Eberhard Mayer, who follows Roger of Hoveden, relates this episode to show that the improper use of King Henry II’s treasure in the East and the money he promised to support an expedition to Jerusalem was one of the principal reasons why the Franks lost Jerusalem in 1187.59 We should note here that King Henry II of England, suspecting that Count Philip of Flanders had planned his pilgrimage to the Holy Land because he had designs on the crown of Jerusalem, sent envoys who tried unsuccessfully to dissuade him from his journey.60 Philip’s refusal to take part in the expedition against Egypt forced the Byzantines and the Latins to put it off until April 1177. But when he was told that he should help in attacking the Muslims on the borders of Antioch or Tripoli, he agreed. Clearly Philip, newly arrived from Europe, was eager to engage the Muslims in battle. Immediately, King Baldwin IV supplied him with a force of cavalry and infantry, joined by the master of the Hospitallers and many of the Knights Templar, which reached Tripoli at the end of October 1177. Accompanied by Raymond III, count of Tripoli, the Latin forces descended on Hama. When Bohemond III, prince of Antioch, heard Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, trans. Henry T. Riley as The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 2: 438; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. William Stubbs, under the title The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189–1192 (London, 1867, rpt. Kraus, 1965), 1: 133. There was controversy over whether Roger of Hoveden incorporated in his work parts of the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ascribed to Benedict, abbot of Peterborough (1177–1193), or whether Hoveden and Benedict both took their information from an earlier source. See Henry T. Riley, editor of Roger of Hoveden, 1: iii-xii of the Introduction; Stubbs, ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 1: viii-lxvi; T. A. Archer, The Crusade of Richard I, 1189–92 (New York & London: Putnam, 1889), 35, 359–361. Doris M. Stenton, “Roger of Hoveden and Benedict,” English Historical Review 68 (1953): 374–382, showed that Benedict’s work belongs to Roger of Hoveden. For a full evaluation of the works of Roger of Hoveden and his relationship to Benedict of Peterborough, see John Gillingham, Richard Coeur De Lion: Kingship, Chivalry and War in the Twelfth Century (London: The Hambledon Press, 1994), 141–153. To avoid confusion, this author prefers to regard the two sources as distinct, citing them as Annals of Roger de Hoveden and Benedict of Peterborough. 59 Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,” The English Historical Review 385 (October, 1982): 721–739, esp. 725–726. 60 Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, 1: 116. 58

758

THE CRUSADES

that they had invaded the enemy’s country, he rushed by a different route to join them. Thus united, the Latins decided to besiege Harim. Imad al-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir expand on the Latins’ siege of Hama. They report that a large Frankish force came by sea, commanded by the tyrant Afland or Iqlundus (Philip of Flanders), who saw that Saladin was absent in Egypt and the country had no leader. Shams al-Dawla Turanshah, Saladin’s brother and his deputy in Damascus, had only a small force to face the Franks; moreover, he was given over to lust and comfortable living. The Franks gathered their forces in Syria and besieged Hama. Its governor Shihab al-Din al-Harimi, Saladin’s maternal uncle, was very sick, but a small force left by Saladin under the command of Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad alMashtub, supported by the inhabitants of Hama, fought ferociously outside the city’s boundary wall and killed many of the enemy. Frustrated, the Franks finally departed and went to besiege Harim.61 Al-Harimi died soon afterwards, and al-Malik al-Salih appointed Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin as lord of Harim.62 While the Latins besieged Harim, the Christians of the surrounding region kept busy bringing provisions from Antioch and other places to the fighting Franks.63 A conflict motivated by pure jealousy had developed between two prominent Muslim chiefs in al-Malik al-Salih’s service, al-Adl Abu Salih alAjami and Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin. Al-Ajami, who had achieved prominence as a great Wazir under Nur al-Din Zangi and his son, was a tyrant, wielding unlimited power in Aleppo. One day, as he prayed at the mosque, he was attacked and killed by Assassins, and Gümüshtigin instantly became the most powerful man in the state. Certain men who were jealous of Gümüshtigin slandered him to al-Malik al-Salih, accusing him of being instrumental in instigating the Batinis to kill al-Ajami in order to take his place. They incited the young ruler against Gümüshtigin, who they said scorned him as a weakling who had abdicated his power, and provoked alMalik al-Salih until he finally acted to assert his power. He dispatched Gümüshtigin to Harim to order his followers to surrender the fortress to alMalik al-Salih, but they refused. Al-Malik al-Salih then had Gümüshtigin tortured to death before his followers. They could not save him but continued their rebellion. When the Franks learned what had happened, they deIsfahani, Sana al-Barq, 266–267; Athir, al-Kamil, 630; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 64; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 275. 62 Athir, al-Kamil, 631. 63 William of Tyre, History, 2: 426. 61

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

759

cided to take advantage of al-Malik al-Salih’s youth and inexperience, as well as Saladin’s absence in Egypt, and attacked Harim despite having only a small military force.64 Ibn al-Athir says that al-Malik al-Salih arrested Gümüshtigin and asked him to surrender the fortress of Harim, but he refused. Next he sent a message telling the governor of the fortress to surrender it to his deputy, but he too refused. Then he took Gümüshtigin to Harim and tortured him, trying to make him order his minions in the fortress to surrender it, but they refused. Finally, al-Malik al-Salih had Gümüshtigin hanged upside down with a smoldering fire under his nose until he died of suffocation. Al-Malik alSalih then departed without taking Harim, although he managed to capture it later.65 But Ibn Shaddad, Saladin’s biographer, gives an altogether different version of these events. He says that while the Franks were besieging Harim, the Muslims were busy shuffling their military positions from right to left and backwards, hoping to outmaneuver the Franks at Tall al-Ramla. While they were doing so, however, the Franks attacked and defeated them. The Muslims, having no fortress in which to seek refuge, took the road to Egypt. Many of them were lost on the way, while others were taken captive. In the chaos, al-Malik al-Salih captured his minister of state Gümüshtigin and urged him to surrender Harim; when he refused, al-Malik al-Salih had him killed. When the Franks learned Gümüshtigin’s fate, they descended upon Harim.66 Two Syriac sources give slightly different accounts. Michael Rabo says that the Turkish governor of the fortress of Harim (Gümüshtigin) realized that the lord of Aleppo (al-Malik al-Salih) intended to arrest him. He joined the Franks, and the prince of Antioch (Bohemond III) swore that he would not have him evicted from the fortress but would help and protect him. So Gümüshtigin offered the Franks allegiance and became an enemy of the Turks.67 The Anonymous Edessan says that the fortress of Harim, near Antioch, had been assigned by Nur al-Din Zangi to the eunuch Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, the excellent tutor of his young son al-Malik al-Salih and a 64 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 264–266, and Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 274–275; Athir, alKamil, 631–632; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 63. 65 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963), 178; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 63. 66 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 63–64; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 275. 67 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 719 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation.

760

THE CRUSADES

very capable government administrator. Some of his associates, jealous because of his power and position, slandered him to (or simply deceived) alMalik al-Salih, who arrested Gümüshtigin and killed him. On hearing of his death, the garrison inside the fortress of Harim rebelled against al-Malik alSalih and refused to deliver it to him. Instead, they sought help from the Franks, who responded quickly and swore by the Cross and the Gospel to help them.68 The Franks assembled a large force from Jerusalem and the coastal areas, together with the armies of the prince of Antioch (Bohemond III), Reuben (Roupen), the Armenian lord of Cilicia, and Philip, count of Flanders. These were joined by 30,000 foot soldiers. The Anonymous Edessan says the wretched Franks marched to Harim and besieged it for four months, from the start of December 1176 to April 1177. But the Franks, who had already sworn by the Cross and the Gospel to help Gümüshtigin, reneged on their oath and committed atrocities. They oppressed and robbed the people in the villages around Harim, especially the native Christians. They also oppressed the inhabitants of Antioch, imposing heavy tributes on them and taking food and provisions by force. The helpless people began to complain about this harsh treatment. For this reason, says the Anonymous Edessan, God gave victory to the Turks inside the fortress, despite their small number. Although the Franks fought ferociously, hurling stones and naphtha by catapults, they failed to take the fortress.69 Realizing that they could be overwhelmed, the Turks inside held a council and agreed they would rather yield the fortress to their fellow Muslims than to the Franks. They offered to surrender it to al-Malik al-Salih if he would help them against the Franks, but he responded by secretly sending envoys to negotiate individually with each of the Frankish leaders, creating a rift among them. He offered Bohemond of Antioch 50,000 dinars (20,000 according to Michael Rabo), plus half of the villages which belonged to the fortress. Bohemond accepted the offer, withdrew his forces, and returned to Antioch. Al-Malik al-Salih sought to intimidate the Franks by telling them that Saladin was on his way to Syria and would fight them and take possession of the fortress of Harim. Recognizing that with their 68 The Anonymous Edessan, 189–190 of the Syriac text, 218–219 of the Arabic translation. 69 The Anonymous Edessan, 190 of the Syriac text, 219 of the Arabic translation; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 719 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation. On Philip of Flanders at the siege of Harim, see William of Newburgh, ed. Richard Howlett, 1: 242.

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

761

military power broken by Bohemond’s withdrawal, they could not fight Saladin, the rest of the Frankish leaders withdrew from Harim. Immediately, al-Malik al-Salih sent troops and occupied Harim, and appointed as his deputy in the fortress a mamluk of his father named Sarkhuk.70 The Anonymous Edessan concludes by saying that this incident made the Franks’ leaders a laughing-stock for every one. It is not surprising that he calls them the wretched Franks.71 William of Tyre presents a rather ugly picture of the Franks’ failure to capture the fortress of Harim. He attributes their defeat to frivolous indulgence in drunken debauches, baths, and banquets, saying they paid more attention to games and wicked pleasures than to military discipline and the rules of siege. Unable to stand the siege, they went back and forth to Antioch to pursue pleasures. Even those Franks who persisted in the siege of the fortress became lazy and careless, and passed time in idleness and vice. Even Philip of Flanders himself did not seem keen on standing his ground to fight. He kept intimating that he needed to return home, having been detained at Harim against his will. His pathetic attitude must have hindered the occupation of the fortress and encouraged the Turks inside it to appeal to al-Malik al-Salih for help. True to his word, Philip finally returned to Jerusalem, where he celebrated the holy days of Easter and made preparations to return to Europe. He sailed from Laodicea (Latakia) and, after visiting Constantinople, reached his homeland in the fall of 1178. William of Tyre asserts that he left behind him a memory in no wise blessed.72 Upon learning that the Franks were still at Harim, Saladin decided to leave Egypt for Syria to challenge them.73 Early in the fall of 1177 he assembled a great number of troops equipped with arms and military equipment. He marched from Egypt with 33,000 armored men in addition to his infantry (estimated by the Anonymous Edessan at 12,000 men) and other soldiers, along with 52,000 camels bearing provisions and arms. At the end of November 1177, he attacked the Crusaders’ positions on the southern coast of Palestine, especially Gazza and Darom. But he moved to Ascalon on learning that the Hospitallers had already fortified their positions and Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 632. The Anonymous Edessan, 190–191 of the Syriac text, 220 of the Arabic translation; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 719–720 of the Syriac text, 375–376 of the French translation. 72 William of Tyre, History, 2: 434–435. 73 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 65; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 64. 70 71

762

THE CRUSADES

were intending to fight.74 He looted the city, took many prisoners, and shed much Christian blood.75 Michael Rabo attributes to Saladin a particularly heinous act at Ascalon, saying he killed the first Frank he captured and splashed his garment with his blood as an act of purification.76 Although this report is peculiar to Michael Rabo, it is credible, since it recalls a similar incident under different circumstances. Ibn Shaddad says that while Saladin was at Tall Hajal, near Nazareth, as he descended from the Tall, planning to attack the Franks from the rear, his men brought him a Frank whom they had captured. Saladin asked the man to embrace Islam in order to win his life, but he refused to do so. Saladin then ordered the Frank killed, and Ibn Shaddad says that Saladin himself cut off his head.77 Although the two incidents occurred at different times, they show that Saladin was quite capable of committing such a heinous act, since he was consumed by his fiery zeal for jihad (holy war) against the infidels, as Ibn Shaddad himself indicates elsewhere.78 In attacking the Frankish territories, Saladin took advantage of the sickness of Baldwin IV, who had been stricken with leprosy (elephantiasis, according to Bar Hebraeus) and was known as “Baldwin the Leper”.79 Although his health was failing and he appeared half-dead, Baldwin IV gathered his strength, assembled a force, and went out to challenge the enemy. Saladin’s marauding troops devastated the land far and wide, burning cities and outlying districts, wandering freely about the country in every direction. Not only did he allow his troops to kill and plunder, but he himself gathered the prisoners he had taken and cut off their heads.80 Sure of victory, William of Tyre, History, 2: 426–427; Athir, al-Kamil, 627–629. The Anonymous Edessan, 188 of the Syriac text, 217 of the Arabic translation, and Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 307 of the English translation, also say that Saladin went out of Egypt and encamped against Ascalon. 75 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 307 of the English translation; William of Tyre, History, 2: 427. 76 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 717–718 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation. 77 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 27. 78 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 4, 11, 23–24, 142, 311. 79 William of Tyre, History, 1: 14, 2: 398ff., devotes an entire chapter to Baldwin the Leper; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 188 of the Syriac text, 217 of the Arabic translation. 80 Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 59. 74

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

763

Saladin began to allot certain parts of the lands he had conquered to his soldiers. They were so confident of success that they conducted themselves with utter disregard for danger. Saladin also received great help from an apostate whom William of Tyre calls Javelino, an Armenian who had recanted Christianity and embraced Islam. He commanded troops and marched against Ramla and set fire to it. Because it was not fortified, the city’s inhabitants abandoned it. Some of them joined Baldwin’s forces at Ascalon, while the weaker men, women, and children repaired to Jaffa. Javelino then marched on Lydda, whose citizens fled, and the Muslims continued their attack until Saladin’s troops reached the region between Arsuf and Banyas.81 The whole area was so terror-stricken, says William of Tyre, that the citizens of Jerusalem itself were almost ready to abandon the Holy City. Many of them actually did so and took refuge at the Tower of David.82 Bar Hebraeus says that Saladin’s men were so occupied in plundering that they neglected to make ready for war, and that they were lazy and careless because they felt certain of the weakness of the Franks.83 Despite his illness Baldwin gathered troops and went to challenge Saladin, accompanied by the Knights Templar and Reginald of Châtillon.84 He dismounted from his horse and knelt before the Cross, supplicating with emotional words and tears. Those with him were moved by the solemn spectacle. They placed their hands on the Cross and swore that they would fight and never retreat, and would regard as an apostate anyone who might be tempted to flee battle.85 William of Tyre says those with Baldwin numbered no more than 375, including all ranks and conditions. They were led by the wondrous Life-giving Cross borne by Albert, bishop of Bethlehem. After invoking aid from on high, they advanced in battle formation, eager for the encounter.86 The Muslims, seeing how few they were in number, thought they could easily defeat them. On seeing the Muslims, as numerous as sands on the seashore, the Franks dismounted, cut their hair (in tonsure), exchanged Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 59; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 274. William of Tyre, History, 2: 427–428. 83 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation. 84 The Anonymous Edessan, 188 of the Syriac text, 217 of the Arabic translation. 85 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 718–719 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation. 86 William of Tyre, History, 2: 430; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 1: 453. 81 82

764

THE CRUSADES

greetings and wished one another well, then watched the Muslims cross the river on which Tall al-Safiya is situated. A mighty windstorm blew toward them, filling their eyes with sand and causing them to wander about in utter confusion. The Franks fell on them and killed many, while others fled. Saladin and a few of his men barely escaped to Egypt, arriving in Cairo on December 8, 1177.87 Muslim sources say Saladin left Ascalon and marched toward al-Ramla, en route to some fortresses, but found his way blocked by a river at Tall al-Safiya and therefore was defeated at al-Ramla or Tall alSafiya.88 William of Tyre, who says he made a careful study of the enemy’s number, estimates the Muslim force at 26,000 light-armed cavalry, with others mounted on camels and beasts of burden. Eight thousand of these belonged to the Tawasin (religious troops), whom he describes as splendid soldiers, and the rest were Karaghul (“black servants”), most likely mamluks (freed slaves) whom he calls the common knights.89 But the Franks were aided by divine providence, just as the Syriac writers said; the Lord caused a mighty sandstorm to blow against their enemies and blind them. The Franks believed He had accepted their repentance. Jubilant and encouraged when the Muslims lost their way, the Franks chased them for five days. They found them in small bands, some already dead and others breathing their last, and annihilated them and plundered their arms and provisions. For ten straight days, William writes, there was violent rain accompanied by unusual cold, as if the very elements had conspired against the foe. He then describes the agony of the defeated Muslims; they lost their way and fell easily into the hands of the Franks, some of them voluntarily surrendering to escape cold and hunger. In the end, Saladin returned to Egypt, struck by the divine hand, attended by barely a hundred followers. Reportedly he himself was mounted on a camel, having suffered a loss so immense that he could not even find a horse.90 Bar Hebraeus closes his narrative of Saladin’s defeat with the account of Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, reproduced by Abu Shama: “The Chronicler says, ‘When I saw the bearers of the good news, Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 718–719 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 188–189 of the Syriac text, 217–218 of the Arabic translation. 88 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 63–64; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 59. 89 William of Tyre, History, 2: 431, n. 43. See Röhricht, Geschichte, 377, n. 1. 90 William of Tyre, History, 2: 432–433; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 2: 242–243. 87

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

765

who were mounted on horses, and the heralds in the bazaars of Misr (Cairo) crying out, “The Sultan (Saladin) has conquered and the Franks are defeated,” I ran, so that I might learn from the announcers what manner of victory it was. When I drew near, I heard they were saying, “Rejoice and be glad the Sultan is safe.” And straightway I knew that the tidings were the reverse of what they were proclaiming.’”91 In a letter in his own handwriting to his brother, Shams al-Dawla Turanshah, Saladin says of this battle with the Franks, “We almost perished more than once, and no one saved us but Allah.”92 It is estimated that the Christians slew more than 100,000 Muslim warriors and freed a great number of Christians. Saladin lost many of his nephews and other kinsmen and several army commanders.93 After defeating the Muslims, King Baldwin IV distributed the spoils according to the rules of war and returned to Jerusalem to offer thanks to the Lord.94 Their morale boosted by their victory at Tall al-Safiya, the Franks attacked Hama and Shayzar in the summer of 1178, killing and plundering and taking captives. But they focused on strengthening their positions as a precaution against any further attack by the Muslims. Thus, in October 1178 all the Franks came to terms with King Baldwin and began to build a fortress on the banks of the Jordan, at a place called Jacob's Ford.95 The structure was so formidable that the Muslims 91 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation. Although Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273–274, does not cite al-Isfahani by name, the continuation of the narrative on 237 makes it clear that he wrote this account. Bar Hebraeus’s account appears to have come from al-Isfahani or another writer who copied Abu Shama. He may have used al-Isfahani’s al-Barq al-Shami, of which there is a fragmentary manuscript at the Bodleian Library at Oxford. See H.A.R. Gibb, “Al-Barq al-Shami: The History of Saladin by the Katib Imad al-Din alIsfahani,” in Gibb, Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, ed. Yusuf Ibish (Beirut: The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974), esp. 77–82, which gives a table of contents of al-Barq al-Shami. 92 Athir, al-Kamil, 629, Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 62; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273; Chronique d’ Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. M. L. De Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871), 43. 93 Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 1: 453. 94 William of Tyre, History, 2: 433. 95 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 719–720 of the Syriac text, 378 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 308 of the English translation; William of Tyre, History, 2: 437. Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 759, says the place is called Bayt al-Ahzan (House of Sorrows) because Jacob wept there for his missing son Joseph. It is also known in Islamic sources as Hisn Bayt al-Ahzan (Fortress of Sorrows) or Makhadat Bayt al-Ahzan (Ford of the House of Sorrows). See Isfahani, Sana al-

766

THE CRUSADES

feared that once it was finished, it would command their domains and threaten their position. Abu Shama adds that the width of its wall was more than ten cubits, and each of its twenty thousand stone blocks was more than seven cubits long. The huge structure must have seemed impregnable.96 After Saladin returned from Egypt to Syria in 1178 and learned about the fortress at Jacob’s Ford, he recognized the danger it posed to the Muslims and asked the Franks to destroy it. When they asked him to pay the cost of its construction, he offered them 60,000 dinars to demolish it and then raised his offer to 100,000 dinars, but they refused.97 But his primary focus was on attacking Ba’lbak, whose governor, Shams al-Din ibn alMuqaddam, had rebelled against him. Saladin used every method possible to tighten his grip on Ba’lbak, but failed to take it. Ibn al-Muqaddam offered the Franks his allegiance and sent them gifts, seeking help against Saladin, but his efforts failed. Finally, he had no choice but to accept from Saladin a pledge for his life and hand Ba’lbak over to him.98 After Saladin gave him the fortress of Ba’rin, Kafratab, and several villages belonging to al-Ma’arra, Ibn al-Muqaddam surrendered Ba’lbak, which Saladin then gave to his brother Turanshah.99 The Syriac sources say that Saladin, whose position had been strengthened by the capture of Ba’lbak, marched on Jerusalem. The Franks attacked and routed him, and he withdrew to Damascus in 1178. The Franks plundered the country of Palestine and then returned. While they were in camp refreshing themselves and rejoicing in their conquest, Saladin’s forces ambushed them and captured a hundred fighting men, reportedly including Eudes (Odo) of Saint Amand, the Grand Master of the Templars, causing the Christians much grief.100 Barq, 313; Athir, al-Kamil, 635–636; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 6; Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 8, 11, 13; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 72. 96 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 13; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 72. 97 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 313–314, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 11; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 2: 243. 98 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 292–293; Athir, al-Kamil, 635–636; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 720 of the Syriac text, 379 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 308 of the English translation. 99 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2:5; Athir, al-Kamil, 634; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 71; H.A.R. Gibb, “The Rise of Saladin, 1169–1189,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 572, also in Gibb, Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, 115–116. 100 J.B. Chabot, ed., Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 379, n. 1; Röhricht,

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

767

In 1179 the Franks built another fortress northwest of al-Hula Lake, facing toward Banyas; like Bayt al-Ahzan, it formed a formidable defense line for the protection of the Latin Kingdom against Muslim encroachment from Syria.101 While in Damascus, Saladin heard in April 1179 that the Franks had attacked some herdsmen of Damascus tending their sheep in pastures near Banyas. This led the Muslim forces of Damascus, commanded by Saladin's nephew Izz al-Din Farrukhshah, to challenge the joint forces of Baldwin IV and Humphrey II of Toron, lord of Banyas. In the ensuing battle, Saladin’s forces triumphed and King Baldwin was badly wounded after losing his horse. Humphrey of Toron rushed to protect the king, but was struck by arrows and died on May 27, 1179, and was buried in the church of the castle of Toron.102 Humphrey’s brave feats won the admiration of the Muslim writer Ibn al-Athir, who calls him a scourge inflicted on the Muslims and says that with his death, Allah relieved the Muslims of his evil.103 At the end of May 1179, Saladin laid siege to the fortress at Jacob’s Ford and attacked the Frankish garrison, plundering and taking many captives. But suddenly a Frank, whom William of Tyre calls Rainerius of Marum (Renier de Maron à Mareuil), struck down one of the richest of Saladin’s commanders. The death of this noble commander threw the Muslims into utter confusion, and they abandoned the siege and departed.104 Saladin withdrew and set up his headquarters at Tall al-Qadi, west of Banyas, making his nephew Izz al-Din Farrukhshah the commander of his army.105 He told another nephew, Taqi al-Din Umar, to watch the Franks near Hama and guard against a possible attack by Bohemond III of Antioch, instructed his cousin Nasir al-Din Shirkuh to defend Hims against Raymond III, and asked his brother al-Adil in Egypt to provide him with men and provisions. The Franks were not sitting idle. They recognized Saladin’s threat and tried to put a stop to his raids against their land. On June 10, 1179, they finally engaged him in battle at Tall al-Qadi, on the plain of Marj Uyun. The Franks were defeated, and many of their leaders were taken prisoner. King Geschichte, 385. In fact, as we shall see shortly, Eude was captured at Marj Uyun. 101 E. J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London: Methuen, 1931), 132; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 760. 102 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 317–319, also cited in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 6; Athir, al-Kamil, 635; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 72–73; William of Tyre, History, 2: 440, esp. n. 64. 103 Athir, al-Kamil, 635; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 317–319. 104 William of Tyre, History, 2: 440; William of Newburgh,Chronicles, 2: 244. 105 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 325.

768

THE CRUSADES

Baldwin IV barely escaped with his life.106 Among the captives was Eudes (Odo) of Saint Amand, the master of the Knights Templar, who William of Tyre says was a wicked man, haughty and arrogant, who neither feared God nor revered man, adding, “Many people laid at his door the loss and neverdying shame of this disaster.”107 Other Franks taken prisoner were Baldwin, lord of Ramla and brother of Balian II of Ibelin (Arabic sources call both “Ibn Barzan”), who was captured by the Kurdish amir Muhammad ibn Khushtirin, and Hugh of Tiberias, Raymond of Tripoli’s stepson. Imad alDin al-Isfahani was present when the captives, numbering over 275, were brought before Saladin in his tent and gazed off as if they were half drunk. Baldwin of Ibelin was released by the Judge Diya al-Din Isa after paying 1150 Tyre dinars; Hugh of Tiberias was ransomed by his mother, who paid 55,000 dinars. Al-Isfahani says that many other captives either died or were ransomed and freed.108 The Franks’ morale, now at its lowest ebb, was boosted by the arrival of Henry, count of Troyes, Peter of Courtenay, brother of King Louis of France, Philip, bishop-elect of Beauvais, son of Count Robert and brother of King Louis, and other nobles. The Franks hoped that the arrival of this new group of nobles might help them rebuild their strength and confidence and avenge their loss. They were frustrated when Saladin stormed the castle of Bayt al-Ahzan and occupied it on August 30, 1179.109 He took 100,000 pieces of weaponry, 700 captives, and a large quantity of provisions. At the castle, the chains on the legs of 100 Muslim prisoners were undone and used to fetter the legs of the Franks. The Muslims broke the necks of the fighting men in the castle and set fire to it, and its towers fell down. The fire was so fierce that even the nearby houses were consumed by fire.110 Some Franks showed great courage and did not fear the fire. Imad al-Din alIsfahani says that he entered the fortress and was amazed to see a Frankish knight plunge himself and his horse into the fire. Taken by the man’s courage, he said, “Look at this zeal and pride.”111 When the fire reached the spot Athir, al-Kamil, 636; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 75–77; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 221. William of Tyre, History, 2: 443. 108 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 326–329; Athir, al-Kamil, 636; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 75– 76; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 219–223; Baldwin, Raymond III, 33, and “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 595; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 420. 109 William of Tyre, History, 2: 443- 444; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 1: 543. 110 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 333–339; Athir, al-Kamil, 637–639; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 13; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 80–85. 111 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 337. 106 107

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

769

where the Frankish lord of the castle was fighting, he threw himself into the fire and it “transported him into the other fire,” i.e., the fire of hell.112 Al-Isfahani says he was with Saladin in his pavilion when the Sultan (Saladin) called for the captives. He praised Allah and began to interrogate them. On finding one was a Muslim who had recanted Islam, he ordered him beheaded. Many prisoners were slain by the ruffians, but more than a hundred Muslims were spared and sent to Damascus. Despite the unbearable stench of the corpses, Saladin swore that he would not leave until he had razed the fortress to the ground.113 The Syriac sources say there were at the castle five hundred Frères (Knights Templar) who, realizing they were outnumbered, threw themselves into the fire and burned to death. Others threw themselves into the Jordan river and were drowned. Still others flung themselves down from the wall upon the rocks and died. Those who were still alive were captured by the Muslims and put to the sword.114 Feeling more confident, Saladin began making more ferocious attacks against the Franks. On October 13, 1179, the Egyptian fleet attacked Acre, which Abu Shama calls “the Constantinople of the Franks and the home of their kufr (infidelity).”115 Saladin’s army ravaged the districts of Sidon, Beirut, and Tyre. In April he invaded the land of the Franks until he reached Safad, which overlooks Lake Tiberias. He pillaged, destroyed, took captives, and achieved tremendous success against the Franks.116 The Franks could find shelter only within their towns and castles. In the face of these attacks, King Baldwin had no choice but to sue for peace in the spring of 1180. He and Saladin concluded a two-year truce covering only the domains of the kingdom of Jerusalem, leaving other Frankish territories like Antioch and Tripoli open to attack.117 Meanwhile, Saladin had also ordered the Egyptian fleet to attack Antartus and forced Raymond III, lord of Tripoli to make a similar truce with Saladin.118

Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 13. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 336–337. 114 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 719 of the Syriac text, 379 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 109 of the Syriac text, 309 of the English translation. 115 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 14; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 330. 116 Athir, al-Kamil, 640; Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East, 222, n. 1. 117 William of Tyre, History, 2: 447–448; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 222. 118 William of Tyre, History, 2: 448–449; Röhricht, Geschichte, 383–399; Baldwin, Raymond III, 34. 112 113

770

THE CRUSADES

The truces with Jerusalem and Tripoli may have been in Saladin’s interest, offering him the opportunity to control Mosul and Aleppo.119 But the rapidly changing state of affairs in these cities was certainly not in his best interest. He had also to deal with Kilij Arslan II, who sought to extend his power to Ra’ban and the surrounding district, which were under Saladin’s authority. In 1180 Kilij Arslan sent troops against Ra’ban, but its governor, managed to save his city, assisted by troops from Damascus.120 Saladin’s problems with Kilij Arslan extended into the next year because of a conflict between Kilij Arslan and his son-in-law Nur al-Din, Artukid lord of Hisn Kifa. Nur al-Din fell passionately in love with a whore (according to Michael Rabo) or a songstress (according to al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir), whom he married after deserting his wife, Kilij Arslan’s daughter. When his father-in-law tried to retaliate against him, Nur al-Din asked Saladin for help and protection. Saladin sent an envoy to ask Kilij Arslan to forgive his son-in-law’s offense, but he refused, and Saladin acted against Kilij Arslan, concluding a truce with the Franks. He mustered troops and left Aleppo, marching west to Tall Bashir and then to Ra’ban, where he joined forces with Nur al-Din at the Sanja River.121 When Kilij Arslan learned that Saladin and his forces were nearby, he sent his chief amir to tell Saladin that Nur al-Din had done an abominable thing by deserting his daughter and marrying a whore, and he should be stopped and punished. When the envoy delivered this message, Saladin became angry and told him to tell Kilij Arslan, “By Allah, beside whom there is no God, if he does not return to his country I will march against Melitene (under Kilij Arslan’s rule), which is only two days’ journey from where I am. I will never dismount from my horse except in Melitene, and [will] attack and capture all his domains.” The envoy started to leave, but when he saw that Saladin had a great force, he realized that he could indeed fight Kilij Arslan and occupy his lands. He requested another audience, in which he said he had no message from Kilij Arslan but he himself had something to say, so that Saladin might see that justice was done: “O Master, it is disgraceful that people will hear that someone like yourself, the greatest sultan, has concluded a truce with the Franks and abandoned the invasion of their domains, which is in the interests of your kingdom, and that you have Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 421. Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 346; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 721 of the Syriac text, 382 of the French translation; Athir, al-Kamil, 639–640. 121 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 344–346. 119 120

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

771

abandoned what is good for you, your subjects, and all Muslims, and have gathered troops from far and near at a heavy cost, all for the sake of a qahba mughaniyya (whore songstress). What will be your reason for doing so when you face Almighty Allah, the caliphs and the Muslim rulers, and all the world? I believe that no one will want to see your face if they come to know the whole story.” The envoy added, “Suppose that Kilij Arslan was dead and his daughter sent me to you, asking you to do her justice against her husband. If you did justice to her, that would be wonderful, but if you did not, you would then be encouraging this songstress whore. It would be better if you let her go and the lawful wife return to her husband.” Saladin, shocked at being criticized for acting shamefully, conceded that the envoy was right. But he added that Nur al-Din had appealed for protection, and that he found it disgraceful not to offer it to him. He said that he himself would meet with Nur al-Din to solve this problem and rebuke him for deserting his wife to marry a whore. Peace was finally reached between Saladin and Kilij Arslan on the condition that Nur al-Din should give up the woman after one year. If he refused, Saladin would withdraw his pledge to support him and even join Kilij Arslan against him. Thus, Kilij Arslan was reconciled with his son-in-law, and Saladin returned to Syria (according to Ibn al-Athir) or Egypt (according to Michael Rabo). Nur alDin kept his part of the peace deal by dismissing his new wife after one year. She left for Baghdad, where she remained until she died.122 As we have already said, the truces with Jerusalem and Tripoli gave Saladin the opportunity to deal with the Zangids of Mosul and Aleppo. Since his objective was to control Syria before he made a decisive move against the Franks in Jerusalem, plainly he paid attention to developments in these two cities. At the end of June 1180, Sayf al-Din Ghazi, atabeg of Mosul, died of tuberculosis while Saladin was camped at Karak.123 The amirs of Mosul, especially the powerful Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz, fearing Saladin’s growing power in Syria, invited Sayf al-Din’s brother Izz al-Din Mas’ud, a man of courage, wisdom, and fortitude, to take charge of the government of Mosul. Meanwhile al-Malik al-Salih of Aleppo, also gravely Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 344–346; Athir, al-Kamil, 641–644; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 96–98. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 723 of the Syriac text, 388 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 310 of the English translation. 123 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 356–357, and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 17–18; Athir, al-Kamil, 641–644; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 92; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 110 of the Syriac text, 311 of the English translation. 122

772

THE CRUSADES

ill, declared that his cousin Izz al-Din Mas’ud should succeed him as lord of Aleppo, to form a united Mosul-Aleppo front strong enough to challenge Saladin. After he died on December 9, 1181, the amirs invited Izz al-Din Mas’ud to come to Aleppo; he was proclaimed its lord at the end of December 1181, while Saladin was in Egypt.124 No sooner did he enter Aleppo than he laid his hands on the city’s treasures and sent them to Mosul and married al-Salih’s mother and sent her to Mosul.125 Now the two cities were united under the Zangids, who had followers in other parts of Syria, despite the growth of Saladin’s power there. This fact was manifest as the people of Hama begged Izz al-Din Mas’ud to come and take charge of their city, much against the will of Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din Umar, who had sought refuge there. The amirs of Aleppo urged Izz al-Din Mas’ud to march against Damascus and add it to his kingdom. They told him that he had a wonderful chance to achieve this aim because the people of Damascus loved him and the Zangid family. Saladin wrote to Taqi al-Din Umar that the amirs of Aleppo had entered into alliances against him with both the Franks and the Isma'ilis (Assassins). Izz al-Din refused the entreaties of the amirs of Aleppo, saying he would not violate his oath to the people of Damascus not to encroach upon their city. He remained in Aleppo for a few months, then left for al-Raqqa.126 If Izz al-Din had responded to the entreaties of the people of Aleppo and occupied Damascus, he would have been able to unite the major cities of Syria under his authority while Saladin was still in Egypt. But he failed to seize his opportunity. Instead, he gave Aleppo to his brother Imad al-Din, lord of Sinjar, and gave Sinjar to his other brother, Shihab al-Din, thus destroying the unity of the Zangid state.127 Ibn al-Athir says that if Saladin had been in Syria rather than Egypt during this period, he would have chalShaddad, al-Nawadir, 66–67, says al-Malik al-Salih died of qolunj (intestinal obstruction); al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, II: 18; Athir, al-Kamil, 647–649, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 21–22; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 106; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 110 of the Syriac text, 311 of the English translation; Gibb, “The Rise of Saladin,” 1: 575, says he died on December 4. Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 21, says he was poisoned by a cluster of grapes given to him by Sulayman ibn Jandar. 125 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 67. 126 Athir, al-Kamil, 649; also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 22; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 110. 127 Athir, al-Kamil, 648–649; also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 22; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 107–108; the Anonymous Edessan, 194 of the Syriac text, 223 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 110–111 of the Syriac text, 311–312 of the English translation. 124

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

773

lenged the Zangids over Aleppo and taken it from them.128 Meanwhile, the Franks had their own internal conflict (to be discussed later) and could not benefit from the chaotic situation in Syria by breaking their truces with Saladin.129 After finishing with Kilij Arslan II, Saladin marched in 1180 against Cilicia and its Armenian governor, Reuben (Roupen) III (1175–1187). Reuben had killed many Turkoman shepherds in Cilicia and seized their stock and had taken their wives and children as captives. When Saladin heard what Reuben had done, he decided to punish him. He camped on the river Sanja (Turkish Gök-Su) and sent his men to plunder Cilicia.130 Reuben sent Saladin a message expressing humility and submission, gave him much gold, and freed 500 Turkoman prisoners. Saladin was thus mollified, and peace prevailed. Meanwhile, Kilij Arslan II had communicated with Saladin about making peace with the Easterners (the citizens of Mosul and Diyarbakr), and Saladin responded by concluding peace agreements with Kilij Arslan and the citizens of the two cities on October 2, 1181.131 Having settled matters with Kilij Arslan and Reuben, he returned to Egypt. While in Egypt, Saladin was engaged in administering the country and looking into the law cases presented to him at Dar al-Adl (House of Justice).132 He also strengthened the fortifications of Alexandria. He still believed that the Franks, aided by a force from Europe, might attack his realm, and he wanted to be prepared. Having signed a treaty of peace with Emperor Alexius II Comnenus (1180–1183) in the autumn of 1181, he had no fear that the Greek fleet would join the Franks in an attack against him. He felt so sure of the peaceful relations between himself and the Byzantines that he even planned to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca in 1182, but was unable to make the journey. Some unfortunate events caused the truce between Saladin and the Franks to collapse. Who first broke the truce is unknown, but both the Muslims and the Franks blamed each other.133 Bad feelings between the two Athir, al-Kamil, 649. Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 765. 130 Gibb, “The Rise of Saladin,” 1: 575. 131 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 65–66; Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 347–348; Athir, al-Kamil, 644–645; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 110 of the Syriac text, 310 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 98–99. 132 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, 357–358; also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 20, 24. 133 Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 26; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 224. 128 129

774

THE CRUSADES

sides arose when a ship from Europe carrying a large number of pilgrims was wrecked by adverse winds at Damietta (Dimyat), Egypt.134 If these pilgrims had known there was a truce between Saladin and the Franks, they would have felt safe. But their hopes were shattered when Saladin would not easily allow so many Christians to leave Egypt. He threw the pilgrims into prison and confiscated their goods. Bar Hebraeus, the only Syriac source to mention this incident, says that in 1181, the Franks dispatched a great ship to Damietta because there was peace between them and the Arabs. He seems to confirm William of Tyre’s story that the Muslims acted treacherously and made prisoners of the 2,500 Frankish merchants and sailors aboard, on the pretext that the truce had expired.135 About the same time Saladin sent a messenger to King Baldwin IV complaining that Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Karak and Montréal (1176–1187), was intercepting caravans traveling between Syria and Egypt, taking Muslims prisoner and stealing their merchandise.136 Saladin’s message contained demands which the Franks found unacceptable, and which William of Tyre says were simply pretexts to keep the ship and the pilgrims in custody. Because of Saladin’s adamant stance, the demands the envoy presented could not be met, and Saladin broke the treaty and decided to harass the Franks. King Baldwin IV learned from his scouts that Saladin intended to invade his kingdom, perhaps believing that Baldwin, suffering from leprosy, lacked the strength to resist him.137 He held a council at Jerusalem; after carefully considering Saladin’s terms, the members of the council advised Baldwin to challenge him. The king led his forces across the valley of Sylvester near the Dead Sea and came to Karak, in Arabia Secunda (Jordan), almost thirty-six miles from where Saladin had set up his camp. Saladin, having left Egypt in May 1182, passed through the port of Ayla on the Gulf of Aqaba, where he learned that the Franks had already gathered their

William of Tyre, History, 2: 467–468, says 1,500 pilgrims were on board; alIsfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 27, and Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 114, say there were 1690. 135 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 312 of the English translation. 136 William of Tyre, History, 2: 467–469. Athir, al-Kamil, 647, calls Reginald one of the Frankish devils and the greatest enemy of the Muslims; René Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Libririe Jules Tallender, 1935), 2: 776, like other Western writers, says Reginald was a “Knight errant.” 137 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 3. 134

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

775

troops at Karak to prevent him from entering Syria.138 Bar Hebraeus says the Franks went to the city of Ayla, on the shore of the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea), where they built a large fleet and sailed on the sea for the first time. They captured many Muslim ships laden with valuable cargo and killed many people from the city of Idab. Then Saladin sent ships from Alexandria with bales of grain for camels, and launched them on the Sea of Reeds. The Muslims overcame the Franks, and a great many men were killed on both sides.139 After the Frankish army marched to Jordan in July 1182, Farrukhshah (d. 1183), Saladin’s nephew and his deputy in Damascus, took the opportunity to attack Tiberias and Acre. He occupied the castle of Shaqif Arnun (Belfort), taking a thousand prisoners and 20,000 sheep. He then moved to the area east of Lake Tiberias, attacked the land of Sawad, and laid siege to the cliff fortress of Habis Jaldek, which belonged to the Franks. Within five days the fortress fell; he stationed Muslims in it and made it a watchtower against the Franks.140 Saladin had already marched into Syria in May 1182, passing by Ayla to reach the district of the fortress of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal), and destroyed the Franks’ crop-fields.141 He was accompanied by a great number of Syrian merchants and other people who had gone to Egypt because of the economic hardships in Syria. King Baldwin had encamped with his entire army at Petra of the Desert, in Arabia Secunda, even though Count Raymond III of Tripoli advised him that it was a mistake to leave the rest of the kingdom utterly stripped of soldiers.142 The idea of concentrating the whole force at Petra was promoted by Reginald of Châtillon; some barons had urged the king to take this course without considering the consequences of leaving the kingdom unprotected. Recognizing the danger, Baldwin hurried back to take a position at Saffuriyya in Galilee and waited to see Saladin’s next move. But the Franks still did not take measures to protect themselves. As a result, Saladin fell upon them stealthily and besieged their camp so that they could not Isfahani, Sana al-Barq, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28, says Saladin never saw Cairo again; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 114–115; Athir, al-Kamil, 646–647. 139 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 312 of the English translation. 140 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28–29; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 114–115; Athir, al-Kamil, 645–646, 651–652; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 432; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 226. 141 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28–29; William of Tyre, History, 2: 468. 142 William of Tyre, History, 2: 469. 138

776

THE CRUSADES

escape to the mountains above them. On July 11, 1182, Saladin moved to set up his camp at the Uqhuwana, where the Jordan River flows out of Lake Tiberias. With the Frankish army camped at Tiberias, Saladin sent his nephew Farrukhshah to storm Baysan and al-Ghawr, killing and plundering. The Bedouin hordes also raided Jenin, Lijun, and the whole Jordan valley until they reached the Marj (meadow) of Acre (Akka).143 The Franks moved to rescue Hisn Kawkab al-Hawa (Belvoir), which came under attack after Saladin’s forces joined those of Farrukhshah. Saladin ordered his nephews Taqi al-Din Umar and Izz al-Din Farrukhshah to begin an assault against the Franks. A fierce battle was fought in the valley of ‘Afarbela, under the walls of Hisn Kawkab al-Hawa, and many Muslims were killed, but the tide turned and the Muslim won a decisive victory.144 Ibn al-Athir says that when Saladin saw that he had inflicted enough suffering on the Franks, he returned to Damascus in June 1182.145 William of Tyre, who gives a detailed account of the battle, says few Frankish knights fell, but many of their comrades perished. The enemy’s losses were far greater, he says, but he expresses doubt about the number of dead because in order to conceal their losses, the Muslims carried away the bodies of those who had fallen and stealthily buried them the next night in camp, lest the proof of their death give the Franks additional courage. He finally concedes that the enemy lost only a thousand men.146 The ineffectual campaign at Hisn Kawkab provoked Saladin’s anger. He decided it would be most effective to attack the Franks in several places simultaneously. His immediate target was Beirut, an essential seaport for the Franks. Thus, in 1182 he gathered his forces in the Biqa Valley, preparing to attack Beirut, and ordered his brother al-Malik al-Adil, his deputy in Egypt, to send warships to attack it from the sea. He also directed his brother to assemble the cavalry force that had been left in Egypt to enter Syria from the south and ravage the region around Gaza, Ascalon, and Darum (Daron), the last cities close to Egypt belonging to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. His main objective was to blockade Beirut by land and sea. On August

143 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28–29; Athir, al-Kamil, 652; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 114–115. 144 Al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 115. 145 Athir, al-Kamil, 651, 653; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 28. 146 William of Tyre, History, 2: 474–475. Stevenson, The Crusaders, 227, n. 3, likens William’s account to the casualty reports in the Boer War, and says that neither side could claim a decisive victory.

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

777

1, 1182, the Egyptian fleet reached the coast near Beirut, while Saladin left the Biqa valley and marched to the city.147 The news of Saladin’s siege of Beirut reached King Baldwin IV while he was still camped at Saffuriyya. After consulting with his barons, he dispatched the Frankish fleet in Acre and Sidon to relieve Beirut. Within a week, a fleet of thirty-seven ships with fighting men was ready for action.148 For three days, Saladin’s forces on land and sea attacked Beirut fiercely, even employing miners to undermine the walls of the city. But his plans were frustrated; although the Frankish force inside Beirut was very small compared to his own, the city was evidently well fortified, and its bishop, Odo, had strengthened its defenses.149 Saladin ceaselessly shouted words of encouragement to his troops. One of his amirs, saying it was a disgrace that so small a force could defy Saladin’s men, suggested that they raise ladders to the wall and enter the city. While he was zealously urging the Muslim forces to adopt his plan, he was struck in the eye by an arrow, and they had to abandon the plan. Saladin’s forces besieged Beirut for three straight days but could not capture it. Meanwhile, they intercepted a messenger headed for Beirut and learned by questioning him that the Franks had already assembled a great force which was en route to the city. Reconsidering his strategy, Saladin lifted the siege, recalled his land forces, and retired a short distance from Beirut. He divided the cavalry into bands and ordered them to raze every tower in the district, and sent men with axes and hatchets to cut down all the orchards and vineyards in the vicinity of Beirut. He also sent the Egyptian fleet home. When the Frankish fleet reached the coast of Beirut, it found the city safe and free, and returned to its bases. King Baldwin remained for a few days at Tyre, then returned to Saffuriyya with his forces, while Saladin returned to Damascus.150 Having failed to capture Beirut, Saladin turned his attention to the Jazira and Aleppo, still in the hands of his antagonists the Zangids. He was ready to attack his main target, Aleppo, the Zangids’ capital, but Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, then lord of Harran, persuaded him to forget about Aleppo and cross the Euphrates river to capture the country beyond the cities of 147 William of Tyre, History, 2: 476; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 29; Athir, al-Kamil, 653; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 115. 148 William of Tyre, History, 2., 476. 149 Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 433. 150 William of Tyre, History, 2: 478–479; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 29; Athir, al-Kamil, 653.

778

THE CRUSADES

Edessa, Saruj, al-Raqqa, and Nisibin.151 Kukburi was apparently not on good terms with Izz al-Din, the Zangid lord of Mosul, and therefore sought Saladin’s help to protect his dominion. While Saladin was busy besieging Beirut, Kukburi sent him a message declaring that as a friend, he advised him to cross the Euphrates and invade the Zangids’ territory if he wanted total victory.152 He implied that instead of wasting his time on a futile siege of Beirut, Saladin should settle his account with the Zangids, who were still lords of Syria and Mosul. In other words, if he wanted to control their state, he had to subdue them, and then it would be easier for him to challenge the Franks. The Anonymous Edessan gives a slightly different perspective on this event. He says Harran was governed by Muzaffar al-Din (Kukburi), who was subject to the lord of Mosul, who in turn was ambitious to control Edessa. Many times Kukburi had offered the Zangid governors of Mosul bribes, hoping to win control of Edessa, but when they would not give it to him, he became angry against them and secretly sent envoys to Saladin, urging him to cross the Euphrates. Saladin agreed and began his march to Syria. When he learned that Izz al-Din Mas’ud (atabeg of Mosul 1180– 1193), who had succeeded al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il, had given Aleppo to his brother Imad al-Din II (atabeg of Aleppo 1182–1183), Saladin suspected treachery against him by the brothers, and he overwhelmed them.153 Kukburi’s advice to cross the Euphrates into Syria could not have come at a more opportune time for the ambitious Saladin, who since the death of Nur al-Din in 1174 had wanted to be the heir and lord of his master’s state. His appetite for conquest was whetted even more by the dissension between the Zangid brothers, Izz al-Din Mas’ud of Mosul and Imad alDin II of Aleppo. Saladin apparently became alarmed on learning that the people of Mosul had asked the Franks to form a joint front against him.154 Not surprisingly, he took Kukburi’s advice and crossed the Euphrates, pretending to attack Aleppo, although his real intention was to begin his campaign against other parts of Syria. Kukburi joined forces with Saladin to attack and besiege Edessa, then governed by a Turk named Fakhr al-Din 151 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 30; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 69; Athir, alKamil, 653; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 313 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 115. 152 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, II: 42.Athir, al-Kamil, 654. 153 The Anonymous Edessan, 194 of the Syriac text, 223–224 of the Arabic translation. 154 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 29; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 115.

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

779

Mas’ud ibn al-Zaf’arani.155 The city’s upper fortress of the city was under the military commander Hammam, who had been appointed to this position by Izz al-Din. Since the northern part of the city was strongly fortified, Saladin and Kukburi stormed the city from the south. Meanwhile, they bribed Hammam with 10,000 gold pieces, and he was prepared to hand the city over to them. When the governor learned of Hammam’s treachery, he had no choice but to sue for peace and surrender the city to Saladin, who in turn gave it to Kukburi. Saladin then left to besiege al-Raqqa (Callinicus), which he received from its governor Qutb al-Din Yinal ibn Hassan and gave temporarily to Ibn al-Za’farani. Next he captured Khabur (which he gave to Jamal al-Din Shukhtirin), Qarqisiyya, Maksin, Arban, and other towns. He crossed the Khabur river to Nisibin, whose lords were ready to fight him, but he did not wish to make war on the city. Instead, he had his forces encircle it to prevent the inhabitants from going in or out. Within a few days the people of Nisibin, in a painful situation, surrendered the city. Saladin gave it to one of his military commanders, Abu al-Hayja al-Samin (Abu al-Hayja the Fat), and then departed, taking with him Nur al-Din, the governor of the citadel.156 While besieging Nisibin, Saladin received reports that the Franks had attacked Damascus and ravaged the surrounding villages; they had gotten as far as Darayya and were about to destroy its mosque. Saladin’s deputy in Damascus, Shams al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam, who had succeeded Farrukhshah,157 sent Christian messengers from the city to warn the Franks not to destroy the mosque. He said that if they did so, the Muslims would not only rebuild it, but would destroy every Christian church in the countries under their control and not allow the Christians to rebuild them. When the news reached Saladin, some of his men advised him to return to Nisibin. Saladin said, “The Franks destroy villages, but we control countries in their stead. We will rebuild the villages and will become even strong enough to invade their lands.”158 Athir, al-Kamil, 655; the Anonymous Edessan, 191 of the Syriac text, 220 of the Arabic translation. 156 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 32; Athir, al-Kamil, 655; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 116–117; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 313 of the English translation. the Anonymous Edessan, 195 of the Syriac text, 224 of the Arabic translation. 157 Athir, al-Kamil, 659–660; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33. 158 Athir, al-Kamil, 655–657; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 118; the Anonymous Edessan, 195 of the Syriac text, 224 of the Arabic translation. 155

780

THE CRUSADES

While he was at Nisibin, Saladin summoned his men to a council and asked whether his next move should be against Mosul, Sinjar, or the Jazira. They had varying opinions, but finally the advice of Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi of Harran prevailed. He said Saladin should begin by attacking Mosul, whose inhabitants were favorable toward him, for as soon as Izz al-Din Mas’ud and his administrator, the eunuch Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz, heard that he was marching against Mosul, they would flee to the nearby mountains. This view was supported by Saladin’s cousin Nasir al-Din Muhammad, son of Asad al-Din Shirkuh, who had offered to pay Saladin enormous amounts of money for possession of Mosul if he should capture it.159 At the beginning of December 1182, Saladin besieged Mosul and began a savage campaign against it. But he soon found that Mosul was not so easy to take as he had thought. It was strongly fortified and defended by a great number of fighting men, prepared to hold every strategic point with weapons and engines of war that defied belief.160 Realizing that he could not capture Mosul by fighting, Saladin thought he could persuade Izz alDin to surrender. Bar Hebraeus says he demanded that Izz al-Din either give him the amount of gold he had spent in his fight against Mosul or surrender Aleppo to him. But the men of Mosul said they had no gold to offer, and Aleppo had its own lord, Imad al-Din, and they could not give Saladin what was not theirs to give. Izz al-Din sent a messenger to ask the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad (al-Nasir li Din Allah [1180–1222]) to intercede on his behalf, and the caliph sent an ambassador (whose name is not given) to entreat with Saladin.161 Ibn al-Athir says the caliph sent two men to negotiate peace, Shaykh al-Shuyukh Sadr al-Din Abd al-Rahim ibn Isma’il and Shihab al-Din Bashir al-Khadim, who arrived at Saladin’s camp while he was besieging Mosul. But Izz al-Din refused to negotiate over Aleppo, saying there were covenants and agreements between himself and his brother Imad alDin which he could not violate. Meanwhile, messengers from Kizil Arslan, lord of Azerbayjan, and Shah Armen (Nasir al-Din Sukman II, ibn Ibrahim), lord of Khilat (Akhlat), arrived to discuss peace between Saladin and the Zangids, but to no avail.162 Izz al-Din also sought help from Pahlawan ibn Yeldikiz, lord of Hamadan, but he presented terms so difficult that Izz Athir, al-Kamil, 656; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 118–119. Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 119; Athir, al-Kamil, 657. 161 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 313 of the English translation. 162 Athir, al-Kamil, 656–657; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 32–33. 159 160

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

781

al-Din decided it was better to fight Saladin.163 Ibn Shaddad, an eyewitness, says that Saladin arrived in the vicinity of Mosul on November 10, 1182, and that he himself was sent to Baghdad by Saladin, arriving there three days later. He asked the people of Baghdad for help, but they kept referring him to Shaykh al-Shuyukh Sadr al-Din, and his embassy apparently was fruitless.164 When he realized that capturing Mosul was very difficult and would cause him hardship and distress, and that troops from Mosul stationed in Sinjar were intercepting the fighting men who wanted to join him, Saladin lifted the siege of Mosul and marched against Sinjar.165 After a severe campaign, he captured Sinjar from Sharaf al-Din, son of Qutb al-Din Mawdud, son of Imad al-Din II Zangi, and handed it over to his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar.166 After leaving Sinjar, Saladin marched against the city of Dara, whose governor, the Artukid Samsam al-Din Bahram, submitted to him. As a reward for his submission, Saladin left him his city. He went to Harran, where he disbanded his troops so that they could return to their homes and rest, for it was winter and the fasting month of Ramadan and the festival of Id al-Fitr were upon them. Saladin kept only a small bodyguard with him.167 Although Saladin had failed to capture Mosul, its citizens were still suspicious of him. Fearing that he might return in the spring to take their city as he had taken Sinjar, Izz al-Din Mas’ud, lord of Mosul, appealed for help to Shah Armen, lord of Khilat. Shah Armen sent Saladin several messages begging him to leave Izz al-Din alone and not attack Mosul. When these did not succeed, he sent his mamluk Sayf al-Din Bektimor and threatened to fight Saladin if he attacked the city, but still he would not change his mind. Heeding Izz al-Din’s entreaties, Shah Armen then asked his nephew Qutb al-Din Ilghazi, lord of Mardin and uncle of Izz al-Din, to join him. Shah Armen’s followers, together with the men of Mardin and Mosul

Al-Isfahani, Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 122. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 69–70; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33. 165 Athir, al-Kamil, 657, Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 70; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 123; Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1: 187–188. 166 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 313 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 194 of the Syriac text, 224 of the Arabic translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 123; Shaddad, alNawadir, 70. 167 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 33; Athir, al-Kamil, 656–657; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 118–124; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 313 of the English translation. 163 164

782

THE CRUSADES

and 1,700 Yaruki horsemen from Aleppo, massed at Baraya, a village near Mardin (some sources call it Harzam), to challenge Saladin. On learning about the forces assembled against him, Saladin became deeply concerned and somewhat fearful. He sought aid from Taqi al-Din Umar, lord of Hama, and ordered his troops to be ready within eight days. In that short time his men were gathered from Hims, Hama, and Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia), and were joined by the troops of Kara Arslan, lord of Hisn Kifa. When Shah Armen saw Saladin’s considerable force, alert and prepared to fight, he was frightened and tried to get out of his predicament before he and the other lords with him were annihilated. So he told the lords of Mosul and Mardin that the winter season was unsuitable for war, and everyone should return to his own country but plan to reassemble in the spring to fight Saladin. Thus, Shah Armen’s forces were dispersed.168 Saladin then wrote to the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir, informing him what the men of Mosul had done and complaining that they were always initiating quarrels with him, and he received orders from the caliph to wage war against Amid (Diyarbakr).169 Most importantly, Saladin told the caliph that Izz al-Din Mas’ud of Mosul and his allies had already betrayed Islam by concluding an eleven-year treaty with the Franks. According to this agreement, the Franks were to receive 10,000 dinars for their aid against Saladin and the surrender of the Muslim thughur (border towns) of Banyas, Shaqif Arnun, and Habis Jaldek, and they would regain all the Frankish prisoners held in the towns to be surrendered.170 After receiving the caliph’s orders, Saladin stormed Amid in 1183 and captured it in eight days.171 Mahmud ibn Ikaldi, an old man, was its governor in name only. The real power rested with Mu’ayyid al-Din Abu Ali ibn Nisan, who took complete control of the city after Ikaldi died and was succeeded by his son Mahmud.172 When Saladin stormed Amid, Ibn Nisan Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 38; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 71; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 132–134; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 313–314 of the English translation. 169 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 111 of the Syriac text, 314 of the English translation. 170 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 31; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 434. 171 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 71. 172 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 71; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 134; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 314 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 197 of the Syriac text, 227 of the Arabic translation. 168

CONQUEST AND CONSOLIDATION

783

fought heroically against the enemy outside the walls, but events inside the city forced him to surrender. On one occasion some of Saladin’s men tried to break through Amid’s two walls, but the townsmen rushed out, sandwiched them between the walls, and annihilated them. Saladin issued strong threats to Ibn Nisan and his men, vowing that he would not leave without capturing the city and threatening to punish all its people by fire unless they cooperated with him. Saladin’s threats sent a chill of fear through the men of Amid, who dropped their weapons in despair. Ibn Nisan, likewise trembling, asked Saladin to guarantee the security of his own life and possessions, and to spare the other members of his household. Saladin pitched his tent outside Amid and offered Ibn Nisan three days to take out whatever he wanted and surrender the city. Ibn Nisan, who apparently had amassed numerous possessions in Amid, took away gold, silver, precious stones, and furniture, and went to the lands of the Greeks (Byzantines). It is said that three hundred men kept busy moving the treasures, which represented only one-tenth of his wealth, while more items were stolen by anyone who could lay hands on them.173 Saladin gave Amid and everything in it to Kara Arslan’s son Nur alDin, whose authority over the city and subservience to himself were confirmed by oaths.174 Some of Saladin’s men, displeased at this action, reminded him that he had promised Nur al-Din the city, but not everything in it, and protested that the property in the city was worth millions of dinars. He replied that it was not appropriate to give an empty city to a friend. The city of Amid must have been extremely rich, for it is reported that 100,000 wax candles were found in one of its towers, and that it had a substantial library housing over a million volumes. Saladin offered these volumes as a gift to his scribe al-Qadi al-Fadil (the excellent judge), who selected only seventy loads of them. It is further said that Nur al-Din ibn Kara Arslan spent seven years selling off the treasures of Amid for which he had no need.175 The Anonymous Edessan says that Saladin captured Amid by force Ibn Abi Tayy and Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 39–40; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 314–315 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 135–136; the Anonymous Edessan, 197 of the Syriac text, 227 of the Arabic translation; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 71. 174 Al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 42; William of Tyre, History, 2: 490, refers to Kara Arslan as Carassalem. 175 Ibn Abi Tayy and al-Imad al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 39–40; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 314–315 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 135– 136. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 71; the Anonymous Edessan, 197 of the Syriac text, 227 173

784

THE CRUSADES

and looted everything in it, but says nothing about conferring its treasures on anyone.176

of the Arabic translation. 176 The Anonymous Edessan, 194 of the Syriac text, 224 of the Arabic translation.

22 SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS In 1183 Saladin marched against the province of Aleppo. On the way he captured Tall Khalid, whose inhabitants surrendered and were granted amnesty. Next he captured Aintab, whose governor Nasih al-Din Muhammad ibn Khumartigin quickly submitted to him.1 In May 1183 Saladin arrived at Aleppo and camped at al-Maydan al-Akhdar (The Green Square, or the Hippodrome). He remained there only a few days and then moved to the nearby Mountain of Jawshan. Although he pretended to be building quarters for himself and his men, in fact he intended to capture Aleppo, and his forces and those of the Zangids engaged in fierce skirmishes daily.2 Although the men of Aleppo showed extraordinary prowess in facing Saladin, their governor Imad al-Din Zangi II was weak and irresolute. He faced an immense problem: nothing could enter the city because Saladin had blocked off the whole region. He knew that a war with Saladin would be very costly, but he had already spent so much money on his troops that his treasury was almost depleted. When one day some of his troops asked him to pay their allowance, he complained that his resources were meager and he had no more money to spare. One of his men said that if he wanted to protect Aleppo, he should find a source of money even if he had to sell Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 42, Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 315 of the English translation; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 139. 2 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 661; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 3: 71–72; Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 43, the Anonymous Edessan, 196–197 of the Syriac text, 226 of the Arabic translation. 1

785

786

THE CRUSADES

his wife’s jewelry.3 Imad al-Din’s situation went from bad to worse, to the extent that the inhabitants of Aleppo supplied him and his household daily with meals. Realizing that he could no longer furnish provisions and food, his troops became apathetic, but the people were determined to fight for their city at any cost. Realizing he could not take the city by storm, Saladin secretly contacted the nobles, trying to entice them with gifts to surrender to him. They advised Imad al-Din that it would be better for him to hand the city over to Saladin and take other towns in its stead, but he should not permit others to surrender the city. They agreed that this was the best arrangement to save himself, since he was as poor as a beggar, and told him that he could not rely on the inhabitants of Aleppo to fight for him and at the same time feed him and his household. They too were running out of provisions, and soon they would have nothing to sustain him or themselves. Convinced that he had no power to defend the city, Imad al-Din agreed to surrender Aleppo to Saladin and delegated the Amir Husam al-Din Tuman al-Yaruki, a supporter of Saladin, to finalize the agreement. Instead of Aleppo, Imad al-Din demanded the possession of Sinjar, Nisibin, al-Khabur, al-Raqqa (Callinicus), and Saruj. Saladin wrote him a letter, supported by an oath, agreeing to these demands. Thus, Imad al-Din sold Aleppo at the cheapest price.4 Moreover, according to the agreement, Imad al-Din and his troops were to be ready on call to serve Saladin, without objection, but to act only as an auxiliary force.5 Imad al-Din’s arrangement with Saladin was made secretly, without the knowledge of the people of Aleppo or its troops. When the citizens learned that Imad al-Din had delivered the city to Saladin, they were outraged. Some common folk gathered at the Citadel of Aleppo and reviled Imad alDin with filthy abuse as he watched helplessly. Dangling a washbasin and Athir, al-Kamil, 661; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 142. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 315 of the English translation, says one of Imad al-Din’s noblemen asked him for money and Imad al-Din said that he had nothing to give him. The nobleman replied to him, “Sell your wife’s chains and give the price to your fighting men if you wish to be king.” 4 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 42–44, 48; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 72; Athir, al-Kamil, 661; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 490; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 315 of the English translation. 5 Al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 43; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 142. 3

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

787

smock before him, they cried, “You effeminate one, the washing of clothes, not royalty, is more fitting for you!”6 He left the citadel of Aleppo and sat in a tent pitched for him while Saladin took over the citadel. Imad al-Din, taking possession of the towns he had demanded from Saladin, went to Sinjar. Evidently Saladin's desire was to take possession of Aleppo, and not the treasures therein. So he allowed Imad al-Din to take out whatever he wished. Imad al-Din took from the Citadel everything that could be carried, and sold in the marketplace whatever he could not carry. Saladin even provided him with horses, mules, and camels to carry his treasures away. To placate his defeated foe, Saladin held a sumptuous banquet for Imad al-Din in al-Maydan al-Akhdar, attended by the military commanders and leading citizens of Aleppo. But his joy at taking possession of Aleppo turned into mourning because of the death of his younger son Taj al-Muluk Buri at twenty-two, from a wound suffered in the campaign.7 Saladin derived more happiness at taking possession of Aleppo than he could have gotten from taking any other city. Aleppo was Syria’s major city, the hub of its economic and political power. As he climbed the steps in front of the citadel gate, says al-Isfahani, he recited a passage from the Quran (3:26): “Say, O God, Lord of sovereignty, you give dominion to whom you will, and take it away from whom you will.”8 Turning to the dignitaries with him, he said, “Now I know that a kingdom has been founded by me. Believe me. I never coveted the happiness of Nur al-Din (Zangi), but only Aleppo, and henceforth it shall be mine . . . I have never been happier for conquering a city as I have when I conquered this city. Now I know that I have taken possession of the countries and have learned that my dominion has been set and established.”9 And when he reached the Gate of Imad al-Din, he recited again from the Quran (33:27), “And He

Athir, al-Kamil, 662; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 315 of the English translation. 7 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 42, 44; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 316 of the English translation. 8 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45. The passage actually comes from an Old Testament prophet: “The Most High Allah is the governor in the kingdom of the earth, and He gives it to whomsoever He pleases, and He sets up over it the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4: 32). 9 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 316 of the English translation. 6

788

THE CRUSADES

(God) made you heirs of their lands, and their houses, and their goods, and of a land on which you have not set foot before.”10 After becoming master of Aleppo, Saladin abolished many taxes and reduced imposts and levies.11 He distributed lavish gifts valued at 850,000 dinars. Then he received congratulations, and a number of poets recited odes in his praise.12 Saladin’s recitation of passages from the Quran in his jubilation over conquering his master’s city, Aleppo, is self-explanatory. He was clearly happy that his political ambition had been finally accomplished. But we must remember that this is the same Saladin who said that he had come to Syria not to take possession of the country from Nur al-Din’s son al-Malik al-Salih, but to protect him and help him administer his kingdom because he was still an inexperienced youth. Here he began to show his true intentions.13 Saladin had no desire to protect the kingdom of his master; he possessed it. He was a self-seeking politician with a clear-cut agenda, a chieftain with no political scruples, no better than the Frankish princes whose goal was to ascend to power. In brief, through a calculated military and political strategy, the alleged protector of the Zangids and their kingdom became the holder of that kingdom. Nothing can express Saladin’s political ambition more lucidly than his own words at the citadel of Aleppo. They confirm our judgment that Saladin’s motives were not totally altruistic, as some contemporary Muslim writers would have us believe. He strove to carve out a kingdom for himself, the very one ruled by his master and benefactor, Nur al-Din Zangi. As he himself said, the lowliest of men had now become the lord of Syria. No one has put Saladin’s ultimate ambition in perspective more clearly than the Syriac writer, the Anonymous Edessan. He says that Saladin felt at ease after taking Aleppo, the capital of Syria. He made his son al-Malik alZahir Ghazi its ruler, established another son, al-Malik al-Aziz Uthman, in Egypt, and put his firstborn son al-Malik al-Afdal in power in Damascus. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45, 47; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 316 of the English translation. 12 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45. 13 H.A.R. Gibb, “The Achievements of Saladin,” Bulletin of the John Rynalds Library 35, No. 1 (1952): 44–60, rpt. in Gibb, Saladin: Studies in Islamic History, Y. Ibish, ed. (Beirut: The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974), 158–176, offers an entirely different explanation of Saladin’s motives, with which this author disagrees. 10

11

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

789

His nephew Nasir al-Din ruled Hims; another nephew, Taqi al-Din Umar, ruled over Hama and the neighboring region. Thus, Saladin’s sons and relatives ruled over numerous entities in Syria.14 Having consolidated their power, he and his relatives had become virtual heirs of the Zangids, their households, their possessions, and their territory.15 As the sole master of Egypt and Syria, the ambitious Saladin found himself in a favorable position to challenge the Franks. His capture of Aleppo opened the road to Jerusalem for him. It is no coincidence that some Muslim jurists in Aleppo were sure that just as the Rum (Byzantines) had been defeated at the Battle of Yarmuk in 634 A.D. (Quran 30: 2-3), Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) would be conquered by Saladin and become an Islamic city forever.16 Al-Qadi al-Fadil (1135–1200) sheds a different light on Saladin’s actions, saying that his intent in conquering these countries was to combat the kuffar (infidel Franks) and lead Islam to triumph. In the conquest of Aleppo, his goal was to see that “the hand of Allah is above all hands, and the Muslim border towns are protected.” The core of al-Qadi al-Fadil’s statement is, “War affairs require [Muslim] unity,” implying that a ruler like Imad al-Din II Zangi of Aleppo foils this unity.17 In other words, Saladin’s main purpose in conquering Syria and especially Aleppo was to unite the Muslim forces under his aegis. He had in mind only three objectives: jihad (Holy War) for the cause of Allah, just treatment of the servants of Allah, and submission to the caliph of Allah (the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad). AlQadi al-Fadil says Allah knows that Saladin did not fight merely for a comfortable life, reckless adventure, or the satisfaction of retribution.18 In a letter written on Saladin’s behalf to Hattan ibn Munqidh of Yaman, he states, “since nothing in the Muslim countries is not under our control, we will challenge the accursed Franks and purify the Holy Land from their abomination by spilling their own blood as they did to us.”19 He says Saladin was magnanimous in every respect, doing everything to serve Islam and the caliph as the viceregent of Allah. This exaltation of Saladin is understandable, since al-Qadi al-Fadil was his secretary of state. Like Saladin he was a true 14

The Anonymous Edessan, 197 of the Syriac text, 226 of the Arabic transla-

tion. Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 47. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 45–46. 17 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 48. 18 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 48. 19 Al-Qadi al-Fadil, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 49. 15 16

790

THE CRUSADES

Muslim, and therefore he saw Saladin alone as the right man to revive the Muslims’ fighting instinct and inspire them to get rid of their enemies, the Franks. One cannot and should not expect al-Qadi al-Fadil to approach Saladin and analyze his intention as critically as modern writers do. To him, Saladin was the warrior par excellence for the cause of Allah and the servant of the caliph. After taking possession of Aleppo, Saladin had to deal with the recalcitrant Sarkhuk, a eunuch whom Nur al-Din’s son al-Malik al-Salih had appointed as governor of the fortress of Harim. He refused to surrender the fortress, even though Saladin sent an envoy to inform Sarkhuk that he was willing to give him the province of Bosra and a village near Damascus. Saladin also promised to give him the house in the al-Aqiqi district of Damascus in which his own father Najm al-Din Ayyub had lived, together with the Bath of al-Aqiqi in Damascus, and 30,000 dinars for himself and 10,000 dinars for his brother. Yet Sarkhuk not only made unreasonable demands, but also sought the assistance of the Franks. When some of his men learned that he had invited the Franks to save him from Saladin, they feared he might deliver the fortress of Harim to them. They shut him up in it, reviled and even pelted him for contacting the Franks, and as a final act of protest they raised Saladin’s standard atop the fortress and sent him a message asking him to guarantee their safety and rewards. Saladin sent his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar to receive the fortress, but the guards demanded that he come in person to take possession of it. Saladin marched with a contingent of troops and occupied the fortress. He offered gifts to the men who had assisted him and asked them to leave the fortress, but did not inflict harm on Sarkhuk because one of the nobles present, Badr al-Din Hasan ibn al-Daya, told him not to listen to the guards because they had done harm to the governor (Sarkukh) and lied about him. On hearing this, Saladin laughed and rewarded the guards.20 Saladin also gave the fortress of Tall Khalid to Badr al-Din Dulderim al-Yaruki, former governor of Tall Bashir, and gave the fortress of Azaz to Alam al-Din Sulayman ibn Jandar.21 The fall of Aleppo was a great blow to the Franks, who feared that Saladin, stronger and more formidable than ever, was now in a supreme position to attack their strongholds in Syria and Palestine. They sought to Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 46; Athir, al-Kamil, 662; Shaddad, alNawadir, 73; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 316 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 146–147. 21 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 47; Athir, al-Kamil, 663. 20

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

791

strengthen the fortifications of their cities and towns, especially those on the borders of the enemy territory, and to repair Beirut’s glaringly weak defenses.22 Bohemond III, lord of Antioch, was particularly alarmed by Saladin’s growing power. When word that he had taken Aleppo reached Antioch, the city trembled with fear. Its governor hastened to please Saladin by releasing a group of Muslim prisoners and sending them to him while asking for amnesty.23 Anticipating an attack by Saladin, Bohemond, accompanied by Raymond III of Tripoli, went to discuss the situation with King Baldwin IV, who was staying at Akka (Acre). He asked for aid against Saladin, and the king provided some three hundred knights of the kingdom of Jerusalem, who followed him to Antioch, ready to fight under his command. But Bohemond was sure that Saladin, with whom he had already concluded a truce, would not attack first. To devote his time and energy to defending Antioch, he transferred Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, which he had taken from the Byzantines, to the hands of the powerful Armenian Reuben (Reupin), lord of Cilicia, for a large sum of money.24 Saladin returned to Damascus at the end of August 1183. After establishing his dominion over Aleppo, he made his son al-Malik al-Zahir Ghiyath al-Din Ghazi his deputy, but for some reason he later took this position from his son and gave it to his brother al-Malik al-Adil.25 Saladin’s movements caused a great deal of speculation among the Franks. Some thought he intended to raise a naval force and attack Beirut. Others thought he would attack the Frankish fortresses north of Tyre. Still others believed he would attack and destroy the lands beyond the Jordan. Still others said that Saladin, worn down by his prolonged campaigns in faraway lands, planned to return to Egypt to restrengthen his army and collect funds for his next campaign. Meanwhile the Franks, preparing for a possible attack concentrated their forces at the fountain of Saffuriyya, where they often assembled. The counts of Antioch and Tripoli also joined with their forces, and the Franks continued waiting daily for Saladin’s sudden attack.26 In the summer of 1183, Saladin was well positioned to challenge the Franks. He was in control of Damascus, Aleppo, and Egypt, with their enormous wealth. He was supported by the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad and feared by William of Tyre, History, 2: 490. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 47. 24 William of Tyre, History, 2: 491. 25 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 77; al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 48; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 316 of the English translation. 26 William of Tyre, History, 2: 491; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 47–48. 22 23

792

THE CRUSADES

Izz al-Din Zangi, lord of Mosul. Kilij Arslan II, the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, courted his favor, and the Byzantine emperor was at peace with him. Saladin feared no danger or foe except the Franks.27 While the Frankish forces were waiting anxiously at Saffuriyya, their princes had suffered a setback because the health of King Baldwin IV, a leper, had gone from bad to worse. He began to lose his sight and the use of his hands and feet. His advisors urged him to transfer his power to someone else, but he refused. He tried to hide his illness and carry on with the administration of the kingdom, but suddenly he was attacked by a fever and lost hope of recovering. He convened a council attended by his mother and the patriarch of Jerusalem and appointed his sister’s husband Guy of Lusignan, count of Jaffa and Ascalon, as regent of the kingdom. Baldwin kept Jerusalem and the dignity of the kingship for himself, while Guy became the chief administrator of the rest of the realm.28 This view seems to be contradicted by the anonymous author of the Continuation of William of Tyre, who says that Baldwin IV did not want any foreigner to acquire the kingdom of Jerusalem without his approval as the rightful heir. Baldwin felt that Guy of Lusignan was not fit to govern or maintain the kingdom, and he and his sister Sibyl had no right to it, for when her parents separated, the children (including Sibyl) were declared illegitimate. Baldwin ordered his advisors to give the regency of Jerusalem to Raymond III of Tripoli, saying he had a greater right to it than anyone else.29 The struggle over the right of 27 Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 435; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat alAnglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 781. 28 William of Tyre, History, 2: 492; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 74–75; Athir, al-Kamil, 674–675. 29 “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in Peter W. Edbury, ed., The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Aldershot, England: Scholar Press, 1996), 13–14, 150–152, cited as “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre.” Edbury made his translation from La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyre 1184– 1197, Margaret Ruth Morgan, ed. (Paris, 1982); M. R. Morgan, “The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Presented to Joshua Prawer, B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R.C. Smail, eds. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 244–257; Imad al-Din alIsfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar alQawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 67–68. For an analysis of Raymond III’s position see Marshall W. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140–1187 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936), 47–68.

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

793

succession created a great rift and ill will among the Franks’ leaders, weakening them so much that they later became cold prey to Saladin.30 On September 17, 1183, Saladin left Damascus, summoned his forces from the lands beyond the Euphrates, and crossed into the kingdom of Jerusalem, proceeding along the Jordan to Baysan, whose garrison fled to Tiberias. His men occupied Baysan, took whatever crops and other goods they could carry, and set fire to what they could not carry.31 He marched to Ayn Jalut (Goliath’s Spring) in the Franks’ territory, near Nazareth. According to William of Tyre, Saladin camped by a spring called Tubania, which rises at the foot of Mount Jelboa, near the city of Jezreel.32 At the end of September, he sent a detachment with Izz al-Din Jurdik and a group of mamluks to scout the Franks’ positions in the neighboring regions. The Muslims discovered Frankish reinforcement troops coming from Jordan, Karak, and Shawbak, and killed a great number of them as the rest fled to the mountain areas. This was good news for Saladin’s men, who began to anticipate a final triumph over the Franks.33 Early in October the Frankish army marched from Saffuriyya to camp at the village of al-Fula near Ayn Jalut.34 William of Tyre says the Christians had 1,300 cavalry and more than 15,000 well-equipped foot soldiers; Muslim sources estimate they had 1,500 knights, 1,500 Turcopoles, and fifteen to twenty thousand foot soldiers.35 The size of the Muslim force is not known, but it was probably greater than that of the Christians, since the numbers given by William of Tyre may be somewhat exaggerated.36 Intimidated by the huge Muslim army, the Franks did not dare attack. But neither did Saladin’s forces, and the two sides held fast to their positions during the first days of October 1183.37 Meanwhile, units of Saladin’s army spread far William of Tyre, History, 2: 493. On the issue of succession see J. Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 (London, 1973), 104–108. 31 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 74; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 50, follows ibn Shaddad; Athir, al-Kamil, 663. 32 William of Tyre, History, 2: 494. 33 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 74; Athir, al-Kamil, 663–664; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 148; William of Tyre, History, 2: 495. 34 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 75; Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. L. de Mas de Latrie (Paris, 1871), 98–99. 35 William of Tyre, History, 2: 497; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 50–51; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 148–151. 36 Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripoli, 52. 37 Athir, al-Kamil, 663; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 150–151. 30

794

THE CRUSADES

and wide throughout the district, causing serious damage and blocking the Christians who wanted to get to the Frankish camp to trade or deliver provisions. As a result, famine broke out among the Franks. Confident that they could settle the score with the Muslims in at most three days, the Franks had neglected to carry sufficient provisions. Those who suffered the most distress were the Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Longobards, who had been summoned on short notice. More disastrous was the dissension among the Frankish nobles and their disrespect for Guy of Lusignan, who had been entrusted with the administration of the kingdom. As William of Tyre notes, the impatient nobles disgracefully allowed Saladin to remain camped for eight days just a mile from the Frankish forces, “a thing which had never happened before in the Kingdom,” while his forces were ravaging the entire region with impunity.38 But why did the Frankish forces not take the initiative and attack Saladin, who was a stone’s throw from them? Laymen who were with the army often wondered why the Franks allowed such a golden opportunity to be lost. Apparently this matter was openly discussed, and the opinions offered were varied and contradictory. Some maintained that Saladin’s forces were entrenched in a position surrounded by rocks which made it difficult for the Frankish troops to approach them without great risk. Others said that Saladin had placed bands of troops in a circle, ready to rout the Frankish forces from every direction. Still others asserted that the Frankish leaders used this delay as a means to avoid battle, reasoning that if they won the battle against Saladin, the glory and credit for the triumph would go to Guy of Lusignan, whom they loathed. But, says William of Tyre, there was an unexpected turn of events. After eight or nine days, Saladin recalled his forces and withdrew to his own land. The Franks, not sure that he would not return, withdrew to their camp at the fountain of Saffuriyya.39 The Muslim sources say otherwise. According to Ibn Shaddad, Saladin deliberately withdrew his army to camp at the foot of Mount Tabor, waiting to see whether the Franks might make a move that would allow him to take them by surprise, but they denied him such an opportunity when they withdrew to alFula and then to their own territory. Having failed to engage the Franks in battle, Saladin laid waste the Frankish fortresses of Baysan, Kafarbala, and William of Tyre, History, 2: 496–497. William of Tyre, History, 2: 497–498; Baldwin, Raymond III, 52–53; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 232–235. 38 39

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

795

Zar’in, killing many Franks and capturing others, then returned to Damascus in mid-October 1183.40 Saladin’s withdrawal to Damascus indicates that he was not in a position to inflict the coup de grace upon the Franks, as he might have expected. The greatest immediate danger he faced came not from the massed forces of the kingdom of Jerusalem but from Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Karak and al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal). Reginald (Arnat in the Arabic sources, Arnagd in the Syriac sources), was a compulsive, ambitious, extremely daring man whom the Muslims considered their worst enemy and “the most villainous and perfidious of all the Franks.”41 His ambition became first apparent when he challenged the Byzantines by attacking Cyprus, then under their control, perhaps to execute his grand-scale fantastic plan to occupy the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Madina, with the intention of dealing a humiliating blow to the Muslims. He began by occupying the sea port of Ayla on the Gulf of Aqaba. But to gain a stronger strategic position, Reginald had to occupy the Qal’at Fir’awn (Pharaoh’s Fortress, opposite Ayla on the Gulf of Aqaba). To do this, he began building parts of ships and had them carried on camels’ backs to Ayla, where they were assembled.42 The Franks were divided into two forces. One besieged Ayla and cut off the supply of drinking water, causing great distress to its inhabitants, while the other marched to Aydhab (opposite Jidda on the African side) and the coast of Hijaz, where they took the Muslims by surprise.43 Their plan was to prevent the Muslim pilgrims from reaching the holy shrines in Hijaz by sea, and stop ships from reaching the port of Yanbu.44 They created havoc along the coast and stole merchandise from Muslim ships bound for Jidda from Yaman, Aden and India. The Muslims of this area were quite surprised to see Frankish ships, for they had never seen a Frankish merchant or warrior in their country before.45 The Franks reached Yanbu, the 40 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 75–76; Athir, al-Kamil, 663–664; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 50. 41 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75; Athir, al-Kamil, 675. 42 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 35; Athir, al-Kamil, 658; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 127. 43 Ibn Jubayr, Rihlat Ibn Jubayr (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1864), 48–49; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 128, n. 1. 44 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 37; Athir, al-Kamil, 658–659; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 130. 45 Athir, al-Kamil, 658; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 130.

796

THE CRUSADES

port of Madina, putting that Muslim holy city within a day’s journey, and attacked Muslim caravans with the help of some Bedouins who guided them to the interior of the country. Their campaign brought such incredible suffering that the Muslims thought it was a sign of the end of the world. 46 Reginald was wholly unrealistic in embarking upon such a gigantic expedition. He evidently was oblivious to the major changes in the region, especially the rise of Saladin after the death of Nur al-Din Zangi in 1174. Reginald had been captured in 1160 by Majd al-Din Ibn al-Daya, governor of Aleppo and a loyal friend of Nur al-Din Zangi, and remained imprisoned in Aleppo until he was released in 1176.47 In those years the Muslims’ strength had grown, while the Franks were weakened by discord within their ranks. Although the world had changed, Reginald had not; he still thought that he could harass the Muslim as easily as he did in 1160.48 With their holy cities and the city in which their prophet was buried now threatened, the outraged Muslims rose to deter the Frankish danger. At the beginning of 1183 al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din Abu Bakr, Saladin’s brother and his deputy in Egypt, equipped a fleet in the Red Sea under the command of the Chamberlain Husam al-Din Lulu, admiral of the Egyptian fleet. Husam al-Din began his campaign by occupying Ayla and setting Frankish ships on fire. He killed many Franks and took others captive, set free the Muslim merchants, and gave them back what the Franks had stolen from them. After chasing the rest of the Frankish ships to Aydhab and Hawra on the Hijaz coast, he and his men disembarked and found Beduin Arabs in the area. They took the Bedouins’ horses to pursue the Franks, surrounded them in a mountain gorge that had no water, and captured them. Husam al-Din sent two Frankish captives to Mina in Mecca, where they were slaughtered like sheep, to warn others of the punishment for those who dared violate the sanctity of the holy places of Islam.49 Al-Malik al-Adil returned to Egypt with 170 Frankish captives, who were paraded through the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and other cities and then beheaded on Saladin’s orders.50 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 37; Athir, al-Kamil, 659; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 129. 47 William of Tyre, History, 2: 284 and 414, n. 21. 48 Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 2: 784–785. 49 Athir, al-Kamil, 659; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 37; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 128; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1935), 2: 734. 50 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 37; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 129; Athir, al-Kamil, 46

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

797

The Muslim traveler Ibn Jubayr, who was then in Alexandria, vividly describes the parading of the prisoners before a great crowd that had come out to watch the “Rum” captives.51 The captives were riding camels, mounted backwards, surrounded by people blowing trumpets and beating drums. When he asked why these captives were being punished, he was told that they had planned to attack Mecca and Madina and exhume the body of the Prophet Muhammad from his holy grave. Ibn Jubayr ends his narrative by saying that Allah did a great thing, saving Islam and the Muslims.52 Although Reginald’s daring expedition against the holy cities of Islam had failed, Saladin still feared this formidable enemy. Thus, upon returning to Damascus after occupying Baysan, he prepared in September 1183 to attack him at Karak, an important strategic location between Syria and Egypt which posed a threat to his domains.53 Saladin wrote to his brother al-Malik al-Adil, ordering him to assemble an army and march toward Karak, and agreeing in exchange to let him take possession of Aleppo.54 Meanwhile, a number of Frankish leaders and dignitaries had already gathered at Karak to celebrate the wedding of King Baldwin’s half-sister Princess Isabel to Reginald’s stepson Humphrey IV, lord of Toron, who later became master of the Knights Templar.55 The wedding ceremony was hardly over when Saladin appeared on the scene. Because Karak was controlled by Reginald, his bitter enemy, Saladin could not have chosen a more fitting occasion to attack than at the celebration of his stepson’s wedding.56 On December 4, 1183, the Frankish army

659, says the captives were beheaded but does not mentioning that their slaughter was ordered by Saladin. 51 Ibn Jubayr, Rihlat ibn Jubayr, 34, unaware that the captives were Franks, apparently mistook them for the Christians most familiar to him, the Rum (Byzantines). 52 Ibn Jubayr, Rihlat, 35; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 789. 53 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 76–77; Athir, al-Kamil, 665; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 151; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 317 of the English translation. 54 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 51; Ibn Abi Tayy, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 52, details Saladin’s relations with al-Malik al-Adil and says Saladin agreed after some hesitation to his request for Aleppo; Athir, al-Kamil, 664. 55 William of Tyre, History, 2: 499; “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” 27, n. 44; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 424–425, 440–441. 56 William of Tyre, History, 2: 499; Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard Le Trésorier, 103.

798

THE CRUSADES

arrived at Karak.57 Backed by reinforcement troops from Egypt, Saladin besieged and attacked the fortress with a hail of stones catapulted by seven ballistic engines. But, thinking the Franks would not resist, he had failed to bring with him enough engines of war. Karak was effectively fortified and proved impregnable. When he realized that capturing it would take much longer than he had thought, Saladin raised the siege and returned to Damascus. On the way he spent two days in Nabulus without doing any damage, and then moved through Zaryan, Tubania, and Forbalat across the Jordan, while the Frankish army and King Baldwin IV returned to Jerusalem.58 William of Tyre states that Saladin laid siege to the city of Petra beyond the Jordan and took it by force. After describing at length the miserable condition of the inhabitants of the town and its citadel and Saladin’s violent onslaught against it, he says that Saladin raised the siege.59 Moreover, William shows no respect for Reginald of Châtillon, who valiantly defended Petra. He faults him for his proposal to defend the perimeter of the citadel of Petra and the adjacent village, thus preventing the people who wished to preserve their property or seek safety in the citadel from leaving their homes or moving their dearest possessions. William’s opinion may reflect his partisan bias, since he probably received his information from Frankish nobles opposed to Reginald. He seems to ignore the fact that Reginald had led the Frankish army that defeated Saladin at Tall al-Safiya in 1177.60 Saladin made another attempt against Karak because Reginald was threatening the Muslim caravans traveling between Syria, Egypt and Hijaz. The Arabic sources say Saladin left Damascus to attack Karak in the summer of 1184, between July 12 and August 9.61 He received reinforcement Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 77. Athir, al-Kamil, 664; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 151; William of Tyre, History, 2: 504; Chronique d’Ernoul, 105–106; R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100– 1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 409. 59 William of Tyre, History, 2: 498, 504. 60 William of Tyre, History, 2: 499–500, n. 54; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 758, n. 3. On Saladin’s earlier defeat at Tall al-Safiya (al-Ramla), see Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 63–64; Athir, al-Kamil, 628–629; Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 273; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 58–59; Chronique d’ Ernoul, 43; William of Tyre, History, 2: 430–431, merely lists Reginald among the Frankish commanders. 61 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 54–55; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 61; Athir, al-Kamil, 666, Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 157–158. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir 57 58

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

799

troops from his brother al-Malik al-Adil and his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar, whom he had had switch positions (the former became governor of Aleppo, the latter Saladin’s deputy in Egypt), and from Nur al-Din, the Artukid lord of Hisn Kifa and Amid (Diyarbakr).62 Saladin camped at a site called Ra’s al-Ma’ (The Fountain of Water), while the Franks set up camp at al-Walih, from which they marched to Karak.63 Saladin set up nine engines of war opposite the open field and the fortress, both situated atop high ground but separated by a trench sixty feet deep. As the fight intensified, the Muslims controlled the field, but the deep trench prevented them from crossing over to the fortress. Saladin ordered his men to fill the trench with dirt and stones to facilitate crossing, but they could not because the Franks kept striking them with arrows and stones. Then he ordered a gangway built of wood and clay bricks so that his men could pass under it and cross the trench, avoiding the Franks’ assault, but this effort also failed.64 The Franks were well prepared for Saladin. They had asked for reinforcements, which came from all over the realm. Their forces were determined to repulse Saladin, thanks to the efforts of Reginald of Châtillon, who had greatly strengthened the fortress. When Saladin realized that he could not take it by storm, he gave up the attack. Taking advantage of Saladin's departure from Karak, Bohemond III, lord of Antioch, with two hundred horsemen went to ravage the fortress of Harim. They killed many Arab horsemen and captured four hundred Arab foot soldiers who had tried to ambush the Franks in the fastness of the mountains and killed them all.65 Michael Rabo’s account of these events, however, is at best strange and confusing. He asserts that Saladin left Egypt in the summer, while other (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 729; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 393, gives the date of the expedition against Karak as Nisan (April) 1184. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 316 of the English translation, says the expedition took place in 1184 but does not specify the month. 62 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 54–55; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 157. On the shift in position of al-Malik al-Adil and Taqi al-Din, see Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 51– 52; Athir, al-Kamil, 672–674; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 77. 63 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 55; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 81. 64 Athir, al-Kamil, 666; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 55–56; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 157–158; Röhricht, Geschichte, 411. 65 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 56; Athir, al-Kamil, 667; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 158; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 317 of the English translation, seems to agree with the Muslim sources.

800

THE CRUSADES

sources say he left Damascus in the spring. Stranger still, while the Muslim sources all say that Saladin sought the help of his brother, his nephew, and Nur al-Din, Michael Rabo says they and the other amirs of Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia) opposed Saladin and fought against him with war-engines and other weapons. The Franks, he says, joined forces with them, and the Turks (i.e., Saladin’s forces) fled and attacked Samaria and its environs and killed many people because the Franks remained in Karak to protect it. When the Franks learned that the Turks had invaded Samaria, they marched against them; the Turks fled and the Franks released the captives.66 Having failed for the second time to capture Karak, Saladin ordered his troops to march along the seashore, where there was no Frankish force. En route to Nabulus they stole everything they could lay their hands on. When they reached Nabulus they looted the city, set it on fire, and left it desolate. They killed a great number of its inhabitants and took the rest as prisoners. Saladin’s troops marched next on Sebastea, two days’ journey from Jerusalem, where the Franks had turned the shrine of the prophet Zakariyya (Zechariah) into a church and placed precious religious objects in it. The bishop, priests and monks stationed there ransomed the church and themselves by releasing Muslim captives. Next Saladin and his men marched on Jenin and demolished its tower, looted it, and took many of its inhabitants captives. On September 15, 1185, Saladin returned to Damascus after destroying and looting everything in his way .67 Back in Damascus, Saladin found that messengers of the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir li Din Allah, Shaykh al-Shuyukh Sadr al-Din Abd al-Rahim ibn Isma'il and Shihab al-Din Bashir al-Khadim had arrived in the city while he was besieging Karak. They presented Saladin with a robe of honor sent by the caliph in appreciation of his feats. But these messengers also had a much more important mission, to mediate rapprochement between Saladin and Izz al-Din Mas’ud, lord of Mosul.68 In 1182, when Saladin failed to capture Mosul, he had demanded that Izz al-Din compensate him for the cost of his campaign or else surrender the city of Aleppo to him. He had also sent emissaries to Sinjar Shah, lord of al-Jazira, Zayn al-Din Yusuf (Ibn Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 729 of the Syriac text, 393–394 of the French translation. 67 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 56; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 81–82; Athir, al-Kamil, 667; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 158–162, quotes a panegyric by the Egyptian alQadi al-Sa’id ibn Sana al-Mulk (d. 1211), congratulating Saladin on his retreat from Karak. 68 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 56–57, 60; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 162–163. 66

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

801

Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk), lord of Arbil, and the lords of Takrit, who were vassals of Izz al-Din, urging them to renounce his authority and place themselves and their domains under Saladin. He had stipulated that of all the lords of the region, only these should have the choice to join him or stay with the lord of Mosul, and they accepted his terms.69 When Izz al-Din learned that these lords had decided to place themselves under Saladin’s authority, he appealed to the caliph, who sent the two messengers to mediate between himself and Saladin, but they failed.70 Having arrived in Damascus empty-handed, the two messengers asked Saladin to let them return to Baghdad before winter set in. He agreed, and they returned to Baghdad accompanied by Husam al-Din Tuman, the military commander of Sinjar Shah, lord of al-Jazira. Shortly afterwards, both men died.71 The messengers’ effort to negotiate a rapprochement between Saladin and Izz al-Din did not dissuade Zayn al-Din Yusuf, lord of Arbil, from placing himself, his city, and its environs under Saladin’s authority. When he asked Saladin to provide him with a letter of investiture as his vassal, Saladin wrote a rescript confirming him as lord of Arbil, its citadel, and all the region of Shahrzur between the two Zab rivers, and several other places in that area.72 Saladin’s rescript to Zayn al-Din is important because it shows his boundless Muslim zeal for jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah as a fulfillment of religious duty. Jihad had become one of the pillars of Islam, and it was incumbent on every believing Muslim to fight against the infidels if he wished to win paradise. Saladin writes: Since Allah has established for himself a firm place on this earth, we perceived to give priority to the religious duty of jihad in the cause of Allah. It is also our duty to call on all the believers in the domains of Islam to assail its enemies, and bring down Allah’s victory from heaven. He who helps us in performing this duty will be worthy of reward, but he who turns away from supporting the truth of his religion and prefers the vanity of this world, has two choices: either he will repent and be re-

Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 53; Athir, al-Kamil, 677; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 155–157; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 79; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 53, follows Ibn Shaddad. 70 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 54, 56; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 78; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 163. 71 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 56–57; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 162. 72 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 60; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 163–164. 69

802

THE CRUSADES stored, or he persists in his error, and will be deposed and removed from his position.73

Because Zayn al-Din Yusuf, lord of Arbil, had yielded to Saladin and joined him in his jihad against the enemies of Allah, he earned Saladin’s support. But his adherence to Saladin was due less to his desire to free himself from his vassalage to Izz al-Din Mas’ud of Mosul or to serve the cause of Islam than to his fear of losing his lordship of Arbil. He sent messengers to inform Saladin that a joint force under Izz al-Din of Mosul, Kizil Arslan, lord of Azerbayjan, and Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz was on the march against Arbil. They had devastated, looted, and set fires in his district, but he had managed to repel them. On receiving this disturbing news at his camp outside Hama, Saladin went to Aleppo, where he met with al-Malik al-Adil and made preparations to attack Mosul for the second time.74 He crossed the Euphrates river and ordered the people living in the nearby villages and fortresses and environs to built boats and ships for his expedition. He commanded Sayf al-Din ibn Ali al-Mashtub to lead the vanguard of the army to Ras al-Ayn, while he marched to Harran. On April 15, 1185, he met Muzaffar al-Din ibn Zayn al-Din Ali Kukburi, lord of Harran and brother of Zayn al-Din Yusuf, at al-Bira, but when he reached Harran on May 25, he had Kukburi arrested.75 Earlier Saladin had dispatched a messenger to ask Kukburi for his allegiance. Knowing that his brother had already submitted to Saladin’s authority, Muzaffar al-Din replied that he would do the same, adding that if Saladin crossed the Euphrates and marched against the recalcitrant city of Mosul, he was ready to pay 50,000 dinars to finance Saladin’s campaign and to provide him with the necessary supplies. Upon reaching Harran, having heard nothing more from him, Saladin began to suspect his motives and concluded that he had changed his mind and joined the men of Mosul. Saladin arrested him and stripped him of control over Harran and Edessa until he could ascertain his Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 60; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 163–164; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 317 of the English translation. 74 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 60; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 82; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 164; H.A.R. Gibb, “The Rise of Saladin, 1169–1189,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 579–580, rpt. in Gibb, Saladin, 125. 75 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 61; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 83; Wasil, Mufarrij, 1: 165, Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112–113 of the Syriac text, 317–318 of the English translation. 73

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

803

loyalty. Some of Saladin’s advisors urged him to get rid of Kukburi, while others thought that he should spare his life. Eventually, Saladin found out that Kukburi had been acting in good faith toward him. He released him and treated him with honor, and returned both Harran and Edessa to him.76 Saladin then left for Ras al-Ayn, where he received a report from a messenger of Kilij Arslan II, Seljuk Sultan of Rum, that all the Muslim princes of the East had banded together against him and decided to fight him if he continued with his plan to attack Mardin and Mosul. Taking this threat seriously, Saladin diverted his course temporarily to Dunaysar, south of Mardin (present-day Kuch Hisar), where Kara Arslan’s son Imad al-Din Abu Bakr, acting on behalf of his ailing brother Nur al-Din, lord of Mardin, came to meet him with the forces of Amid (Diyarbakr). From there, Saladin marched toward Nisibin, accompanied by Sinjar Shah, lord of al-Jazira, whom he treated with honor. He then marched toward Balad and sent Abu al-Fada’il al-Qasim Yahya ibn Abd Allah al-Shahrzuri to inform the caliph in Baghdad that he planned to besiege Mosul, to bring into submission some citizens who were plotting with Shams al-Din Pahlawan (Shams alDin Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ildoguz, or Yeldoguz), lord of Azerbayjan, whose authority they had already proclaimed.77 Moreover, the men of Mosul had been in contact with the Franks, encouraging them to attack the thughur (border towns) in order to create division among the Muslims. To further justify his plan to attack Mosul, Saladin told the caliph that he was not taking this action for personal greed, to obtain an additional domain; his paramount objective was to bring these renegades back to obedience to the caliph and to support Islam.78 Saladin then marched to Mosul and camped near the city at a place called al-Isma’iliyyat, where he waited for other troops to arrive before he could storm the city. Meanwhile, Nur al-Din, lord of Mardin, died; his brother Imad al-Din asked Saladin to invest him with the domain of his dead brother, and he did so.79

76 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 61; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 165; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 317 of the English translation, and Shaddad, alNawadir, 83, say Saladin took and restored only Edessa. 77 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 63; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 165–166. 78 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 60–62; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 83; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 162–164. 79 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 83–84; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 61; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 84; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 167; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 112 of the Syriac text, 317 of the English translation.

804

THE CRUSADES

Saladin began assigning troop detachments to the regions around Mosul. He sent the Kurdish commander Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Muhammad alMashtub al-Hakkari with chiefs of his tribe to the area of Hakkari, north of Mosul in the mountains of Kurdistan. He sent a group of Hamidiyya princes to occupy al-Aqr, a fortress in the mountains east of Mosul, known as Aqr al-Hamidiyya. He then had a bridge built over the Tigris; Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, lord of Harran, recently pardoned, crossed with other princes and camped south of Mosul. Because the weather was too hot and the troops lacked the energy to fight, Saladin ordered them not to fight until the weather was cooler. About this time, someone suggested that Saladin’s men block the Tigris, whose water had receded, and divert its course eastward to the vicinity of Nineveh. When the idea was presented to Fakhr alDin Abu Shuja al-Baghdadi, a respected engineer who had lived in Mosul for some time, he approved of it and said that diversion of the river was feasible. The main purpose was to make the men of Mosul thirsty and force them to surrender without a fight. But they kept crossing daily to the eastern bank of the Tigris to fight Saladin’s troops and return home, and there is no evidence that the idea of diverting the course of the Tigris was carried out.80 Saladin changed his plan on learning in July 1185 of the death of Shah Armen, lord of Khilat. Shah Armen had died without an heir; his mamluk, the eunuch Sayf al-Din Bektimur, took control of his master’s domain and soon gained the affection and support of the citizens. When Bektimur heard that Shams al-Din Pahlawan, lord of Azerbayjan, had set out to attack him, he sent a message asking Saladin to come to his aid and promising to deliver Khilat to him.81 Saladin also received letters from the people of Bedlis, near Khilat southeast of Lake Van, saying they had been threatened by the ruler of Azerbayjan and asking him to come and take charge of their city. Some of Saladin’s men advised him not to march to Bedlis before taking possession of Mosul. Others thought he should march against Azerbayjan and Armenia, since he would still be able to take over Mosul. Still others urged him to divide his army into two forces, one to attack Mosul and the other to march against Bedlis. Saladin chose the last option and secured Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 62–63; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 317–318 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 167. 81 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 63; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 84–85; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 318 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 168–169. 80

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

805

permission from the caliph in Baghdad to possess Mosul, Diyarbakr, and Armenia. But because he wanted to capture Khilat first, he left Mosul and ordered his army, commanded by his cousin Nasir al-Din and Muzaffar alDin of Harran, to march against Khilat. When the troops arrived there, they found Bektimur firmly entrenched in the city, and he did not come out to welcome Saladin as he had promised. They also found that Shams al-Din Pahlawan and his troops had pitched camp on the other side of Khilat. Saladin and Pahlawan sent messengers back and forth in an attempt to resolve the conflict, but without success. Saladin also sent the jurist Diya al-Din Isa and the amir Ghars alDin Kilij to Sayf al-Din Bektimur, to assist in delivering Khilat to him. They reached the city as Pahlawan was about to attack. Bektimur resorted to trickery to save his city from both Saladin and Pahlawan. He told Pahlawan that if he attacked the city, he would deliver it to Saladin, whose presence in Khilat would give him no peace. The threat apparently worked, for Pahlawan tried to make peace with Bektimur. Meanwhile, Bektimur told Saladin’s delegate, the jurist Isa, that Pahlawan had come to take over Khilat, and the sooner Saladin came to his rescue, the better things would be, but the problem was not so difficult as it might appear. With his clever stratagem Bektimur saved Khilat. To assure his own security and that of his city, Bektimur married a daughter of Pahlawan, who then departed to his own country. Also, Bektimur apologized to Saladin’s representative and said that since Pahlawan was no longer a threat, he did not need his assistance. When Saladin saw that Bektimur and Pahlawan had reconciled, he turned back and marched against Miyafarqin, a tempting target because its lord Qutb al-Din (also the lord of Mardin) had died and was succeeded by his ten-year-old son.82 Saladin set up engines of war and began a ferocious attack against Miyafarqin (north-east of Diyarbakr), which was then ruled by the Khatun, daughter of Fakhr al-Din Kara Arslan, and by her administrator Asad al-Din Burtuqush, both of whom decided to fight back. When Saladin found that the war against Miyafarqin was taking too long, he resorted to a different strategy. He sent messages to Burtuqush seeking a peaceful surrender, and he in turn forwarded them to the Khatun. Saladin wrote to the Khatun, coaxing her, promising her anything she desired if she surrendered the city to him. He even told her that he would take one of her Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 84–85; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 63; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 168– 169; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 318 of the English translation. 82

806

THE CRUSADES

daughters as a wife for his son. Saladin continued his cajolery, and the Khatun finally yielded and asked for the fortress of Hattack, near Miyafarqin, for her children; in return, she agreed to surrender Miyafarqin to him peacefully. Keeping his promise, Saladin married his son Mu’izz al-Din Ishaq to one of her daughters.83 In 1185 Saladin marched for the third time against Mosul, leaving behind his mamluk Husam al-Din Sunkur to administer the territory he had conquered.84 Mosul was very important to him; a major city and thriving trade center, it strategically commanded the roads to Aleppo and other parts of Syria. Now that he had taken most of the Zangids’ territory in Syria, including Aleppo and Damascus, it was imperative for him to take possession of this last Zangid stronghold, to complete his dominion over all the East. He camped at Kafr Zammar, not far from Mosul, intending to spend the winter there. While he was there, a group of Zangid princesses including the mother of Izz al-Din, lord of Mosul, and the daughter of Nur al-Din Zangi, Saladin’s former master, came out to see him. They entreated him to leave Mosul, remembering the early days and the benefits the house of Zangi had bestowed upon him. They wept in his presence and laid hold of his apparel. He received them with honor and listened politely, but said he could not decide about Mosul until he had consulted with his advisors. When he summoned his advisors, most of them advised him to accept the request of the royal ladies and leave Mosul alone, but Diya al-Din Isa and Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad al-Mashtub told him, “A city like Mosul should not be left to the device of a woman . . . Izz al-Din, lord of Mosul, would not have sent these women unless he knew he was unable to protect the city.” Saladin accepted the advice of these two men, and said to the ladies, “I have accepted your intercession, but it is imperative to do what my interest demands.” He apologized and sent them away disappointed.85 When the ladies left Saladin in despair, the people of Mosul, both high and low, were outraged and rallied behind the house of Izz al-Din Zangi. They worked very hard to fortify the city walls and fought Saladin strenuously. They vili-

83 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 63–64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2:169–170; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 85; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 318 of the English translation. Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 276, lists Mu’iz al-Din Ishaq among the sons of Saladin. 84 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 65; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 170. 85 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 170–171.

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

807

fied him for his bad treatment of the Zangid women and declared that he had disgraced the benevolence of his masters.86 While he was camped at Kafr Zammar, the heat was unbearable, and Saladin fell ill in October 1185. He began to fear the consequence of his illness, and thought that he might die. Realizing that he could not attack Mosul in his current condition, he went to Harran despite his illness, enduring it with fortitude and refusing to be carried in a litter. He reached Harran later that year, extremely weak, and there were even rumors that he had already died.87 The Syriac sources present a different account. The Anonymous Edessan says while Saladin was besieging Mosul, he learned that his cousin Nasir al-Din, son of his uncle Asad al-Din Shirkuh, had rebelled with the intention of seizing power from him, and had been joined by many of his father’s leading aides and troops. For this reason Saladin returned to Harran, where he fell ill in October 1185, and stayed until he recovered in March 1186. It was even rumored that he had been given a lethal poison at the instigation of Nasir al-Din.88 Where did the Anonymous Edessan get his information about Nasir al-Din’s rebellion against Saladin and the theory that he was instrumental in having Saladin poisoned? The available Muslim sources that predate the Anonymous Edessan (whose history ends in the year 1234) are of little help, particularly Abu Shama, whose history is largely derived from earlier sources. Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says that when Saladin was at Harran, he received the news of the death of Ibn Asad al-Din (Nasir al-Din, lord of Homs), but he says nothing of Nasir al-Din’s rebellion against Saladin or efforts to poison him.89 Ibn Wasil, however, sheds some light on the mat86

tion.

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 318 of the English transla-

87 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 85; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64–65; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 171–172. 88 The Anonymous Edessan, 195 of the Syriac text, 224–225 of the Arabic translation. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 731 of the Syriac text, 397 of the French translation, seems to confuse the story of Saladin’s sickness at Harran with that of his earlier conflict with Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, lord of Mardin and Edessa. He says that while attacking Mardin, Saladin fell gravely ill for a long time. He spent the winter at Mardin with his troops at Mardin, amid rumors that he had died. On recovery he arrested Muzaffar al-Din and took both Edessa and Harran from him, but later returned them. 89 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 65. On Ibn Asad al-Din, see Shaddad, alNawadir, 86.

808

THE CRUSADES

ter, saying that Nasir al-Din, who was the lord not only of Homs but of alRahba, Tadmur, and Salamya, was in Saladin’s company while he was sick at Harran. When Nasir al-Din came to Aleppo, he summoned a group of young men, made them promises, and offered them money. After reaching Homs, he plotted with some citizens of Damascus to have the city handed over to him in the event that Saladin died. He waited in Hims for word of Saladin’s death in order to march and take possession of Damascus. But Saladin recovered, and the news reached Nasir al-Din, who ironically died after drinking too much wine on the evening of Id al-Adha (the Muslim Feast of Sacrifice), March 3, 1186, and was found the next morning.90 From this account one may infer that Nasir al-Din was indeed planning a rebellion against Saladin, as the Anonymous Edessan reports. But Ibn Wasil says nothing about the alleged poisoning of Saladin by Nasir alDin. Likewise, Ibn Shaddad says only that while Saladin was at Harran he learned of the death of Nasir al-Din and sat quietly. Strangely, a much later Egyptian writer, Ahmad al-Hanbali (d. 1471), reports that Nasir al-Din died suddenly, and Saladin was said to have had him poisoned.91 This account is completely opposed to the Anonymous Edessan’s, and we have no idea who poisoned whom. Given the contradiction, it is likely that each man tried to get rid of the other. No sooner did Nasir al-Din die than Saladin sent a messenger, Ibn Asrun, to extend condolences to his young son, alMalik al-Mujahid. When he arrived in Homs, Saladin confirmed Mujahid alDin as the ruler of the lands held by his father, and divided the inheritance between Nasir al-Din’s widow and her children.92

Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 174; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 86. Qadi al-Qudat Ahmad al-Kinani al-Asqalani al-Hanbali, Shifa al-Qulub fi Manaqib Bani Ayyub (Biography of Nasir al-Din), based on the account of Ibn Wasil, Arabic MS 24030, fol. 3, at the Library of Fu’ad al-Awwal University, Cairo, Egypt. Al-Hanbali’s book is more a genealogy of the Ayyubid House, the house of Saladin’s family, than a chronicle. (For this information, see Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed., Introduction to Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, 6–7.) AlIsfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 67, says that Nasir al-Din died suddenly in Hims without being sick. 92 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 174–175, and Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 68–69, give the messenger’s full name as Najm al-Din Abu al-Barakat Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Shaykh Sharaf al-Din ibn Abi Asrun, and the son’s full name as al-Malik al-Mujahid Asad al-Din Abu al-Harith Shirkuh. Abu Shama says the son was thirteen; Ibn Wasil says he was twelve-years old. 90 91

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

809

The Anonymous Edessan, however, says that when Saladin heard of the death of Nasir al-Din, who was both his cousin and his brother-in-law (husband of his sister), he went to Homs and seized all of Nasir al-Din’s treasures and a large number of his horses and camels. The treasure was so enormous that Saladin’s men weighed on a platform scale enough pieces of silver to fill one of the towers of Homs.93 This seems consistent with Ibn Wasil, who says that Nasir al-Din left an enormous treasure, and that Saladin took from it what was precious and left the rest.94 Reportedly he asked al-Malik al-Mujahid, "Where did you reach in memorizing the Quran?” The young boy replied, “To the place where Allah says, ‘Those who devour the wealth of orphans wrongly, they do but swallow fire into their bellies, and they will be exposed to burning flame.’” (Sura 4:10). Saladin marveled at the boy’s extreme intelligence despite his tender age.95 Acording to Bar Hebraeus, Saladin then said, “If he said this with knowledge, it is right to fear this young man.”96 When Saladin fell ill while besieging Mosul, his brother al-Malik al-Adil arrived from Aleppo, bringing physicians to treat him. He took charge of running the daily activity of Saladin’s camp and other government affairs.97 Saladin’s immediate objective was still to capture Mosul. Now, being very weak, he began to regret his ill treatment of the Zangid women and his rejection of their entreaty to leave the city alone. Since he was in no condition to fight against Mosul, he thought it more useful to try peaceful methods. He suggested that Imad al-Din Zangi II, the lord of Aleppo and brother of Izz al-Din of Mosul, should be the arbiter between himself and Izz al-Din. Imad al-Din agreed and chose his vizir, Shams al-Din ibn Abd al-Kafi, as his spokesman, while Saladin chose as a delegate the army judge Shams alDin ibn al-Farrash. The two delegates went to Mosul to discuss a settlement with Saladin. They acknowledged his control over the country of Shahrzur 93 The Anonymous Edessan, 196 of the Syriac text, 226 of the Arabic translation. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 319 of the English translation, says simply that Saladin went to Hims and took everything Nasir al-Din had. 94 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 175–176. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 69, says that Nasir al-Din’s movable and immovable possessions were worth more than a million dinars. 95 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 176. 96 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 319 of the English translation. 97 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 85; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64–65; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 171–172.

810

THE CRUSADES

with its fortresses and villages, and all the country of the East situated beyond the two Zab rivers. The citizens of Mosul also agreed to proclaim Saladin as sovereign in Mosul and its districts.98 This arrangement was not acceptable to Izz al-Din, who felt that his brother had betrayed him. He insisted that Saladin must leave him and the city of Mosul alone. Izz al-Din sent the chronicler Ibn Shaddad and Baha al-Din al-Rabib to Baghdad to ask the caliph for help, but to no avail.99 He sent another messenger to the lord of Azerbayjan for the same purpose, but did not receive a positive response. When Ibn Shaddad returned from Baghdad emptyhanded, Izz al-Din lost all hope of gaining support against Saladin. But the men of Mosul, still hoping to avoid a fight and knowing of Saladin’s illness, chose Ibn Shaddad and Baha al-Din al-Rabib to negotiate peace terms. The two men arrived in Harran in 1185, when the people closest to Saladin had lost hope of his recovery. Miraculously, for the first time since falling ill he was able to sit up in bed and received them with great honor. Their effort was successful and on May 3, 1186, peace was reached between Saladin and Izz al-Din Mas’ud of Mosul. Saladin agreed to take Sinjar from Sinjar Shah and give it to the people of Mosul. Izz al-Din agreed to have the name of Saladin proclaimed in Mosul, and to let the coinage be struck in his name.100 To reward Izz al-Din for making peace, Saladin gave him, his wife, his mother, and the daughter of Nur al-Din Zangi great gifts worth more than 10,000 dinars, not to mention a number of horses and other effects. Won over to his side, the men of Mosul joined Saladin in his jihad against the Franks to challenge the Muslims in Palestine.101 On April 6, 1186, Saladin returned to Aleppo, and he entered Damascus on May 23, a memorable day marked by the joy of the populace for his recovery, and marred only by several conflicts between the Kurds and the Turkomans, in which a great number on both sides lost their lives.102 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 171–172; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 319 of the English translation. 99 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 85–86; Ibn Shaddad and al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 171–172. 100 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 86–87, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 64; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 172; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 113 of the Syriac text, 319 of the English translation; Sulayman Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil (Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Salafiyya, 1923), 1: 193. 101 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 66; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 173. 102 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 87. 98

SALADIN UNITES THE MUSLIMS

811

During his illness, Saladin had pledged that if Allah spared his life, he would do everything in his power to conquer Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) He vowed that he would spend the rest of his life fighting the enemies of Allah, i.e., the Christian Franks, waging jihad for his cause, and supporting the Muslims. He was determined to honor the truces he had concluded with other Muslim princes and the Franks. Furthermore, he ordered that alms be distributed to the poor, and that a house and bath called Bayt al-Afiya (The House of Convalescence) be built to commemorate his recovery. He summoned from Damascus his two young sons Turanshah and Malikshah and their mothers, who stayed for some time in Dar al-Afiya, which he then made a resting-place for guests.103 Saladin believed that his illness was only a freakish incident from which God saved him and saved the Muslims as well. Now that he had regained his energy, he could continue to fight the enemies of Islam. His secretary al-Qadi al-Fadil wrote in high spirits to Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din Umar in Egypt, “Our Sultan al-Malik al-Nasir (Saladin) acheived his recovery with a new energy and vigor which will arouse him to jihad. We have passed through that period from the fear of which the camel was about to go through the eye of a needle.”104 In another letter al-Qadi al-Fadil wrote, “The swords of jihad are rattling in their scabbards, the horses of Allah are calling the men to mount them and be ready to march. The Aqsa Mosque expresses its patience for having been so long empty of the Quran and is waiting to be purified from the abomination of the Crosses which had controlled it.”105 In other words, Saladin was now ready to march against Jerusalem and save the Aqsa Mosque, the third most revered place in Islam after Mecca and Madina, the place to which, according to the Quran, Muhammad the Prophet of Islam made his Night Journey, riding a white beast called alBuraq (Lightning). Saladin’s mission was to occupy Jerusalem and retrieve the sanctuary of Islam, the Aqsa Mosque, and purify it after it had been defiled by the Christian Franks, who converted it to a church and placed a big cross at the top of its dome.

Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 65. Al-Qadi al-Fadil, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 66. It is ironic that al-Qadi al-Fadil, a devout Muslim, echoes the words of Jesus Christ, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (St. Mark, 10: 25; St. Matthew, 19: 23) 105 Al-Qadi al-Fadil, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 66. 103 104

23 MUSLIM VICTORY: THE BATTLE OF HITTIN Saladin spent the rest of 1186 in Damascus, hunting small game with trained falcons and sparrow hawks while he waited for the right opportunity to fight the Franks.1 They were no threat to him, for they were tremendously weakened by bitter internal dissension. Since 1184, both Saladin and the Franks had sought at least a temporary truce. Through Raymond III’s overtures to Saladin, a four-year peace treaty between them was concluded on April 1, 1185.2 But the continued dissension among the Franks made a confrontation with Saladin inevitable. The main cause of the conflict was the ascension of Guy of Lusignan to the throne of Jerusalem. King Baldwin IV (the Leper) died on March 16, 1185 and was succeeded by Baldwin V, then only nine years old. But the death of Baldwin V in 1186 caused a controversy over succession to the throne.3 Raymond III of Tripoli, who had been his guardian, wanted to ascend to the throne, and when instead Guy of Lusignan became king, Raymond promptly allied himself with Saladin.4 Ambroise (d. 1196), an AngloImad al-Din al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar alDawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 73. 2 “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), 17; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 236; Marshall W. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140-1187 (New York: AMS, 1978), 69–70, 86–87. 3 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (London:. Kraus, 1964), 244–245. 4 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 16–17, 154–155; Ambroise, L’Estoire de la Guerre Sainte par Ambroise, Gaston Paris, ed. (Paris, 1897), trans. Merton Jerome Hubert as The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart with Notes and Documentation by John L. LaMonte (New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 120–121, also trans. Edward Noble Stone as The History of the Holy War, in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939), 41–42. Helen J.Nicholson, ed., Chronicle 1

813

814

THE CRUSADES

Norman minstrel and eyewitness historian of the Third Crusade, accuses Raymond of treachery.5 William of Newburg reiterates this accusation and goes further, stating that Raymond poisoned the boy king.6 Not only was Raymond III of Tripoli now on Saladin’s side, but Bohemond III, lord of Antioch, likewise renewed the truce between himself and Saladin. Saladin was now in a propitious position to fight and punish the Franks of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, who had been raiding Muslim territories while he was absent in Mesopotamia, and especially to punish Reginald of Châtillon for his interception of Muslim caravans.7 The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was now torn apart. The peace treaty concluded in 1185 was of little worth, and no one thought it would have to expire in order for hostilities to begin.8 The dormant fire needed a spark to be rekindled, and Reginald of Châtillon offered it. In late 1186 or early 1187, he attacked and seized a Muslim caravan traveling from Cairo to Daof the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 31; Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, trans. Henry T. Riley as The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 2: 62; R.C. Smail, “The Predicament of Guy of Lusignan,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Presented to Joshua Prawer, B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail, eds. (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 160–161. 5 Hubert, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 122–123, nn. 8–9, and Stone, Three Old French Chronicles, 42–43; Nicholson, Chronicle, 31; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 74–75; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Recueil des historiens des Croisades 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 674–675; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 184–185; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 734; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 404; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 114 of the Syriac text, 322–324 of the English translation; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 236; Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis, 69–95, Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 450–451. 6 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 255, 258. 7 Sir Hamilton A. R. Gibb, “The Rise of Saladin, 1169–1189,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 579; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1935), 2: 778. 8 Stevenson, The Crusaders, 240; James A Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 150–151.

MUSLIM VICTORY

815

mascus, carrying expensive merchandise, and at the same time captured a sister of Saladin, traveling with her son in another caravan.9 Saladin became extremely angry and sent a messenger to the new King Guy of Lusignan, demanding the return of the caravan and his sister. He made it clear that he had no desire to break the 1185 truce. King Guy ordered Reginald of Châtillon to release the caravan and Saladin’s sister, but he refused to do so.10 Clearly Reginald had chosen the worst circumstances in which to arouse Saladin, who swore not only to fight him but to spill his blood if he captured him.11 From Damascus Saladin sent orders to the Muslim amirs of Mosul, alJazira, Diyarbakr, Arbil, and Egypt and the rest of Syria to marshal their troops and join him in the jihad (Holy War) against the Franks.12 When the preparations were complete in mid-March 1187, Saladin left Damascus moving southwards at the head of a great army. His troops reached Ras alMa’, northwest of Hawran, where he left his son al-Afdal to receive the different forces—Arabs, Kurds, and Turks—and await his orders. He himself went to Busra (Bostra) because he had received a report that Reginald was planning to attack a caravan of Muslim pilgrims who had left Mecca and take them prisoner. Once he accomplished this purpose, he would then change course to intercept the army coming from Egypt and stop it from reaching Syria. In this caravan of pilgrims were one of Saladin’s sisters and her son, Husam al-Din Muhammad ibn Umar Lajin.13 When Reginald learned that Saladin was on his way to Karak to fight him, he ceased his hostile activity and allowed the Muslim pilgrims to go safely to their destinations in Syria. Saladin, however, was intent on fighting “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29. No Eastern source mentions Saladin’s sister as being in this caravan. See al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75; Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 675–676; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 322 of the English translation. 10 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; Nicholson, Chronicle, 29; Ambroise, in Hubert, ed., 123, and Stone, ed., 42; R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 422; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 777–778; Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis, 86–87. 11 E. J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London: Methuen, 1931), 118–119; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75; Athir, al-Kamil, 676; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 185. 12 Athir, al-Kamil, 677. 13 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75; Athir, al-Kamil, 677; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 186. 9

816

THE CRUSADES

Reginald and led his huge army against Karak. His men cut down trees, looted and destroyed the town, and set the neighboring villages on fire. Saladin then went to the fortress of Shawbak, where his men wrought more havoc. Reginald, who was beleaguered in Karak, was helpless against Saladin’s assault. The Franks were apparently unable to rush to Reginald’s aid because the troops of Saladin’s son, al-Afdal, were on their way to Tiberias, plundering and destroying.14 The dissension among the Franks at this time offered Saladin a golden opportunity to fight and overwhelm them. He and his men were now having their way with the Franks. Although Saladin had not yet won a decisive victory over the Franks, his continuous raids against their territory were ruinous. According to Muslim sources, the alliance of Raymond III with Saladin was the greatest single factor that enabled the Muslims to defeat the Franks and later capture Jerusalem from them.15 Bar Hebraeus observes that the Muslims would have been utterly broken and badly defeated, had it not been for the men of Aleppo who stood firm with Saladin.16 Evidently he means that Saladin needed to neutralize Bohemond III of Antioch in order to devote his energy to fighting the other Franks. Ibn Shaddad says Saladin wrote in June 1187 to urge his men in Aleppo to make peace with Bohemond.17 Moreover, Saladin’s interests were tremendously aided by the enmity between Guy of Lusignan and Raymond III of Tripoli, who also ruled Tiberias and Galilee.18 Before Guy was crowned king of Jerusalem, he had been opposed by Raymond, who apparently desired that title for himself. In the winter of 1186–1187, the king summoned a council in Jerusalem to see what could be done to bring Count Raymond of Tripoli into submission. The Master of the Temple, Gerard de Ridefort (1185–1189), advised him to send troops to besiege Tiberias. On hearing this news, Raymond became Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75–76; Athir, al-Kamil, 678; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 322 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 186; Joseph Stevenson, ed., De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, (London: Longman, 1875), 211–212. 15 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 74–75; Athir, al-Kamil, 675; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 185. 16 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 322 of the English translation. 17 Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 3: 92. 18 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 31. 14

MUSLIM VICTORY

817

displeased and sent word to Saladin that King Guy had already assembled troops to fight him. Saladin told Raymond that he was willing to rush to his aid. He sent him arms and men and told him that if King Guy’s troops attacked him in the morning, he and his forces would be with him in the evening. Seeing a great opportunity to challenge the Franks, Saladin did not wait but summoned his own forces and had them gather at Banyas, forty miles from Tiberias.19 It was Balian II (lord of Ibelin and Ramla, 1187–1193) who stopped King Guy from undertaking the siege of Tiberias. He asked the king why he was doing this, and on whose advice. He cautioned the king that this was a bad decision, for no wise man would have given him such counsel. He added that there was a great force of both Christian knights and Muslims inside Tiberias, and he had only a few men to oppose them. If he should attack Tiberias, Saladin would come to its aid with a great army to challenge him. Balian advised the king to break up his force, saying he and other Franks would go to Tiberias to negotiate a peace between him and Raymond of Tripoli. The king agreed and dispersed his forces. Balian and the others went to Tiberias and discussed peace with Raymond, but he refused to make peace with the king until he received the castle of Beirut, which had been taken from him. The messengers returned to King Guy to tell him what Raymond had said, but the relations between the two men remained strained.20 Around Easter 1187, King Guy learned that Saladin was assembling a great army to enter the kingdom. He assembled a council in Jerusalem of the Frankish forces, asking their advice about what should be done. The barons advised him to make peace with Raymond of Tripoli, since without a large force he could not commit his own men to the field against Saladin. The barons told Guy that he had already lost Baldwin of Ramla, the best and wisest knight in his land, and if he lost the aid of Raymond of Tripoli, he would lose everything. The king accepted their counsel and ordered Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple, Roger of Moulins, master of the Hospitallers, Joscius (Josias), archbishop of Tyre, Balian of Ibelin, and Reginald of Sidon to travel to Tripoli to make peace with Raymond.21 The “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 111. 20 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 30. 21 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 30; Chronique d’Ernoul et Bernard le 19

818

THE CRUSADES

envoys departed for Tripoli. Four of them spent the first night of their journey at Nabulus, but Reginald of Sidon went by another road. Balian of Ibelin stayed behind in Nabulus, saying he had something to do and would catch up with the others the next day. But while the envoys were on their way to Tripoli, Raymond, who had previously entered into an alliance with Saladin, appealed to him for help.22 The storm clouds were gathering, and a battle between Saladin and the Franks was inevitable. On Saladin’s orders, his son al-Malik al-Afdal Nur alDin dispatched several thousand men to attack Akka (Acre), commanded by Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, lord of Harran and Edessa, and other amirs, including Badr al-Din Dulderim al-Yaruki, commander of the Aleppo troops, and Sarim al-Din Qaymaz al-Najmi, commander of the Damascus troops.23 Al-Afdal knew that his father had a treaty with Raymond of Tripoli and had already given him much help. Because he also knew that there was bad blood between Raymond and King Guy, he asked Raymond to let him pass through the Galilee region (part of Raymond’s territory) to attack Acre. This request put Raymond in a very difficult position. If he allowed the Muslim troops to pass through his region, he would appear to the Franks as a traitor for helping their enemies. If he did not, Saladin would consider him an untrustworthy ally. To save himself from this dilemma, Raymond granted the Muslim troops safe passage, but at the same time issued instructions to the Frankish towns in Galilee, especially Nazareth and Tiberias, to shut their gates to prevent the Muslims from entering them.24 Raymond, who had learned earlier that the Frankish envoys were en route to Tripoli to meet with him, sent messengers carrying letters to warn the knights in Nazareth and elsewhere not to leave their towns or houses, lest the Muslims kill them. The masters of the Templars and the Hospitallers and the archbishop of Tyre were at the castle of La Fève (Al-Fula) when a messenger from Raymond came to inform them that the Muslim force was about to invade Galilee.25 On hearing this news, Gerard of RideTrésorier, ed. M. L. de Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871), 142–143. On the similarities between these works, see M. R. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuation of William of Tyre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). 22 Athir, al-Kamil, 675. 23 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 75; Athir, al-Kamil, 678–679; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 186–187; “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 31. 24 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 31; Baldwin, Raymond III, 89–90; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 782. 25 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 32; Chronique d’Ernoul, 143–144.

MUSLIM VICTORY

819

fort sent a message to the Templars’ convent at the town of Caco, asking his brethren to join him posthaste. The Templars of Caco immediately rode out, arriving in La Fève before night, then regrouped and assembled at Nazareth. There were 80 Knights Templar and ten Hospitallers who were escorting their master, and there were 40 knights in the royal garrison at Nazareth. Shortly after leaving Nazareth for Tiberias, they learned that the Muslim force was camping at the Springs of Cresson, not far from Saffuriyya.26 A dispute arose among Gerard of Ridefort, Roger of Moulins, and James of Mailly, marshal of the Templars, over whether to fight or retreat. The latter two called for retreat, but Gerard rebuked them for their cowardice.27 Finally, the leaders apparently resolved their conflict and led their men in a charge against the Muslims. The Continuation of William of Tyre says the Muslim forces consisted of 7,000 armed men, while the Christians had only 140 knights. On May 1, 1187, a fierce battle was fought at Cresson, and the Franks were badly defeated. Roger of Moulins, master of the Hospitallers, and about sixty Templars were slain; forty knights were taken captive. Only Gerard of Ridefort and a few knights were able to escape.28 After killing the Christian knights, they carried their heads on lances and led their prisoners to Tiberias. When the citizens of Tiberias saw the Muslims’ procession, they grieved greatly, almost to the point of suicide, for they recognized the heads of their friends and the faces of the captives. Al-Afdal’s forces went through the land, but out of respect for Raymond of Tripoli they did not 26 27

“The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 32; Chronique d’ Ernoul, 147. “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 32; Barber, The New Knighthood, 111–

112. 28 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 32; a letter from Brother Terricus, Grand Commander of the Templars, to Pope Urban III, written between July 10 and August 6, 1187, in Barber, The New Knighthood, 115–116; Chronique d’Ernoul, 147; De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae, 210–211; Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi De Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, trans. William Stubbs as The Historical Works of Master Ralph De Diceto, Dean of London, 2 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965): 50; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 25–26; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 256; Athir, alKamil, 678–679; Baldwin, Raymond III, 91; King, Knights, 120. Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 65, and Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 10, 21, report that sixty brethren of the Temple and the Grand Master of the Hospitallers, along with sixty brethren of his house, were slain.

820

THE CRUSADES

damage any castle, town, or house. They killed only those whom they met on the battlefield.29 Balian of Ibelin, who had tarried in Nabulus, left to join the envoys on their way to meet with Raymond of Tripoli. He stopped to attend Mass at Sebastea, about two miles from Nabulus, and then hastened to the castle of La Fève. He was astonished to find the tents of the Templars and Hospitallers pitched there, but no men present. Mystified, he sent his squire Ernoul (who later wrote down this tale) to learn what had happened. Ernoul went to the castle but found only a sick man, lying in a room, who knew nothing. Balian asked him to mount his horse and follow him to Nazareth.30 On the way they met a Templar, who told them that the master of the Hospitallers had been beheaded, and that only four Knights Templar and their master had managed to escape. Balian sent one of his sergeants to order all the knights at Nabulus to meet him at Nazareth. There he met Gerard of Ridefort, who told him of their defeat by the Muslims. Then Balian, Ridefort, and Joscius, archbishop of Tyre, started on their journey to Tiberias. Raymond of Tripoli received the envoys with great honor but was grieved by the news of the defeat of his people. When the envoys told Raymond of their mission, he responded that he would do whatever they asked. They told him that he must expel the Muslims from Tiberias and then come with them to make peace with the king, and he agreed to do so. On hearing that Raymond was en route to see him, King Guy, elated, left Jerusalem and went out to meet the count of Tripoli and the envoys at a place called Saint Job, between Nabulus and La Fève. When the king saw Raymond approaching on foot, he also dismounted and went to meet him. Raymond fell on his knees before the king, but the king raised him up, embraced him, and kissed him. Then the whole company went back to Nabulus. The king, who knew of Raymond’s aspiration for the kingship, apologized for the dispute regarding the succession. Raymond responded that if he could act on his advice, the kingdom would be secure and stable. But, he complained, factiousness and envy within the kingdom (meaning the actions of Gerard of Ridefort) had prevented the king from taking the right action. Before taking his leave, the king asked Raymond to assemble his troops at the Springs of Saffuriyya, since Saladin

29 30

“Continuation of William of Tyre,” 33. Chronique d’ Ernoul, 149; “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 33.

MUSLIM VICTORY

821

had massed his forces to enter the kingdom. Thus, the two were reconciled.31 Ibn al-Athir says that when the Franks saw the size of the Muslim forces and their determination to fight, they sent their patriarch, priests, and monks and many knights to chastise Raymond of Tripoli and force him to renounce his alliance with Saladin. They said he had forgotten that the Muslims had massacred the Knights Templar and Hospitallers and captured many of them, and he had not taken action against them; they even accused him of converting to Islam.32 The patriarch threatened to excommunicate him and annul his marriage. When Raymond saw that the Franks were serious in condemning him, he repented and joined them against the Muslims. He went to meet King Guy of Lusignan, accompanied by the group that had come to criticize him, and peace was restored between them. Then they marched from Acre to Saffuriyya, with hearts filled with fear.33 We should note here that no Muslim source says that Raymond converted to Islam. It is even doubtful whether he had the intention of becoming a Muslim, for he had nothing to gain by doing so. Moreover, there is no proof that Raymond participated in or permitted any military action against his own people. Still, no matter how much one may sympathize with him, says Marshall W. Baldwin, Raymond “had committed an act of treason at the most unpropitious moment possible.”34 After Gerard of Ridefort sent an account of the disastrous battle to Pope Urban III (1185–1187), the pope wrote a letter dated September 3, 1187 to the English clergy, appealing for aid to the Templars. He called on the clergy to persuade and enjoin the princes, barons, and other faithful men to send aid to the brothers of the Temple for the remission of their sins, for God, and for salvation, and, most important of all, for the sake of Christianity in the East. Clearly the pope was more concerned with the state of Eastern Christianity, which had been threatened by the Muslims, than with preserving his papal authority.35 A Frankish relief force rushed to Saffuriyya to help, but the Muslims captured it and returned to their camp, “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 34–35. Jean Richard, “An Account of the Battle of Hattin Referring to the Frankish Mercenaries in the Oriental Moslem States,” Speculum 24 (1952): 170. 33 Athir, al-Kamil, 679–680. 34 Baldwin, Raymond III, 84, esp. n. 25. 35 Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, 156–157, gives the text of the letter. 31 32

822

THE CRUSADES

with the heads of the Temple knights hoisted on their lances.36 A Western source, however, says it was Saladin who raised an army and marched fiercely on Palestine. He sent Manafaradin (Muzaffar al-Din) Kukburi with 7,000 Turks to ravage the Holy Land. He encountered the Master of the Temple, Gerard of Ridefort, and the Master of the Hospitallers, Roger of Moulins. He put the former to flight and killed the latter.37 The defeat was a disaster for the Frankish leaders and caused Raymond III, count of Tripoli, to forget his differences with Guy of Lusignan, the king of Jerusalem, and pay him homage.38 Despite the reconciliation, a great deal of bitterness and animosity remained. How could Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple, and Reginald of Châtillon ever forget that Raymond III had once been an ally of Saladin and allowed him to raid Christian territory and destroy the lives of many Templars? At best they were suspicious of him.39 To the Muslims, the Franks’ defeat at Saffuriyya was a blessing, and the harbinger of future successes.40 Such was the situation on the eve of Hittin, where the Muslims, encouraged by their victory, had the upper hand over the Franks. Saladin’s next move was to attack Tiberias, in order to lure the Franks to leave Saffuriyya and fight him there. In the third week of June 1187, he marched with his army by night and camped at Tall Ashtara, east of Lake Tiberias, where he was joined by the forces of Aleppo and Mosul.41 He waited at Ashtara for five days to allow his scouts to gather information about the Christians’ L’Estoire d’Eracles, R.H.C. Occ., 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1859), 41; Athir, al-Kamil, 678–679; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 187; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 453. 37 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 25 and nn. 2–5; see Chronique d’Ernoul, 148–149, where the name of Ernoul, a valet to Balian of Ibelin, first appears as the one who first put this story into writing; “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 33. 38 Athir, al-Kamil, 680; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 242; De Expugnatione, 217; Baldwin, Raymond III, 90–91, and “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1147–1189,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 608; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 766–767; W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem the City of Herod and Saladin (London: Chatto and Windus, 1899), 384; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 447–454. 39 Baldwin, Raymond III, 94. 40 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76; Athir, al-Kamil, 680. 41 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 91–92; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 187. 36

MUSLIM VICTORY

823

troops. On June 24, Saladin held a council, where it was decided that he should attack Jerusalem. He crossed the Jordan and reached Khisfin, then marched to al-Uqhuwana, not far from Tiberias, where he remained for five days. He then moved to Lake Tiberias, where he camped at the village of Sennabra. From there he moved to set up camp on the mountain west of Tiberias, waiting to engage the Franks in battle. Upon arriving, he divided his army into small units that surrounded Lake Tiberias and cut off the Franks’ water supply.42 The Muslim force was estimated at 20,000 men, including regulars and auxiliaries, and the Franks probably had an equivalent number of men. One Latin source says the Franks had 1,200 knights, several hundred mounted bowmen armed in the Muslim fashion, and 18,000 footmen.43 The number of forces on both sides was not completely determined.44 Some of the Frankish troops were mercenaries, paid with money from the treasury of King Henry II of England (1154–1189), who had had Archbishop Thomas Becket beheaded in 1170 and later felt that his act was an egregious sin. To atone for it, he pledged to send each year a great sum, reportedly 30,000 marks (20,000 English pounds), to be placed in the treasury of the houses of the Templars and Hospitallers in Jerusalem to aid the kingdom, or to be used if he should come on a crusade.45 Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple, gave the money to King Guy and told him to muster as many men as he could and avenge the shame and loss the Muslims had inflicted on him and on Christendom. The king took the money and hired many knights and sergeants, so that he had at least 1,200 knights and 30,000 other men.46 After their defeat in May at Nazareth, the Franks regrouped at Saffuriyya, carrying the Holy Cross of the Crucifixion and awaiting a final battle 42 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76, 81; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 92–93; Athir, al-Kamil, 679; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 188. 43 De Expugnatione, 218. 44 Röhricht, Geschichte, 430, n. 5; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 243. Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 31, gives the number of Muslim forces as 500,000. 45 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 42; Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,” The English Historical Review, 385 (October, 1982): 727–728; Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades 1095–1588 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 46–47, 54–56; Barber, New Knighthood, 112. 46 “The Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 42, esp. n. 50. On the treasure of King Henry II, see Mayer, “Henry II,” 735–736; Tyerman, England, 45–48, 54–56.

824

THE CRUSADES

with Saladin. They were joined by the forces of Raymond of Tripoli, Reginald of Châtillon, Balian of Ibelin, Reginald Garnier of Sidon, and Walter Garnier of Caesarea. (Some sources state that the Franks camped at Saffuriyya five weeks before Saladin crossed the Jordan.47) They may have chosen Saffuriyya because it was within the lordship of Tiberias, a few miles northwest of Nazareth and only a mile from the Fountain of Cresson, which offered ample water for their army. Moreover, they were in a position to secure the necessary provisions from the neighboring villages. It is believed that the Frankish forces included 12,000 to 18,000 or more infantry and an unknown number of Turcopoles. They gloried in their numbers, in their horses, in their breastplates, helmets, lances, and golden shields. But, says the author of the De Expugnatione, they had no faith in God or in the salvation of the protector and savior of Israel. Rather, they vainly relied on their own power and thoughts.48 With the Franks massed at Saffuriyya, Saladin held a council to discuss how to challenge them. Some of his captains proposed that instead of meeting them in a pitched battle, they should invade the Frankish territories, destroying, looting, and taking prisoners to weaken their morale. They said, “People in the East are cursing us, saying that he (Saladin) left the fight against the infidels and instead intended to fight the Muslims. Therefore, we should do something to absolve ourselves from such accusations and silence their tongues.” But Saladin argued that he should engage the Franks in a pitched battle because things do not always happen according to man’s will, and he should not act differently until he had exhausted his resources to fulfill the call to jihad.49 Bar Hebraeus quotes Saladin as saying, “When shall I be able to gather together such an assembly as this again? No, be strong and contend like mighty men, and fight. And whatsoever the Lord wills, He will perform.”50 Having reached this decision, Saladin within a few days moved some detachments to Kafarsabt to engage the Franks in skirmishes, with the intention of luring them out of Saffuriyya. On July 2, his troops stormed Tiberias and set it on fire; Eschiva of Bures, princess of Tripoli and wife of 47 Chronique d’Ernoul, 157; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 35; Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 47–48. 48 De Expugnatione, 218; Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey, 153–154; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 37. 49 Athir, al-Kamil, 680–681. 50 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation.

MUSLIM VICTORY

825

Raymond III, took refuge in the citadel with her two daughters, as did the small Frankish garrison.51 Within an hour Saladin captured the city, but he could not occupy its citadel.52 While Saladin was taking the offensive, Raymond of Tripoli was with King Guy in Jerusalem. When he heard that Saladin had assembled 180,000 mounted men and intended to engage King Guy in battle, especially after hearing that he and the king were reconciled, Raymond asked leave to go to Tiberias to fortify it and put it in a state of readiness. The king agreed. At Tiberias, Raymond had provided those inside with arms and provisions. He had told his wife and his officers that in case they could not defend themselves against Saladin’s forces, they should save themselves by boarding boats and going to sea, and he would come to their aid. The king left Jerusalem for Acre and was joined by Raymond, who had come by another route.53 After they arrived in Acre a messenger came hurriedly from Tiberias, bringing word from Eschiva, Raymond’s wife, that Saladin had already entered the kingdom and besieged Tiberias with a great force, and that his men had pierced the walls and were just entering the city. Very frightened and distressed, she warned that if they did not send immediate help, she and those in the citadel would be taken captive.54 The Franks were facing a crisis. Chivalry demanded that they rush to the rescue of Princess Eschiva and her children. After receiving her message, toward the evening of Thursday, July 1, King Guy held a council to discuss what to do. Raymond advised the king to stay where he was because Saladin had assembled a great force and was too strong. The assembled barons, Gerard of Ridefort, Reginald of Châtillon, and many others advised the king to go and chase Saladin out of the kingdom at the first opportunity. They should march out at dawn, accompanied by the Lord’s Cross, ready to fight the enemy. They argued that since he was in the early days of Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76–77; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 188; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 35. Athir, al-Kamil, 681, does not mention Eschiva by name, referring instead to the lady (countess) of Tripoli. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation, confuses Eschiva with Queen Isabel, wife of Guy of Lusignan. Eschiva’s sons (Raymond’s stepsons) were not with her at the citadel. See Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2: 455–456. 52 Chronique d’Ernoul, 158; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 48; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 93; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 81, follows Ibn Shaddad; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 188. 53 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36–37. 54 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36–37; De Expugnatione, 220; Brundage, The Crusades, 155. 51

826

THE CRUSADES

his kingship, if he did not take action he would be a fool in the eyes of the Muslims, and Saladin would certainly take advantage of him. To do this, the Franks had to traverse a ten-mile-long barren road between them and Saladin’s army. But Saladin had already blocked the passes and was anxious to see the Franks come out of Saffuriyya to fight him. It was a trap, and the Franks soon fell into it.55 But since Tiberias belonged to Raymond III and his wife was shut in its citadel, King Guy asked Raymond for his advice. More levelheaded than the other Frankish leaders, Raymond stood firm in the crisis. He knew Saladin full well and realized that he was trying to lure the Franks into battle. Perhaps wishing to atone for his past disloyalty, Raymond urged the king to provide his cities and castles with food, men, armor, and other necessary equipment, and to seek more aid from Bohemond III of Antioch, who had already sent his son with fifty knights, and from Baldwin, lord of Ramla.56 He added that they were at the peak of the summer, and the heat would slow down the movement of Saladin’s troops until the relief force under Baldwin of Ramla could arrive. In these circumstances, he said, when Saladin made a move the Franks would fall on the rear guard of his army and inflict heavy losses. Meanwhile, if it so pleased God, the kingdom of Jerusalem would remain at peace.57 According to Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, the count (Raymond) told the king, “Saladin cannot be compared to any other sultan for his prowess and fearlessness. If he has defeated you once, you will never be able to restore your strength. There is nothing to do but to delay and be patient. Better yet, we should not antagonize him but accept his terms.”58 When Raymond finished, Gerard of Ridefort and Reginald of Châtillon told him that “his counsel was not good and was mingled with the hair of the wolf.” Raymond turned to the king and said, “Sir, I require you and summon you to go to the aid of Tiberias.” To this the master of the Temple and Reginald of Châtillon answered that the king would go willingly. As soon as they were ready, the king and all the knights of the kingdom, numbering 40,000, left

Baldwin, Raymond III, 109. “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 35. 57 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36–37. 58 Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 66. 55 56

MUSLIM VICTORY

827

the city of Acre and went to camp at the Springs of Saffuriyya, headed by the Holy Cross, which they had brought from Jerusalem.59 The king, still not sure what course of action to take, wanted to have further counsel with his men. Again he asked Raymond of Tripoli for advice, and Raymond said that Tiberias was his city and any damage done there would fall on him and no one else. After all, his wife and children were there, and the last thing he wanted was that harm should come to them. Not one of those assembled there was so fiercely attached, save to Christianity, as he was to Tiberias. Yet Raymond appeared very cautious. He stated that the Franks should let Tiberias go if he failed to reach an arrangement with the Muslims to retreat. He urged them not to rescue the city but let it be lost. He realized that his wife, her children, and the small garrison shut up in the citadel of Tiberias could not resist Saladin’s onslaught. The only chance they had was to embark in boats on the lake until the Franks could rush to rescue them. If the Muslims imprisoned them, he would endeavor to ransom them; but if the Franks rushed to the rescue, the whole land would be lost, and their army would be destroyed and taken captive. Raymond warned that between the Franks and Tiberias there was no water except the little spring of Cresson (Saffuriyya), and if they dared to come to the rescue of the city, the Muslims would harass them and trap them midway between Saffuriyya and Tiberias. Worst of all, they would deprive them of food and water, and eventually they would fall into the Muslims’ hands. Raymond argued that to fight Saladin, the Franks should prefer to camp in front of Acre, near their strongholds. He knew that Saladin was so proud he would never leave the kingdom (of Jerusalem) until he had fought the Franks. If he attacked the Franks before Acre and defeated them, they could still retreat into Acre and other nearby cities. On the other hand, if the Franks routed Saladin’s forces before he could return to his own land, he would never be able to rally his forces again. `The gist of Raymond’s counsel was that the Franks should not leave their camp to march against Saladin. Remaining at Saffuriyya, where they had plenty of water and provisions, would force him to take the offensive, since he could not remain very long in the barren country around Tiberias. If he did not attack, his only other option was to return to Damascus, which he could not do without injury to his pride. They should lure Saladin to Saffuriyya and not give him the chance to lure them out of it. If he be59

“Continuation of William of Tyre,” 35–36.

828

THE CRUSADES

came impatient and attacked them there, he would arrive with an army worn out by a long march and too far from its base. His men would have to fight knowing that they had no shelter nearer than Damascus, with Lake Tiberias and the Jordan at their backs.60 When Raymond had finished speaking, despite the objection of Gerard of Ridefort, the king said he would go willingly. The knights cried out, “Let us go and rescue the ladies and maidens of Tiberias!”61 The Franks then left Saffuriyya for Tiberias, making a tragic blunder that would cost them Jerusalem. The author of De Expugnatione says they departed from the advice that would have saved them and others, and because of their foolishness they lost their land and their people.62 Ibn al-Athir reports that the count (Raymond) said that Tiberias belonged to him and his wife, and that what Saladin had done to Tiberias was done, and only the citadel in which his wife had taken shelter remained. If Saladin wanted to take the citadel and his wife and everything therein, let him take them and leave. Raymond added that he had never seen so great a number of powerful Muslim troops as those with Saladin. If he captured Tiberias, he would not be able to stay there long, because his troops would be impatient to return to their families and would eventually depart. If they left the city, the Franks would capture it and free their captives. Ibn al-Athir says Prince Arnat (Reginald of Châtillon), lord of Karak, told Raymond, “You have exaggerated our fear of the Muslims. Undoubtedly, you cherish them and are inclined toward them; otherwise you would have not uttered such words. As to your saying that they (the Muslims) are of great number, know that the fire is not harmed by plenty of firewood.” To this Count Raymond answered, “I am one of you. If you attack I will attack, and if you retreat I will retreat. But you will see what will happen.”63 Although Ibn al-Athir’s account appears partly to corroborate the Latin sources, one may still infer from it that after the count outlined his strategy, the Franks’ resolve to fight was strengthened, and that Raymond Raymond’s speech is given with variations in De Expugnatione, 221–222; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 38; Chronique d’Ernoul, 158–160; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 49–51; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 791–792; Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 1 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924): 326; Brundage, The Crusades, 155–156; Baldwin, Raymond III, 110–111; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 455; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 244–245. 61 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 39. 62 De Expugnatione, 222; Brundage, The Crusades, 156. 63 Athir, al-Kamil, 681–682. 60

MUSLIM VICTORY

829

succeeded in persuading them to march against the Muslims, something they were not inclined to do at the start of the council. Similarly, Imad alDin al-Isfahani (as quoted by Abu Shama) states that when the count heard that Tiberias would be attacked and taken, he was outraged and told his people, “No respite after today. We have to attack [the Muslims]. If Tiberias is lost, all the countries (i.e., the Kingdom of Jerusalem) will be lost.”64 According to Bar Hebraeus, the count of Tripoli said, “Know ye, O my brethren, that there is no small danger in meeting this man Salah al-Din in battle. For you know well that he was formerly one of the common folk. And behold, he is the master of all Egypt and Palestine as far as the East. The thing that would help, so it appears to me, is that we should make peace with him, and that each of us should rest in his own place.” Then Guy, the new king, arose and said, “As far as I am concerned there is no other means than a battle.” Then the count said, “You will see what will be the end of your desire.”65 Bar Hebraeus does not make clear what he had in mind when he wrote that Reginald advised peace, arguing that both the Franks and the Muslims should stay in their own place, and it is difficult to know his source. He appears to mean (as the Latin sources suggest) that Raymond advised that the Franks should stay in their camp at Saffuriyya until he could arrange some kind of deal with Saladin to withdraw. When he later gives a detailed account of the battle (of Hittin), however, Bar Hebraeus accuses Raymond of treachery.66 In their letter to Pope Urban II, the Genoese say that the count of Tripoli led the army into a dangerous situation where the king was forced to fight.67 Other sources, especially Ambroise and the Itinerarium, are hostile to Raymond and accuse him of treachery. The author of the Iterinarium even says that he put himself in command of the front line, with the intention of betraying his own people as he had already agreed with Saladin.68 64 65

Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 189. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 322 of the English transla-

tion. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation. See Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 487, Appendix II. 67 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 11. 68 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 31; LaMonte, ed., Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 123, n. 10, says the charges of treason against Raymond are unfounded; Stone, Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades, 42–43; Baldwin, Raymond III, 118, n. 57, and 156–160, seems very sympathetic to Raymond. “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 36–38, 46–47, praises him as a Christian patriot; 66

830

THE CRUSADES

Unfortunately, Raymond’s advice to King Guy was not the last word. The vigorous opposition of his enemies, Gerard of Ridefort and Reginald of Châtillon proved most tragic for the Franks and led to their disastrous defeat at Hittin.69 When the king’s council broke up at midnight and the barons retired to their tents, confident that the army could stay in camp at Saffuriyya, Gerard of Ridefort went to the king and and warned him not to believe Raymond, whom he accused of being a traitor. Raymond’s intention, he said, was to shame the king and make him lose the kingdom. After all, the king had already assembled a great force and should not allow a city only six miles away to be lost. He added that if the Templars were not given the opportunity to avenge themselves against the Muslims, they would rather shed their white mantles and pawn them because of their humiliation. Finally, Gerard urged the king to order everyone in the army to take arms, join his company, and follow the standard of the Holy Cross, and to go forward immediately with the rest of the Franks and defeat Saladin. He pointed out that this was the first crisis he had encountered since he became king. If he did not leave this camp, Saladin would come to attack him. If he withdrew, the shame and reproach would be greater for him. The king apparently succumbed to Gerard’s advice, changed his mind, and ordered the army to move forward. Perhaps he did so because he respected the Master of the Temple, to whom he owed his accession to the throne as well as the treasure of the king of England. It was a tragic move, and he was cowed into making it.70 Marshall W. Baldwin remarks that the fate of the kingdom hinged on the will of two conspirators – one (Gerard) acting from personal spite, the other a victim of his own ambition and the associations into which it had led him.71 Margaret Ruth Morgan argues that if Raymond of Tripoli had been left to arrange matters diplomatically with Saladin, there was no need for a loss of life: “ . . . the unintelligent blunder-

Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 65, 67. 69 Baldwin, Raymond III, 112; Oman, History, 1: 333; Helen Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291 (London, New York, and Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1995), 68. 70 Chronique d’ Ernoul, 161–162; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 39–40; Röhricht, Geschichte, 432–433; Baldwin, Raymond III, 112–113; Barber, The New Knighthood, 112–114. 71 Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 611–621; Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights, 68.

MUSLIM VICTORY

831

ings of Guy of Lusignan, encouraged by the perfidious Master of the Temple, Gerard of Ridefort, brought total ruin to the Latin Kingdom.”72 The knights were surprised by the king’s decision. Not having been consulted, they wanted to know why he had changed the plan in such a short time, but he refused to tell. They remonstrated with him, but to no avail. He told them that they had no right to ask him by whose counsel he had made this decision. He commanded them to get on their horses and head toward Tiberias, and they obediently carried out his order.73 Whatever the reason may be, Raymond’s advice was unfortunately rejected; he was labeled the king’s enemy and a traitor, and his counsel was considered a sign of cowardice. The Franks’ resolve to march against the Muslims became stronger; saying it would be shameful to abandon the garrison at Tiberias, they left their camp at Saffuriyya and drew near that of the Muslims.74 On the morning of Friday, July 3, 1187, the Frankish army, including some Venetians, began its fateful march from Saffuriyya to Tiberias, leaving behind its heavy equipment. Raymond of Tripoli was in the vanguard because of his rank, dignity, and familiarity with the terrain. The king and the battle lines were in the center, with the Holy Cross guarded by the bishops of Acre and Lydda, and Balian II of Ibelin and the Templars were in the rear.75 When Saladin learned that the Franks’ army had left Saffuriyya, he said with great joy, “This is what we were waiting for. We are men of tremendous valor. If we defeat them, then Tiberias and all the coast will fall to us.”76 He had tried to lure the Franks out of Saffuriyya in order to combat them while he had a superior position in and around Tiberias. Once they had made the fatal mistake of leaving Saffuriyya on their own, Saladin realized that they would fall easily into his hands. Would Saladin have defeated the Franks at Hittin if King Guy had followed the advice of Raymond of Tripoli and remained with his army in Saffuriyya? That outcome seems most unlikely. But Guy had already succumbed to the disastrous advice of Gerard, who hated Raymond, and the order that his army leave Saffuriyya led to his defeat.77 Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul, 64. “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 40; De Expugnatione, 222; Brundage, The Crusades, 156. 74 Oman, History, 1: 326. 75 Chronique d’Ernoul, 166–168; De Expugnatione, 222, Brundage, The Crusades, 156; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 64. 76 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 76; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 189. 77 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 45. 72 73

832

THE CRUSADES

Saladin’s biographers, M. C. Lyons and D. E. P. Jackson, write of the Franks’ decision to leave Saffuriyya, “Rashness, stupidity or pressure could perhaps have led a commander to risk his troops on a march of this length and difficulty, and these factors may have had their part to play in Guy’s decision.”78 This statement may have some truth, but the main factor leading to Guy’s acceptance of Ridefort’s advice was the Framks’ internal division. The Franks moved nine or ten miles, but they found themselves harassed from every direction by Muslim troops, just as Raymond had warned. Saladin did not use his full force, but encircled the Franks with horsemen and bowmen, intending to hamper their movement and make progress painful. The distance to the town of Tiberias and the lake was only six miles.79 As Raymond had predicted, Saladin had already blocked their access to water. The Muslims held the region near the Jordan, while the Franks, having exhausted the small amount of water available in the cisterns, were suffering from extreme thirst.80 They dared not turn back to Saffuriyya, lest the Muslims pounce on them. The Franks remained in a state of agony, harassed by Muslim bands and weakened by thirst. Latin sources say that by the time they approached the village of Marescallia (Maskana), midway between Saffuriyya and Tiberias, they were extremely worn and exhausted.81 Although they were close to Tiberias, the road was difficult to traverse. The hills of Tiberias, rising over a thousand feet above sea level, stood in their way as if in defiance. Tiberias was near the uppermost point of the range, which Muslim sources M. C. Lyons and D. E. P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 260. 79 De Expugnatione, 223, and Brundage, The Crusades, 156, say the distance was one mile. 80 Athir, al-Kamil, 682–683; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 190; De Expugnatione, 223; Brundage, The Crusades, 156. 81 De Expugnatione, 223, Brundage, The Crusades, 156; letter to Archumbald, master of the Hospitallers in Italy, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, 158; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 32; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 189; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 94, says the village the Franks approached was Lubia; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 246, n. 2, gives other Latin forms of Marescalcia. For the exact locations of Maskana and Lubia, see Joshua Prawer, Crusade Institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 494–496; Benjamin Z. Kedar, “The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” in The Horn of Hattin B. Z. Kedar, ed. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1992), 192, and the map on the facing page. 78

MUSLIM VICTORY

833

call Qurun Hittin (Horns of Hittin) and a Latin source calls Carnehatin, 1191 feet high.82 Beyond it the ground sloped sharply downward to the Sea of Galilee. The Muslims were in control of the range of hills; to cut their way into Tiberias, the Franks would have to march through one of two passes, Wadi al-Mu’allaqah and Wadi al-Hammam. They chose the first.83 Raymond of Tripoli and some of the other barons sent messengers to the king, begging him to push forward with the army and reach the lake by nightfall. But King Guy and his men, weary and thirsty, could no longer march on, nor did they have the strength to attack the enemy. From the rear, the Templars were sending word to inform the king that they could no longer advance and had no choice but to halt.84 Weary and stressed, King Guy ordered the troops to stop marching and camp beyond Lubia. Many of his men thought that halting the march was a serious mistake, and that they should continue all the way to Tiberias. Whether the king ordered the halt on his own is not clear. Some Latin sources say he sent a message to ask the advice of Raymond of Tripoli, who was in the vanguard. When Raymond answered that he should pitch his tent and make camp, the king gladly accepted the advice, which these sources call bad.85 But another source says Raymond sent a message telling the king, “We must hurry and pass through this area, so that we and our men can be safe near the water. Otherwise we will be in danger of making camp at a wakeless spot.” To this the king replied, “We will pass through at once.”86 Other sources say Raymond argued that since the Franks had sufficient manpower, they should change their route and push on to reach Habatin (Hittin), where there were plenty of springs. They could camp for a night and then march on to Tiberias. Otherwise they would perish from thirst. The king, it seems, was receptive to this idea. But seeing the Templars in the rear so exhausted they could no longer continue the march, he ordered that the troops halt and pitch tents. When Raymond saw this order being carried out, he cried out, “Alas! Alas! Lord God, the war is over. We are betrayed to death and the realm ruined.”87 There is evidence that RayL’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 62. Oman, History, 1: 327. 84 Oman, History, 1: 327–328; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 457. 85 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 45; letter to Archumbald, in Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, 159. 86 De Expugnatione, 223; Brundage, The Crusades, 156. 87 De Expugnatione, 223; Brundage, The Crusades, 157; Oman, History, 1: 328; Runciman,History of the Crusades, 2: 457. 82 83

834

THE CRUSADES

mond opposed halting the army, but the question is unresolved.88 Perhaps Gerard of Ridefort deserves the blame for the Franks’ disaster, since he convinced the king to reject Raymond’s advice earlier. Arguing the point is futile. On Friday, July 3, 1187, the Franks were caught in a position where they could neither retreat nor advance. Saladin was well aware of their fatal mistake. He had already moved five miles and camped at the village of Hittin, west of Tiberias, where there was plenty of water and pasture.89 Despite the intense heat and their lack of water, the Franks managed to reach the plateau of Tiberias, which overlooks the plain of Hittin from three hundred meters above sea level, and is called Qurun Hittin because it has two peaks. Exhausted and thirsty, the Franks could advance no further, and the king and Raymond thought it would be better to spent the night on the plateau, far from the threatening enemy. It was a frightful night for the Christians, for no man or beast touched water. Their agony was soon intensified, for as soon as they made camp, Saladin ordered his men to collect brushwood, dry grass, stubble, and anything which could be burned. They set a fire and surrounded the Christians with flames. The intense heat and smoke caused the Franks great discomfort and harm. To spite them, Saladin ordered caravans of camels carrying water from Lake Tiberias brought into his camp. He had his men empty the jars of water within sight of the Franks, who along with their horses were dying from thirst.90 While the Franks spent the night in agony and despair, the Muslims raised their voices, crying out, “Allah Akbar!” (Allah is the Greatest). They were so sure of victory that they thought the night was guarded by the angels.91 Some Franks dashed to reach the water but were annihilated by the Muslims.92 To intensify the Franks’ agony, the Muslims set fire to the brush that covered the plateau; worse still, the wind was against the Franks, blowing fire and smoke into their camp.93 Thus, the Franks were afflicted by three adverse factors: the heat of the day, the heat of fire and smoke, and Baldwin, Raymond III, 116–118. Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 81; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 190. Hittin was the burial site of Shu’ayb (Jethro, father-in-law of the Prophet Moses). 90 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 45; Chronique d’Ernoul, 168; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 63–64; Baldwin, Raymond III, 119. 91 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77; Athir, al-Kamil, 683. 92 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 190. 93 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 95; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 45. 88 89

MUSLIM VICTORY

835

the heat of war.94 All night the two armies faced each other, without sleep or fight. At daybreak on Saturday, July 4, 1187, the Franks had to make a decision, either to die from thirst or throw whatever strength they had into battle. According to a Western source, King Guy sought the advice of a certain knight called John who had long been long in the Muslims’ service and was familiar with their tactics. He advised the king to charge against the very center of Saladin’s army, saying that if he did this, he would win the battle. But Count Raymond of Tripoli advised the king that the army should first reach the hill of Hittin and dig in there, to secure an impregnable position from which they could assault Saladin’s men.95 When the Franks attacked in an effort to reach Lake Tiberias for water, Saladin halted them. But they desperately flung themselves about like wasps, not turning back, and frightened the Muslims. When Saladin saw that his men were intimidated by the Franks and were losing valor, he went around offering them “words mixed with honey and gall, that is to say, words of encouragement and threats.”96 To rouse their faltering spirit, an athletic-looking young Muslim named Manguras gathered his courage and dashed out of the Muslim camp, challenging the Franks. Presently, a young man rushed out of the Franks’ camp, ran the Muslim youth through with his lance, and threw him off his horse. He seized him by his garment, dragged him over to the Franks’ camp, and cut off his head. When the Franks saw this feat, they were heartened, believing that the young man was a son of Saladin, though in fact he was one of Saladin’s mamluks.97 To the Muslims, the dead youth was a martyr fighting for the faith. When they saw what had happened to him, they became more zealous to fight.98 The Christians had the same zeal, but to their utter misfortune they had no water and could no longer carry on. They tried to break through the Muslim ranks, but had no energy and were driven up the hillock, afflicted by heat, fire and the enemy. Some of them began to desert. Five knights from the division of Raymond, count of Tripoli, came to Saladin and said, “Sir, what are you waiting for? Go and take the Christians, for they are deAl-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77. Richard, “An Account of the Battle of Hattin,” 169. 96 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77; Athir, al-Kamil, 683–684; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation. 97 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77; Athir, al-Kamil, 684; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 323 of the English translation. 98 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77; Athir, al-Kamil, 684. 94 95

836

THE CRUSADES

feated.” When Saladin heard this, he ordered his men to advance. With ferocity the Muslims began attacking the Franks and cutting them down.99 Many Christians were slaughtered, wounded, or taken prisoner. A number of Franks chose captivity rather than death.100 Moreover, the king detected weakness in his infantry. They were ordered to form one front line with the cavalry and give each other support. But as they drew into close combat, most of the foot soldiers wandered off the road, stranding the horsemen on the road below. The king sent messages telling them to come down from the precipice and engage in the battle, but they answered that they were weary and thirsty and had no energy or will to fight. Similar discouraging messages came from the Templars and the Hospitallers in the rear. Realizing that he had no chance against the Muslims because his troops, especially the infantry, were in deplorable condition, King Guy ordered the men to halt and pitch their tents. Thus the battle broke up, and the Franks huddled in a confused mass around the Holy Cross.101 Raymond III of Tripoli fought heroically at the battle of Hittin, but when he saw that the situation was hopeless, he decided to escape in the direction of Tyre with some of his followers, rather than make a futile sacrifice. According to Terricus, called the Grand Master of the Temple, he and Raymond fled with Balian II of Ibelin and Reginald of Sidon.102 Perhaps, as Marshall W. Baldwin suggests, this was the only course he could have taken at that dark moment.103 But the accounts in Western sources of Raymond’s escape from the battlefield are confirmed by Muslim sources. Ibn al-Athir states that when Saladin’s nephew, Taqi al-Din Umar, saw how anxiously 99 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 46–47; Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 160; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 62–65; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 65–66, says six knights from Raymond’s force deserted and went over to Saladin and freely became “Saracens” (Muslims). They informed him of every particular about the condition, intention, and resources of the Christians. This information was of great benefit to Saladin, who until then had been in doubt as to the outcome of the battle, but now felt encouraged to take the initiative and attack. 100 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 95. 101 De Expugnatione, 224–225; Brundage, The Crusades, 158; Oman, History, 1: 329. 102 Letter of Terricus, in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 13–14; Archumbald, master of the Hospitallers of Italy, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 160 and Barber, The New Knighthood, 115–116. 103 Baldwin, Raymond III, 134–135.

MUSLIM VICTORY

837

and desperately Raymond was attacking the Muslims, he saw no option but to let him escape. He opened a way for him, and Raymond fled with his men. With the Franks thus separated, the Muslims rushed to surround the king and his men.104 Ibn Shaddad says that when Raymond, “one of the most intelligent and sagacious of the Franks,” saw the signs of the defeat of the people of his religion, he promptly tried to escape toward Tyre. Some Muslim men chased after him but could not capture him, and he fled safely.105 Al-Isfahani likewise says that when the count saw that the Franks would be defeated, he was seized with fright and craftily fled.106 Ibn Wasil says briefly, “The Count, may Allah curse him, fled in the direction of Tyre. He was chased by Muslims, but they could not catch him. However, Allah spared the Muslims his machinations.”107 Raymond’s escape is portrayed differently in the Syriac sources. Michael Rabo says, “ . . . when the governor of Tripoli (Raymond), who had aspired for the kingship, saw that he could not obtain it, he rebelled and fled. It was he who betrayed the Franks. . . . But I say that the Franks would never have been defeated if it were not that God had forsaken them. For no sparrow falls into the trap without permission from above.”108 Bar Hebraeus labels Raymond a traitor. He says that the Count (Raymond), whose heart was full of treachery, was afraid that the Franks would achieve victory, and that it would shame him because he had advised them not to fight. He pretended that he and the men with him were riding out to challenge the Muslims. When he drew close to the Muslims, they opened a path for him between their ranks, because there was already an understanding between them. They knew that his heart was not straight with the sons of his faith. And as Raymond passed through the Muslim ranks, he departed toward his city, Tripoli. His [defection] was the chief cause of the defeat of the Franks, for no man trusted his neighbor again. Nevertheless, continues Bar Hebraeus, because there was no other course to follow except fighting, the Franks mingled with the Muslims, and swords were drawn. But they in Athir, al-Kamil, 684; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 77, 81. William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 259, also says Raymond was permitted to escape. 105 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 94–95. 106 Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, 79. 107 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 190. 108 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation (see Matthew, 10: 29). The Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation, repeats the accusation that Raymond betrayed the Franks and was the cause of their defeat. 104

838

THE CRUSADES

no way profited because after the Count’s departure, the Franks were like men who had lost all hope. Thus, the Muslims prevailed over them.109 Raymond’s end is portrayed differently by Eastern and Western sources. Ibn Shaddad says that when Count Raymond reached Tripoli, he died from pleurisy.110 Ibn al-Athir states that when Raymond reached Tripoli, he died from anger and grief, over what had happened to the Franks in particular, and to all of Christendom in general.111 Latin sources corroborate the Arabic and Syriac sources, declaring that Raymond died at forty-seven from terrible grief over the loss his fellow Christians had suffered.112 The Franks, huddled together on the hillock of Hittin, were surrounded by the Muslims, who attacked them with ferocity, slaughtering many and taking others captive. More tragic is that Rufinus, bishop of Acre, who was guarding the Holy Cross, was slain. When he was killed, the bishop of St. George of Lydda took up the Cross, but the Muslims captured it.113 Al-Isfahani calls the loss of the Cross “the greatest catastrophe of the Franks, who became certain of their perdition.”114 According to a Latin source, as the Holy Cross fell to the ground, King Guy, who had great compassion for it and placed his trust in it, rushed forward and embraced it, intending to recover it or, if he failed, to fall with it.115 But the exhausted king could not fulfill his purpose. He and a mere 150 horsemen remained on the hillock.116 The Franks Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114–115 of the Syriac text, 323–324 of the English translation; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 258, also cites the treachery of the count of Tripoli. 110 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 96; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 79–80; Röhricht, Geschichte, 441; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 800. 111 Athir, al-Kamil, 687; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation, reiterates this view. 112 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 124, n. 11, and 160; Chronique d’Ernoul, 178; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 72–73. See Röhricht, Geschichte, 441, 447; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 800; Baldwin, Raymond III, 138. 113 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 47, 161; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 33; Gustave Schlumberger, Renaud de Châtillon (Paris: Plon, 1898), 285–286, 292. In his Annals, 2: 66, Roger of Hoveden, says Rufinus, bishop of Acre, was the one who carried the Cross; Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 127, n. 18, incorrectly saysit was King Guy who carried the Cross into battle. 114 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 78–79, 81; Athir, al-Kamil, 685; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2:191. 115 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 33. 116 Athir, al-Kamil, 685; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 191. 109

MUSLIM VICTORY

839

made a last attempt to break through the Muslims ranks to safety, but failed. Ibn al-Athir has preserved a vivid account of this last desperate attempt by the Franks, related to him by a person who had heard it directly from Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Afdal: I was beside my father at the battle (Hittin), which is the first battle I witnessed. When the king of the Franks (Guy of Lusignan) was on the hillock, he and his men launched a ferocious attack against the Muslims opposite them until they drove them to where my father was. I looked at my father and saw that he was overwhelmed with sadness and his color had changed. He grasped his beard and shouted, “Satan has lied!” The Muslims fell upon the Franks and drove them up the hillside. When I saw that the Franks had retreated and the Muslims were chasing them, I was overjoyed and shouted, “We have put them to flight!” The Franks came back for a second time, as they had done before, and drove the Muslims to my father’s camp. My father did the same thing as before. The Muslims drove the Franks back to the hillside, and I shouted, “We have put them to flight!” Turning to me, my father said, “Hold your tongue. We will never defeat them until that tent [of King Guy] has fallen.” While he was saying this, behold! the tent fell. The Sultan dismounted and, prostrating himself, thanked Allah, weeping tears of joy.117

The fate of the Franks was sealed. They had no hope of victory, nor could they retreat or escape as Raymond of Tripoli and his men had done earlier. Exhausted and thirsty, they made a last desperate attempt to break through the Muslim ranks. When it failed, they gave up hope, dismounted from their horses, and threw themselves on the ground, almost lifeless. Most of their horses were sorely wounded and suffered from terrible thirst. The Muslims rushed to capture them and tore away the king’s tent.118 The author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum laments that the Lord delivered His people to the sword (Psalms 78:62), and as the sins of humanity demanded, He gave His inheritance to slaughter and pillage. Even the wood of the “cross of salvation on which our Lord and Redeemer hung” was capAthir, al-Kamil, 685–686; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 191; Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khavats, 1964), 213; Oman, History, 1: 331; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 458–459; Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz, Saladin (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972), 202; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, 263; P. H. Newby, Saladin in His Time (London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1983), 117–118. 118 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 192; L’Estoire d’Eracles, p. 65. 117

840

THE CRUSADES

tured by the enemy. The author attributes this calamity to the wicked deeds of the Franks. He even has Saladin say that he achieved victory over the Franks not through his power but through their sins.119 Roger of Hoveden says that the Franks’ end came through the righteous judgment of God, while Benedict of Peterborough attributes the Christians’ defeat to their sins.120 A Crusader involved in this misfortune laments that his people lost the Cross because they were unworthy of it, having lost their faith in the Savior who was crucified upon it: “O precious wood and sweet, sprinkled and washed by the blood of the Son of God! O kindly cross, upon which our salvation hung, by which the handwriting of death is blotted out and the life that was lost in Adam is restored. Whither shall I now betake myself to live, when the tree of life is taken away? The precious wood of the Lord, our Redeemer, was seized by the damnable hands of the damned.”121 What was the fate of other notable Franks? Balian II of Ibelin, called Balian ibn Barzan or Birzan in Muslim and Syriac sources, along with Reginald of Sidon and brother Terricus the Templar, managed to escape after Raymond of Tripoli fled. Balian went first to Tyre, then to Jerusalem.122 In a letter to his brethren, Terricus, the “Grand Master of the house of the Temple,” says that Raymond escaped with the rest, without mentioning his defection.123 But many prominent Franks were taken captive. Among them were King Guy of Lusignan; his brother Amaury (Amalric), Constable of Jerusalem; the Marquis of Montferrat; Joscelin III of Courtenay, titular Count of Edessa; Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Karak and Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 32–34; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 2: 249–259; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers Of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English, Henry G. Hewlett, ed. 1 (London 1886), 141. 120 Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 66; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 10; letter of the Genoese to Pope Urban III in Benedict of Peterborough, 2: 11–13. 121 De Expugnatione, 226–227; Brundage, The Crusades, 158; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 249, gives a translation of the entire passage. 122 Isfahani, al-Fath, 117, 126–128, 197; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 115; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2; 211; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, 698; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation. 123 Letter of Terricus, in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 13–14 and in Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 68–69; Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 49, 160; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 64–65; Chronique d’Ernoul, 170; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 458; Baldwin, Raymond III, 129, 136 and Barber, The New Knighthood, 115– 116. 119

MUSLIM VICTORY

841

Montréal; Humphrey of Toron, Hugh of Tiberias, Hugh of Jubayl (Giblet), the Bishop of Lydda, the Master of the Hospitallers, and a few hundred Knights Templar (whom Muslim sources call the Dawiya) and Hospitallers.124 According to Roger de Hoveden, Saladin’s nephew Thekedin (Taqi al-Din) was the one who took King Guy.125 Another source reports that King Guy was captured by Dirbas the Kurd, and the man who captured Reginald was a servant of the Amir (commander) Ibrahim alMahrani.126 The site of the battle of Hittin was held sacred for generations to come. Widely thought to be the location of the Mount of Beatitudes, where Christ had preached peace, it became famous again as a battleground.127 On the summit of the Horns of Hittin, where King Guy was captured, Saladin is said to have built a mosque in celebration and remembrance of his victory. Benjamin Kedar says the Dome of Victory did not survive for long. When the German pilgrim Thietmar arrived in Acre (Akka) in 1217, he noted joyfully that the temple which Saladin had built “to his gods” after the victory was now desolate. The ruins were correctly identified by Dalman in 1914, and excavated by Zvi Gal in 1976 and 1981.128 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 47, 161. Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 66; Benedict of Peterborough,Chronicle, 2: 12; Athir, al-Kamil, 686; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 95–96; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 192–193, follows Ibn Shaddad; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 459, 486–491. On the Battle of Hittin, see Röhricht, Geschichte, 428–441; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 240–248; Baldwin, Raymond III, 69–135; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 788–799; Prawer, Crusader Institutions, 484–500, and “La Bataille de Hattin,” Israel Exploration Journal 14 (1964): 160–178; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, 258–266; Kedar, “The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” 190–207; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 47, 158–163; Harold Lamb, The Crusades: The Flame of Islam (New York, 1931), 65–73; Hillaire-Belloc, Miniatures of French History (New York, 1926), 122–151; Oman, History, 1: 324–333, who calls it the Battle of Tiberias; Suhayl Zakkar, Hittin Masirat al-Tahrir min Dimashq ila al-Quds (Damascus: Dar Hassan, 1984), 117–167. 126 Letter by Abd Allah ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 82. 127 Lane-Poole, Saladin, 216. 128 Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, 159; Chronique d’Ernoul, 172; Zvi Gal, “Saladin’s Dome of Victory at the Horns of Hattin,” in Kedar, ed., The Horns of Hattin, 213–215. Gal surveyed and conducted excavations on the site of the Dome in 1976 and 1981. Shams al-Din Abu Abd Allah al-Dimashqi (d. 1327) calls it Qubbat al-Nasr (the Dome of Victory). See al-Dimashqi, Cosmography, ed. A. F. Mehren (St. Petersburg, 1866), 212, in Kedar, “The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” 207, nn. 58–63; Guy Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems: A Description of 124 125

842

THE CRUSADES

On the evening of Saturday July 4, 1187, Saladin examined the captives who had been brought to his tent. He had King Guy of Lusignan sit beside him; next to the king was Reginald of Châtillon, whom Ibn al-Athir described as “a devil and demon of the Franks, and the greatest enemy of the Muslims.”129 The two captives were exhausted and thirsty. Saladin called for a cup of ice-water and gave it to Guy of Lusignan to drink. After drinking, Guy passed the bowl to Reginald. Saladin asked the interpreter to tell Guy of Lusignan that he himself, and not Saladin, had given Reginald water to drink, because under the Arabs’ rules of hospitality, if a captive were invited to eat and drink with his captor, his life had to be spared. Thus, Saladin ordered the two captives transferred to another tent to eat and drink alone, in order to free himself of these rules. Afterwards he called them back to his tent and began to condemn Reginald for his crimes against the Muslims, especially for having intercepted a Muslim caravan traveling from Egypt to Syria. When the men in the caravan asked Reginald to treat them in accordance with his agreement with Saladin, he answered, “Tell your Muhammad to save you.” Saladin reminded Reginald of his words and told him, “I am here to avenge Muhammad.” Saladin had sworn to kill Reginald if he fell into his hands.130 Saladin urged Reginald to embrace Islam to save his life, but he refused. At once, Saladin drew his namjah (a dagger, rather like a short sword) from his belt and broke his shoulder. When Reginald fell down, Saladin ordered his men to cut off his head; his body was pulled by the leg and thrown outside in full view of the king. Al-Isfahani says, “We had vowed to break the neck of the treacherous Prince of Karak the worst of all the kuffar (infidels), the one who had been received by the fire of hell.” This action, says al-Isfahani, was one of the greatest pieces of news of Hittin.131 The king was stricken with fear, thinking he would receive the same treatment. Saladin allayed his fear and told him, “It is not the custom of kings to kill kings. But this man (Reginald) overstepped the limits. He perished because of his wickedness and treachery.”132 Bar Hebraeus reports Syria and the Holy Land A. D. 650 to 1500 (Beirut: Khayats, 1965), 451. 129 Athir, al-Kamil, 647. 130 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 80–81; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 197–198, follows al-Isfahani. 131 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 87; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 96–97; Athir, al-Kamil, 687. 132 Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, 81, and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 79, 81–82. Athir, al-Kamil, 687–689; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 194–195; Shaddad, al-

MUSLIM VICTORY

843

that when Guy passed the cup of iced water to Arnat (Reginald), Saladin told him that it was not appropriate for him to give Reginald water to drink without his command. Guy answered, “Thirst is death; so do not make him suffer two deaths. Defeat is murder; therefore, do not murder him twice.” Bar Hebraeus says that Saladin, pleased with Guy’s words, was prepared to spare Reginald’s life, but the nobles urged him to kill Reginald because he had sworn oaths of fealty (to Saladin) several times and lied. Saladin then moved Guy and Reginald to another tent. An hour later, he had Reginald brought to him alone. He drew his sword and killed him with his own hands. Bar Hebraeus describes Reginald as an old man, experienced in warfare, with unlimited strength and courage, held in great fear by the Muslims.133 The Anonymous Edessan says that the Muslims were victorious (at Hittin) and the Franks were vanquished because of their bad behavior (i.e., their internal discord and conflict). Over forty thousand Franks were slain, and two thousand more taken captive. The Muslims tied them with ropes like dogs and dragged them one after the other.134 Among the captives were over 150,000 Templars and Hospitallers, who were taken aside and then sent to Damascus. The King of Jerusalem (Guy) and al-Shaykh (old man) Reginald were also taken captives. The Muslims cut off Reginald’s head in the presence of the Sultan (Saladin).135 Some Muslim sources are in agreement with the account of the Anonymous Edessan and add even more atrocities to the ones he related. A Muslim chronicler, Muhammad ibn al-Qadisi, says that in a letter to Baghdad, Abd Allah ibn Ahmad al-Muqaddasi writes that at the battle of Hittin, the Franks numbered 63,000 foot soldiers and horsemen. Thirty thousand were killed, and the rest taken captive. In Damascus, the price of a Frankish prisoner fell to three dinars, for the Muslim troops had taken considerable amounts of booty and captives. Frankish women and children were sold in the market place. If a male captive had a family, he was sold with his wife and children at public auction. Ahmad al-Maqdisi reports, “Before me a man, his wife, and their three sons and two daughters were sold for eighty dinars,” adding that the Holy Cross was carried to Damascus in an inverted Nawadir, 96–97; Lane-Poole, Saladin, 215. 133 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 743 of the Syriac text, 324 of the English translation. 134 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 87. 135 The Anonymous Edessan, 198 of the Syriac text, 227–228 of the Arabic translation; De Expugnatione, 228; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 34.

844

THE CRUSADES

position by al-Qadi (religious judge) Ibn Abi Asrun. In Damascus, every day the heads of slain Franks were shown off like melons. There were so many cows, sheep, horses, and mules that no one would buy them because everyone already had enough. He closes with the story of a poor Muslim soldier who, in need of a sandal, sold a captured Frank to get it.136 Ibn Shaddad says that someone he considers trustworthy told him that in Hawran he had met a Muslim with more than thirty captives, bound with a tentrope; they were so helpless and desperate that he had captured them singlehanded.137 The author of the Itinerarium likens the taking of the Holy Cross to the Philistines’ capture of the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 4:17, 5:1-3), stating that ancient times produced no event so sorrowful as this.138 According to Roger of Hoveden, immediately after the battle of Hittin, Saladin ordered that the knights of the Temple and the Hospital be separated from the others and be decapitated in his presence. He slew their chief, Raymond of Castiglione, with his own hands.139 The Christians were in a deplorable situation not only in Tiberias but in many Syrian towns. Michael Rabo says that the pen cannot describe the extent of the insults, abuse, and spitting that Christians living in Damascus, Aleppo, Edessa, Harran, Amid, Mosul, and all the Muslim dominions had endured.140 Saladin left the field rejoicing at his great victory. He ordered the Frankish leaders who had been captured brought to his tent, including King Guy, the master of the Temple, Prince Reginald, William the marquis, Humphrey of Toron, Aimery the constable (brother of King Guy), Hugh of Jubayl, and several others.141 He remarked that he was very pleased to have in his power such valuable prisoners as the king of Jerusalem. He had a syrup diluted with water brought in a gold cup, tasted it, and gave it to the king, saying, “Drink deeply.” The king drank and passed it to Reginald, who refused it. When Saladin saw what had happened, he told Reginald angrily, “Drink, for you will never drink again.” Reginald answered that if it pleased God, he would never drink or eat anything of Saladin’s. Then Saladin asked, “Prince Reginald, by your law, if you held me in your prison as I now hold Muhammad ibn al-Qadisi, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 81- 82. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 96; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 78, 81. 138 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 33. 139 Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 66. 140 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 743 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 325 of the English translation. 141 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 47. 136 137

MUSLIM VICTORY

845

you in mine, what would you do to me?” He replied, “So help me God, I would cut off your head.” Saladin, enraged at this insolent reply, said, “Pig, you are my prisoner and yet you answer me so arrogantly.” Then he took a sword and thrust it right through his body. The mamluks standing before him rushed and cut off his head. Saladin took some of his blood and sprinkled it on his own head, to show that he had taken vengeance. Then he ordered Reginald’s head brought to Damascus, where it was dragged along the ground to show the Muslims whom Reginald had wronged that vengeance had been exacted.142 Saladin’s sprinkling of Reginald’s blood over his head is also recalled by Michael Rabo, who says that after killing Reginald and 300 friars (Templars), he washed himself with their blood.143 Apparently he means that Saladin sprinkled himself with their blood as a religious act of purification. In fact, Michael Rabo said earlier that when in his blind zeal Saladin stormed the land of Jerusalem in 1178, he slaughtered the first Frank he captured and splashed his garment with his blood for religious purification.144 The writer of the Itinerarium, who calls Reginald “the Prince of Antioch,” says, “The tyrant (Saladin), either because of his fury or deferring to the excellence of such a great man, cut off the distinguished and aged head with his own hands.”145 The contemporary historian Philip Hitti calls Salah al-Din a “magnanimous and chivalrous sultan” for his treatment of Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem, and for his execution of Reginald, who he says “paid for his treachery with his life.”146 Other contemporary historians have an entirely 142 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 48. Gervasii Cantuariensis, Opera Historica, ed. and trans. William Stubbs as The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 374, hereafter cited as Gervase of Canterbury, is less detailed. See letter of the Genoese to Pope Urban III, in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 11–13. 143 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation. 144 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 717–718 of the Syriac text, 375 of the French translation. 145 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 34. This account does not agree with the “Continuation of William of Tyre,” which says that the mamluks cut off Reginald’s head. On this point see M. Salloch, Die lateinische Fortsetzung Willelms von Tyrus (Leipzig, 1934), 79–80; Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuation of William of Tyre, 91, esp. n. 20. 146 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, 10th ed. (New York: Macmillan/St. Martin’s

846

THE CRUSADES

different view of Saladin’s murder of Reginald of Châtillon. The French historian Joseph François Michaud says, “Saladin disgraced his victory by this brutality. The fear with which the Christians inspired him, even after defeat, made him cruel.”147 Ehrenkreutz describes his action as motivated by thirst for blood.148 No one can deny Saladin’s chivalry and magnanimity or his brutality. He could have killed Reginald without invoking chivalry, but to justify his deed he acted as if he were observing the noble Arab custom of hospitality. He had Reginald and King Guy of Lusignan moved to another tent so that he could say that he had not eaten or drunk with them, for doing so would require him to spare Reginald’s life. Furthermore, he had over 200 Templars executed in cold blood, an action far from magnanimous or chivalrous. But Saladin’s despicable act may be excused by the fact that in matters of warfare and the treatment of captives he acted no less ignobly than his Frankish enemies. Stevenson says, “ . . . the act may be regarded as almost the only blot on Saladin’s fair name, and yet of course, the lives of all captives were forfeit according to the custom of the time, and Saladin had given no pledge to spare them.”149 Chivalry and magnanimity aside, this writer believes that Saladin was essentially acting according to the dicta of his religion. He was first and foremost a fundamentalist Muslim whose duty was to defend Islam. To him jihad against the infidels was the utmost religious duty, and killing Reginald of Châtillon and a host of Frankish knights was a manifestation of this duty. Saladin was so entranced by jihad that al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, who was in his service, says that he obtained a book on jihad for Saladin, who read it constantly.150 Saladin’s intolerance is manifested not only in his fighting the Christian Franks, whom he considered infidels, but in his treatment of Muslim learned men whose ideas and philosophy he considered dangerous to Islam. This fact is illustrated in the case of the Sufi (mystic) Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi, the author of Hikmat al-Ishraq (The WisPress, 1970), 647–648, and History of Syria (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), 601–602. 147 Joseph Francois Michaud, History of the Crusades, trans. W. Robson, 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1973), 424. 148 Ehrenkreutz, Saladin, 202. 149 Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East, 248, notes that the Franks massacred many Muslims in cold blood when they occupied Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque in 1099. 150 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 106.

MUSLIM VICTORY

847

dom of Illumination), a mystical theosophy based on Neo-Platonism and Zoroastrianism. The fundamental characteristic of this concept is the theory that the spiritual light constitutes the reality of all things. Light is the essence of all things, and Allah himself is the Light of Lights; thus, the Ishraqis believed, the whole of existence is light, which through Ishraq (irradiation) from its primary source illuminates the world of darkness. This theosophy promoted by Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi appears to have had its origin in the Bible, Neo-Platonism, and Zoroastrianism.151 To Muslim fundamentalists who believe that the Quran contains all divine knowledge, combining Neo-Platonism and Zoroastrianism with the tenets of the Quran is blasphemy. Sometime in 1191, al-Suhrawardi was in Aleppo forcefully arguing religious matters with Muslim jurists and defending his Ishraq philosophy. Saladin’s son, al-Malik al-Zahir, then the lord of Aleppo, summoned al-Suhrawardi to appear before him and gathered prominent Muslim jurists and scholastic philosophers to debate him. Not one of these learned men could refute al-Suhrawardi, who was very knowledgeable in religious sciences and philosophy. Frustrated, the jurists complained to Saladin about this man; they called him a blasphemer and said that if he were allowed to live, he would corrupt the beliefs of Saladin’s son, and if he were released, he would corrupt all the Muslim lands. Saladin sent his son a message written by his secretary al-Qadi al-Fadil, saying, “It is imperative that this Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi be killed. In no way should he be released, and in no way should he exist.” When al-Suhrawardi heard Saladin’s verdict, says one source, he chose to be confined alone without food or water, and died from hunger in 1191 at the age of thirty-six.152 But another source says that al-Malik al-Zahir had al-Suhrawardi strangled and later took revenge on the jurists who issued a fatwa (Muslim formal religious opinion) calling for his death; he arrested and humiliated some of them and exacted enormous amounts of money from them.153 Whatever the case may be, Saladin’s order to have al-Suhrawardi killed make clear that as a fundamentalist and militant Muslim, he was acting in accordance with the fundaMatti Moosa, Extremist Shi’ites: The Ghulat Sects (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1988), 375, n. 12, cites several sources on the philosophy of Ishraq; see Majid Fakhri, “Al-Suhrawardi wa Buzugh Hikmat al-Ishraq fi Bilad al-Sham,” alAbhath 43 (1995): 3–30. 152 Muwaffaq al-Din Abu al-Abbas Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, Uyun al-Anba fi Tabaqat alAtibba, Nizar Rida, ed. (Beirut: Dar Maktabat al-Hayat, 1965), 642; Fakhri, “AlSuhrawardi,” 9. 153 Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, Uyun, 644. 151

848

THE CRUSADES

mental tenets of the Quran and the dictates of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Eastern sources say that Saladin gathered the Frankish captives, including King Guy, his brother, and other notables, and handed them over to al-Nasih al-Ghidi, governor of the citadel of Damascus. Al-Ghidi had them delivered to Saladin’s deputy in Damascus, al-Safi ibn al-Qabid, who was to see that they were kept in chains. Saladin sent orders to his deputy to behead the Templar and Hospitaller captives. Al-Safi ibn al-Qabid urged the prisoners to embrace Islam in order to save their lives. Some did so and were spared; those who refused were beheaded.154 The author of the Itinerarium says, “O zeal of faith! O fervor of soul! A considerable number took the Templars’ tonsure and flocked together to the executioner. Under the pious fraud of their new profession they joyfully offered their neck to the smiter’s sword.” Among these knights of Christ, one named Nicholas was so successful in persuading the rest of his brethren to endure death willingly that the others struggled to go before him to obtain the glory of martyrdom. Nicholas strove very much to gain the honor of martyrdom first.155 The author of the Continuation of William of Tyre gives a different version of the knights’ killing. He says that when Saladin was in Damascus, he chose an evil course of action, having all the Templars and other Christians captured at Hittin put to death. He ordered his men to send the captive knights to him. When they appeared, he said that because they were valiant knights and men of arms, a great profit could still come to them. He told them that he had conquered all the Christian lands, captured the Cross, and taken the king and his barons prisoner, and that he felt pity for them. If they submitted to his command, they would live and he would give them fiefs, gold and silver, and land that he had captured. The knights asked him what he wanted them to do. Saladin told them that they should renounce their law, the cross, and their faith in Jesus Christ and turn to the law of Muhammad. They replied unanimously that they would never renounce the law of Jesus Christ: “As He suffered for us on the cross, we wish to suffer

Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 80; Nicholson, Chronicle, 34, n. 33; De Expugnatione, 228; Brundage, The Crusades, 159. 155 Nicholson, Chronicle, 34. On the knights’ martyrdom, see William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 259; Ralph de Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicarum, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 21. 154

MUSLIM VICTORY

849

death for Him at your hand. For we know that the law of Muhammad is false and deceitful.”156 On the Sunday morning after the battle of Hittin, Saladin pitched his tent in Tiberias. Knowing that the Christians had been defeated, the countess of Tiberias, wife of Raymond III of Tripoli, assumed that her husband and her children were lost. She sent word to Saladin that she would surrender the city to him if he gave her safe-conduct to Tripoli. Saladin agreed; immediately his men occupied Tiberias and let the countess and the people of Tiberias be conducted to safety.157 Saladin installed Sarim al-Din Qaymaz al-Najmi as lord of Tiberias.158 Two days after the battle, Saladin told his men to gather the captives of al-Dawiya (Templars) and al-Ispitariyya (Hospitallers), declaring, “I will purge the earth of these two abominable groups. They are the worst of all the people of kufr (infidels).” When he asked for the rest of the captives, he learned that his men had them in their custody and would not deliver them without a price. He promised to pay fifty Egyptian dinars for every captive. Immediately, two hundred Templar and Hospitaller captives were brought to him, and he ordered their heads cut off. The execution was attended by a group of religious men, jurists, and Sufis. Saladin asked each of them to behead one of the captives. Many unsheathed their swords and proceeded to execute the Franks. Some refused, however, and others declined because their strength failed them. They were excused from carrying out Saladin’s order but were ridiculed for their cowardice and were replaced by others who carried out the execution. Still others carried out the order of Saladin as an act of nobility.159 Ibn al-Athir comments that Saladin beheaded these particular captives because he believed they were mightier than all the Franks, and that by killing them he gave the Muslims relief from their wickedness.160 Similarly, the “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 78–79. “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 48. 158 Isfahani, al-Fath, 85; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 196. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 324 of the English translation, says Saladin used promises to coax the countess to leave the citadel. When she did so, he sent her to Tripoli with all her retinue and possessions and gave her gifts. 159 Isfahani, al-Fath, 86, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 79; Athir, al-Kamil, 687– 688; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 196; Röhricht, Geschchte, 441, n. 10. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation, gives the number of knights beheaded as 300. 160 Athir, al-Kamil, 688. 156 157

850

THE CRUSADES

author of the Itinerarium says, “He decided to have them utterly exterminated because he knew that they surpassed all others in battle.”161 Bar Hebraeus says Saladin executed the wretched Brethren and Hospitallers, eighty in number, who had been taken prisoners. The greater number of these he bought from the horsemen, each Brother for five hundred dinars. For he said, “These more than all the other Franks destroy the Arab (Muslim) religion, and slaughter for the triumph of [Christian] faith is sweet unto them. Therefore, we will put an end to all of them.”162 Saladin also instructed his deputy in Damascus to kill any of these men who entered the city, whether they belonged to him or to others. Ibn al-Athir says that a year later, when he passed by the site of the battle, Saladin saw the mound full of their bones, except for the bodies that had been swept away by floods or snatched by lions.163 The Franks’ defeat at Hittin marked the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as it had existed under several rulers named Baldwin. The Itinerarium says that this miserable battle, fought on the day of the Translation of St. Martin (July 4), carried away and extinguished all the glory of the kingdom.164 Archer and Kingsford call Hittin the death-blow to a kingdom that had existed since the Franks took Jerusalem ninety years before.165 LanePoole, echoing Bar Hebraeus, states, “Never to this day has Christendom recovered what it lost on the memorable Feast of St. Martin.”166 Although Christendom could not recover what it had lost, the Muslims could not retain what they gained in 1187. In December 1917, Jerusalem was captured by the English General Edmund Allenby. Major Vivian Gilbert, who served in Allenby’s army and was an eyewitness to its fall, says, “At last Jerusalem was in our hands.” He adds that of all the ten crusades whose objective was to free the Holy City, only two were successful—the Nicholson, Chronicle, 34; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 11–12; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 259. 162 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 324–325 of the English translation. 163 Athir, al-Kamil, 688. 164 Nicholson, Chronicle, 35; Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 47; Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions, 484–500. 165 T. A. Archer and Charles L. Kingsford, The Crusades: the Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894), 277. 166 Lane-Poole, Saladin, 217. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 116 of the Syriac text,. 327 of the English translation, writes, “And from this time the Christians were never again masters of Jerusalem.” 161

MUSLIM VICTORY

851

first led by Godfrey of Bouillon (in 1099), and the last under Edmund Allenby.167 Through the efforts of Western Christendom (the British government in this case), however, Palestine has become the state of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem is no longer entirely in Muslim hands. Although military historian Hans Delbrück says the battle of Hittin contributed nothing essential to the art of warfare, Benjamin Z. Kedar contends that “the battle’s contribution to the art of war is not necessarily commensurate with its political significance and, still less so, with the fascination it holds for posterity.”168 The battle of Hittin was, militarily speaking, both critical and decisive. It was the first instance in which both Muslims and Christians committed their full military power to a single pitched battle. It was decisive because of Saladin’s stunning victory over the Franks.169 The victory drained the kingdom of fighting men, most of whom were massacred or taken captive, and thus left defenseless many of its towns and castles, particularly on the coast. Except for a few remote fortresses like Karak and Shawbak, which were well-garrisoned and able to hold out another year or two, the whole kingdom now was Saladin’s for the taking.170 For the Muslims, Hittin was “The Blessed battle for the believers.”171 To Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, who gives a detailed account of the glad tidings of the defeat of the Franks, Hittin epitomized the victory of Islamic monotheism over Christianity and the Cross.172 Muslim chroniclers and poets alike expressed their joy over the victory at Hittin. They lauded Saladin for his championship of Islam and his triumph in the name of the “true religion” over the kufr (infidelity) and polytheism.173 Some contemporary Muslim writers go a step further in their evaluation of Saladin’s victory at Hittin. The Egyptian historian Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur calls Hittin “the coup de Major Vivian Gilbert, The Romance of the Last Crusade: With Allenby to Jerusalem (New York and London: D. Appleton, 1923), 171. 168 Hans Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der Politischen Geschichte, 3 (Berlin, 1907), 421; Kedar, “The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” 190. 169 Baldwin, Raymond III, 96. 170 Oman, History, 1: 332–333. 171 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 92. 172 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 78–79. 173 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 82–85; Ahmad Badawi, al-Hayat al-Adabiyya fi Asr alHurub al-Salibiyya bi Misr wa al-Sham, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dar Nahdat Misr li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1979), 454–474, includes not only the verses in praise of Hittin but those commemorating later Muslim victories against the Crusaders. 167

852

THE CRUSADES

grace to the greatest imperialistic movement the world had ever seen in the Middle Ages.”174 Another Muslim historian, Suhayl Zakkar, says in a milder tone that Hittin was the harbinger of the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The title of his book, Hittin Masirat al-Tahrir min Dimashq ila al-Quds (Hittin: The March of Liberation From Damascus to Jerusalem), indicates that Hittin was the consummation of Saladin’s plan for the liberation of Muslim lands from the hands of the Franks, which he had begun to implement by taking control of Damascus.175 The central question is: to what we should credit the Franks’ overwhelming defeat at Hittin? No historian can overlook Saladin’s phenomenal success; his name will always be connected with Hittin. Of all the Muslim leaders who fought against the Franks, he was the only one to accomplish the phenomenal feat of defeating them and capturing Jerusalem. But how did he achieve this victory? Was it the result of his military genius and superior strategy, or did the strife among the Frankish princes weaken them so much that they became cold prey to Saladin? To attribute Saladin’s victory solely to his military skill or to his unification of the different Muslim factions under his banner is to oversimplify a complex question. The Crusaders’ defeat shocked Europe and aroused the Muslims’ spirit. It was the beginning of the end for the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, whose capital was the Holy City. But other Latin states, like Antioch and Tripoli, remained strong and thriving. As Marshall W. Baldwin correctly observes, “even when Saladin controlled the Muslim world from the Nile to Mesopotamia, the Crusaders sent an army the equal of his.” In Baldwin's view the fall of Jerusalem was not inevitable, and to determine the reasons behind it the historian has to focus on other events, mainly the death of King Amalric in 1174 and its impact on the Franks, and the devastating dissension among the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.176 We should remember that Saladin was not always militarily successful. As we saw earlier, he failed to take Damascus and Aleppo by force, and he failed to occupy Amid, but managed to assert his authority over the city when he married his son to the daughter of the Khatun of Amid. He failed several times in efforts to storm Karak, and likewise could not occupy Mosul after three attempts on the city. If he failed militarily Saladin resorted to offering bribes, gifts, or marriage relations to attain his goal. In this sense Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 2: 810–811. Zakkar, Hittin, 167. 176 Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189,” 590. 174 175

MUSLIM VICTORY

853

the military hero turned into a pragmatic politician, and the valiant soldier into a wheeler-dealer. In the case of Hittin he was luckier, because the discord among the Franks led them to leave Saffuriyya for Hittin, where he was able to block their access to water, causing them to suffer from thirst. As we have seen above, when the Franks moved out of Saffuriyya, he exclaimed joyfully, “This is what we wanted!” In leaving Saffuriyya the Franks committed a tremendous military blunder. Instead of exhausting Saladin’s patience by forcing him to wait for them, they left a place where they had plenty of food, water, and fodder for their horses. Saladin had realized that he could not wait long for the Franks to fight them at Saffuriyya. From a military and logistic point of view, they were in a superior position. They had the best and most efficient army ever assembled in their long period of warfare against the Muslims. Saladin was in an insecure position, with Lake Tiberias at his back and no place of refuge except Damascus, hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, his troops had grown restless and were grumbling that they were too far from home. There was a great chance that they would revolt against him. In short, Saladin’s alternative was either to withdraw or to fight the Franks at Saffuriyya, where the Franks were securely positioned.177 True, Saladin had mustered the largest army against the Franks. But much against the sound advice of Raymond of Tripoli, the Franks moved out of Saffuriyya and fell prey to Saladin at Hittin. The real culprit was Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple, who turned King Guy against Raymond and instigated him to move out of Saffuriyya.178 Otherwise, it would have been most difficult for Saladin to overwhelm the Franks. As Charles Oman has pointed out, “the whole battle was unnecessary, and the details of Guy’s bad generalship are comparatively small blunders when compared with the enormous initial mistake of fighting at all.”179

Oman, History, 1: 333; Baldwin, Raymond III, 131. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuations of William of Tyre, 64. 179 Oman, History, 1: 333. 177

178

24 THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN The Franks were chiefly to blame for their defeat at Hittin, which was caused by their dissension or, as Marshall W. Baldwin says more accurately, by a revolution which gave Saladin the opportunity to vanquish them.1 The Anonymous Edessan says that the Franks were defeated because of their “bad behavior,” by which he apparently means their internal discord and conflict.2 Like cancer, dissension had been slowly destroying the strength of their kingdom since it was founded, but the process accelerated after the death of King Amalric in 1174 and culminated in the disaster at Hittin. At this point we must reexamine the Franks’ dissension, to which we have referred throughout this study. The death of King Amalric (Amaury) on July 11, 1174, deprived the Franks of the expertise of a leader who, more than any other, recognized the Muslims’ situation and the threat they posed to the Franks; the death of his son and successor Baldwin IV (the Leper) on March 16, 1185 unleashed the latent ambition of the Frankish barons to occupy the throne.3 Baldwin IV was only thirteen when he ascended to the throne. His tutor, the historian William of Tyre, praises him for his keen intellect, retentive mind, interest in history, and willingness to accept advice. William, who observed the young boy with his playmates, was the first to detect leprosy in him. Despite this incurable disease, Baldwin exhibited remarkable bravery in challenging Saladin during his short reign.4 He was perhaps the most tragic Marshall W. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140-1187 (New York: AMS, 1978), 69–95. 2 The Anonymous Edessan, 198 of the Syriac text, 228 of the Arabic translation. 3 Peter W. Edbury, ed., The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), i; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (London:. Kraus, 1964), 244. 4 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater 1

855

856

THE CRUSADES

and appealing figure in all the Crusades. His tender age and physical weakness limited his ability to rule, and he had to abdicate some of his authority to regents, called baillifs or procurators, including Raymond of Tripoli, Guy of Lusignan, and Reginald of Châtillon, who came into conflict with other barons who like them desired to become regents and control the kingdom. When Amalric died, his loyal friend Miles (Milon) of Plancy was appointed as senior baillif or regent. But Miles apparently was not acceptable to the barons because of his misconduct, and they plotted to remove him. Toward the end of 1174, he was stabbed to death in Acre. His wife, Stephanie of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal), believed Raymond III of Tripoli was his killer. Even so, a council convened by King Baldwin, his nobles and clergy chose Raymond as a regent to the king, a position for which he had apparently petitioned. On his release from captivity (Raymond, captured with other Frankish leaders when Nur al-Din defeated the Franks at Harim, had been imprisoned at Aleppo until 1176), he reiterated his petition and pressed his claims again.5 Though Raymond was qualified to serve as regent, particularly because he was related to the king, his ambition to be king himself made such an appointment risky. Under feudal law, he could not occupy the throne because he was third in line after the king’s two sisters, Sibyl and Isabel. After deliberating for two straight days, Baldwin IV finally agreed with the consent of his courtiers to appoint Raymond a regent.6 Since the king’s leprosy meant he could not marry or have an heir, whoever married his eldest sister Sibyl would become king. After much deliberation the barons invited William of Montferrat (“William LongSword”), who had arrived in the Holy Land in October 1176, to marry Sibyl, though he was three times her age.7 William was given the county of Ascalon and Jaffa as a dowry and was accepted as heir to the throne, but in June 1177 he died of malaria at Ascalon.8 After his death, Sibyl gave birth to Babcock and A.C. Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 2: 398–399. 5 On Raymond’s captivity see Baldwin, Raymond III, 11–15. 6 William of Tyre, History, 2: 401–404. 7 Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 1: 330; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1935), 2: 633, says William was more closely related to Baldwin IV than Raymond. 8 William of Tyre, History, 2: 415–415; “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in Edbury, ed., The Conquest of Jerusalem, 12–13; S. Runciman, A His-

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

857

a son (later to become King Baldwin V), who would need a regent after his uncle died. Baldwin IV had his eye on Philip the Alsatian, count of Flanders, who arrived in Palestine in 1177. The king had arranged with the Byzantines to attack Egypt and proposed to name Philip as a regent for his baby nephew if he agreed to participate in the expedition. Philip excused himself, saying that he had come to the Holy Land to arrange the marriage of the king’s sisters to the most suitable men available, not to command an expedition against Egypt. It was urgent to find Sibyl another suitor, who would become her husband’s heir and regent. Baldwin IV and his mother, Agnes of Courtenay, were convinced that Guy of Lusignan was the man. He was a handsome Poitevin, recently arrived in the Holy Land, and had captivated Agnes. Sibyl wanted Guy to be her husband but did not dare make her love known, lest she offend her brother the king. So she kept her love of Guy secret and even slept with him.9 By marrying Sibyl, Guy would become not only a regent but also a potential heir to the throne in the event of Baldwin’s death. For this reason the match was viewed unfavorably by the barons, especially Raymond III of Tripoli. Alarmed at the prospect that Guy might marry Sibyl, Raymond and his friend Bohemond III of Antioch entered Jerusalem in 1180 with their troops. Their unexpected appearance shocked the king, who ordered that the marriage be performed in great haste during Lent (March 5–April 30, 1180), in violation of church rules. Baldwin IV also suspected that Raymond and Bohemond might take advantage of his sickness and remove him from the throne or establish themselves as heirs to the throne while he was still alive. Recognizing the extent of the king’s anger, they immediately left the kingdom, and thus the crisis ended.10

tory of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), 2: 411; Baldwin, Raymond III, 31–32; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 215. 9 Roger of Hoveden, Document 1b, in Edbury, ed., The Conquest of Jerusalem, 150–151; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 331, 343; R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 416, n. 2; Baldwin, Raymond III, 43. 10 Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Mas de Latrie ( Paris, 1871), 59– 60; William of Tyre, History, 2: 446–447; Röhricht, Geschichte, 389; Baldwin, Raymond III, 31–36, and “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 586–597.

858

THE CRUSADES

Adding to the conflict within the royal family was the growing influence of Baldwin’s mother and his uncle Joscelin III, Agnes’s brother, which caused further confusion and deterioration of the affairs of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and eventually facilitated Saladin’s defeat of the Franks in 1187.11 Two years after Raymond and Bohemond entered Jerusalem, Baldwin grew even more suspicious that Raymond intended to usurp his throne. William of Tyre says that certain people whom he does not name but describes as “sons of Belial and foster sons of iniquity” out of jealousy induced the too credulous king to believe that in the spring of 1882, when Raymond left for his barony of Tiberias, he was planning to usurp the throne. The frightened Baldwin IV ordered Raymond not to enter the kingdom. But other barons friendly to Raymond, including Baldwin of Ramla, Balian of Ibelin, and Reginald of Sidon, asked the king to reconsider his order. He did so, and peace prevailed.12 While dissension was causing havoc in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Saladin had since 1179 been busy attacking the strongholds of the Latins in Syria and Palestine. Unable to thwart his attacks, Baldwin IV found it more convenient to conclude a two-year truce with him in the spring of 1180. William of Tyre complains that the truce was humiliating because it was concluded on equal terms, with no reservations of importance to the Latins.13 Raymond III of Tripoli concluded a truce with Saladin in June of the same year to keep the Egyptian fleet from attacking the Syrian ports and Antartus (Antarados or Tortosa, the modern Tartus).14 But the truces did not seem to deter Saladin from his plan to further challenge the Latins, and from June to October 1182, he continued attacking them in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.15 On June 12, 1183, Saladin concluded an agreement with Imad al-Din Abu al-Fath Zangi II, atabeg of Aleppo (1182–1183), who surrendered Aleppo to him in exchange for Sinjar, his native town. Saladin later added al-Khabur, Nisibin, al-Raqqa, and Saruj.16 The surrender of “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 13–14; Chronique d’Ernoul, 59–60; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 429–430; Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall,” 597–598. 12 William of Tyre, History, 2: 459–460. 13 William of Tyre, History, 2: 447; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 222. 14 William of Tyre, History, 2: 448–449; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 664–682; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 222; Röhricht, Geschichte, 383–399; Baldwin, Raymond III, 34. 15 Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 1(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 651–653. 16 Athir, al-Kamil, 661; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar alDawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 42–43; Jamal al-Din Muhammad 11

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

859

Aleppo, the most important city in northern Syria, was a great blow to the Latins, for it allowed Saladin to close the gap in the ring surrounding the Latins.17 Saladin also laid siege unsuccessfully to Beirut and al-Mawsil (Mosul).18 Baldwin IV had won a temporary victory in 1177 at Tall al-Safiya, as Saladin barely escaped with his life and returned to Egypt, but he swore to return and defeat the Franks.19 The Franks had scored another success in 1178 by invading the regions of Hama and Shayzar, where they pillaged, set fire to villages, killed many Muslims, and captured others. But since then the Franks had suffered from internal conflict between the “court party” and the barons. The multiple marriages and divorces of Bohemond III, count of Antioch, intensified the dissension in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Bohemond was married to Princess Theodora, niece of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus, but when the emperor died on September 24, 1180, Bohemond, defying the rules of the church, left her to marry a certain woman of Antioch named Sibyl, a person of dubious reputation who dabbled in evil arts.20 Sibyl had no qualms about betraying her husband and the Franks by providing Saladin with information about the movements and condition of the Frankish army, which he was eager to obtain.21 Al-Isfahani says that the wife of the Prince of Antioch, Madame Sibyl, was on good terms with the Sultan (Saladin) and spied against the Franks. She sent him gifts, consulted with him and told him of their secrets. In return, the Sultan honored her with precious gifts.22 ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 142; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 98; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 779–780. 17 William of Tyre, History, 2: 410–412; Baldwin, Raymond III, 48. 18 Athir, al-Kamil, 654–657; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 23–24, 31, 64– 65; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 68–90; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 714; Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Kavats, 1964), 168–174. 19 Athir, al-Kamil, 628–629; William of Tyre, History, 2: 430–431; Ashur, alHaraka, 2: 758. 20 William of Tyre, History, 2: 452–454. On the death of Manuel, see William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 224; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 250. 21 Athir, al-Kamil, 729–730. 22 Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 251–252, and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 131.

860

THE CRUSADES

Bohemond’s immoral behavior caused the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Heraclius, to excommunicate him and place an interdict on his domain. Bohemond retaliated by labeling the patriarch as his enemy and robbing churches and monasteries of their sacred objects. Baldwin IV, the patriarch, and the prelates of the church met to discuss how to treat Bohemond. After long deliberation, they decided that although his conduct was reprehensible, they should not use force against him, lest he summon the enemy forces to assist him. Should this happen, the whole country would be open to the Muslims. But Bohemond’s behavior became more outrageous; as he continued to plunder the churches and monasteries, it appeared no one could stop him. They decided to send Patriarch Heraclius to Bohemond, accompanied by Reginald of Châtillon, Arnold of Toroge, master of the Templars, Roger of Moulins, master of the Hospitallers, and numerous prelates and priests, to seek an end to his evils. On reaching Laodicea (Latakia), they conferred with the patriarch and the prince separately to set a date for both to come to Antioch, but eventually they concluded an agreement at Laodicea. They decided that when the property Bohemond had pillaged had been restored to the patriarch, the bishops, and the holy places, the interdict placed on his domain would be lifted and the sacraments of the church restored to the people. Bohemond, however, would still suffer excommunication. If he desired complete absolution, he must first get rid of his mistress and take back his wife. Having reached this resolution, the envoys returned home. But Bohemond continued his evil ways and exiled the people of Antioch who disapproved of his conduct. The exiles found refuge with the Armenian King Reuben III (1175–1185), who received them with honor and offered them splendid gifts.23 The division within Baldwin’s court and the treachery of Bohemond’s wife caused considerable problems and placed the kingdom in an extremely difficult situation which made it easy for Saladin to defeat the Franks in 1187. William of Tyre, an astute observer of the dissension among the Franks, cites Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every house divided against itself shall not stand.”24 Bar Hebraeus is the only one of the Syriac writers who reports this aspect of Bohemond’s conduct. Without naming the persons involved, he says that [in 1180] the prince of Antioch left his Greek wife, whom he had taken from Constantinople in the days of the Emperor Manuel, and com23 24

William of Tyre, History, 2: 455–457. William of Tyre, History, 2: 455.

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

861

mitted fornication. The Patriarch excommunicated not only the priest who had blessed his union with the whore (Sibyl) but the whole city, and he even stopped the ringing of bells and the prayers. Furious, the Prince looted the churches and monasteries of the Franks. Then the Patriarch of Jerusalem came with men of authority and pacified the prince. He permitted him to keep the unlawful wife, and he gave back everything that he had taken from the churches and monasteries.25 The discord among the Latins continued at a time when they desperately needed peace and unity. Saladin was tightening his grip on their strongholds in Syria and Palestine. The Latins regrouped their forces at the fountain of Saffuriyya (Sephorie) in Palestine, to be ready in case of an attack by Saladin. Unfortunately, King Baldwin IV was taken seriously ill at Nazareth. His leprosy grew worse, his sight failed, and he lost the use of his hands and feet. The king summoned his nobles and, in the presence of his mother and the patriarch of Jerusalem, he appointed his sister’s husband, Guy of Lusignan, count of Jaffa and Ascalon, a regent of his kingdom. The king retained only his royal dignity and his rule over the city of Jerusalem, with an annual revenue of ten thousand gold pieces. He entrusted to Guy the general administration of the kingdom without restriction, and commanded his subjects and the barons to swear allegiance to him. Thus, Guy became the de facto ruler of the kingdom. His appointment to such an eminent position displeased many of the king’s advisors, and self-seekers thought they could take advantage of his weakness to enrich themselves at his expense. There was so much grumbling and disagreement that William of Tyre remarked, “There were so many men, so many minds.”26 With his critics calling him unfit to govern the kingdom, Guy failed to win the barons’ support. Baldwin rightly observes, “It was a sad state of affairs for a kingdom facing a military crisis.”27 R. C. Smail says that Guy’s appointment “weakened the kingdom because it sharpened the divisions already apparent among the leading men and women concerned in its government.”28 Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 110 of the Syriac text, 310–311 of the English translation. His assertion that the patriarch permitted Bohemond to keep his unlawful wife contradicts William of Tyre on this point. 26 William of Tyre, History, 2: 492–493. 27 Baldwin, Raymond III, 51. 28 R. C. Smail, “The Predicament of Guy of Lusignan, 1183–87,” in B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R.C. Smail, eds., Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 160. 25

862

THE CRUSADES

While these events were happening in the autumn of 1183, Saladin began his attack on the Ghawr and Galilee in Palestine. Under pressure from the barons, Baldwin IV was forced to remove Guy as regent and sole administrator of the kingdom. On November 20, 1183, Baldwin also proclaimed the son of his sister Sibyl by William of Montferrat as heir to the throne, thus dashing Guy’s hope of succeeding him.29 Baldwin also pressured his sister Sibyl to divorce Guy, who then revolted against him. To suppress the rebellion, Baldwin attacked Ascalon (part of Guy’s domain), but found the city gates closed. Failing to take Ascalon, he marched against Jaffa and captured it. In December 1183 or early in 1184, he summoned his barons, who unanimously demanded that he offer the office of procurator to Raymond III of Tripoli. By this action the king aimed to preserve the position of the barons and preclude the possibility that Guy might seek the throne.30 On Baldwin’s orders, Sibyl’s five-year-old son was taken to the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulcher), where he received the royal unction and was solemnly crowned, to the approval of the people and the clergy. Guy was present but kept silent.31 After the ceremony, the child king was carried in the arms of Balian II of Ibelin to the Templum Domini, where the Augustinian canonry was established in the Dome of the Rock. There King Baldwin IV offered his crown to the new king. Afterwards the congregation moved to the Temple of Solomon in the adjacent Aqsa Mosque, where the Templars had their headquarters, and enjoyed a celebratory meal served by the burgesses of Jerusalem.32 The new child king was to be kept under the regency of Raymond of Tripoli for ten years, until he attained maturity at the age of fifteen. While accepting the regency, Raymond refused to accept guardianship of the delicate little boy, fearing that he would be blamed if the young king died. In the end, with the advice and consent of the barons, the guardianship of the boy was entrusted to his great-uncle Joscelin III of Courtenay, who seems to have been friendly toward Baldwin IV.33 Having assumed the regency, Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 330–331; Isfahani, al-Fath, 67–68 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 74–75). 30 William of Tyre, History, 2: 501; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 13–14; Chronique d’Ernoul, 115–119; Baldwin, Raymond III, 57. 31 William of Tyre, History, 2: 501–502; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 244. 32 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” ed. Edbury, 14–15, esp. n. 13. 33 “Continuation of William of Tyre,”14–15; L’Estoire d’Eracles, R.H.C. Occ., 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1859), 2: 7; Chronique d’Ernoul, 115–119; Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 410; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 443; Bald29

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

863

Raymond III desired a period of peace and tranquility to settle the internal strife within the kingdom and appease his Muslim enemies. Probably because of a severe drought which had afflicted Jerusalem, Raymond in 1185 concluded a four-year truce with Saladin.34 At first he had no difficulty administering the affairs of the kingdom, even after Baldwin IV died in March 1185. Problems arose, however, after the death of the young Baldwin V at Acre, in late summer 1186.35 Raymond’s enemies were determined to put Sibyl and her husband Guy of Lusignan on the throne. A plot to remove Raymond was concocted by the “court party,” including Sibyl and her husband; Sibyl’s mother Agnes; her brother Joscelin III of Courtenay; Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem; Gerard of Ridefort, the newly appointed master of the Templars (or the Temple); and Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Karak, who was Raymond’s jealous and unrelenting adversary. Raymond and Joscelin III were at Acre when the young king died. To carry out the plot, Joscelin convinced Raymond to go to Tiberias and summon the princes of the kingdom to a meeting, so that he would be unaware of the maneuvers of Heraclius. Meanwhile, Joscelin was to take charge of removing the king's body for burial in Jerusalem, then join the rest of the princes at Tiberias to discuss the will of Baldwin IV regarding the future administration of the kingdom.36 No sooner had Raymond departed for Tiberias than Joscelin dispatched troops to occupy Tyre and Beirut. Supported by Heraclius and Reginald of Karak, Joscelin proclaimed Guy of Lusignan and Sibyl as king and queen of Jerusalem and the coastal ports.37 When the news reached Raymond, he hastened to Nabulus (Neapolis) and met with the barons, who rejected Joscelin’s action because it violated the will of Baldwin IV and the Frankish princes. The rift between Raymond’s supporters and the opposing court party was now complete. At Nabulus, the barons felt tricked and overpowered. Since Raymond was still regent, they saw the coronation of Sibyl and her husband as proof that he had totally breached their trust and his own pledge to Baldwin IV. The win, Raymond III, 59. 34 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 14–15, 17–18; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 12– 14. 35 Stevenson, The Crusaders, 237–238; Röhricht, Geschichte, 416, 421. 36 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 24–28; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 759–763, 766–767; Baldwin, Raymond III, 71–76, and “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 604–605; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 25–32; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 446–447. 37 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 24–28; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 25–27.

864

THE CRUSADES

“court party” acted quickly, lest the barons who supported Raymond foil their plan. After ordering the gates of Jerusalem closed, Patriarch Heraclius lost no time in anointing and crowning Guy and Sibyl as king and queen. The Knights Templar stood guard at the gates to prevent a possible attack by the barons meeting at Nabulus.38 Roger of Hoveden gives a slightly different account. He says that when the boy-king of Jerusalem, Baldwin V, died in 1186, his mother Sibyl was the only heir to the throne. Before she was crowned, Patriarch Heraclius, the Templars, and the Hospitallers wanted her to divorce her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and marry Walran (Raymond), the earl of Tripoli, or some nobleman in the kingdom of Jerusalem. But Sibyl craftily duped them, saying she wanted their assurance that if she divorced her husband, they would accept whomever she chose as their head and lord. They agreed and led her into the Temple, where Patriarch Heraclius crowned her queen. While he and all the congregation offered prayers asking the Lord Almighty to provide a suitable king for the land, Queen Sibyl took the royal crown in her hands and placed it on the head of her husband, Guy of Lusignan, saying, “I make choice of thee as king, and as my lord, and as lord of the land of Jerusalem, for those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”39 With the coronation of Guy an accomplished fact, the barons perforce accepted him as their king. The kingdom was now torn by factional conflict worsened by the rash behavior of Reginald of Châtillon, who breached Saladin’s truce with Raymond by attacking and looting Muslim caravans, making war between Saladin and the Latins inevitable. Realizing that he had been betrayed and outwitted, Raymond retired to his wife’s domain in Tiberias, vowing never to pay homage to Guy of Lusignan. The author of The History of Them That Took Constantinople says simply that when the Count of Tripoli saw this development, he was grieved and went to Tripoli with great

“Continuation of William of Tyre,” 25–28; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 25–28; Chronique d’Ernoul, 137–139; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 447–449; Baldwin, Raymond III, 76–81. 39 Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 62; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 358–359; and Li Estoires de chiaus qui conquisent Constantinoble, trans. Edward Noble Stone as The History of Them That Took Constantinople, in Stone, ed., Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades, 195. This work, written in the Picard tongue about 1216 by Robert of Clari in Amienois, knight, shall be cited by its English title throughout. 38

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

865

indignation.40 Guy, who considered Raymond a rebel against his authority, sent troops to force him to surrender. Raymond refused to be intimidated and turned to Saladin for help. Roger of Hoveden says that Raymond, vexed and sad that the queen had rejected him, entered into an alliance with Saladin and devised many evils for the destruction of the king and queen. But Saladin requested that the truce he had formerly effected should be extended for three more years, to which King Guy assented.41 Al-Isfahani says Allah ordained that one reason for the triumph of Islam and the weakening of the kufr (infidelity), meaning the faith of the Christians, was the willingness of the count of Tripoli to reconcile with Saladin and resort to him for assistance against his own people. He says that the king demanded from Raymond an account of the country’s revenues, causing dissension between them; when Raymond asked him for help, Saladin welcomed his appeal and released his captives.42 Ibn al-Athir praises Raymond, saying that among all the Franks there was no one more courageous, generous and eminent. He says that after the death of Baldwin V Raymond aspired to become king himself, and when Guy was crowned king, he felt betrayed. To make things worse, he was asked to submit an account of the money he had levied during the reign of Baldwin V. He claimed that he had spent the money on the king. Totally outraged, he revolted against Guy and sent envoys to Damascus to ask Saladin for help. Delighted at this development, Saladin promised to help Raymond and install him as the sole king of the Franks. To show his good will, Saladin released Raymond’s knights, whom he had held captive. Raymond appreciated this act and pledged obedience to Saladin, causing great division among the Franks. Ibn al-Athir says in closing that “this division was one of the great factors in the conquest of their lands and the liberation of Jerusalem.”43 Marshall W. Baldwin seems to condone the course Raymond took: 40 41

359.

Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades, 195. Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2: 62–63; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1:

Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, 67–68, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 74–75. According to Abu Shama, al-Isfahani went further, saying that were it not for his fear of his people, the count would have embraced Islam and became a vassal of Saladin. 43 Athir, al-Kamil, 674–675; Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub, 2: 184–185; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 449, n. 2; Helen Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 29; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 256. 42

866

THE CRUSADES

“He planned no war against his fellow Christians. He sought only to ward off their (the Franks’) attack until some of his rights at least were respected. There was nothing particularly unusual in such a step.”44 Ibn al-Athir’s account of Raymond’s actions agrees with that of Michael Rabo, who states that the Count of Tripoli had an aspiration for the crown but failed to acquire it. He rebelled and fled, and it was he who betrayed the Franks.45 Despite his promise to help Raymond, Saladin had no immediate plan to attack the Latins. The opportunity presented itself when Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Karak (called Arnat in the Arabic sources, Arnags, Arngad, Rangad or Ranghad in some Syriac sources), broke the truce with Saladin by attacking Muslim caravans. Reginald was a typical knight errant who often acted imprudently to achieve his goals.46 In 1156, as regent of Antioch, he had made an attack on Cyprus that ended in disaster. In 1160 he was captured by the Muslims, eventually being released in 1175. In 1182, he undertook a daring expedition in the Red Sea to capture the Muslim holy shrines in Hijaz and strike a coup de grace at the heart of the Muslim world. The Franks, aided by Bedouin traitors who led their troops, came close to capturing Medina.47 In late 1186 or early 1187, Reginald attacked a Muslim caravan going from Cairo to Damascus with plenty of expensive merchandise. Egyptian troops accompanied the caravan as guards, but Reginald ambushed it, stole the merchandise, and took the men to Karak, where they were abused.48 Saladin had warned Reginald more than once about his attacks against Muslim caravans and even invaded his country to bring him to submission. ReBaldwin, Raymond III, 82. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 734; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 404. 46 Grousset, Histoire, 2: 776; Baldwin, Raymond III, 61. 47 Athir, al-Kamil, 658–659; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 127–132; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 35–37. 48 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; L’Estoire d’Éracles, 2: 34. The Itinerarium, in Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 29, says the caravan was going from Damascus to Egypt, and suddenly the Prince of Antioch (Reginald) rushed down on them and carried them away dishonorably as captives with all their bags. See B. Hamilton, “The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon,” in D. Baker, ed., Religious Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, Studies in Church History, 15 (1978): 106–107. 44 45

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

867

alizing that his action might arouse Saladin against him, Reginald asked for a truce, and Saladin accepted. But when Reginald violated the truce and attacked this rich caravan, Saladin dispatched a messenger to Reginald decrying his perfidious deed and threatening retribution if he did not release the captives and return the merchandise. Reginald did not respond, and Saladin vowed to kill Reginald if he ever fell into his hands.49 Reginald reportedly told Saladin’s messengers, “Ask your Muhammad to save you.”50 Saladin sent messengers to Guy of Lusignan informing him of Reginald’s action and asking for the release of the Muslim captives and their merchandise. Guy urged Reginald to comply, but he refused.51 Reginald may have believed that because he had assisted Guy by supporting his claim to the throne, Guy could not force him to follow his orders.52 Reginald could have not found a more inopportune time to anger Saladin. His defiance of King Guy’s orders indicates that the supreme authority in the Kingdom of Jerusalem had been shattered and the Latins were greatly weakened. Saladin’s battle with the Franks became inevitable.53 It is thus clear that when the Franks fought Saladin at Hittin, they were victims of their own discord. This discord manifested itself most clearly when Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Templars, who hated Raymond of Tripoli, succeeded in convincing King Guy to reject Raymond’s advice and make the fatal blunder of leaving Saffuriyya, where his men, already suffering from extreme thirst and exhaustion, fell cold prey to Saladin. Despite their physical weakness, the Franks would have never lost the kingdom and Jerusalem, its crowning jewel. Historian Hans Eberhard Mayer advances a different theory about the Franks’ loss of Jerusalem, emphasizing the attitude of King Henry II of England toward the Crusades and his support of the Crusaders. Although Mayer concedes that the Latin kingdom suffered a catastrophic defeat at Hittin in 1187, he says this defeat could have been avoided were it not for Athir, al-Kamil, 675–676; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 185; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29. 50 Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 194–195. 51 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; Röhricht, Geschichte, 441- 442; Grousset, Histoire, 2: 777–778. 52 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 29; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 2: 450. 53 E. J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London: Methuen, 1931), 118–119; W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, The City of Herod and Saladin (London: Chatto and Windus, 1899), 387–388; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 799. 49

868

THE CRUSADES

the “English money,” that is, the money King Henry II had accumulated in Jerusalem to aid the Crusaders.54 He points out that although the king made many promises to take up the cross, he never went on a crusade to the Holy Land. His reluctance led the French King Louis VII (1137–1180) to question his sincerity about crusading. King Henry appropriated a large amount of money for the “business of the cross,” but he did not allow it to be spent. Whatever plans he had for going to the Holy Land were postponed because of the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170, which complicated Henry’s relations with the papacy. He had problems within his family, for his sons were rebellious, and he had continuous tension with France. Unable to go to the Holy Land because of his tumultuous situation, he began in 1172 to send a yearly contribution of 2,000 marks to Jerusalem, to be placed in the house of the Templars and Hospitallers, to compensate for his failure to participate in the crusades. By 1187, the king’s account was estimated at 30,000 marks of silver (about 20,000 English pounds).55 The point Mayer wishes to make is that King Henry’s money was no proof of his sincerity in aiding the Crusaders. It had a great deal to do with his disputes with France. It was the Franks, not the English, who were fighting the Muslims in the Holy Land, and they looked to their king for support. Henry II piled up more and more money to counter the French king’s popularity and strengthen his position as a key player in European politics. In this respect he could be considered the chief supporter of the Holy Land.56 But the situation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was anything but pleasant: King Baldwin IV (the leper) was gravely ill, and there were intrigues and dissension among the barons over the governance of the kingdom. The kingdom was in dire need of aid from the West and a strong ruler like King Henry to save it from collapsing. Matters came to a head when Patriarch Heraclius met with King Henry. In June 1184 an embassy of the patriarch, the masters of the Temple and the Hospitallers, and other Frankish leaders left Jerusalem to seek aid from the West. In January 1185, Heraclius met King Philip II Augustus (1180–1223) in Paris and offered him the keys to the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher, probably seeking to replace the ailing Baldwin IV with the French king. Philip Augustus refused to rule over the Kingdom of JeruHans Eberhard Mayer, “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,” The English Historical Review 385 (October, 1982): 721. 55 Mayer, “Henry II,” 724. 56 Mayer, “Henry II,” 725. 54

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

869

salem and sent envoys to England, where they remained from January to April.57 The patriarch wanted not only to settle the problem of succession in the kingdom, but also to have access to Henry’s treasure in Jerusalem. When he met with King Henry, the patriarch offered him the keys of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher, as he had done with the French king. He also offered him the insignia of the kingdom. Henry returned the insignia and said he wanted to consult with his barons. In an assembly called by the king at Clerckenwell in March 1185, Patriarch Heraclius preached the cross, and many clergy and nobles responded positively. King Henry asked the assembly whether he should go to the Holy Land or stay home to rule England. He was told that he should stay. King Henry informed the patriarch of the assembly’s advice and offered money. Pointing up the most important issue, the survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the patriarch said, “We want a prince who needs money, not money that needs a prince.”58 Unfortunately, the patriarch’s mission was a failure. But it proved one thing: Henry would not lead a crusade to the Holy Land, nor would he allow one of his sons to do so. After Jerusalem fell in 1187, King Henry II decided to take up the cross in earnest, but it was too late. Mayer implies that if Henry’s money had been spent appropriately for the defense of the kingdom, Saladin would have been unable to capture Jerusalem, and the catastrophe of Hittin would have been averted.59 In the financial hardship, the master of the Templars finally made Henry’s treasure available to hire foot soldiers who, according to King Guy’s order, were to fight under the English flag. When he learned of this decision, Henry was displeased, but he was no longer in control. The Franks had no hope of success. The blunder had been made, and they moved to Saffuriyya, where Saladin was waiting for them. The failure to disburse King Henry’s treasure wisely and at the right time contributed to the Franks’ loss. Mayer concludes, “Henry’s eastern account had, against the king’s will, contributed to the disaster of Hattin.” Still, it was used to ransom 7,000 poor people in Jerusalem and pay for the defense of Tyre, the only port the Franks still held in the Holy Land. It also helped Henry’s son Richard the Lion-Heart to carry out his crusade in the East. 60 Mayer, “Henry II,” 732. Gervase of Canterbury, 1: 325, in Mayer, “Henry II,” 733. 59 Mayer, “Henry II,” 735. 60 Mayer, “Henry II,” 739. 57 58

870

THE CRUSADES

A day after the battle of Hittin, Saladin entered Tiberias, taking its citadel without the use of force, and allowed Eschiva, the wife of Raymond III of Tripoli, to leave the city in safety. The other Latin strongholds in Palestine were now at Saladin’s mercy. Naturally, it was expected that his next target would be the city of Jerusalem. But instead he planned to attack the coastal towns, which were just as significant to him. Jerusalem, being inland, was not so easily accessible to the Franks as the coastal towns, which could obtain military assistance from Europe via the sea. Thus, Saladin began by attacking Akka (Acre), the seaport nearest to him.61 He ordered his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar to lead his troops against Acre. On Wednesday, July 7, 1187, Taqi al-Din Umar was at the gates of Acre, then governed by Joscelin III of Courtenay. Most of the city’s nobles fled by sea to Tyre, but the poor people asked Saladin for a pledge of safety, which he gave them. Michael Rabo and other Eastern sources say that the citizens surrendered the city to Saladin.62 Latin sources, however, indicate that it was Joscelin of Courtenay who turned the city over. The Continuation of William of Tyre says that when Joscelin, once the governor of Acre, arrived there and learned that Taqi al-Din Umar was hastening toward the city, he summoned a group of burgesses. On their advice, he sent the keys of the city to Taqi al-Din Umar and asked to surrender it to Saladin, on condition that he grant the inhabitants and their wives safe-conduct and let them leave with their possessions in peace. The bearer of the keys was Peter Brice, a Venetian citizen long associated with Acre.63 When the rest of the people heard that Joscelin had surrendered the city and sent the keys to the Muslims, they became furious, saying they would rather burn down the city than surrender it. Some people actually started fires in the city. Taqi al-Din Umar sent word to Saladin that the kingdom was his and he should rush to Acre. Joyful at hearing the news, Saladin arrived in Acre to find the city burning. He told 61 Isfahani, al-Fath, 88–89 (Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 85–87); Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 102; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 249. 62 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 114 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 228 of the Arabic translation. Athir, al-Kamil, 688–689; Isfahani, al-Fath, 89 (Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 86– 87). 63 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 48–49, mentions Peter as a burgess of Acre; Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 288; D. Jacoby, “L’expansion occidentale dans le Levant: les Vénitiens à Acre dans la seconde moitié du trezième siècle,” Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977): 240–242.

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

871

the burgesses that he would be tolerant and kind if they put the fire out. He offered the people safe-conduct and the choice to remain or leave. Those who remained were to pay the tax (jizya) imposed on the Christians, in conformity with the Shari’a. He gave those who wanted to leave a period of 40 days to gather their wives and possessions. Many citizens chose to leave and were taken in safety to their destinations.64 The Muslims entered the city on Friday July 9, 1187, and occupied its houses; each one who took possession of a house raised his own flag on it. In an old mosque which the Franks had converted into a church, and which Saladin turned into a mosque again, the Muslims performed their prayers on the Syrian coast, for the first time since the Franks occupied it at the end of the eleventh century.65 Saladin freed four thousand Muslim captives.66 He gave all the possessions of the Dawiya (Templars), including villages and estates, to the jurist Isa al-Hakkari, then gave the city as a gift to his son al-Afdal. Since Acre had been an emporium of Frankish and Greek merchants, the Muslims gained a tremendous amount of booty—gold, jewels, arms, and other things the Franks could not take with them.67 There was so much booty that no one could carry it. Saladin and his son al-Afdal distributed it to their favorites. Saladin remained in Acre a few days to examine its situation and establish order. While there, he ordered his brother al-Malik al-Adil to bring his army from Egypt and assist in the conquest of Palestine. Al-Adil occupied the fortress of Majdalyaba and captured everything in it. Next he stormed the coastal city of Jaffa, taking its men and women captive, then wrote to inform Saladin of his feats.68 Ibn al-Athir says, “What happened to the inhabitants of Jaffa did not happen to any other inhabitants of that country.”69 Ibn al-Athir relates two anecdotes about the calamity that befell the people of Jaffa. While in Aleppo, he saw a one-year-old child being carried by his mother, a slave woman from Jaffa. The child slipped from her hands and fell to the ground, cutting his face. The woman started crying, and Ibn al-Athir calmed her down. She told him that she was crying not because of “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 49; Chronique d’Ernoul, 171; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 70–71. 65 Isfahani, al-Fath, 90; Athir, al-Kamil, 688–689; Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub, 2: 201. 66 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98. 67 Isfahani, al-Fath, 90 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 86); Athir, al-Kamil, 689; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98. 68 Isfahani, al-Fath, 91 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 87); Athir, al-Kamil, 689– 690; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 202. 69 Athir, al-Kamil, 691. 64

872

THE CRUSADES

the child’s injury but because she had had a husband, six brothers, and two sisters, all of whom perished when the city was stormed. On another occasion, he saw a Frankish woman and her master knock at the door of a house. The owner came out and started talking to them, then called a Frankish woman in the house to come out. When the women saw each other, they embraced tearfully and collapsed, then sat up and began chatting. Apparently sisters, they had family members about whose fate they knew nothing.70 The Anonymous Edessan says Saladin fortified Acre, stationed garrisons to protect it, and installed a Greek (Byzantine) eunuch, Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, as its governor.71 After Acre surrendered, Saladin’s army moved on to occupy Nazareth, Caesarea, Haifa, Saffuriyya, Ma’alya, Shaqif Arnun (Belfort, Beaufort), alFula (La Fève, present-day Affula), and other towns. They pillaged them and their churches, imprisoning their men and taking the women and children as captives.72 Saladin sent his nephew Husam al-Din Umar ibn Lajin to occupy Nabulus. He first attacked Sebastea, where the Christians had converted the mausoleum of the Prophet Zachariah into a church. He reconverted it to a mosque and gave it to the Muslims, then marched on Nabulus and occupied it without inccident. He asked Saladin to give him control of the city, and he did so because he cherished his nephew a great deal.73 Saladin sent another nephew, Taqi al-Din Umar, to attack the fortress of Tibnin and cut off its supplies and those of Tyre. When his nephew wrote back asking him for assistance, Saladin marched in three stages against Tibnin, whose inhabitants asked for safety. He offered them a five-day grace period to capitulate. They offered their leading citizens as hostages, and Saladin freed more than 20,000 Muslim captives, whom he received with joy and returned to their native country with gifts.74 Athir, al-Kamil, 691. The Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translation, identifies Qaraqosh as a Byzantine. 72 Isfahani, al-Fath, 94 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 87), describes the capture of Caesarea by Badr al-Din Dulderim and Ghars al-Din Kilij. 73 Isfahani, al-Fath, 95–96, and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 88; Athir, al-Kamil, 690; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 202–203. 74 Athir, al-Kamil, 691–692; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98–99; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 202,205–206. For more on Taqi al-Din, see John L. La Monte, “Taqi al-Din, Prince of Hama,” The Moslem World 31 (1941): 149–160. Isfahani, al-Fath, 100–101 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 89), says all told, Saladin freed 20,000 Muslim prisoners and 70 71

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

873

At this time Saladin wrote to his brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Islam in Egypt, reporting his feats and naming the towns he had occupied thus far. Then he had Imad al-Din al-Isfahani write a letter telling the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir li Din Allah in Baghdad of his great deeds, or rather an encomium expressing Saladin’s pride and joy at having defeated “the people of the cross” and led the people of the true faith to triumph. It portrays accurately his enthusiasm for the jihad against the infidels.75 He then moved to occupy al-Fula, and once it was controlled, he ordered his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar to seize Tibnin, the majority of whose inhabitants were Christians. Three contingents of the Muslim army came to Tibnin and stormed it with engines of war. They overwhelmed the hapless inhabitants, who asked Saladin to grant them safety; he gave them five days’ respite to surrender their possessions. They did so, and they released their Muslim captives. Saladin welcomed the captives, clothed them, and sent them to Tyre. Saladin placed his mamluk Sunkur al-Dawawi in charge of the town and its environs. Close to Tibnin was Jabal Amil, inhabited mostly by Shi’ites, who despite being Muslims were, says al-Isfahani, “of great help to the people of kufr (infidels),” meaning that they were acting against Saladin.76 Saladin’s aggressive movements continued apace. Al-Isfahani says that Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi attacked and pillaged Nazareth and Saffuriyya. The marauding Muslims seized women of all ages but mostly beautiful young girls, whom they drove through the marketplaces with chains around their hands and necks and brought to Kukburi.77 The Anonymous Edessan says that Saladin occupied Nazareth and delivered it to Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, the governor of Edessa, whose troops looted it, slaughtered its men by the sword, took the women and children captive, and made slaves of the women.78 Saladin soon turned his campaign against the coastal cities. He marched on Sarafand, which surrendered without resistance, and then on Sidon (Sayda). On learning that enemy forces were approaching Sidon, its governor fled, leaving it defenseless; Saladin occupied the city at the end of

took 100,000 infidels captive in 1187. 75 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 88–89; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 203. 76 Isfahani, al-Fath, 99–102. The wide chasm which separates the Shi’ites from the Sunnites, although both are Muslims, is all too evident even today. 77 Isfahani, al-Fath, 93–94, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 87. 78 The Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation.

874

THE CRUSADES

July 1187.79 Next he went to Beirut, which Ibn al-Athir says was the best fortified and most pleasant city on the Syrian coast.80 The inhabitants of Beirut showed remarkable resistance. Taking advantage of their city’s strong defenses, they thought they could hold out against Saladin’s force. When the Franks fighting on the city wall heard a great commotion, someone came to inform them that the Muslim forces had entered the city from the other side. They tried unsuccessfully to calm down the popular uproar. The city’s defenders were mostly merchants, artisans, and others with no experience in warfare. In their anomalous situation, they decided to contact Saladin and ask him to guarantee the safety of themselves and their property. Saladin agreed and entered the city with his troops on August 6, 1187, after an eight-day siege.81 Next Saladin marched on Jubayl (Gibelet), whose governor Hugh, a renowned knight and vassal of Raymond III of Tripoli, had been taken captive at Hittin and sent in chains with other prisoners to Damascus. Hugh indicated to al-Safi ibn al-Qabid, Saladin’s deputy in Damascus, that he would surrender Jubayl in exchange for his own freedom. During the siege of Beirut, Saladin ordered that Hugh be brought to him from Damascus. Hugh apparently asked the Jubayl garrison to surrender the city and release the Muslim captives, and Saladin released him.82 At this point Saladin controlled of most of the towns and maritime fortresses in southern Syria, but he could not capture Tyre, supposedly because it was defended by a strong garrison. Michael Rabo says that when Saladin attacked Tyre, he was faced with strong opposition. When he saw that there was nothing to be gained, he moved to take Sidon, Beirut, Jubayl and Tibnin.83 Muslim sources say Tyre, to which Raymond of Tripoli fled after Hittin, was not only beautiful but one of the best fortified coastal

79 Athir, al-Kamil, 692; Isfahani, al-Fath, 102–103; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 206. 80 Athir, al-Kamil, 692; Isfahani, al-Fath, 104–105. 81 Athir, al-Kamil, 693; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 90; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 206. 82 Isfahani, al-Fath, 108 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 90); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 207; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation. Athir, al-Kamil, 693, calls the lord of Jubayl a cunning and wicked man, a bitter enemy whose release was partly responsible for the weakening of the Muslims. 83 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 735 of the Syriac text, 405 of the French translation; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 50.

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

875

towns, and therefore difficult to occupy.84 In reality, Tyre had only a small garrison. When Raymond saw that Saladin already controlled Tibnin (west of Toron), Sidon and Beirut, he feared that he might attack Tyre, which he could not defend. Raymond left Tyre and went to Tripoli, where he died soon afterwards of grief and shame.85 Even Bohemond III, count of Antioch, who took charge of Tyre after Raymond departed, did not reinforce the city’s small garrison.86 Saladin’s biographer, Ibn Shaddad, says he attacked Tyre but failed to capture it because his troops, scattered all along the coast and tired of fighting, were busy taking as much booty as they could. Moreover, most of the Frankish soldiers still on the coast had taken refuge in Tyre. For this reason he gave up his attack on Tyre and instead moved against Ascalon.87 Ibn alAthir gives a more detailed and critical view. He says that Saladin wrongly believed Tyre was too well defended and therefore planned to occupy the neighboring towns first, and then concentrate on storming Tyre. This decision was a strategic mistake. If Saladin had attacked Tyre before he did Tibnin, he would have occupied it without great effort. But he did not, and the result was what God had destined.88 Some Latin sources say that when Reginald of Sidon and other knights at Tyre realized they were short of men and food supplies, they sent a messenger to inform Saladin that they would surrender the city to him if he withdrew. Saladin was delighted and sent two of his banners to be placed on the castle on the next day.89 But Reginald of Sidon was afraid to raise the banners over the castle, lest the sight outrage the citizens.90 At this point, the city was saved by relief from an unexpected source—Conrad, marquis of Montferrat, whom Western sources identify as the son of Marquis William III of Montferrat.91 Isfahani, al-Fath, 102–103; Athir, al-Kamil, 694; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 207–208. Isfahani, al-Fath, 109. 86 Athir, al-Kamil, 694; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 207–208; Lane-Poole, Saladin, 220. 87 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 98–99; see Isfahani, al-Fath, 112–113 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 90–91); Athir, al-Kamil, 694–697; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 207–209; 88 Athir, al-Kamil, 694. 89 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 36; Chronique d’Ernoul, 179; LanePoole, Saladin, 220. 90 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 51. 91 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 36; “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 18–19; Chronique d’Ernoul, 179–183, 240–244; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 74–78, 104– 110. Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, trans. Merton Jerome Hubert (New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 132, erroneously makes William of Montferrat 84 85

876

THE CRUSADES

The Syriac sources reveal little about this subject, although they mention the Markis (marquis) who saved the city. Michael Rabo says that Saladin directed his attention to the city of Tyre, which lies in the heart of the sea, but met with resistance. It happened that a count called Markis arrived from Rome, i.e., Italy. He had come as a pilgrim to worship in Jerusalem, without knowing what was happening in Syria. He summoned his energy, encouraged the people, and defended the city, and because of this Saladin failed to occupy Tyre and left.92 Bar Hebraeus also says that just as the people of Tyre were about to surrender, there came a certain count called Markis (marquis) who protected the city.93 Only the Anonymous Edessan connects the marquis’s arrival with the fall of Akka (Acre). He says when the sad news of Saladin’s occupation of Acre reached [Europe], a count called Markis sailed to Tyre and occupied it.94 The Muslim sources offer more detail on this subject. Like the Syriac sources, they do not mention the “Markis” by name but refer to him as the one who assumed power in Tyre when Raymond left Tyre for Tripoli. They vilify him as they do other Frankish leaders. To al-Isfahani, the Markis (Conrad) was “the greatest idol of kufr (infidelity), the most ghoulish of their devils, the most vicious and wicked of their wolves, the dirtiest of their dogs, the most stinging of their scorpions, the most cunning of their foxes . . . he is the brutal and smart man for whom and for those of his kind hell is created.”95 Ibn al-Athir, who calls Conrad “the accursed one” and “one of the human devils,” at the same time praises him for his courage and superb administrative ability.96 He says one of the Franks, called Markis, sailed for Acre with a load of merchandise, intending to visit Jerusalem and conduct business, not knowing what had happened to the Franks. When he docked at Acre, he became suspicious that something had gone wrong, for usually, when a Frankish ship arrived at the port, it was received with a joyful ringing of bells. Conrad saw no sign of such a reception and became even more the son of Conrad; Edward Noble Stone, trans., Three Old French Chronicles, 45. 92 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 735 of the Syriac text, 405 of the French translation. 93 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 324–325 of the English translation. 94 The Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation. 95 Isfahani, al-Fath, 109 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 90); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 208, follows al-Isfahani. 96 Athir, al-Kamil, 694–695.

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

877

confused when he saw that the people’s dress was different from what he knew. He had no idea what was going on. Al-Afdal (al-Malik al-Afdal Nur al-Din Ali, Saladin’s eldest son) sent a messenger to ask the marquis who he was and what his business was. When the marquis asked what had happened, he was told that the Franks had been defeated and had lost Acre, but they still held Tyre and Ascalon. Unable to sail because there was no wind, the marquis told the messenger he wanted a pledge of safe-conduct to enter Acre with his merchandise. He received this assurance but deliberately kept changing his request, waiting for a favorable wind. When it finally arose, the marquis sailed for Tyre. AlAfdal sent ships to pursue him, but could not overtake him before he reached Tyre. The marquis found a great number of Franks there, most of whom had come from the cities and towns occupied by Saladin after being given safe-conduct to leave. But they were a nondescript assortment, with no knowledge of warfare and no leader to bring them together. In fact, they were determined to contact Saladin and surrender the city to him. But when the marquis arrived in Tyre, he began to strengthen these people and promised to protect their city, provided that Tyre and its environs become his. Once they pledged to become his subjects, he began to administer their affairs with the ability of “a human demon.”97 The Continuation of William of Tyre says that Conrad left his native Italy intending to visit Jerusalem as a pilgrim, but stopped in Constantinople before landing on the Syrian coast outside Acre on July 13, 1187. At that time it was the custom in the city to ring a bell whenever a ship came from overseas, then send a small boat out to meet the ship. But when no bell sounded, the marquis sent some veteran seamen in a boat to the city to find out why they had not heard the bell. As they neared the Tower of the Flies, they asked to whom the city belonged. The people in the tower told them that the city belonged to Saladin, and they could land safely on his safeconduct. The Frankish mariners said that they would not land, since the town was in Muslim hands. A renegade on the tower told them, “Go off to Tyre. There my lord Saladin, who has taken your Cross and your king and the whole Christian host, will be willing to take you too.” When the mariners returned and told the marquis this story, he was most distressed and sailed away to Tyre. The Christians in Tyre were overjoyed when his ship arrived, believing that God had sent them aid in their time of crisis. After 97 Athir, al-Kamil, 694–695; Isfahani, al-Fath, 109–110 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 90–91); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 207–209.

878

THE CRUSADES

they found out that the marquis was on board, a great number of the inhabitants went out to meet him and begged him to come to their aid. They told him that unless he stayed and helped them, the city would surrender to Saladin, for his banners were already in the city. The marquis bowed to their entreaty, on condition that they swear allegiance to him as their lord. They welcomed him with honor and took him in a great procession through the city. The marquis took control of the city, together with its castle and fortifications. Reginald of Sidon, who had wanted to surrender the city to Saladin, did not dare stay but fled in a boat to Tripoli.98 The Itinerarium says that Marquis Conrad came through Constantinople to the East and became suspicious when his ship arrived at the harbor of Acre and was not greeted in the usual manner. Unlike other sources, however, it states that when the marquis saw Saladin’s standards hoisted throughout the city, he was struck with fear. His men despaired at the sight of Muslim galleys coming toward them, but Conrad told them to be quiet. When the Muslim messengers asked the marquis what his business was, he answered that the ship was a cargo ship and he was its master. He said he had no idea what had happened at Acre, but he was a devoted subject of the Sultan (Saladin). He promised that at dawn the next day, he would come into the city with his merchandise. In fact, he was stalling for time in order to sail out. The next day he slipped away and sailed to Tyre, and his effort to fortify its defenses was much to the advantage of the city’s Christians.99 The Muslim sources say that the marquis fortified the city and its wall and renewed the digging of its trenches. When Saladin decided the city was too well defended, he left and went to attack Ascalon. Ibn Shaddad tries to rationalize Saladin’s failure to capture Tyre on the grounds that he thought it was not easy to occupy and did not wish to spend too much effort and time on the task.100 Al-Isfahani says Saladin realized, with his usual sagacity, that it would be difficult for him to capture the city, so he went to attack

“Continuation of William of Tyre,” 52–53; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 66–67; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 25. 99 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 36. On Conrad’s career, see D. Jacoby, “Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1187– 1192,” in Dai feudi monferrarini e dal Piemonte ai nuovi monde alter gli oceani, ed. Laura Bolleto (Aleandra, 1993), 187–238; C. M. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 80–84, treats his stay in Constantinople. 100 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 99. 98

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

879

other cities easier to subdue than Tyre.101 Ibn al-Athir claims that Ascalon and Jerusalem were more important objectives than cities like Tyre because they were on the highway between Egypt and Syria, and Saladin needed to capture these two cities in order to connect his two domains.102 Whatever the reason may be, Saladin left Tyre and laid siege to Ascalon, but soon found it was full of fighting men.103 Determined to capture the city, Saladin waged a vicious campaign that cost the lives of many men, but he could not complete the task.104 Finally he devised a stratagem to achieve his aim. He brought to Ascalon in chains King Guy of Lusignan and Gerard of Ridefort, who had been thrown into prison in Damascus after the battle of Hittin. He told the king that if he surrendered Ascalon, he would be set free.105 The king sent a message to the inhabitants of Ascalon urging them to surrender, but they refused. Instead, they sent the king and the master of the Temple a most unpleasant reply. When Saladin heard of the people’s response, he made a full effort to capture the city. He installed engines of war and attacked it continuously. Some of his men succeeded in demolishing part of the city wall. Meanwhile, King Guy kept repeating his message to the people to surrender, promising them that when he was released from captivity, he would seek help from the Franks via the sea and would wage vicious war against the Muslims. Still the people of Ascalon did not heed him. Finally, when they were so weak they could no longer resist, and when they realized that if one of their men was killed there was no one to replace him and that no outside help was coming, they informed the king that they would surrender under certain conditions. Saladin agreed and promised them safe conduct. After a two-week siege, Ascalon finally surrendered on September 5, 1187. In fulfillment of his promise, Saladin sent the inhabitants of Ascalon, men, women, and children, to Jerusalem. Then he sent his men to occupy Ramla, Toron, Gazza, Yabna, Bethlehem, al-Khalil (Hebron), Beit Ibrin, Natron, Isfahani, al-Fath, 112 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 91). Athir, al-Kamil, 696. 103 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 54. 104 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation; Ambroise, 128; Stone, trans., Three Old French Chronicles, 44–46, 74. 105 Isfahani, al-Fath, 112–113, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 91; Athir, al-Kamil, 696; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 209; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation. 101 102

880

THE CRUSADES

and all the country formerly controlled by the Templars.106 Bar Hebraeus says that Saladin told the king (whom he calls the lord of Tiberias) that if he would hand over Ascalon, he would release him. The king commanded the governor of Ascalon to surrender the city, but he refused. Then the king asked the Muslims guarding him to throw iron fetters on the governor and those with him. When this was done, the king sent word to the people in the city to surrender and save their lives, and they complied.107 The Continuation of William of Tyre says that King Guy appeared before Saladin, who promised to free him if Ascalon surrendered. Unlike other sources, it also says the king relayed Saladin’s offer to the city’s burgesses. He did not urge them to choose surrender and end his captivity, and in fact said it would not be right to surrender such a fine city for one man. Thus, if they thought they could hold Ascalon for the benefit of the Christians and Christendom, they should resist. But if the citizens could not defend the city or expect help from elsewhere, it would be better to surrender. The burgesses considered the matter and felt that they could hold onto the city with outside help. But since such help was not likely, they resolved to surrender the city on the condition that Saladin free them, their wives, children, and possessions, and have them conducted to a Christian territory. Saladin agreed, and King Guy chose ten men, all from the elite of the city except one Syrian commoner, to be freed with him. When Saladin took possession of Ascalon, he sent the king to Nabulus, where he was joined by his wife, who had been in Jerusalem.108 According to a Latin source, King Guy’s wife Sibyl was in Ascalon with her two daughters and played a significant part in his release.109

106 Isfahani, al-Fath, 114 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 91); Athir, al-Kamil, 696– 697; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 99; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 209; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 78–79; Chronique d’Ernoul, 114. 107 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation. 108 “Continuation of William of Tyre,” 54; De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae Saladinum Libellus, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 236–238; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 79; Chronique d’Ernoul, 184; Edward Noble Stone, “History of Them That Took Constantinople,” in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. E. N. Stone (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939), 195–196. 109 Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 22; Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 37, n. 39. Athir, alKamil, 703, says King Guy was imprisoned in Nabulus.

THE AFTERMATH OF HITTIN

881

As we shall see later, Saladin did not finally release King Guy until 1188. Michael Rabo says that Saladin made a covenant with the Franks in Ascalon and later released the captive king and sent him to Tyre.110 This testimony partly agrees with the account of the author of the Itinerarium, who writes that Saladin made an agreement with the citizens (of Ascalon) which allowed them to depart unconditionally with their property and provided that the king would also be freed immediately together with fifteen of the more elite captives. But the author calls Saladin an insatiable plunderer who pressed with all his might to force Ascalon to surrender to him. Only when he found out that he could not take it by force did he give up and make up an agreement with its citizens.111 The surrender of Ascalon on September 4, 1187, brought tremendous grief to the Franks; the Itinerarium says it was “as if the sun took from the city and the globe the benefit of light.”112 The city’s capture was costly to the Muslims as well, however; alIsfahani says they lost Husam al-Din Ibrahim ibn Husayn al-Mahrani, one of their great amirs (commanders) and the first of their shahids (martyrs) at Ascalon.113

Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 199 of the Syriac text, 229 of the Arabic translation, says Saladin gave the king clothes and gifts before sending him to Tyre. Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 128–129, says that the king went first to Tortosa and then to Tripoli. 111 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 37. 112 Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 37; Chronique d’Ernoul, 185. 113 Isfahani, al-Fath, 113 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 91). 110

25 SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM The day Ascalon surrendered, Saladin began concentrating on the capture of the biggest prize, Jerusalem. In his usual florid rhetoric, al-Isfahani describes Saladin’s march on Jerusalem as the march of Islam itself: “Islam marched to Jerusalem to ask for a bride’s hand in marriage and offer souls for her dowry. He determined to chase away the enemies of faith from the Aqsa Mosque, to silence the bells and replace them with the muazzin, to replace kufr with faith and purify the Mosque from the pollution of those filthy kind (the Franks).”1 Saladin summoned the Frankish burgesses of Jerusalem to discuss the possibility of making peace, which would save him the trouble of taking the city by force. He told them that he had conquered all the land except Jerusalem, and it would be better for them to surrender the city. He declared that Jerusalem was considered the House of God both in their religion and in his, and he would not lay siege to the House of God or bombard it with siege engines if he could take it by peaceful agreement. He asserted that he would very much like to take Jerusalem peacefully, but if need be, he would force them to submit. He laid out his terms for surrender, promising to give them 30,000 bezants (gold dinars) for rebuilding the city’s fortifications and to establish an area of five miles in any direction, within which they could move and work freely. He offered them safeconduct to leave with their possessions to any country in Christendom, and further pledged to provide them with sufficient amounts of food to maintain a truce until Pentecost of the following year (1188). If by then they received any outside help, Saladin said, they would be able to defend themselves, but if they did not receive such help, they should turn the city over to him. The burgesses said that if it please God, they would never surrender the city “where God had shed His blood for them” to the Saracens (MusImad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 116–117 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 93). 1

883

884

THE CRUSADES

lims) under such terms. On hearing this response, Saladin swore that he would take Jerusalem not by treaty but by force.2 In taking their position the burgesses apparently relied on the encouragement of two prominent men, Patriarch Heraclius and Balian II of Ibelin, who was then in Jerusalem. Balian was one of the few Franks who had fled the battle of Hittin and reached Tyre. Balian, who knew Saladin, asked him for an escort and safe-conduct to go to Jerusalem and be united with his wife, children, and household members, and then to go to Tripoli. Saladin, happy to answer his request, gave him permission to travel to Jerusalem, on condition that he take an oath on the Christian gospel to stay no more than one night and depart the next day, and Balian agreed.3 Patriarch Heraclius and many citizens were pleased to see Balian visit their city. The citizens of Jerusalem implored the patriarch to keep him, as they had no leader or governor to speak for them. When the patriarch asked him to stay, Balian said he could not do so because of his promise to Saladin. The patriarch promised to absolve him of his oath for the benefit of Christendom. Balian accepted this offer and remained in Jerusalem, where he became the citizens’ leader and gave them advice to the best of his ability until the city was besieged by Saladin. To justify his staying, Balian sent word to Saladin that he could not abide by their agreement because he was closely guarded in Jerusalem and unable to leave. When he asked for safe-conduct for his wife and children to leave Jerusalem and go to Tripoli, Saladin agreed and sent a knight to escort them.4 Saladin was shrewd in granting Balian’s request, knowing that the hour of the Franks’ demise was near, since he already held most of the possessions of the kingdom of Jerusalem, except for Tyre and a few fortresses. Before he marched against Jerusalem, Saladin sent word to Egypt asking the “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar, 1996), 54–55 (hereafter cited as cited as Continuation); L’Estoire d’Eracles, R.H.C. Occ., 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1859), 2: 79; Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Mas de Latrie ( Paris, 1871), 185–186. It is unlikely that Saladin or his jurists and religious men knew much about the Christian festival of Pentecost, which falls the week after Easter, and equally unlikely that he would have given the citizens of Jerusalem a grace period from September 1187 to the following spring. On the value of Saladin’s offer, see Peter Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London: Office of the Royal Historical Society, 1986), 294. 3 Continuation, 55. 4 Continuation, 49–50; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 81–84; Chronique d’Ernoul, 175–176. 2

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

885

fleet and its fighting men to break the Franks’ line of communication by sea. The Egyptian fleet under Husam al-Din Lulu, al-Hajib (the Chamberlain), sailed to the Syrian shores and began to intercept and capture Frankish ships.5 The fleet’s operation was certainly of tremendous help to Saladin, allowing him to concentrate on his land campaign; “urged on by the Fates, the hasty and hostile victor attacked Jerusalem.”6 Muslim sources say that Saladin approached Jerusalem on September 20, 1187.7 His astrologers warned him that his star indicated that he might lose an eye in the campaign against the city. With unshakable trust in fate, Saladin answered that he would not mind even if he went blind, so long as he could take Jerusalem.8 To both Muslims and Christians, the city’s destiny was a matter of life and death. Al-Isfahani says that Jerusalem had a patriarch (Heraclius) whom the Franks exalted and considered of higher status than the king, as well as Balian ibn Barzan, lord of Ramla, whose position was almost equal to that of the king. There were also in the city a number of elite knights and numerous inhabitants of Ascalon. To these Christians, dying was preferable to letting the Muslims take possession of Jerusalem. They were even willing to sacrifice themselves and their children to protect the city.9 Al-Isfahani says the Franks were determined to defend Jerusalem because it was the center of their worship: “In Jerusalem Christ was crucified and became a sacrifice, where the divine became incarnate, where the Cross was fixed, the light replaced darkness, the nature (of Christ) mingled with his Iqnum (person), the existent mixed with the nonexistent, where the worshiped [deity] was baptized and the Virgin went through labor to give birth to a child.” To al-Isfahani, all of these beliefs are merely dalalat (errors), but the Christians were willing to die and not give up Jerusalem.10 It is clear that al-Isfahani had no knowledge of theology and did not comprehend the basic tenets of Christianity. He makes glaring mistakes, such as Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 1(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 697–698; Isfahani, al-Fath, 115 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 92). 6 Helen J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 38, (hereafter cited as Nicholson.) 7 Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 100; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 94. 8 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 92. 9 Isfahani, al-Fath, 117 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 93); Athir, al-Kamil, 698. 10 Isfahani, al-Fath, 117–121 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 93). 5

886

THE CRUSADES

confusing Jerusalem with Bethlehem, but interestingly uses the Syriac term qnumo to indicate the person of Christ. Ibn Wasil appears to echo al-Isfahani’s account, but presents his view in less ornate language. He says that the Christians prefer death to the Muslims’ possession of Jerusalem because, they say, Jerusalem is the house of the one whom they worship (Jesus Christ), the place where he became incarnate. It is also the place of the qumama (rubbish, refuse) they call qiyama (Resurrection), the place of their error, and the qibla (the sacred place they turn to in prayer) of their ignorance. Ibn Wasil says the Christians claim that it was in Jerusalem that their messiah was buried after being crucified, was raised from the dead after three days, and ascended into heaven. This belief, he says, explains why the Christians are willing to sacrifice themselves, their offspring, and their possessions to defend and protect this place.11 Saladin laid siege to the walls of the western part of Jerusalem, from the David Gate as far as the Gate of Saint Stephen (also called the Damascus Gate), and marched around the city for five days waiting for the Franks to come out and fight.12 Before beginning his attack, Saladin again demanded that the citizens of Jerusalem surrender the city under the terms he had offered them at Ascalon. He swore that if they did not give up, he would attack and take it by force without honoring those terms. They would never surrender, the people replied; let him do whatever he wanted. So Saladin began his attack, and the Christians resisted. From the Continuation of William of Tyre, we gather that Saladin continued his attack on Jerusalem for eight days. On only one day were the Muslims able to push the Christians back inside the city. The other days, the Christians confronted the Muslims outside the city gates, and two or three times they managed to push the enemy back to their tents. Not once did the Muslims did install an engine of war on the western side of the city.13 Muslim sources say the western part of Jerusalem, where Saladin had camped, was crowded with foot soldiers and cavalry and held more than Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 211–212. We may note here that the Muslims call the Church of the Resurrection the church of qumama because of a tradition which maintains that Helen, mother of Emperor Constantine I, built this church after the removal of a heap of refuse which the Jews had piled for three centuries over the site of the true Cross. 12 Continuation, 55; Isfahani, al-Fath, 124–126 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 92, 94); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 212. 13 Continuation, 55–56. 11

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

887

60,000 people (not including women and children). After failing to break through the walls from the western side, says Ibn Shaddad, Saladin changed his tactics and moved to attack the city from the north, in the area between Saint Stephen’s Gate and the Mount of Olives. Ibn al-Athir says the western part of the city was so difficult to attack that Saladin moved to the northern part, toward the Pillar Gate or the Church of Sihyawn.14 Bar Hebraeus asserts that Saladin moved his activity to the northern side of Jerusalem because “that quarter was spacious and suitable for the operation of the fighting men.”15 Saladin’s movement of the siege was similar to the tactic the Christian army had used when it stormed Jerusalem in 1099.16 By relocating his points of siege, Saladin prevented the Franks from entering and leaving the city. Between Saint Stephen’s Gate and the Josaphat Gate, where the siege was concentrated, there was no other gate or postern through which the Franks could attack the Muslims. Their only other outlet was through the Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox) Church of St. Mary Magdalene, in the northeastern corner of the city.17 Saladin erected eleven engines of war on the northern side of the city and waged a severe assault against it for three days. The Franks also erected war engines on the wall of Jerusalem, and the two sides fought ferociously. The Franks’ horsemen emerged every day to fight outside the city wall, killing some Muslims and losing some of their own men. The Franks prevailed, for they had 60,000 fighting men, horsemen and foot soldiers, who confronted the Muslims and killed many of them. During the skirmishes the Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 100, says Saladin shifted his attack to the northern sector of Jerusalem because of an exigency which made the move beneficial, but does not explain further; Isfahani, al-Fath, 124 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 92); Athir, alKamil, 699; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 212. 15 Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation. Edbury, Continuation, 56, n. 94, says Saladin’s activities had moved around to the stretch of wall on the northern side of the city, between the Damascus Gate and the northeastern corner. 16 Joshua Prawer, “The Jerusalem the Crusaders Captured: a Contribution to Mediaeval Topography of the City,” in Crusade and Settlement, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Cardiff: University College Cardiff, 1985), 3. 17 Continuation, 56; Prawer, 3. For further information on the Church of Mary of Magdalene as a Syrian monastery, see Rev. Yuhanna Dolabani, “Al-Suryan fi Falastin aw Dayr Maryam al-Majdaliyya,” al-Hikma 9 (June, 1928): 434–443. 14

888

THE CRUSADES

Muslims lost one of their great amirs, Izz al-Din Isa ibn Malik al-Uqayli, son of the lord of Qal’at Ja’bar. Grieved and angered at the death of this preeminent man, the Muslims attacked the Franks with all their power until they removed them from their positions. They crossed the adjacent ditch to the wall and began to open a breach in it. They dug underneath the wall and filled it with wood in order to burn it down, all the while showering the Franks with arrows.18 According to the Continuation of William of Tyre, Saladin armed his men and created a shield-wall in front of his archers, who shot so quickly that it looked as if it were raining arrows. The Muslims came up to the ditch, where their military specialists immediately went to work. They undermined parts of the wall, mined it, and set it on fire, causing it to fall outwards into the ditch. The Christians were clearly overwhelmed by the arrows from their crossbows. When the Franks saw the Muslims fighting ferociously and showering them with arrows, they realized that they could no longer fight, or if they did, they would perish. Their leaders met to discuss their course of action. They went to Patriarch Heraclius and Balian of Ibelin and told them that they had decided to continue fighting because it was more honorable to die in battle than to fall captive to the Muslims. They knew too well that their struggle was pointless, and they could no longer hold out, but they would rather die where Jesus Christ had suffered death and resolved not to surrender the city to the Muslims. Balian, the Frankish leaders, and the people of Jerusalem were of the same opinion.19 After the knights and citizens told Patriarch Heraclius of their determination not to surrender Jerusalem to the Muslims, he offered them an alternative. He argued that it was not a good idea to sacrifice their lives, because for every man in the city there were fifty women and children who must also be taken into consideration. Certainly, said the patriarch, if all the men died, the Muslims would capture the women and the children. They would not kill them but would make them renounce their faith in Jesus Christ, and they would be lost to God. Instead, the patriarch urged them to negotiate with Saladin for permission to leave the city and go to Christianheld lands. In this way they could save their women and children. The

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 100; Isfahani, al-Fath, 126–127 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 92–94); Athir, al-Kamil, 699–700; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 212–213; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation. 19 Continuation, 57–58. 18

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

889

knights and the citizens accepted this counsel and begged Balian of Ibelin to see Saladin and make whatever arrangements he could.20 While Balian was meeting with Saladin, the Muslims attacked Jerusalem. They set ladders against the walls, climbed them, and raised twelve banners on top of the walls. When Saladin saw his men and the banners, he asked Balian why he had not chosen to surrender the city in peace. Now it was too late for him to resist, for the Muslims and their banners were already on the walls. With the confidence of a victor he said, “As you see, the city is mine.” Saladin went on to tell Balian that in any case the fakirs, hajis (Muslims who had performed the pilgrimage to Mecca), and other men were pressing him not to offer him any terms, but to take revenge for those Muslims whose blood Godfrey (of Bouillon) had shed in the streets and even at the Temple in Jerusalem.21 According to Eastern sources, Saladin told Balian, “I will not take Jerusalem except in the same way as you (the Franks) took it from the Muslims and shed their blood in 1099. I will kill your men and take your women captives.”22 Meanwhile, the Christians in Jerusalem had found the strength to repel the Muslims on the walls and the ramparts, and chase the others out of the ditch. When Saladin heard what had happened, he became ashamed and saddened and told Balian to go back to the city, for he no longer wished to speak to him. When Balian came back the next morning, however, Saladin was ready to listen. Balian pleaded with him for the sake of God to have mercy on both sides in this conflict. He said that the people of Jerusalem despaired of their lives and would rather kill each other if they were taken by force. Both sides would suffer great losses if Saladin tried to take the city by force. Saladin told Balian that out of love for God and for him, he would show mercy in a manner that would preserve his earlier oath. He said the Franks must surrender the city to him in a manner which made it appear that he had taken it by force. Then he would let the people go, taking their goods and their wealth, but only if they paid a specified ransom; those who could not pay or who chose to stay in Jerusalem would fall into his custody. When Balian asked the amount of the ransom, Saladin said it was thirty Continuation, 57–58. Continuation, 58. 22 Isfahani, al-Fath, 126 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95); Athir, al-Kamil, 700; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 213; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 325 of the English translation. 20 21

890

THE CRUSADES

bezants for each man, ten for each woman, and five for each child, whether male or female. Those who could not pay in forty days would become his slaves. Balian protested that only a few people in Jerusalem could pay such a ransom. The city was full of ordinary people, many of whom had come from neighboring towns and villages to seek refuge and could not pay the ransom. He asked Saladin to find some way for these people to ransom themselves. Balian returned to Jerusalem and consulted with the patriarch, the Hospitallers, and others about how to find money for the ransom. After due deliberation, they decided to use the money King Henry II of England had sent to Jerusalem, money which was kept at the house of the knights of the Temple and which King Guy of Lusignan had drawn on to hire mercenaries.23 Once the decision was made to use King Henry’s treasure for ransom, Balian returned to Saladin to discuss a reasonable amount of ransom. Saladin said that he would take whatever was at the convent (the house of the Templars) but would not touch what was not there.24 After repeated entreaties by Balian, Saladin reduced the ransom payments to five bezants for each man or woman, and one for a child, male or female.25 Balian told Saladin that there were still more than twenty thousand people in the city who could not pay their ransom. Saladin offered to let them all go if Balian paid 100,000 bezants. Balian said that he did not have enough money to pay for these people. Saladin then offered to charge 50,000 bezants for only 7,000 souls. After further haggling, he agreed on 30,000 bezants for 7,000 men, with two women or minor children counted as one man.26

23 Continuation, 59–60, 336–337; Isfahani, al-Fath, 127 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95); Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 112. 24 Continuation, 60. 25 Isfahani, al-Fath, 127 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95). 26 Continuation, 58; Isfahani, al-Fath, 128 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95). Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 734–735; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 404, says that Saladin charged ten dinars a person. The Anonymous Edessan, 200 of the Syriac text, says each man paid ten dinars and each woman five dinars. See Ishaq Armala, al-Hurub al-Salibiyya fi al-Athar al-Suryaniyya (Beirut, 1929), 177. Rev. Albert Abouna, translator of the history of the Anonymous Edessan, told me when I visited him in Baghdad in November

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

891

The Muslim sources generally agree with Bar Hebraeus on the negotiation between Balian and Saladin, but they say the Christians of Jerusalem threatened to destroy themselves and the city. They say Balian begged Saladin for mercy, but Saladin insisted that he would take Jerusalem just as the Franks had taken it from the Muslims by force. Balian told Saladin: We are too many in this city and have despaired of fighting for the sake of safety. Our people thought that you would respond to their pleas as you did to other people. We want to live. But if we see that our death is inevitable, by God, we will kill our children and our women with our own hands and will burn our possessions and personal belongings, and will never let you gain one dinar or dirham or take men and women captives. Furthermore, we will destroy the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque and other religious sites. We will also kill the five thousand Muslim captives whom we have and will kill every animal or beast we can find. And if we are forced to fight, we will not surrender unless each one of us slaughters in exchange one or two Muslims. We are determined to die with dignity.27

Saladin consulted with his men and decided to release the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem for a ransom of ten dinars for a man (rich or poor), five dinars for a woman, and two for a child. He gave a grace period of forty days (fifty, according to the Continuation of William of Tyre) to pay the ransom; after that they would become his slaves if no payment was made.28 Saladin set a date for the departure of the people of Jerusalem and pledged to offer them safe conduct to Christian-held territory, but also demanded the keys of Jerusalem before the Christians could leave. He told Balian that those citizens who had arms should take them, in order to defend themselves from robbers. Saladin even agreed to send some of his men to accompany them; when the Christians reached the defile of Le Puy du Connétable and the last person had passed, Saladin’s men would leave 1987 that he had been forced by the Iraqi censor to delete from his translation this and other accounts relating to Saladin’s occupation of Jerusalem. On p. 229, n. 486, he says he omitted this account together with the footnote referring to the occupation of Jerusalem, but does not mention the Iraqi censor. 27 Isfahani, al-Fath, 126–127 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95–97); Athir, alKamil, 701; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 214; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 326 of the English translation. 28 Isfahani, al-Fath, 127 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95); Athir, al-Kamil, 701; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 214; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115 of the Syriac text, 326 of the English translation; Continuation, 61.

892

THE CRUSADES

them. Balian went to Jerusalem to inform the patriarch, the Templars, and the Hospitallers of his final deal with Saladin. They agreed, saying there was nothing better to be done. They handed the keys of the city to Balian, who took them to Saladin. Thus, Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin on Friday October 2, 1187.29 There were more than 100,000 men, women and children in Jerusalem. When the city surrendered, the gates were closed; for each gate an amir (commander) was designated to count the inhabitants, who could leave the city after their ransom was paid. Those who did not pay would remain in Saladin’s custody.30 This arrangement displeased the Christian citizens of Jerusalem, who went through the city lamenting “Woe, woe to us miserable people! We have no gold. What are we to do? Who would ever have thought that such wickedness would be perpetrated by Christians (Franks)?” When Saladin received the keys of Jerusalem, he was very happy and gave thanks to Allah and to Muhammad. The Muslims entered the temple of Jerusalem with great jubilation, shouting, “Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!”31 Although many Christians escaped Jerusalem by paying the ransom, some 40,000 could not afford it. Saladin’s brother Al-Malik al-Adil Sayf alDin asked for custody of 1,000 Christians from among the city’s poor. Saladin agreed, and Sayf al-Din magnanimously let them go. Afterwards Patriarch Heraclius and Balian of Ibelin went to Saladin and begged him for the sake of God to give them the poor people who could not ransom themselves. He agreed, offering them 2,000 people and another 1,000 to the Templars and Hospitallers. Saladin told his aides that he had offered to release these Christians because he wanted to do charity as his brother alMalik al-Adil had done. He told his officials to proclaim throughout Jerusalem that these men could leave the city. Meanwhile, he ordered his men near the David Gate to take back into custody any Christian who could afford the ransom but did not pay it. He relocated ordinary citizens, the poor, and young men and women in the space between the two walls, and put the

Continuation, 62; Isfahani, al-Fath, 128 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 96, 98, 109); Athir, al-Kamil, 702; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 215. 30 Isfahani, al-Fath, 128 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 96, 98, 109). 31 De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, ed. Joseph Stevenson (London: Longman, 1875), 249: James A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 162–163. 29

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

893

old people outside the city. This, says one source, is an act of charity that Saladin did for countless people.32 Al-Isfahani, who was with Saladin in Jerusalem, says that some Christians who could not pay the ransom fled the city by tying themselves with ropes and going down the wall. Others disguised themselves wearing Muslim soldiers’ uniforms and went through the gates untouched. Still others were freed by some of Saladin’s commanders, who claimed that a certain number of Christians were theirs by lot and, after receiving them, let them go free. One of these commanders, Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, said that about a thousand Armenians from Edessa belonged to him and set them free. Likewise, the lord of al-Bira claimed that about five hundred Armenians were from al-Bira and had come to Jerusalem to worship, and so they were released. Thus, says al-Isfahani, Saladin lost a great deal of money that would otherwise have filled his coffers. He also complains that some Egyptians and Syrians whom Saladin had appointed to collect the ransom pocketed money that belonged in his treasury, which nevertheless was substantial.33 Saladin also freed a Byzantine queen who had been living in Jerusalem as a nun. She appealed to him for permission to leave, and he agreed. She left the city laden with chests of her belongings, escorted to the boundary of the Franks’ territory by his horsemen, and even accompanied by people who were not part of her royal retinue.34 Saladin also allowed the wife of King Guy of Lusignan, who was residing in Jerusalem, to leave with her maids and servants. The wife of Reginald of Châtillon (whom Saladin had killed with his own hands at Hittin), then in Jerusalem, went to intercede with Saladin for the release of her son, who had been captured. Saladin informed her that if she surrendered the fortress of Karak, he would release her son. When the Franks there refused to surrender the fortress to her or to Saladin, he refused to free her son but released her with all her belongings.35 According to Muslim sources, before he left Jerusalem, Patriarch Heraclius took with him all the furniture of the Church of the Resurrection Continuation, 62–63. Isfahani, al-Fath, 128–129 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95); Athir, al-Kamil, 702–703; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 215. 34 Isfahani, al-Fath, 128, also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95–96. 35 Isfahani, al-Fath, 128 (Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 95–96); Athir, al-Kamil, 703–704; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 216; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 115–116 of the Syriac text, 326– 327 of the English translation. 32 33

894

THE CRUSADES

and of other sites like al-Masjid al-Aqsa, which the Franks had converted into a church, and lamps, gold, and silver. Al-Isfahani asked Saladin why he had allowed the patriarch and other Christians take their valuable treasures, which were worth 200,000 dinars, when he had pledged only to spare their lives. Saladin declared, “If we take their possessions, they will accuse us of having violated our pledge and having lied to them, and those actions would bring a bad name upon us.”36 The Continuation of William of Tyre also indicates that Saladin was magnanimous in his treatment of the Christians who wished to leave the city.37 He had them escorted as far as the land of Tripoli, but as they passed the defile of La Puy Connétable and entered the land of the lords of Botron (alBatrun) and Nephin (Anafah), Reynald, lord of Nephin, ordered his men to rob them and seize what they had.38 Some of them escaped this attack and pressed on to Tripoli, expecting to be received in peace. But the Count of Tripoli (apparently Bohemond IV) ordered the gates of the city shut so that they could not get in. He also sent to the pass called Saint William men who seized the burgesses of Jerusalem, robbed them, and handled them roughly. In fact, the people of Nephin and Tripoli treated them worse than the Muslims had. Some of them managed to make it to Antioch or to Byzantine lands, while others remained outside Tripoli and later lived there.39 But the Anonymous Edessan, who was in Jerusalem at the time and observed these events, says that when Saladin let the Franks leave the city under safe conduct, they went in groups of fifty or a hundred. But as soon as they left, the Muslims attacked them and stole their possessions, causing them to shed tears so bitter they would split the rocks.40 Isfahani, al-Fath, 135 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 115); Athir, al-Kamil, 704; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 216; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 116 of the Syriac text, 327 of the English translation. 37 Continuation, 65; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 260, mentions Saladin’s moderation and humaneness after the surrender of Jerusalem; Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189, “ in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 1: 617. 38 Continuation, 65; Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khavats, 1964), 232–233; Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 617. 39 Continuation, 65. 40 The Anonymous Edessan, 200 of the Syriac text; Armala, al-Hurub, 177. 36

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

895

Saladin’s treatment of Jerusalem’s Christians was not so magnanimous as one may gather from the Continuation of William of Tyre. Although he is said to have freed 20,000 Christians, in fact he released only 4,000 old men and women. He kept 6,000 men to serve his forces and sent 5,000 to Egypt to build city walls. He used another 5,000 men to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls, the Temple of Solomon (The Dome of the Rock), and the Aqsa Mosque, which the Muslims sanctified according to their religious laws and forbade Christians from entering.41 He destroyed Frankish cemeteries adjacent to the Dome of the Rock, converted the Church of St. Ann to a Shafiite School, and made the patriarch’s residence a shelter for children.42 He also ordered the Church of Resurrection closed and forbade the Christians to worship in it; those Christians who remained in Jerusalem had to worship outside its doors, praying and weeping.43 In a letter to Baldwin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated September 1188, Conrad of Montferrat laments that the city of Jerusalem had been despoiled of its worshipers and its walls were bereft of their hermit occupants. He says that as a consequence of their sin, the inhabitants of Jerusalem (except the destitute) were required to pay the customary poll tax (jizya) to Saladin. But after paying the capitation tax, they were driven from the kingdom. He continues, “God stood back as if from the defilement of our evil, and Muhammad has taken over. Where Christ was prayed to day and night at the appointed hours, now Muhammad is praised with uplifted voice.”44 To the Muslims, the capture of Jerusalem was a triumph of Islam over the infidel Christians and their cross. Reading al-Isfahani, al-Abd al-Rahim al-Baysani (al-Qadi al-Fadil), Ibn Shaddad, and the accounts of these and other Muslim writers reproduced by Abu Shama is sufficient to show how much the Muslims despised the cross.45 In fact, the first thing the Muslims did when they entered Jerusalem on Friday, October 2, 1187, was to reMichael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation. 42 Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 114; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 220. 43 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 404 of the French translation; al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 115, and Wasil, Mufarrij, 2:221. 44 Letter of Conrad of Montferrat to Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, in Edbury, ed., The Conquest of Jerusalem, 168–169; Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi De Decito Decani Lundonersis Opera Historia, trans. William Stubbs as The Historical Workd of Master Ralph Decito, Dean of London, 2 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 60–63. 45 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 99–101. 41

896

THE CRUSADES

move the cross fixed at the pinnacle of the Dome of the Rock, while the hapless Franks watched. When the Cross tumbled down, the Muslims joyfully shouted, “Allah Akbar!” while the Franks wept.46 The Muslims dragged it as far as the David Gate, shouting scorn of Christianity. It is not clear whether the Cross was broken into pieces or was transported intact to Karak.47 Al-Isfahani, who was then in Damascus, traveled to Jerusalem and arrived the day after its capture. Saladin asked him to write letters of the glad tidings and send them to Baghdad and other Muslim cities, and he produced no less than seventy of these letters with great jubilation.48 In a letter to Sayf al-Islam of Yaman, he says that for almost ninety years Bayt Allah al-Muqaddas (The Holy House of Allah, Jerusalem) was in the hands of the infidel Christians, but now it is restored to Islam.49 In keeping with Arab tradition, Saladin had poets recite in his presence panegyrics celebrating the great feat of restoring Jerusalem to Islam.50 It is pointless to quote every word al-Isfahani wrote about the victory of Islam, “the true” faith, and the discomfiture of Christianity, “the false faith.” But in one poem, al-Isfahani praises Allah, who “evicted on Friday from his holy house (al-Quds) those who observe Sunday, and vanquished those who proclaim that Allah is one of three (Trinitarian Christians), replacing them with those who proclaim him to be one (Muslims). All the lands of Jordan and Palestine, which were filled with kufr (infidelity), now are filled with peace . . . the pulpit deprived of the chanting of the khatib (Muslim sermonAthir, al-Kamil, 704; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 217. Continuation, 67; letter of Brother Terricus, Grand Commander of the Temple in Jerusalem, written after the Battle of Hittin, in Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 68–70; Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 13–14; Gervasii Cantuariensis, Opera Historica, trans. and ed. William Stubbs as The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 374–375; letter of Terricus to King Henry II of England, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 165–166; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 90–91; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 40–41; Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 50; Barber, The New Knighthood, 115–116. 48 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 96. In al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, 132–133, al-Isfahani says Saladin gave him letters already written by his officials and asked him to edit and render them in his own eloquent language. 49 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 99–100. See Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 94. 50 For these panegyrics see al-Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 101–107. 46 47

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

897

izer) and religion (Islam) has been restored by the victory over those who worship the Cross; we evicted the Templars, the Hospitallers, the patriarch, and the priests, and repatriated estranged Islam to Allah’s holy house.”51 Saladin made his Friday prayer at the Dome of the Rock, which the Franks had partitioned and had part of the building converted to a granary and kept pigs and other animals in it. On his order the mihrab (prayer niche) was cleansed and beautified, and the Quran was placed in it instead of the Gospel. Saladin chose the judge Muhyi al-Din Abu al-Ma’ali Muhammad ibn Zaki al-Din Ali al-Qurashi to be the first preacher.52 He had a pulpit (originally made on the orders of Nur al-Din Zangi, to be set up in Jerusalem if he captured the city) brought from Aleppo and put in al-Aqsa Mosque.53 Taqi al-Din Umar, Saladin’s nephew, came to Jerusalem and personally cleansed the mosque, purifying its walls with rose water and incense perfume.54 According to the Continuation of William of Tyre, Saladin asked his sister, who had been captured by the Franks, to come and worship with him at the temple and render thanks to Allah and Muhammad. She brought twenty camel-loads of rose water; after the temple was cleansed, Saladin entered it and worshiped, thanking Allah for making him the master of His house.55 Whether to destroy or preserve the Church of the Resurrection was a matter of concern to the Muslims, and they met with Saladin to discuss the problem. Some of them urged that it should be demolished and its foundation removed; as long as the church building stood, they argued, the Christians would keep visiting it. But most of the Muslim dignitaries thought there was no benefit in demolishing the church. They argued that the place of the cross (Calvary) and the Holy Sepulcher would still be there, and the Christians would continue making pilgrimages to them. Furthermore, they pointed out that when the Muslims occupied Jerusalem and the Caliph Isfahani, al-Fath, 136–140 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 97, 100). Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 108; Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath alQudsi, 140, identifies the preacher as Zayn al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Naja, a Hanbalite jurist. 53 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 108–113; Athir, al-Kamil, 704–705; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 217–219, 228–229. 54 Isfahan, al-Fath al-Qussi, 143 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 113); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 230. 55 Continuation, 66; letter of Brother Terricus in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 166; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 90; Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 50; Barber, New Knighthood, 116. 51 52

898

THE CRUSADES

Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 644) entered the city, he left the Church of Resurrection to the Christians and never let Muslims touch it. Thus, Saladin refrained from demolishing the church, but he shut its doors and prevented the Christians from visiting it.56 Still, Saladin did not prevent the Muslims from committing atrocities in Jerusalem. The Anonymous Edessan writes: I, the wretched and unfortunate, was then in Jerusalem. I saw with my own eyes the havoc, and the abominable and ignominious acts of the Muslims which my tongue cannot describe or express. The Muslims sold church vessels in the city’s markets. They converted the churches and temples into stables, theaters of entertainment and brothels. They savagely perpetrated reprehensible actions against the monks and chaste nuns and other women. They took young men and women as captives and sold them in faraway countries. They not only denuded the churches of their ornaments, but also of wood and iron objects, and ripped off the doors and the marble tiles which covered the walls and floors. They removed all these to faraway countries. However, they mercifully spared the Church of the Resurrection. They set guards up in it not for respect of its sanctity, but because of their greed to lay hands on the gifts the people brought upon visiting it. The Muslims imposed ten dinars’ entrance fee on every Christian who entered or worshiped at the Sepulcher of the Savior.57

The veracity of this account is supported by Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, who was also in Jerusalem at the time. Al-Isfahani, who evidently saw the atrocities his fellow Muslim men committed against the Christians of Jerusalem, says that 7,000 men were taken into custody, and the captors divided 8,000 women and children, “whose cries made the magnates (Muslims) smile.” In his usual highly ornate rhymed-prose style, he writes, “How many a decent woman was raped, a woman who had possession was now dispossessed, the unmarried was wedded (probably against her will), the highly esteemed women were offered as a gift to men, the stingy was turned generous, the modest became shameless, the serene became a buffoon, the virtuous was 56

Isfahani, al-Fath, 145–146 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 115); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2:

221. The Anonymous Edessan, 200 of the Syriac text; Armala, al-Hurub, 177; Matti Moosa, “The Crusades: An Eastern Perspective, With Emphasis on Syriac Sources,” The Muslim World 93 (April, 2003): 279 and Jean Richard, The Crusades 1071–1291, Jean Birrell, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 211 but without identifying the source. 57

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

899

rendered undignified, the virgin was deflowered, and the woman of slender body was taken to bed to be slept with.”58 The whole situation in Jerusalem was utterly chaotic and out of control, and the Muslim ruffians had their day. This was truly a retaliation against the mass murder of Muslims by the Crusaders who had captured Jerusalem in 1099. Marshall W. Baldwin’s assertion that the Greek Orthodox and other native Christian sects seem in the main to have welcomed the Muslims’ capture of Jerusalem contradicts the eyewitness statements of the Anonymous Edessan and al-Isfahani. It is reported that after capturing Jerusalem, Saladin sent an embassy to the Byzantine Emperor Isaac Angelus (1185–1195) informing him of his feat and promising to release the Byzantine captives he had taken in his wars with the Franks. The emperor sent back his congratulations to Saladin and asked him to renew his alliance with the Byzantines against the Latins, which had been negotiated by his predecessor Andronicus Comnenus (1183–1185). He also asked that the Church of the Resurrection and other holy shrines be placed under the authority of Greek Orthodox priests, who would be appointed by the Byzantine government. But most of these requests met with objections from Saladin.59 As for the Jews, Saladin, hoping they would be his allies in case of a new crusade, did not prevent them from staying in Jerusalem, but most of them left the city.60 After capturing Jerusalem, Saladin decided to overrun the major port cities of Tyre, Tripoli, and Antioch and several fortresses which remained in Frankish hands, including Hisn al-Akrad (Krak des Chevaliers) and M’Arqab.61 In November 1187, accompanied by his brother al-Malik alIsfahani, al-Fath, 135–136, discusses at length what happened to these women. 59 Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 620; Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi, alSuluk fi Ma’rifat Duwal al-Muluk, Muhammad Mustafa Ziyada, ed., 1 (Cairo, 1934– 1958), 98; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat alAnglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 826–827. 60 Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” 621; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1935), 2: 821–822; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 827. 61Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 124–125. The Latin and Arabic sources differ as to the dates on which Saladin captured castles and towns. See Shaddad, alNawadir, 102–120; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 119–123, follows al-Isfahani and Ibn Shaddad; Athir, al-Kamil, 700–725; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 256–264; Marshall Withed Baldwin, Raymond III Prince of Tripolis And the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140–1187 (Princeton: 58

900

THE CRUSADES

Adil, he attacked Tyre. Since he did not have a naval force sufficient to take the city, he summoned from Acre a fleet of ten Egyptian ships, commanded by Abd al-Salam al-Maghribi and Badran al-Farisi, to assault it by sea.62 Despite his effort and weapons, Saladin failed to capture the city because Conrad Montferrat had come in the summer of that year and fortified it. On December 30, 1187, Frankish ships which had stealthily slipped into the harbor suddenly attacked Saladin’s force. They captured five Muslim ships and the two commanders, while the rest escaped to Beirut. Many Muslims threw themselves into the sea to escape capture and drowned, but some survived.63 Ibn Shaddad says the weather was not helpful to Saladin. Heavy snow and rain prevented him from fighting. Following the advice of his men, he withdrew from Tyre at the start of January 1188 and went to Acre, where he remained until March of that year.64 From there Saladin went to Tripoli, which he found well defended. When Raymond III of Tripoli, who was then in Tyre, saw that Saladin’s men had entered his principality, he sailed to Tripoli. He fell ill soon after his arrival and realized that his end was near. Because he had no heir, Raymond sent messengers to his friend and kinsman Bohemond III, lord of Antioch, asking him to send his eldest son, Raymond, who was also his godson, to receive Tripoli as a godson’s gift (en Filleulage). Bohemond declined, protesting that he would be overburdened by the responsibility of simultaneously taking charge of Tripoli and Antioch if his son Raymond, who was also his heir, became lord of Tripoli. He offered instead to send his other son, Bohemond, who was worthy and valiant and able to protect Tripoli. When the messengers returned with Bohemond’s reply, Raymond, aware that he was dying and could not do anything else, received Bohemond and gave him Tripoli with all its principality and had homage and fealty done to him. Shortly afterwards, Raymond III died of grief over the immense loss that had befallen the Christians, and the county of Tripoli passed into the hands of Bohemond IV.65 Princeton University Press, 1936), 136–138; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 827–829. 62 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 102–103, identifies the two men as al-Faris Badran and Abd al-Muhsin. Isfahani, al-Fath, 160–163, does not mention them. 63 Isfahani, al-Fath, 161 (and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 119); Athir, al-Kamil, 707– 709; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 242–245. 64 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 102–103; Isfahani, al-Fath, 175–176, 203 (also Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 119–120); Continuation, 50. 65 L’Estoire d’Eracles, 71–73; Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 164–165, n. 4. According to Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 56, n. 3, Buamundus (probably

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

901

In December 1187 a contingent of Saladin’s army captured the virtually impregnable fortress of Hunin (Chastel-Neuf).66 Another force led by Mas’ud al-Salti attacked Safad, northwest of Tiberias, which belonged to the Templars, and the fortress of Kawkab al-Hawa (Belvoir), southeast of Lake Tiberias, which belonged to the Hospitallers. After ferocious resistance, Safad was captured at the end of 1188 and Kawkab at the beginning of 1189.67 On May 3, 1188, Saladin attacked Hisn al-Akrad (Krak des Chevaliers), which was in the hands of the Hospitallers; when he failed to capture it, he turned to attack the seacoast of Tripoli and Antioch.68 On July 3, 1188, he attacked Antartus (Tortosa), on the coast; failing to occupy its citadel, he had most of the city demolished, including its great church, then set fire to the whole city and departed to Jabala.69 After Saladin’s departure Queen Sibyl, wife of King Guy, who was then in Tripoli, wrote to him that he should release her husband in accordance with the agreement he had made when he surrendered Ascalon. The Itinerarium Perigrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi says that since capturing King Guy at Hittin, Saladin had kept him in chains in Damascus until May 1188.70 Saladin wrote back that he would gladly release her husband and instructed his aides in Damascus to send him the king and ten captives, whom the king would choose. Saladin also had Marquis William of Montferrat and other Franks with him released and sent to his son Conrad of Montferrat in Tyre. On their arrival, Saladin required that King Guy and all the freed barons swear never to bear arms against him, then let them go. King Guy crossed on a galley as far as the island which is in front of the city of Tortosa and told Saladin’s messengers, who had accompanied him, that they should bear witness that he had passed overseas. The king came to Tripoli, where his wife was, and was received with great joy.71 The king and Raymond III) died fifteen days after the surrender of Jerusalem, i.e., on October 17, 1187. See Baldwin, Raymond III, 137–138. 66 Isfahani, al-Fath, 170–176; Athir, al-Kamil, 712; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 247. 67 Nicholson, 45, n. 55; Continuation, 67, n. 102; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 104, 118–120; Isfahani, al-Fath, 171 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 120); Athir, al-Kamil, 712–713, 716; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 246–247, 252; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 828–829. 68 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 106; Athir, al-Kamil, 717. 69 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 108–109; Athir, al-Kamil, 717–718; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 256–257. 70 Nicholson, 37. 71 Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, trans. Merton Jerome Hubert, ed. John L. La Monte (New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 128; Three Old French Chroni-

902

THE CRUSADES

queen kissed and embraced one another with tears of joy, grateful that they had escaped a greater disaster.72 King Guy honored his promise and was peaceful for a year, but in the summer of 1189 he decided to recover his kingdom. According to the Itinerarium, he may have reneged on his promise because the clergy of his kingdom believed that since he had made the promise to Saladin under duress, it was not binding on him. Moreover, they maintained, when Saladin captured Ascalon, he broke an earlier treaty in which he had promised to release the king. At first Saladin refused to let him go until he renounced his claim to the kingdom, but then he released the king because of the entreaties of his wife, and Guy went to Tripoli.73 King Guy gathered a small army of about 600 knights, including his brother Geoffrey of Lusignan, and left Tripoli to march to Tyre. He asked for permission to enter the city, but Conrad of Montferrat, who was in charge of the city and the resistance movement in it, insulted him and refused him entry.74 Evidently Conrad did not trust King Guy and thought that he resented him for having preserved Tyre and saved the Christian people. He could not recognize him as a king, but only as a former king.75 King Guy and his wife waited for a few months outside Tyre seeking to enter the city, but to no avail. Ibn Shaddad says that the damned Marquis Conrad, who was strong and strict in his religion and of fixed opinion, told Guy that Tyre did not belong to him, and its possession should be in the hands of the kings [of Germany, England and France], who were on their way to Syria shortly and who had not given him permission to deliver it to King Guy.76 Insulted and humiliated by Conrad, King Guy refused to attack Tyre, although many of his men urged him to do so. Finally, when he realized that he had no other option, he decided to march against Acre (Akka). On leaving Tortosa, Saladin bypassed the fortress of M’Arqab, which belonged to the Hospitallers and was extremely well fortified, and marched cles of the Crusades, trans. Edward Noble Stone (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1939), 44; Nicholson, 68; Continuation, 53–54, 77. 72 Nicholson, 42. 73 Nicholson, 37, 42, 68; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126; Shaddad, alNawadir, 2: 123. 74 Continuation, 80; Nicholson, 42, 69; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 93; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126. 75 Letter of Conrad to Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, in Continuatione, 169; Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 61. 76 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 123.

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

903

to Banyas, in the northern part of the principality of Tripoli. From there he entered the principality of Antioch, occupying Jabala (Gibelet) in July 1188 and then the fortress of Bekisrael, on the road to Hama. Then he attacked Laodicea. Accompanied by his son al-Malik al-Zahir, lord of Aleppo, Saladin attacked the fortress of Sihyun and captured it in July 1188 after a month of strong resistance.77 He then moved to capture the fortresses of alShaghr and Bekas at the start of August 1188, followed by Sarminiya (Sarmin/Sermin), Burziyah, Darbasak, and Baghras, in the vicinity of Antioch.78 The Hospitallers defended Darbasak fiercely, but finally had to surrender it in September 1188. Bagras, which was captured the same month, was important because it lay on the road between Antioch and the Armenian principality of Cilicia.79 Saladin would have not been able to capture some of these fortresses without the intelligence provided him by Sibyl, wife of Bohemond III and mistress of the fortress of Burziyah. Al-Isfahani calls Sibyl “the Sultan Saladin’s eye,” because she provided him with the secrets of the enemy. In return, Saladin honored her and showered her with gifts.80 When he captured Burziyah, Sibyl’s sister, to whom the fortress belonged, fell into his hands. Saladin released her, along with her daughter and son-in-law, and sent them to Antioch, an action for which she thanked him.81 Since the important fortresses had fallen into Saladin’s hands, Bohemond III of Antioch had no choice but to sue for peace. Saladin agreed, and the two leaders signed a eight-month truce extending from October to May.82 By the end of 1188, Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 106–112; Isfahani, al-Fath, 241–243 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 126); Athir, al-Kamil, 721–723; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 256–264; Ashur, alHaraka, 2: 829–830. 78 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 113–118 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 130–131); Athir, al-Kamil, 731–732. Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 405 of the French translation, mentions these and several other towns but not in the same chronological order. 79 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 113–116 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 130–133); Isfahani, al-Fath, 245–259; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 264–269; Athir, al-Kamil, 717–730. 80 Isfahani, al-Fath, 251–252 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 131). 81 Isfahani, al-Fath, 251–252 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 131); Athir, al-Kamil, 729– 730; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 267. Surprisingly, Ibn Shaddad does not mention this anecdote about Sibyl. 82 Isfahani, al-Fath, 260 (Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 133–134); Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 117; Athir, al-Kamil, 733; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 270; Ashur, al-Haraka, 1: 832, follows Ibn Wasil. 77

904

THE CRUSADES

the Franks were forced to surrender the fortress of Karak (Krak des Moabites) because they were on the verge of starvation. A few months later the fortress of al-Shawbak (Krak de Montréal) surrendered to Saladin.83 Then Saladin went to Damascus by way of Jerusalem, Ascalon, and Acre, arriving on March 21, 1189. In April he received a legate of the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir (1180– 1225); Diya al-Din Abd al-Wahhab, known as Ibn Sakina, asked him to give fealty to the caliph’s heir apparent, Abu Nasr Muhammad later Caliph alZahir.84 The caliph’s intention was to affirm his authority as the sole ruler in the Muslim territory who must be obeyed. But the Abbasid caliphs had been so weakened by the domination of the Seljuk Turks since 1055, when Tughrul entered Baghdad, that their authority was nominal. Al-Nasir’s attempt to have Saladin recognize his authority and that of his son had no effect.85 Saladin mentioned the name of the caliph’s son in the Friday khutba in a display of fealty, but the real authority was in his own hands. To gratify the caliph, Saladin sent back his messenger Diya al-Din al-Shahrzuri to accompany the caliph’s messenger with precious gifts and Frankish knights who had been captured at Hittin and were paraded through the streets of Baghdad. Among the gifts were the crown of King Guy of Jerusalem and the cross of gilded copper that had topped the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. The knights, covered by their shields, carried their banners turned upside-down as a sign of their humiliation. The Cross that had been glorified by the Christians was buried under the sill of the Western Gate in Baghdad, with only its top exposed; Muslims passed by, spitting and stepping on it.86 The last stronghold left in the Franks’ hands was the fortress of Shaqif Arnun (Belfort, Beaufort), against which Saladin marched in April 1189.87 The fortress of Shaqif Arnun belonged to Reginald of Sidon, who had taken refuge in it. Muslim and Latin sources differ on the story of Reginald of Sidon and the surrender of his fortress to Saladin. The most detailed account is given by the author of the Continuation of William of Tyre, who says Isfahani, al-Fath, 266–267 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 134); Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 734 of the Syriac text, 405 of the French translation. 84 Isfahani, al-Fath, pp. 279–280 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 139); Shaddad, alNawadir, 121; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 278–279. 85 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, 10th ed. (New York: Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 1970), 481. 86 Isfahani, al-Fath, 280 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 139); Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 121; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 278–280. 87 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 121–122; Athir, al-Kamil, 738. 83

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

905

that when Saladin came to Shaqif Arnun, he realized he could not take it by force and therefore resorted to treachery. He commanded Reginald to come out and speak to him under safe-conduct. Reginald refused, saying he did not trust an unbeliever. Saladin threatened to have the fortress burned if Reginald did not come out. Although his men told him not to go, Reginald rejected their advice and went out to see Saladin. Before he left, he and his men swore not to surrender the fortress but to save it for Christendom. Saladin seemed happy to see Reginald and showed him goodwill, offering him gifts and rich jewels and placing guards around the fortress. Realizing he had been tricked, Reginald asked permission to leave, and Saladin agreed. One of Saladin’s aides, a scribe from the fortress, asked Saladin why he had let Reginald go. Saladin replied that Reginald had come to see him under safe-conduct, and he had left under the same safe-conduct. The scribe asked Saladin to give him men, so that he could chase after Reginald and bring him back. Thus, Saladin would be absolved of violating the safeconduct he had offered. Saladin agreed, and the scribe and his men captured Reginald and brought him back. When Saladin asked him to surrender the fortress, Reginald said that he had breached his promise of safeconduct. Saladin answered, “Reginald, my Prophet Muhammad teaches me that I should take the enemy of Allah by the promise of Allah. On the other hand, I have sworn that I shall not let any city or fortress remain that I shall not take by whatever means I can. I have no wish to be a perjurer.” Reginald asked Saladin for the sake of God to let him go to the fortress, promising to surrender it to him; Saladin insisted that Reginald must surrender the fortress or be killed. Reginald said that his body might be in Saladin’s hands, but his soul was in the hands of God. Saladin might kill his body but he would never have the fortress. Enraged by this answer, Saladin ordered that Reginald be beaten and cruelly tortured. He was hung by the arms and feet in full view of his men. After some time, Reginald told his men that he could no longer endure the torture. His men took counsel among themselves and surrendered the fortress to Saladin in return for the release of their lord. Saladin was delighted to have Shaqif Arnun (Belfort), but he compensated Reginald by giving him half of Sidon with its lands and a promise that no Muslim would ever take it back. Reginald held it as long as he lived, and his son Balian after him, until the Germans occupied it in 1227. Two years after that, a truce negotiated between Frederick II (1220–

906

THE CRUSADES

1250) and al-Kamil, Ayyubid sultan of Egypt (1218–1238), sanctioned the status quo of the castle.88 The primary source on the surrender of the fortress of Shaqif Arnun and its lord Reginald of Sidon is Ibn Shaddad, who was with Saladin at the time. As Saladin drew near Shaqif Arnun in April 1189, Reginald saw the Muslim forces massed with their weapons in the vicinity of the fortress. Realizing he could not fight them, Reginald sought a peaceful solution to his problem. Suddenly, he appeared at the entrance to Saladin’s pavilion. Saladin bade him come in, showing him respect and honor. Reginald, says Ibn Shaddad, was one of the great and wise Franks. He knew and spoke Arabic and had knowledge of history. It was said that Reginald had a Muslim who read for him and explained to him what he had read as Reginald listened attentively. Reginald told Saladin that he was his mamluk (slave) and offered obedience. He was willing to surrender the fortress without a fight provided that Saladin would pledge to give him a place to live in Damascus and a fief to accommodate himself and his household, for he could no longer live with the Franks or in the fortress. He also asked to be given three months’ grace to get his household and retinue out of Tyre. Saladin agreed, and Reginald continued to serve Saladin. Meanwhile, says Ibn Shaddad, Reginald debated with us to prove the validity of his religion, while we argued for its falsehood. Ibn Shaddad admits that Reginald was very polite and an excellent debater. Then Saladin went to Marj Uyun, expecting Reginald to hand over his fortress at the end of the three months. The Muslim forces believed Reginald had sought the grace period to buy time so he could gather more provisions and strengthen the fortress. At night, Saladin climbed the nearby mountain to monitor the provisions and aid coming into the fortress. In the morning Reginald saw the Muslim force covering the land. He rushed to Saladin, asking him to extend the grace period to a full year. Sensing Reginald’s craftiness and deception, Saladin told him he would consider the request, consult his men, and let him know the result in due time. He had a tent pitched next to his pavilion and set guards on it to watch Reginald without alerting him, all the while treating Reginald with respect and honor. When the three months expired, Saladin asked Reginald to surrender the Continuation, 70–73, nn. 108–109. On Frederick II and al-Kamil, see Thomas C. Van Cleve, “The Crusade of Frederick II,” in Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard, eds., A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311(Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1969), 2: 429–462, esp. 454–455. 88

SALADIN’S MARCH ON JERUSALEM

907

fortress and accused him of having provisions and reinforcements brought to the fortress. Reginald denied the charge and sent a messenger to his men in the fortress asking them to surrender, but they refused to do so. Then Reginald, riding a mule, went with several aides to the fortress and ordered those inside to surrender, but again they refused. Someone came out of the fortress, spoke to Reginald in his own tongue, and went back in. He must have told him not to surrender the fortress, because the men inside became ever more defiant. Saladin, who felt he could no longer trust Reginald, became angry and asked Reginald’s men to surrender the fortress to him. Having earlier sent Reginald to Banyas, Saladin summoned him and tried to threaten him into surrendering the fortress. When Reginald refused, Saladin sent him to Damascus, where he was thrown into prison.89 On May 3, 1189, the Franks inside the fortress of Shaqif Arnun realized that they had no protection from the Muslims, who were prepared to attack it. Knowing that if the Muslims captured the fortress by force they would all be beheaded, they appealed for safety. Having also learned that their lord (Reginald) had suffered greatly from torture, they decided that they should surrender the fortress and have its lord released, and they should leave all their provisions and belongings in the fortress. Thus, Reginald surrendered and went with his men to Tyre. Finally, after a fierce attack Saladin captured the fortress of Shaqif Arnun in April 1190.90

89 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 121–122, 129–130; Isfahani, al-Fath, 285–288; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 290, Athir, al-Kamil, 738–740. 90 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 121–122, 151; Isfahani, al-Fath, 359; Athir, al-Kamil, 738–740; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 282–284, 289–290; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 138–140, mostly follows Ibn Shaddad.

26 THE SIEGE OF ACRE As we have seen, King Guy was released by Saladin at the request of his wife Sybil. When Conrad of Montferrat insulted him and refused to let him enter Tyre, Guy chose to die honorably rather than live in disgrace. On the advice of Patriarch Heraclius and his own men, King Guy decided to march against Acre.1 After mustering a force of 9,000 knights and many others of various ranks from every Christian nation, King Guy attacked Acre on August 27, 1189. Joining him in the siege were the Templars and their master Gerard of Ridefort, the Hospitallers, Ubaldo, archbishop of Pisa (1174– 1206), and many Pisans who were acting against the wishes of Conrad of Montferrat and Gerardo, archbishop of Ravenna.2 The king, together with his wife and two daughters, his brother Geoffrey, and Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem, camped on high ground near Acre called Toron.3 Saladin was “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar, 1996; hereafter cited as Continuation), 80; Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 11891192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 93; Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 126. 2 Letter of Theobald the Prefect and Peter son of Leo to Pope Clement III (document 6b), Edbury, ed., Conquest of Jerusalem, 169–170. The full text appears in Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi De Decito Decani Lundonersis Opera Historia, trans. William Stubbs as The Historical World of Master Ralph Decito, Dean of London, 2 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 70–71. See Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 94; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126, where the author names only a few of the men who accompanied King Guy. 3 Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 134, calls the hill Tall al-Musalliyin; Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 298, and Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 1

909

910

THE CRUSADES

engaged in attacking the fortress of Shaqif Arnun (Beaufort, Belfort) when he received word that King Guy was leading a force to Acre. He did not believe the report, thinking it was a trick by the Crusaders to divert him from attacking the fortress.4 Saladin finally moved, clearly too late, arriving on August 27 in al-Kharuba, twelve miles southeast of Acre. Two days later he advanced to the plain of Acre, passing through Tall Kaysan and Tall alIyadiyya, only to find that the Crusaders had already established themselves in strong positions near Acre.5 Saladin consulted with his commanders to determine the best course of action. It appears he wanted to attack the Franks as they marched from Tyre, but his commanders thought it was better to let them reach Acre and trap them between the Muslim garrison and Saladin’s army, believing they would fall into the pincers and be easily annihilated.6 Acre was in fact teeming with Muslims, who outnumbered the Christians ten to one. If the city’s Muslim inhabitants had wanted to devour the Christians, they could have taken them as a sparrow hawk captures a small bird. But Saladin followed the advice of his commanders and made what turned out to be a disastrous strategic blunder. Evidently, he was so sure of his ability to vanquish the Franks that he sent his brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din to invite the caliph in Baghdad to join him in his forthcoming victory.7 But it was too late to act because the Franks had already established themselves in the city. Soon fifty ships, commanded by the Flemish Baron James of Avesnes (Avennes), arrived at Acre with 12,000 to 14,000 Danes, Frisians, Flemings,

291, call it Tall al-Musalliba; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 142, gives its name as Tall al-Musallibin. See Helen J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997; hereafter cited as Nicholson), 70–71, esp. n. 119; Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, M. J. Hubert, trans. (New York: Octogon Books, 1976), 134, Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126–127; Edward Noble Stone, ed., Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1939; hereafter cited as Stone), 46; Continuation, 80, does not mention Toron by name but correctly describes it as a small hill. 4 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 132. 5 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 133–134; Isfahani, al-Fath, 296–297; Izz al-Din Ibn alAthir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 7. John L. LaMonte, ed., Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard LionHeart, 136, n. 32, says Saladin arrived three days after King Guy. See Stone, 46. 6 Isfahani, al-Fath, 297; Athir, al-Kamil, 6–7. 7 Continuation, 81.

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

911

Germans, English and Bretons.8 Regarding James’s valor, Ambroise says he does not think that “Alexander the Great or Hector or Achilles were men of more noble character.”9 The Itinerarium says James “was a man endowed with triple perfection: a Nestor [of Homer’s Iliad], and better than Attilius Regulus (a third-century Roman consul) at keeping his word, in counsel.”10 Among the other nobles who had also arrived to help in the struggle for Acre were William, count of Ferrers, earl of Derby; Louis, landgrave of Thuringia, Germany; Count John of Sées; Count Henry of Bar-le-Due, cousin of Henry of Champagne, Viscount of Turenne and Châtellerault; Nargevot of Toci; Ancelin of Montréal; Guy of Dampierre; Robert II, count of Dreux, and his brother Philip, bishop of Beauvais; Erard, count of Brienne, and his brother Andrew, lord of Ramerupt.11 Muslims from throughout the East rushed to join Saladin’s army, and on September 16, 1189, Saladin met with the leaders of the reinforcements to prepare them for battle.12 Skirmishes between the two sides began in early September. The Crusaders had not yet blocked all of Acre, and the Muslims were able to move about freely. They left the city in two groups, swiftly came together, and attacked the Hospitallers, who were on guard duty. The Hospitallers would have been overcome had it not been for the Templars, who rushed to stop the Muslims from breaking into the Crusaders’ camp. On Friday, September 14, 1189, the Muslims made a surprise Continuation, 81–82; Nicholson, 73–74; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 94, Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126. On the sailing of this fleet see Narratio Itineris Navalis Ad Terram Sanctam, in Anton Chroust, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I (Berlin, 1928), 179–196; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 65–66; Stone, 47, say the men with James of Avesnes numbered 14,000. 9 Ambroise, 137; Nicholson, 145, says the Itinerarium applied these exact words of praise to King Richard Lion-Heart. 10 Nicholson, 74–75. 11 Nicholson, 76, 82; Ambroise, 140, nn. 44–46; Stone, 50; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 95–96; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 126; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers Of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English, Henry G. Hewlett, ed. 1 (London 1886), 177–178; letter from the chaplain of Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, to the convent of Canterbury, in Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, 171; Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 50. 12 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 134–135; Isfahani, al-Fath, 299–303; Athir, al-Kamil, 2: 7–8; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 292, follows the account of Ibn Shaddad. 8

912

THE CRUSADES

attack against the Crusaders, causing confusion in their ranks; there were casualties on both sides. The Muslims’ objective was to allow camels carrying provisions to enter the city. They also led one of Saladin’s sons out of the city and brought him to his father.13 The Crusaders counterattacked on September 21 and put pressure on the Muslims’ rearguard. Seeing his men might be defeated, Saladin ordered a herald to cry out to the people, “O Islam, O armies of those who declare the Unity of Allah!” Acting as one, the Muslims, old and young, mounted and on foot, attacked the Crusaders, pushed them back, and opened the roads leading to and from the city.14 The author of the Itinerarium calls the Muslims “greater in military strength and truly preeminent men who held Acre against the Christians, fit and ready for anything; certainly not inferior to our people. Virtue is praiseworthy even in an enemy.”15 Having been thrown back, the Christians were extremely frightened and took refuge on top of the hill (Toron). But they were surrounded from below by Saladin’s force, estimated at 100,000 men, and had no hope of escape. Desperate, King Guy sent envoys to ask his nemesis Conrad of Montferrat to sympathize with his terrible situation and come immediately to his aid. Conrad, apparently laying aside the animosity between himself and the king, took pity on the Christians in their difficulty and in late September came to by sea Acre with 1,000 knights and 20,000 footmen. Saladin, much alarmed by their arrival, withdrew a mile from the hill.16 To strengthen their position, the Christians dug a large trench connecting two points on the seacoast. They dug another trench between themselves and Acre, so that no Muslim could go out of the city without being susceptible to capture. In this way, they used the ground to isolate themselves from the Muslims. The Crusaders also camouflaged their engines of war and set them behind their position, so that the Muslims on the opposite side could do them no harm. But they were exposed to the elements of nature and had no shelters or cabins to protect them from strong winds and heavy rain. The Muslims continued to assail them, giving them no rest. Worse still, the Christians suffered from shortage of food, so much Nicholson, 75; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 293; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 134–135, does not mention camels but says Saladin sought to open the road to Acre. 14 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 137–138, 140; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 295. 15 Nicholson, 75–76. 16 Letter of Theobald and Peter to the pope, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 170; Nicholson, 77. 13

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

913

that the common people in the army could no longer bear their hunger. In this awful situation, the Crusaders saw no choice; they could live and surrender to Saladin or die.17 Despite the stress of hunger, on October 4, 1189, King Guy, encouraged by the arrival of reinforcements, took the initiative by attacking Saladin’s force. The details of the fighting and the battle formation of the forces on both sides are too detailed to be presented here.18 According to Ambroise and the Itinerarium, Conrad of Montferrat fought heroically but became surrounded by Muslim forces and was rescued by King Guy. The author of the Itinerarium says that despite previous rivalry and animosity between the two men, Guy showed humanity to that “undeserving man and rescued him when he was about to perish.”19 The Crusaders failed to capture the city, however, since they had to face 60,000 Muslim warriors in it.20 Both sides suffered heavy casualties. According to Ibn Shaddad, the Muslims lost only 150 men, including Zahir al-Din, the governor of Jerusalem and brother of Isa the Jurist. Ibn Shaddad says he saw Isa sitting in front of his tent smiling as people offered him condolences which he rejected, saying this was a day for congratulation, not mourning. Also killed were the commander Mujalli ibn Marwan, Jamal al-Din Abu Ali ibn Rawaha al-Hamawi, Isma’il al-Sufi al-Armawi, and others.21 The Itinerarium estimates that 1,500 knights lost their lives including Gerard of Ridefort, master of the Temple (the Templars later elected Robert of Sablé as their master), Andrew of Brienne, and others.22 Ibn al-Athir says Gerard of Ridefort, mas17 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 128; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 96; Ambroise, 145–146; Stone, 49; Continuation, 82. 18 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 140–147, gives a detailed account of the Battle of Acre and the Muslim army’s formation, as does Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 1 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 333–346. See Nicholson, 79– 80; Isfahani, al-Fath, 308–317; letter of Theobald and Peter to the pope, in Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, 170. 19 Ambroise, 143; Stone, 49; Nicholson, 80. 20 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 735; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 407. 21 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 144; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 299, mentions the names of only two of those killed, Mujalli ibn Marwan and the chamberlain Khalil al-Hakkari; Isfahani, al-Fath, 318; Athir, al-Kamil, 11; Oman, History, 1: 340 mentions the Kurdish Emir Modjelli and others. 22 Nicholson, 77; Continuation, 83; Ambroise, 143; Stone, 49.

914

THE CRUSADES

ter of the Dawiya (Templars), had previously been taken captive and then released by Saladin, but when he fell into Saladin’s hands this time, Saladin had him executed.23 The Continuation of William of Tyre and other sources say that Saladin’s son Baldewinus and his nephew Tacaldinus were also among those killed.24 Among those captured by the Muslims were three Franks who had been fighting on horseback; it was only after they were captured and had their arms removed that they were found to be women.25 The Muslim sources give varying estimates of the number of Crusaders killed. Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Shaddad and Ibn Wasil put it at 7,000, but it may have been 10,000 (Ibn al-Athir) or as few as 5,000 (al-Isfahani).26 Saladin ordered the bodies of the Christians thrown into the river from which the Franks drank, and the corpses floated to the Crusaders’ camp, causing a foul stench that polluted the air. Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says there were more than 5,000 corpses “whisked to the fire of hell before the Day of the Resurrection.”27 Many Crusaders fled, unable to stand the smell, while others undertook to bury the corpses. Even after the job was done, the stench hung in the air for a long time. Ambroise says it was Saladin who caused the corpses to be thrown into the water course of Acre, creating a most hideous sight. The dead piled up on the shore, creating a great stench that caused the [Crusaders] to flee.28 Muslim sources say Saladin was sickened by the strong stench and suffered from severe colic. His amirs urged him to stop harassing the Franks for a time and leave to escape the stench of death. Saladin became seriously ill; a rumor of his death even spread throughout his camp, throwing the Muslim ranks into confusion. Heeding the amirs’ advice, which was supported by his physicians, Saladin went on October 16, 1189 to al-Kharuba, where he had camped earlier. But as soon as he left, the Franks apparently Athir, al-Kamil, 2: 12. Letter of Theobold and Peter son of Leo to the pope, Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, 170. These deaths are not mentioned by Muslim sources. It is hard to identify Baldewinus; Tacaldinus must be Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din Umar, who died October 10, 1191. See Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 736 of the Syriac text, 408–409 of the French translation. Athir, al-Kamil, 2: 110, says that Taqi al-Din was in this battle but does not say that he was killed. 25 Athir, al-Kamil, 13. 26 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 144; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 299–300; Athir, al-Kamil, 12; Isfahani, al-Fath, 314. 27 Isfahani, al-Fath, 320. 28 Ambroise, 145; Stone, 49–50. 23 24

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

915

recovered and proceeded to besiege Acre. The rearguard of Saladin’s army informed him daily of the Franks’ activities. He realized how grave the situation was, but he was too sick to assume command. By the time he recovered, the Franks had succeeded in strengthening their positions, although they were still being assaulted by the Muslims of Acre.29 Saladin summoned his chief aides, including Ibn Shaddad, and told them “the enemies of Allah and our enemies” had stepped on the land of Islam and were about to vanquish it. It was their duty to uproot enemy, with what little was left of his force. He reminded them that they had no reinforcements coming except those of his brother al-Malik al-Adil, while the enemy had received a great deal of aid by sea; therefore, they had no choice but to fight back.30 According to Western sources, Saladin was defeated and withdrew from Acre. After his defeat he sent a message to King Guy, accusing him of breaking the oath he had taken not to bear arms against him. The king replied that he had indeed kept his oath. He argued that in fulfillment of his oath, he had crossed the sea in the presence of Saladin’s envoys, but he never said that he would not bear arms against him. Saladin’s response to this argument is unknown.31 At any rate, the siege dragged on. Although the Muslim forces had withdrawn, they took refuge behind the city walls while the Franks found shelter in the trenches they had dug. Saladin spent the winter of 1189 and part of the following spring watching the situation carefully, but he could not reach the Muslims within the city and they could not reach him. Even so, he was able to communicate with the garrison of Acre through coded messages carried by pigeons and swimmers.32 Whether Saladin retreated to al-Kharuba because of the stench of the corpses or because he was overwhelmed by the Franks is unclear. The fact remains that he did not defeat the Franks, nor was he able to capture Acre, which the Franks had already blockaded on all sides. But we should note that despite their animosity and the fact that they were combatants, the Muslims and the Franks at times still showed compassion toward one another. Men on both sides became tired of the conflict, which had dragged on, and found opportunities to amuse themselves. Muslim sources mention 29 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 144–146; Isfahani, al-Fath, 321–326; Athir, al-Kamil, 14; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 303–304. 30 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 146–147; Isfahani, al-Fath, 325, gave Saladin almost the same advice. 31 Continuation, 83–84. 32 Isfahani, al-Fath, 360.

916

THE CRUSADES

that from time to time, both sides became friendly enough to lay aside their weapons to sing and dance, and then resumed fighting. On one remarkable occasion each side chose a young boy to wrestle, as a representative of his faith. The Muslim boy overwhelmed his Frankish opponent and took him captive, but the Franks redeemed him for two dinars.33 The struggle for the control of Acre was a stalemate. But the Muslims, who constituted the majority of the townspeople, began to suffer from hunger. Their predicament became so serious that they offered to surrender the city to the Franks, on condition that they be allowed to leave under safe-conduct. The Frankish princes did not accept this condition, however, and decided to wait until the Muslims became so weak that they could take the city by storm.34 As the negotiations between the two sides dragged on, Saladin had fifty ships equipped with men, food supplies, and arms sent to Acre for the relief of the beleaguered Muslim garrison. On the eve of All Saints Day (October 31, 1189), as the ships approached the port of Acre, the Franks spotted them in the distance but were not sure whether they were the Muslims’ or their own. Suddenly the Muslim ships rushed into the port, taking with them one of the Franks’ ships, which they had encountered. Fortunately for them, it was laden with food. They captured its cargo, killed its entire crew, and hung their bodies round the walls of Acre.35 Ambroise and other sources also say the Muslims captured the transport ship with its men and cargo. They drove it into the city barrier, seized the food, and slaughtered the crew.36 Still, Saladin was in a difficult situation and desperately needed help to fight the Franks. Near the end of November 1189, his brother al-Malik alAdil, commanding an Egyptian force, arrived at al-Kharuba. A month later other reinforcements, including fifty Egyptian ships under the command of the courageous and experienced Husam al-Din Lulu, arrived at the harbor of Acre. The Frankish ships tried to keep him from entering the port, but Husam al-Din managed to capture one of these ships, which happened to be laden with great amounts of food and other commodities, to the great 33

143).

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 139; Isfahani, al-Fath, 360 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2:

Nicholson, 85. Nicholson, 85–86. 36 Ambroise, 147–148; Stone, 51; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 158; Athir, al-Kamil, 16; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 305–306. 34 35

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

917

relief of the Muslim garrison.37 On December 26, 1189, as one of the Frankish galleys incautiously went to investigate the arrival of the Muslim ships, mistaking them for Christian ships coming from Europe to their aid, it was captured by the Muslims. When the sailors discovered that these were Muslim ships, they jumped into the sea and swam away to save their lives.38 According to the Iterinarium, three Muslim supply vessels arrived. The sailors rushed headlong toward the city, and some of them drowned. But the ships and food supplies were saved. When the besieged Muslims received the food provisions, they went into a joyous frenzy with cymbals and flutes, and stentorian voices declaring that all was well.39 To some extent, the Muslims managed to control the sea around Acre. Some of the Crusaders’ ships could not enter the port and were forced to flee to Tyre. As winter drew near, the Crusaders tried to strengthen their position by digging trenches, and if these were filled up, they dug them again. They built wooden towers and made petraries, mangonels (Arabic manjaniqs), sows, and clayes.40 Saladin put over 30,000 men to work fortifying Acre, building gates and turrets and reinforcing the whole city. He ordered many mangonels and other war machines set up, and had engines built for throwing Greek fire. Never before had the people of Acre seen so much artillery and war engines of all types. Meanwhile, the Germans had constructed mills (some of them horse-driven) for grinding grains. The Muslims watched these mills with astonishment and were fascinated by their operation; although Ambroise and the Itinerarium say the Muslims had never seen a horse-driven mill before, there is evidence that such mills were not totally unknown to them.41 While the two sides were busy strengthening their positions, word came that the German Emperor (Frederick Barbarossa) had drowned. This was glad tidings to the Muslims; some stood at the walls of the city shouting to the Crusaders, “Your Emperor is drowned!” The Muslims inside Acre were so glad that they could not think of anything else but the death of the German king. They went on dancing down the street, beating upon their drums and timbrels.42 The Crusaders were saddened by the death of the 37 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 158; Isfahani, al-Fath, 340; Athir, al-Kamil, 16; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 305–306. 38 Nicholson, 86. 39 Nicholson, 92. 40 For descriptions of these engines of war see Stone, 51, n. 89. 41 Nicholson, 86, n. 165; Ambroise, 149; Stone, 51. 42 Ambroise, 150; Stone, 52.

918

THE CRUSADES

emperor, but they were facing a formidable enemy and had to stand their ground. Relief soon came when Marquis Conrad of Montferrat rushed to Acre. Despite not being on good terms with King Guy and refusing even to recognize him as king, through the mediation of the Frankish princes Conrad had finally come to terms with him. They agreed that Conrad would retain Tyre, Beirut, and Sidon, and as a faithful Christian would promote the interests of the king and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Now, with the Crusaders struggling against Saladin at Acre, Conrad relented and reconciled with King Guy. He may have realized that once Saladin captured Acre, all the coastal towns including his own Tyre would be in jeopardy. Or perhaps, as the Itinerarium says, being ambitious to gain the Kingdom of Jerusalem for himself, having been insincere in reconciling with King Guy.43 Thus, around Easter (March 25, 1190), Conrad, commanding a fleet of fifty ships carrying a large force and enormous quantities of equipment, weapons and food, sailed from Tyre bound for Acre. With the arrival of this fleet, the Crusaders gained control of the sea so that their ships could approach Acre more safely. To strengthen their position, King Guy, Conrad of Montferrat, and Louis, landgrave of Thuringia, erected three enormous towers of wood and iron and covered them with hides soaked in vinegar to prevent fire from penetrating them. Each tower had five compartments and could accommodate five hundred men. Their roofs were wide and could hold one mangonel each. They made a pathway for them and on April 27, 1190 wheeled them to the walls of the city.44 With the towers in position, the Crusaders began to assault the city on Saturday, May 19, 1190. The Muslim defenders quickly sent a message asking Saladin to rush to their aid. Saladin responded by marching with an army on land, so that the Franks had to fight two Muslim forces. The fight continued for eight days before the Muslim garrison inside Acre realized the Franks were about to capture the city. The Itinerarium says one of Saladin’s sons was killed on the eighth day by a shot from a crossbow, but Muslim sources make no mention of this event.45 A Muslim from Damascus called Nicholson, 87. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 155–156, and Athir, al-Kamil, 18–19, say that the towers were moved on April 27; Nicholson, 91, gives the date as May 5. See Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 334; Ambroise, 154–155; Stone, 53. 45 Nicholson, 93. 43 44

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

919

Ali, son of the chief copperers in Damascus, said he had invented a method to burn the towers with Greek fire.46 Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, who was in charge of the city of Acre, did not believe him first but then yielded and let him have his way. Using Greek fire, the Muslims succeeded in destroying the Crusaders’ towers.47 Saladin realized that the Franks were still strong, however, and he could not defeat them. So he sought the help of other Muslim leaders, including Imad al-Din, the Artukid lord of Dara; Fakhr al-Din; Imad al-Din, son of Mawdud Zangi, lord of Sinjar; another Zangi, Mu’izz al-Din, lord of al-Jazira; Ala al-Din Khurram Shah, son of the lord of Mosul, his father’s deputy; and Zayn al-Din Ali Kuchuk, lord of Arbil.48 He also asked Ya’qub ibn Yusuf ibn Abd al-Mu’min (d. 1198), king of the Maghrib (alMuwahhidun, Almohades), to join him in his jihad against the kuffar (infidels), asking him to cut off the enemy’s naval movements. On receiving this message, the king of the Maghrib pledged to commission his fleet to disturb the movement of the Italian ships in the Mediterranean, but did not carry out his pledge. Displeased because Saladin had not addressed him as Amir al-Mu’min (The Commander of the Faithful), the customary title for kings of the Maghrib, he provided no help.49 Saladin tried to keep the Franks busy while he was waiting for the Egyptian fleet to come to his aid. When it finally arrived, the Franks were ready to challenge it. A ferocious sea battle ensued; the Muslims used Greek fire and hurled missiles, but the Crusaders stood their ground. The Muslim ships were driven back to the harbor, and the Muslim garrison in Acre, numbering about 40,000, was cut off from outside aid. But the Muslims, still determined to fight, filled the trenches the Crusaders had dug earlier. Among them was a group of black warriors (probably from Africa) of enormous stature, with headdresses which made them appear forceful and Isfahani, al-Fath, 370. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 155–156; Isfahani, al-Fath, 370–372; Athir, al-Kamil, 21– 22; Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 118 of the Syriac text, 333 of the English translation; Nicholson, 91; Ambroise, 155–156; Stone, 53. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translation, says Qaraqosh was of Byzantine (Greek) origin. 48 Isfahani, al-Fath, 380–383 (Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 154); Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 158–159; Athir, al-Kamil, 15–16; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 305–306; Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 859. 49 Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 171–176. 46 47

920

THE CRUSADES

relentless. They reportedly carried a banner portraying Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, in whose name they had come to fight and thrust the Christians out. (This report is extremely doubtful, since Islam forbids any representation of Allah or Muhammad.)50 On the Sunday after Ascension (May 5, 1190), the Muslims moved their war machines to the walls and attacked the city from morn to dusk. The Muslim troops outside Acre rushed from all sides with great force, poured into the trenches, and attacked the city. The Crusaders, finding themselves hemmed in between two Muslim forces, used Greek fire against them; many were burned, while others were too weak to fight. On land and sea, the Muslims fell to the Crusaders.51 At one point in the naval battle, the Genoese and the men of Pisa dragged a Muslim galley to the shore, where both men and women plundered it. The women pulled the Muslims by the hair and, using knives instead of swords, cut their throats, beheaded them, and carried their heads to shore.52 The struggle between the two sides dragged on, and neither claimed victory. As time passed, the Franks grew listless and the common people, looking for excitement, accused the Frankish princes of cowardice.53 The chaplain of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury complains that the troops gave themselves over to shameless activity, indulging in idleness and vice rather than in virtue.54 The Frankish princes tried to restrain them but failed. The patriarch threatened to excommunicate the princes if they engaged the enemy in an unnecessary battle, but the princes could not calm the anger of the mob and engaged in battle, much against their will. On July 25, 1190, the day of Saint James the Apostle, 10,000 well-armed young Franks marched against the Muslim army, mostly Egyptians commanded by Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil, lord of Egypt, and met them in a fierce battle. The Egyptians retreated stealthily, giving the impression that they were defeated. Encouraged by their retreat, the Franks entered the Muslims’ tents and pillaged the possessions which the Egyptian had deliberately left in them. A group of Egyptians reached the Crusaders’ trench and cut off Ambroise, 151–154; Stone, 52–53; Nicholson, 86–87. Nicholson, 86–87; Stone, 53; Ambroise, 154–155, says the battle occurred on Thursday. 52 Ambroise, 152; Stone, 52; Nicholson, 86–87. 53 Nicholson, 94–95. 54 Message of the Archbishop’s chaplain to the convent of Canterbury, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusades, 171. 50 51

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

921

the invaders from their base. Then they and the rest of the army flanked the Franks from every direction. Some of the Franks dropped whatever they were carrying and ran for their lives, aided by Ralph of Hauterive, archdeacon of Colchester, who died shortly afterward at Acre. Others were put to the sword.55 Muslim sources say more than 10,000 Franks and only ten Muslims were killed. The chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury estimates that the Franks lost 4,000 men; Ambroise says it was 7,000, and the Itinerarium fixes the number at 5,500. Ibn Shaddad, who was present, says that as he rode a beast that waded through the blood of those killed, he tried to count them but could not because there were so many. But he saw among the fallen two Frankish women. Someone also told him that he had encountered four Frankish women fighting and captured two of them. Ibn Shaddad adds that Saladin ordered that no one whom they captured should be left alive. The Muslims had won a decisive victory over the Christians in what Ibn Shaddad called “the Adiliyya Battle,” named for al-Malik al-Adil.56 On July 26, 1190, a message came from Aleppo that a contingent of Frankish soldiers had gone out to pillage Muslim land, but they were intercepted and very few escaped. This report gave great joy to the Muslims, who cherished their victory and strong position. Ibn Shaddad says the Franks were so weak that toward the end of that day Qaymaz al-Harrani, from the rear guard of Saladin’s army, came to tell Saladin that the enemy had asked for an envoy to discuss terms of peace, adding that the enemy was utterly broken and awaiting the arrival of al-Kund Harry (Henri of Champagne, Count of Troyes).57 The Franks were soon relieved by the arrival of a host of French and English troops under strong leaders. First in August 1190 came Henry of Champagne, with a force of 10,000 men; he immediately took command of the army, replacing James of Avesnes and Louis, landgrave of Thuringia. There followed a host of prominent men, most of whom are mentioned by the Itinerarium.58 The Franks were strengthened and encouraged by the arriBenedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 142, 147. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 167–171; Isfahani, al-Fath, 403–407 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 158); Athir, al-Kamil, 26–27; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 325–326; Ambroise, 156– 157; Stone, 54; Nicholson, 94–96; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 172; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 84. 57 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 171; Isfahani, al-Fath, 413–414 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 158–159); Athir, al-Kamil, 28; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 327–328. 58 Nicholson, 97–99, nn. 187–212; Ambroise, 158–159, n. 6; Stone, 55; Edbury, 55 56

922

THE CRUSADES

val of Count Henry, who brought with him effective engines of war and mangonels and began to attack the Muslim army. By September they had set up the mangonels and were shelling the city day and night from every direction. The Muslim garrison of Acre was in great danger. Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, governor of Acre, and the army commander Husam al-Din Abu al-Hayja decided that the Muslims inside the city should come out and fight in the open. They opened the gates and rushed through, taking the Franks by surprise. They succeeded in burning an enormous mangonel which Count Henry had erected at a cost of 1,500 dinars. Meanwhile, mobs of unruly Arabs invaded the Franks’ tents, pillaging, killing, and taking captives.59 Planning to gain control of the port of Acre, the Crusaders positioned their ships to block Muslim ships from entering the harbor, with the result that the Muslim garrison within the city began to suffer hunger. Something had to be done quickly, or the garrison would be totally lost. Despite the blockade, the Muslims through a clever stratagem managed to get a ship into the port to alleviate the garrison’s shortage of provisions. Saladin had written to his deputy in Alexandria to provide ships and sent them to Acre, but they could not arrive in time. He then instructed his deputy in Beirut, Izz al-Din Usama, to furnish a large ship with food and provisions and send it to Acre (August-early September, 1190). Izz al-Din at once loaded a ship with large amounts of meat, sheep, cheese, wood, onions, and four hundred sacks of grain. But he cleverly made the vessel look like a Frankish ship. He put on it Muslims and Christians who shaved their beards and dressed like Franks. He even put pigs (whose flesh was taboo to Muslims) on board, seeking to convince the Crusaders that the ship was owned by Christians. When it entered the port of Acre and mingled with the Franks’ ships, they thought it was one of their own. The men aboard the Muslim ship asked the Franks if they had captured Acre, and they answered that they had not. In that case, said the Muslims, they would try to unrig their sails and dock. They also told the Franks that behind them was another Frankish ship they had met on the high seas. While the Franks went to find the second ship and guide it into the port of Acre, the Muslim ship sneaked into the port

The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusades, 94. 59 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 176–177; Isfahani, al-Fath, 413–416 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 159); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 334–335.

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

923

safely and unloaded its cargo. Thus, the Muslim garrison avoided starvation.60 Despite this relief, the Muslim troops in Acre were almost cut off from Saladin’s army, and he used pigeons and divers to communicate with them. One of the divers, Isa, managed to go underwater to the shore, having about his waist three pouches with letters and a thousand gold dinars. He tried to make his way to the harbor of Acre by diving, oftentimes beneath the keels of the Crusaders’ ships. When he did not arrive in Acre, the Muslims concluded that he had perished. They were correct, for they found his body on the shore, with the belt containing the money and the letters intact (August-early September, 1190). The gold money was meant as a payment for the mujahidin (holy warriors). Ibn Shaddad declares that no one deserves a euology so much as this man, who kept the faith even in death.61 The Crusaders concluded that to defeat the Muslims or at least force them to surrender, they needed to control the harbor. Their objective was Burj al-Dhubban (The Flies’ Tower), built on a rock at the entrance of the harbor and surrounded on all sides by sea. If they captured this tower, the Crusaders could easily prevent Muslim ships carrying food from reaching Acre. To do this, the Pisans and others who were skillful in handling ships erected in their galleys a huge siege machine, like a castle with battlements, which made it easy to hurl missiles at the city. Near the end of September 1190, the Crusaders attempted to capture the Tower of Flies but met with stiff resistance. About two thousand Muslims came out of the city to relieve those under siege in the tower, attacking the Pisans from the rear in an effort to repel them. Although the Crusaders struggled valiantly to capture the tower, they failed, and their siege machines were destroyed by the fierce Greek fire the Muslims used against them The Crusaders placed ladders against the walls, but the Muslims forced them to descend and retreat in frustration. All that the Crusaders could do is to slay incalculable of Muslim assailants. The Christians, devastated by their failure to capture the Tower Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 178–179, 183; Isfahani, al-Fath, 417–420 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 160–161); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 330–331. The Iterinarium does not mention this Muslim ploy but says that the Muslims captured a Frankish ship laden with food which they had encountered on the way to the harbor. See Nicholson, 85, 94. As we shall see later, the Itinerarium, 97, reports a case of Muslims disguising themselves as Christians and mingling with a Crusader ship after the slaughter of the Franks at Acre. 61 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 179; Isfahani, al-Fath, 423 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 162) . 60

924

THE CRUSADES

of Flies, had to bear the insults heaped upon them by the Muslims, who gloated over their discomfiture. The only slight beacon of hope the Crusaders had was the arrival in October of a new force, commanded by Frederick of Swabia.62 Despite their failure to capture the Tower of Flies, the Crusaders still hoped to destroy the city walls. The Archbishop of Besançon (Thierry de Montfauçon) built a huge siege machine called the Ram (Arabic Kabsh), covered with iron plates and capable of demolishing the walls. Henri of Champagne built another effectively fortified ram. Other magnates and nobles built various types of siege machines, while others constructed “Sows” with spikes and stakes. On October 3, 1190, Frederick, duke of Swabia, arrived in Acre with five thousand men.63 His arrival boosted the morale of the Crusaders, who began to attack the walls, but the Muslims defended themselves manfully. In fierce combat, they forced the Crusaders to withdraw. Nearly shattered by so many severe setbacks, the Crusaders decided to slow down and stop attacking the city for a while.64 Frederick rebuked them for having stayed so long at Acre without success and argued that they should attack the Muslims. The Crusaders tried to rebut him, but he insisted that they should immediately attack the rear of the Muslim army, saying it was better to meet the Muslims head on than to depend on sporadic information about their activity. The princes heeded Frederick and began their attack. They captured the plain which separated their position and the hillock of al-Iyadiyya, where Saladin had camped. Saladin retreated to Tall Kaysan with a large number of Muslims. Seeing this development, Frederick attacked Acre using extraordinarily well-made war machines. One of these enormous machines, iron-plated with a spike in the front used to butt against the walls, could accommodate a great number of men. The Muslims inside Acre, though intimidated by its appearance, resisted and fought for the triumph of Allah’s religion. Meanwhile, as they were leaving the harbor, two Frankish ships carrying men, women, children, and provisions were thrust by a strong wind to the shore of Zib and captured by the Muslims. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 184–185; Isfahani, al-Fath, 427–428 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 162–164); Ambroise, 167–170; Stone, 58–59; Nicholson, 113–114; Gerald of Wales, 8: 281. 63 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 142; Gerald of Wales, De Principis Instrutione Liber, De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis vol 8, G. F. Warner, ed. (London, 1891), 281. 64 Nicholson, 115–116. 62

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

925

On board was a rich and esteemed Frankish lady whom the Franks rescued with great effort.65 About this time large contingents of Muslim troops came from Syria with Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Zahir Ghazi, lord of Aleppo, Sabiq al-Din, lord of Shayzar, and Majd al-Din, lord of Ba’lbak. Saladin, still ailing, had retired to Shafar Amm, a few miles southeast of Acre. One of his commanders, Zayn al-Din, lord of Arbil, had also become sick and was removed to Nazareth, where he died on October 29. He was replaced by Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din (his brother Muzaffar al-Din, who was supposed to take his place, was absent).66 Toward the middle of November 1190, the Muslim forces set fire to the Germans’ Kabsh and, using prongs attached to chains, pulled it to the shore and then brought it to Saladin. Ibn Shaddad, who was present, says that that day was one of Islam’s best, for the enemy was disgracefully vanquished.67 On November 11, 1190, the Franks moved to capture some water wells the Muslims had dug beneath Tall al-Ujul. Saladin ordered his men to move their heavy armament to the nearby towns of Nazareth and Qimun. On November 13, a messenger reported to him that the Franks were still fighting. Although still ill, Saladin had enough energy to supervise the army and issue orders. He placed his contingents in battle order and stood at a hillock of al-Kharuba to oversee their operations. The Muslims attacked and killed many of the enemy in a fierce battle that caused heavy casualties on both sides. Ibn Shaddad says the Franks raised a tall, broad banner like a minaret, set on a base pulled by mules. The cross was inscribed on a white banner studded with red, and the Franks defended it bravely. At noon they reached the Da’ouq bridge (Ambroise calls it the Doc bridge), fatigued and thirsty. But they still had the energy to fight the Muslims, seriously wounding one of their commanders, Ayaz al-Tawil (tall Ayaz), and many mamluks. They destroyed the bridge to prevent the Muslims from crossing to their side. On November 14, reports that the Franks were leaving led Saladin to order an end to the fighting lest his men be overwhelmed, for the Franks had almost reached his pavilion. According to Ibn Shaddad, Count Henri of Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 186–189; Isfahani, al-Fath, 436 (and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 164). 66 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 185–192; Isfahani, al-Fath, 434 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 164); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 335–337. Nicholson, 115–116. 67 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 189–190; Isfahani, al-Fath, 432–435; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 335–337. 65

926

THE CRUSADES

Champagne was wounded in this skirmish, while the son of the king of the Alman (Frederick of Swabia) retreated to his camp. A prominent Frank (not identified) in full armor was killed while mounting his horse. His body was brought to Saladin, who delivered it to the Franks, but his head could not be found. Ibn Shaddad says that he saw Saladin crying because he could not participate personally in the battle, and he heard him say that the foul air had settled on the plain of Acre because of the great number of those died on both sides.68 Later that month Saladin decided to ambush the Franks and handpicked a group of his most valiant men for the mission. At night they reached Tall al-Adiliyya, the scene of an earlier battle, and hid. On November 23 some of them left their hiding place and attacked the Franks with burning arrows. The Franks, recognizing their danger, engaged them and fought fiercely in what Muslim sources call Waqi’at al-Kamin (The Ambush Battle). Many Franks were captured, including an army commander and the king’s treasurer. News of the Muslims’ victory reached Saladin in Tall Kaysan. He called the captives to his presence and presented the commanders and the treasurer with special fur coats. He offered each of the others a Charkhiyya (a fur coat, most likely Georgian), because the weather was very cold, then sent them to Damascus unmolested.69 Ambroise and the Itinerarium give different accounts. They say that the encounter took place on St. Martin’s Day (November 2) and describe the Crusader hosts advancing with their standards, among them the Templars, the Hospitallers, and many others from different nations. Their sheer number was astonishing, and their diversity and bravery was a pleasure to see. They were confident of victory.70 The clergy, abbots, and bishops played a significant role, and the venerable Bishop Baldwin of Canterbury outstripped them all. Clearly a man of extraordinary zeal and energy, he commanded 200 knights and 300 armed men who followed his banner. He supervised the camp, along with Frederick of Swabia and Theobald of Blois, and handled the ecclesiastical duties of Patriarch Heraclius, who was then ill. Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury (1189–1193) and later Archbishop of Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 198–201 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 179–180); Isfahani, al-Fath, 444–445, relates the same events but does not mention the unidentified prominent Frank. 69 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 201–203; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 344–345. Isfahani, al-Fath, 448–450 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 180), who was with Saladin, says he had the captives transported to Damascus in chains. 70 Nicholson, 118. 68

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

927

Canterbury (1193–1205), performed many duties honorably in the war and acted as Archbishop Baldwin’s executor after his death on November 19, 1190.71 About this time the Crusaders, who were short on food, heard that food was available in Cyaphas (Haifa) and changed course to go there. When they reached a place known as Recordan (Tall al-Kurdani) on November 13, the Muslims attacked them, thinking they were fugitives. More Muslims joined the fight, and their great number terrified the Crusaders. At the source of a river that flowed toward Acre (Ibn Shaddad calls it Ras alMa’), the two armies met in a fierce battle, and both sides lost a great number of men and horses.72 Ambroise and the Itinerarium describe the Battle of Da’ouq, fought on November 15. The Muslims captured the bridge but, not having the time to destroy it, stood in the middle to prevent the Crusaders from crossing. King Guy’s brother Geoffrey, with 500 elite knights, attacked and scattered them, and thirty Muslims were thrown into the river and drowned. With the bridge cleared, the Crusaders crossed with ease, but they did not destroy the bridge, as Muslim sources allege. They still suffered from a shortage of food, but were relieved when some ships arrived carrying provisions. Most of the supply ships had been detained in Tyre, however, because the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat deliberately kept them from sailing to Acre. It appears likely that he hoped to take advantage of the Crusaders’ weakened condition and convince them to offer him the Kingdom of Jerusalem.73 As the battle dragged on without a decisive result, both side developed serious problems. The Muslims had sixty amirs in Acre, including Husam al-Din Abu al-Hayja al-Samin (the fat one), commander of the Muslim garrison. The commanders complained to Saladin of weariness and boredom, especially because they had to keep vigil day and night lest the enemy attack and overwhelm them. Saladin wanted to replace the garrison with fresh men. But some of his aides urged him not to replace the garrison but to provide it with expenses and provisions because they had experience in fighting more than anayone else. Saladin declined to do so, arguing that since the men in Acre were bored and weary, they would no longer be fit to fight.

Nicholson, 118–119; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 88. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 195; Isfahani, al-Fath, 441. 73 Ambroise, 172–177; Stone, 60–61; Nicholson, 119–121. 71 72

928

THE CRUSADES

Some commanders left to go home for a rest, and Saladin had them replaced. Imad al-Din Zangi, lord of Sinjar, left on November 15, 1190, followed by his nephew Sinjar Shah, lord of al-Jazira, and Ala al-Din, son of the lord of Mosul. In late January or early February 1191, Abu al-Hayja left Acre with sixty emirs and a new commander, Sayf al-Din Ali al-Mashtub, came in with twenty amirs. Al-Malik al-Muzaffar Taqi al-Din left on February 6, 1191, and al-Malik al-Zahir on March 2, 1191. Saladin’s force was greatly diminished by these departures, which may have been a major factor in his ultimate loss of Acre.74 (The Crusaders were well aware that many of Saladin’s troops had departed because of sickness, weariness, and expense, and had had to be replaced.75) Moreover, as Ibn Shaddad reports, on January 5, 1191 a wide breach in the wall of Acre encouraged the Crusaders to attack the city. But the Muslims in the city fought them heroically and called in builders, workers, and artisans, who repaired the breach.76 The Crusaders had problems of their own. Since they did not control the harbor of Acre, few ships ventured in to bring them supplies. Conrad of Montferrat, who aspired to replace Guy as king of Jerusalem, is reported to have held many ships laden with provisions at Tyre. As a result, the common people suffered greatly from a shortage of food.77 Lamenting the exorbitant prices, the author of the Itinerarium says, “What more can I say? A small measure of wheat, a small measure which one could easily carry under the arms, was sold for 100 gold coins. A hen was sold for 12 shillings, and an egg for sixpence.”78 The famine increased to such a degree that a loaf of bread which had once sold for a penny was sold soon after for sixty shillings, and a horseload of corn for sixty-four marks.79 To alleviate their hunger the Crusaders slaughtered their warhorses and ate their flesh and entrails, sometimes without even skinning the animal first. A horse offal was sold for ten shillings; a dead horse sold for more than a live one. They even ate flesh in Lent, violating an ancient rule ordained by the church. Because of their hunger, even noblemen were not ashamed to beg for food in pubShaddad, al-Nawadir, 205; Isfahani, al-Fath, 454 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 181); Athir, al-Kamil, 23–34; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 345–346. 75 Letter of Hubert Walter of Salisbury to Richard Fitz-Nigel , bishop of London (1189–1198), in Continuation, 171–172 and n. 16. 76 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 206–207. 77 Ambroise, 176–177; Stone, 62. 78 Nicholson, 126–127; Ambroise, 181–182; Stone, 63. 79 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 144–145; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 171–172. 74

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

929

lic. Some ate grass and herbs to survive. Two companions bought thirteen beans for a penny, while others devoured carob, which was available in great supply. Others went begging for bread. One man robbed a bakery but was caught by the bakers. He managed to free himself and return to camp, where he shared with his comrades the bread he had stolen. All too many died from hunger or from drinking wine, which overheated their bodies so that they choked to death. The Crusaders often suffered from respiratory illness, the result of the harsh winter and constant rainfall. They were also afflicted with scurvy, which caused swollen legs and loss of teeth. It is no surprise that because of these horrors, many fled to the Muslims’ camp seeking food. They rejected their faith and denied that it was ever true. They denied that God could be born of a woman, and further denied baptism and the cross. The Crusaders blamed the famine and their suffering on the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, whom they abhorred and damned and pronounced guilty.80 According to the Itinerarium, however, the shortage of bread was caused not by a lack of wheat, but by greedy vendors and merchants who deliberately demanded inflated prices from the buyers.81 Al-Isfahani corroborates what Ambroise and the Itinerarium say about the Crusaders’ hunger but gives a different account of the circumstances under which some of them embraced Islam. He says that hunger forced many Franks to come to the Muslims’ camp. They asked Saladin to give them ships with which to intercept the Crusaders’ ships, promising to divide their gains evenly with the Muslims. Saladin agreed and gave them a very small ship (barkous). They intercepted Frankish merchant ships laden with merchandise, mostly articles of silver and jewels. They brought them to Saladin, who offered them everything they had seized. These Franks praised Saladin for his generosity, and some of them embraced Islam.82 Eventually the clamor of the starved Crusaders for food reached Bishop Hubert Walter of Salisbury and other bishops in the expedition and Ambroise, 180–189; Stone, 62–66, Nicholson, 127–134; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 348; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 171–172. 81 Nicholson, 136. 82 Isfahani, al-Fath, 439–440 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 182–183); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 347. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 207–208, who was present when the Franks brought Saladin the silver booty, relates the same episode but says nothing about the Franks embracing Islam. 80

930

THE CRUSADES

goaded them into action. By preaching charity, the bishop of Salisbury collected money and provisions to relieve the needs of the poor. He was aided by the Italian bishop of Verona, along with Monaldus, bishop of Fano, and a number of notables, including Walkelin of Ferres and Robert Trussebot. Count Henri of Champagne, Joscelin of Montoire, and the count of Clermont joined in this effort with equal enthusiasm. Unexpected relief came when a moderate-sized barge laden with corn, wine, and oil alleviated the shortage. The price of food declined sharply; a measure of wheat that formerly sold for two hundred bezants was now sold for six. The poor people, finally having some food to eat, became more cheerful.83 Despite this miraculous-sounding relief, the bishop of Salisbury, in a letter to Richard Nigel, bishop of London, reported that the situation of the Crusaders at Acre was so bad that they were waiting for the kings of France and England to come to their aid. He warned that if these kings did not come by Easter, the money for their expenses would run out and the hope of any consolation would vanish.84 The death of Frederick of Swabia from severe illness, on January 20, 1191, saddened the Crusaders but delighted the Muslims.85 Says al-Isfahani, “[He] perished from abdominal illness or maybe from fear. He followed his father to the bottomless pit of fire and saw in Jahannam (Gehenna) the consequence of his love of the kuffar (infidels).”86 Ibn Shaddad says the Franks grieved greatly over the death of the son of the king of the Germans, setting an enormous fire in every tent in token of their grief.87 Another prominent Frank, Count Theobald of Blois (whom Ibn Shaddad calls Kund Baliat and al-Isfahani calls Kund Tibat), died about the same time.88 Another serious problem which plagued the Crusaders at Acre was the attempt by Conrad of Montferrat to usurp the throne, following the death of King Guy’s wife Sibyl and her two daughters, Alice and Maria, in late 83 Ambroise, ed. LaMonte, 188–189, esp. nn. 27–30; Stone, 66; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 145; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 172. 84 Letter of Hubert Walter, in Continuation, 171–172. 85 Continuation, 90, places Frederick’s death after the fall of Acre; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 188, and Benedict of Peterborough say he died at the siege of Acre; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 330. 86 Isfahani, al-Fath, 460 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 181); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 347. 87 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 208. 88 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 208; Isfahani, al-Fath, 460 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 181), gives the name as Banyat; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 347; Nicholson, 129, n. 277.

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

931

summer or early autumn 1190. King Guy, a Poitevin noble, had succeeded Baldwin V in the summer of 1186, by virtue of his marriage to Sybil, daughter of King Amalric of Jerusalem. After her death, her sister Isabel became heiress to the throne. Isabel had been married since 1183 to Humphrey IV, lord of Toron, who should therefore have become king. But the Crusader barons detested Humphrey because in 1186, when they wanted him to accept the throne after the death of Baldwin V, he had rejected their offer on the grounds that he could not bear such a great responsibility and instead supported elevating Sibyl and her husband to the throne. Guy was then made king, and Humphrey paid him homage, enraging the barons even further since they had no respect for Guy.89 Western sources differ on this subject vary but agree on the important point that Conrad of Montferrat, lord of Tyre, lusted for the throne.90 But since Isabel was married, he had no claim to it. The only legitimate way for Conrad to become king was to have Isabel divorce Humphrey so that he could marry her himself.91 Conrad used intimidation, bribes, and political manipulation to summon an assembly of bishops and barons to decide whether to dissolve Isabel’s marriage to Humphrey, on the pretext that she was married when she was under age, without her consent. Actually, Humphrey had become betrothed to Isabel when she was eight years old but did not marry her until she was twelve, an acceptable age for marriage at that time. Isabel’s mother, Maria Comnena, and her husband Balian of Ibelin were reportedly staunch supporters of Conrad of Montferrat. Queen Maria, who disliked Humphrey because he had kept her from seeing her daughter, challenged Isabel’s marriage and strove to have it dissolved. Humphrey was summoned to a meeting of bishops and barons, to hear and respond to the allegations about his marriage. Humphrey said that his marriage to Isabel was legitimate and had been performed with her full consent. But Conrad had already convinced Philip of Dreux (Drew), bishop of Beauvais (1175–1217), and Hubert (Ubaldo), archbishop of Pisa (1174– 1209), the legate of the Church of Rome, that the marriage should be dissolved. His effort was assisted by Reginald of Sidon, Pagan, lord of Cayphas Castle (Haifa), and Balian II of Ibelin, husband of Isabel’s mother Queen 89 Continuation 27; Marshall W. Baldwin, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 1: 601–605. 90 M. R. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuations of William of Tyre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 67–68. 91 Stone, 198.

932

THE CRUSADES

Maria.92 Conrad had a conference with Isabel’s mother, Patriarch Heraclius, and several army leaders, who supported his request to dissolve Isabel’s marriage to Humphrey so that he could marry her. He promised that if Isabel were given to him in marriage, he would promote the interests of the Christians’ army and would stop communicating with Saladin. Once he married Isabel, he could immediately lay claim to the kingdom of Jerusalem against Guy, who had offered to abide by the lawful decision of the court of the kings of France and England on their arrival at Acre. Conrad, unwilling to wait for the kings’ judgment, usurped power and banished King Guy.93 Al-Isfahani says Conrad audaciously told King Guy, “You are not of royal lineage, so that the queen could be your wife. It is imperative that I handle this matter until it is settled.”94 Humphrey of Toron, who was accused of being an effeminate coward, did not challenge the charges against him. When the barons and bishops told him that he was unfit to govern the kingdom, he took their advice and gave up. The truth is that Isabel loved her husband, but was bullied by Conrad’s accomplices to give him up. Evidently, most of the barons and bishops were influenced by Conrad’s promises, especially his declaration that if he married Isabel, he would send ships laden with food and provisions to alleviate the hunger of the Crusaders at Acre.95 According to the Itinerarium, Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury was disgusted at the whole iniquitous affair, especially Conrad’s machination, and excommunicated those who consented to Isabel’s marriage to Conrad.96 This cannot be correct; although the archbishop opposed the dissolution of Isabel’s marriage to Humphrey, Conrad did not marry her until after the archbishop’s death on November 19. Reading the report of the investigation of Isabel’s case by Robert, the Papal Legate and Cardinal Priest of Saint Stephen in Coelo Monte, one receives an entirely different view of this affair. From the testimony of those who attended the disquisition, it appears that Humphrey had married Isabela when she was eighteen years old, with her full consent, and that she was taken from him by force against her will. Hugh of SaintNicholson, 123. Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 141–142; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 172–173. 94 Isfahani, al-Fath, 494. 95 Continuation 95–96; Ambroise, ed. LaMonte, 178–179, nn. 18–20; Stone, 62–63. 96 Nicholson, 124. 92 93

THE SIEGE OF ACRE

933

Maurice, who was present, says Humphrey told him that his wife had been taken from him. He went after her, asking her to come back, but she set off in another direction with her head bowed. Oger of Saint-Chéron, who was also present, testified that he heard many barons say that Humphrey was not fit to hold the kingdom and that they should give it to the marquis (Conrad of Montferrat), who would rule it well and provide a good market for the army.97 But in fact, once he married Isabel, Conrad returned to Tyre without keeping his promise to send relief to the Crusaders at Acre.98 Conrad and his accomplices celebrated his wedding with drinking and merrymaking. At dawn they were ambushed by Muslims, who killed many of them. The Muslims captured the Butler of France, Guy III of Senlis, who had championed the divorce of Isabel and Humphrey; no one knows what happened to him afterwards.99 After she married Conrad, Isabel immediately claimed the kingdom and called on the barons to pay her homage. They did so, treating her as the rightful heir to the kingdom. She told the barons that since she had been separated from her husband by force, she would not disinherit him or his heirs, but would offer him what was his rightful personal property, the property of his father and grandfather. Her action indicates that she was compelled to give up her husband. The author of the Continuation of William of Tyre speculates that in his desire to gain the kingdom of Jerusalem, Conrad may have put it at risk.100 On March 29, 1191, Muslims from Acre came out of the city and attacked the Crusaders, killing many and taking twelve women captives. The Arabic sources say the Muslims lost only one man named Qaraqosh (not to be confused with the amir Baha al-Din Qaraqosh), a servant of Saladin. Meanwhile, Saladin sent his brother al-Malik al-Adil and many of his family and close aides, including Ibn Shaddad, to hide near Tall al-Iyadiyya. Fortyfive Franks captured in Beirut were brought before Saladin, among them an aged Frank who had lost his teeth. When Saladin asked why he had left his country to come and fight in a strange land, the old Frank said that he had come to perform the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Saladin, taking pity on him, put him on a horse and sent him back to the Crusaders’ camp. When Saladin’s young sons asked him for permission to kill Frankish captives, he refused to grant their request. Asked why, he said that he did not want them 97

Continuation, 173. Nicholson, 125–126. 99 Ambroise, 179–180, n. 22; Stone, 62; Nicholson, 125, n. 266. 100 Continuation, 97. 98

934

THE CRUSADES

to shed blood at this tender age, especially since they did not know the difference between a Muslim and a kafir (infidel). Ibn Shaddad was totally impressed by Saladin’s mercy.101

101

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 210–211; Isfahani, al-Fath, 470–471 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 182–183).

27 THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE The fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent loss of many fortresses to the Muslims seemed tragic to the Franks. Muslim sources say they were so saddened that they dressed in black as a sign of mourning. Ibn Shaddad says the Marquis (Conrad of Montferrat) who had aroused the Franks overseas and appealed to them to rescue Jerusalem had made a large picture of the city, the Church of the Resurrection, and the Sepulcher of Christ. The picture showed a Muslim on a horse, stepping on the sepulcher and beating Christ with a stick while the horse urinated on the sepulcher. Blood was splashed on the picture to indicate the severity of the beating. The Franks said that it represented Christ being struck by Muhammad, the prophet of the Muslims, who wounded Him and killed Him.1 But the news of the fall of Jerusalem reached Europe through the Genoese, who sent a report to the papal court, and Archbishop Joscius of Tyre (sent by Conrad of Montferrat to arouse the princes of Europe to restore the city to Christian hands), who left the Holy Land in the fall of 1187 and made his way to Rome by the beginning of the next year.2 Conrad also sent a letter to Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, carried by his chancellor Bandanus and John, an honorable knight and a member of his household, imploring him to encourage kings and rouse the people to recover the patrimony of Jesus Christ, so that the sacred land on which the Savior walked Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 181; Izz al-Din Ibn alAthir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 4; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 288. Nothing in the Latin sources substantiates the Muslim sources’ description of the picture. 2 Helen J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997; hereafter cited as Nicholson), 47; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 288, does not mention Joscius by name but says the Franks sent their patriarch to their land. 1

935

936

THE CRUSADES

might, by his influence and eloquence, be freed from the power of the pagans.3 Archbishop Joscius sailed in a galley painted black as a sign of mourning and arrived in Sicily, where he met King William II at Palermo and told him of the courageous stand of the Christians of Tyre under the leadership of Marquis Conrad of Montferrat.4 He may have chided the king for his un-Christian attitude in placing an embargo in 1185 on ships in Sicilian ports carrying pilgrims bound to the Holy Land, and may well have reproached him for becoming involved in the power struggle among the Christians of the Byzantine Empire rather than sending men to the Holy Land to fight the Muslims. After the death of Emperor Manuel I Comnenus in 1180, Andronicus Comnenus had usurped the throne. Alexius Comnenus, Manuel’s nephew, fled to Sicily and urged William to fight to restore him to the throne. William, greedy for power and possessions, invaded the Byzantine Empire by land in June 1185, but was defeated at the Strymon river in Bulgaria. He retreated to Sicily, ravaging islands and the Greek coast along the way. To avenge his defeat, William dispatched his fleet, under Admiral Margarit of Brindisi, to Cyprus, then governed by Isaac Comnenus, who had claimed the Byzantine throne. The soldiers on board landed and, in a joint effort with Isaac Comnenus, defeated a Byzantine army and captured several Byzantine generals.5 Remorseful and sad, King William II admitted his sins and in great mourning put on a hair-shirt and secluded himself for four days. Then he

Letter of Conrad to Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in The Conquest of Jerusalem, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), 169; William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965; cited hereafter as Ralph of Diceto), 2: 61–62. 4 Continuation, 73. 5 Nicholson, 44; Michel Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, C. A. Nallino, III, ed. (Catania: R. Prompolini, 1939), 3: 527–530; F. Chalandon, Histoire de la Domination en Italie et en Sicile, 2 (Paris A. Picard, 1907), 398; Ibn Jubayr, Rihlat Ibn Jubayr (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1864), 310–312; G. Hill, History of Cyprus, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, 1948–1952): 312–314; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), 436–438; Continuation, 74, says that King William sent his fleet against Constantinople; George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, J. Hussey, trans. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 350–352. 3

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

937

promised Joscius he would rush to the aid of the Christians in the East.6 He thought he was partly to blame for the loss of the territory because he had not participated in the Crusades. He responded instantly by sending 200 galleys and 200 knights commanded by Margarit of Brindisi, and dispatched an additional 300 knights in August 1188 to protect whatever land remained in the hands of the Christians.7 Al-Isfahani says the Sicilian flotilla docked opposite the port of Laodicea, but the Franks could not resist Saladin’s force, which had surrounded the city, and finally surrendered. When Margarit realized that the city had surrendered and his force was in grave danger, he asked to see Saladin. Once in his presence he told Saladin, “You are a merciful and noble sultan, and your justice and excellence have become known. Your power has triumphed, and your beneficence has become manifest. If only you are benevolent to these terrified coastal people (the citizens and the Franks in Laodicea), you will become their lord. If you restore their country to them, they will become your slaves. Otherwise, a tremendous number of hosts from overseas and kings shall come to challenge you. So leave them alone and forgive them, for they are easier to deal with than those.” Saladin answered, “Allah has commanded us to put the earth in order. We are obliged to obey and become active in the jihad. Allah is the one who enables us to conquer the lands, even if all the people of the earth should fight against us. We trust Allah in challenging them, with no concern for the numbers of the enemy.” The commander said nothing more, but signed the cross and returned to his base.8 Bar Hebraeus says Saladin replied, “We are commanded by our Law to make triumphant our faith with all our might. And Allah does what he pleases.” At this point the Frankish commander went to his own country.9 Helene Wieruszowki, “The Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Crusades,” in A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, Robert Lee Wolfe and Harry W. Hazard, eds., 2 (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 38; Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 474. 7 Continuation, 74–75; Nicholson, 43–44. 8 Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 239–240 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 128–129); Athir, al-Kamil, 720–721, who gives a similar account, says that the commander of the Sicilian flotilla sent an envoy to speak with Saladin. 9 Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 116 of the Syriac text, 329 of the English translation. 6

938

THE CRUSADES

Saladin’s answer, as reported by both al-Isfahani and Bar Hebraeus, shows that his objective was not only to defeat the Franks, but to help Islam triumph over the Christians. He was especially concerned with seeing that the lands he had conquered would be under Muslim rule. As a devout Muslim, Saladin saw his war with the Franks as a conflict between Islam and Christianity; otherwise, he would have been satisfied with making the Franks his subjects. But defeating the Franks was clearly not enough to satisfy him. He was determined to use his full military might to make Islam victorious. The Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Regis Ricardi says that after Saladin had captured almost the entire kingdom of Jerusalem, he boastfully extolled the law of Muhammad and claimed that the recent events had proven Islam to be greater than the Christian religion.10 Thus, he saw the Crusades as a conflict between Christendom and Islam. As we noted earlier, William II did not participate in the Crusades. Nevertheless, Admiral Margarit of the Sicilian fleet succeeded in saving Tripoli from falling into Saladin’s hands. Had King William II survived, he and the force he dispatched to the East might have played a significant role in the Third Crusade. But he died in 1189 and was succeeded briefly by Tancred, the illegitimate son of his uncle. The dispute over the succession to his throne continued until 1194.11 His death was an unfortunate loss, since he felt close to the Holy Land and wished to help its cause. Other European kings would soon rush to take up the cross against the Muslims. At Palermo, King William II provided Archbishop Joscius with horses and money so that he could travel to Rome. The Continuation of William of Tyre says Joscius found Pope Urban III at Ferrara and told him of the great loss of Jerusalem and the capture of King Guy. Unable to withstand the shock of the Franks’ defeat, Urban died from grief on October 20, 1187.12 Thus Joscius would have to have left the Holy Land immediately after the fall of Nicholson, 46. Wieruszowki, “The Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Crusades,” 47. 12 Continuation 75; Gervasii Cantuariensis, Opera Historica, ed. and trans. William Stubbs as The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, I (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 388, sets October 19 as the date of the pope’s death; Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 14, and Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 67, say the pope died at Ferrara on October 20 when he heard the sad news of the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of King Guy. They do not mention Joscius. 10 11

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

939

Jerusalem on October 2, 1187 and made it to Sicily and Rome before October 20, an unlikely possibility. The Pope may have died on hearing the shocking news of Jerusalem’s fall from the Genoese, who reached Rome before Joscius did.13 Pope Urban III was succeeded by Gregory VIII (Albert di Morra), who began calling for another Crusade even before learning of the fall of Jerusalem. After Joscius reached Rome, Pope Gregory sent messengers throughout Christendom to spread the news and appealed to the kings of Europe to carry the cross and march to recover the Holy Land. (The first to take up the Cross was Richard Lion-Heart, then Count of Poitou, in November 1187, but he did not go to the Holy Land until after his father King Henry II died in 1189.)14 He sent Henry, the cardinal-bishop of Albano, with papal letters for the people of France and the Rhineland, although he knew no French or German. He ordered that all the Christian faithful should confess their sins, and that for five years they should abstain from meat on Fridays to atone for their sins, which had caused the calamity in the East, and declared that he would grant the tithe to all who wished to have it, so that they might do God’s service.15 13 Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi De Decito Decani Lundonersis Opera Historia, trans. William Stubbs as The Historical World of Master Ralph Decito, Dean of London, 2 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 50. For the letter from the Genoese to the pope, see Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 11–13; T. A. Archer and Charles L. Kingsford, The Crusades, The Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1894), 306, n. 1; Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 3: 4. 14 Nicholson, 47. On the death of King Henry, see Gerald of Wales, Speculum ecclesiae: De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis, J. S. Brewer, ed., 4 (London, 1873), 371–372, and 8: 296. 15 See the two letters of Pope Gregory VIII in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2:15–19; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 67, 70–84; Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, trans. Merton Jerome Hubert and ed. John L. La Monte (New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 32; E. N. Stone, The History of Holy War in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939), 11; James A Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 163; Continuation, 75; Historia de Expeditione Friderici Imperatoris, der sogenannte Ansbert, ed. Anton Chroust, Quelle zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I. Monumenta Germaine historica: Scriptores Germanicarum, Nova Series 5 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1928), 6–10, hereafter cited as Ansbert; Edgar N. Johnson, “The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa I and Henry VI,” in A History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed., (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,

940

THE CRUSADES

The pope’s appeal was received with so much enthusiasm that the question was not who had pledged to take up the cross and go to the Holy Land, but who had not yet done so. Those who declined the call were considered recreants, fit only for women’s work. Women took the lead in rousing men to join the expedition to the Holy Land. Brides urged their husbands, mothers incited their sons to go to war. Not only lay people but men of the cloister took up the cross. A great number of monks took off their habits and became knights of Christ, replacing alms with arms. Seized with enthusiasm, prelates of the church preached that everyone should give up fine food and clothing and reduce his accustomed luxury. Princes and bishops agreed that those who could not take up the cross should pay a tithe on all their goods. But many people maliciously used such an agreement to avoid going to the Holy Land.16 Pope Gregory VIII did not live long enough to realize the impact of his messages in stirring the people of Europe to action. He died at Pisa on December 17, 1187, after less than two months as pope, and was succeeded by Clement III (Paolino Scolaro, 1187–1191).17 Following in the steps of his predecessor, Clement III kept up contact with the princes of Europe and succeeded in arousing them to take up the cross.18 The German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152– 1190), King Philip II Augustus of France (1180–1223), and King Henry II of England (1154–1189) agreed to take up the cross at Gisors.19 Joscius joined King Henry II, King Philip II Augustus, and Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders, as they met between Gisors and Trie (Châteaux) on January 21, 1188, to settle their disputes over the borders of France and Normandy).20 1969), 2: 89; Runciman, History of the Crusades, 3: 4; Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades 1095–1588 (Chicago and London, 1988), 58. 16 Nicholson, 48, 139. On p. 48, n. 64, Nicholson remarks, “… there is a British parallel to this in the white feathers sent to young men who failed to enlist in the armed forces of the First World War.” 17 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 20; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 77. 18 See his letter to the English clergy in Gerald of Wales, De Principis Instructione Liber, ed. George F. Warner, 8 (London, 1891, rpt. Kraus, 1964), 236–239. 19 Gerald of Wales, De rebus a se gestis, J. S. Brewer, ed., 1 (London, 1861), 73. 20 Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 34, n. 7; Stone, History, 12, n. 6; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 51; Nicholson, 142–143; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 47, 59; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 78–79. Kate Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart (New York: Russell & Russell, 1924), 72, noting the different dates cited by several sources, says that the conference probably began on St. Hilary’s day, was suspended due to the arrival of the papal legate (Joscius), and then

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

941

The two kings were embroiled in a conflict over territorial possessions and family affairs. Philip suspected that Henry intended to seize Normandy. He threatened to muster an army, and boasted that he would destroy Normandy unless Henry surrendered Gisors, which had been a constant source of friction between them, with its dependencies and agreed to make his son Richard (Lion-Heart), count of Poitou, marry Philip’s sister Alice (Aloysia).21 Henry II is said to have violated King Philip’s sister while she was betrothed to his son Richard.22 War ensued between the two monarchs, and it appeared no one could reconcile them.23 But Joscius did. By describing the capture of Jerusalem and preaching a Crusade against Saladin, he shifted the focus of the conference. Filled with spirit, wisdom and understanding, “this wonderful man” preached the word of God to the kings and princes and turned their hearts. His appeal was so convincing that the kings of England and France and Philip, count of Flanders, took up the cross.24 The French were to wear red crosses, the English white, and the Flemish green.25 Each departed to his country to prepare for the expedition to the Holy Land. King Henry went to Le Mans and ordered that everyone should give a tenth part of his income and movable property to the land of Jerusalem as a subsidy, which came to be known as “Saladin’s tithe.”26 Henry appointed clerks and laymen to collect the tax throughout his kingdom. He even sent Hugh, bishop of

resumed on January 21. 21 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 78–79; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 29. 22 Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 232. 23 Ambroise, 33–36; Stone, History, 13; Continuation, 76; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 66–67, 72. 24 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 79; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 72; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 29. 25 Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 51; Nicholson, 47; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 79; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 58–59; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 240; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 72. 26 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 33 and 44; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 79, 82; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 73; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 240, 259–260; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 273.

942

THE CRUSADES

Durham, and other clergy and laity, to William, king of the Scots, to collect the tithe.27 The call for a crusade was received with such enthusiasm that King Henry II sent Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury to preach the crusade in England and Wales.28 He also wrote to Frederick Barbarossa, King Bela III of Hungary (1173–1196), and the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelus (1185–1195), asking free passage through their domains for his planned march to the Holy Land.29 King Philip of France ordered the collection of a similar tithe on income and property of his subjects throughout his kingdom. In France the call for a crusade was preached by Berter of Orleans, whose eloquence has been preserved in a song bearing his name.30 The rapprochement between King Henry II and King Philip Augustus did not last long. Although many clergy, nobles and laymen in their respective countries followed their example in deciding to join a crusade, a conflict soon broke out between the two monarchs. Peace between them was finally restored through the mediation of Count Philip of Flanders, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh, duke of Burgundy, but the expedition to the Holy Land was postponed.31 Only after King Henry died at Chinon on July 6, 1189, and his son Richard was crowned king by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, on September 3 at Westminster Abbey did Richard decide to take the cross and march to the Holy Land.32 As we have Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 44. Gerald of Wales, De rebus, 1: 73. 29 Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 51–54. 30 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 81–82; Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” in Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 2: 47; Archer, The Crusades, 308. 31 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 69–70; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 99, 110; Ralph de Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 50, 73–74; Painter, “The Third Crusade,” 48–49. 32 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 71, 79; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 110–111, 116–120, includes the Order of the Coronation of Richard, King of England; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 64; Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, 1: 449, 457–458; Richard of Devizes, Chronicon Richardi Divisensis De Tempore Regis Richardi Primi, trans. John T. Appleby under the title The Chronicle of Richard of Divizes of the Time of King Richard the First, cited hereafter as Richard of Divizes (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963), 3; Gerald of Wales, De rebus, 1: 84; Nicholson, 144–145; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 96–97; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, 1 (London, 1886), 164–166. 27 28

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

943

seen, King Henry II was not at all keen on going on a crusade to save Jerusalem. Although he sent large amounts of money to help the Templars and Hospitallers in 1187 and later sent more money, supposedly for the recruitment and equipment of knights for the recovery of Jerusalem, Henry, being parsimonious, used this money for his personal aggrandizement, as a show of power, and never intended it to be used for a crusade or the recovery of Jerusalem. Nothing reveals his feeling about taking up the cross more clearly than his letter to his friend the abbot of Clairvaux, Gainer of Rockford, later bishop of Langres. He tells the abbot that he decided to take the cross to serve the living God and to defend the places of His death, which had been hallowed by His precious blood and which the enemies of the cross of Christ (i.e., the Muslims) had hitherto shamefully profaned.33 In November 1189 King Philip II Augustus of France and King Richard of England made plans to meet at Vézelay on April 1 to embark on the crusade, but they later moved the meeting to July 4.34 Richard was delighted to set out on a crusade. On December 30 the two kings met at Nonancourt to finalize their agreement. It was agreed that King Richard would do homage to King Philip after he had renounced the lordship of the king of France, and that Philip would treat Richard as his friend and vassal. On March 30, 1190, the two kings approved their agreement.35 The initiative in marching to the Holy Land was taken not by the kings of England and France but by the German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1152–1190). Frederick had carved out for himself a great empire in Europe, stretching from the Mediterranean to the North Sea. For this reason he styled himself “Emperor of the Romans” and “forever Augustus.”36 He even regarded Mark Antony as his predecessor.37 He was more aptly a Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 179, document 7c. Gerald of Wales, Speculum ecclesiae, 882. 35 Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 50, 73–74, 83; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 125–126; Richard of Divizes, 15, says only that the two kings confirmed the treaty between themselves and their realms; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 155; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 106, 117–118; Painter, “The Third Crusade,” 48–49. 36 Letter of Frederick to his uncle Otto, bishop of Freising, in Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici Imperatoris, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow as The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 17. 37 See his letter to Saladin in Nicholson, 49; De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum Libellus, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 257–259; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 126; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 100; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 55; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 280. 33 34

944

THE CRUSADES

successor of Charlemagne than of Augustus.38 Judging from his own power and victories in Europe, Frederick believed he was well equipped to go on a pilgrimage and fight for Christ. After all, as a young prince, he had gone with his uncle King Conrad III to the Holy Land in the Second Crusade. In appearance and heart, he declared himself the true pilgrim (Crusader). He clearly felt energetic despite being seventy, then considered an advanced age. His sons demanded to join him on his undertaking, but he was concerned about the administration of his state in his absence. So he left his elder son Henry (later King Henry VI) and took with him his other son and namesake Frederick, whom he made the Duke of Swabia.39 Before he left Germany, Frederick Barbarossa received a letter from Saladin and replied in a sealed letter delivered by Henry, count of Dietz. Addressing Saladin as “President of the Saracens,” Frederick told him that he had profaned the Holy Land of the eternal King (Christ) and all of Judea, Samaria, and Palestine. He rebuked Saladin for his audacity and warned that a year hence, unless he restored the land and property he had seized, he would march against him. Frederick said he had placed his trust in the lifegiving cross and in the name of the true Joseph (who prefigured Christ), in contrast to the false Yusuf (Saladin’s first name).40 Saladin wrote back addressing Frederick as the lofty king of Germany and reported that Henry (count of Dietz) had delivered a certain document which he said was from Frederick. He had had the message read to him and listened to the messenger’s report. Saladin said he had captured most of the lands that the Germans had held, and that since Frederick boasted of his great army, he could also count on many Muslims, including Arabs, Turkomans, and Bedouins, to fight him. He reminded Frederick of the Franks’ defeat at Damietta, Egypt (during King Amalric’s campaign of 1160) and showed great confidence that victory would be his. Saladin’s letter, dated 584 in the Muslim calendar (1188 A.D.), ends with his titles “the victorious High King, unifier of the True word, adorer and Banner of Truth, reformer of the globe and law, the Sultan of the Saracens and PaCount Ugo Balzani, “Frederick Barbarossa and the Lombard League,” The Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 413. 39 Nicholson, 49. 40 For the text of this letter see Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 62–63; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 100; De Expugnatione, 257–259; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 55; Nicholson, 49–51; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 147–148; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 267–269. Muslim sources do not mention this letter or Saladin’s reply. 38

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

945

gans, the Servant of the Two Sacred Houses, the father of victors, and Joseph (Yusuf) son of Job (Ayyub).”41 Hans Mayer and other writers regard both letters as spurious.42 Johnson does not comment on the validity of the letters, but simply says Henry of Dietz was dispatched to Saladin himself.43 Adolf Waas, however, believes that Saladin’s letter and Frederick’s reply are genuine. He argues that their authenticity can be determined from their contents, and their being extraordinary and unusual does not prove that they are unauthentic. Since no one had any reason to counterfeit them, both letters should be considered genuine.44 Muslim sources strangely do not mention the letters, but this fact does not mean they are spurious. Indeed, no convincing evidence has yet been produced to invalidate their authenticity. Frederick also wrote to King Bela III of Hungary, the Byzantine Emperor Isaac Angelus, and Kilij Arslan II (Izz al-Din, 1155–1192), sultan of Iconium, whose lands he would have to traverse, to assure their assistance. King Bela, a friend, gave Frederick no trouble. There was a family tie between the two, for in April 1188 Bela’s daughter became engaged to Barbarossa’s son, Frederick of Swabia. Kilij Arslan also was no stranger to Frederick, for in 1179 he had sought the hand of Frederick’s daughter in marriage, but before arrangements were complete the princess died.45 The case of the Byzantine emperor, however, was somewhat different. In late December 1188, Emperor Isaac Angelus and Sultan Kilij Arslan sent ambassadors to meet Frederick at the Diet at Nuremberg. The huge embassy of Kilij Arslan, consisting of a thousand men and five hundred horses, was pledged to facilitate the passage of Frederick’s army through the sultan’s land. But the Byzantine ambassadors, led by John Ducas, explained to Frederick that since he intended to march to the Holy Land, the emperor Saladin’s letter is in Nicholson, 51–54; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 147– 148; De Expugnatione, 259–262; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 269–272. 42 Hans E. Mayer, “Der Brief Kaiser Friedrichs I. an Saladin von Jahre 1188,” Deutsche Archiv für Erforschung des Mittealters 14 (1958): 488–494, goes to great lengths to show that the letter is spurious. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3: 11, n. 2; Nicholson, 49, n. 68; and Peter Munz, Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1969), 391, n. 1, also call the letters spurious. 43 Johnson, “The Crusades of Frederick,” 91. 44 Adolf Waas, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 1 (Freiburg, 1956), 190, n. 114. See Gertrude Slaughter, Saladin (New York: Exposition Press, 1955), 164. 45 Hans Prutz, Kaiser Friedrich III (Danzig: A.W. Kafemann,1874), 307–308. 41

946

THE CRUSADES

(Isaac Angelus) was suspicious of his motive, believing that Frederick’s intention was not merely to seek a passage of the German pilgrims to the Holy Land but to invade his country. They concluded by saying that unless Frederick made an effort to allay the emperor’s suspicion, the Byzantines would find it necessary to block the German army from passing through Bulgaria’s defiles and even oppose Frederick all the way through. To signify his good intentions, Frederick sent his son Frederick of Swabia, Bishop Godfrey of Würzburg, and Duke Leopold of Babenberg to Emperor Isaac Angelus. They met with a Byzantine delegation and assured them on oath of the good intention of Frederick and his army. The Byzantine delegates, thus mollified, vowed friendship for Frederick and agreed to provide the German army with guides through their territory, access to food and markets, and transportation across the Straits to Asia Minor. In turn, the three German dignitaries vowed that as long as the Byzantines kept their agreement, the German army’s entry into their land would be peaceful. Subsequently, a German embassy consisting of Henry of Dietz, Bishop Hermann of Münster, Count Rupert of Nassau, and the imperial Chamberlain Markward of Neuenberg, was sent ahead to Constantinople to insure the safe passage of the German army through Byzantine land. But they had no warning that the Byzantine emperor would not keep his promise.46 On March 27, 1188, the cardinal-bishop of Albano (1179–1188), who had been sent by Pope Gregory to France and the Rhinelands to reconcile King Henry II of England with King Philip II Augustus of France and convince Christians to take the cross and reconquer Jerusalem, summoned the German clergy, laymen, and nobles in Mainz on laetare Jerusalem Sunday to attend Barbarossa’s curia Christi (court of Christ) to stimulate them to participate in a crusade.47 The bishop read the letter of Pope Gregory VIII, but the most impressive speech was delivered by Bishop Godfrey of Würzburg, who explained that God desired that all knights should redeem themselves by military service. Amid tears of joy, Frederick Barbarossa took the cross at Christ’s court, and perhaps as many as 13,000 Germans followed him.48 A Latin source says anyone who saw the great number of princes, bishops, 46 47

Ansbert, 15–16; Johnson, “The Crusades of Frederick,” 91–92. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 99; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 10, nn.

1–2. Ansbert, 12–15; Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica, trans. A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1978), 209; Munz, Frederick Barbarossa, 371, 386. 48

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

947

dukes, counts, and marquises who joined the army of Christ would never have believed that the ancient glory of the Roman Empire had passed away.49 April 23, 1189, St. George’s Day, was the designated date for the departure of the army, which gathered at Regensburg (Ratisbon) to make the final arrangements.50 On May 11 the German army, said to be 100,000 strong, headed by Frederick Barbarossa and his son Frederick of Swabia, set out on its crusade. It was a well-provisioned army with a large amount of money and high morals. But it was also followed by a hundred prostitutes, thieves, and wastrels who were caught at Vienna and sent back to Germany. Some regulations were needed; a council met to draw up regulations, and judges were appointed to enforce them. When the Germans entered Hungary, King Bela III and Queen Margaret sent envoys to greet them at Pressburg. On June 4, 1189, the king and queen received Frederick Barbarossa at Gran (Esztergom) with honor. The queen presented him with a magnificent pavilion, and King Bela entertained Frederick for a few days at his hunting lodge on an island in the Danube. The king also ordered that all kinds of provisions be made available to Frederick, and that all the towns and bishoprics throughout his kingdom receive him with great honor.51 When the army reached Nish (in Serbia), it was divided into four well-organized divisions, to insure that it would be ready to fight and the enemy would not find it in disarray.52 While at Nish on July 27, Frederick received a Serbian embassy headed by the Great Zupan Stephen Nemanya, which had come to discuss the destiny of that country. The Serbians and the Bulgarians, then under the authority of the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople, were struggling for their independence. Stephen Nemanya had already laid the foundation for the unification of Serbia and established an alliance with Bulgaria, with the intention of creating a common front in the struggle against the Byzantines. The Serbs and Bulgarians wanted Frederick to enter with them in an alliance to fight the Byzantines, but he offered them no such assurance and resumed his march. But they still tried to secure Frederick’s aid; the Serbian counts offered him

Nicholson, 55. Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 62. 51 Nicholson, 55–56; Ansbert, 27. 52 Ansbert, 27; Johnson, “The Crusade of Frederick,” 90–91. 49 50

948

THE CRUSADES

gifts of wine, grain, sheep, and cattle, and even expressed their willingness to become his vassals.53 Had Frederick accepted the Serbian-Bulgarian appeal for an alliance, the history of the Balkans would have changed, and the Byzantine Empire would have come to an early end.54 Frederick did not give the Serbians a definitive answer. He may have expected to rely on them in the future. But since his main objective was to march to the Holy Land and reclaim the Holy Sepulcher from the Muslims, fighting a war against the Byzantines would be a digression from his plan. He made this clear when he told the Serbian counts that for the love of Christ he had undertaken a toilsome pilgrimage against the oppressors of the land of Jerusalem, and that he was not, out of either pride or ambition, designing evil against any Christian king whatever, including the King of the Greeks (the Byzantine Emperor Isaac Angelus).55 The negotiations between Frederick and the Serbs apparently aroused the fear of the Byzantine Emperor Isaac Angelus so much that he communicated with Saladin, telling him of the movement of the German army and promising not to let Frederick cross into his land.56 Ibn Shaddad relates that Isaac Angelus had been communicating with Saladin since the latter was at Marj Uyun in August-September 1189. Saladin pledged to place the Church of Resurrection in Jerusalem and other holy places in Syria under the auspices of the Byzantine Orthodox clergy. In return, the Byzantine Church agreed to let Saladin have a kind of tutelage over the Muslim community in Constantinople. Ibn Shaddad says that Saladin fixed a deal with Angelus and sent a messenger to be the warden of the mosque in Constantinople, accompanied by a preacher to preach the Friday sermon in the name of the Abbasid caliph. He also sent a minbar (pulpit) and a host of muezzins and chanters of the Quran. In his letter to Saladin, Isaac Angelus says that the German enemies have entered his country and have lost a great deal of money, men, and beasts. They have been weakened so much that by the time they enter Saladin’s territory, they will have no strength to fight. AngeAnsbert, 30; Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 360–361. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 2: 445–446. 55 Ansbert, 30–31; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 97–100. 56 Al-Isfahani (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 151). In al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, 330–331, al-Isfahani does not state that the Byzantine emperor communicated with Saladin, but says Saladin sent spies to Bilad al-Rum (the Byzantine territory) to learn about the movement of Frederick’s army; Athir, al-Kamil, 22; Ostrogorsky, History, 361. 53 54

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

949

lus makes it clear to Saladin that his empire had gained nothing from him except his love and support against the Frankish enemies.57 The emperor’s hostility toward the Germans was meant not only to dishonor the army of the cross (the German army) and Christianity, but also to curry favor with his friend and confederate Saladin.58 On July 2 the German army entered Byzantine territory at Branits in Bulgaria, without a formal welcome by the Byzantine Emperor Isaac Angelus, although in June Frederick had sent an embassy to Constantinople headed by Bishop Hermann of Münster to insure the army’s safe passage. Since the emperor had gone to Philadelphia (Alashehir) to deal with the rebel Theodore Mancaphas, no one was there to receive the German delegation, which had to wait outside the city. On his return Emperor Isaac Angelus, who had made no preparation to receive the German army, ordered his chancellor and other officials to act as guides. Ever suspicious of Frederick’s supposed designs on his empire, he had the German ambassadors arrested and thrown into prison.59 The emperor treated them harshly, showing dishonor to the army of the Holy Cross (the German army) and the Christian religion, and held them hostage to insure that Frederick and his army had good intentions.60 The emperor’s cousin Alexius, who went to greet Frederick at Nish, blamed the emperor’s bad treatment of the Germans on the duke of Branits, saying he did not offer them guides or provisions. He explained to Frederick that the Byzantines often said one thing and did another.61 Frederick never expected the emperor to turn against him and try to prevent his men from passing through his territory, but this was exactly what happened. While moving through the Bulgarian forests, the German army was attacked on July 11 by a combination of Greek, Bulgar, Serbs, Alan, Pechenegs and half-civilized Vlach bandits and bowmen hiding in the thickets near the public highway.62 But the marauders were no match for the highly disciplined German army, which killed some and captured others, later hanging them. Those who escaped kept molesting the German army Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 172–175. Ansbert, 38–39; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 99–100; report of the French envoy in Constantinople, in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 52–53; William of Newburgh, Chronicle, 1: 326; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 101. 59 Continuation, 84. 60 Ansbert, 35–37; Johnson, “The Crusades of Frederick,” 101. 61 Ansbert, 30. 62 Nicholson, 58. 57 58

950

THE CRUSADES

especially with nocturnal thefts. The Byzantine emperor not only violated the pledges of his envoys at Nuremberg, but ordered the defiles blocked by huge trees and rocks. But the German army managed to overcome this adversity. On August 13 it reached Sofia, only to find the city deserted and destitute of provisions. Evidently the emperor had ordered the markets and money exchange to leave the city. Frederick fought the Byzantines and forced them to withdraw from the Bulgarian pass. About this time he received haughty letters from Isaac Angelus, who refused to give the German army assistance or even free passage, and he learned of the imprisonment of the embassy he had sent to Constantinople. On August 24 Frederick’s army reached Philippopolis (Plovdiv), only to find it deserted, and within two days it occupied the city. In late August, Frederick received a letter from the emperor refusing to let him cross the Dardanelles unless he sent hostages to Constantinople and surrendered half of any land he might conquer in Syria. Realizing the emperor was so intransigent and untrustworthy that he could not deal with him, Frederick decided he was no longer bound by the agreement he had made with the emperor at Nuremberg; the only option left was war. In short order, the German army captured several cities and about ten castles.63 The army left for Adrianople on November 5 and occupied the city, which had been abandoned, on November 22. By now Frederick had the upper hand. His army was victorious, although its success was marred by plunder and atrocities. Krikor (Gregory) Basil, the Armenian Catholicos and lord of Qal’at al-Rum (the Byzantine fortress) on the bank of the Euphrates river, wrote to Saladin that Frederick had pillaged the land of the Byzantines and subdued its king (emperor). He took the emperor’s son, his brother, and forty of his men hostages, plus fifty qintar (about 5,000 pounds) of gold, a like amount of silver, and a large quantity of satin cloth. Moreover, Frederick held the emperor’s ships until he crossed to the land of Kilij Arslan II, where he freed the hostages.64 The Byzantine emperor was clearly no match for him. Frederick went so far as to challenge the emperor’s authority and the title of “Emperor” he and past Byzantine suzerains had used. He thought Ansbert, 44–45. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 161–164, reproduces the letter but does not explain why an Armenian prelate should have written to Saladin; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 320– 321. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 333 of the English translation, reports that according to a letter of the Armenian Catholicos, Frederick captured the emperor’s ships, which were about to cross to the land of Kilij Arslan. 63

64

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

951

that he himself was more worthy of the title. After all, he was the everaugust Emperor of the Romans in both name and fact.65 Although he had military superiority, Frederick still used diplomacy, resuming negotiations with the Byzantine emperor regarding the terms of their agreement at Nuremberg. Just when their talks had almost produced a definitive solution, on December 24, 1189, the Byzantine envoys rejected the conditions promised at Nuremberg and broke off the negotiations. Shortly afterwards the Byzantine emperor, who had no choice but to pacify Frederick, yielded and sent an embassy to Adrianople on January 21, 1190 to renegotiate with him. On February 14, the delegates of the two sides signed a peace treaty, the most important provisions being that the emperor would provide the Germans with ships for crossing the Straits, that the Byzantine army should keep its distance from the German army, that the Byzantine citizens would sell food and provisions to the German army at fair prices, and that all Latins who were captured on land or sea would be released. The treaty was ratified by five hundred Byzantine dignitaries in Hagia Sophia Church, where the Byzantine patriarch also signed it. Five hundred German knights swore to uphold the terms of the treaty, which represented a great diplomatic victory for Frederick.66 The Germans left Adrianople on March 1, 1190, reached Gallipoli three weeks later, and crossed to the other side of the Straits; Frederick himself was the last to cross on March 28. The German army was now in the territory of Kilij Arslan II (1155–1192), Seljuk Sultan of Iconium. Kilij Arslan, then an old man, was willing to allow the Germans passage through his land. In fact, before the German army left Adrianople, he had sent an envoy to Frederick, promising the very best market for his army throughout his land. But the sultan had had much trouble with his nine rebellious sons, especially the eldest, Qutb al-Din Malik Shah, and was forced to divide his kingdom among them. Qutb al-Din sent an envoy to Frederick Barbarossa assuring him of his devotion and obedience. But the Germans suspected his intentions and concluded that he wanted to deceive them and attack the Christian army.67 In addition to his trouble with his sons, Kilij Ansbert, 49–50; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 103; Nicholson, 49. Ansbert, 64–68; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 108–109; Nicholson, 59; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 328. 67 Claude Cahen, “The Turks in Iran and Anatolia before the Mongol Invasion,” Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 2: 680; Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallender, 1936), 3: 13; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 111. 65 66

952

THE CRUSADES

Arslan found himself sandwiched between two adversaries, Saladin and the Byzantine emperor, and realized it would be advantageous to ally himself to the Germans. Outwardly he appeared to oppose Frederick Barbarossa, but inwardly he was with him.68 Meanwhile, says Ibn al-Athir, Kilij Arslan was communicating with Saladin about the movements of the German army and promising not to let it cross into his country. But he could not guarantee this because his sons had gained total control over him and even disobeyed him and sequestered him.69 Because of his age and weakness, he could not control the Turkomans of Asia Minor, who intended to prevent the Germans from crossing one of the rivers.70 But the German army was unstoppable. At the start of April 1190 it marched through Seljuk territory and reached Iconium on May 18. The march was costly. Although Kilij Arslan had sent guides to show them the way, still the Germans suffered from heavy snowfall, lack of provisions, and rough terrain. They were forced to eat their cattle, burn their equipment, and bury precious belongings to alleviate their problems. Joyful over their adversity, Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says, “Allah removed from them his blessing and rendered their march difficult.”71 By the time they reached Iconium, the Germans had lost a great number of men and beasts. Al-Isfahani, like Ibn Shaddad, says that Kilij Arslan facilitated the march of the German army through his domain, but could not control the Turkomans who attacked the German army.72 Latin sources, however, show that Kilij Arslan II was outright treacherous and implicate him in the attacks on the German army. The Continuation of William of Tyre says that when the sultan of Iconium (Kilij Arslan) heard that Saladin and the Byzantine emperor had made peace and that the emperor of Germany would cross his territory, he became worried and decided to prevent him from passing. When Frederick learned that Kilij Arslan wanted to bar his way, he chose another route, using some peasants as guides. The road he chose was mountainous, rough, and filled with rocks. Before the Germans reached Iconium, they tried to find a better road, but it ran into a swamp which they could not cross by foot or on Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 159 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 154); Isfahani, al-Fath, 390; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 318–319. 69 Athir, al-Kamil, 25. 70 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 159–160. 71 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 151. 72 Isfahani, al-Fath, 390. 68

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

953

horseback. Frederick ordered his men to lay down their shields and hauberks to make a road, and to kill their horses to make bridges through that perilous place. Here the sultan attacked him with a great force. But Frederick, with the aid of his son Frederick, duke of Swabia, defeated the sultan and captured Iconium.73 The author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum is more outspoken regarding Kilij Arslan’s treachery. He says that when the German forces entered Turkish territory (April 1190), the sultan wanted them to pass unhindered into the heart of his kingdom, knowing that the roads were hazardous and that they would suffer food shortages and other adversities and would be more vulnerable to attack. He adds that “the wicked traitor,” reneging on the terms he had made with Frederick, took advantage of the mountain precipices, thickets, and impassable rivers to attack the Germans with rocks and arrows as they passed. This, he says, shows “how much trust can be placed in [Muslims]. They always measure out virtue and fraud equally against their enemies.”74 The enemy kept attacking the Germans with a rain of missiles which pierced their tents and killed several men. For six weeks the Germans slept in armor, never removing their mailshirts. Worse still, they suffered shortages of food and water. The Germans did not kill their horses for food, but rather, if the horses were killed in battle, found solace in eating their flesh and drinking their blood. On May 3 their trek became more arduous because of rough terrain, narrow paths, and steep cliffs. The Turks kept relentlessly attacking them. Their horses were forced to gallop when they could barely walk. As Frederick of Swabia rushed, calling to his father, he was struck on the helmet by a rock that knocked out his teeth. Finally, after many assaults and hardships, the Germans reached Iconium.75 Frederick, who hoped to take the city peacefully, sent an envoy with gifts to Kilij Arslan to tell him that his objective was not to capture his country, but to seek passage to the Holy Land. He asked the sultan to order his people to provide food provisions and other necessities to the Germans. Kilij Arslan complied, and the German army finally had sufficient provisions.76 Kilij Arslan’s son Qutb al-Din Malik Shah was displeased to see his father succumb to the Germans. He made a final effort to save Iconium by Continuation 84–85; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 89. Nicholson, 60–61; Ansbert, 77; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 275–276. 75 Nicholson, 61–62. 76 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 156; Athir, al-Kamil, 163; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 319. 73 74

954

THE CRUSADES

attacking the Germans with a great Seljuk force, but was defeated and fled, and on May 18, 1190, the Germans captured Iconium and killed a multitude of its inhabitants.77 The Germans enjoyed the spoils of victory, consisting of wheat and barley and a stock of gold, silver, jewels, and purple cloth estimated to be worth more than 100,000 marks. They also captured the dowry of the wife of Prince Kaykubad (later Seljuk Sultan Kaykubad I, 1219–1236), mistakenly believing she was Saladin’s niece.78 While the Germans were in Iconium, Kilij Arslan appealed to Frederick for peace. Anxious to proceed beyond Iconium, Frederick accepted the sultan’s offer. They agreed to a truce under which Kilij Arslan would surrender twentyfour of his best men as hostages to Frederick and would provide a market and supplies for the German army. The sultan also advised Frederick to take the road to Tarsus and al-Missisa on his march, and Frederick agreed.79 The German army left Iconium on May 23, 1190, but the truce with Kilij Arslan did not last long. The author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum blames its failure on the Godless malignant traitor (Kilij Arslan), who he says attacked the Christians (Germans) both in ambushes and in the open field as they were traveling far away. The Germans killed an estimated 22,000 Turks. When the Seljuk hostages were interrogated, they falsely said the attackers were renegade Turks who were subject to no government.80 The author of The Continuation of William of Tyre, however, blames the conflict on the Germans. After they made the truce with Kilij Arslan II, he says, 77 Nicholson, 62; Continuation, 85; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 277–278; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 162; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 154–155, who follows Ibn Shaddad; Isfahani, al-Fath, 392; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 320; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 735; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 407; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 333 of the English translation; O City of Byzantium, The Annals of Niketas Choniates, trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 227, cited hereafter as Annals of Niketas Choniates. 78 Ansbert, 86; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 113, n. 34. 79 Continuation, 85, gives the number of hostages at 24, as does Athir, al-Kamil, 163. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 162, puts the number at 20, as does Isfahani, al-Fath, 390 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 155); Nicholson, 63; Ansbert, 88. 80 Nicholson, 64, n. 106; Continuation, 86, says the the hostages were executed at various camping places. Ansbert, 88, says that Frederick threatened to kill the hostages if the attacks continued.

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

955

they behaved themselves in a seemly fashion. But when they realized that they had the upper hand, they began to commit outrages against the Saracens (Muslims) of Turkey. They seized food, horses, and whatever else they could find in the marketplace without paying. If a Turk demanded to be paid, he was killed instantly. When Kilij Arslan saw that the Germans were committing atrocities against his subjects, he sent a messenger to inform Frederick of the actions of his army. Frederick ordered his men to make amends to the Turks, but many disobeyed. When Kilij Arslan saw that the Germans were still molesting his subjects, he ordered his men to prepare to avenge the evil they had done. Thus, when the Germans left Iconium, Kilij Arslan kept attacking them, disregarding the terms of the truce. When Frederick saw that the Muslim army had grown, he put his son Frederick of Swabia in command of the vanguard while he took charge of the rearguard. Thus, he was able to protect his army until it was safe in Armenian territory.81 This latter account is consistent with that of al-Isfahani, who says that when the accursed [Frederick Barbarossa] reached the land of the Armenians, he acted treacherously toward the hostages and alleged that the Turkomans kidnaped some of them.82 On May 30 the German army entered the territory of Leon II of the Mountain, Roupenid prince of Armenia (1185–1219), who in January 1198 became king of Armenia.83 When the Muslims learned that Frederick had arrived in Armenian territory, they evacuated the fortress of Baghras, which Saladin had captured after the fall of Jerusalem.84 Muslim sources report that Leon, chief of the Armenians, submitted to Frederick and entered his service.85 Leon traveled across his land to welcome Frederick himself, but could not do so because of the congestion of Frederick’s army. He sent two envoys to serve as guides and show Frederick the routes through Armenia. When they presented themselves, he asked them about the best route to travel without hindrance. They told him that there was a safe road, but he would need to cross a river which was not very deep. Frederick marched until he reached the Selef river (Calycadnus, Turkish Gök Su). When he Continuation, 86. Isfahani, al-Fath, 390. 83 Isfahani, al-Fath, 390; Continuation, 87, and n. 137; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 89. 84 Continuation 86, n. 138, discusses the controversy between the Armenians and the Franks over possession of this fortress. 85 Isfahani, al-Fath, 390; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 319. 81 82

956

THE CRUSADES

reached the middle of the river, his horse stumbled and he fell into the water. Because of the heat and fatigue, he lost his strength and could do nothing to help himself. His companions rushed to help him but were too late; he drowned on Sunday, June 10, 1190.86 According to some sources, Frederick felt the heat and wanted to cool off by swimming in the river. He was extremely tired, and the water was very cold, and Frederick collapsed. He may have suffered an apoplectic fit or stroke. He felt sick when he was taken out of the water, and died a few days later.87 Frederick’s body was embalmed and taken to Antioch, where he was buried in the Church of St. Peter.88 Ibn Shaddad says that when the Germans reached Tarsus, they camped at a river, and their king (Frederick) decided to swim in it. The water was very cold, and the king was tired and sick. While he was swimming, his sickness worsened, and a few days later he died. When he saw what was happening to him, he instructed his son to take his place. The Germans had Frederick’s body boiled in vinegar, placed his bones in a bag, and took them to Jerusalem for burial.89 Al-Isfahani, who more than any Muslim writer takes every opportunity to insult the Christians and gloat at their deaths, says that after the Germans reached Tarsus, the king (whom he calls “the Germans’ dog”) wanted to swim in the river, hoping to get some rest. But his death was in this rest, for as he was wading, he was unexpectedly swept up by a wave and hit a tree, and his Continuation, 85; Nicholson, 65, n. 108; Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 280– 281; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 89; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 329; Ralph de Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 24; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 735 of the Syriac text, 407 of the French translation; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 84, says Frederick drowned on July 25; Pierre Dubois, The Recovery of the Holy Land, ed. Walther I. Brandt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 87; Annals of Niketas Choniates, 228. 87 Ansbert, 91–92; Prutz, Kaiser Friedrich I, 349; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 184; Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey, 164–165; Johnson, “Crusades of Frederick,” 114. 88 Continuation, 88; Ansbert, 92, Brundage, The Crusades, 165–166. 89 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 160 163 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 155). Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 103, also reports that Frederick’s body was boiled, but says that his bones were buried in Antioch. William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 2: 330, says the remains of Frederick Barbarossa were carried by the army and buried in Tyre. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 334 of the English translation, says the king of the Alman (Germans) took a swim in the river, which was very cold, and fell ill and died. His body was taken to Antioch. 86

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

957

head cracked. His men pulled him from the water, but he remained sick “until he passed from this life into perdition, where Malik, chief of the damned angels in Hell, received him and thrust him into the hot fire of Allah.” Frederick’s bones were boiled, placed in a bag, and taken to the Church of Resurrection in al-Quds (Jerusalem) to be buried.90 Frederick’s death was a great loss for Christendom. One Western source likens it to the tragic death of King Saul on the mountain of Gilboa.91 The Byzantine chronicler Niketas Choniates lauds Frederick for his Christian faith and passion, calling him the greatest Christian monarch of his time. He says that for his faith Frederick set aside his fatherland and the luxuries of royal life, choosing instead to suffer affliction alongside the Christians of Palestine in the name of Christ. He equates Frederick’s Christian zeal with that of the Apostle Paul.92 (The Italian chronicler Giovanni Villani, blinded by hatred, later called Frederick’s death punishment for his hostility to the Church of Rome.)93 The Continuation of William of Tyre says the German army was like sheep without a shepherd.94 Many of Frederick’s men were so disheartened that they became sick; some died from grief, others sought solace in Antioch.95 Still others renounced Chrstianity and embraced Islam.96 To the Muslims, Frederick’s death was a source of relief and joy. Ibn al-Athir says of the potential effect of Frederick’s expedition against the Muslim countries of the East, “If Allah had not destroyed the King of the Germans when he was about to march against al-Sham (Syria), both Syria and Egypt would have been lost to the Muslims.”97 The Muslims had been terrified by the march of this formidable enemy into their land.98 The news Isfahani, al-Fath, 390–392 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 156). Ibn Shaddad tells a similar story but does not rejoice over the German king’s death and does not relegate him to Hell. 91 Nicholson, 66. See 2 Samuel, 1: 21. 92 Annals of Niketas Choniates, 229. 93 Munz, Frederick Barbarossa, 396, n. 1. 94 Continuation, 88–89, 95 The Anonymous Edessan, 202 of the Syriac text, 230 of the Arabic translation. 96 Munz, Frederick Barbarossa, 397. 97 Athir, al-Kamil, 5; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 321; the Anonymous Edessan, 202 of the Syriac text, 230 of the Arabic translation, also suggests that had Frederick not died, he would have achieved the salvation of Syria. 98 Isfahani, al-Fath, 330–331, says that Frederick had 300,000 fighting men with 90

958

THE CRUSADES

of his arrival at Constantinople convinced the Muslims that they were in danger. They said that he was indomitable and nothing could stop him. Undoubtedly he would attack al-Sham (Syria), destroy the thughur (strongholds, border towns) of Islam, and distract the Muslims from their other concerns.99 The Muslims were so frightened that one of Saladin’s lieutenants who owned a village near Mosul ordered his steward, a brother of the historian Ibn al-Athir, not to sell the crops from his land but to wait. But when he heard of Frederick’s death, he ordered the steward to sell the crops. Asked why he had changed his orders, he said that when the king of the Germans arrived in Muslim territory, “We (Muslims) believed that we had no more standing in al-Sham (Syria).” Believing that Barbarossa would soon capture Syria, he ordered that the crops be stored, to be used if food became scarce because of the German attack. Now that Allah had destroyed the Germans and their king was dead, they were no longer a threat. So Saladin’s lieutenant ordered his steward to sell the crops.100 But no one was more concerned than Saladin himself about the march of Frederick’s army. If we accept the authenticity of the communication between him and Frederick, Saladin must have known of Frederick’s intention to march to the Holy Land. But when his son al-Malik al-Zahir of Aleppo warned him that the German king had already left Constantinople on his way to the Muslim land, Saladin became tense and called for jihad against the Germans. He sent messages to the Muslim lords of Mosul, Sinjar, al-Jazira, and Arbil, arousing them to join him in fighting the infidels. He even sent Ibn Shaddad to urge the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi to join in the jihad.101 He also sent spies to Asia Minor to gather information about the movements of the German army.102 Fearing that Frederick and the German army might soon occupy Syria’s cities and castles, build up their fortifications and use them against the Muslims, Saladin had the coastal cities and castles laid waste. He ordered the walls of Tiberias, Jaffa (Yafa), Arsuf, Caesarea, and Latakia torn down. He also had Sidon and Jubayl destroyed and evacuated and sent their inhabitants to Beirut.103 The death of Frederick Barbarossa allayed the fear him. Isfahani, al-Fath, 393. Athir, al-Kamil, 26. 101 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 148–149 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 150). 102 Isfahani, al-Fath, 331 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 150). 103 Continuation, 89; Isfahani, al-Fath, 394 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 157); 99

100

THE ORIGIN OF THE THIRD CRUSADE

959

of Saladin and the Muslims, who heaved a sigh of relief, and left the German army in disarray. It must have been a huge army; despite the desertion, death, and apostasy of many of its men, there still remained about 42,000 men commanded by Frederick of Swabia.104 The German force went forward under Frederick, but when he arrived in the plains of Armenian Cilicia, he was severely weakened by fatigue and illness. The German army left Cilicia and came to Port St. Simon (al-Suwaydiyya, the harbor of Antioch) on June 17, 1190. Two days later it reached Antioch, where Frederick Barbarossa’s remains were buried in the Church of St. Peter.105 Frederick of Swabia divided his force into three contingents and marched ahead, but on the way they suffered great hardships, including plagues which caused the deaths of many German knights.106 In a second message to Saladin cited by Ibn Shaddad, who was present at its reading, the Armenian Catholicos reported that although the German army was large in numbers, still its men were weak, and because they had a small number of horses they had to use donkeys to carry their equipment. The Catholicos says that as he stood on a bridge watching the German army cross, he saw only a few of its men carrying lances or spears. When he asked why, they said that on their march they had suffered a shortage of food and firewood; consequently, they had been forced to burn most of their wooden equipment and had had to kill their horses and eat them. Even the contingent that reached Antioch lost many of its men. Thus, says the Catholicos, when Leon II of the Mountain, the Roupenid prince of Armenia, saw the suffering of the German army and the illness of its leader, he decided to capture Frederick’s possessions. Not only Leon but Bohemond IV (“The One-Eyed”), count of Tripoli and then Antioch (1187– 1233), sought to move the sick Frederick of Swabia to Antioch to die, so that he might appropriate his possessions, but there is no evidence that he did so.107 Al-Isfahani says the lord of Antioch (Bohemond IV) was so agSa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-alMisriyya, 1963), 2: 850. 104 Letter of the Armenian Catholicos to Saladin, in Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 163; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 320–322. But Nicholson, 67, and Ansbert, 92, say that only a small number of soldiers who were too ashamed to go back stayed under Frederick’s command. 105 Ansbert, 92; Brundage, The Crusades, 165–166. Gerald of Wales, De Principis, 280, says the German army reached Antioch on June 21. 106 Continuation, 89. 107 Message of the Armenian Catholicos to Saladin, in Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 167

960

THE CRUSADES

gravated and distressed by the heavy burden of supporting the German army that, in order to get rid of them, he suggested that they attack Aleppo, but Frederick chose instead to march with his men to Acre to join the Crusaders who had been besieging that city since August 1189.108

(also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 156–157); Isfahani, al-Fath, 391–393 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 156); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 322. 108 Isfahani, al-Fath, 395 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 156).

28 A NEW CAMPAIGN: PHILIP II AUGUSTUS AND RICHARD THE LION-HEART The stalemate at Acre between the Crusaders and Saladin soon ended with the arrival of fresh forces from Europe under King Philip of France and King Richard of England. Although King Richard’s fleet reached Messina on September 14, 1190, he did not arrive until September 23, and Philip arrived there two days later.1 But the two monarchs tarried too long in Messina, giving Saladin an opportunity to muster fresh forces. After King Richard arrived, he became involved in skirmishes with the Sicilians and other private matters. King Philip, who could not wait for him, sailed from Messina on March 30, 1191, and landed in Tyre, where he was greeted by Conrad of Montferrat; they then sailed to Acre together, arriving on April 20, 1191.2 King Richard followed, leaving Messina on April 10.3 Philip brought with him a great fleet of ships loaded with food and other supplies and many valiant men including William of Garlande, one of his chief advisors; Philip, count of Flanders; Hugh IV, count of St. Pol; William of Barres, count of Rochford; Sir Dreux of Amiens, William of Melo, Lionel Landon, The Itinerary of King Richard I (London: J. W. Ruddock, 1935), 40–41; Gerald of Wales, Speculum ecclesiae: De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis, J. S. Brewer, ed., 1 (London, 1873), 248. 2 Gerald of Wales, Speculum ecclesiae, 249. 3 Continuation of William of Tyre (hereafter cited as Continuation) in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), 98, n. 170; Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, Merton Jerome Hubert, ed. (New York: Octagon Books, 1976; cited hereafter as Ambroise), 191; Edward Noble Stone, ed., The History of the Holy War in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939; cited hereafter as Stone), 67; Helen J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997; hereafter cited as Nicholson), 139; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 1: 349. 1

961

962

THE CRUSADES

and many others.4 Imad al-Din al-Isfahani says Philip had with him six large ships with many valiant knights on board. He says the Franks considered Philip one of their great kings, held him in great respect, and obeyed his judgment. Philip brought with him a large white falcon of rare breed, which he loved. But when the falcon flew up, Philip failed to call it back. It perched on the wall of Acre, where Muslims caught it and brought it to Saladin, and the Franks tried unsuccessfully to redeem it for a thousand dinars. Of the valiant men in King Philip’s company, al-Isfahani and Ibn Shaddad mention only Kund Ferned (Count Philip of Flanders).5 The Crusaders were delighted and emboldened by the arrival of King Philip, but as he went around Acre on horseback, he was not pleased with what the Crusaders had done so far. He thought they should have captured the city easily. He told his men to set up seven siege engines and ordered a screen made of iron, tin-covered and shiny, erected around the city. On May 30, Philip attacked Acre and ordered the crossbowmen and archers to shoot continuously, so that no Muslim could even raise a finger above the walls. When the Muslims inside the city saw that they were being fiercely attacked, they raised a basket with signals on the former Church of St. Lawrence (which they had converted into a mosque) and displayed banners to tell the Muslims outside the city that they were desperate for help. When help did not come, they pulled down the signs. Philip also had miners undermine the wall. The Pisans had made an engine which they called the “Cat” and moved it to the walls where the miners were working, but the Muslims succeeded in burning it. The undermined part of the wall fell and many knights were killed, including the Marshal of France, much to the anger of King Philip. Despite this setback Philip could have captured the city of Acre, but he reasoned that it would be better to wait for the coming of King Richard of England to “share in the joy and conquest of the city.”6 Ambroise, 191–192; Stone, 67. Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 239–240 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 474–475 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 183); Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, alNawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 181; 212–213; Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 349. 6 Continuation, 98–99. 4 5

A NEW CAMPAIGN

963

Saladin sent a reconnaissance mission to check the Crusaders’ positions and examine their trenches to see whether they had placed ambushes. Ibn Shaddad, who accompanied Saladin, says he personally went up to Tall al-Fudul to see which of the Crusaders’ war engines were in operation and which were idle.7 Despite their best efforts, the Crusaders could not prevent Muslim robbers from slipping into their camp, looting, and kidnaping men. On one occasion they seized a three-month-old child and brought him to Saladin. The Crusaders’ leader told the child’s mother to go to the Muslim camp and ask Saladin for the child, saying he was a merciful man. Tearfully she approached Saladin, who was mounted on his horse, and told him her story. He ordered that the child be brought and delivered to the mother, then sent them back to the Crusaders’ camp on horseback. Says Ibn Shaddad, “See how compassionate this man was.”8 The Crusaders continued to attack the city of Acre. On June 4, 1191, Saladin moved to pitch his tent on the Iyadiyya hill. All day long he was engaged in fighting the enemy and arousing the morale of his men. When he saw that they were lax in fighting, he returned to his pavilion on alIyadiyya hill and had men inform him of the Crusaders’ activities every hour. The Crusaders kept harassing the Muslims, killing many and dumping their bodies in the trenches alongside the carcasses of pigs and other animals. Although the Muslims inside the city kept on fighting, many were too weary to continue. To Ibn Shaddad, this was an unspeakable calamity; the harder the Crusaders fought, the more Saladin countered by attacking them in their trenches. The skirmishes between the two sides continued until the arrival of al-Inglitiri al-Mal’un (the accursed Englishman), as al-Isfahani calls Richard Lion-Heart.9 King Richard arrived in Messina, Sicily on September 23, 1190, and was received with great pomp.10 A huge crowd of people of all ages who Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 215; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 42. 8 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 215–216; Isfahani, al-Fath, 480–481. 9 Al-Isfahani, in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 185; Isfahani, al-Fath, 482–484, simply calls him al-Inglitiri Malik (the king of England); Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 218–219 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 184); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 350. Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 118 of the Syriac text, 334 of the English translation, calls Richard king of “Inglitar,” i.e., England. Arabs today still call England “Ingliterra.” 10 Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: 7

964

THE CRUSADES

came out to meet the king marveled at how glorious and impressive his landing was, compared with the arrival of the king of France and his troops a week earlier. When King Philip learned that King Richard had arrived, he went to meet him; overjoyed, the two monarchs kissed and embraced. After they conferred during the next two days, King Philip decided to leave for Jerusalem at once, but after his ship left the harbor, adverse winds forced him to return to Messina.11 On September 28, Richard’s sister Joan arrived from Palermo in a galleys furnished by King Tancred of Lecce. Trouble soon arose between King Richard and the citizens of Messina. On September 30, the king crossed the river de Far (del Faro) and seized a fortified place called La Baignare (Baniare). On October 2 he took control of a fortified monastery of the Griffons (Greek-speaking Sicilians) in the middle of the river, between Messina and Calabria. He expelled the monks and filled the monastery with provisions he had gotten from England. The people of Messina became suspicious of Richard’s action and thought he intended to control all of Sicily. Richard’s army engaged the citizens of Messina in a skirmish, but through the mediation of the city’s leaders, both sides laid down their arms and reconciled.12 Richard of Devizes, who discusses events of the period, says that the Sicilians or foreigners committed crimes for which they were punished. King Richard designated judges to try the culprits and ordered a gallows built outside his camp, on which thieves and plunderers were hanged. The king of France kept silent on this matter. It is for this reason that the Griffons called the king of France “the Lamb” and the king of England “the Lion.”13 Kraus, 1965), 2: 126; Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 157–158, also in T. A. Archer, The Crusade of Richard I, 1189–92 (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889), 28; Kate Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), 124; Landon, Itinerary, 41. Isfahani, al-Fath, 477, says the English king later arrived in Cyprus, and gives his name as Lichert. 11 Richard of Devizes, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First, John T. Appleby, ed. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963; hereafter Richard of Devizes), 15–16; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 157–158; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 126; Archer, The Crusades, 22–23. 12 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 127–128; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 158; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, 1 (London, 1886), 186; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 127–128. 13 Richard of Devizes, 16–17 (also in Archer, The Crusades, 24–26).

A NEW CAMPAIGN

965

King Richard then turned to the question of the dowry of his sister Joan, whose husband, King William II of Sicily, had died on November 18, 1189. Tancred of Lecce, the ugly, dwarfish illegitimate son of Duke Roger of Apulia and temporary successor to William, then seized the throne of Sicily.14 After an exchange of messengers and negotiation, Tancred sought peace and friendship with Richard and agreed to pay Joan her share of her husband’s treasury. Moreover, he offered Richard 20,000 ounces of gold for his sister’s dowry, and another 20,000 ounces as a dowry for his daughter if Richard would agree to marry her to his nephew, Arthur of Brittany. Richard agreed to these terms and received 40,000 ounces of gold, and his sister was handed over to him unconditionally. Amazed at this speedy action, Tancred sent messengers asking to have a meeting with Richard, and in response to his invitation Richard sailed to Catania, midway between Messina and Palermo. On November 11, 1190, the two men signed an agreement and the whole affair was set to rest. Richard generously decided that the money he received should be shared equally between him and the king of France, and thus not only enhanced his own reputation but also wiped out his enemies’ envy.15 Richard of Devizes gives a slightly different account. He says that King Richard demanded from Tancred his sister Joan, the former queen of Sicily, and her dower, with a golden chair and all of King William’s legacy, which had been left to King Henry, Richard’s father, including a golden table 12 feet long, a silken tent, a hundred first-class galleys with everything necessary for them for two years, 60,000 quarters each of wheat, barley, and wine, 24 golden cups, and 24 golden plates. The king of Sicily (Isaac Comnenus), he says, gave little weight to the command of the king of England, but sent Richard’s sister to him with only the fortune of her bedchamber and a million terrini for her expenses because of her royal position.16 While Philip and Richard spent the winter in Messina, King Guy of Lusignan sent them word that unless the Christians besieging the city of Acre received aid as quickly as possible, they would be forced to flee or surrender to the Muslims. The two kings responded by sending Henry IV, count of Champagne, Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, Ranulph of Glanville, and his nephew Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury, with a great Antony Bridge, Richard the Lionheart (London: Grafton Books, 1989), 124. Nicholson, 164–165, 168; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 132–138; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 159–167. Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 130–137. 16 Richard of Devizes, 17. 14 15

966

THE CRUSADES

army to Acre.17 Richard’s fleet sailed from Messina on April 10, 1191, reaching Rhodes on April 22. On May 1 the fleet left Rhodes, but a raging storm drove it into the Gulf of Satalea (Antalya). Some of the ships drifted into the high seas. Aboard one ship were Richard’s sister Joan and Berengaria, the daughter of Sancho IV of Navarre, who had been sent by his mother Eleanor to be his wife.18 The storm drove the ship to Limassol, Cyprus, where it set anchor, but the royal ladies remained on board far out at sea. Fearing the cruelty and treachery of the lord of Cyprus, Isaac Comnenus (d. 1195), they waited for King Richard to arrive with his fleet.19 In 1185, Isaac Comnenus, a great-nephew of Emperor Manuel I and former governor of Cilicia and Isauria, had revolted against the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus Comnenus and seized Cyprus with the aid of his brother-in-law General Margarit, declaring himself basileus (emperor) and refusing to submit to the emperor at Constantinople.20 Part of Isaac’s treachery was his alliance with Saladin, which they reportedly confirmed by drinking one another’s blood. To Ambroise, Isaac Comnenus was “worse than Judas,” while the Itinerarium calls him the “most wicked of all bad men, who surpassed Judas and Ganelon in treachery.”21 In a letter to William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, chancellor of King Richard, the king calls him

Richard of Devizes, 19. Richard of Devizes, 25, 36; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 184 and 192. On King Richard and Berengaria of Navarre, see John Gillingham, Richard Coeur De Lion (London: The Hambledon Press, 1994), 119–139. On the discrepancies among Western sources about these events, see M. R. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuation of William of Tyre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 71. 19 Continuation, 100; Nicholson, 178, 182. 20 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 255; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 201; Stone, 183–188; J. Hackett, History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (London, 1901), 55–58; Charles M. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180–1204 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 69–75; Elizabeth Chapin Furber, “The Kingdom of Cyprus, 1191–1291,” in A History of the Crusades, Marshall W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 599–602, lists in detail useful sources on Cyprus; Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 2: 62–64. 21 Ambroise, 81–82; Stone, 28–29; Nicholson, 179, n. 109; Hackett, History, 60; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1937), 3: 47. Ganelon, as the epic poem La Chanson de Roland relates, betrayed Roland Oliver and Charlemagne’s rearguard in battle. 17 18

A NEW CAMPAIGN

967

“the tyrant who, revering neither God nor man, has usurped the name of emperor and hurriedly brought armed forces to bar us from the port.”22 For seven years Isaac ruled Cyprus and despoiled the land, so that people lived in distress and sought every means to protect themselves against him. King Richard was soon to be their redeemer and save them from him.23 Isaac Comnenus persecuted the Christian religion and, as an enemy of the Latins, he captured European pilgrims who were passing through Cyprus or had been blown by storms to its shores and extorted heavy tribute from the wealthy ones and enslaved the poor. Worst of all, he gave orders that no ship of the Crusaders was to enter the harbors of Cyprus. He would not even let the ship carrying Richard’s sister Joan and Princess Berengaria enter the harbor of Limassol. A few men managed to come ashore safely, but the emperor’s men disarmed them and confined them to a nearby castle, claiming that they had done so for their own benefit, because if they were armed, they would be taken as spies or invaders. Isaac’s men assured those taken into custody that they would not do anything else until they received the emperor’s decision on them. Upon learning of their predicament, Stephen of Turnham, King Richard’s marshal and treasurer, sent them clothing and other necessities, but when these items reached the castle, the Byzantines (the Itinerarium says Griffons) plundered them. Furthermore, the magnates of Cyprus deceitfully promised to give provisions to those shipwrecked, but in fact they attacked them, killing some and taking others captive. Though unarmed, Richard’s men decided to resist confinement, free themselves from the oppression of Isaac’s men, and escape starvation. After deliberating, some of them left the castle and ran into the field, but the locals attacked and began to kill them. Fighting with great courage despite having only three bows, the Crusaders managed to kill some of the natives. Two noble Normans, Roger of Har-

Letter of King Richard, in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 178–179, Document 7b; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 261–262. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 201, calls Isaac “the wicked emperor.” See Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 141. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 174, says the Bishop of Ely oppressed the people and “despised all his fellows who the king (Richard) associated with him in the government of his kingdom, and disregarded their advice.” See Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 134, 158. Richard of Devizes, 10, says that William, bishop of Ely, “was more savage than a wild beast to everyone.” 23 Ambroise, 81–82, n. 13; Stone, 28–29; Nicholson, 179; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 200; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 1: 261. 22

968

THE CRUSADES

court and William du Bois, fought heroically, throwing darts hither and yon, and routed the natives.24 The Griffons tried to keep the Crusaders who were still in the ships from landing, but they succeeded in leaving their ships and reached the port of Limassol without great loss. Here they joined their comrades who were fighting the Griffons and were able to rout them.25 Having been informed about their “misfortune,” Isaac Comnenus promised to treat them kindly and restore their lost belongings to them, and even pledged four of his own men as hostages as surety for his word. Under these conditions, the Latin pilgrims were able to enter or leave Limassol with ease. Isaac’s behavior was most unpredictable. While he offered these conditions to the pilgrims, at the same time he marshaled an army of great strength to fight the Crusaders.26 Isaac’s erratic behavior is also revealed by his harsh treatment of Latin pilgrims. About this time three ships full of Latin pilgrims bound for Jerusalem were tossed by a storm to the shores of Cyprus. The native Greeks arrested them and brought them to Isaac, who, to spite the Latin Christians, ordered them beheaded. As they were about to be slaughtered, a Normanborn knight in Isaac’s service undertook to save them. Without Isaac’s knowledge, he went to the site where the pilgrims had been taken and told their executioners he had an order from the emperor to have them released. Believing the knight’s words, they released the pilgrims. When Isaac heard that the knight had acted against his orders, he had him beheaded.27 Isaac sent a message to King Richard’s sister Joan and his bride-to-be, Berengaria, asking them to come to shore. He assured them that no harm would come to them, but they refused. He kept sending them presents and cajoling them to come ashore, but still they declined. They were afraid that Isaac might take them prisoner or worse yet seduce them, especially since they had no information about King Richard’s arrival. From the available sources it appears that Isaac, fearing King Richard, probably hoped to humiliate him by seducing his sister and bride-to-be before he set foot on the island. Joan consulted her retinue as to what she should do, and they advised her to ignore Isaac’s entreaties. While she and Berengaria were bewailNicholson, 180–181. Ambroise, 83, n. 18, calls Roger “Rodin de Herdecourt”. Stone, 29, calls him Roger of Hardencourt. See Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” 62–63. 25 Ambroise, 83–84; Stone, 29; Nicholson, 181. 26 Nicholson, 182. 27 Continuation, 101–102. 24

A NEW CAMPAIGN

969

ing their situation, they spotted ships on the horizon. To their utmost joy, King Richard arrived with his fleet at the port of Limassol on Sunday, May 6, 1191, at the feast of St. John.28 Five days later, three galleys carrying King Guy of Lusignan, his brother Geoffrey, Humphrey IV, count of Toron, Bohemond III, lord of Antioch, and Bohemond’s son Raymond of Tripoli arrived in Limassol. Richard went out to meet them in a small rowboat, asking who they were and what their business was. When they identified themselves, Richard hurried back to shore and ordered that dinner be prepared for his approaching guests. When King Guy landed, Richard received him and his company with great honor. These dignitaries had come to ask King Richard to support King Guy against Conrad of Montferrat, who they said through unscrupulous machination had already married Isabel, wife of Humphrey IV of Toron, in order to usurp the throne. King Guy’s brother, who had been driven from Poitou, wanted to ascertain Richard’s attitude toward them. Richard honored the guests with rich gifts but showed no interest in their problems. He may already have known that King Philip of France, who had arrived in Acre on April 20, had taken the side of Conrad of Montferrat against the Lusignans. Since King Guy was destitute, Richard offered him 2,000 silver marks and twenty cups, two of them of purest gold.29 On learning what had happened to his sister and bride-to-be and the pilgrims who were shipwrecked on the shores of the island, Richard sent two envoys to Isaac, requesting him amicably, “for the love of God and respect of the Cross, the giver of life,” to release the pilgrims whom he had kept in chains, restore to them their property in full, and compensate him for the property loss of his men who had been drowned at sea.30 When Richard asked him to have men provide water for his ships, Isaac indignantly instructed Richard’s envoys to tell him that the king of England meant nothing to him, and as the lord of Cyprus, he could do whatever he wished. Furious at Isaac’s insult, King Richard called his men to arms and told them he had full confidence that God would grant him victory.31 Then he disembarked with his men in rowboats, came ashore, and attacked Ambroise, 84–85; Stone, 28–29; Nicholson, 182; Continuation, 102. Nicholson, 188; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 202 (also in Archer, The Crusades, 64–65); Richard of Devizes, 37, notes simply that the king of Jerusalem landed in Cyprus to meet the king (Richard). 30 Niccholson, 188; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 20–201. 31 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 201; Archer, The Crusades, 61–63; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 143–145. 28 29

970

THE CRUSADES

Isaac’s army. The two sides fought with great vigor, but Richard’s men captured Limassol, and Isaac, seeing that his cause was lost, fled to the mountains.32 Richard and his men returned to Limassol with abundant booty consisting of corn, wine and meat. Immediately, he had his sister and Berengaria brought safely to shore.33 Isaac marshaled his force of Greeks and Armenians, hoping to defeat Richard. At a battle near the village of Kolossi, Isaac was defeated and fled to the mountains. Richard hastened to capture the castle of Kyrenia (Cherin, Cherinas), where he found Isaac’s daughter and seized abundant riches. Richard was well pleased, having found a base of operations and great treasures, which he distributed generously to his men. The author of the Continuation of William of Tyre calls Richard’s victory over Isaac a triumph of Roman Christianity over Greek Christianity, declaring that Richard was brought by the King of Glory to Cyprus to establish the Holy (Roman Catholic) Church on the island and eradicate the evil roots of the wicked Greeks.34 This battle is yet another example of the great schism between the Roman Church and the Greek Church which so often influenced the course of the Crusades. Isaac, who seems not to have given up hope of victory, regrouped his men and positioned himself between Nicosia and Famagusta, waiting for Richard. He was defeated for the third time and took refuge in the well fortified castle of Buffavento, but Richard attacked and took Isaac prisoner.35 Richard and his men carried off tremendous booty, consisting largely of arms and costly silken clothes. They even took Isaac’s tent, filled with gold and silver, and everything in it, including his bed and all manner of fineries. There was so much booty that Richard’s men became bored with plundering. They also captured a great number of prisoners. On May 12, the feast of St. Pancras, Richard and Berengaria were married at Limassol by Nicholas, the king’s chaplain. Berengaria was consecrated as queen of England by John, bishop of Evreux, who was assisted by the archbishop of Bordeaux, the archbishops of Apamea and Auxiene, and Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 178, document 7b; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 201–202; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 164. 33 Ambroise, 85–86; Stone, 29–30; Nicholson, 184–185; Continuation, 102– 103; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 202; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 164; Archer, The Crusades, 69; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 350–351. 34 Continuation, 103. 35 Continuation, 103–104. 32

A NEW CAMPAIGN

971

the bishop of Bayonne.36 A remark by Richard of Devizes has led some modern writers to speculate that Richard had had relations with Berengaria before the wedding. He says that aboard one of Richard’s ships which sailed from Messina were the queen of Sicily (Joan, King Richard’s sister) “and the Navarrese maiden, perhaps still a virgin.”37 Antony Bridge speculates that he married her “ . . . as a salubrious remedy against the great perils of fornication, in which he was addicted.”38 After the wedding, King Richard went to Kyrenia castle. Isaac’s daughter came out to greet him and surrendered the castle to him, then fell at his feet asking for mercy. King Richard felt compassion toward her and sent her to the queen.39 While the Continuation of William of Tyre says that Isaac was taken prisoner by King Richard, Ambroise and the Iterinarium give a slightly different account.40 These sources say that Richard decided to chase Isaac, who had fled to Nicosia, but was persuaded by the Master of the Hospital, Garner of Nabulus, to have a conference with him. Isaac, pursued by Richard and hated by the people of Nicosia, had no option but to sue for peace. After much negotiation back and forth, Isaac agreed to swear fealty to Richard, handed over all his castles and fortifications to Richard’s custodians, and promised to join Richard in his expedition to Jerusalem, taking with him fifty horsemen. In addition, he offered Richard 3,500 marks as compensation for the money lost by the pilgrims. Richard presented the proposed

Ambroise, 95; Stone, 33; Nicholson, 189; Continuation, 104; Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, Document 7b, 178; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 204; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 166–167; Archer, The Crusades, 68. Richard of Devizes, 38, notes simply that King Richard married Berengaria, the daughter of the king of Navarre, whom his mother had brought to him during Lent. 37 Richard of Devizes, 35. 38 Bridge, Richard the Lionheart, 140–141, discusses Richard’s sexual prowess and his lusting after all sorts of women, including a king’s daughter when he was a prisoner in Germany after the Crusade, and a nun in the abbey at Fontevraud (Fontevrault), 25 miles southwest of Tours. But Gillingham, Richard Coeur De Lion, 130– 136, and James A. Brundage, Richard Lion Heart (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 202, 212–213, offer a very different view on why Richard was so anxious to marry Berengaria, arguing that he was homosexual. 39 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 204, Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 167; Archer, The Crusades, 68. 40 Ambroise, 96–97; Stone, 36; Nicholson, 189–194; Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 176–178, Document 7a. 36

972

THE CRUSADES

settlement to his men, who readily accepted it as compatible with the king’s honor. Isaac swore he would faithfully uphold the terms agreed on, and the monarchs exchanged the kiss of peace. In a noble gesture, Richard restored Isaac’s personal tent and his plate, which he had captured. But no sooner had peace been reached than Isaac, at the instigation of a knight named Pagan de Cayaphas (lord of Haifa), fled under cover of darkness to Famagusta, leaving behind his tent, his excellent warhorses, and his household. On realizing that Isaac had violated his oath, Richard chased him in his galleys and reached Famagusta, where he stayed for three days. While he was there, the bishop of Beauvais and Drogo de Merlo (Dreux de Mello), a noble and supporter of King Philip, brought a message urging him to rush to Acre because the French king had decided not to attack the city without him. The two blatantly accused Richard of persecuting innocent Christians while he should be attacking thousands of Muslims. They even accused him of cowardice. But their effort to dissuade him from his enterprise in Cyprus was in vain. He had good reason to harass the Greeks, for it was in the Crusaders’ interest to subjugate Cyprus, a stronghold considered indispensable to the kingdom of Jerusalem. Richard therefore rejected Philip’s plea and marched with his army to Nicosia, accompanied by King Guy of Lusignan. He did not pursue Isaac too far, knowing that he had fled and must be hiding somewhere. When Richard came to Nicosia, its nobles paid him homage.41 At this point, both Ambroise and the Itinerarium say that King Guy, obviously on King Richard’s orders, and with his army, besieged the castles of Kyrenia, Didemus (Dieu d’Amour of St. Hilarion), and Buffavento, finding Isaac’s daughter in the process.42 On hearing that his daughter had been captured, Isaac almost lost his mind, for he loved her dearly. King Guy raised King Richard’s banners on the castle and went on to attack the castle of Didemus. After fierce fighting the castle surrendered to King Guy, who put the emperor’s daughter in it to prevent her being kidnaped. Guy returned to Nicosia, where King Richard had fallen ill. When he recovered, Richard went to take possession of the castle of Kyrenia.43 Alienated from his own people, with his only daughter and his fortresses captured, Isaac had no choice but to surrender. On May 31, 1191, he Ambroise, 98–103; Stone, 34–35; Nicholson, 191–193. Ambroise, 103–104; Stone, 36; Nicholson, 193. 43 Ambroise, 104–105; Stone, 36–37; Nicholson, 193–194. 41 42

A NEW CAMPAIGN

973

sent messengers to King Richard pleading for mercy. He followed them from the fortress of Candiara (Qantara) in mourning clothes, his face downcast. He fell on his knees begging for mercy and pledged to surrender everything, even Cyprus itself, on condition that the king not throw him into iron chains. Showing pity toward the humbled emperor, King Richard raised him up, made him sit at his side, and brought his daughter out to see him. The emperor, overjoyed to see his daughter, kissed and hugged her with tearful eyes. Magnanimously, King Richard threw Isaac into silver, not iron chains. He turned the emperor over to King Guy and gave his little daughter to his queen (Berengaria) to raise and educate her.44 Another source says King Richard sent Isaac in silver shackles to his wife and daughter in the fortress of M’Arqab, in the keeping of the Hospitallers.45 The emperor remained in prison until 1195, when Guy’s brother Amaury (Aimery) of Lusignan released him in the hope that he would create trouble within the Byzantine Empire.46 Roger of Hoveden says the wretched emperor hid himself in a fortified wall of an abbey called Cap Saint Andrews. When Richard was about to capture him, the emperor left his hiding place, threw himself at his feet begging him mercifully to spare his life and not to put him in iron fetters. King Richard delivered Isaac to his chamberlain Ralph Fitz-Godfrey and ordered him bound in manacles of silver and gold, then sent him under guard to Tripoli. By now King Richard had become the master of Cyprus, which he turned over to Richard of Camville and Robert of Turnham. Meanwhile, he received from the inhabitants of the island half their goods and affirmed the laws and institutions they had had under Emperor Manuel I of Constantinople.47 He appointed justiciars and sheriffs, and the whole island was subject to him, just like England. He laid his hands on the sort of wealth Croesus, king of Lydia, is said to have possessed, and gave most generously of his booty to the king of Jerusalem.48 King Richard found Cyprus an easy prey, taking only fifteen days to dominate the island. Before leaving for Tyre, he plundered its tremendous Ambroise, 105–106; Stone, 36–37; Nicholson, 194; Isfahani, al-Fath, 478, says “the owner of the island (Cyprus)” was placed in chains for his treachery. 45 Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 178, Document 7a. 46 Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 124. 47 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 205; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 167; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 147–148. 48 Richard of Devizes, 38. 44

974

THE CRUSADES

treasures: gold, silver, clothes of scarlet, silken garments of wonderful design, all the wealth of Isaac Comnenus.49 The author of the Itinerarium concedes the valor of the English king, but seems unimpressed by his greed, saying, “For opportunity never abandons one who is great in soul, while abundance deserts the person of deceitful mind.”50 Accompanied by his sister and his wife, King Richard arrived at Tyre on June 6, 1191. But the garrison there, following instructions from King Philip and the Marquis of Tyre, Conrad of Montferrat, would not let him into the city, forcing him to camp with his men outside the city walls. King Richard arrived in Acre two days later, bringing great joy to the Crusaders and sorrow and distress to the Muslims.51 The Crusaders rejoiced because Richard had brought Cyprus under his authority, for the island was rich and useful to the army. The nobles received him with great enthusiasm and honor, and the joyful Crusaders lit torches that turned the night into day, causing the Muslims to believe that the whole valley was on fire.52 King Philip himself appeared overjoyed by Richard’s arrival. And when Richard’s wife came ashore, Philip met and embraced her and took her to dry land. He wanted to show that there was no enmity between him and Richard, who was supposed to marry Philip’s sister but instead had married Berengaria.53 When Saladin learned of Richard’s arrival, he prepared a great ship at the Beirut harbor called Dromond, laden with supplies and 650 or 700 Muslim warriors.54 On either June 7 (the day before he arrived in Acre) or June 8, King Richard spotted a great ship approaching the harbor of Acre. He sumAmbroise, 106–107; Stone, 36–37. Nicholson, 195. 51 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 206; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 169. 52 Nicholson, 202; Isfahani, al-Fath, 484. 53 Continuation, 104, n. 179; Nicholson, 189; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 204. 54 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 220–221; Isfahani in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 184; Athir, alKamil, 43–44; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 351; Continuation, 104; Ambroise, 109, and Ralph of Diceto, William Stubbs, ed., The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965; cited hereafter as Ralph of Diceto), 2: 93, say the ship was equipped and sent to Acre by Saphadin (Al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din, Saladin’s brother); Stone, 37–38; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 352; Nicholson, 195– 199 (also in Archer, The Crusades, 71–74); Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicarum, Joseph Stephenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 32. 49 50

A NEW CAMPAIGN

975

moned one of his sailors, Peter of Barres, to go and discover its identity. When Peter approached the ship, he was told by men on board that it belonged to the king of France, but he was surprised because the ship carried no Christian flag or symbol, and no one was speaking French. Others sent to investigate the ship’s identity were told it was Genoese.55 In fact, Saladin had sent the ship to relieve the besieged Muslim garrison in Acre. It carried not only Muslim fighting men but plenty of arms, Greek fire, and animals, including 100 camels and 200 deadly poisonous snakes meant to destroy the Christians.56 When Richard learned that the ship belonged to the Muslims, he ordered his men to attack it, promising whatever booty they gained would be theirs; otherwise, they would lose his respect. In the fierce battle that ensued, both sides lost many men. Unable to damage the ship because it was huge and the Muslim fought heroically, some of Richard’s men dove under it to tie ropes around its helm, in order to disrupt its movement. When this did not succeed, Richard ordered his men to ram the ship and pierce it. They did so, and the water gushed through the holes, causing it to sink. With the ship sinking, the Muslims threw their arms into the sea, broke up the vessel, poured Greek fire on it, and leaped naked into the sea. Richard’s men caught thirty-five survivors, mostly commanders, skilled engineers, and builders of siege machines.57 Richard of Devizes says “the Mocomicole (literally, worshipers of Muhammad) were vanquished and their ship, the queen of ships, was broken in pieces and sank like lead in the raging sea.”58 The Muslim sources generally agree with the Western sources but claim that the Muslims themselves, not Christians, sank the ship. According to these sources, the captain of the Muslim ship was Yaqub (Jacob) of Aleppo, a courageous man trained in the art of war. When he saw that the Muslims were losing, he said, “By Allah, we will never be killed except in dignity and never surrender any thing of this ship to them.” Then the Muslims began to break the ship with axes until they opened breaches in its side 55 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 206; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 168–169. Ambroise, 110–111, says the men on board claimed to be Englishmen on their way to Tyre; Stone, 39, says they were Genoese bound for Tyre. 56 Ambroise, 110–111; Stone, 39; Continuation, 104; Nicholson, 197; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 206; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 168–169. 57 Ambroise, 112–114; Stone, 39–40; Nicholson, 198–199; Continuation, 104; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 206; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 169. 58 Richard of Devizes, 38–39, esp. n. 2 on the meaning of the term “Mocomicole”.

976

THE CRUSADES

and it began filling with water. All the men with their arms and provisions sank into the sea. The Christians took some of the drowning Muslims to shore and killed the others.59 The destruction of the ship was very important to the Crusaders, for if it had reached Acre safely, they would have found it difficult to capture the city.60 Saladin became very distressed when he was informed of the disaster on June 11, 1191. The Itinerarium says he pulled his hair and his beard, lamenting the loss of the city and his elite troops, in whom he had great faith; he felt crushed by a bitter fate. There was much weeping and wailing among the Muslim forces. In their grief they cut locks from their hair, rent their clothes, and cursed the hour and constellations under which they had come into Syria.61 All the Muslim sources say about this catastrophe is that Saladin became very sorrowful and accepted it with patience and resignation to Allah’s will.62 Ibn al-Athir says the Muslims of Acre told Saladin of the disaster, but he could not do anything for them.63 The sinking of the ship, the drowning of the Muslim warriors, and the triumph of King Richard terrified the Muslim inhabitants of Acre so much so that from that day they sought to surrender the city to King Richard, on condition that they could leave the city with safety.64 But the surrender of Acre would take a few more weeks. After the Muslim ship was destroyed, the way was clear for King Richard to put to port on June 8, 1191. From a distance he could see the pavilions of Saladin, his brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din, and his nephew alMalik al-Muzaffar Taqi al-Din Umar.65 The Muslim armies were everywhere. The siege of the city had been going on for almost two years with no decisive result. The Christians had suffered the ravages of war, shortage of food, and the dominance of Muslims. So the arrival of King Richard with a great force and many ships was received with great relief and exultation by the Christian besiegers of Acre “as if he had been Christ Himself returning Isfahani, al-Fath, 486 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 184–185); Shaddad, alNawadir, 220–221; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 351. Athir, al-Kamil, 43–44, says that Yaqub himself descended to the bottom of the ship and poked holes in it to make it sink. 60 Nicholson, 199 (also in Archer, The Crusades, 76). 61 Nicholson, 199. 62 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 220–221 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 185); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 351. 63 Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 2: 44. 64 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 207. 65 See John L. La Monte, “Taki al-Din, prince of Hama,” The Moslem World 31 (1941): 149–160. 59

A NEW CAMPAIGN

977

to earth to restore the kingdom of Israel.”66 Everyone shared in the joy, singing, dancing, reciting epic tales of ancient heroes, and drinking wine in costly cups.67 Despite their show of amity, dissension developed between the kings of France and England, but it did not hinder their resolve to fight the Muslims and capture Acre. The dissension arose because King Philip envied the popularity and power of the king of England.68 Before Richard came to Acre, says Richard of Devizes, Philip was highly regarded by the natives, but afterwards “the king of the French was extinguished and made nameless, even as the moon loses its light at sunrise.”69 Overwhelmed by King Richard’s greatness, the Pisans offered their homage and service to him, but he declined the homage and service of the Genoese because they had already submitted their service to the King of France.70 There was also dissension between the two monarchs over the payment of knights. The King of France had paid all the knights three gold coins a month in order to win their favor and gratitude. King Richard, not wanting to see anyone superior or even equal to him, proclaimed that he would pay a fixed rate of four gold coins a month to each knight who wanted to enter his service, regardless of his country or origin. For this act King Richard was praised by the knights as their chief hope.71 The rivalry between the two monarchs also affected the predicament of Henry, count of Champagne, who had run out of money and provisions while he and his men were at Acre. He asked King Philip for assistance, and the king offered him money, but required that he offer the province of Champagne as surety. Enraged, Count Henry said that the king had no use for him, only for his property. He told King Philip he would seek the aid of one who was more willing to give than to receive. So Count Henry went to King Richard, who gave him 4,000 measures of wheat, and likewise measures of cured pig-carcasses and 40,000 pounds of silver. When his army heard the news, they received King Richard as their Lord.72 Richard of Devizes, 39. Nicholson, 202; Archer, The Crusades, 80–82. 68 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 353. 69 Richard of Devizes, 42. 70 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 207; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 170; Nicholson, 203, mentions the Pisans but not the Genoese. 71 Ambroise, 193–194; Stone, 68; Nicholson, 204. 72 Richard of Devizes, 42–43. 66 67

978

THE CRUSADES

Of major importance in the rivalry between Philip and Richard was the dispute between King Guy of Lusignan and Marquis Conrad of Montferrat. King Guy complained to Richard and Philip that the marquis had unjustly deprived him of the rights and revenues of the kingdom of Jerusalem. King Guy’s brother Geoffrey also accused Conrad of breach of faith, perjury, and treason, and pledged to substantiate his charges. When the charges were presented to King Richard and King Philip, Conrad refused to be tried by them and stole away through the crowd, then fled to Tyre about the end of June 1191. The crowd chased after him, saying, “He is a traitor who refuses to stand trial.”73 Ibn Shaddad and al-Isfahani say that after the marquis fled, his people sent priests to bring him back, but he refused to come back. They were greatly affected by his departure because he was a man of great experience, sound counsel, and courage.74 The king of England took King Guy’s side, while King Philip supported Conrad. Some time after Conrad’s abrupt departure, King Philip made him the chief of his household and his confidential adviser. Roger of Hoveden says that the king of France did many things against God and the salvation of his soul, and even charges that he became a friend of Saladin and accepted gifts from him. King Philip demanded that King Richard give him half of Cyprus and all that he had gained on his way to Acre. King Richard countered by demanding that the king of France give him half the property of the Count of Flanders and all his vassals who had died at the siege of Acre, as well as half of Tyre, which Conrad had ceded to him. The hostile demands of both monarchs were frivolous, says Roger of Hoveden; the agreement they had negotiated stipulated only that they should have equal shares in what they acquired in the land of Jerusalem.75 Further dissension between the two monarchs resulted from Philip’s failure to apprise Richard of his dealings with the Muslims in Acre while they were attacking the city. King Philip and King Richard had stepped up their relentless assault against Acre, and the city walls were broken. When the Muslims saw that they lacked the power to challenge the assault and there was no aid coming from Saladin, they decided to surrender to the Crusaders. They sent a message to the king of France, asking him to stop Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 208; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 171; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 354–355. 74 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 225; Isfahani, al-Fath, 494. 75 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 208; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 171; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 354–355. 73

A NEW CAMPAIGN

979

the assault and offer safe-conduct for themselves, their wives and children, and their possessions. But he refused, saying the city and everything within it was his, and added that if they wanted to surrender to his mercy, he would spare their lives. In the end, he agreed to grant them safe-conduct and let them leave the city. This arrangement was made without King Richard’s knowledge, however, and when he learned of it he stepped up his attack against the city. Angry, the Muslims asked Philip why the king of England had intensified his attack after he himself granted them permission to leave. They told Philip that if he had no authority to stop the attack, he should let them leave. When he learned that Richard had stepped up the assault against Acre despite his guarantee of safe-conduct to its Muslim inhabitants, he became so furious that he even urged his men to attack the king of England. He himself donned armor and prepared to go out and fight King Richard, but some of his wise aides calmed him down. If a battle between the two kings had taken place, says the author of the Continuation of William of Tyre, great harm would have been done to Christendom. The Muslims returned to Acre to defend it against King Richard, and shortly afterwards the two kings made peace and assaulted the city vigorously.76 In the end, the Crusaders besieging Acre felt King Richard had surpassed the King of France in prowess, glory, and generosity, and they placed their hope in him.77 Despite the apparent reconciliation of the two kings, says Roger of Hoveden, they and their people looked at one another with contempt.78 The Muslims on June 9, 1191 began wandering around the city, firing arrows aimlessly. They boldly harassed the Crusaders and prepared to cross the deep ditch that separated them from the Crusaders’ camp. Their action was a nuisance, meant to irritate and confuse the Crusaders.79 King Richard was ready for battle against them. He had his engines of war set up and a wooden castle called “The Griffon-Killer,” which had been built in Sicily, erected in front of the city.80 Muslim sources describe this castle, which they call the dabbaba (a mobile tower, like a modern tank). It had four compartments—the first made of wood, the second of lead, the third of iron, and the fourth of copper. Taller than the city wall, it was full of fighting men. Continuation, 105–106; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 208. Ambroise, 193–194; Stone, 68; Nicholson, 204. 78 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 211. 79 Nicholson, 203. 80 Richard of Devizes, 43. Nicholson, 204, refers to it simply as a castle. 76 77

980

THE CRUSADES

The enemy drew the tower within five cubits of the wall, and it could be clearly seen by the naked eye. The Muslim inhabitants of Acre were so scared by this enormous tower that they thought of suing for peace. Day and night, they hurled naphtha against it until they burned it down. Thus, Muslim sources say, Allah compensated the Muslims for King Richard’s destruction of the ship that Saladin had ordered to be sent from Beirut to Acre.81 At this point King Richard was unable to continue with his plans to assault the city, due to an illness which Ambroise calls léonardie (the Itinerarium calls it Arnoldia, and Roger of Hoveden calls it Arnaldia). This disease causes loss of hair on both head and face, loss of fingernails, and dryness of the lips and mouth, and can also lead to blindness. While Ambroise and the Itinerarium imply that King Richard alone suffered from this disease, the Itinerarium says later that the king of France made a swift recovery from his illness, but does not make clear when he contracted it or whether it was the same one that had afflicted King Richard.82 Be that as it may, King Philip, apparently growing impatient about the delay in attacking Acre, told King Richard that the time was most suitable for launching an assault on the city. Richard responded that he was still weak and unable to act because of his sickness. King Philip, thinking that was not a good reason to give up his own plan, sent a proclamation to the army asking his men to be ready for an assault. According to the Itinerarium, on Monday, July 1, 1191, after the feast of St. John the Baptist, King Philip had his engines of war set up and his men armed.83 Ibn Shaddad, an eyewitness who was in Saladin’s company, says the enemy launched a ferocious attack on Friday, June 14. Saladin counterattacked, and his men managed to cross the ditches and reach the Crusaders’ camp. They took whatever they could get from the Crusaders’ tents and Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 221–222 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 185); Isfahani, alFath, 487–488; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 351–352. 82 Ambroise, ed. La Monte, 196, n. 2; Stone, 68, 129; Nicholson, 204, n. 14, and 208; Archer, The Crusades, 84, follows the Itinerarium; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 207; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 170. Brundage, Richard Lion Heart, 119, cites no source but seems to follow Roger of Hoveden’s assertion that both kings were afflicted with Arnaldia. 83 Nicholson, 205. This date is too late for such an undertaking. The author of the Itinerarium probably meant the Monday before the feast of St. John the Baptist, i.e., June 17. See Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 167, 188, n. 47. 81

A NEW CAMPAIGN

981

brought it to Saladin. Suffering from heat and fatigue, both sides retreated to their camps. On June 18 the enemy sounded the trumpets, and the Muslims responded in like fashion. As the fight resumed, the Crusaders attacked Acre with ferocity, thinking the Muslims would not attack them or plunder their tents. But they were wrong, for the Muslims attacked and took a great amount of booty. But, says Ibn Shaddad, when the Crusaders saw the Muslims swarming in their trenches, they engaged them in a fierce battle. At this juncture, King Richard sent a messenger to seek a meeting with Saladin. The messenger met first with Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil and his son al-Malik al-Afdal, then was led to Saladin. When Saladin received the messenger, he answered without deliberation that kings do not meet unless there is a fundamental reason for their doing so. If they met, it would be inappropriate for them to continue warring against each other. Saladin further said that if the king of England had an important reason for meeting with him, then a reliable interpreter should be found to translate the points of view of both sides. Ibn Shaddad does not say whether a meeting between Saladin and the King of England occurred immediately. But later he returns to this subject, saying that after an unspecified period of time, the king’s messenger returned and met with al-Malik al-Adil. They agreed that the two sides should meet at the plain of Acre, in the presence of their troops and an interpreter. The messenger began his return trip to inform King Richard of the arrangement, but fell sick and was delayed. Moreover, he encountered opposition from their king (i.e., King Philip), who told the messenger that a meeting with Saladin would put Christendom at great risk. Later, says Ibn Shaddad, the messenger returned to the Muslim camp with a new message from King Richard, telling al-Malik al-Adil the reason for the delay in meeting with Saladin was not that such a meeting would be a risk to Christendom. The messenger said that King Richard was the master of his own affairs and ruled independently, answering to no one, and that his delay was the result of his sickness, which prevented him from traveling. The messenger explained that King Richard said that it was the custom of kings, if they made peace, to exchange gifts, and he had some unique gifts and wished for permission to deliver them to Saladin in person. Al-Malik al-Adil agreed, on the condition that the king also accept gifts from Saladin. Since this condition seemed acceptable, the messenger revealed the nature of the king’s gift, a number of predatory birds brought from beyond the seas. But the birds, he said, were weak from lack of food, and they needed fowl and chickens to revive their strength. Al-Malik al-Adil said jokingly that the king seemed to be using this pretext to obtain poultry, of which he was badly in need. Asked if he had anything else to say, al-

982

THE CRUSADES

Malik al-Adil answered that since the Crusaders had initiated the question of meeting with the Muslims, they should present their case first. At this point the discussion was suspended until 6 Jumada II (July 1, 1191), when finally the messenger met with Saladin and pleased him by offering to deliver a Muslim captive from the Maghrib. Saladin then sent the messenger back to King Richard with honor. Ibn Shaddad concludes by remarking that the Crusaders’ purpose in sending frequent messages was to learn about the Muslims’ points of strength and weakness. Likewise, the Muslims hoped by accepting these messages to discover the Crusaders’ intentions.84 The whole affair appears to represent a bonafide stratagem of espionage. On another occasion King Richard sent a message to Saladin asking for fruits and ice, which he provided.85 Roger of Hoveden says Saladin often sent to the kings of France and England pears, Damascene plums, and other fruits abundant in his country, along with other small gifts, in order to make peace with them. Apparently Saladin was apprehensive about the sons of Imad al-Din Zangi, whose territory he had seized (they later were able to recapture some of it from him). Moreover, he wished to rescue the besieged Muslim citizens of Acre.86 But these efforts met with little success, and the two sides continued to fight. On Saturday, June 23, Crusader forces, both footsoldiers and cavalry, emerged from the side of the sea north of Acre. When Saladin learned of their movement, he mounted his horse to supervise the situation personally, and heavy fighting began between the two sides, continuing until nightfall. On Sunday, June 24, a great number of Crusaders gathered on Nahr alHulu (Sweet River) and engaged the Muslims in heavy fighting. The Crusaders captured a Muslim and set him afire, while the Muslims did the same with a Crusader they caught. Ibn Shaddad says he saw both fires kindle at the same time. Reports came from the citizens of Acre, complaining that since the arrival of the English, the enemy had been fighting them day and night and they were tired of their assaults. Ibn Shaddad says it was apparently at this time that King Richard became seriously ill and was near death, while at the same time King Philip was wounded. He adds an anecdote about two crypto-Muslims who had been servants of King Richard’s sister Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 227–228 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 186); Isfahani, al-Fath, 501–502; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 355; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 334–335 of the English translation. 85 Isfahani, al-Fath, 503; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 186; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 355. 86 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 208–209. 84

A NEW CAMPAIGN

983

Joan in Sicily. When she came to Acre with her brother, they fled to the Muslim camp. Al-Isfahani says that they escaped from this whore to gain the hereafter. Saladin received them warmly and showed them great favor.87 We find it hard to determine the chronological sequence of events from the various Western sources, to say nothing of trying to harmonize them with the accounts given by Eastern sources. Roger of Hoveden mentions the engagement of Muslims and Christians in June, but gives no specific dates.88 Ambroise (and the Itinerarium, which follows him) offers no significant help in this regard. He says that when King Richard pleaded that he was too weakened by illness, King Philip ordered his men to be ready and undertook the assault against Acre alone, with an impressive army. No one, says Ambroise, had ever seen so many elite noble and valiant knights in armor. Philip assigned some of his men to keep watch over the trench, lest Saladin enter their camp from the rear. Then the Franks marched toward the walls of Acre, vigorously discharging their arrows. When the Muslims within Acre saw that they were being attacked, they sounded cymbals, timbrels, and drums and shouted with stentorian voices like thunder. The Muslims outside the city rushed to fill the trench with fagots, but many of them were repelled by Geoffrey of Lusignan, a knight of extraordinary prowess, who drove them from the barricade. Using only an axe, he killed many Muslims and captured others alive. So many blows did he inflict that not since the days of Roland and Oliver (the heroes of the epic poem La Chanson de Roland) had any knight deserved such praise.89 The Muslims fought ferociously. Hordes of them kept rushing and inflicting horrible blows on the Crusaders, who tried to fill the ditches outside the city walls but fell back under the Muslims’ heavy attack.90 There were not enough men with King Philip to storm the city while defending themselves against the Muslims. As a result, many Frenchmen were killed by bolts, crossbows, stones, darts, and Greek fire. The attack failed. There was much wailing and weeping among the people. King Philip’s men finally laid down their arms. Adding to their distress was the fact that Philip, count of Flanders had died on June 1, 1191 and his men lacked a valiant leader. King Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 222–225, Isfahani, al-Fath, 493 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 185); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 352; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 334 of the English translation 88 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 209–210. 89 Ambroise, 196–198; Stone, 68–69; Nicholson, 205–206. 90 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 172. 87

984

THE CRUSADES

Philip was so distressed and grieved that he could not even mount his battlehorse.91 The Crusaders’ demoralized army gained encouragement and confidence with the arrival of vessels carrying reinforcements from Europe, including bishops and great lords, each with his followers.92 Their spirits thus heightened, the Crusaders resumed the fight. King Philip and King Richard agreed that if one of them assailed the city, the other with his men should guard the trenches to counter any assault by Saladin. If we understand Roger of Hoveden correctly, this arrangement was necessary because the king of France felt himself to be superior to King Richard and looked with contempt upon him. But in fact, King Richard acknowledged the lordship of King Philip by referring to him as “My lord the king of France.”93 On July 3 the Crusaders assaulted Acre with ferocity. They kept battering the wall with their engines of war while others were fighting in the trench. The king of France, together with the Count of Flanders, the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Pisans, breached the major wall near the harbor and damaged one of its towers, called Maudite by Ambroise and “the Cursed Tower” by the Itinerarium.94 The attackers tried to enter the city through the breach in the wall, but the Muslims fought heroically and drove them back. Roger of Hoveden reports incorrectly that while Philip was attacking, King Richard and his men kept guard over the outer trench which separated the Christians from the Muslim army.95 In fact, King Richard played a decisive role in this battle. He had new stonethrowers built and constructed a very strong machine called the “belfry,” with steps to climb into it. It was 91 Ambroise, 198–199; Stone, 69–71; Nicholson, 207; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 205. 92 For the names of the leaders, see Ambroise, 199–200; Stone, 69–70; Nicholson, 207–208. 93 Letter of King Richard, in Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 211; letter of King Richard to the abbot of Clairval or Clairvaux (Garnier of Rochefort), in Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 222, also in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, document 7c, where Richard refers to “the lord king of France,” not “my lord the king of France.” 94 Ambroise, 201–202; Stone, 70; Nicholson, 208–209; Archer, The Crusades, 87. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 210, and Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 173, call it “Turrem Maledicatam”. The name appears in the English translation of Roger of Hoveden as “Maladetta”. 95 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 210–211; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 173.

A NEW CAMPAIGN

985

so well fortified that it could not be destroyed by missiles from a stonethrower or even by Greek fire.96 King Richard battered the walls of Acre day and night, and his men killed many Muslims; one of them reportedly killed twelve Muslims with a single stone, which was sent to Saladin with a messenger who told him the diabolical king of England had brought it from Messina.97 For a little over a week, the Christian and Muslim forces battled one another. At one time, says the Itinerarium, Saladin boasted that he would cross the trenches with such force that he would crush the Christians. But he did not come personally and did not fulfill his promise; instead, his fierce and unwavering army came out to fight, but the Christians drove them back.98 Ibn Shaddad attests that Saladin was present in this engagement with the enemy. He says that when Saladin learned that day (July 3) that the enemy had assailed Acre, he went around on his horse like a bereaved mother, urging his men for jihad and crying out, “O, Islam!” with tearful eyes. The more he saw of the calamity that had befallen Acre, the more he urged his men to continue fighting. Ibn Shaddad says that that day Saladin, who was grieved and not feeling well, never tasted food but drank only a few cups of a beverage prescribed by his physician. In the evening he returned at his customary sleeping time, but could not sleep soundly.99 At one point a valiant Frenchman, Aubery Clements (Alberic Clement), the first marshal of France, holding the banner of the king of France and accompanied by a large body of armed men, boldly scaled the ladder and reached the top of the wall, where he killed many Muslims. Many others ran toward the wall with the Marquis, Conrad of Montferrat. Many Frenchmen followed Aubery up the ladder, but it collapsed because of their weight and fell to the ground. Aubery was left alone on the wall, surrounded by Muslims, who threw an iron hook over him, dragged him within the wall, and stabbed him to death. The whole army was devastated by his death and abandoned the assault temporarily to lament him. His arNicholson, 209. Ambroise, 201–202; Stone, 70; Nicholson, 209. 98 Nicholson, 209, says the Muslim army was led by Kahedin (Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din Umar). This seems to be an error, for Taqi al-Din was not present, and Muslim sources do not mention him in this context. Ambroise, 205 (also in Stone, 71), appears correct in saying it was Saphadin (al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din, Saladin’s brother) who stormed the trench with such a will that he was able to fill it. But he was driven back by the Christian forces. 99 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 229–230. 96 97

986

THE CRUSADES

mor was taken by a Muslim warrior who put it on while fighting, but then he was killed by the crossbow of one of King Richard’s men. Seeing that Aubery was slain, Conrad gave the Muslims his banner as a sign of peace. The Muslims on the wall, feeling victorious, waved Conrad’s banner but gave no sign that they desired peace; thus, Conrad had to retreat to save himself and his men.100 Despite the setback caused by the death of Aubery Clements and the outstanding bravery of the Muslims, the Crusaders intensified their assault. The Muslims in Acre were so stressed, wearied, and helpless that they sent a message telling Saladin that their situation was hopeless and they could not continue fighting if he did not send immediate aid; they had no choice but to sue for peace and save themselves. Ibn Shaddad says that this was the most grievous news the Muslims had ever received, for Acre contained all the arms of the whole coastal region, including al-Quds (Jerusalem), Damascus, Aleppo, and Egypt. Within this region were several prominent and valiant Muslim military commanders, among them Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad al-Mashtub and Baha al-Din Qaraqosh (called Mestoc and Caracois, respectively, by Western sources). The situation was very grave, but Saladin could do nothing about it except urge the people to fight.101 Bar Hebraeus says that Saladin could not help the besieged Muslims in Acre, but adds that when they saw that they were already as good as captured, they demanded [from the Crusaders] a pledge for their lives. The Franks said they would give no pledge unless Saladin gave back all the Frankish prisoners he held and restored the cities he had taken from them. When the Muslims informed him of the Franks’ answer, he said, “I will give only three thousand prisoners in return for the Muslims who were in Acre, and if they (Franks) leave me Acre, I will give them city for city. And if not, let them take it by the sword, if they are able to do so, just as I have taken it, and so on with the other cities.”102 The Crusaders, who realized that Saladin was not in a position to overwhelm them, were determined to capture Acre.

100 Ambroise, 206, 208; Stone, 71–72; Nicholson, 212, 214; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 211; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 173–174. 101 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 230–231; Isfahani, al-Fath, 513–514; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 186; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 355–356; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 118 of the Syriac text, 335 of the English translation. Ambroise, 215–216, says that Saladin promised aid but failed to deliver. Stone, 74; Continuation, 106. 102 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 335 of the English translation.

A NEW CAMPAIGN

987

There were still many Muslim fighting men in Acre—6,000, according to the Itinerarium, or 9,000 according to Richard of Devizes. But since no aid came from Saladin, their commanders took counsel and decided to appeal to the Crusaders for peace. Both Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad alMashtub and Baha al-Din Qaraqosh met with King Philip and King Richard and said that if Saladin did not send them relief, they would surrender the city, on condition that the besieged Muslims be allowed to leave with their weapons and possessions and go wherever they wished. Philip and almost all the French agreed to this condition, but King Richard absolutely rejected it, arguing that after such a long and laborious siege, the crusading armies should not expect to enter a city stripped of everything valuable. Since they could not overcome this objection, al-Mashtub and Qaraqosh returned to their camp, their mission having failed.103 The Continuation of William of Tyre says it was Caracois (Qaraqosh) who sent a message to the two kings asking for a safe-conduct to speak with them, which they granted reluctantly. He came to the king of France’s tent, where the king of England and other leaders were assembled. He told the kings that he was willing to surrender the city of Acre to them on condition that they spare the lives of the Muslims of the city, and that Saladin would return the Holy Cross, which the Christians lost when King Guy was defeated at Hittin (1187), and would release all the Christian prisoners he held. Baha al-Din Qaraqosh went on to assure the two kings that if Saladin did not do what he had promised, he and the Muslims within the city would be at their mercy and would be treated as their slaves. The author states that the two kings agreed to these terms, and the Muslims surrendered the city to the Christians.104 Muslim sources say that Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad al-Mashtub, as the leader of his community, went out personally to discuss peace terms with the king of France. Ibn Shaddad says al-Mashtub told the king of France that the Muslims had taken several pieces of territory from the Crusaders, and when the vanquished people asked for safety, the Muslims granted it to them and treated them honorably. So, al-Mashtub continued, the Muslims would surrender Acre on condition that they be granted safety. The king replied, “Those whom you have taken captive are our people, and you too are our slaves and mamluks.” On hearing these words, al-Mashtub replied Nicholson, 216–217 (in Archer, The Crusades, 97–99); Richard of Devizes, 44; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 211; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 174. 104 Continuation, 106. 103

988

THE CRUSADES

harshly, “We will never surrender the city until all of us are killed. If one of us is killed, we will kill fifty of your notables in his place.” Al-Mashtub then departed to Acre and communicated to the Muslims his encounter with the king of France.105 The Muslims in the city began losing hope, and some of their leaders, including Izz al-Din Arsel, Sunkur al-Oshaqi al-Asadi, and Husam al-Din Timurtash, son of Chawli (Chavli), boarded a small ship at night and fled to the Muslim camp.106 Saladin tried his best to urge his men to attack the Crusaders and fill up the trenches, but they were too demoralized to respond. Meanwhile, three messengers sent by King Richard came to inform Saladin that the master of the Hospitallers would come to discuss peace with him. They visited the Muslims’ military force and returned the next day to their own camp. From this anecdote related by Ibn Shaddad, it appears that efforts to make peace failed, and Saladin ordered his commander Sarim al-Din Qaymaz al-Najmi and his men to resume attacking the Crusaders. They advanced to the wall, and Qaymaz raised his banner on it. On July 5 another of Saladin’s commanders, Izz al-Din Jurdik, arrived and joined the Muslims, who went on fighting fiercely. On July 6, three Crusaders went to see Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil, apparently to discuss peace terms, but nothing came of their mission.107 On July 7, a Muslim messenger brought word to Saladin’s camp that the Muslims of Acre had decided to fight to the death and would never surrender their city, and asked him to make every effort to stop the enemy from defeating them. On July 8, Muslim reinforcements arrived, led by Sabiq al-Din ibn al-Daya, lord of Shayzar, and Badr al-Din Delderim, lord of Tall Bashir, with a great host of Turkomans. The next day Saladin’s brother Asad al-Din Shirkuh arrived with his men, but it was too late for Saladin to redeem his weakened position.108 The Crusaders already held the upper hand. They had breached the wall and were in a supreme position, able to accept nothing less than the surrender of Acre. They kept battering the walls, and many of the Muslim fighting men jumped in panic, hoping to escape with their lives. The Itiner105 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 233; Isfahani, al-Fath, 505; Athir, al-Kamil, 44; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 186; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 357. 106 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 233; Isfahani, al-Fath, 506 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 187); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 357–358; Athir, al-Kamil, 45. 107 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 234–235; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 358. 108 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 235–237; Isfahani, al-Fath, 511 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 187–188); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 358–360.

A NEW CAMPAIGN

989

arium says some of them, fearing death, begged to be given the sacraments and be baptized; their desire to become Christians was very doubtful, but, the writer notes, “there are many ways to salvation.”109 Similarly, Roger of Hoveden says many of these pagans (Muslims), influenced by their apprehension of death, received baptism, but as soon as they could, they renounced the Christian faith and fled to Saladin.110 Messengers came constantly to tell Saladin that it was too dangerous for him to hold on to Acre any longer, and that the Muslims within the city could no longer defend themselves. After long deliberation with his men, Saladin finally acknowledged the plight of the Muslims of Acre and agreed that they should ask for the best peace terms they could obtain. A messenger brought his decision to King Philip and King Richard, who were elated that an end to the fighting was at hand. With the help of an interpreter, peace terms were finally drawn. The Muslims were to surrender the city of Acre unconditionally, and to give back the Holy Cross and 250 noble Christians whom they were holding captive. According to some sources, when the two kings seemed dissatisfied with the number of captives released, the Muslim agreed to release 2,000 more noble Christians and 500 lesser captives, and Saladin was to search throughout his land to find them. It was further stipulated that on leaving Acre, the Muslims would take only the clothes they were wearing, leaving behind their weapons and even their foodstuff. They would also give the two kings 20,000 Muslim talents in exchange for their lives. To guarantee that they would honor the terms of this agreement, the Muslims were to give the two kings many nobles and eminent Muslims in the city as hostages. The agreement was then set in writing and upheld by oath.111 109 110

Nicholson, 218. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 214–215; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle,

2: 179. Nicholson, 219; Continuation, 106; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 214–215; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 175–176; Ralph of Diceto, 2: 94; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 356–357; Chronique d’Ernoul et De Bernard Le Trésorier, ed. M. L. De Mas Latrie (Paris: M. V. Jules Renouard, 1871), 274–276; M. Lyons and D. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 330; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 235–337; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 358–360; Isfahani, al-Fath, 512–513 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 187–189); Athir, al-Kamil, 46. Western and Eastern sources largely agree on the peace terms, except for differences over the number of captives released and the amount of compensation the Muslims would pay. Ambroise, 216–217, and Stone, 75–76, do not mention the 111

990

THE CRUSADES

On Wednesday July 12, 1191, after the Translation of St. Benedict, Acre surrendered to the Crusaders.112 Ibn Shaddad says that when Saladin received word from the Muslims of Acre about the terms of the city’s surrender, he was greatly angered.113 He summoned a council of his chief men and asked for their advice, but they had so many different ideas that no conclusion was possible. Saladin then decided to have a messenger swim to the Muslims of Acre to inform them of his disapproval of the peace terms. While Saladin was in a state of distress and dejection, says al-Isfahani, his men saw the “banners of kufr (infidel Christians)” with their crosses fixed on the wall.114 Ibn Shaddad says the Franks’ shouts of joy were more than the Muslims could bear. Their camp resounded with wailing and lamentation. The Marquis (Conrad of Montferrat) entered the city with the banners of the kings (Philip and Richard) and planted one on the citadel, another on the minaret of the mosque, a third on the Templars’ tower, and a fourth on the Tower of Combat (from which the Muslims had fought) in place of the banner of Islam.115 Ibn Shaddad tried to console the sultan (Saladin), who was grieving like a bereaved mother, and urged him to think instead of what could be done for the coastal towns and Jerusalem and, most of all, the Muslim captives still in Acre. Saladin seemed to take heart, especially when he saw that there was no use in challenging the enemy. On July 14, he ordered the baggage moved first to Shafr Amm and then to the Tall (perhaps Tall al-Iyadiyya). Two days later, he sent a messenger to the Franks inquiring about the terms of peace and its duration.116 According to Roger of Hoveden, Saladin withdrew with his army on July 14 and camped at a place called Saphora. He sent messengers to King Philip and King Richard with fruits and other presents. He offered to cede them the whole of the land of Judea, except for the fortress of Krak de increase in the number of captives released. Muslim sources say the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat received 10,000 dinars for himself and 4,000 dinars for his men as payment for his role in arranging peace between the two sides. 112 Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 220–221. 113 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 237–238. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 215, says Saladin pretended that peace had been made without his sanction. 114 Isfahani, al-Fath, 513 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 188); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 360. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 238, says that the banners of the enemy were raised but does not use the term kufr. 115 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 238; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 360. Nicholson, 221, and Richard of Devizes, 44, mention the banners but do not say Conrad placed them. 116 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 238–239; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 360–361.

A NEW CAMPAIGN

991

Montréal (al-Shawbak), beyond the Jordan, on condition that they provide him with 2,000 knights and 5,000 men-at-arms for one year, so that he could fight the sons of his former master Nur al-Din Zangi, who were still challenging his authority in Syria. But the two kings declined his offer. Moreover, says Roger, on July 15 messengers representing Nur al-Din’s sons made substantial offers to the two kings in return for their assistance against Saladin, but no further information is given about this matter.117 King Philip and King Richard entered Acre on July 21, 1191, and divided the city equally between them, as well as the weapons and provisions they found.118 The king of France made his quarters in the citadel, while the king of England with his wife and sister lodged in the house of the Templars. The army lodged throughout the city.119 The two kings also divided the Muslim captives by lot. Drogo of Melou was appointed to take charge of those who fell to King Philip, among them the illustrious Baha al-Din Qaraqosh; Hugh of Gurnai took over those assigned to King Richard, including al-Mashtub.120 Richard of Devizes relates a bizarre anecdote about the Muslim fighting men of Acre. He says that the most excellent and wellborn fighting men of the 9,000 infidels (Muslims) had turned their bellies into purses by swallowing many gold pieces. They knew beforehand that possessing anything of value would be counted as an offense that would lead one, if he resisted, to be hanged, because it was the booty of the victors. Thus, all of these fighting men, who appeared before the kings completely defenseless and had no money on their persons, were put into safe keeping.121 There was a dispute involving Leopold, duke of Austria, the son of Henry of Austria, half-brother of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Leopold had joined the German forces in the spring of 1191 and, upon the death of Frederick of Swabia, assumed command of the German army. As an early participant in the siege of Acre, he claimed an equal share of the spoils with King Richard. Outraged by his claim, Richard insulted and humiliated Leopold by ordering that his banner be cast into the dirt and tramRoger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 215; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 175–176, 180. Continuation, 107, says Saladin retreated to Saffran.Annals 118 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 216; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 182. 119 Nicholson, 221. 120 Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 179–180; Nicholson, 221; Richard of Devizes, 44. 121 Richard of Devizes, 44. 117

992

THE CRUSADES

pled upon. The duke, although enraged by King Richard’s action, could not avenge his humiliation. He returned to his tent, which had already been taken down, and eventually sailed back to his own country.122 When they entered Acre, the Crusaders were horrified to find out that during the four years since Saladin captured it in 1187, the Muslims had desecrated the city. Churches had been converted into mosques, altars destroyed, and holy crosses thrown to the ground and treated with contempt. To the Christians, the city of Acre was in a pitiful state, But, says Ambroise, the Muslims paid dearly thereafter for their abuse.123 This was to be expected of the Muslims, whose faith asserts that Christianity, with its crosses and other religious symbols, is sheer idolatry. The Crusaders were overjoyed at capturing Acre and restoring it to the Christian camp, but despite the joy and relief they experienced after so long a fight, some problems developed in the Crusaders’ camp. On July 20, King Richard proposed to King Philip that they should both make an oath to remain with their armies for three years in the land of Jerusalem, in order to subjugate it, but King Philip declined to swear an oath on this subject.124 Another problem was raised by the knights and burgesses over the rights to the property the two kings had acquired from the citizens of Acre. The burgesses, nobles who had stayed nearly two years besieging Acre, apparently had acquired property in the city and thought that they were entitled to it. But the two kings had granted preference to the knights who accompanied them and who had taken up residence in the houses that had belonged to the Muslims. The burgesses asked the king of France not to let his knights deprive them of their properties. He took counsel with King Richard over this matter, and they agreed that since their main objective was to conquer the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which the Muslims had taken from the Christians, and since God had enabled them to recapture Acre, it would not be right that those who had properties in the city should lose them. Therefore, the two kings decided, the knights should restore the houses where they were lodged to their owners, but should be allowed to stay in them for as long as they remained in the land.125 According to Roger of Hoveden, the earls and barons complained that upon the surrender of Richard of Devizes, 46–47; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 330–331. Ambroise, 218; Stone, 76; Nicholson, 221–222. 124 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 216; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 181–182. 125 Continuation, 106–107. 122 123

A NEW CAMPAIGN

993

Acre, the two kings had taken all the gain without sharing it with them. On July 19 they held a meeting beyond the outer trenches and informed the kings that they would no longer continue their service unless they received their share of the booty. But when the kings delayed their response, the earls and barons were compelled by poverty to forsake them.126 At this time a dispute arose between King Philip and King Richard over the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, who was ambitious to usurp the Kingdom of Jerusalem from King Guy of Lusignan. King Philip favored Conrad, to the displeasure of King Richard, who supported King Guy. On July 26 Conrad went to see King Richard, fell at his feet, and asked him for sympathy and support. The next day, King Philip and the nobles of the French army met to hear the dispute between Conrad and King Guy. Conrad laid claim to Jerusalem through his wife Isabel, the sister of Guy’s wife Sybil, who had passed away. Guy pleaded that the kingdom was his, and that he had participated in the capture of Acre, which was part of its territory. Having finally made peace through the mediation of the princes and nobles, Philip and Richard agreed to settle the dispute and issued their verdict after lengthy deliberation. Ambroise, who places the trial before the fall of Acre, says they decided that King Guy should remain in power, but he and Conrad would share everything, including the revenues of the kingdom. Conrad was to receive Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut. Moreover, if King Guy should die before Conrad, the marquis then would receive the crown. It was also decided that Guy’s brother Geoffrey should have Jaffa as his possession.127 The Itinerarium, which places the trial after the capture of Acre, reports almost the same ruling but says that Geoffrey was to receive Ascalon as well as Jaffa, and that if King Guy, the marquis, and his wife should all die while King Richard was still in the region, it should be left to him to dispose of the kingdom as he saw fit.128 Roger of Hoveden, who also places this event after the capture of Acre, says the two kings ruled that King Guy should have the kingdom of Jerusalem, on the understanding that if he should later remarry and father children, they would have no right to succeed him. But if Marquis Conrad and his wife should happen to survive him, they would succeed him in power, and their heirs in succession would

126

Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 216; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2:

181. 127 128

Ambroise, 210–211; Stone, 74. Nicholson, 222.

994

THE CRUSADES

ascend the throne by hereditary right. Roger notes that Geoffrey, Guy’s brother, was also to receive the city of Caesarea.129 Richard of Devizes does not mention the two kings’ ruling, but says they were at odds over the case of Conrad and King Guy. He dislikes the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, calling him “a son of the serpent” who had taken the possession of the city of Tyre several years before. He says the king of the French (Philip) sold all the [Muslim] captives to Conrad and promised him the crown of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which had not yet been conquered. King Richard opposed him to his face, saying it was not appropriate to promise anything that had not yet been won. Outraged, he told Philip that if Christ was indeed the reason for his pilgrimage, then after conquering Jerusalem, he should deliver it to King Guy, its lawful owner. He reminded Philip that he had not captured Acre singlehandedly; one hand should not parcel out what two hands had won. When Conrad saw that he had no hope of possessing the kingdom of Jerusalem, he went back to Tyre. Realizing that he had failed to increase his power through Conrad, King Philip went into decline from that day onward.130 On July 29, King Philip gave Conrad his interest in the moiety of the city of Acre.131 After Acre surrendered, as the Crusaders waited for Saladin to hand them back the Holy Cross and the ransom money, it was rumored that King Philip had decided to abandon the crusade and return home.132 In utter astonishment, Ambroise says, “God’s mercy, what an ill thought to conceive and leave his men while it was his duty to lead!” Full of rage, he says, all the French baronage upbraided King Philip and renounced him as their lord.133 No less shocked, the author of the Itinerarium says, “How shameful, how outrageous, wanting to leave when there was still so much pressing business to be done! . . . What an extraordinary way of discharging a vow, when he had hardly entered the country and had such brief triumph against the Turks.”134

Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 216–217; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 183–184. 130 Richard of Devizes, 47. 131 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 217; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 184; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 165–175. 132 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 218; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 184; Isfahani, al-Fath, 526. 133 Ambroise, 218–220; Stone, 76–77. 134 Nicholson, 223. 129

A NEW CAMPAIGN

995

The sources cite widely differing motives for King Philip’s decision to return home. Ambroise and the Itinerarium attribute it to illness, saying his pledge to continue fighting the Muslims had by now been fulfilled.135 According to Richard of Devizes, Philip wanted to go home because his only son Louis was seriously ill and the physicians had given up hope of his recovery. He thought that France would be desolate if his son died or if he himself perished in a strange land. Moreover, Philip wanted to go home because he was extremely jealous of King Richard, unable to accept the fact that one of Richard’s camp-followers lived more splendidly than his own butler. So letters were forged in King Philip’s camp, purportedly sent by the nobles of France, asking the king to hurry back home.136 According to Ernoul, King Philip was anxious to return to France in order to take control of Flanders (Artois and Vermandois), whose ruler, Count Philip I of Alsace, had died at Acre on June 1, 1191. Philip was childless; his heir was his sister Margaret, wife of count Baldwin of Hainault (1171–1195), whose plans to seize Flanders for himself Philip hoped to forestall.137 The Continuation of William of Tyre gives a very different account, reporting that before Philip, count of Flanders died on June 1, 1191, he asked for King Philip to visit him. He warned the king to be on his guard, for there were people in the camp who had sworn to kill him. Soon after hearing these words (which he believed), King Philip fell seriously ill. As he lay sick, King Richard plotted to kill him without touching him. He called on King Philip to ask how he was, and Philip replied that he was very sick. King Richard then said, “As for your son Louis, how are you to be comforted?” King Philip asked, “And what about Louis, my son, that I should be comforted?” King Richard said he had come to report the sad news that Louis was dead. Philip replied that now he needed to be comforted, for if he died in this land the kingdom of France would be without heir. After King Richard left, Philip summoned Hugh III, duke of Burgundy, William of Barres, and other members of his privy council and asked them under oath if they knew that anything had happened to his son. The duke of Burgundy said that since the king arrived at the siege of Acre, no ship that might bring such news had come from overseas, adding that out of malice

Ambroise, 218–219; Stone, 76–77. Richard of Devizes, 47–48. 137 Chronique d’ Ernoul, 277–278; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 357; Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus,” 69–70. 135 136

996

THE CRUSADES

and wickedness, the King of England had told him that his son was dead, hoping to aggravate his illness and cause his death. King Philip sought out physicians, gave them fine jewels, and begged them to try to save his life. With God’s help, he regained his health and immediately ordered his ships to be ready so that he could depart Acre. He put the duke of Burgundy in command of all the French knights, gave him a great part of his treasure, and named him as his deputy. Moreover, he gave Raymond, son of Bohemond III, prince of Antioch, 100 knights and 500 men-at-arms to defend the territory against the Muslims, and gave each of the knights forty marks of silver, appointing Robert of Quincy as their captain. In an apparent effort to compete with the French king, King Richard also gave Raymond of Antioch five great ships laden with horses, arms, and provisions. Then King Philip boarded his ship and departed, much to the displeasure of the Crusading army. It appears his main motive in departing the East was to prevent anyone from taking the county of Flanders, which had been bequeathed to him when the count of Flanders died.138 In the words of Ambroise and the Itinerarium, everyone wished him misfortune, and he got more curses than blessings. On his return to France, reportedly he shook the country and threw Normandy into confusion.139 The existence of conflict between King Richard and King Philip was understandable. Before they came to the East, King Philip had considered Richard his vassal. He was proud of being the king of France, as were his ancestors. Nearly ten years younger than Richard, he was more famed as a warrior and more enthusiastic in seeking to regain the lost land of Jerusalem. He could not bear to be humiliated by Richard, who though wealthier was arrogant, overbearing, and irascible. Thus, says Sidney Painter, one can hardly blame Philip for wanting to depart. Richard did nothing to stop him, perhaps feeling that he could have more pleasure without Philip to hold him back. The duke of Burgundy, who had been entrusted with commanding the French troops, was no challenge to Richard.140 There was not only conflict but mistrust between the two kings, just as between their fathers. This fact explains why before King Philip departed, King Richard required him to swear upon the holy relics that he would not do evil to his land while he was on the pilgrimage. Moreover, upon reaching Continuation, 108–110; L’Estoire d’Eracles, 2: 181; Archer, The Crusades, 122. Ambroise, 221; Stone, 77; Nicholson, 225; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 218; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 185. 140 Painter, “The Third Crusade,” 2: 70. 138

139

A NEW CAMPAIGN

997

France, Philip was to send messengers to Richard forty days before he stirred up any quarrel or war against him. King Philip agreed and swore to King Richard that he would faithfully observe all these conditions. As an assurance of his faithfulness, he handed over hostages to Richard, including Hugh, the duke of Burgundy, and Henry, count of Champagne.141 The Itinerarium says that on August 1, 1191, the day of St. Peter in Chains, King Philip sailed for Tyre, taking with him Conrad of Montferrat, Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, and all the Muslim captives he had taken at Acre.142 He hoped to get a thousand gold coins or more as ransom, to maintain his own people until Easter. But all the Muslim hostages were abandoned by their own people; many of them died heartbroken, and not a cent was paid for their release.143 Some Muslim sources state that when the French king decided to return to his own country, he put the marquis (Conrad) in charge of some of the Muslim hostages and authorized him to receive his share of the ransom money.144

Ambroise, 220–221; Stone, 77; Nicholson, 225; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 218; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 185; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 357–358. 142 Nicholson, 225. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 218, gives the date as July 31, the Feast of Saint German; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 185. Continuation,110, says King Philip left Tyre on August 3 and arrived in Brindisi; from there he went to Rome and reported to the pope (Celestine III) on the condition of the army in the land of Jerusalem. 143 Ambroise, 220–221; Stone, 77; Nicholson, 225. 144 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 240–241; Isfahani, al-Fath, 526–527 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 189), says the ransom amounted to 100,000 dinars; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 363. 141

29 RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS After King Philip’s departure, King Richard took full charge of the Crusaders’ army. He conferred gifts on the knights and proceeded to repair Acre’s walls and rebuild them higher than before. He himself supervised the work constantly walking up and down, encouraging the workers and giving them instructions.1 His other major concern was whether Saladin would honor the terms of the surrender of Acre by sending him the Holy Cross to secure the release of Muslim hostages. The Crusaders, very anxious to have the Cross back, frequently asked for news about its return. Consequently, King Richard on August 5 sent Hubert Fitz-Walter, bishop of Salisbury, Earl Robert of Leicester, and Peter des Préaux, an excellent knight, to tell Conrad to send back the Muslim captives whom King Philip had left in his charge. Conrad was very rough toward these men and refused to send the hostages back with them, saying he was afraid of King Richard. Moreover, he boasted that if and when Richard received the True Cross, he would claim half of it on behalf of the king of France; otherwise, he would not release the hostages. The ambassadors tried to soothe him by flattery and even offered to leave one of them as security, but Conrad refused and the ambassadors left emptyhanded.2

Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, Merton Jerome Hubert, ed. (New York: Octagon Books, 1976; cited hereafter as Ambroise), 222; Edward Noble Stone, ed., The History of the Holy War in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939; cited hereafter as Stone), 77; Helen, J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 227, hereafter cited as Nicholson. 2 Ambroise, 224–226; Stone, 78–79; Nicholson, 229–230; Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 218; Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, edited by W. Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189-1192 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 186. 1

999

1000

THE CRUSADES

When King Richard learned of Conrad’s refusal to send him the hostages, he became quite angry. He sent a second embassy consisting of Hugh, duke of Burgundy, Drogo (Dreux) of Amiens, and Robert of Quincy. They met with Conrad to explain the terms of their mission and asked him to return with them to Syria, saying his aid was needed. After all, they reminded him, he himself aspired to the lordship of that country. Conrad replied rudely that he would not go back with them but would take care of his own city (Tyre). At last, according to Ambroise and the author of the Itinerarium, an arrangement was reached whereby the three ambassadors were to take the Muslim captives back to King Richard. But they could not convince the obstinate marquis, either by logic or by threat of force, to abandon his position.3 Roger of Hoveden, however, says that when King Richard learned from the bishop of Salisbury that Conrad refused to release the captives, he became outraged and vowed to go to Tyre himself to release them by force if necessary. The duke of Burgundy asked the king to let him go instead; Richard agreed, and the duke went to Tyre and brought the captives back.4 At the duke’s request, King Richard lent him 5,000 silver marks of his own money as a bond for the return of the hostages, and with this money the duke paid his troops.5 Western sources differ with Muslim sources on the exchange of hostages under the terms of the agreement reached at the surrender of Acre, probably because the terms were not clear or were misunderstood by both sides. The Western sources agree that Saladin was to return the Holy Cross (and all the crosses he had seized in the Kingdom of Jerusalem) to the Crusaders, along with a number of Christian prisoners, whom he had promised to release in exchange for Muslims held captive by the Crusaders. In a letter to Garnier of Rochefort, abbot of Clairvaux, dated October 1, 1191, King Richard says Saladin had agreed to “hand over to us the Holy Cross and 1,500 captives alive and fix a date for the performance of this agreement.” He set a date, but then told the Christians that he could not send the Holy Cross as they had demanded and asked to extend the time. But, King Richard notes, the time-limit of the agreement expired, and Saladin utterly disregarded the stipulation he had agreed to.6 At this point, says The Continuation Ambroise, 225–226; Stone, 79; Nicholson, 230. Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 218; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 187. 5 Ambroise, 222; Stone, 77; Nicholson, 225–226. 6 Letter of King Richard, in Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 222, and in Continuation of William of Tyre (hereafter cited as Continuation) in The Conquest of Jerusalem 3 4

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1001

of William of Tyre, the two kings, anxious to recover the Holy Cross, took counsel and agreed on another date as Saladin had requested. On that day a barefoot host of Christian knights, men-at-arms, and priests in vestments came out of the city of Acre and proceeded solemnly to the place named by Saladin to receive the Holy Cross. But it was not there, for Saladin had reneged on his promise. The French and Englishmen, saddened to realize they had been deceived, shed tears. When King Richard saw the people weeping, he had the 16,000 Muslim captives brought before him and boldly ordered them beheaded in the full sight of Saladin’s men.7 When Saladin saw these Muslims beheaded before his eyes, he feared that the Christians would succeed in recapturing the kingdom of Jerusalem. The Continuation of William of Tyre says he ordered the fortified city of Ascalon destroyed, fearing that it would fall to the two kings, giving a strategic advantage to the Crusaders.8 One serious error in this account is that the slaughter of the Muslim hostages took place on either August 16 or August 20; since King Philip of France had left Acre at the beginning of August, he could not have been present when the slaughter took place. Moreover, the number of Muslim hostages slaughtered does not agree with the figures given by other sources. Ambroise (together with the Itinerarium, which follows his account) says King Richard felt Saladin had played him for a fool. Furious, he convened a council of nobles, who decreed that the Muslim hostages be slaughtered. On the Friday after the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 16, 1191), 2,700 hostages were led out of the city in chains and beheaded. The men who slaughtered them thought they were acting with the assent of divine grace, to avenge the deaths of the Christians the Muslims had killed.9

and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), 180, Document 7c. 7 Continuation, 108. Richard’s letter to the abbot of Clairvaux says 2,600 of those in his custody were put to death. 8 Continuation, 107. 9 Ambroise, ed. LaMonte, 227–228, esp. nn. 48–50; Stone, 79; Nicholson, 231, nn. 6–7; James A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 183–184. Brundage, 188, n. 55, says the decision to slaughter the prisoners may have been made on August 16, but the execution took place on August 20. William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 359, also gives this date for the massacre.

1002

THE CRUSADES

Roger of Hoveden maintains that the reason for the slaughter was Saladin’s delay in sending back the Holy Cross and the ransom for the prisoners, but he differs from other sources on the number of victims and the details of the massacre. He says that when Saladin learned that a decision to slaughter the Muslim prisoners had been made, he sent word to King Richard and the Christian army that if they beheaded his Muslim subjects, he would likewise cut off the heads of all Christians in his power. On the day of the Assumption, August 16, King Richard went outside Acre and pitched his tent near the Muslim camp. On the same day, Saladin sent him costly presents and asked him to postpone the planned slaughter of the prisoners. But Richard refused to push back the date or accept Saladin’s gifts. On hearing his reply, on Sunday, August 18, Saladin had all the Christians in his power beheaded. That same day, the king of England moved his troops close to Saladin’s army. On August 20, he had all the Muslim prisoners who had been seized at Acre led out of the city and beheaded as the Muslims watched. Likewise, the duke of Burgundy had all the Muslim hostages who belonged to the king of France, both within and without the city of Acre, beheaded. But King Richard and the duke spared the lives of some Muslim nobles, in the hope that they would receive ransom for their release. Of these, Roger mentions Mestoc (Sayf al-Din Ali al-Mashtub), Caracois (Baha al-Din Qaraqosh), Hessedin Jordic (Izz al-Din Jurdik), Kaedin (Taqi alDin), and others whose names are so garbled that they are difficult to identify. He adds that the Crusaders slaughtered 5,000 Muslims, all of whom they disemboweled; they found much gold and silver in their entrails, but preserved their gall for medical purposes.10 Muslim sources accuse the Crusaders of treachery in dealing with Saladin in this case. Ibn Shaddad relates that Husam al-Din ibn Barik al-Mihrani and two of King Richard’s officers went to discuss the consummation of the agreement with Saladin. They wanted to see whether the Holy Cross was still in Saladin’s camp or had been sent to Damascus. When the Holy Cross was brought before them, the two officers immediately threw themselves to the ground and sprinkled their faces with dust as a sign of extreme humility. They reminded the Muslims that Saladin’s agreement with King Philip and King Richard stipulated that he was to pay ransom for the Mus-

10 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 219–220; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 189–190.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1003

lim hostages in their custody over three months and release all the Christian captives.11 When al-Mihrani and Richard’s officers returned to Saladin’s camp they saw that he had moved to a hillock close to Shafr Amm. Meanwhile, messengers went back and forth to settle the terms of the agreement, including the payment of 100,000 dinars’ ransom and the release of 1,600 captives. After Saladin collected the ransom money, he sought the advice of his commanders. They urged him not to send the Crusaders anything until they had sworn to release the Muslim captives, supported by a guarantee of the Dawiya (Templars), whom they considered religious and trustworthy. The Templars sent messengers to tell Saladin that they feared the treachery of their fellow Crusaders, and they could not swear to the terms of any agreement. At one point in the negotiations, Saladin offered a guarantee to send the ransom money in exchange for the release of the Muslim captives. But King Richard, speaking for the Crusaders, said that only if Saladin handed over the Holy Cross, the ransom money, and the captives, would they in turn release certain Muslim captives of their choice. Saladin felt the Crusaders had been dishonest in dealing with him and intended to release only the poor, low-born Muslim prisoners, including some Kurds, while retaining the most prominent of his men. He also believed his acquiescence to the Crusaders would harm the cause of Islam. Consequently, he sent their messengers back emptyhanded. On August 20, 1191, the Crusaders drove 3,000 Muslim captives tied with ropes to a place between al-Iyadiyya and Tall Kaysan and had them all killed. When Saladin saw that the captives had been killed, he disposed of the ransom money and sent the Holy Cross and the Crusader prisoners to Damascus.12 11 Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 240–241; Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 527 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 189); Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 363. Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 119 of the Syriac text, 336 of the English translation, says the ransom was to be paid in three installments at ten-day intervals. 12 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 241–243; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 46–48; Isfahani, al-Fath, 528–530 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 189–190), and Wasil, Mu-

1004

THE CRUSADES

Bar Hebraeus says that Saladin agreed to pay ransom to the Franks in three installments at ten-day intervals. After the first ten days passed, Saladin sent the Franks a message promising to give them two-thirds and asking them to bring all the Muslim captives, or else to give him hostages to assure the payment of the third part of the ransom. The Franks replied that there was no need for them to offer him hostages; their word alone should be sufficient. But Saladin’s heart hardened, and he refused to accept their terms. Angered, the Franks bound the captives with ropes and took them to a hillside outside the city. They piled heaps of woodchips, old cordage, and staves of wine casks like a wall around them, then drew their swords and killed them all as the Arabs watched helplessly. Bar Hebraeus estimates that the Muslims who were killed on the walls of Acre, inside it or outside it numbered 1,800 souls.13 He has apparently followed in part the account of Michael Rabo, who writes, “Satan hardened the heart of Saladin and he refused to deliver the hostages to the Franks. This made the kings of the Franks angry, and they annihilated the hostages at the gate of Acre.” Michael Rabo estimates that 25,000 person were killed that day, and their bodies were piled up and burned at the gate of Acre.14 The murder of these powerless captives was ghastly. It evidently affected the Muslims so much that Bar Hebraeus says they wrote whole volumes describing how much they had suffered at the hands of the Franks.15 Whatever excuses may be given to justify their killing, especially the fact that Saladin failed to pay the first installment in time, Richard’s action in having them killed was unjustified and was decried by many people in Europe as barbarous.16 Saladin could have retaliated by beheading all the farrij, 2: 364, do not mention the number of those killed. 13 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 336 of the English translation. 14 Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, Translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 734–735; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 737 of the Syriac text, 408 of the French translation. 15 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 336 of the English translation. 16 Historia de Expeditione Friderici Imperatoris, der so-genannte Ansbert, ed. Anton Chroust, Quelle zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I. Monumenta Germaine historica: Scriptores Germanicarum, Nova Series 5 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1928; hereafter cited as Ansbert), 99; Nicholson, 231, n. 7.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1005

Christian prisoners in his power but did not, although they numbered more than the Muslim prisoners killed by King Richard.17 The Egyptian historian Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur accuses King Richard of savagery and recklessness, comparing his barbarous deeds with the humane acts of Saladin, who after conquering the Franks at Hittin let the Christians leave Jerusalem in peace and forbade his men to assault them.18 But let us recall that the Anonymous Edessan says that after capturing Jerusalem, the Muslims committed many atrocities against the Christians, attacking and killing many as they left the city. Furthermore, after his victory at Hittin Saladin had more than 200 Frankish knights killed in cold blood, and he violated the basic principle of Arabic chivalry by having Reginald of Châtillon murdered. Thus, King Richard was no more blameworthy for murdering captives than Saladin. After capturing Acre and killing the captives, King Richard decided to leave the city and march to Ascalon.19 But his departure came amid serious problems. The Christian force had lost many leaders—some in combat, others by natural causes—including six archbishops, Patriarch Heraclius, twelve bishops, forty counts, 500 prominent nobles, and a great number of priests.20 Although vanquished, the Muslims continued to harass King Richard’s army. On August 18 they bore down suddenly on the king’s camp. Richard pursued them on horseback, accompanied by a large number of Hungarians, including a valiant knight. The Muslims captured the knight and some of the Hungarians, along with Hugh a Poitevin, King Richard’s marshal. Not heeding his own safety, the king tried to rescue Hugh, but the Muslims were too swift and carried him off.21 But Richard’s greatest problem was to get the army to leave Acre. On Thursday, August 22, he left Acre and reached the river Belus. The next day he crossed it, pitched his pavilion outside the city, and waited for his men.22 R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1936), 3: 61–62. 18 Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Angloal-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 872–873. 19 Isfahani, al-Fath, 528–531, 535–536. 20 Ambroise, ed. La Monte, 229–230, esp. n. 52; Stone, 80; Nicholson, 232– 233. 21 Isfahani, al-Fath, 546–547; Ambroise, 235; Stone, 81; Nicholson, 236. 22 Ambroise, 233, and Appendix C; Kate Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), 176–192; Stone, 81; Nicholson, 236; Shaddad, alNawadir, 244; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 365. 17

1006

THE CRUSADES

But the army, diminished but still 300,000 strong, was loath to leave Acre because its fighting men were indulging in pleasure and luxury, having become addicted to wine and beautiful but dissolute women.23 The city was plagued by lust, sin, and wickedness, to the horror of its decent inhabitants. The situation demanded a quick remedy. After consulting with his chief aides, King Richard ordered that the wanton women should not accompany the army on its move but stay in the city. Only elderly women serving as laundresses were allowed to travel with the army, since they would not burden the army or cause sin.24 On Sunday, August 25, King Richard finally got the army to leave Acre. The men were drawn up in battalions and marched along the seashore. King Richard and Count Aimery (presumably Aimery of Lusignan) led the way, and the Normans guarded the standard. James of Avesnes and Hugh III, duke of Burgundy, with his Frenchmen were in the rear, moving at a slower rate.25 As the Crusaders began their march, Saladin followed them. The Muslims, organized into small bands, engaged them in skirmishes. Instead of keeping his army in battle formation, King Richard sent only small groups of cavalry to challenge them. Occasionally the Muslims brought some captives to Saladin, who carried out his vow that if he captured any Crusader, he would kill him in retaliation for the Muslim captives who were slain at Acre.26 Everard, one of the bishop of Salisbury’s men, had his right hand cut off by a Muslim, but battled on, wielding the sword in his left hand. Saladin kept harassing and ambushing the Crusaders, especially in the narrow mountain passes, and stealing their possessions. After long suffering the army reached Cyphas (Haifa), which the Muslims had evacuated, and tarried there for two days, camping between the city and the sea. Overburdened with their arms and food, the foot soldiers examined their baggage and threw away what was not essential. On Tuesday, August 27, the army, again drawn up in battalions, marched on, with the Templars in the vanguard and the Hospitallers in the rear. They came to Capharnaum (Bir al-Kanisa), but found the Muslims had razed the town. After resting and having something to eat, Richard and his men pressed on Helen J. Nicholson, “Women on the Third Crusade,” Journal of Medieval History 23 (1997): 335–349. 24 Ambroise, 233; Stone, 81; T. A. Archer, The Crusade of Richard I 1189–1192 (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1889), 132–135, follows Ambroise; Nicholson, 235. 25 Continuation, 110. 26 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 248–250; Isfahani, al-Fath, 534; Athir, al-Kamil, 49. 23

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1007

to the village of Casal of the Narrow Pass (Athlit, or Casal Destroit).27 After they pitched their tents, someone dutifully shouted, “Holy Sepulcher help us, Holy Sepulcher help us!” The rest responded by repeating the same words with tears of joy.28 The Crusaders left Haifa and on September 1 reached the port of Caesarea (Qaysariyya, which the author of the Itinerarium confuses with Caesarea Philippi, now Banyas), only to find it destroyed by Saladin’s men.29 King Richard ordered many men to Caesarea, with royal ships laden with food supplies to sail alongside the army. Meanwhile, Saladin led his army to the hills overlooking the city. Ibn Shaddad says that after he performed the noon prayer and took some rest, Saladin’s men brought fourteen Frankish captives, including the daughter of a prominent Frank, who had a Muslim maidservant. Saladin had the servant released and ordered the others killed.30 Saladin, who until now had only harassed the army, engaged the Crusaders in a violent pitched battle (September 1) but was repulsed by Richard’s men. The Muslims lost Aias Estoy (Ayaz al-Tawil, tall Ayaz), one of Saladin’s mamluks, a hero of such strength that no one could throw him from his horse. The Muslims mourned his death with cries and wailing, cut off their horses’ tails as a sign of grief, and buried him on a high hillock overlooking al-Burka.31 On September 3 the crusading army left the Dead River (Salt River) and marched through a barren wasteland. Saladin’s men kept harassing them; the Templars, who were in the rearguard, lost many horses. King Richard himself was struck in the side by a javelin, but the wound was not serious and he soon recovered.32 Leaving the desert, the crusading army passed by the mountain of Arsuf and came into open country. On Thursday, September 5, 1191, before the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, they reached the River Rochetaille (Cloven Rock, Nahr al-Faliq), north of Arsuf, and encamped above it. Here they learned that Saladin’s army, too large to Ambroise, 241–242; Stone, 83–84; Nicholson, 240. Continuation, 110, says the army reached and crossed the Destroit River. 28 Ambroise, 242; Stone, 83–84; Nicholson, 240. 29 Nicholson, 242, esp. n. 34; Isfahani, al-Fath, 535–536, 547. 30 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 250. 31 Ambroise, 245–246; Stone, 86; Nicholson, 243; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 253 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 190); Isfahani, al-Fath, 539; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 366–367; Athir, al-Kamil, 50, says Ayaz was killed near Arsuf. 32 Letter of King Richard, in Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 221; Ambroise, 246– 247; Stone, 86; Nicholson, 243. 27

1008

THE CRUSADES

count (it was estimated at 300,000 against 100,000 Crusaders), was awaiting their arrival.33 On September 1, after burying Ayaz al-Tawil, Saladin had moved his forces and camped at the high ground above the river, not far from the Crusaders. A group of Muslims encountered some men from the Crusader camp, and the two sides began fighting. Ibn Shaddad says about a thousand Crusaders lost their lives in the skirmish, while the Muslims lost only a few men. Several Crusaders were captured and brought to Saladin, who asked about their situation. He learned that the English king, having heard from two Bedouins at Acre that the Muslim army was small, felt encouraged to pursue them. The two tipsters were captured and brought to Saladin, who ordered them beheaded. Then he entered the district of Arsuf and camped at a village called Dayr al-Rahib (The Monk’s Monastery), to wait for the rest of his army.34 Meanwhile, reinforcements arrived from Acre on eight large ships, putting Saladin in a stronger position to fight the Crusaders. As the fighting continued, Alam al-Din Sulayman ibn Jandar, who commanded the vanguard of the Muslim forces, heard from his men that envoys from the Crusader camp had come to seek peace terms. He sent them to Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil, who asked and received Saladin’s permission to negotiate with them. The envoys told al-Malik al-Adil that the fighting had become too protracted and both sides had lost many valiant men. They said that their purpose was to support the Franks on the coast, and that the two sides should reconcile and return to their places. Al-Malik al-Adil sent word to Saladin that if he could, he should keep the Franks busy until the arrival of the Turkomans, who were nearby. When King Richard learned that al-Malik al-Adil had reached the outpost of the Muslim army, he arranged to meet with him, with Humphrey of Toron (called Ibn al-Hunfarey in Muslim sources) serving as interpreter. This Ibn al-Hunfarey, says Ibn Shaddad, was a handsome young man, clean-shaven as was the Franks’ custom. When al-Malik al-Adil asked what he wanted, King Richard said he wanted Saladin to restore to him all the land he had captured and return to his own country. Al-Malik al-Adil responded harshly, and the meeting ended without agreement. There was now no option but battle.35 Ambroise, 249; Stone, 87; Nicholson, 243. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 253–256; Isfahani, al-Fath, 538, 540. 35 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 256–257; Isfahani, al-Fath, 542. 33 34

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1009

At dawn on Saturday, September 7, the eve of the nativity of the Blessed Mary, Richard prepared for war. Highly skilled in military matters, he divided his army into twelve battalions, with the Templars in the vanguard and the Hospitallers in the rear. The Bretons and Angevins followed the Templars. Next came King Guy and the Poitevins, and then the Normans and the English, who came bearing the Dragon (the emblem of the Normans). There were many valiant men, among them Jacques of Avesnes and Count Henri of Champagne. King Richard and the duke of Burgundy, who rode with the king and a handpicked company of valiant men, constantly watched the movements of the Muslim army.36 The Muslims attacked the Crusaders from every side on land and sea, especially from the rear. Between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslim fighters with their lances and banners rushed down on the crusading army, on horses swifter than eagles. Before them were men prepared to sound trumpets and clarions, while others held flutes, tambourines, rattles, and cymbals. The land resounded with their harsh, threatening cries. They inflicted grave losses on the Crusaders, killing a great number of them, and almost destroyed the Hospitallers’ lines. The Master of the Hospitallers, Garnier of Nabulus, thinking their patron saint would never let them be defeated, cried out in despair, “Saint George, will you allow us thus to come to grief? Now well may Christendom collapse, since no man will do battle courageously against these cattle.” The Hospitallers, who were not confident of victory, told King Richard they could no longer repel the enemy. He advised them to be patient and continue to fight, which they did, pressing hard against the Muslims.37 The crusading army, in a shambles, almost lost, but King Richard demonstrated unusual courage and resilience as well as military capability. He pursued the Muslims with ferocity, fell upon them, and scattered them across the battlefield. Seeing that they were routed, the Muslims took to flight. Both Ambroise and the Itinerarium mention an amir named Takiedin or Déquedin, a relative of Saladin commanding 700 elite Muslim men and carrying a saffron-colored banner, who charged ferociously against the crusading army but was driven back by William of Barres and forced to flee.38 This relative of Saladin must be his nephew Taqi al-Din Umar, although Ibn Shaddad does not mention him as being present at this engagement. Ambroise, 249–252 (also in Stone, 87–88); Nicholson, 246–247. Ambroise, 253–255, 257–258 (also in Stone, 88–89); Nicholson, 247–252. 38 Ambroise, 253–255, 262–265; Stone, 92; Nicholson, 255–256; Archer, The Crusade, 153. 36 37

1010

THE CRUSADES

Ibn Shaddad says many men on both sides were wounded or lost their lives. Among the Muslims killed were the great and brave amir Mosek, Qaymaz al-Adili, and the courageous Ligosh, over whose death Saladin grieved deeply. Among those who stood their ground were al-Malik al-Adil, the eunuch Sarim al-Din Qaymaz al-Najmi, Ala al-Din of Mosul and his contingent, and Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Afdal, who fought on even after a boil on his face burst, causing him to emit blood profusely. Thrown into complete disarray, the Muslims lost to the Christians. Saladin’s grief was so great that Ibn Shaddad says, “ . . . only Allah knows what was in his heart because of that battle.”39 King Richard achieved a great victory at Arsuf on September 8, 1191, killing some 3,000 Muslims.40 He wrote to the abbot of Clairvaux that only four of his battalions had put Saladin’s army to flight, and then the whole Christian army pursued him. He boasted that Saladin had experienced in one day what he had not in the past forty years, noting that by the Grace of God the Christians lost one very valiant man, Jacques of Avesnes, who had served their army for many years.41 Al-Isfahani calls Jacques of Avesnes, known as Sir Jack, “ . . . a devil whom those accursed devils obeyed,” adding that he was so important that those who with him tried to save him and give up their lives for him, and the king of England grieved over his loss.42 According to Roger of Hoveden, no Christian was slain in the battle of Arsuf except Jacques of Avesnes, who with a few men resisted Saladin and his army while the duke of Burgundy fled.43 Although the battle of Arsuf may not have been pivotal, the fact remains that Saladin was badly beaten.44 In Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 360–361; Isfahani, al-Fath, 542–543, mentions the battle of Arsuf only briefly. John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 262, n. 30, is correct in stating that Taqi al-Din Umar did not take part in this battle. 40 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 220. 41 Letter of King Richard dated October 1, 1191, to the abbot of Clairvaux, in Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 223 (also in Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 180, Document 7c); Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 191. On the battle see Ambroise, 251–258; Stone, 90–94; Nicholson, 246–258; Archer, The Crusade, 141–163; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 258–260; “The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” in Edbury, Conquest, 110; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 361–362, mentions Richard’s victory at Arsuf and the loss of Jacques of Avesnes, whose virtues he lauds. 42 Isfahani, al-Fath, 548. 43 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 220. 44 Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (New York: Burt 39

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1011

fact, since their defeat at Hittin (1187) the Crusaders had never won such an astounding victory over the Muslims.45 Saladin was greatly distressed by the defeat; Ibn Shaddad, attending him, tried but failed to console him. Saladin would not even taste food because of his heart’s pain. Around him were only some of his own people, wounded in body and soul.46 Ambroise and the Itinerarium say Saladin was so furious that he summoned his commanders to his presence and rebuked them for their defeat. He mocked them, saying they were not even worth an egg. But one man, whom Ambroise calls Sanguin of Aleppo (the Itinerarium calls him Sanscun of Aleppo), came to the commanders’ defense.47 Addressing Saladin as “Most sacred Sultan,” he said that the Muslim army had fought heroically and attacked the Franks, but it was counterattacked ferociously by the Franks, whose armor was not like that of the Muslims. It was impenetrable and did not yield to any of the Muslims’ missiles, darts or swords. So their armor was of no effect. He ascribed the Muslims’ loss to the valor of King Richard, who had mutilated their fighting men, and closed by saying that nothing could have been done against such a strong and invincible man.48 Ibn Shaddad says it was at this time that Saladin’s brother al-Malik alAdil told him the Franks had sent Ibn al-Hunfarey discuss peace terms with him, the chief condition being that he surrender all of the coastal region to the Crusaders. Saladin sent a message to al-Adil, authorizing him to discuss peace with Humphrey following the battle of Arsuf. But Ibn Shaddad says nothing about whether such a meeting took place or what its result may have been.49 One may ask why the Crusaders, who had won a great victory Franklin, 1924), 1: 305–317; R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare, 1097–1193 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 163–165. 45 S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 3: 57. 46 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 260. 47 John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 270, n. 37, identifies the man as Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Zahir Ghiyath al-Din; Stone, 94, translates Sanguin as “Zangi of Aleppo” but gives no explanation; Hans Mayer, Das Itinerarium Peregrinorum: eine zeitgenössiche englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt (Stuttgart, 1962), 378, speculates that he was Sunkur of Aleppo; see Nicholson, 260, n. 59. 48 Ambroise, 270–271; Stone, 94; Nicholson, 260–261. The Muslim sources are surprisingly silent on this incident, which may or may not be authentic. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 270, n. 37, says that it was entirely fictitious. 49 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 265.

1012

THE CRUSADES

against Saladin at Arsuf, should have been anxious to seek peace with him. Perhaps Ibn Shaddad has wrongly described the conference before the battle of Arsuf as if it took place after the fighting ended. Despite his defeat Saladin still hoped to challenge the Crusaders. At the urging of one of his mamluk commanders, Alam al-Din Qaysar (called Caysac in Western sources), on September 9 he sent thirty powerful amirs to seize control of Nahr al-Auja (the River Arsur, or Arsuf, ten miles south of the city of Arsuf). They waited, hoping the Christians might pass by the river, so that they could ambush them. The Templars, at the rear of the army, passed by Nahr al-Auja and engaged the Muslims, who fled. The Crusaders then camped on the bank of the river and spent the night there.50 After losing Acre Saladin became concerned about Ascalon, another city of strategic importance. He feared that if the Crusaders captured it they would control the road to Jerusalem, their ultimate goal, which would easily fall into their hands. Saladin had to decide the fate of Ascalon. On September 9–10 he moved to Yabna and then to Ascalon, pitching his tent north of the city. He learned from two captive Franks that on September 10 the Crusaders had left for Jaffa, which they would probably rebuild and equip with arms and men. Saladin convened a council of his prominent men together with his brother al-Malik al-Adil to decide whether Ascalon should be destroyed. Alam al-Din Sulayman ibn Jandar argued that Ascalon should be destroyed because it was too difficult to protect. The rest agreed with this advice and added that since the Crusaders controlled Jaffa, halfway between Ascalon and Jerusalem, there was no way of defending both cities. It was better to destroy Ascalon in order to save Jerusalem. However, Saladin’s men said, if he wished to spare Ascalon, he and one of his sons should enter the city, and they would follow. Thus, Saladin saw no option but to have Ascalon destroyed.51 Ibn Shaddad relates that on September 10, Saladin moved to Ascalon and pitched his tent north of the town. About midnight he summoned his son al-Afdal and Ibn Shaddad and began to discuss what to do. While Ibn Shaddad was serving him, Saladin declared, “By Allah, it is more desirable for me to lose all of my children than to pull down one stone of Ascalon. But I have no choice, since it is in the Muslims’ interest to have it deShaddad, al-Nawadir, 262; Isfahani, al-Fath, 545; Ambroise, 272–273 (also in Stone, 96); Nicholson, 262; Archer, The Crusade, 166. 51 Isfahani, al-Fath, 550 (and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 191–192); Shaddad, alNawadir, 263; Athir, al-Kamil, 50; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 269. 50

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1013

stroyed.”52 On September 11 he ordered Alam al-Din Qaysar, to begin the destruction of Ascalon. Ibn Shaddad says he personally saw Saladin go through the marketplace with al-Afdal, urging the people to dismantle the city. He assigned parts of the wall to his aides to expedite the task. The gruesome spectacle was aggravated by the tumultuous weeping of the people. Distressed at the fate of their city, the inhabitants began to sell cheaply whatever they could not carry. They sold goods worth ten dirhams for one dirham (about fifty pennies); one sold ten chickens for one dirham. When they had sold what they could, the inhabitants left with their women and children to seek refuge with the army. Some went to Egypt, others to Syria, and still others kept wandering aimlessly.53 Whatever the case may be, Saladin insisted on the destruction of Ascalon. On September 13, he ordered its towers set on fire. The next day the wall of the town, which in some places was ten feet wide, collapsed. The destruction continued until September 23.54 Ibn al-Athir says that the stones of the town were thrown into the sea, and all the possessions of the people (or those that were not sold), even those of Saladin himself, were destroyed, lest the Franks get hold of them.55 Ascalon was laid waste and emptied of inhabitants.56 The destruction was so total that Imad al-Din alIsfahani, who was present, could not contain his grief and wept for a city that once had seemed impregnable but no longer existed.57 Saladin also ordered that numerous fortresses be destroyed, and his brother al-Malik alAdil carried out this order without delay.58 With Ascalon in ruins, Saladin left on September 23, going to Yabna and then to Ramla, where he had the fortress dismantled. He moved to Ludd (Lydda) and demolished its magnificent cathedral on September 29, Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 264 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 192); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 269. 53 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 264–265; Isfahani, al-Fath, 550–552. 54 Isfahani, al-Fath, 550–552. 55 Athir, al-Kamil, 51. 56 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 337 of the English translation. 57 Isfahani, al-Fath, 549 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 192). 58 The Western sources discuss most of these events, including the final destruction of Ascalon and the fortresses, differing only in minor details. See Ambroise, 271–273; Stone, 94–96; Nicholson, 260–261; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 362; Denys Pringle, “King Richard and the Walls of Ascalon,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 116 (1984): 133–147. 52

1014

THE CRUSADES

1191, then to al-Natrun, where he had another fortress destroyed. He left al-Malik al-Adil behind to urge the people to destroy whatever was left of Ramla and Lydda. Then he moved on to Jerusalem, explored the situation in the city, and immediately ordered the repair of its fortifications.59 Prior to arriving, Saladin had had some idea of the drastic conditions there. Its governor had written to him that the city lacked provisions, arms, and men. The letter, carried by two Christian men, fell into the hands of some men of the eunuch Qaymaz. Saladin ordered the two Christians and those with them beheaded.60 About this time, the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat sent a messenger to ask Saladin for a private understanding. Conrad offered to cease antagonizing Saladin, who he hoped would offer him Sidon and Beirut in return. Conrad was incensed against the Crusaders and King Richard, who had taken away his city of Tyre, telling him to go to Sidon and make it his own. He may also have feared that Richard might capture Jerusalem and restore Guy Lusignan to the throne, to which he himself aspired. Although Saladin realized that Conrad was crafty and diabolical, he offered him an opportunity to conclude a deal in order to divide the Christian ranks. He sent a messenger, Najib al-Din Abu Muhammad al-Adl, to negotiate a peace agreement with him. When they met, Najib al-Din al-Adl told Conrad that before a peace treaty could be concluded, he would have to openly oppose the Crusaders and divert them from besieging Acre, so that they would release the Muslim captives there. Only then would Saladin offer him Sidon and Beirut. When King Richard learned of Conrad’s scheming with Saladin, he returned to Acre to foil this deal but failed to regain the allegiance of the marquis to his side.61 King Richard did not believe that Saladin would destroy Ascalon. He sent a mission led by two prominent men, Geoffrey of Lusignan and William of L’Etang (or Estanc), to reconnoiter the situation. The men sailed to Ascalon in a strong galley, and on returning they reported that Saladin’s men were indeed destroying the city. Stunned by the report, Richard asked his princes, magnates, and other close associates whether he should rush to save Ascalon from total destruction and drive the Muslims away, or instead 59 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 268, 271; Isfahani, al-Fath, 551 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 192); Athir, al-Kamil, 52; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 370–371; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 337 of the English translation. 60 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 268. 61 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 270–271; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 193. On al-Adl, see Isfahani, al-Fath, 509.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1015

march to rebuild Jaffa. He was dismayed to find they had many conflicting opinions. Richard reasoned that the Muslims, who were continuing to destroy Ascalon, were in no position to defeat the crusading army. He argued that he and his men should march on Ascalon and drive away the Muslims, to make it safe for the pilgrims. But the Count of Burgundy and his French comrades stubbornly opposed him saying it was more worthwhile to rebuild Jaffa in order to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem shorter, and in the end their view prevailed. Ambroise and the author of the Itinerarium lament the French position, saying that if the Crusaders had saved Ascalon from destruction, all the land on the way to Jerusalem could have become theirs. As these two sources note, Jaffa was in a disastrously weak condition when the pilgrims arrived. Because it stood almost in ruins, the crusading army was forced to camp outside the city. As they tarried there for quite some time, their idleness led them to indulge in drunkenness and sexual liaisons. Many women of ill repute who had followed them from Acre were now in Jaffa. They distracted the army from marching to Jerusalem in time and caused them to neglect their religious devotion.62 In failing to rescue Ascalon, King Richard appears to have committed a strategic blunder that later cost him the chance to capture Jerusalem. Of all the medieval sources, Muslim and Christian, Ibn al-Athir alone says that Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, lord of Tyre, condemned King Richard for his negligence regarding Ascalon. Conrad wrote to King Richard that someone like him should not be king and lead the armies, telling him, “Fool! Why did you stay put when you learned that Saladin had already begun the destruction of Ascalon? You should have made an effort to drive him away from the city and then possessed it without siege or fight. By Christ, if I had been with you, Ascalon would today be in our hands, and not one of its towers would have been ruined.”63 King Richard and his army spent most of September in Jaffa. By the end of the month, the city was partially repaired, but his army had diminished, largely because most of the men went back to Acre to loiter in the taverns. Richard sent King Guy of Lusignan to Acre to persuade the wastrels to return to the main camp in Jaffa. Very few did so, however, and Richard himself went to Acre to ask them to rejoin the army. Finally, with his power of persuasion, he sucAmbroise, 274–277; Stone, 98–99; Nicholson, 263–264. The “Continuation of William of Tyre” seems to confuse this event with King Richard’s march to Jerusalem in June–July 1192. See Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 111, n. 190. 63 Athir, al-Kamil, 51–52. 62

1016

THE CRUSADES

ceeded in bringing back a good number of them, and he gave instructions that his Queen Berengaria and his sister Joan also be brought back to Jaffa.64 During this period King Richard entertained the idea of invading Egypt in the summer of 1192. In a letter dated October 1191, he wrote to the archbishop of Podesta and the Genoese that he had all his forces ready to invade Egypt, Babylon (Cairo), and Alexandria. He begged the Genoese to come without delay, bringing with them as much equipment as they could, to aid the Christian army. He assured them that he would fully honor the covenant he had made with them. He also sent Maurinus, a distinguished man and friend of Christianity who had been their consul in Syria, to tell them about his plan to invade Egypt and solicit their opinion on this matter.65 It was at this time too that King Richard left Acre to return to Jaffa, where he spent some time in hawking and reconnoitering the position of the Muslims. On one occasion, while he was hunting, he suddenly became weary and fell asleep. Some Muslims spotted him and tried to ambush him, but he was awakened by their noise and pursued them, sword in hand. He and his men engaged the Muslims in a skirmish. In the midst of the confusion, William des Préaux, who wanted to save King Richard’s life shouted in Arabic that he himself was the malik (king). The Muslims, taking him to be King Richard, seized him and led him as a captive to their camp. In the foray King Richard lost some of his companions; Renier de Marun, his nephew Walter, and Alan and Luke of L’Estable were killed.66 Ibn Shaddad says that a Muslim tried to stab the English king, but was thwarted and killed by a Frank; al-Isfahani says that the English king was ambushed, but one of his men saved him by claiming to be the king, and was then taken captive.67 Throughout November 1191, King Richard was busy rebuilding Jaffa and Caesarea; he gave them both to Geoffrey of Lusignan, brother of King Guy.68 At Yazur, near Jaffa, he confronted Saladin’s forces and killed some Nicholson, 265. For this letter see Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem, 181–182, Document 7d, and Nicholson, 265, n. 71. 66 Ambroise, 280–282; Stone, 98–99; Nicholson, 266–267. 67 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 269; Isfahani, al-Fath, 552 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 192). 68 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 262; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2: 227; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, 737 of the Syriac text, 408 of the French translation. 64 65

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1017

of them. He spent two weeks there, reconstructing the Casal (Castle) of the Plains and the Casal of Maen (Beit Dajan), between Jaffa and Ramla, thinking they would help make the passage of pilgrims safe.69 He deputized the bishop of Evereux, the count of Châlon, and Hugh Rioble to keep order in the city, and engaged in occasional skirmishes with Saladin’s troops. On Wednesday, November 6, on the Feast of St. Leonard, some of Richard’s men went out to seek forage for their mules, with a number of Templars along to insure their safety. Four thousand Muslims attacked the Templars, killing three on the spot. Andrew of Chavigni came to their rescue with fifteen knights, and the Muslims fled. King Richard, who was overseeing the fortification of Casal of Maen, learned of the skirmish and sent the Earls of St. Paul and Leicester with William de Cageu and Otho de Trasyngers to help. But they were ambushed by thousands of Muslims. A fierce battle took place, and just as the two nobles and the Templars were on the verge of defeat, King Richard rushed to their aid. With his consummate prowess, surrounded by able men, he routed the Muslims, took many captives, and slew one of their amirs. It is said that three Muslims, fearing death, renounced their religion, submitted to King Richard, and became Christians.70 Having fortified the two castles and having routed Saladin’s men in several skirmishes, King Richard felt that he could totally overwhelm Saladin and his army. Acting from strength, he sent envoys on November 6 to Saladin and his brother al-Malik al-Adil, demanding that they restore the whole kingdom of Syria and whatever belonged to it just as King Baldwin IV (the Leper) had left it. Saladin rejected Richard’s demand on the grounds that surrendering these lands would prejudice the honor of Islam. He made a counter-proposal, offering King Richard all the land of Jerusalem, from the river Jordan to the Western Sea (the Mediterranean) on one condition— that neither the Christians nor the Muslims could ever rebuild Ascalon. When al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din (Saphadin) conveyed this proposal on November 7, King Richard could not receive him because he had been bled that day. But he ordered Stephen of Turnham to serve al-Malik al-Adil with many delicious dishes at dinner, and they dined between the Casal of the Temple and the Casal of Josaphat. On the following day, al-Malik al-Adil sent King Richard seven valuable camels and a beautiful tent, then came to Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 225, 262, relates these events in a confused chronological order. 70 Ambroise, 283–288; Stone, 100–102; Nicholson, 268–272. On the rebuilding of the castles, see Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 262; Archer, The Crusade, 176–177. 69

1018

THE CRUSADES

deliver Saladin’s response. The king was reluctant to accept Saladin’s offer, believing that the outcome of his campaign was uncertain, and declared that it was better at this time for him to wait rather than rush to a decision. He may have also suspected that Saladin intended by using his brother to trap him into an agreement that was of no benefit to him. The negotiations stalled, particularly over the fortress of Krak de Montréal (al-Shawbak), which Richard wanted dismantled before he would make any deal. He did not want Saladin to use it as a garrison to threaten the kingdom’s southern boundary. When the negotiations failed, hostilities between Richard and Saladin resumed.71 The Muslim sources and Bar Hebraeus, however, say that the English king asked al-Malik al-Adil to send him an envoy. Al-Adil sent his secretary Ibn al-Nahhal, a handsome youth, who met King Richard with a great host of men at the village of Yazur, three miles southeast of Jaffa. The king said that he would not revoke what he and al-Adil had previously agreed on. Ibn al-Nahhal returned to al-Malik al-Adil, who wrote Saladin a letter reporting what King Richard had said. The king sent his greetings to Saladin and observed that both the Muslims and the Christians had almost perished and their lands had been laid waste, and both sides suffered a great loss in souls and property. While all these things happened, nothing had been discussed except Jerusalem and the Cross. “As to Jerusalem,” said the king, “it is the place of our worship, and we will defend it to the last man.” He demanded that Saladin return all the land up to the river Jordan. “As to the Cross,” Richard said, “to you it is only a worthless piece of wood, but to us it is a thing of glory. Therefore, let Saladin agree to our demand, and then we will make peace and rest from this prolonged toil.” Upon receiving this message, Saladin answered, “Jerusalem is also the house of our worship, and we magnify it and honor it more than far more than you do because it is the place where our Prophet’s journey took place, and the place where our people will gather on the Day of Resurrection. So do not think that we will suffer to lose it. As to the countries, they did not belong to you in former times. You captured them only because of the Muslims’ weakness, and Allah will never let you rebuild one stone of them so long as there is war between us. Concerning the Cross, our possession of it is great, and we will

71 Ambroise, 289–290; Stone, 102–103; Nicholson, 272–274; Archer, The Crusade, 176–184; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 199–201.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1019

not abandon something whose possession is in the utmost interest of Islam.”72 When Saladin did not accept his demand, King Richard proposed another solution to their conflict. Al-Malik al-Adil summoned to his presence Ibn Shaddad, Alam al-Din Sulayman ibn Jandar, Sabiq al-Din, lord of Shayzar, Izz al-Din ibn al-Muqaddam, and Husam al-Din Bishara. He explained to them that the ambassador of the English king had returned, with a message proposing that al-Malik al-Adil marry his sister Joan, whom he had brought with him from Sicily, for she was the wife of the deceased king of Sicily (William II). She would reside in Jerusalem, and her brother (King Richard) would give her all the cities of the seacoast as her possessions, including Acre, Jaffa, Ascalon, and their dependencies. For his part, Saladin would give al-Malik al-Adil the coastal territories in his possession and declare him their king. He would also give the married couple all the villages and the fortresses of the Templars and the Hospitallers. Furthermore, Saladin was to give back to King Richard the True Cross and free the Crusader captives, and upon Saladin’s approval the king would sail back to his country. The five men carried the English king’s message to Saladin. After Ibn Shaddad read the message in the presence of the men who had accompanied him, Saladin agreed, although he felt that the English king was lying and meant only to trick him. Ibn Shaddad says he repeated the message to Saladin three times for his approval, and Saladin confirmed it. Then he and the men with him returned to inform al-Malik al-Adil of Saladin’s response, and he was pleased. Saladin and his brother al-Malik al-Adil were apparently quite serious about the proposed marriage of al-Adil to Joan, for according to Ibn Shaddad, a few days later they sent Ibn al-Nahhal to King Richard’s camp to learn more about the prospective union. Richard told al-Nahhal that when he suggested to his sister that she marry al-Malik al-Adil, she became furious and denounced the proposal. She swore by her religion that she would never let a Muslim touch her. To resolve the issue, King Richard suggested, al-Malik al-Adil should embrace Christianity. Ibn Shaddad says that the door was kept open on this question, but it seems that nothing came of it.73 72 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 274–275; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 193; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 372–373; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119 of the Syriac text, 337 of the English translation. 73 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 277–279, 290; Isfahani, al-Fath, 555–557 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 193); Athir, al-Kamil, 53; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 372.

1020

THE CRUSADES

Bar Hebraeus, who relates the same episode, states that Saladin would not agree to the marriage of his brother to the sister of the English king. But al-Malik al-Adil, who was burning with lust, sent nobles to induce Saladin to agree to the marriage. Since he was very obstinate, those nobles said they knew that such a marriage was of no use, because neither the woman, the daughter of a great king, nor her brother, himself a great king, wanted her to belong to a Muslim Arab. Her brother knew this well. They advised him not to make his brother suffer. Thus, Saladin was cajoled, and he sent to the king of England an ambassador bearing his agreement. Richard detained the ambassador for three days. On the third day he told him, “For three days and nights I have been trying to coax my sister [to marry al-Malik al-Adil], but she would not be coaxed. However, she said that if al-Malik alAdil will become a sincere Christian, the marriage shall take place, and if he refuses, it shall not.” Bar Hebraeus notes in conclusion that Saladin’s ambassador returned in shame.74 The anonymous author of the Continuation of William of Tyre briefly relates this episode involving Saladin and King Richard with some differences. He says that Saladin first wrote to King Richard, declaring that if he wanted to return to his own land, he would make a truce with him and give back part of the kingdom he had won from the Christians, and that he made this proposal because (for reasons not explained) he feared his brother Sayf al-Din (al-Malik al-Adil). At this point, the author says, Richard promised Sayf al-Din to give him his sister to be his wife if he became a Christian. But Saladin feared that if this marriage were to take place, he would lose all the countries he had won from the Christians. When King Richard learned of Saladin’s response, he sent word to Saladin that if he was not willing to surrender the lands to him, he had better go to Egypt and set a camp in it to defend himself. In other words, King Richard threatened to invade Egypt, and warned Saladin that he should defend himself there.75 There is evidence of an amicable relation between King Richard and al-Malik al-Adil. When the two dignitaries met, al-Malik al-Adil received the king in his pavilion with utmost respect, and they had a most delectable meal. They engaged in discussion all day long and parted friends.76 Ibn al74 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 119–120 of the Syriac text, 338 of the English translation. 75 Continuation, 120. 76 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 286; Isfahani, al-Fath, 560 (and Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 194); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 374.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1021

Athir says King Richard told al-Malik al-Adil that he wished to hear the singing of the Muslims. Al-Malik al-Adil summoned a Muslim songstress, who performed and pleased the king. But no peace was reached between the two dignitaries.77 King Richard asked to meet with Saladin personally, but Saladin excused himself, saying, “When kings meet, it becomes inappropriate for them to fight each other. If there is a matter which requires a meeting, then they should meet. But a meeting cannot be held without negotiation to discuss an important matter. I do not understand your language, and you do not understand mine. There should be an interpreter trusted by both of us, in order that we can settle the matter. Only then would a meeting be feasible and only then would it be followed by love and amity.” When he heard this response from Saladin, the king found it especially difficult and concluded that he could achieve nothing unless he first obtained Saladin’s consent.78 Muslim sources indicate Saladin and King Richard reached no agreement. But Bar Hebraeus says Saladin went to Jerusalem and sent 24,000 gold dinars to King Richard in Acre, whereupon the king released the Muslims the Franks had taken captives.79 Having been unable to reach a deal with Saladin, even by giving his sister in marriage to al-Malik al-Adil, King Richard decided to move on Jerusalem. On November 22 he left Jaffa and moved to Ramla and Ludd (Lydda), the two most important cities on the road to Jerusalem, but he was greatly disheartened to find that Saladin had destroyed them. He headed for alNatrun, the halfway point on the road to Jerusalem, because he felt safe in the mountains. While he spent twenty-two days waiting for the arrival of men and grain, Richard suffered extremely dangerous raids by Saladin’s men. When Saladin learned that King Richard was marching on al-Natrun, he had it dismantled and rushed to Jerusalem to fortify the city.80 On December 20, the Feast of the Apostle Thomas, King Richard camped at a castle called Blanchegrade (Tall al-Safiya), fourteen miles south of Ramla. When he went to set an ambush for Saladin’s men, he almost lost his life, but because of a premonition of danger he returned to camp unharmed.81 Athir, al-Kamil, 53. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 286–287; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 374; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 338–339 of the English translation. 79 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 338–339 of the English translation. 80 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 271; Isfahani, al-Fath, 552, 562 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 192–194, 196); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 371. 81 Nicholson, 275. 77 78

1022

THE CRUSADES

On the same day Guy of Lusignan went to Acre, followed three days later by Stephen of Turnham. According to Roger of Hoveden, on the day of the Nativity (Christmas) King Richard moved to Latrun (al-Natrun, Les Toron des Chevaliers), intending afterwards to besiege the city of Jerusalem.82 On December 28, 1191, the Templars and Hospitallers went from their camp to Ramla; they returned with 200 cattle, driving them from the mountains near Jerusalem. Saladin’s men constantly engaged the Christians in battle. In one skirmish they threw the Earl of Leicester off his horse and almost drowned him in the river. But Robert of Newburgh gave him his horse, saving both himself and the earl. Likewise unhorsed were Dreux (Drogo) de Fontenil and Robert of Neal. The Muslims unhorsed Warren Fitz-Gerald and cruelly pounded him with iron clubs.83 Others with them fought valiantly, but the more numerous Muslims kept flogging the earl and his few companions, fiercely and persistently. Wearied by the beating, the earl and his companions finally could no longer bear the suffering. Motionless, they clung to the necks of their horses, and the companions of the earl of Leicester were carried off as captives towards Darum (Daron). Soon, however, the Crusaders received succor and continued the battle. The earl of Leicester fought on heroically, despite having two horses slain under him. Finally, with the aid of a number of knights, the Christians routed and scattered the Muslims, causing them to flee.84 Now that the danger from Saladin’s men had eased, King Richard and his army advanced towards Jerusalem. On December 31, they arrived at the Casal Betenoble (Beit Nuba), some thirteen miles northwest of Jerusalem.85 Heavy rain and violent wind caused havoc to the pilgrims fighting in a foreign land. Many of their pack animals died, and their tents were torn apart. Their food, especially bacon, had spoiled and many of them fell sick. Their only comfort was that at last they could see the holy city of Jerusalem and finish their pilgrimage. They were so elated by the prospect that some of those who had been lying sick at Jaffa were borne on couches and beds and joined the advancing army. But even as the sick were being carried, the 82

235.

Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 266; Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, 2:

83 Isfahani, al-Fath, 552, says the Muslims attacked an unnamed prominent and valiant man. 84 Ambroise, 293–298; Stone, 102–104; Nicholson, 274–279; Archer, The Crusade, 196–199. 85 Isfahani, al-Fath, 552.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1023

Muslims attacked, killing both those who were carried and those who carried them. According to al-Isfahani, the Muslims took fifty captives to Jerusalem.86 Still, the army was joyful at the sight of the Holy Sepulcher. They went on shouting, “O God, grant us Thine aid! O Virgin Lady, Saint Mary! O God, suffer us to adore Thee, for now shall we behold Thy Sepulcher. O God, now are we going the right way, thine own grace doth direct us!”87 The men trimmed and polished their breastplates, helmets, and swords in their final push to the city. Other were less optimistic; the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Pullani or Poulains (half-Frank, half-Syrian) tried to dissuade King Richard from rushing to Jerusalem. They reasoned that if they entered Jerusalem and fought with Saladin’s men inside the city, other Muslims outside the city and in the mountains would certainly rush to attack them, and they will be caught in a pincers by the Muslims. Even if they succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, they said, doing so would be of little use unless they assigned the toughest men to the difficult task of maintaining the city. Since their pilgrimage was ended, King Richard should postpone his advance on Jerusalem to keep their numbers intact and retain their military strength and that of the common people. According to Ambroise, these men said the land would once again be lost, while the Itinerarium says their advice was completely shunned.88 On January 3, 1192, as King Richard’s army prepared to advance, it was attacked by a hundred Muslims who were hidden in the bushes next to the Casal of the Plains (according to Ambroise) or the Casal of the Baths (according to the Itinerarium). They killed two men, but King Richard, riding his Cypriot horse Fauvel, caught and beheaded two of them who were thrown off their horses. Geoffrey of Lusignan and others with him took twenty Muslims captive, but the rest fled.89 Faced with many hardships, the expedition to Jerusalem was not going as King Richard desired. Thus, after the festival of Epiphany (January 6, 1192), the captains of the army met in council and asked the opinion of wise men who were born in that land (Pullani) whether they should advance to Jerusalem or retreat. The Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Pullani Isfahani, al-Fath, 562. Ambroise, 300; Stone, 106. 88 Ambroise, 298–301; Stone, 102–104; Nicholson, 274–279; Archer, The Crusade, 199–203. 89 Ambroise, 301–302 (also in Stone, 106–107); Nicholson, 280–281. Nicholson, 281, n. 109, says Muslim sources used both names for Yazur. 86 87

1024

THE CRUSADES

strongly urged that they abandon the advance to Jerusalem and instead return to Ascalon to fortify it and monitor the movement of the Muslim army coming from Egypt to aid the Muslims in Jerusalem. The leaders generally accepted this course of action, but upon hearing the news the army was stricken with grief. They had thought they were only steps from the Holy Sepulcher, but now all hope of beholding it seemed shattered. Utterly distressed, they called down every evil imaginable on those who had made or accepted the decision to retreat. They argued that if the leaders really knew how weak and miserable the Muslim garrison in Jerusalem was, they would have not made such an unhappy decision (even though the snowfall in the mountains had caused them to lose a great number of their horses), but would have allowed the army to march and take Jerusalem. Now that they were forced to retreat, the soldiers cursed the day they were born. Many of them were so overcome by grief that they almost abandoned the Christian faith. Disconsolate and weary, they found it hard to load their enfeebled horses and move on. Many of their sick would have died had King Richard not taken care of them. But the captains’ decision prevailed and the army began withdrawing to Ramla as the feast of St. Hillary (January 13, 1192) approached.90 The author of the Continuation of William of Tyre blames the retreat from Jerusalem on the duke of Burgundy and his French knights.91 Judged by his hesitance and lack of confidence in his ability to capture Jerusalem, however, King Richard appears equally responsible for the retreat from Jerusalem. Sidney Painter rightly says it seems likely that all the leaders, except perhaps Hugh of Burgundy, wanted to attack Jerusalem; but they realized that capturing it was a risky enterprise, and it would be difficult for them to hold onto the city even if they succeeded.92 According to Ibn al-Athir, the Franks returned to Ramla on January 8, 1192. He says they withdrew to Ramla because previously they had received their supplies from the coast. Now that they were far inland, the Muslims attacked them as they marched and plundered their supplies. Ibn al-Athir says the English king asked the Pullani to draw him a plan of Jerusalem, for he had never seen one before. When they did so, he saw that except on the northern side the city was surrounded by a valley. He thought it would be Ambroise, 302–304; Stone, 107–108; Nicholson, 283–285. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, 111, n. 190. 92 Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” in A History of the Crusades, M.W. Baldwin, ed., 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 78. 90 91

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1025

impossible to capture this city so long as Saladin lived and the Muslims were at peace with one another. The king also said that if he laid siege to the city on the northern side, the other sides would be exposed and the Muslims would prevent his army from penetrating. Even if he besieged the city from two sides, Saladin would concentrate his army and attack one force, making it difficult for the other to come to the rescue. It was for this reason that his men advised him to give up his attempt to march on Jerusalem and return to Ramla. So the Christians withdrew, frustrated at the lack of victory .93 King Richard faced other drastic problems at Ramla. An enormous number of men had left the army, either because of the hardships of the journey or out of defiance and contempt of the captains who had decided to withdraw from Jerusalem. Some of them sojourned for a time in Jaffa. Others went back to Acre, where there was plenty of food. A number of them, coaxed by the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, went to Tyre. Still others returned with the duke of Burgundy to the Casal of the Plains, staying there for eight days. The army was severely diminished. Exasperated at the situation, King Richard and his nephew Count Henri of Champagne went with the rest of the army to Ibelin, about ten miles southwest of Ramla. The men suffered as their horses and carts were bogged down in the muddy road. Nature showed no mercy; the army saw snow, hail, and torrents of rain. When they finally reached Ibelin, they were spent. They had lost their pack animals, and the food they carried either was swept away in the torrents or sank into the mud.94 Totally exhausted and often cursing the day they were born, the troops finally reached Ascalon on Sunday, January 20, 1192, only to find it razed to the ground by the Muslims. With great difficulty they struggled over heaps of stones to get through the city gates. But misfortune did not leave the army in peace. High winds and violent storms destroyed most of their ships, so that for eight days no provisions entered the harbor. Most of the barges and galleys carrying provisions were wrecked, and the men on board were almost drowned. King Richard’s sneckas (smacks) were destroyed, and his men used the wood to build long ships hoping to cross the sea, probably to invade Egypt as he had previously planned.95 Athir, al-Kamil, 55–56; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 374 says the Franks withdrew to Ramla but gives no details. 94 Ambroise, 304–305; Stone, 108; Nicholson, 284–286. 95 Ambroise, 306–307; Stone, 108–109; Nicholson, 286; Archer, The Crusade, 93

1026

THE CRUSADES

When Saladin learned from spies that King Richard’s army was broken up and scattered along the coast, he let his commanders return home with their forces to attend to their personal affairs until May, when mild weather would be more suitable for fighting. But they were not so happy as Saladin thought they might be. As they left, they complained that they had been fighting under Saladin for four years and had lost many of their brave comrades. But they mainly complained that Saladin had failed to redeem Muslim captives and save those whom King Richard had decapitated. So they left amid weeping and lamentation to revisit their families. Ambroise says that no man had ever been so hated or reviled by the Muslims as Saladin was because he had done nothing to rescue or redeem those Muslims who had perished.96 According to Muslim sources, at the end of November 1191 Saladin sent his commanders and their forces home because of the hardship they faced, especially the severe cold of the winter and the heavy torrents of rain. His men had been fighting for a long time and needed a respite. Meanwhile, he himself went to Jerusalem, accompanied by Ibn Shaddad and al-Isfahani, and took up residence in Dar al-Aqsa, near the Church of the Resurrection.97 King Richard was displeased with the scattering of his army, which he needed to rebuild Ascalon. By the end of January 1192, he persuaded the French to return to his camp at Ascalon. They said that they were willing to serve him, but only until Easter Sunday (April 5), and that after that date they must be allowed to return home. The king agreed, and the French returned to begin rebuilding Ascalon. Richard himself shared in the restoration effort while encouraging the masons and offering them money to expedite the work. It was largely because of his own effort and expense that three-quarters of the city was rebuilt.98 While Richard was restoring Ascalon, Saladin was busy rebuilding Jerusalem. Al-Isfahani says Saladin apportioned the wall of Jerusalem among his sons, his brother, and his troops, who were engaged in building a new wall for the city. Every day Saladin rode his horse, carrying in the qarabus 206–208. 96 Ambroise, 307–308; Stone, 109; Nicholson, 284–286. 97 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 292; Isfahani, al-Fath, 562, 581; Athir, al-Kamil, 54; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 374. 98 Ambroise, 308–309; Stone, 109; Nicholson, 288–289; Archer, The Crusade, 208–210; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 208–209; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3: 62–65. For a detailed account of the rebuilding of Ascalon, see Pringle, “King Richard,” 133–147.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1027

(saddlebow) stones for the rebuilding of the wall, and his commanders did the same. “If you saw him carrying stones in his lap,” says al-Isfahani, “you would have learned that he had a heart which carried a mount.” He says Saladin was so active in protecting the Sacred Rock that he felt pleased to have carried stones close to his breast, believing that he and his commanders were building a mansion for themselves in the Janna (Paradise).99 The rebuilding of Ascalon apparently exhausted the finances of King Richard, for he sent envoys to the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat, asking him to come to Ascalon and share in the expenses. But Conrad, being crafty and evil, mockingly replied that he would not go to Ascalon unless King Richard first granted him an interview, Surprisingly, his request was granted, and the two conferred at Casal Imbert. Meanwhile, King Richard faced another problem; Hugh, duke of Burgundy, and his French comrades complained that their food supplies had been almost exhausted and they could fight no more. The duke, also short of money, asked the king for a loan, saying he would repay it from the ransom paid to release the Muslims taken as prisoners at Acre. But Richard refused to lend the duke money, saying the Muslims captured at Acre had redeemed themselves with their heads and there was no ransom to be taken. Frustrated and enraged, the duke led his men back to Acre.100 Roger of Hoveden says King Richard demanded from the duke of Burgundy 1,500 pounds of silver which he had loaned him. The duke, who had no money, delivered the Muslim captive Caracois (Baha al-Din Qaraqosh) to settle the debt.101 When the French reached Acre, they found the Genoese and the Pisans locked in a bitter conflict, caused by Conrad’s ambition to seize the Kingdom of Jerusalem from Guy of Lusignan, who was still the lawful king. The Genoese supported the marquis because of the oath of fealty by which he was bound to the king of France, while the Pisans supported King Guy because of his generosity and justice. A great disturbance arose, with much bloodshed.102 The Genoese appealed to Conrad to come to their aid, and he rushed to Acre. The Pisans in turn appealed to King Richard for aid. He received their message at Caesarea, on his way to meet with Conrad. When King Richard reached Acre on February 20, 1192, Conrad retreated to Tyre 99 Isfahani, al-Fath, 581–582 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196); Athir, al-Kamil, 55; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 375. 100 Ambroise, 313–314; Stone, 110–111; Nicholson, 290–291; Archer, The Crusade, 210–211; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 266. 101 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 266–267. 102 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 266, says they slew one another.

1028

THE CRUSADES

to avoid conflict with him. He found that the duke and his Frenchmen were also gone. Calling the Genoese and the Pisans together, the king succeeded in reconciling them, and they renewed their old friendship with a kiss of peace.103 When peace was restored, King Richard and Marquis Conrad met at Casal Imbert. Conrad sought to avoid being involved with the army, on the grounds that the duke of Burgundy and all the French had already left. After obvious quibbling and outright lying, the marquis returned to Tyre. King Richard was faced with the problem of how to deal with him. Called into a conference, his leading aides advised him that since the marquis had violated his duty toward the king, he should be deprived of his possessions and all the revenues from the kingdom of Jerusalem assigned to him. Thus, the rift between King Richard and Marquis Conrad deepened. To spite King Richard, the marquis had even invited the French to leave Ascalon and join him in Tyre. The whole region was thrown into utter confusion that lasted from Ash Wednesday till the Tuesday before Easter (February 20-March 31, 1192). King Richard could not leave Acre.104 At this time Saladin was in Jerusalem. Ibn Shaddad says that King Richard, who desired peace, sent a messenger to Saladin saying that he wished to meet with al-Malik al-Adil, Saladin’s brother. The Muslims sent al-Malik al-Adil to point out to the king that negotiations between him and Saladin had taken place in the past but had yielded nothing. If the king was looking for the same result, there was no need for another meeting. AlMalik al-Adil left Jerusalem on Friday, March 20, 1192. On reaching Kaysan, he informed Saladin that he had met with Humphrey of Toron and the Chamberlain Abu Bakr, whom King Richard had chosen as delegates to Saladin. They were carrying an agreement whose terms al-Malik al-Adil thought to be favorable. It stipulated that King Richard would leave the Temple and citadel in Jerusalem to the Muslims, provided that half of the city would be given to the Christians. In return, Saladin was to surrender the True Cross, pledge the Christians free pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and offer them the right to assign a priest to the Church of the Resurrection, on condition that they should not bear arms. Finally, the agreement stipulated that if King Richard insisted on having Beirut, he would have it only after it Ambroise, 315–316; Stone, 112–113; Nicholson, 291–293; Archer, The Crusade, 211–213. 104 Ambroise, 315–318; Stone, 112–114; Nicholson, 293–294; Archer, The Crusade, 213–214. 103

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1029

had been destroyed. On April 1, al-Malik al-Adil returned to Jerusalem and informed Saladin of the terms of the agreement, but there is no evidence that it was ratified.105 The whole episode shows that despite their conflict, the relations between Saladin and King Richard were at times amicable. As a sign of their amity, the Itinerarium makes the extraordinary claim that on Palm Sunday (March 29), King Richard knighted the son of Saphadin (alMalik al-Adil Sayf Din), girding him with the belt of knighthood.106 Ibn Shaddad relates that on the evening of April 1, when al-Malik alAdil returned to Jerusalem, reports were received that “the Franks” (King Richard’s men) had attacked an Arab village in the neighborhood of Darum, killing some villagers and taking about a thousand sheep. Saladin, outraged, sent some of his men to pursue them, but they were already out of sight. More importantly, Ibn Shaddad says the marquis (Conrad) sent Yusuf (Joseph), the page of the lord of Sidon (Reginald Grenier, d. after 1200) as an envoy to Saladin, hoping to negotiate peace on his own terms.107 Saladin agreed to make peace, provided that the marquis would make war against his compatriots, and that whatever land he took from the Franks after the ratification of peace would be his and what the Muslims took would be theirs. Also, any lands that might be taken by a combined force, save the citadel, would belong to the marquis, while Saladin would receive the Muslim prisoners and other property. Furthermore, the marquis was to set free all the Muslim captives in his state, and if the king of England should grant him the government of [the kingdom of Jerusalem], the marquis must understand that peace should be continued between him and the Muslims on the same terms reached betweeen Saladin and the king of England. The town of Ascalon and the district beyond it, however, were exempted from this treaty of peace. All the territory on the seacoast would belong to the marquis, except that those areas already held by the Muslims were to remain in their possession. Finally, it was stipulated that the towns between the territory of the Franks and that of the Muslims were to be divided between the two sides.108 Bar Hebraeus says the factor that led the marquis to negoShaddad, al-Nawadir, 293–294; Isfahani, al-Fath, 590; Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khavats, 1964), 337. 106 Nicholson, 291–293; Archer, The Crusade, 213–214; Lane-Poole, Saladin, 337–338. Ambroise, 318–319 (also in Stone, 113–114), makes no mention of the knighting of the son of Saphadin, nor do Muslim sources. 107 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 294–295; Isfahani, al-Fath, 590. In fact, Shaddad, alNawadir, 270–271, already described contact between the marquis and Saladin. 108 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 294–295; Archer, The Crusade, 216–217. Ambroise, 105

1030

THE CRUSADES

tiate with Saladin was his conflict with King Richard over Tyre. King Richard had told the marquis that he had no right to rule Tyre independently and wanted to take it from him. Realizing that he was about to lose his own state, the marquis chose to negotiate with Saladin.109 Saladin was pleased with this negotation, despite the opposition of his brother al-Malik al-Adil, who tried to dissuade him from coming to terms with any Christian other than King Richard. He told his brother that he would find no better Christian than King Richard, and no one so good to deal with, adding, “I will not endorse or agree to any peace terms whatsoever without his knowledge and agreement.” As a result, the marquis’s hope for an agreement with Saladin was scuttled, but his action became known and was openly discussed among the Crusaders. Two prominent men, Balian II of Ibelin and Reginald of Sidon, who served as ambassadors for the marquis and were busy hurrying back and forth between Saladin and the marquis, were caught redhanded by Stephen of Turnham as they were leaving Jerusalem. Ambroise says “ . . . these two men came to seek and purchase a peace, but a foul and not a fair one. They ought to be hounded from the place.”110 Like Saladin’s earlier negotiation with King Richard, this one with Conrad did not come to fruition. But it shows the extent of the marquis’s ambition to assume the crown of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, by behaving like a sovereign and negotiating with Saladin just as Richard had done. As we shall see, the marquis would finally fulfill his ambition. On the Tuesday before Easter, March 31, King Richard returned to his army at Ascalon, dejected. The next day, the French leaders came to announce their intention to leave (evidently they had been recalled by the duke of Burgundy and the marquis) and asked him to provide them with escorts and safe-conduct for the journey. The king agreed and assigned the Templars, the Hospitallers, and Count Henri of Champagne to escort them. He tearfully implored them to stay and help reconstruct the desolate country, but they refused. Enraged, he sent instructions to the commanders of Acre not to let the Franks into the city, forcing them to camp outside the walls. King Richard’s army was virtually devastated by the departure of almost 700 skilled, valiant, well-armed French knights. The Christians grieved 330–331; Stone, 118–119; Nicholson, 303–304. 109 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation. 110 Ambroise, 330–332; Stone, 118–119; Nicholson, 303–305; Archer, The Crusade, 222–223; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 199–200.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1031

over the loss of these men, but predictably Saladin rejoiced at the news and asked his men to return to Jerusalem as quickly as possible.111 Though barred from Acre, the French managed to enter Tyre. With no power to restrain them, they indulged in immoral practices. They abandoned themselves to wine, women and song and feasting with prostitutes. In far greater detail than Ambroise, the Itinerarium exposes their wantonness, reporting that the French spent sleepless nights with girls and, inflamed with wine and lust, frequented brothels. The author laments, “What more should I say? Their outward appearance proved their inward levity. Their behavior proved that they did not take their pilgrimage seriously.”112 But not all of them acted so basely. Others were greatly upset by the dissolute behavior of their comrades and were deeply saddened by the disagreement between their leaders and King Richard.113 Both Ambroise and the Itinerarium relate Saladin’s prophetic anticipation of his death. On Easter Eve (Saturday, April 4, 1192), Saladin with his retinue went to the Lord’s Sepulcher in Jerusalem. He wanted to know the truth about the light which he had heard comes down from heaven on that day to light a lamp. He watched many devout Christians in shackles as they awaited the miracle of light. Suddenly, the lamp was lighted and the Christians rejoiced. The Muslims said that the fire was nothing but a trick concocted by the Christians to fool them. Anxious to be sure of the matter, Saladin ordered the lamp put out, but it was relit. Still not convinced, he ordered the light put out several times, and each time it was relit. Saladin was astonished by this miracle and by the Christians’ faith and devotion. Inspired by prophetic spirit he declared, “Without doubt, either I will soon leave this life, or I will lose possession of the city (Jerusalem).” Indeed, he died the next year on March 4, 1193.114 King Richard observed Easter on April 5, 1192 at Ascalon with great splendor. On Easter Monday he renewed the work on the city walls. On Tuesday, April 7, he went with a few men to inspect Gaza, and on Wednesday he moved in a circle about Darum (Dayr al-Balah), eight miles southwest of Gaza, to find out the best side from which to assault it. The Muslims in Darum fired numerous missiles from bows and crossbows at the 111 Ambroise, 318–321; Stone, 114–115; Nicholson, 294–297; Archer, The Crusade, 213–216. 112 Nicholson, 299–300. 113 Ambroise, 332–324, erroneously says the disagreement was between the French and the king of France [sic]; Stone, 115–116; Archer, The Crusade, 213–214. 114 Ambroise, 321–322; Stone, 115; Nicholson, 297.

1032

THE CRUSADES

king and shouted insults he could not understand, but the king and his men returned unharmed to Ascalon.115 After Easter, the prior of Hereford, England, came to King Richard carrying a letter from William Longchamp, the bishop of Ely and the king’s chancellor.116 The bishop complained that those to whom the king had entrusted the government before he left for the Holy Land had been driven out by the intrigues of his brother, Prince John; he himself had had to go to Normandy. The bishop complained that John had exacted oaths of allegiance and submission from himself and the nobles of the kingdom, and had deprived them of their castles. He had also usurped the royal treasury, and there was no money left except what had been hidden in the churches. The bishop warned King Richard that if he did not return quickly to England, worse events might follow, and he would not be able to recover his rights without war. King Richard was stunned and speechless on hearing the news. He faced a dilemma. If he departed, the army would be deprived of leadership and the country would fall into the hands of the Muslims. In order to make the right decision, the king called the leaders of the army and the barons to a conference and laid before them the message of the Bishop of Ely. He told them that if he decided to return to England, he would leave 300 chosen knights and 2,000 elite infantry at his own expense. He also asked which of them wished to return with him, and which chose to remain. He would not force them to decide. Those men of high state who were present told the king that the kingdom (the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem) was in utter disorder and without a sovereign. They said that King Guy was in no wise able to maintain his own rule, nor would the marquis (Conrad of Montferrat) return to the army, since he had joined the French. In the face of this anomaly, the assembled men told King Richard frankly that if he did not designate a lord to rule the kingdom and fight their wars, they would quit and leave. He then asked whether they wanted King Guy or the marquis to be their sovereign. They answered that they preferred the marquis to be their king. King Richard consented and sent Count Henri of Champagne, William of Cayeux, and others to inform the marquis that he had been chosen king and bring him from Tyre to Ascalon.

Nicholson, 298–299. William Stubbs identifies the prior as Robert, later abbot of Munchelaey. See Beatrice Siedschlag, English Participation in the Crusades 1150–1220 (Randolph, WI, 1939), 123, n. 121; John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 326, n. 2. 115 116

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1033

On reaching Tyre, the ambassadors informed Marquis Conrad of Montferrat that he had been elected unanimously as king with King Richard’s consent. But they added that the crown was offered him on the condition that he and his army should assume responsibility for the kingdom, inflict vengeance on the Muslims and establish his rule over the kingdom of Jerusalem as it would belong to him. Reportedly the marquis rejoiced, lifted his hands toward heaven, and said, “Lord God, who created me and placed a soul in me, who is the True and Benign King, grant me, I beg, Lord, that if you judge me worthy to govern Your Kingdom, I will live to see myself crowned. But if you think differently about me, Lord, may you never consent to my being promoted to it.”117 The citizens of Tyre, overjoyed by the news, made proper preparations for the coronation of the marquis. They borrowed money to buy new clothes and armor to reflect their dignity for the occasion. But it was too soon to celebrate. When Count Henri II of Champagne and the other envoys stopped at Acre on their way to King Richard’s army in Ascalon, they received terrible news: the marquis had been assassinated at Tyre. Both Western and Eastern sources agree that Marquis Conrad was killed by two Assassins (Ismai’li Batinis), but they differ on the details. According to Ambroise and the Itinerarium, Conrad had been invited to dinner by Philip of Dreux, bishop of Beauvais (1175–1217). He returned from the feast, cheerful and in good humor. As he reached the customhouse, he was attacked by two young Assassins who stabbed him in the stomach with knives. He fell from his horse, mortally wounded, while the attackers fled. As the marquis was carried to the palace the people wept, for their joy had turned into sorrow. After receiving the sacraments, he enjoined his wife to take care of the city of Tyre and not to surrender it to anyone except King Richard or to someone else to whom the kingdom belonged by hereditary right. He died on April 28, 1192, and was buried at the Hospital of St. John in Jerusalem. One of Conrad’s assassins was caught and beheaded; the other took refuge in a church, but he was pulled out and dragged through the middle of Tyre until he died. Questioned before he died about his motive in murdering the marquis, he confessed that he and his accomplice had been sent by the Old Man of the Mountain (Rashid alDin Sinan), lord of the Assassins, who decreed that the marquis should Nicholson, 305; Ambroise, 333 (in Stone, 119); Stone, trans., “The History of Them That Took Constantinople,” in Three Old French Chronicles, 198; Archer, The Crusade, 224. 117

1034

THE CRUSADES

die.118 Roger of Hoveden says two servants of the Assassins’ chief who had long served at the court of the marquis Conrad and had been members of his household slew him at Tyre. They were immediately arrested by bystanders. When interrogated, the two Assassins confessed that they did this at the command of the king (chief) of the Assassins. One of them was instantly put to death, while the other was flayed alive.119 According to the Continuation of William of Tyre, the marquis was not invited to dinner by the bishop of Beauvais but rather invited himself. When one day the marquis’s wife Isabel took too long at the baths, the marquis, being hungry and impatient for dinner, mounted his horse and, accompanied by two knights, went to dine at the bishop’s house, but found that the bishop had already eaten. The bishop told him that he would have some dinner fixed for him, but the marquis insisted on returning home. Hardly had he reached the outer gate of the archbishopric, halfway down the narrow street, when he saw two men sitting one on either side of the road. One handed the marquis a letter; as he held out his hand to receive it, the man immediately stabbed him with a knife. The other man, on the opposite side of the road, jumped onto the horse’s rear and stabbed the marquis in the side, and the marquis fell from his horse, fatally wounded.120 The French maliciously accused King Richard of hiring the Assassins and paying them to kill the marquis. They even sent word to the king of France to beware of the Assassins and their chief, the Old Man of the Mountain (Sinan), because King Richard had sent four Assassins to France to kill him.121 Richard of Devizes says that ever since he arrived in Judea, King Richard had plotted to betray his lord, the king of France. He even wanted the throat of the marquis cut so that he might seize Tyre. He adds that when King Philip returned to France, the lord of Beauvais secretly whispered in his ear that the king of England was sending assassins to 118 Ambroise, 334–336 (also in Stone, 119–120; Nicholson, 305–307; Archer, The Crusade, 224–227. On the Assassins and their lord, see Janet Shirley, ed., Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: The Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre Text (Ashgate, 1999), 35–36. 119 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 267. 120 Continuation, 114–115; Stone, “The History of Them That took Constantinople,” 198. 121 Ambroise, 337–339; Stone, 120–121; Nicholson, 307–308; Roger de Hoveden, Annals, 2: 267; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 104; Archer, The Crusade, 228; Continuation 115; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, Joseph Stevenson, ed. (London: Longman, 1875), 35.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1035

France to kill him. Accordingly, the king of France issued an edict to his princes that they should seize the king of England on his return from Judea (Richard sailed for Europe on October 9, 1192) and turn him over, dead or alive.122 King Philip even planned to attack England, but his advisors dissuaded him from doing so.123 The questions about the marquis’s murder evidently followed King Richard even after he returned to Europe. Ambroise says that because of the wickedness of the French King, Richard was later thrown into prison.124 The charges that Richard murdered the marquis are unfounded. His defense came not from his own men, but from the Old Man of the Mountain himself. When Duke Leopold of Austria was holding King Richard in prison in late December 1192, he received a letter from The Old Man of the Mountain exonerating King Richard.125 In it the Old Man of the Mountain says that Richard had been accused by many of the marquis’s killing, but he should not be held at fault. The reason for Conrad’s killing, he explains, is that after a ship belonging to one of the Assassins was driven by a storm to Tyre, the marquis had its captain killed and took his money. The Old Man of the Mountain sent messengers to tell the marquis to release the body and give back the money, but he refused and blamed the captain’s death on Reginald of Sidon. Since then the Assassins had wanted to kill the marquis. They sent two of their men to Tyre and killed him openly before the people of Tyre. The letter of the Old Man of the Mountain, sent from the castle of Masyad (Masyaf), is dated the middle of September of the year 1505 from Alexander, which corresponds to September 1192 A.D.126 This letter may not be genuine, Nicholson argues, but its contents may be accurate.127 Even if the letter is a forgery, it shows the extent to which King Richard’s enemies would go to implicate him in the assassination of the marquis.128 If the king had wanted to kill the marquis, with whom he Richard of Devizes, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First, John T. Appleby, ed. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963; hereafter Richard of Devizes), 80–81. 123 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 2: 366–367. 124 Ambroise, 339; Stone, 121; Nicholson, 308, n. 55. 125 Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 270–271. 126 For this letter see Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 127–128; Nicholson, 384–385; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, 225–226; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 457–458; Archer, The Crusade, 231–233. 127 Nicholson, 384, n. 111. 128 Archer, The Crusade, 233. 122

1036

THE CRUSADES

had a bitter conflict, he could have done so much earlier. Clearly, the Old Man of the Mountain had the marquis killed because he had captured a ship belonging to the Assassins, plundered it, and had its skipper killed. The episode of the ship is corroborated by other Western sources.129 It makes no sense that King Richard should have wanted to kill the marquis and yet consented to his being chosen King of Jerusalem and prepared for his coronation. Moreover, despite their bitter conflict, the marquis before dying had instructed his wife to surrender the city of Tyre first to King Richard. The charge against Richard is an unwarrranted fabrication, for Rashid alDin Sinan, chief of the Assassins, makes clear it was he who had the marquis killed.130 According to some Muslim sources, the marquis was murdered as he was leaving a banquet by the bishop (presumably the bishop of Beauvais, although they do not identify him).131 Ibn Shaddad says the two men who attacked the marquis were among his associates. They kept plunging knives into him until he was dead. When asked why, they said the king of England had set them to the task.132 Al-Isfahani says that the two men, actually Assassins, came to Tyre and embraced Christianity. They pretended to be monks and often worshipped at the church. The marquis loved them and could not endure company without them. One day they pounced on him and killed him. When asked who was responsible, they said it was the King of England. Then they were both killed. Al-Isfahani finally gloats, “ . . . two kafirs (infidels) spilled the blood of another kafir, and two rogues murdered another rogue.” Like Ibn Shaddad, al-Isfahani says the two assassins admitted that the king of England instigated them to kill the marquis, but he notes that the marquis was a bitter foe of the king and had a dispute with him over the throne of the kingdom (of Jerusalem).133 Unlike these sources, Ibn al-Athir attributes the murder of the marquis to Saladin. He says Saladin communicated with Sinan (Rashid al-Din), lord Continuation, 114; Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, M. L. De Mas Latrie, ed. (Paris: M. V. Jules Renouard, 1871), 289–290; Archer, The Crusade, 229, follows Ernoul. 130 T. Illgen, Markgraf Conrad von Montferrat (Marburg, 1880), 127–135; John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 338, n. 12; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 216–217. 131 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 297; Isfahani, al-Fath, 589; Athir, al-Kamil, 58–59; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 381–382. 132 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 297. 133 Isfahani, al-Fath, 589–590 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 381–382. 129

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1037

of the Isma’ilis, in al-Sham (Syria), asking him to send men to kill the king of England. If they also killed the marquis, they would be rewarded with 10,000 dinars. Sinan sent two men disguised as monks who kept in contact with Balian II (Ibn Barzan) and the lord of Sidon. They spent six months in Tyre, pretending to be devoted to worship, then murdered the marquis as he came out of the house of the bishop, who had invited him to a banquet. But Sinan’s men refrained from killing the king of England because there was no advantage in doing so. Sinan felt that if the king of England were killed, Saladin, relieved of the antagonism of the Franks, might turn against him and eliminate him. Ibn al-Athir concludes that the French accused the king of England of the marquis’s murder.134 The Egyptian historian Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur questions Ibn alAthir’s account on the grounds that implicating Saladin in the murder of the marquis contradicts Saladin’s policy and character. In addition, he contends, all the other sources say that Saladin did not rejoice over the marquis’s murder because of his hatred toward King Richard, with whom he fought over the throne of Jerusalem. Ashur reasons that the elimination of King Richard would have rallied the Crusaders to challenge Saladin, which was not in the interest of Saladin or of the Muslims.135 Clearly Saladin, as a Muslim fighting the infidel Christians, would have felt that conflict within the Crusaders’ ranks and the confusion resulting from Conrad’s antagonism toward Richard would have weakened them, thus enabling him to solidify his power and finally overcome them. Bar Hebraeus says nothing about the marquis’s being invited to dinner by the bishop and murdered as he left the banquet. While the marquis’s ambassador was negotiating peace with Saladin, he says, two Isma’ilis wearing monks’ garb pounced upon the marquis as he was riding. One Isma’ili stabbed him. When the other saw that the marquis was still alive, he leapt upon him as he was being moved to a church and stabbed him to death there. When the Franks caught the two assassins and put them to torture, they confessed that the king of England had put them up to the murder, but later it was revealed that it was Rashid al-Din Sinan, the chief of the Isma’ilis, who had sent them to kill the marquis.136

Athir, al-Kamil, 58–59. Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya, 2: 885–886, n. 4. 136 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation. 134 135

1038

THE CRUSADES

No sooner had the marquis died on April 28, 1192, than 10,000 Frenchmen who were camped outside Tyre asked his widow Isabel to surrender the city to them. She refused, declaring that before her husband breathed his last, he had told her not to surrender the city except to King Richard. The French were extremely indignant at her reply. While they were struggling over the control of the city, Count Henri II of Champagne arrived. When the French saw him, they thought he had been sent by God to be their king. They begged him to accept the throne and marry the marquis’s widow. The count said that he would not accept their offer without the approval of his uncle King Richard, and only for the good of Christendom. The French sent ambassadors to to inform Richard that the marquis had been murdered and that they had chosen Count Henri to be their king. When they met with the king and told him about the violent and unexpected death of the marquis, he was stunned, but he was quite pleased that his nephew had been chosen king. He told the ambassadors that while he approved of Henri’s selection, he would advise him not to marry the marquis’s widow, because the marquis had snatched her from her husband (Humphrey IV of Toron) while he was still alive. Isabel, however, was willing to marry Count Henri, and of her own accord went to him and handed him the keys of Tyre.137 The Continuation of William of Tyre, however, says that when King Richard was sure that the marquis was dead he went to Tyre and, on the advice of the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, took Count Henri with him. He told Count Henri that he wished to give him Isabel, the marquis’s widow, as a wife, but she was pregnant by the marquis. If she gave birth to a male heir, the child would inherit the kingdom. Count Henri answered, “And I shall be stuck with the woman. You will know that is why I cannot go to Champagne.” King Richard then promised Count Henri that if he married Isabel, he would give him more than he would get if he went back to Champagne. He added that he planned to leave for England, but would return and conquer the empire of Constantinople. He would give him Cyprus, which he had conquered, since King Guy had not given him the price of 40,000 bezants promised for the purchase of the island. Because of these promises, Count Henri agreed to marry Isabel.138

137 Ambroise, 339; Stone, 121–122; Nicholson, ed., 308–309; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 374. 138 Continuation, 115–116.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1039

Ambroise says that King Richard promised to make Count Henri lord of Syria and its domains, while the Itinerarium says that the king promised to give Count Henri the cities of Acre, Tyre, and Jaffa, and all the countries he took from the Muslims.139 Regarding his marrying Isabel while she was pregnant, al-Isfahani comments disparagingly that Count Henri had cohabited with the wife of the marquis while she was pregnant, and “pregnancy, according to the Franks, does not prevent marriage, a matter worse than adultery. I asked some of their messengers to whom the child [Isabel was carrying] would belong, and they said it belongs to the queen (Isabel). Such was the permissiveness of this polytheist band.”140 At best, this marriage was a matter of political convenience. Saladin himself had married the widow of his master Nur al-Din Zangi to buttress his power and dominate Syria, his master’s domain. The only difference is that Nur al-Din’s widow was not pregnant when Saladin married her; the motive in both cases was the same. Isabel and Count Henri II of Champagne were married on May 8, 1192, ten days after the marquis was assassinated.141 (Al-Isfahani, eager to ascribe evil motives to Christians, says Count Henri married Isabel on the evening of the same day on which her husband the marquis was assassinated.142) The marriage ceremony was celebrated with pomp in the church, in the presence of many clergy and laity. The French and the Normans rejoiced, especially because the count was the nephew of both the king of France and the king of England.143 It was hoped the marriage would bring peace and harmony to the Crusaders. When the wedding celebration was over, Count Henri sent out men to take charge of the cities of Acre and Jaffa and the castles of the land. He then ordered his men to be ready to join King Richard’s expedition to capture the castle of Darum. On his way to join King Richard at Ascalon, Count Henri, accompanied by his wife and Hugh, duke of Burgundy, came to Acre. It is estimated that 60,000 people went out to meet the count, with dancing women leading the way. The clergy took the count and his entourage to the church and showed him the Ambroise, 339; Stone, 121–122; Nicholson, 312. Isfahani, al-Fath, 590 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196); Athir, al-Kamil, 59; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 382. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation, calls Henri’s marriage to Isabel an illegal act. 141 Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 104. 142 Isfahani, al-Fath, 590 (in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196). 143 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 267. 139 140

1040

THE CRUSADES

Holy Cross and other relics, which he kissed in full adoration. They were then led to the royal palace, where a magnificent banquet was arranged. The whole city was overjoyed by the presence of this future king.144 Despite the joy of the Europeans and the natives at having a new king of Jerusalem, the election of Count Henri created a problem. He was elected, while Guy of Lusignan was still the legitimate head of the kingdom. Although he had lost his throne at Hittin in 1187, he had a better right than anyone else to claim it. King Richard, who was Guy’s ally, needed a solution to this problem, and Cyprus, which he had previously conquered and sold to the Templars for 100,000 bezants, was the answer. The Templars had mistakenly thought they could control the island with a force of only twenty brothers. But they oppressed and mistreated its Greek citizens, causing the people to rebel and besiege them in the castle of Nicosia. Realizing that they could not fight so great a multitude, the Templars told the citizens that they too were Christians and had not come to Cyprus by their own strength. If the people wanted them to quit the island, they would leave willingly. When the natives saw the Templars’ humiliation, they grew bolder and refused to let them leave, instead taking vengeance on them, torturing and killing many. When Reynald Bochart, master of the Templars, and the other brothers saw that they were in jeopardy, they fought back and killed many of the natives. But, being outnumbered, they soon left for Acre and told King Richard what had happened to them. After consultation, they agreed that they could no longer keep Cyprus and decided to give it back to King Richard. Brother Robert Sablé, the new master of the Templars, told King Richard of their decision and asked him to return the security they had given him. The king agreed to take back Cyprus but refused to give back the security on the grounds, declaring that he had taken it at three or four times its actual value. When he learned that the Templars had delivered Cyprus to King Richard, King Guy of Lusignan asked King Richard to sell the island to him. Richard agreed and sold Cyprus to him for 100,000 bezants, the same price for which he had sold it to the Templars. King Guy was delighted and asked Peter Angoulême, bishop of Tripoli, to raise money for the purchase. The bishop told Guy that it would take two months to raise the money. Guy then hurried to Tripoli, where he borrowed 60,000 bezants from Sais, a wealthy burgher of the city, and from John de la Moneie and other citi144 Ambroise, 342–344; Stone, 123–124; Nicholson, 312–313; Archer, The Crusade, 234–235.

RICHARD, SALADIN, AND THE MARQUIS

1041

zens. He paid the money to Richard and went to Cyprus to receive his new domain. But when King Richard stopped at Cyprus on his way back to Europe in October 1192, he demanded the 40,000 bezants still owing. Guy, lamenting that he had been disinherited and had no money, asked the king to forgive him the debt. Feeling compassion toward him, King Richard consented, and Guy continued as ruler of Cyprus, where the Lusignan kingdom lasted until 1472.145

Continuation, 112–113; Ambroise, 345–346; Stone, 123–124; Nicholson, 313–315; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 261. On the Lusignan kingdom of Cyprus see Peter W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Edbury, ed., Kingdoms of the Crusades From Jerusalem to Cyprus, (Ashgate, 1999); Sa’id Abd al-Fattah Ashur, Qubrus wa al-Hurub alSalibiyya (Cyprus and the Crusades: Cairo, 1957). 145

30 RICHARD AND SALADIN: THE LAST CAMPAIGN With the rule of Jerusalem settled, King Richard resumed his conflict with the Muslims. On May 17, 1192, he marched against the fortress of Darum, stormed it, and captured it within four days. The small Muslim garrison commanded by Alam al-Din Qaysar was unable to defend the fortress. Working with some of the guards he had left in Acre, the king employed stonecasters from Aleppo who succeeded in breaching the fortress wall. The Muslims in Darum asked King Richard for a respite to consult with Saladin, but he rejected their request. The Muslims fled under heavy attack, and King Richard’s men proudly entered the fortress. Bar Hebraeus says they killed everyone therein, a claim not supported by other sources.1 The first to enter the fortress was Seguin Barrez, with his squire Ospiard, followed by Peter of Gascony and many others. The victors cast down the Muslims’ banners and raised their own. The first banner raised above the wall was that of Stephen Longchamp, brother of the Bishop of Ely; the second was that of the count of Leicester, and the third was the banner of Andrew of Chavigni and Raymond, son of Bohemond III, lord of Antioch. The Genoese and the Pisans also set their own banners of different shapes upon the walls. Realizing that it could no longer resist, the Muslim garrison surrendered on Friday, May 22. When the fortress was taken, almost forty Christian captives found in chains were set free.2 Count Henri of ChamGregorius Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, E. W. Budge, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932), 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation. 2 Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, Merton Jerome Hubert, ed. (New York: Octagon Books, 1976; cited hereafter as Ambroise), 347–353; Edward Noble Stone, ed., The History of the Holy War in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (Seattle: University of Washington, 1939; cited hereafter as Stone), 123–125; Helen J. Nicholson, ed., Chronicle of the Third Crusade, 316–319 (hereafter cited as Nicholson); T. A. Archer, The Crusade of Richard I 1189–1192 (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1889), 1

1043

1044

THE CRUSADES

pagne and Hugh, duke of Burgundy, rushed with their French troops, hoping to share in the capture of the fortress, but they arrived too late. Although King Richard did not need their assistance, he treated them magnanimously. With great joy he escorted them inside, and in the presence of many men, he ceded the fortress and all its possessions to Count Henri as the first fruit of the kingdom which they were to conquer. The Crusaders observed the festival of Pentecost at Darum. Leaving soldiers to guard the fortress, the Franks set out on May 24 for Ascalon, passing between Gazza and Furbia.3 The Muslim sources say that after leaving Darum, they camped at the valley of al-Hisy, thirty miles southwest of Ramla and ten miles northeast of Cazza, near the mountain of al-Khalil (Hebron). After one day, they marched against a fortress called Majdal Yaba, near Ramla; they met strong resistance by the Muslims and were driven back after losing a prominent leader (not identified). Some of them returned to Ascalon; the rest headed for Jerusalem, going first to Beit Jibrin, then to Tall al-Safiya, al-Natrun, and Beit Nuba, and finally to Qalonya, a village near Jerusalem.4 Ambroise and the Iterinarium report that while he was at Furbia, King Richard learned from one of his spies that Caysac (Alam al-Din Qaysar), aided by a thousand men, was fortifying the Castle of Figs and preparing to challenge the Christians.5 King Richard at once left with the army and spent the night of May 27 at a castle called Arundinetum, 235–239. Fewer details are given by Roger of Hoveden, Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. Henry T. Riley (New York: AMS, 1968), 2: 267; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, 1 (London, 1886), 1: 208; Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, R. H. C. Or., 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884), 301; Imad al-Din Al-Isfahani, al-Fath alQussi fi al-Fath al-Qudsi, Muhammad Mahmud Subh, ed. (Cairo: al-Dar al-Qawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965), 591; Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Receil des Historiens des Croisades 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 60 (in Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn (Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870), 2: 196–197); Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub, Jamal ad-Din al-Shayyal, ed. (Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953), 2: 380. 3 Ambroise, 353–354; Stone, 126; Nicholson, 318–319; Archer, The Crusade, 238–240. 4 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 301–302; Isfahani, al-Fath, 591–592; Athir, al-Kamil, 60 (and in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196–197); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 382–383. 5 Ambroise, 354–355 (also in Stone, 126–127; Nicholson, 318–319; Archer, The Crusade, 240.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1045

or the Canebrake of Starlings (possibly Uyun al-Qasab).6 When the army reached the Castle of Figs, they found it deserted. Apparently, the Muslims had used Greek fire to destroy its gates and fled when they learned that King Richard was on the way to fight them. Some of Richard’s men climbed to the highest rampart of the fortress to see whether any Muslims were still there, but when they saw no one, they returned to the Castle of the Starlings. Toward the end of May 1192, a messenger named John of Alençon, Archdeacon of Lisieux and vice-chancellor of England, arrived at the castle with bad tidings. He reported that John, King Richard’s brother, without regard to his mother’s advice or that of others, had been encouraged by the king of France to act independently and usurp the kingship from Richard, and that the treachery had gone so far that unless the king took immediate action, he would lose England.7 Richard was troubled by the news and pondered whether to return home to save his kingdom. Meanwhile, rumors abounded, alternately reporting that the king was leaving or that he would stay to carry on the struggle against the Muslims. The masters of the army, French, English, Poitevins, men of Maine and Angevins, assembled and resolved to continue their march to Jerusalem with or without King Richard. The army was delighted to hear this resolution and showed their joy with burning lights, dancing and singing. King Richard on June 3 marched with the army to Ibelin (Yabna, Beit Jibrin), the base of the Hospitallers next to Hebron, where the mother of Mary the Mother of God was born. Here the troops were attacked by vicious flies called “cincenelles” which caused swelling and burning of the skin. Despite this affliction, they were full of hope to reach Jerusalem. At Beit Jibrin, King Richard, still dejected by the news from home, could not decide whether to return home or stay. A Poitevin chaplain named William reproached him for his indecision, reminding him of his feats both in Europe and in the East, which had made even the Sultan (Saladin) quake before him. He told King Richard he was “the father of all, the patron and defender of Christendom, which if deserted by you, will be left to be destroyed by its enemies.” So it was that on June 4, 1192, the king decided to

See M. C. Lyons and D. E. P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 124. 7 Ambroise, 355–357; Stone, 126–127; Nicholson, 320–321; Archer, The Crusade, 240–241. 6

1046

THE CRUSADES

stay for the time being, vowing only to return home by the next Easter.8 He returned to Ascalon to prepare for the march against Jerusalem. On June 7, 1192, the Sunday after Trinity, the army set out toward Jerusalem, arriving two days later at al-Natrun (Toron des Chevaliers). On June 10 the French arrived, and the whole army advanced to Betenopolis (Beit Nuba), as the Muslim sources also report. King Richard waited for a month or so there for the return of Count Henri of Champagne, whom he had sent to Acre to bring back the people who were idling there. Early in the morning of Friday, June 12, the feast of St. Barnabas, King Richard went out as far as the spring of Emmaus (Emwas), where he found some Muslims who were unaware of his presence. He attacked them, killing twenty and routing the rest. He also captured Saladin’s herald, but spared his life. He pursued the fleeing Muslims through the mountains, caught up with one of them in the valley, and threw him off his horse and killed him. He then looked around and saw the city of Jerusalem in the distance. When the Muslims learned that Richard was approaching the city, they became so terrified that if he had advanced in full force, they would have abandoned the city in panic and left it to the Christians. It is said that Saladin himself called for his best horse to be made ready to flee because he did not dare tarry for Richard’s arrival.9 The same day, two hundred Muslims descended from the mountain to the plain and, spying the tents of the French, stormed the camp and threw it into confusion. Before they were routed, they killed two attendants who had gone out foraging. A Hospitaller knight named Robert of Burgess broke camp against orders and charged the Muslims. He chased a Muslim fighter and pierced his body with a lance. Despite his success, his disobedience to orders displeased his prior, Garnier of Nabulus, but through the intercession of his comrades he was pardoned. Although the Crusaders and the Muslims opposed each other with equal determination, the Crusaders, already exhausted by the weight of battle, and began to waver. Were it not for the arrival of Bishop Salisbury and his troops, the French would have been routed that day.10 According to Muslim sources, when the Franks 8 Ambroise, 357–363; Stone, 126–130; Nicholson, 322–325; Archer, The Crusade, 242–246. 9 Ambroise, 366–369; Stone,130–133; Nicholson, 327–328; Roger of Wendover, Flowers, 1: 208–209; Archer, The Crusade, 247–249. 10 Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, ed. Merton Jerome Hubert, 369– 370; Three Old French Chronicles, ed. Edward Noble Stone,130–133; Nicholson, 329– 330; Archer, The Crusade, 251–252.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1047

reached Beit Nuba, the Muslims attacked and engaged them in several skirmishes. The commander Badr al-Din Dulderim ambushed them, killing one. After the Franks reached Qalonya, the Muslims kept harassing and attacking them, killing some and taking others captive. Saladin, who was then in Jerusalem, sent his commanders and men to the towers and ordered them to move the provisions lest they fall into the hands of the Franks.11 So far it was not clear whether, now that King Richard had reached the vicinity of Jerusalem, he would press on with his campaign and attack the city or return home to save his kingdom from his treacherous brother. Meanwhile, the army was faced with incursions by the Muslims, who gave the Crusaders no respite. On June 17, 1192, they attacked a Crusader caravan that had left Jaffa laden with provisions. Ferric de Vienne was appointed to escort the caravan, in place of Count Henri of Champagne, who ought to have guarded its rear but had been sent to Acre. Ferric asked his comrades to guard the caravan and keep the members from being separated. But they could not keep the people together, and the Muslims fell upon the caravan as it reached a site not far from Ramla. A bitter conflict ensued, and although the men of the caravan resisted the Muslims, a few were lost while others fled. At that moment the earl of Leicester, who was unaware of the situation, came to the rescue. He threw the first Muslim he met off his horse. Then Anscon, the comrade of Stephen Longchamp, cut off the Muslim’s head and hurled it away. Soon afterwards a relief force arrived, and upon seeing it the Muslims fled. The Crusaders carried their wounded on horses back to the army’s camp.12 While King Richard was camped near Jerusalem, two events connected with the True Cross occurred. A certain Syrian bishop who had paid tribute to Saladin for himself and his congregation came with his followers to King Richard, bringing as a gift a fragment of the Holy Cross.13 And on June 22, the feast of St. Alban, the king received comforting news from the abbot of St. Elias, a venerable-looking man with a flowing white beard. He told the king that for a long time he had kept a fragment of the Holy Cross hidden away, waiting for the time when God would deliver the Holy Land from the hand of the Muslims and restore it to the Christians. He added 11 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 303–305; Isfahani, al-Fath, 591–592; Athir, al-Kamil, 60 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 196–197); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 382–383. 12 Ambroise, 371–376; Stone, 133–134; Nicholson, 331–333; Archer, The Crusade, 256–258. 13 Nicholson, 333.

1048

THE CRUSADES

that Saladin had often pressed him for the fragment of the Cross, but he had contrived many reasons not to give it to him. Saladin even had him bound with ropes in order to interrogate him, but the abbot consistently claimed that he had lost the piece of the Cross when Saladin captured Jerusalem (1187). On hearing the story, the king took a large host, went with the abbot to the place where the fragment had been hidden, and brought it back to his men, who received it with utmost devotion, kisses, and pious tears.14 Roger of Hoveden says that when King Richard rode with some of his men to view Jerusalem, he proceeded to the chapel of Saint Elias, three leagues from Jerusalem. He found a certain wooden cross (called the Cross of the Syrians), said to be made from the Lord’s cross, sealed within the wall of the chapel. The king carried it and returned to the army.15 While the soldiers joyfully adored the Holy Cross, other Christians began to wonder what would happen to them next and when they would get to Jerusalem. These common people felt that their ultimate goal was to march to Jerusalem; finding the Holy Cross was only the beginning, not the end of their endeavor. King Richard faced a dilemma: should he continue the march to Jerusalem or not? He called a meeting to ascertain what course he should take. Some of the French felt that he should immediately advance on Jerusalem. The king said that he could not do so, for Saladin knew in intimate detail the crusading army’s strength and capacity. He added that the army was far from the coast, and Saladin was likely to come down into the plain of Ramla and cut off its supply lines. Moreover, he argued, the perimeter of Jerusalem was very large, and he did not have enough men to surround it. Being strangers, the Crusaders were totally ignorant of the region, its thoroughfares and passes. The king noted that some Frenchmen were eager to see him act rashly and expose himself to a dishonorable disaster. Instead of making a rash decision, the king argued, he and the army should seek the advice of the local people, who more than anyone else wished to recover their territory and inheritance. They knew best what course of action to take. Finally, King Richard said, it would be fitting to ask the Templars and Hospitallers whether the army should besiege Jerusalem or Cairo (known then as Babylon).

Ambroise, 376–377; Stone, 134–135; Nicholson, 333–334; Archer, The Crusade, 258–259. 15 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 267; Ambroise, 371–376; Stone, 133–134; Nicholson, 331–333; Archer, The Crusade, 256–258. 14

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1049

To settle the issue, it was decided to select twenty jurors—five Templars, five Hospitallers, five native Syrians (probably descendants of European settlers), and five French noblemen—whose verdict would be final. The jurors met and concluded that the best course of action was for the army to advance on Cairo. The French protested their decision, but King Richard was pleased with it. He pledged that if they marched against Cairo, he would lead 700 knights and 2,000 armed men at his own expense. He would also provide more money for the expedition if need be. Thus, the march to Jerusalem was abandoned.16 Ibn Shaddad says that the Franks appointed 300 magnates, who chose twelve from among them, and they in turn chose three jurors to decide whether they should march to Jerusalem or to Cairo.17 While King Richard and the army were contemplating what to do, some of his spies, led by a certain Bernard, informed him that an enormous Muslim caravan had already left Cairo en route to Jerusalem to supply Saladin with provisions. These spies, dressed in Muslim garb, spoke Arabic so well that they could pass for indigenous Arabs. One source says the spies, mostly Bedouins, tracked the caravan until it was a day’s journey from King Richard’s camp. When they brought the news to the king, he rewarded them lavishly.18 Richard, realizing that attacking the caravan could be a profitable venture, invited Duke Hugh of Burgundy and his Frenchmen to join him. The duke agreed, on condition that he should receive a third of the booty, to which the king assented. Without delay, 500 well-armed French knights and 1,000 men led by the king himself set out together and marched as far as the Castle of Galatia (Qaratay). When Saladin learned of the movement of the Crusaders’ army, he immediately sent 500 elite Muslim fighting men to guard the caravan, along with 2,000 horsemen and a great number of foot soldiers. When King Richard reached Galatia, a spy informed him that the Muslim caravan was about to pass by the round cistern (Tall al-Khuwaylifa in Arabic sources) and urged him to advance quickly to take it. Ambroise, 377–381; Stone, 135–136; Nicholson, 335–337; Archer, The Crusade, 259–260. 17 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 315 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 199). Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation, relates the arguments King Richard offered against marching on Jerusalem, but does not mention the appointment of jurors. 18 Continuation of William of Tyre, in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, Peter W. Edbury, ed. (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996), 118–119. 16

1050

THE CRUSADES

On June 22-23, 1192, the king attacked the caravan, and the Muslims lost many men and arms. Their mutilated bodies were scattered everywhere, missing hands, feet, and heads. So many Muslim corpses were strewn through the countryside that the Crusaders could not get through. The rest of the Muslims, thrown into confusion, were so weak that even a boy could have killed ten of them.19 Those guarding the caravan had no choice but to surrender to the knights, who took them prisoner. The incredible booty, more than the Crusaders had taken in all their wars with the Muslims, included precious spices, enormous quantities of gold and silver, silken cloth, purple cloth, robes, purple dye, and various kinds of weapons, as well as great quantities of food and other provisions. In addition the Crusaders captured 4,700 camels and too many she-mules and donkeys to count. The Western sources estimate that over 1,700 Muslims and a considerable number of foot soldiers were crushed to death. Having gained a great victory, King Richard returned to Beit Nuba to distribute the spoils among the knights. Some left for Ramla, others stayed behind to guard the army; all received the same share. The army by now had so many donkeys and other pack-animals, especially camels, that the men feasted on the meat of young camels, which they ate fried in lard.20 According to Muslim sources, Saladin had ordered Egyptian troops under Falak al-Din, the half-brother of al-Malik al-Adil, to march with the caravan and use caution in approaching the enemy. The troops and the caravan assembled at Balbis and left for Jerusalem, but Arab malefactors informed the enemy of their activity. When the Crusaders learned of the movement of the Muslim troops and the caravan, 1,000 of their horsemen and an equal number of foot soldiers marched to Tall al-Safiya and then to the spring of al-Hisy. In the meantime, Saladin sent two of his commanders, Shams al-Din Aslam al-Nasiri and Fakhr al-Din al-Tunba (Altonba) alAdili, to warn the caravan to march through the desert far from the Crusaders’ position. It reached the spring of al-Khuwaylifa, where the men busied themselves watering their beasts. Aslam advised Falak al-Din to march at night in order to evade the enemy, but he unwisely decided to wait until 19 Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, 381–391, especially 388, and Stone, The History of the Holy War, 136–139, especially 139. 20 Ambroise, 381–391; Stone, 136–139; Nicholson, 339–344; Archer, The Crusade, 262–267; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 267–268. According to The Continuation of William of Tyre, 118–119, Saladin sent 1,000 men-at-arms to escort the caravan as far as Gor, north of the Sea of Galilee, and estimates the number of men killed at 12,000 Saracens (Muslims) and 60 Christians.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1051

morning, lest the caravan lose its way at night. Stealthily, the Crusaders attacked the Muslim troops in the early morning. The Egyptian troops, taken by surprise, were thrown into confusion and fled. The Crusaders, who were primarily after the goods in the caravan, stopped chasing them. In an effort to save the caravan, the Muslims divided it into three groups; one went to Karak, the second fled deep into the wilderness, and the Crusaders captured the third, with its men, beasts, and possessions. Ibn Shaddad calls this the most disgraceful and significant disaster Islam had suffered for a long time. He estimates that about 100 knights and ten foot soldiers of the enemy were killed, while among the notable Muslims only al-Hajib (chamberlain) Yusuf and the young son of Jawli (Chavli) were lost. Happily, many managed to escape, but the enemy captured enormous numbers of beasts and provisions. Ibn Shaddad’s account, which agrees with that of Western sources, is particularly credible because he was with Saladin when the news of the disaster reached him. No worse news could have grieved Saladin and wounded his heart. Ibn Shaddad tried to unsuccessfully to comfort him. The enemy went with the spoils to Beit Nuba, intending to march against Jerusalem. When Saladin learned of their plan, he ordered the city’s water supplies polluted so that no drinkable water was left in or around the city.21 On Thursday, June 29, when Saladin learned that the Crusaders’ leaders had met in council and decided not to attack Jerusalem and had already withdrawn, he immediately urged the Muslim commanders in his provinces to hasten with their troops. The commanders responded by rushing to his presence. Saladin bade Ibn Shaddad to urge the commanders to persevere in their jihad. He reminded them that when the Prophet Muhammad suffered tribulation, his companions swore they would fight his enemies to the death, and followed by praising Allah and praying over his Prophet. He told his commanders that theirs was the only army, and all the strength of Islam and the blood and wealth of the Muslims’ children had been placed under their protection. Of all the true Muslim believers, they were the only ones capable of resisting the enemy. After all, they had received money from the Muslim public treasury, and the safety of Muslims everywhere depended on them. Sayf al-Din al-Mashtub assured Saladin that all those assembled were 21 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 305–310; Isfahani, al-Fath, 593–594; Athir, al-Kamil, 60– 61 also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 197–198; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 383–384; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 339 of the English translation; Sa’id Abd alFattah Ashur, al-Haraka al-Salibiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo-al-Misriyya, 1963), 2: 889–891.

1052

THE CRUSADES

his slaves and servants, and that he had honored them, promoted them in the ranks, and enriched them with gifts while they had no status. Thus, there was none among them who would not help Saladin so long as life lasts. The whole assembly made the same declaration, which revived Saladin’s spirits. Pleased by their declaration of loyalty, Saladin called for dinner and then dismissed the assembly. Late in the evening, the commanders returned to meet with Saladin and stayed most of the night with him. As they began to leave after performing the evening prayers, he asked Ibn Shaddad to stay. Saladin told him he had received a report from Abu al-Hayja al-Samin that several mamluks and commanders had met with him and blamed Saladin for accepting the advice of his amirs to defend Jerusalem, and for consenting to keep them in the city while it was under siege. Abu al-Hayja and others said that if they remained closed up in Jerusalem, they would truly be helpless; Jerusalem, like Acre, would be lost, and likewise all the countries of Islam. They declared that it would be better to risk a pitched battle with the enemy. If they won, they would become masters of all the territory the enemy held; if defeated, they would certainly lose Jerusalem but at least save the lives of their troops. They added that if Saladin wanted them to stay in Jerusalem, he should stay with them or at least keep some of his family members in the city. In that case, they would obey him and stay in Jerusalem. But they feared that Saladin’s men were already suffering because of internal conflict, for “the Kurds never obey the Turks, nor do the Turks obey the Kurds.” It was decided that Saladin should leave his grand-nephew Majd alDin, son of Farrukhshah, lord of Ba’lbak, in Jerusalem. This decision grieved Saladin, who had great affection for Jerusalem. Ibn Shaddad says he stayed with him that whole night and several days thereafter in religious devotion. On July 4, Saladin received from Izz al-Din Jurdik a report that the enemy had taken up positions on the top of the hill but then returned to its camp, and that spies had been sent to find out what had happened. On Saturday, July 5, Saladin received a second dispatch from Izz al-Din Jurdik, saying the spies had received information that the Crusaders were in disagreement about whether to attack Jerusalem or Egypt, and they had already left the day before. The news delighted Saladin, because he was fearful for Egypt, which the King of England had often said he intended to invade.22 22 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 311–314; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 198; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 385–389; Archer, The Crusade, 269–275.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1053

The discord among the Crusaders was devastating. King Richard’s army began to disperse and some of the men slipped away to Jaffa. When the king realized that he could no longer keep them together, he asked Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil to inquire whether Saladin might honor the truce he had offered on the plains of Ramla and keep things as they were until such time as he should return once more from his own country to the East. When al-Malik al-Adil spoke with him, Saladin, knowing Richard was acting from a point of weakness, refused any terms unless he would raze Ascalon to the ground. The king was displeased with Saladin’s response and ordered 300 Templars and Hospitallers to destroy the fortress of Darum. The army returned to Jaffa and then to Acre, devastated and disheartened, for things had not gone their way. King Richard reached Acre with the army on the Sunday before the day of St. Peter in Chains, July 26, 1192.23 Ibn Shaddad says that Saladin, relieved by the withdrawal of the enemy, summoned the envoy of Count Henri of Champagne on July 5, 1192. The envoy, carrying peace proposals from the count, informed Saladin that Count Henri said that the king of England had already given him the coastal region as his possession; now he asked Saladin to hand over the other towns, so that he could make peace with Saladin and be like one of his children. Upon hearing this report, Saladin became so furious that he might have killed the envoy had his own men not pulled him back. The envoy, evidently frightened, asked and received permission to speak further. What Count Henri meant, he said, was to ask what parts of the land Saladin would give him, since the land was already in his possession. Again displeased, Saladin rebuked the envoy and had him led away.24 On Monday, July 6, 1192, or shortly afterwards, al-Hajj Yusuf, a friend of Sayf al-Din al-Mashtub, arrived at Saladin’s camp, saying King Richard and Count Henri had sent for him. When he came, the king had told him to inform al-Mashtub that the Christians and the Muslims had both lost strength and should end the bloodshed. The king declared that he had made this suggestion not out of weakness, but only to benefit both sides. He merely wanted al-Mashtub to mediate between him and Saladin, and to tell Saladin not to be deceived by the retreat he had just made because “the Ram does not draw backwards except to butt harder.” The king chose two Ambroise, 396–397; Stone, 141–142; Nicholson, 348–349; Archer, The Crusade, 285. 24 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 316; Archer, The Crusade, 275. 23

1054

THE CRUSADES

other men to accompany al-Hajj Yusuf and bring back al-Mashtub’s reply. Ostensibly, his communication was intended to secure the release of Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, who had been captured at the siege of Acre, but in fact its purpose was to discuss peace.25 Al-Mashtub, who had come from Nabulus to hear the message, said that the Muslims would make peace with Count Henri of Champagne in his capacity as the lord of Acre, but the question of the other towns the count demanded should be settled between the Muslims and King Richard himself. On Friday, July 10, 1192, the Frankish envoy returned in the company of al-Hajj Yusuf and delivered the exact words of the king: Richard said that he cherished the affection and friendship of Saladin and did not want to act as a Pharaoh over this land. Saladin should not make the Muslims perish, as he would not wish the Franks to perish. Here, said the king, was his nephew Count Henri, under whose authority he had placed all these countries, and now he was willing to place him under Saladin’s authority. He would obey even if Saladin should invite the count to accompany him on an expedition to his Eastern provinces. Moreover, said the king, many monks and clergy had asked Saladin to give them back their churches, and he did that generously. Now King Richard was asking him to give back only one church (the Church of the Resurrection), and he expected Saladin to be generous enough to do so. But, said the king, if he had offended Saladin in his earlier negotiations with his brother al-Malik al-Adil, he was willing now to renounce the demands he had made in those negotiations and mention them no more. The king ended by saying that if Saladin should offer him a farm or a village, he would accept it and in return offer Saladin an equivalent piece of property.26 King Richard’s message makes clear how far he was willing to go to establish peace with Saladin before departing to his homeland. On receiving King Richard’s message, Saladin called a council of his amirs and asked them for a reply. Realizing that the Muslims had suffered a great deal from toil, boredom, and the debts they had incurred, the commanders unanimously advised for amicable treatment and peace with the king. In his response, Saladin said if the king desired to treat the Muslims as 25 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 316–317; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 199; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 390–391; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translation; Archer, The Crusade, 276. 26 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 318; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 199; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 391; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translation; Archer, The Crusade, 276–277.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1055

he had said, there was “no best reward for the performance of good deeds except good deeds.” He added, “Here is your nephew, who will be like one of my children. He will tell you what should be done for him. I will give you the Church of Resurrection, the greatest of all churches. As to the rest of the countries, we shall divide them into equal shares. You will take the coastal towns which are already in your possession, and we will take the mountain fortresses, which are in our possession. Ascalon and beyond must be absolutely destroyed and should not be yours or ours.” Evidently, Saladin’s aim was to prevent the Crusaders from controlling Ascalon and other places close to Egypt like the fortress of Darum, lest they be in a position to cut off communications between Egypt and Syria.27 On July 14 al-Hajj Yusuf arrived with Count Henri and Richard’s ambassador at Saladin’s camp. They told Saladin that the king thanked him for his benevolence and asked that twenty men be stationed in the citadel of Jerusalem, with assurances that no one would molest the Christians in the country, whether natives or Franks. As for the coastal towns and the mountain regions, they should be in his possession. He added that the king had given up all claims on Jerusalem except the right of pilgrimage. They desired peace, he said, because of their weakness and the need for the king to return to England. The next day the ambassador returned to Saladin’s camp, bringing two falcons as a gift from the king. When Saladin summoned his amirs to ask their advice, they argued that the king should be told that he had no right to Jerusalem except that of pilgrimage. The ambassador interrupted to add that no fees should be levied on the pilgrims. As for Ascalon and the lands beyond, the amirs said it was imperative that they be destroyed. The ambassador objected that the king had spent enormous amounts of money on fortifying the wall of Ascalon. At this point, al-Mashtub told Saladin that the king could keep the farms and villages of Ascalon as indemnity for his loss. Saladin agreed but insisted on the demolition of Darum and other sites. As for the other towns and their dependencies, he agreed to leave to the Franks all the land between Jaffa and Tyre, adding that if a dispute arose regarding the possession of a farm or a village, it would be equally divided. Before the ambassador left, he asked Saladin to send with him a representative who would affirm under oath the agreement that had been reached. Saladin said that he would not designate a representative until all the terms 27 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 318–319; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 199–200; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 391; Archer, The Crusade, 278–279; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2; 893–894.

1056

THE CRUSADES

had been finalized, but he sent a gift to the king to match the king’s gift to him.28 On July 15, 1192, says Ibn Shaddad, al-Hajj Yusuf and the king’s ambassador returned to deliver the king’s message, in which he begged Saladin to spare Ascalon, Darum, and Gaza from destruction. After all, he reasoned, they were worth little in comparison to Saladin’s power and greatness. The king also said that he had given up on the question of Jerusalem and asked only to have priests and monks in the Church of the Resurrection. His most important request, however, was simply to have the towns in question, and peace would then be achieved. In essence, the Franks would keep all the lands already in their possession, from Darum to Antioch, and Saladin would keep the lands he already held. Thus, everything would be settled and the king would be able to depart for home. Otherwise, he said, the Franks would oppose his departure and he would not be able to resist them. Ibn Shaddad says, “See the cunning of this man who uses softness on the one hand and harshness on the other to achieve his goal. This is because, may Allah curse him, he was forced to return to his country. Allah alone is the one who could protect the Muslim from his evil. Never have we experienced any greater craftiness or stronger audacity than that of this man.”29 After receiving this message, Saladin summoned his commanders to ask their advice. They said that they would have to negotiate the case of Antioch with the Franks, and that Saladin should not surrender the farms and villages the king had asked for, because they would become worthless to the Muslims. As for the king’s rebuilding the wall of Ascalon, he could take the village of Lydda, in the plain, as compensation for the expenses he had incurred.30 According to Bar Hebraeus, Saladin agreed that the Franks should continue to possess the territory they held—Jaffa and its suburbs, Caesarea, Arsuf, Haifa, Acre, and Antioch. But the other towns would belong to the Muslims, and Ascalon was to be left in ruins.31 On July 16, alHajj Yusuf returned alone to Saladin’s camp and said the king had told him that it was impossible to let one stone of Ascalon be pulled down, and that he would not allow such a deed to be attributed to him. Moreover, the 28 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 319–320; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 200; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 391–392; Archer, The Crusade, 278–279. 29 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 321. 30 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 322. 31 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translation.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1057

boundaries of the regions that belonged to him and those held by the Muslims were already fixed and should not be further discussed. Since the negotiations had broken down, the resumption of conflict was inevitable. Thus Saladin made preparations for war and decided to attack the enemy.32 Saladin, taking advantage of the absence of King Richard, who had arrived with his army in Acre on Sunday, July 26, 1192, decided to attack Jaffa.33 According to the Muslim sources, when Saladin learned that the Franks were moving on Beirut and had left Jaffa without protection, he left Jerusalem to attack Jaffa. On Monday, July 27, a little before noon he camped before the walls of the city. His army was arranged in three divisions. Saladin’s son al-Malik al-Zahir commanded the right; his brother alMalik al-Adil commanded the left, with Saladin in the center. Having set their war engines in place, the Muslims began assaulting the city on July 28.34 Western sources say Saladin’s army, estimated at 20,000 men led by 107 amirs, left Jerusalem and descended into the plain of Ramla, covering the earth like locusts. Their intention was the total destruction of the Christians.35 The tiny garrison in Jaffa managed to repel the Muslim assault. Besieged by a great force, they lamented that they had no refuge, and not even the King of England was there to help. The Muslims were furious because they had been repelled. Saladin ordered four very heavy and efficient stonethrowing engines and two mangonels set up, and the attack against Jaffa intensified. Inside the city, the besieged Christians had their own engines of war, but they lacked the skill to use them. On Friday, July 31, the attacking Muslims finally broke down the gate that faced Jerusalem, made a breach two yards wide in the wall on the right-hand side, and rushed in. The Christians kept fighting but, being few in number, were driven back to the citadel. The Muslims began slaughtering them in a frightening way, not sparing even the sick. Some of the people fled to the seashore, hoping to board ships to safety. Meanwhile, the Muslims went on searching the houses, stealing the grain, smashing wine barrels, and pouring out the wine. Some of the Muslim forces pursued the fleeing Christians to the beach, while oth32 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 321–322; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 200; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 392–393; Archer, The Crusade, 379–380. 33 Ambroise, 396–397; Stone, 141–142; Nichlson, 348–349; Archer, The Crusade, 285. 34 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 323–324; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 200; Isfahani, al-Fath, 598; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 393–394; Archer, The Crusade, 293–294. 35 Ambroise, 398–399; Stone, 143; Nicholson, 349.

1058

THE CRUSADES

ers attacked the citadel. Out of fear, Aubrey of Rheims, who was in charge of guarding the citadel, fled in the hope of sailing away. But his comrades shouted to him that he was a disgrace to his race and urged him to come back and fight like a man. Ashamed, Aubrey returned, and his comrades forced him violently into the citadel. Seeing nothing but danger around him, he said, “Here we must die for God, since we can do nothing else.”36 But the assault intensified, and the besieged would have been annihilated were it not for the effort of the newly elected Patriarch Ralph of Jerusalem, formerly bishop of Bethlehem, who came to the rescue.37 Seeing the plight of the besieged Christians, the patriarch sent a message to Saladin and appealed to his brother al-Malik al-Adil for a truce to relieve those besieged in the citadel, promising that each survivor would pay Saladin ten gold bezants, each woman five bezants, and each child three bezants. To guarantee the payment, the patriarch offered himself (together with knights and other prominent Christians) as a hostage. Saladin agreed and took several hostages, including Aubrey of Rheims, Theobald of Treies (Troyes), Augustin of London, Osbert Waldin, and Henri de St. John. They were bound in chains and taken to Damascus.38 Al-Isfahan says that the patriarch and other dignitaries left individually or in groups of ten until nightfall and then were allowed to rest until the morning. They asked that someone be assigned to protect them, and their request was answered. The people besieged in the citadel sent word to King Richard, hoping he would come to their rescue. Many of those who had sought stronger guarantees of their safety left the citadel until rescue could come from the sea by the king of England.39 Ibn Shaddad, who was at the siege of Jaffa, offers a different account. He says that Saladin, aided by his son al-Zahir and brother al-Malik al-Adil, intensified the attack against Jaffa. By setting up more engines of war, the miners succeeded in causing a breach in the wall, parts of which came tumbling down. Ibn Shaddad praises the Christians defending the city for their patience, fortitude, and meticulous attention to detail. He says he himself Ambroise, 400–401; Stone, 143; Nicholson, 350; Archer, The Crusade, 286. John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 401, n. 6; Nicholson, 351, n. 37. See B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London: Variorum, 1980), 131. 38 Ambroise, 401; Stone, 144; Nicholson, 351; Archer, The Crusade, 286–287. Isfahani, al-Fath, 607, says the hostages numbered 200 but does not identify them by name. 39 Isfahani, al-Fath, 598, 602. 36 37

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1059

saw two men standing on the wall preventing climbers from moving in the direction of the breach. One of them was hurled back by a stone from a mangonel, and a comrade in the twinkling of an eye exposed himself to the same fate and took his place. But, says Ibn Shaddad, when the enemy saw that they could no longer repel the attackers, they sent two messengers to the Sultan (Saladin) asking for peace. Saladin agreed, provided they would exchange knight for knight and for Turcopole, and those who were too weak to fight should be sent to Jerusalem.40 When the messengers saw that the fight was raging even more fiercely, they begged Saladin to stop the combat until they returned with an answer. Saladin said that he could not stop the Muslims from fighting. But they should go to their own people and tell them to withdraw to the citadel. After the messengers delivered Saladin’s response, many withdrew to the citadel but some were mistakenly killed in the process.41 In the meantime, the Muslims took Jaffa by force and looted enormous quantities of cloth, grain, and furnishings, partly booty from the caravan the Crusaders had pillaged on its way to Syria. Soon afterwards, Qaymaz al-Najmi reported to Saladin that King Richard, having heard about the situation of the Christians in Jaffa, had decided to attack that city instead of marching on Beirut. This report made Saladin more anxious to control the citadel and capture those who did not agree to peace. But, says Ibn Shaddad, a truce was concluded and safety was maintained. He himself was among those who urged that the enemy should be brought out of the citadel and the Muslims should occupy it before the Christian garrison received reinforcement (from King Richard). But the Muslim troops, overcome by the intense heat, campfire smoke and fatigue, were disinclined to obey Saladin. He urged them on constantly until nightfall, when finally he realized that they were worn out; he and Ibn Shaddad then went to their own tents. Early on the morning of July 31, a trumpet sounded, and the Muslims learned that the Frankish reinforcements had come by sea. Saladin sent Ibn Shaddad along with Izz al-Din Jurdik, Alam al-Din Qaysar, Dirbas alMihrani, and Shams al-Din Adl to ask his son al-Malik al-Zafir to station himself and his men at the gate of the citadel as the Franks came out of it. Al-Zafir was sleeping at his camp on a hillock just outside Jaffa when Ibn Shaddad woke him up and delivered Saladin’s message. He accompanied Turcopoles were a hybrid race of Turkish fathers and Byzantine mothers. See Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, ed., Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 149, n. 1. 41 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 326–328. 40

1060

THE CRUSADES

Ibn Shaddad to Jaffa’s citadel and ordered the Franks to come out. They complied and began to leave, but Izz al-Din Jurdik thought these people should not leave until the inhabitants of the city had been evacuated, lest they be kidnapped. Although the situation was chaotic, Ibn Shaddad and his comrades managed to bring out fifty-four besieged men with their wives and horses. The rest refused to leave the citadel when they learned that thirty-five ships of the king of England were approaching the port of Jaffa, but they became fearful when they saw that the reinforcements were not coming at once. They sent their patriarch and other leaders to apologize to Saladin for the recalcitrance of the rebels in the citadel, and to beg him to honor the truce he had already approved. The situation drastically changed when over fifty vessels, fifteen of them (including the king’s) swift galleys, arrived in the harbor. One of the besieged, commending himself to Christ, jumped down from the citadel to the harbor, avoiding injury because of the soft sand. He reached King Richard and informed him about the situation. In less than a an hour, all those in the ships disembarked as Ibn Shaddad watched. They charged at the Muslims, scattered them, and drove them out of the harbor area. Ibn Shaddad rode at a gallop to report these events to Saladin, who had the two Frankish envoys with him and was preparing to write a letter of grace that they had requested. As Ibn Shaddad whispered to him what had happened, Saladin kept talking to the envoys as if to distract their attention. But when some fleeing Muslims came to Saladin and told him what had happened, he ordered his troops to mount up and led them to Yazur. King Richard soon arrived at the same spot where Saladin had departed and evacuated those who were besieged in the citadel.42 Ibn Shaddad does not report that when the Muslims seized Jaffa they slaughtered countless sick Christians along with pigs and piled the bodies together (according to the Quran, Muslims are forbidden to eat pigs’ meat). According to the Itinerarium, however, the Muslims detested pigs as unclean because “pigs are said to have devoured Muhammad.” The Itinerarium bases this rather odd idea on a medieval Christian legend (reported by Helen Nicholson), according to which Muhammad was drunk one night and lay down to sleep on a dunghill, whereupon sows ate him.43 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 328–333 (also trans. in Archer, The Crusade, 293–300); Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 201–203; Isfahani, al-Fath, 598–602; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 393– 395. 43 Nicholson, 358, n. 51; Ambroise, 413 (also in Stone, 148), mentions the Mus42

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1061

Western sources offer a different account of the events at Jaffa but agree on some of the details. They say King Richard was eager to sail home after receiving the blessing of the Templars and Hospitallers. While he was in his tent at Acre discussing his departure with his associates, he received messengers sent by the besieged Christian in Jaffa and heard that the Muslims were about to capture the city. Upon receiving the news, he vowed with God as his guide to do what he could and decided to set out for Jaffa. All his army chose to go with him except the French, who haughtily declined. The Templars, Hospitallers, and many others set out for Caesarea by land. King Richard, taking his life in his hands, took the sea route with his galleys. He was joined by Pisans and Genoese and other valiant comrades, among them the earl of Leicester, Andrew de Chavigny, Roger de Saci (Sathy), Jordan de Hommet, Ralph de Mauleon, and Ançon de Fay. Those who chose the land route were informed that Saladin had set traps for those using the road; moreover, a son of the Assassins was watching the highway between Caesarea and Arsuf. The king’s galleys had to stay in the harbor of Haifa for three days because of adverse winds but finally, on the night of Friday, July 31, 1192, they docked at the harbor of Jaffa. The next day, the day of St. Peter in Chains, the besieged Christians in the citadel were compelled to pay ransom to the Muslims. Some of them, even as they paid the ransom, were beheaded, and their bodies were thrown into a ditch. Those in the citadel were frightened; to save their lives, they jumped into the inner fortress of the citadel, only to be killed by the Muslims who were there. When the Muslims heard that the king’s galleys were approaching, they rushed to the shore and flung their missiles against the ships. The king immediately plunged into the water, although he had no armor on his legs, and made it to shore. Geoffrey du Bois, Peter des Préaux and all the others followed, leaping into the sea and advancing on foot. On Saturday, August 1, 1192, they boldly attacked; the Muslims fought with great courage but could not withstand the onslaught and began to flee across the shore. King Richard and his men chased them, killing many and driving the rest away from the shore. Then the king’s men brought materials from the galleys and erected fortifications to prevent further attacks by the Muslims. The king was first to enter the city of Jaffa. He found three thousand Muslims plundering and ransacking the houses of the Christians and carrying off the spoils. Once inside the city walls, he had his banners raised on their highest points so that the Christians in the citadel could see them. Overjoyed at the lims’ slaughtering of pigs but not this legend.

1062

THE CRUSADES

sight of the banners, the besieged gained courage. Picking up their arms, they came down from the citadel to hail the king. The Muslims were now in utter confusion. The king chased and slew many of them. Those once besieged, now armed, left the citadel and fell on the Muslims, killing and beheading so many that the streets were filled with headless corpses. The king pursued the Muslims fleeing the city, in order not to be accused of sparing those enemies of Christ’s cross whom God had given into his hands. Thus, King Richard won a great victory over Saladin and relieved Jaffa.44 Ambroise and the Itinerarium say King Richard ordered his pavilion pitched in the same place where Saladin had torn up his tents in fear and fled. Having gone with his men to Yazur, Saladin called his commanders to a meeting, to ask how a small Christian force had managed to overwhelm the Muslims. One amir, acknowledging that the Christians had had only three horses, said he thought that the Muslims had been overcome because of the prowess of the king (Richard). The commander observed that the king was now in his tent, and if someone could capture him while he was alone and bring him to Saladin, the Muslims’ problems would be over. Plainly, the Muslims were demoralized by the Christians’ victory.45 Ibn Shaddad, however, says that the king of England summoned al-Hajib (chamberlain) Abu Bakr al-Adili to his presence, along with Aibek al-Azizi, Sunkur al-Mashtub, and other notable mamluks, some amirs including Badr al-Din Dulderim, and others who took part in a profound conversation. King Richard, sometimes acting seriously and sometimes jesting, said, “This Sultan (Saladin) is great, and Islam had no sovereign on this earth greater and more powerful than he. How then is it that my mere arrival has frightened him away? By God! I am not come here with my armor on and with the intention of fighting. See, I am wearing only ship-shoes instead of proper boots. Why then have the Muslims gone off?” Then he added, “By the great God I never thought that he (Saladin) would take Jaffa in two months, and there he has taken it in two days.” Turning to Abu Bakr, he said, “Greet the Sultan for me and say that I beg him in God’s name to answer my request for peace. It is imperative to put an end to this question. 44 Ambroise, 404–408; Stone, 144–148; Nicholson, 352–353; Archer, The Crusade, 286–289; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 268; William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964), 1: 376–377; Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), 1: 318–319; Kate Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart (New York, 1924), 247–251. 45 Ambroise, 414–415; Stone, 148; Nicholson, 357–358.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1063

My country beyond the sea is in a very bad state, and there is no advantage either for you or us to have such a state of affairs continue.” The envoys left him, and Abu Bakr went to the Sultan and informed him what the king had said. This happened on Saturday evening, 19 Rajab (August 1, 1192).46 According to Ibn Shaddad, when Saladin heard the report of the envoys he called his chief men for a council. With their advice he sent a response to King Richard, saying that he demanded peace under certain conditions, and then the negotiation pivoted around Jaffa and Ascalon. Since Jaffa was in ruins, the king should be content with all the land lying between Tyre and Caesarea. Then Abu Bakr and a Frankish messenger took the message to King Richard and returned with his reply. The king said that the rule among the Franks is that when a man gives a town to another, the latter becomes the supporter and servant of the giver. Now, he told Saladin, if he gave him the cities of Jaffa and Ascalon, whatever troops he might station in them would be at his disposal. If Saladin should have need of him, he (King Richard) would rush to his side and put himself under his orders. But, he said, Saladin should be aware of the exactitude with which he fulfills his duties. Saladin then proposed to give Jaffa to King Richard and keep Ascalon for himself. Messengers kept shuttling between the two sovereigns. On Sunday, August 2, a Frankish ambassador came to Saladin to convey the king’s thanks for relinquishing Jaffa, but he also brought a renewed petition for Ascalon. Saladin received the Frank envoy with honor, but told him he could not give up Ascalon. The envoy said that if peace were concluded in six days, the king would return to his own country and would have no reason to spend the winter in Syria. Saladin answered that he would never give up Ascalon, and even if he surrendered the city, the king would in any case have to spend the winter in Syria. After all, said Saladin, the king was still young and could endure staying away from his family for the winter and staying two months’ journey from his homeland. He noted that the king still had the vigor of youth, while he was in the winter of life. Saladin observed that he was in the center of his country, had his family and children with him, and could get anything he wished. He said he realized that he was old (in fact, he was 54 and King Richard was 35) and had had a full taste of the pleasures of life, which he had now renounced. Finally, Saladin Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 333–334 (also in Archer, The Crusade, 301–302); Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 201–202; Isfahani, al-Fath, 603, says that King Richard asked for peace, but gives no details about the Muslim envoys; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 398–399, mostly follows the account of Ibn Shaddad. 46

1064

THE CRUSADES

said that he was accomplishing the highest act of devotion, by pursuing peace until Allah granted victory to whom he would. When the Franks’ envoy heard Saladin’s reply, he asked to meet with al-Malik al-Adil in his tent, near a place called Mar (Saint) Samuel, but was told that he was indisposed.47 Al-Malik al-Adil sent Abu Bakr and the Frankish envoy back to King Richard in Jaffa with a reply, probably negative, although Ibn Shaddad does not elaborate. On returning, Abu Bakr told Saladin that the king had said, “How many times I have thrown myself at the Sultan and he did not accept me. I have decided to return to my country, but now that winter has set in and the climate has changed and gales rage, I have decided to stay and see no further use for negotiation.”48 With the negotiations having broken down, on August 2 and 3 the king ordered his men to work on rebuilding the wall of Jaffa. Meanwhile, Count Henri of Champagne and his comrades came in a galley from Caesarea, where the rest of the army had been detained unwillingly because of the ambushes set up by the Muslims, who lay in wait on the thoroughfares and bridges. At that critical time, King Richard’s force was too small, consisting of fifty-five knights, two thousand foot soldiers—Genoese, Pisans, and others—and perhaps fifteen horses, not all sound, which he had acquired from various places.49 Some of Saladin’s mamluks and Kurds who seriously believed that King Richard was the cause of their trouble decided to kidnap him, hoping to relieve Saladin of his nuisance and receive a great reward. Ambroise and the Itinerarium elaborate on the plot. The idea was to capture the king while he was sleeping and unarmed. At first the plotters could not agree on how to carry out the kidnaping, but finally they decided to rush in a large group to where the king was, surprise him, and seize him. So, in the early morning of Wednesday, August 5, they descended upon the place where the king was sleeping with his men. It just happened that a certain Genoese had gone out at dawn to the neighboring plains. When he heard the noise the Muslim soldiers and their horses were making, he rushed back to camp, loudly urging his comrades to arms. King Richard immediately leapt up, put on his mail-coat, and woke his comrades. He went out to meet the Mus47 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 335–336; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 202; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 399–400. 48 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 338–339; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 202; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 400. 49 Ambroise, 414; Stone, 148; Nicholson, 358–359; Archer, The Crusade, 304.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1065

lims, accompanied by ten valiant men on horseback: Count Henri of Champagne, the earl of Leicester, Bartholomew of Mortimer, Ralph of Mauleon, Andrew of Chavigny, Gerard of Furnival, Roger of Sacy, William of l’Étang, Hugh of Neville, and Henry Teuton, the king’s standard bearer.50 Seeing a multitude of Muslims beating their drums and yelling, the Christians realized they would have to fight a pitched battle. They immediately called the whole army to get ready. King Richard arranged the army into battalions, each with its own command. The knights were placed near the sea on the left, not far from St. Nicholas’ Church, where the Muslims were advancing in large numbers. The Pisans and Genoese, along with other people of various origin, were stationed outside the suburban gardens. Spirited fighting ensued between the two sides. Swarming, the Muslims made an all-out effort to crush King Richard’s men. They charged and then retreated, but could not break through. A few men were killed, while Ralph of Mauleon was taken captive.51 Even in this fierce and bitter struggle, the spirit of chivalry was very much alive. In the heat of battle al-Malik al-Adil, Saladin’s brother, sent one of his men on a swift charger, leading two splendid Arabian horses, a gift to King Richard in token of his bravery. The king accepted the gift and afterwards repaid al-Malik al-Adil magnificently.52 The Continuation of William of Tyre says Sayf al-Din (al-Malik al-Adil) sent a mamluk with a horse to King Richard, informing him that it was inappropriate to fight on foot. The king, well aware of the Muslims’ malice, thought the horse appeared in pain and asked the mamluk to gallop him. While he did so, the king noticed that the horse was restive. He told the mamluk to take it back and tell al-Malik alAdil that he had sent him a restive horse. When the mamluk returned, alMalik al-Adil felt ashamed and sent him with another horse. The King accepted this horse, rode it, and performed many feats of arms.53 Despite this act of chivalry by al-Malik al-Adil, the battle continued with vigor. As the strain of battle became unbearable, some of the king’s men fled on the galleys in which they had come. When the king saw that the Muslims were trying to enter the city from all sides, he rushed, accomLa Monte, ed., Ambroise, 418, nn. 20–24. For details see Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson (London: Longman, 1875), 41–47. 52 Ambroise, 419–422; Stone, 149–151; Nicholson, 359; Archer, The Crusade, 308–309. 53 Continuation, 117–118. 50 51

1066

THE CRUSADES

panied by only two knights, slaughtering as many as they could find and driving away others who fled. Then he went down to the seashore, where he found himself surrounded by Muslims who tried to crush him. But the king was full of courage and untiring of war. Like Antaeus, the ruler of Libya, like Achilles, who defeated Hector, and like Alexander of Macedon and the mighty Judas Maccabeus, so King Richard fought his assailants and overcame them. He remained unconquerable and unwounded, protected by divine grace.54 Among his other exploits, King Richard killed an eminent Muslim amir (whose name is not revealed) with a single blow. Apparently, this amir had rebuked his comrades for their cowardice and galloped on his horse to overthrow the king. But the king caught him and cut off his head, his shoulders, and his right arm. It is said that as a result of the battle the Muslims lost more than 15,000 horses, and more than 7,000 Muslim men died. Moreover, they failed to capture King Richard and take him to Saladin. The king’s knights, highly skilled in battle, performed so many great exploits that the Muslims stood watching in amazement.55 The Continuation of William of Tyre says that since he captured the great caravan going from Egypt to Syria, King Richard had gained such renown among the Muslims that they trembled at the mention of his name. When a Muslim mother wanted to calm down her crying baby, she would say, “Be quiet, for the king of England is coming!” And when a Muslim rider and his horse stumbled at a shadow, he would say to it, “Do you think that the king of England is in the bush?” And when a Muslim took his horse to be watered and it would not drink, he would say to it, “Do you reckon the king of England is in the water?”56 Although these examples may be sheer exaggeration or the products of a fertile imagination, they do suggest that the king’s prowess was proverbial. The combat at Jaffa did not go well for Saladin. Although he took the offensive on August 5, his men could not match the fighting spirit the Christians had exhibited. From Ibn Shaddad’s account, it appears Saladin did not have a firm strategy to overcome King Richard. Moreover, his men, exhausted by combat, were in no mood to fight. At one time, says Ibn Shaddad, fewer than a thousand Franks, with only nine or seventeen horses, won a great victory over the Muslims which greatly enraged Saladin. Ibn 54 55

313. 56

Nicholson, 366–367; Archer, The Crusade, 310–311. Ambroise, 425; Stone, 151–152; Nicholson, 359; Archer, The Crusade, 311– Continuation, 119–120.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1067

Shaddad says he heard that with his lance in hand, the English king charged the Muslims’ right and left flanks without being intercepted. Furious, Saladin left the field of battle. He moved to Yazur and then to al-Natrun (Toron des Chevaliers).57 Ibn al-Athir also says that the King of England charged the Muslims’ right and left flanks and no one intercepted him. He stood in the middle and asked the Muslims for food. When they offered him food, he ate it. Saladin told his army to charge against the Christians but apparently no one carried out his orders. But one of his amirs named alJanah, the brother of Sayf al-Din Ali ibn Ahmad al-Mashtub, told him, “O Saladin! Tell your mamluks who yesterday took the booty and beat the people with clubs to come forward and fight. If they intend to fight, it is for our own good, and if they seek booty it will be theirs.” Saladin became angry and quit fighting the Franks, then moved with his troops to Ramla.58 To Saladin, his army’s retreat without victory over King Richard was distressing, but to Western sources, it was God’s providence that saved Christianity and the Christians from the Muslim hordes and made the Muslim army retreat. They say Saladin was so outraged he called his lieutenants and rebuked them: “So, where are those who are bringing the malik (King) Richard to me as my prisoner? Who is the man who seized him first? And why he is not brought before me?” One of Saladin’s mamluks, from the farthest part of his kingdom, told him that this malik about whom he asked was not like other men. He went on to praise King Richard for his superlative prowess and courage. No one could withstand his sword, and encountering him was like facing death. In brief, the king’s deeds were superhuman.59 Shortly after this battle King Richard, worn out by war and the stench of the corpses which polluted the area, fell seriously ill, and many of his men almost died. Again, according to Western sources, Saladin sent word to Richard that he was coming to capture him. The king replied that he was waiting for Saladin to come, that he would never run even one step away from him, and that his royal courage could not be broken by adversity. But the king, aware of his illness and the tense situation that existed between him and Saladin, needed aid. So he sent Count Henri of Champagne to 57

401.

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 337–338; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 202; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2:

Athir, al-Kamil, 64–65. Ambroise, 425–426; Stone, 152–153; Nicholson, 368–369; Archer, The Crusade, 312–313. 58 59

1068

THE CRUSADES

Caesarea to bring the French with him to guard the land. Much to his disappointment, the French refused to offer any help. With no aid forthcoming, the king now faced a serious predicament. He realized that his position was not safe with only a few men with him to face multitudes of Muslims. What would happen if the Muslims took advantage of his illness and captured him? And what would be the fate of Ascalon, since Saladin seemed adamant on having it dismantled? Anxious to find solutions to these problems, Richard called Count Henri, the Templars, and the Hospitallers to a meeting. He informed them of his illness and appointed some of them to guard Ascalon and other to guard Jaffa, while he would go to Acre to receive medical help and get well. But all of these men said that under no circumstance would they guard the fortifications of those towns in his absence. The king became angry and grieved over their refusal because he could not find others who would agree with his plans and wishes. After considering his situation carefully, he issued a proclamation offering to pay from his own money those who would respond to help him. Immediately, 200 infantry and 50 knights responded to offer their help. But this force was too small to carry out his plans. Furthermore, his sickness grew worse and he began to despair of recovery. In this state of mental and physical anguish, the king considered several options but could find none better than to ask Saladin for a truce. So he sent a message to al-Malik al-Adil, asking him to mediate on his behalf with Saladin and seek a truce on the most honorable terms possible. Al-Malik alAdil, a man of integrity and worthy of honor, succeeded in obtaining a truce from his brother on the following terms: Ascalon, which was always a threat to Saladin’s authority, was to be dismantled and not to be rebuilt within a period of three years, beginning the next Easter (1193). At the end of three years Ascalon would be restored to whoever could claim it. Saladin would grant the Christians free possession of Jaffa and all its environs. Also, there was to be an inviolable peace between the Muslims and Christians, and both would have a safe and free passage to wherever they wished to go. The Christians would also have access to the Holy Sepulcher without the payment of fees, and full liberty to carry on commerce throughout the land. The terms were recorded in writing and read aloud to King Richard, who approved them on September 2, 1192.60 Ambroise, 428–432; Stone, 153–154; Nicholson, 368–369; Archer, The Crusade, 314–315; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 378; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 269; Gerald of Wales, Speculum ecclesiae: De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis, J. 60

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1069

The Continuation of William of Tyre says that King Richard delegated Balian II of Ibelin to negotiate peace with Saladin, but Balian returned to report that Saladin would offer no truce unless the king agreed to destroy Ascalon, Gaza, Darum, and Jaffa. This news weighed heavily on the king, who realized how weak the position of his people would be if he did not effect peace with Saladin before he left. He sent Balian back to Saladin with a new proposal: Ascalon, Gaza, and Darum could be destroyed, on condition that the Muslims would never live in Ascalon, while Jaffa would be left intact and belong to the Christians. Moreover, the truce would also cover Arsuf, Caesarea and Haifa. Saladin agreed to these terms. Accordingly, King Richard retained Jaffa as his possession while the other cities were destroyed.61 No other Western source mentions Balian’s involvement in the peace negotiations, but, as we shall see shortly, Muslim sources say Balian was present with the king when he ratified the peace with Saladin. Richard of Devizes gives a totally different account from other Western sources of the events that led to the truce. He first says that King Richard spent two years in the region around Jerusalem (actually one year and four months) without receiving aid from home, not even from his brother John. Still the church prayed ceaselessly for him. He goes on to say that Richard’s army grew weaker and many of its men died because of extreme cold or heat, while the pagans (Muslims) grew in strength because they were accustomed to the climate. Moreover, he says, while Richard’s army began to suffer a shortage of food, the French, the English and the common people feasted in splendid fashion; indeed, their eating habits astonished the provincial merchants who supplied the camp with food. In addition, Richard was seriously ill, suffering from what the physicians thought was a semitertian fever (malaria), which caused great despair and confusion throughout the camp. Many members of the army were on the verge of leaving the camp or even surrendering. But Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury, hastily called for a council, at which it was agreed that the army would not disperse until a truce had been arranged with Saladin. Ashamed of their cowardice, the soldiers decided to hold their ranks and prepare for battle. But no one mentioned the king’s illness, lest the sorrowful news spread through the army.62 S. Brewer, ed. (London, 1873), 1: 216–218; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon, 51–52; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 259–260. 61 Continuation, 121. 62 Richard of Devizes, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard

1070

THE CRUSADES

The strangest part of this account is its description of the peace negotiations. According to Richard of Devizes, Saladin’s brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din (Saphadin), who appreciated the king’s magnanimity and courage and had become his friend, went to the king’s camp. The king’s guard greeted him with less than usual warmth, and his servant blocked his access. Al-Malik al-Adil told the king’s men through an interpreter that he saw their grief and knew its cause; they at once closed the doors and would not let him see the king. With tears running down his cheeks, al-Malik al-Adil said, “O God of the Christians! If you are God, do not allow such a man, so necessary to your people, to die so suddenly. I prophesy truly that if this man should die, things being as they are now, all of you Christians will perish, and all this land will be ours on the next day, without a struggle.” He then proceeded to describe the king’s trouble with his father, who was defeated by Richard’s treachery at Le Mans. Evidently he was referring to the alliance Richard formed with King Philip Augustus of France because his father refused to designate him as his heir. Al-Malik al-Adil noted that Richard’s father King Henry II died at Chinon and was buried at Fontevrault. He discussed the tension between Richard and the king of France, the king’s actions in Sicily and Cyprus and then in Syria, and how he became the master of Acre. Finally, al-Malik al-Adil said he would arrange with his brother Saladin a perpetual peace for the Christians or at least a firm and lasting truce. He warned, however, that no one should tell the king what he had said, lest his illness become worse, and that the king would not agree to the transaction unless he knew that he was getting the best part of the bargain. Al-Malik al-Adil wanted to say more, but could not because of his grief. He covered his face with clenched fists and wept bitterly. Richard of Devizes says the Bishop of Salisbury and the closest members of the king’s household deliberated secretly and agreed to what they considered a most hateful and undesirable truce. Al-Malik al-Adil then returned to Jerusalem to meet with his brother. After seventeen days of vehement argument, he succeeded “in bending the pagan’s stiff necks into giving the Christians a truce,” after which an agreement was finally drawn up. The truce was to last three years, three months, three weeks, three days, and three hours, and whatever land or towns either side held should be held unmolested for the duration. The truce also stiputhe First, ed. John T. Appleby (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963; hereafter Richard of Devizes), 73–74; Archer, The Crusade, 316–317, has an abridged translation of this passage.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1071

lated that the Christians would be allowed to fortify Acre alone as they pleased, and the Muslims would fortify Jerusalem. Moreover, contracts, commerce, and transactions should be carried out between both parties in peace. Richard of Devizes ends his account by saying that Saphadin (alMalik al-Adil) went to the English with the news of this treaty.63 How true and authentic is this account? And what is its source? Plainly the part dealing with the negotiations that led to the establishment of a truce cannot be reconciled with the accounts of other contemporary writers. “Unquestionably fictitious or imaginary,” Norgate calls it.64 Nevertheless, says Appleby, it shows the chivalry and admiration of Saphadin and his brother Saladin toward King Richard.65 Muslim sources, especially Ibn Shaddad, give their own account of the peace negotiations. When Saladin saw that the troops he had called from Mosul and Egypt had assembled (August 25), he summoned his counselors to a meeting. He told them the king of England was very sick and the French were returning to their country. The enemy had been overpowered by Allah. Therefore, he believed that the Muslims should attack Jaffa if possible, and if they found something to be gained there, they should take it. Otherwise, they should turn and march under cover of the night against Ascalon.66 Al-Isfahani says Saladin told the commanders that the Muslims were strong thanks to Allah. They had been accustomed to the jihad and had nothing to occupy them except the ghazu (raids). He said that he 63 Richard of Devizes, 75–79. See Ralph de Diceto, Radulfi De Decito Decani Lundonersis Opera Historia, trans. William Stubbs as The Historical World of Master Ralph Decito, Dean of London, 2 (Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965), 2: 305, and William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 378. 64 Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 259–260, n. 2. 65 Appleby, ed., Richard of Devizes, 79, n. 1. Another anecdote by Richard of Devizes not found in other contemporary sources says while Richard was ill at Jaffa, he was overjoyed to receive a report that Hugh, duke of Burgundy, had fallen seriously ill at Acre. Lifting his hands in prayer, the king said, “May God destroy him, because he would not destroy the enemies of our faith (the Muslims) with me, although he has been waging war with my money for a long time.” According to Richard of Devizes, the duke died three days afterwards. Appleby, 80, n. 1, says that the duke died in July, while King Richard fell ill at the beginning of August. See also Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 269; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon, 42. Nicholson, 353, n. 44, says that according to Hoveden and Coggeshall, the duke died at Tyre. 66 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 338–340 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 202); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 401.

1072

THE CRUSADES

wanted a truce with the enemy, lest he die and the situation of the Muslims become worse. They agreed that a truce should be made, for their lands would at least have rest for its duration. Although the Franks did not usually keep their word, Saladin should conclude a truce with them to cause dissension in their ranks, for some would leave. Those who remained in the coastal region would have no strength to resist. The commanders kept talking until they persuaded Saladin to agree to peace.67 On Thursday, August 27, Saladin ordered his commanders Izz al-Din Jurdik and Jamal al-Din Faraj to march against Jaffa and send spies ahead to reconnoiter the situation of the Frankish infantry and cavalry in the city. (While this was going on, King Richard had sent a messenger to Saladin asking for fruits and ice because of his illness. He particularly craved pears and peaches, which Saladin supplied.) Saladin received information that there were two or three hundred knights in the city. He also learned that Count Henri (of Champagne) was busy trying to persuade the French, who had decided to return to their homeland, to remain with the king, and that the Franks had neglected to repair the wall of the city. Encouraged by the confused situation of the Franks, he advanced toward Ramla on August 27. The commanders who had advanced to Jaffa sent word to Saladin that they had attacked the city but found no Franks to challenge them except 300 knights mounted on mules. He ordered the commanders to maintain their positions. Meanwhile the Chamberlain Abu Bakr, accompanied by one of King Richard’s messengers, arrived at Saladin’s camp, ostensibly to thank Saladin for his gifts of fruits and ice. More important, he begged al-Malik al-Adil to arrange peace between him and Saladin, and he beseeched Saladin at least to let him keep Ascalon, fearing its loss would damage his prestige and his reputation among the Franks. If Saladin would not let him retain Ascalon, the king said, at least he should agree to compensate him for what he had spent on the fortification of the city. After receiving this message, on Friday, August 28, Saladin sent Abu Bakr and the other messenger to tell his brother al-Malik al-Adil that his men were wearied of war, and that because most of his financial resources had been exhausted, he had no money to compensate Richard for the fortification of the city. But he would agree to peace if the king was willing to renounce Ascalon.68 Isfahani, al-Fath, 603. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 340–342; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 203; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 402–403. 67 68

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1073

Bar Hebraeus is apparently the only one of the Eastern sources who says that Saladin gave the Franks as much gold as they needed for the rebuilding of Ascalon.69 Similarly, Roger of Hoveden says that shortly after the death of the duke of Burgundy at Acre, eight days after his arrival in the city (sometime in July 1192), Saladin informed the king of England that he would repay him all the money he had spent for the fortification of Ascalon, and would make with him and the Christians remaining in the land of Jerusalem a truce for three years.70 Strange as it seems, Saladin agreed to compensate King Richard for the expenses he had incurred in the fortification of Ascalon, yet he insisted that the city should be dismantled before peace could be reached with the king. Here Ibn Shaddad mentions an event that seems to substantiate Richard of Devizes’s story regarding Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury. In the evening of Friday, August 28, he says, the commander Badr al-Din Dulderim reported the arrival of an embassy of five men from King Richard, led by a man named Huat, who wanted to talk to him.71 Badr al-Din, having asked Saladin’s permission to talk with them, said the next day that they indicated King Richard had agreed to the terms al-Malik al-Adil had previously offered, though he had not abandoned his demand to be repaid the money he had spent for the fortification of Ascalon. Saladin summoned his counselors to discuss the terms of a truce. After deliberating, they drafted an agreement to maintain peace for three years, effective Wednesday, September 2, 1192. Under the truce, the Franks would retain the coastal region extending from Tyre to Jaffa, including Caesarea, Haifa, and Arsuf, while the Muslims would retain Ascalon. Lydda and Ramla will be divided evenly by both parties. Saladin also demanded that the country of the Isma’ilis (Batinis) be included in the treaty, while the Franks stipulated that the lords of Antioch and Tripoli should also be covered by the peace treaty.72 Al-Isfahani says that he was present at Saladin’s camp on Sha’ban 21, 588 (September 1, 1192), to fix the terms of the truce, according to a copy which he had already transcribed. He says its duration was to be three years and eight months, beginning immediately, and that the land from Jaffa 69

tion.

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English transla-

Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 269. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 342. John L. La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 429, n. 2, maintains that Huat is Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury. 72 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 344–346, discusses the deliberation in considerable detail; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 203; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 402–403. 70 71

1074

THE CRUSADES

to Tyre, including Caesarea and Acre, was left to the Franks, who also wanted Tripoli and Antioch to be part of the truce.73 The disagreement between Ibn Shaddad and al-Isfahani regarding the length of the truce seems strange, since both these men were present with Saladin and had firsthand knowledge of most of his transactions, especially the negotiation of the truce with King Richard. Ibn al-Athir also says that the truce was for three years and eight months and says it was concluded on Sha’ban 20 (August 31 in the Christian calendar), while Ibn Wasil gives the period of the truce as three years and six months.74 Ibn al-Athir says that although King Richard tried several times to make peace with Saladin because he had stayed too long in the East and needed to return home, Saladin did not respond, thinking that he was acting with treachery and cunning. Finally, at the king’s insistence, Saladin accepted Richard’s overtures.75 After Saladin approved the truce, it needed to be confirmed by King Richard. Ibn Shaddad says al-Malik al-Adil took a copy of the agreement to the king at Jaffa. He was made to stay in a tent outside the city until an audience with the king was arranged. Despite his illness, the king asked alMalik al-Adil and the others in his company to meet with him. Upon receiving the copy of the agreement, the king said that although he lacked the strength to comprehend its meaning, he would make peace and confirm it by giving al-Malik al-Adil his hand. Count Henri of Champagne and Balian II of Ibelin were apprised of the substance of the agreement. When all its terms, including the division of Ramla and Lydda, had been explained and accepted, it was proposed that Badr al-Din Dulderim, al-Malik al-Mansur, Ibn al-Muqaddam, the lord of Shayzar, and other Muslim rulers whose territories bordered on that of the Franks should be asked to take an oath to observe this peace. Saladin promised to send an emissary to require these men to take the oath, or else they would be excluded from the stipulation of the peace. He also promised to send emissaries to the lords of Antioch and Tripoli, who would have to take a similar oath. With peace confirmed, Saladin ordered heralds to proclaim in the camps and marketplaces that peace had been achieved, and that those Christians who wished to enter lands under Muslim authority and Muslims 73 Isfahani, al-Fath, 605, 608. Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 203, perhaps misquoting alIsfahani, whose account he follows, says the truce was to last three years and three months. See Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 259, n. 2. 74 Athir, al-Kamil, 65; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 404. 75 Athir, al-Kamil, 65–66.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1075

who wished to enter lands under Frankish authority could safely do so. He also declared that the highway between Syria and Mecca was now open for Muslim pilgrims. At an assembly where Ibn Shaddad was present, Saladin expressed his personal wish to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca. At the same time, he assigned Alam al-Din Qaysar to evict the population of Ascalon and have it destroyed, and sent a hundred miners to begin the destruction of the city.76 It was truly a day of great rejoicing when peace was proclaimed. Ibn Shaddad says only Allah knows the boundless joy these two peoples (Christians and Muslims) felt.77 But Saladin was still not sure of the consequences of the truce he had fixed with King Richard. Deep in his soul, he was apprehensive of the Franks. Ibn Shaddad affirms Saladin’s apprehension, saying that peace was not his main preference, nor was any expression of altruism. He says Saladin told him that he feared to make this peace because he did not know what would happen to him. Should he die, the enemy would renew their power, and the Muslims would not be able to evict them from the territories that were left to them. He wished to live as long as the Muslims were exposed to calamity. Despite his apprehension, Saladin still thought that peace was of great advantage to the Muslims. Or, as Ibn Shaddad says, Allah saw that peace was favorable to the Muslims, for Saladin soon died after the ratification of peace. If he had died before that happened, the Muslims would have been in great danger. It was fortunate, says Ibn Shaddad, that Saladin concluded the peace himself.78 After the truce was concluded, King Richard arranged to be taken to Haifa on September 9, 1192, to seek treatment and rest.79 Ibn Shaddad says the king was so sick that it was even thought that he had died. But he had not and left Acre, taking with him Count Henri of Champagne.80 Meanwhile the French, who had been enjoying themselves at Acre, were about to leave for their country but decided to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem first. They were unhappy that the king had made peace with Saladin, because their main objective had been to take Jerusalem back from the Mus76

324.

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 346–347; Athir, al-Kamil, 67; Archer, The Crusade, 323–

Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 348. Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 347–348; Archer, The Crusade, 324–325. Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 204, and Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 404, who follow Ibn Shaddad’s account, embellish it with odes celebrating the peace and praising Saladin. 79 Ambroise, 432; Stone, 154; Nicholson, 372. 80 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 350. 77 78

1076

THE CRUSADES

lims. But King Richard was equally displeased with the French for having refused to help him recover Jaffa. When they demanded an escort for their visit to the Holy Sepulcher, the king sent messengers to inform Saladin and al-Malik al-Adil that no one should be allowed to visit Jerusalem without his written permission or that of Count Henri. Evidently the king’s action completely violated the spirit of his agreement with Saladin. The French, infuriated, departed to their homeland in total shock. When they left, the king send a herald to proclaim that those of his men who wished to visit the Holy Sepulcher might do so, and that they should reserve their offerings to help rebuild the walls of Jaffa.81 According to Muslim sources, after the conclusion of peace Saladin returned to Jerusalem and busied himself with finishing the reconstruction of the wall and the ditch of the city. He allowed the Franks to visit Jerusalem, and they flocked to it as they enjoyed peace and safety.82 Ibn Shaddad says that Saladin not only opened the gates of Jerusalem to the Frankish pilgrims, but also provided them with escorts to protect them on their return to Jaffa. But when King Richard learned that so many pilgrims were visiting Jerusalem, he sent a messenger to ask Saladin not to allow anyone to visit Jerusalem without his written consent. The Franks, displeased by the king’s action, still flocked to Jerusalem. Many of them were common people, and others were dignitaries, while still others were disguised princes. Saladin did not turn them back, but honored them, provided them with food, and conversed with them. He even told them about King Richard’s effort to forbid anyone to visit Jerusalem without his written consent, but said he paid no attention to the king’s request.83 Bar Hebraeus adds that Saladin honored the Frankish visitors and gave them gifts and animals to ride, and that when the king of England asked Saladin not to let them visit Jerusalem, Saladin called his wise men to a meeting. “What is the object of the king in this matter?” he asked. They pondered and said, “The great reason for the coming out of the Franks is nothing but their wish to worship at Jerusalem. And when they have done this and returned to their country, they will never wish to go forth again. And therefore the king restrains them now, so that when on another occasion he wishes to go forth they will go out with him readily and willingly.” When Saladin grasped this, says Bar Hebraeus, he sent the king a message Ambroise, 432–433; Stone, 154; Nicholson, 373. Isfahani, al-Fath, 610. 83 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 349–350. 81 82

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1077

saying that these men were foreigners, and after peace was established he was unable to punish them. Saladin maintained that if the king wanted to restrain them, he had the power to do so himself.84 In the wake of the peace agreement, three Latin groups visited Jerusalem to determine whether Saladin and the Muslims honored the truce by allowing Christians to visit Jerusalem unmolested. The first group, headed by Andrew de Chavigny, had a letter from King Richard informing Saladin of their coming, and asking him to provide them with safe conduct. When the group reached Ramla, they sent three messengers, William de Roches, Gerard de Furnival, and Peter de Préux ahead to Jerusalem with the king’s letter. Exhausted when they reached al-Natrun, they fell into a deep sleep. The main body caught up with them and rebuked them for their carelessness. They argued that the Muslim army had not yet disbanded, and if the Muslims saw them without a proof of safe conduct, they would have slaughtered them. They urged them to hurry ahead to Jerusalem to secure safe conduct. When the three messengers arrived, they found 2,000 or more Muslims dwelling in tents outside the city. They laid their case before al-Malik al-Adil, who rebuked them harshly, saying that without protection or escort they could have been killed. While al-Malik al-Adil and the three messengers were talking thus, the main body of the pilgrims came up at sunset unarmed and in disarray. As the Muslims watched them coming, they wanted to slaughter them. They spent that night in utter fear near a mountain close to Jerusalem. The following day the Muslims went to Saladin and asked permission to avenge themselves on these Christians for the death of their fathers, brothers, and other relatives who had been slain by the Christians at Acre and elsewhere. Saladin summoned Ali ibn al-Mashtub, Badr al-Din Dulderim, and others to decide what to do with these pilgrims. After deliberation, they told Saladin that since he had concluded peace with the Christians, he would greatly denigrate the Muslims’ prestige if he violated the treaty of peace. They said that the Muslims must keep good faith with nations of every creed or belief; otherwise, their word would be regarded as worthless and without justification.85 Saladin accepted this advice and ordered his followers to escort the Christians, who entered Jerusalem as they left. At his own request, al-Malik al-Adil was assigned to ensure the fulfill84

tion. 85

Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120 of the Syriac text, 340 of the English translaAmbroise, 433–436; Stone, 154–156; Nicholson, 374–375.

1078

THE CRUSADES

ment of this task and arranged for the pilgrims to visit the Holy Sepulcher. After their visit was completed, the pilgrims returned to Acre. On their return, between Castle Arnald and Ramla they met the second group of pilgrims, headed by Ralph Taisson. Their pilgrimage was easier than that of the first group because Saladin had sent his followers to guard the roads when the pilgrims began their journey toward Jerusalem. This pilgrimage is noteworthy because Ambroise describes it in the first person, indicating that he was in this group. After Saladin sent his followers to guard the roads leading to Jerusalem, he says, “we ourselves passed through in all safety, and we climbed the mountains and came to Montjoie (the Mons Gaudii of medieval literature, about four kilometers from Jerusalem, where pilgrims got the first sight of the Holy City).”86 By far the most interesting was the third group of pilgrims, headed by Hubert Walter, bishop of Salisbury. According to William of Newburgh, the bishop may have visited Jerusalem on behalf of King Richard, who was advised not to visit the city, probably to avoid danger to his life.87 This pilgrimage was significant not just because the bishop was a prominent church leader, but because Saladin treated him with obvious deference. When he learned that the bishop was near Jerusalem, he sent his people out to receive him with honor. Having already heard of the bishop’s excellent character, prudence and merits, Saladin invited him to stay in his house as his guest. The bishop thanked him but declined the invitation, saying that as a pilgrim he could not allow anyone to defray his expenses. But Saladin commanded his household to show the group all honor, offered the bishop many gifts, and had his men escort him to the holy places. He also invited the bishop to meet him personally, so that he could see how he looked and what kind of man he was, and the bishop accepted. After Saladin showed him the True Cross, the two sat down and, through an interpreter, held a deep conversation. Saladin asked about the character of the king of England and the Christians’ opinion of the Muslims. The bishop answered that his lord the king of England was the best knight and the best warrior in the world, generously endowed with great qualities. He said that if Saladin’s qualities and those of the king were put 86 La Monte, ed., Ambroise, 438–440, esp. 438, n. 9; Stone, 156–157; Archer, The Crusade, 328–330; Nicholson, 376–377, n. 91, says Ambroise gives a quick tour of the holy sites of Jerusalem “like a late–20th century guided tour, except that the pilgrims kissed each site rather than taking a photograph.” 87 William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 378, Nicholson, 377, n. 95.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1079

together, it could rightly be said that not in all the world could two such valiant princes be found. After listening to the bishop, Saladin said that the king’s great prowess and bravery were well known, but he rushed forward too recklessly and was too wasteful. He added that if he were a great prince, he would rather be endowed with wisdom and moderation than with boldness without self-control. After this friendly discussion, Saladin invited the bishop to request any gift he wished, promising it would be given unto him. The bishop thanked him profusely and begged Saladin to let him choose a gift another time. The next day, the bishop asked him to allow the celebration of Mass at the Lord’s Sepulcher by two Latin priests and two Latin deacons, who would be supported by the pilgrims’ offerings. He made this request because he had found the services at the Holy Sepulcher were celebrated in accordance with the “barbarous” Syrian custom. He asked for a similar number of priests for Bethlehem and Nazareth, and Saladin granted the request. The bishop and his group of pilgrims then returned to Acre.88 After these pilgrimages the Christians, whether or not they had been able to visit Jerusalem, suddenly had to return home. Richard of Devizes says that the bishop of Beauvais (Philip of Dreux), on hearing of the death of the duke of Burgundy, left King Richard’s camp and took all his troops to Acre. Having become the leader and shepherd of the people, he issued an order that everyone should go home.89 Happy or not, the pilgrims began their homeward journey. Some were shipwrecked, some succumbed to disease, and some finally completed the journey. Many people chided the Crusaders for leaving without having recovered Jerusalem. But Ambroise, who was an eyewitness, defends the pilgrims, saying those who taunted them did not understand the extremely difficult circumstances under which they labored. At least 100,000 pilgrims died without heirs because they practiced abstinence and refrained from cohabitation with women. Suffering, they let their bodies deteriorate in order to preserve the chastity of their minds. If we understand Ambroise correctly, these men died from distress caused by their abstinence. He says that 300,000 or more pilgrims died from infection and hunger during the siege of Acre and later in the city itself.90

88 Ambroise, 440–443; Stone, 157–158; Nicholson, 378–379; Archer, The Crusade, 330–332. 89 Richard of Devizes, 80. 90 Ambroise, 443–444; Stone, 158–159; Nicholson, 379–380, n. 99. Athir, alKamil, 66, reports Balian of Ibelin said the Franks lost 600,000 men.

1080

THE CRUSADES

Meanwhile, at the port of Acre, King Richard was preparing his fleet to leave for home. Before embarking he ransomed William des Préaux, who had been taken captive in the king’s place in September 1191. Ambroise says the Muslims would gladly have paid a large amount of money to keep William in their custody, but King Richard magnanimously offered ten prominent Muslims in exchange for him.91 Ever mindful of his reputation, the king decided that even the slightest matters should be taken care of before his departure. So he sent a herald to call on his creditors and paid them in full and even more. On September 29, 1192, King Richard put his wife Queen Berengaria and his sister Joan, dowager queen of Sicily, aboard a ship at Acre, and they sailed home. Having heard that King Philip Augustus of France was lying in wait for him along the way, hoping to take him captive, Richard asked the master of the Templars, Robert of Sablé, secretly to provide ten knights and four brother sergeants to be under his command, and the request was granted. On St. Denis’s Day, October 9, 1192, the king boarded a ship to return to England.92 Richard of Devizes, ever antagonistic to Richard, says that after the ships were drawn up and withdrew with his pretty bully boys, “the glorious prince sailed the calm Tuscan sea (Aeneid, 1: 67).”93 Many people sobbed, sighed, and shed tears at Richard’s departure. Recalling his prowess and virtues, they wished the king well in his affairs. Voices lamented, “O land of Jerusalem, now you are indeed helpless. What a great leader you have lost. Who will protect you from the attackers if the truce is broken, now that the king is going away?” Not yet having fully regained his health, Richard asked everyone to pray for his recovery. The king was also sad at leaving the land of Jerusalem. At daybreak on October 10, he looked back affectionately at the Holy Land. Many heard him say, “O Holy Land (“Ah, Syria,” according to Ambroise), I now commend you to the Lord God. May He in His loving grace grant me such length of life that I may bring you aid as He wills. It is my hope and intention to come to your aid at some future time.”94

91

261.

Ambroise, 445; Stone, 159; Nicholson, 380; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart,

92 Ambroise, 446; Stone, 159; Nicholson, 381; Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 269; Ralph of Diceto, Historical Works, 2: 106; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 379; Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart, 261. 93 Richard of Devizes, 80. 94 Ambroise, 446; Stone, 159; Nicholson, 381–382.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1081

When the fleet was on the high seas, King Richard discovered that there were spies in his company. He decided to transfer secretly from one ship to another, but was unable to do so because there was a spy in his own galley. When the king and his knights arrived at Aquilea on the Adriatic, they bought horses and proceeded to the duchy of Austria. The spy, traveling with them, went to tell Leopold, duke of Austria, that King Richard had arrived and could be captured. The duke, eager to avenge himself against the king, who had humiliated him at Acre, was delighted. He had his men close the castle gates and, taking the spy with him, went to the inn where King Richard was resting. When the king learned that he was about to be captured, he threw a common jacket over his back to disguise himself, hid in the kitchen, and sat down by the fire to turn the capons. The duke’s men entered the inn and searched for the king, but found no one save the Templars. But the spy spotted the king sitting by the fire in disguise and said to him, “Good master, get up. You are too fine to be a cook. The duke wants to speak to you.” Then he told the duke’s men, “Behold him here. Take him.” Thus, King Richard was captured and thrown into prison.95 Roger of Hoveden gives a different account of the king’s capture. He says when Richard and his men landed at Gazera, near Ragusa (the modern Serbian port of Dobrovnik), the people of the province recognized the king despite his beard and long hair; even though he was dressed like the natives, his freely spending large amounts of money was contrary to the usage of that country. The people wanted to capture the king and deliver him to the Byzantine emperor, who hated him because of his support of King Tancred and the death of his kinsman, the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat. When King Richard realized he had been detected, he left his retinue in charge of the Advocate of Bethune and fled on horseback, taking only one attendant with him. He arrived at a small village not far from Vienna. While his attendant went to buy food, the king, exhausted from the journey, threw himself upon a bed and fell asleep. A servant of the duke of Austria spotted the attendant and gave away the king’s lodging to the duke, who sent men to capture him. Once in his presence, the king could no longer conceal his identity, and he was thrown into prison.96 95 Continuation, 121–122; Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. M. L. De Mas Latrie, ed. (Paris: M. V. Jules Renouard, 1871), 295–298; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon, 54–55; Archer, The Crusade, 341–343. 96 Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 270; Roger of Wendover, The Flowers of History, 1: 220–225.

1082

THE CRUSADES

With the king’s departure, the Third Crusade ended. One may speculate that had King Richard remained and fought Saladin, the Crusaders might have regained control of Jerusalem, and the history of Syria under their rule might have been different. The reasons Richard offered for not capturing Jerusalem while he and his men had it in their sight do not seem convincing. He may have been pressured to return home because of the trouble his brother John was causing him and the antagonism of King Philip of France. Whatever the reasons are, many writers chose to regard his quitting the Holy Land without recapturing Jerusalem as a sign of the failure of the Third Crusade. William of Newburgh asserts that considering the great effort, enormous expense, and massive loss of lives, the Third Crusade achieved nothing.97 Says a modern critic, once his adamant challenger King Richard was gone, Saladin was left to reap the full fruits of his victory at Hittin.98 Saladin was in fact in a superior position to deal with the Crusaders. But he must have realized that challenging their positions, especially along the coast, was tedious and costly. He and his commanders were exhausted by war, and his men preferred to go home. Showing political prudence, Saladin dealt more generously with certain Frankish leaders. He revised the peace he had concluded with King Richard by giving Sarafand (Sarepta) and half the district of Sidon to Reginald of Grenier, and the fortress of Tall alQaymun (Caymont) and its surrounding lands to Balian II of Ibelin.99 He also dealt generously with Bohemond III, lord of Antioch (1163–1201). When Saladin arrived in Beirut on October 30, Bohemond came to offer him homage. Bohemond apparently felt that King Richard had given up and left, the hope of restoring Jerusalem was lost, and Saladin was still the master of Syria, including the Holy Land. He also realized he had no choice but to accept the truce concluded between Saladin and King Richard. Thus, it was an act of political wisdom to mend fences with Saladin, or else he might lose the principality of Antioch altogether. Saladin received Bohemond with great honor and arrayed him and the fourteen barons who accompanied him in royal apparels. He gave him half of the revenue of the province of Antioch, amounting to 20,000 dinars. Saladin marveled at how William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 379–380. Sidney Painter, “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus,” A History of the Crusades M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 85. 99 Mary Nickerson Hardwicke, “The Crusader States, 1192–1291,” Baldwin, ed., A History of the Crusades, 2: 524. 97 98

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1083

confidently and fearlessly Bohemond had come to see him, and honored him all the more for his courage.100 Shortly after learning that Richard had sailed home, Saladin decided to visit Damascus for a few days and then go to Jerusalem, and from there to Egypt. He left Jerusalem, probably on October 9 or 10, and went to Nabulus, whose governor, Sayf al-Din Ali al-Mashtub, died soon afterwards on November 1. On October 21-22, he secured the release of Baha al-Din Qaraqosh, who had been captured along with al-Mashtub when the Franks took Acre.101 Saladin returned to Damascus on Wednesday, November 4, 1192, planning to busy himself visiting the coastal towns and fortresses. On November 24 Saladin and al-Malik al-Adil, along with Saladin’s two sons, alAfdal and al-Zahir, went hunting. Ibn Shaddad, then in Jerusalem, received a message from Saladin asking him to come to Damascus. When he came to pay his respects on Tuesday, February 16, 1193, he noted that Saladin, surrounded by a crowd of officials, seemed to lack his usual physical energy.102 Five days later, Saladin was attacked by a bilious fever. As his health deteriorated, his son al-Malik al-Afdal called the people and the judges and asked them to swear allegiance to him as his father’s successor.103 Saladin’s health continued to fail, and in the morning of Wednesday, March 4, 1193, he died. Ibn Shaddad gives a vivid account of his death.104 Isfahani, al-Fath, 618; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 356; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 208; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120–121 of the Syriac text, 340–341 of the English translation. 101 Isfahani, al-Fath, 611–615; Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 354–356; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 206–207, follows al-Isfahani. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 120–121 of the Syriac text, 340–341 of the English translation, says Baha al-Din Qaraqosh was ransomed for 30,000 dinars, the same amount paid for the release of al-Mashtub. 102 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 358–359. 103 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 365 (also in Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 212–213); Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 418. 104 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 366–369 (trans. in Archer, The Crusade, 334–349); Isfahani, al-Fath, 627; Abu Shama, Kitab, 2: 213; Wasil, Mufarrij, 2: 416–420; Athir, alKamil, 72; Michael Rabo, Makthabanuth Zabne, translated by Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir (Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996), 737; edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199 (Paris: n.p., 1899–1910), 410; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 121 of the Syriac text, 341 of the English translation, Tarikh Mukhtasar alDuwal, Anton Salihani, ed. (Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1958), 223. The Anonymous Edessan, 202 of the Syriac text, 231 of the Arabic translation, says that 100

1084

THE CRUSADES

Saladin’s death brought shock and grief to the Muslims, who had lost a remarkable leader. Al-Isfahani says that generosity was buried with him; he himself was so shocked by Saladin’s death that he could no longer distinguish day from night or know whether he was sober or intoxicated. All his talents and faculties were dampened or smothered by grief.105 Saladin’s aide and biographer Ibn Shaddad laments, “Our lord Sultan al-Nasir (victorious) is the one who brought the faithful together and destroyed the worshipers of the Cross. He was the bearer of the banner of justice and charity and the ‘Salah al-Din wa al-Dunya’ (The Rightness of Religion and the World), the Sultan of Islam and Muslims, the rescuer of the Holy House of Allah from the hands of the polytheists, the servant of the two Sanctuaries (Mecca and Medina), Abu al-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn Ayyub ibn Shadhi.”106 No words have so succinctly combined the virtues of Saladin as these. But Ibn Shaddad also describes Saladin as just, brave, benevolent, patient, generous even to his Frankish enemies, a wonderful companion, a man of pleasant humor. He presents him as one who renounced the pleasures of this world, being so abstemious that he left almost no personal possessions upon his death. He sums up the magnanimous life and conduct of Saladin thus: “Islam had no one like him since the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (the four caliphs commonly known as al-Khulafa al-Rashidun)”.107 Saladin has always been a paradox to admirers and detractors alike. He attracted the interest of Western writers, ancient and modern. An ancient anonymous Latin writer makes him out to be a pimp who catered to prostitutes in Damascus and extorted money from them in exchange for letting them practice their profession. While this odious charge against Saladin is wholly false, the author follows it with another story that makes Saladin a knight of Humphrey II of Toron (actually Hugh of Tiberias), from whom he allegedly received the belt of knighthood in accordance with the rite of the Franks.108 Another ancient source, the Histoire d’Outremer, offers a story by Comtesse de Ponthieu alleging that Saladin was connected through her Saladin died while besieging the town of Arzun in the district of Akhlat (Khilat). See Roger of Hoveden, Annals, 2: 294; William of Newburgh, Chronicles, 1: 381. Continuation, 132, wrongly says he died in 1195; Chronique d’Ernoul, 304, gives the date as 1193. See Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), 655, 657. 105 Isfahani, al-Fath, 627, 661–665. 106 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 4. 107 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 18–20, 26–27, 36–37, 40–41, 386. 108Nicholson, 27.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1085

to a noble French house.109 To some Latin writers he was a crypto-Christian who was baptized on his deathbed.110 But contemporary Western writers see Saladin in a different light. Many have only praise for this unique Muslim leader. Runciman declares, “He was the most attractive of all the great figures of the Crusading era. But he had his faults.”111 After listing Saladin’s excellent traits, Runciman relates a legend about him recorded by the Frankish writer Vincent of Beauvais: when he was on his deathbed, he summoned his standard-bearer and told him to set a rag from his shroud on a lance and carry it to Damascus, to show that he had taken nothing from this life except a rag.112 Among the Syriac sources, Bar Hebraeus gives the fullest description of Saladin’s character. Like Ibn Shaddad, he says that Saladin was patient, mild-tempered, generous, of good character, humble, and forgiving of the shortcomings of his companions.113 He also reports that one day, as Saladin was seated with nobles and some mamluks (freed slaves), the mamluks were throwing a sandal at each other, and it landed where Saladin was seated. Looking in the other direction, Saladin began to talk to the man sitting next to him, pretending not to have seen what happened. On another occasion, Saladin was thirsty and asked for water to drink, but no one brought him water. He asked for water five times, but none of the attendants brought it. Saladin said, “Friends, by Allah I am dying of thirst.” Finally, when they brought him water, he drank it without being angry at all.114 On another occasion, when Saladin was recovering from sickness, he went to bathe and asked for cold water. When the attendant brought him water, he sprinkled a little of it on his body, but since he was shivering, he did not want to drink. He waited for a time, and his thirst increased. In pain, he asked once more for water. When the attendant brought the water, he was so nervous that he lost his grip on the vessel and it slipped from his hand, spilling cold water 109 M. R. Morgan, The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuation of William of Tyre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 14. 110 Morgan, Chronicle, 102. 111 S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 3: 77. 112 Runciman, History of the Crusades, 3: 78. For more legends about Saladin’s life and achievements see Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Beirut: Khavats, 1964), 370–401. 113 Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 223. 114 Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtasaral-Duwal, 223, and Chronography, 121 (English, 342).

1086

THE CRUSADES

over Saladin’s body. Saladin shivered violently from the shock, and everyone expected him to scold the attendant, but he simply said to him, “If your intention is to kill me, let me know.” Otherwise, he did not complain or make a further remark.115 The evidence of Saladin’s generosity and benevolence, says Bar Hebraeus, is that when he died, there was nothing in his treasury except a few coins.116 This seems consistent with the account of Ibn Shaddad, who says that when Saladin died, he left in his treasury only seventy-four silver dirhams and one piece of Tyrean gold. He left no estate, orchard, farm, village or any property.117 It is said that when he became master of Damascus, Saladin ordered that all the money in the treasury, a great amount, be brought out and heaped up before him. He ordered Ibn al-Muqaddam, one of his aides, to divide the money among the nobles, the horsemen, and the slaves and give a handful to each of them. When he took out only small quantities, Saladin rebuked him and bade him fill his fist. Ibn al-Muqaddam began to laugh, and Saladin asked why. Ibn al-Muqaddam said he recalled the day when Nur al-Din Zangi was sitting in the same place where Saladin sat. Nur al-Din’s men brought him a basket of large grapes. He asked Ibn alMuqaddam to distribute the grapes by handfuls among the nobles. And when Ibn al-Muqaddam began to fill his fist, Nur al-Din said to him, “Gently. If you distribute them in this manner, there will not be enough grapes for all of them.” Upon hearing this Saladin laughed and said, “Avarice belongs to the merchants and not to kings. Do not therefore distribute them with one hand but with both.” One of those present said that he received 158 dinars in the handful that was given him.118 Bar Hebraeus also gives examples of Saladin’s tolerance of nonMuslims. He says that when Saladin was encamped before the city of Akka (Acre), he rode with the Qadi (Muslim religious judge) by his side. A Jew came out appealing to the Shari’a (the law of Islam) for help against his adversary. When asked who his adversary was and who had wronged him, the Jew said that the Sultan (Saladin) was his adversary, and his slaves had wronged him. When Saladin heard the complaint, he calmly dismounted Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 121 (English, 342). Bar Hebraeus, Tarikh Mukhtasaral-Duwal, 223, says that when Saladin died he left in his treasury only one Tyrean dinar and forty Nasirite dirhams. In Chronography, 121 (English, 341), he says that when Saladin died there was nothing in his treasury but one dinar and thirty-six coins. 117 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 8, 18. 118 Bar Hebraeus, Chronograph, 121 (English, 342). 115 116

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1087

from his horse, and the Qadi did the same. When the Jew was brought to Saladin, he said that he was a Jew and a merchant of Damascus. He said that he had been coming by sea from Alexandria with twenty loads of sugar. When he arrived at the port of Acre, Saladin’s servants robbed him and vilified him, saying he was an infidel and the goods he had belonged rightfully to the Sultan (Saladin). Saladin asked the servants to appear before him and they did. When he questioned them, they admitted that they had robbed him and deposited his merchandise in the treasury. Saladin ordered the officials to give the Jew the price of the sugar.119 Modern Western historians have nothing but praise for Saladin, although they recognize his personal faults. After enumerating Saladin’s excellent qualities, W. B. Stevenson compares him only to the kings of France and England who led the Third Crusade, declaring, “Christendom did not excel Islam in the type of the heroes whom it nurtured.120 But Saladin was a man of his own time, a devout Shafiite Muslim who invoked jihad against the infidels and was zealous in reinstituting Sunnite Islam in Egypt which had been Shi’ite under the Fatimids.121 Saladin was humane in his regard for human life, but he was also “quite destitute of that abstract respect for human life which now prevailed.”122 At times he was lenient in treating his enemies, but at other times utterly ruthless and unforgiving. As the details of his career gleaned from Eastern sources show, he was politically ambitious, manipulative, and self-seeking. He cherished power and domination. The strongest evidence is the way he tricked the young and inexperienced al-Malik al-Salih, son of Nur al-Din Zangi, and captured his major city, Damascus. Such accusations did not escape the author of a Latin poem who was in the Holy Land during Saladin’s wars and who wrote that Saladin had risen to power by intrigue and murder. Another Latin writer, Joachim of Flora, calls him “the anti-Christ who is oppressing the church of God, the Sepulcher of our Lord, and the Holy City of Jerusalem,” and even labels him “one of the seven heads of the Dragon, which is the Devil.”123 Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre, is kinder, saying that Saladin “was of wise disposition, well skilled in arms and war, long-sighted, skilled and prompt in action. He was generous and open-handed, not only to his own people, but Bar Hebraeus, Chronograph, 121 (English, 342). W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 206–208. 121 Isfahani, al-Fath, 660–661. 122 Stevenson, The Crusaders, 207. 123 Gertrude Slaughter, Saladin (New York: Exposition Press, 1955), 281, 119 120

1088

THE CRUSADES

also to some of ours.”124 In the same breath, however, de Vitry shows Saladin’s ugly side: “All the world well knows how much evil he did us, and how, like the scourge of God, he destroyed and broke the Christians to pieces.” He adds that Saladin “had treacherously slain his Lord, the Caliph of Egypt; he took away the kingdom of Damascus from his master, a boy (al-Malik al-Salih) who was living in Aleppo, the son of Nur al-Din, who was now dead, as the chiefs of the kingdom were won over by presents and promises, or terrified by violence into approving of his treason.”125 But the life-story of Saladin shows he was ambitious, cunning, ruthless, and manipulative. At the beginning of his career, he was not the virtuous person with the fine qualities just mentioned. He was not even a strict Muslim. He drank wine and indulged in pleasure. It was not until 1169, when he became the sole ruler of Egypt after the death of his uncle Asad alDin Shirkuh, that Saladin experienced a metamorphosis and became the defender of Islam against the infidel Franks.126 But he became so ambitious for power that he used bribes and lies to achieve his goal. In the final analysis, Saladin owed his rise to power to his master and benefactor Nur al-Din Zangi who died in 1174. He duped the people of Syria into believing that he had no interest in governing Zangi’s kingdom, but only in taking care of its administration and protecting his young son and heir, al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il. He was of course untruthful, for he supported al-Malik al-Salih only to usurp his power and dominate his kingdom. Finally, Saladin married his master’s widow, which gave him a legal pretext to become the heir to Nur al-Din Zangi.127 The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi insightfully credits Saladin’s success to the death of Nur al-Din, after which Saladin married his wife, put his heirs to flight, and seized the government of the kingdom of Damascus. Saladin’s new wife “raised up a rich man from a pauper, the lofty from the humble, a ruler from a slave.”128 Saladin’s death left his vast kingdom in a shambles. It was divided among his many sons and other men of his household, especially his brother al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din, who constantly quarreled with each 124 Jacques De Vitry, History of Jerusalem, A.D. 1180, A. Stewart, trans. (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896), 94. 125 De Vitry, History, 95; Slaughter, Saladin, 281. 126 Shaddad, al-Nawadir, 48. 127 On this marriage see Isfahani, al-Fath, 230–231 (and Abu Shama, Kitab, 1: 263–264). 128 Nicholson, 28.

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1089

other for its domination.129 Taking advantage of this chaos, al-Malik al-Adil succeeded through shrewd diplomacy and warfare in overwhelming Saladin’s sons and uniting the kingdom of his brother under his sole authority.130 The Franks were interested in the division of Saladin’s kingdom and the conflict among his sons and relatives, hoping to plan for the recovery of Jerusalem. It is even reported that the pope asked the patriarch of Jerusalem to provide him with an account of the state of affairs of Saladin’s kingdom and the names, customs, and practices of the unbelieving Muslim princes whom the Christians were to attack and conquer their lands. In the report, the patriarch states that Saladin left fifteen sons, whom his brother Saphadin (al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-Din) had killed, except for one named li Coradinz (al-Malik al-Zahir Ghazi). Having become the sole ruler, Saphadin divided his brother’s kingdom among his thirteen sons (more likely nine).131 Muslim sources, however, make no mention of the killing of Saladin’s sons, except one slain by al-Malik al-Adil. Saladin’s death did not significantly weaken the Muslims or allow the Latins to regain Jerusalem as the center of their kingdom and power. Nevertheless, the Latin states in the East thrived for more than a century after the fall of Jerusalem. The Latins did not give up their determination to restore Jerusalem to their hand. In 1229, they regained Jerusalem according to the treaty of Jaffa, concluded by the Ayyubid Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil (reigned 1218–1238) and Emperor Frederick II of Germany. The treaty stipulated that Jerusalem should once more become a Latin city, with the exception of the mosques on the temple hill and other Muslim sacred places. It also preserved the right of Muslim pilgrims to visit their holy places. Moreover, the Latins received Nazareth, Bethlehem, and certain villages on the roads to these towns and to Jerusalem. Although the Christians were not pleased with this treaty, which they regarded as a compromise and an abject surrender, the Muslims lamented the deliverance of Jerusalem to the hands of the infidels. The Muslim writer Badr al-Din al-Ayni Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 910–917. Al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Isma’il Abu al-Fida, al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, in R. H. C. Or., 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872), 80; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 926. 131 Janet Shirley, trans., The Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre Text, in Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century (Ashgate, 1999), 33–35. For an analytical view of this text, see M. R. Morgan, “The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail, eds. (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), 244–257. 129 130

1090

THE CRUSADES

(d. 1451) calls the surrender of Jerusalem “ . . . one of the greatest tragedies in Islam.”132 Historian Philip Hitti arbitrarily calls this treaty “infamous.”133 Bar Hebraeus says the Arabs surrendered only the city of Jerusalem to Emperor Frederick II, not the surrounding country. He places this surrender in the year 1227.134 More than a decade later, another descendant of Saladin, al-Malik alSalih Najm al-Din Ayyub (reigned 1240–1249), was able to restore Jerusalem to Muslim hands with the assistance of the Khwarizmian Turks. The Khwarizmians had been in conflict with the Mongols and were evicted by Chingiz Khan from their homeland in Central Asia. They gathered around their leader Jalal al-Din Manguberti and raided several regions in Persia, capturing Azerbayjan in 1225. But they collided with the Mongol hordes, who like them were bent on pillage and destruction. In 1231 the Mongols invaded Azerbayjan and the Khwarizmi Shah (Manguberti) fled to Diyarbakr, in modern-day Turkey, where he was killed by a Kurdish peasant.135 In 1241 the Khwarizmians were defeated by a coalition force led by the amirs of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo, and were expelled from Edessa, Nisibin, and al-Jazira. A large number of them settled between Edessa and Harran and made their living as mercenaries. Ten thousand Khwarizmians enlisted in the service of al-Malik al-Salih Ayyub and began raiding Syria, with the intention of invading Jerusalem. They began the attack on the city on July 11, 1244, and on August 23 it fell into their hands with little resistance. The Franks within the city pleaded for a guarantee of safety to leave the city, but were tricked. As 6,000 Franks left the city under a guarantee of safety, the Khwarizmian hordes treacherously fell upon them, killing more than 2,000. Others were chased along the highway to Jaffa, and only three hundred reached that city safely. The Khwarizmians destroyed the Church of the Resurrection and other churches. They took Christian women and children into captivity. Thus, Jerusalem fell into Muslim hands.136 Badr al-Din al-Ayni, Iqd al-Juman, R.H.C. Or. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887): 187–194; Fida, al-Mukhtasar, 104; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 312–313; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem (Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1936), 3: 403–404. 133 Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: Macmillan-St. Martin’s Press, 1970), 654. 134 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 140 (English, 391). 135 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 142 (English, 396). 136 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 142 (English, 396). 136 Al-Ayni, Iqd al-Juman, 198; Claude Cahen, “The Turks in Iran and Mongolia 132

RICHARD AND SALADIN

1091

On June 6, 1249, when al-Malik al-Salih was on his deathbed, King Louis IV of France and his cavaliers of the “Sixth Crusade” besieged Damietta.137 By this time the Crusades had lost their appeal. Although after Saladin’s death the Franks continued to hold power over towns and fortresses in Syria throughout the thirteenth century, the Muslims gained steadily, led by the Mamluks of Egypt, al-Zahir Baybars (1260–1277), al-Malik alMansur Sayf al-Din Qalawun (1279–1290), and Qalawun’s son al-Ashraf (1290–1293), who dealt the death blow to the Franks’ power in the East. One after the other, the Franks’ fortresses fell to the Mamluks. With the destruction of the Templar castle of ‘Athlith (Castrum Peregrinorum, Château Pèlerin) in the middle of August 1291, the dramatic saga of the Crusades in Syria ended.138 Sultan al-Ashraf destroyed the Franks’ castles, intending that they should never again establish a foothold in the Outremer, and they did not.139 What is more tragic is that the Franks lost their own identity. Some of them assimilated with the native Christians. Others left, mostly to Cyprus. “For more than a century to come,” says Runciman, “when the great Frankish ladies of Cyprus went outdoors, they wore black dresses covered from head to toe as a token of mourning for the death of the Outremer.”140

before the Mongol Invasions,” in History of the Crusades, M. W. Baldwin, ed. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 2: 672–673; Jean Richard, Le Royaume Latin de Jerusalem (Paris, 1953), 260; Stevenson, The Crusaders, 321–322; Ashur, al-Haraka, 2: 1044–1045. 137 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 148 (English, 414–415), refers to the battle of alMansura (although he does not mention it by name) where the Franks were defeated; their king, whom he calls “Ridafrance”, i.e., “Roi de France”, actually Louis IX, was taken prisoner with his nobles. 138 Hitti, History of the Arabs, 658. 139 Steven Runciman, “A History of the Crusades, 1243–1291,” in Wolf and Hazard, eds., History of the Crusades, 2: 598. 140 Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3: 423.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbas, Ihsan. al-Arab fi Siqiliyya. Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1975. Abd al-Hakam, Abd al-Rahman Ibn. Dhikr Fath al-Andalus. Translated by John Harris Jones as History of the Conquest of Spain. New York: Burt Franklin, 1969. Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Abd Allah. al-Anis al-Mutrib bi Rawd al-Qirtas fi Akhbar Muluk al-Maghrib wa Tarikh Madinat Fas. Uppsala, 1834. Abraham, Antoine J, and George Haddad. The Warriors of God: Jihad (Holy War) and the Fundamentalists of Islam. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press, 1989. Abulafia, Anna Sapir. “Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985: 66– 70. Abu Shama. Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn. 2 volumes. Cairo: Matba’at Wadi al-Nil, 1870–1871. Adamnan’s De Locis Sanctis. In Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, volume 3. Edited and translated by Denis Meehan. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1958. -------. Translated by J. R. Macpherson in Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society 3. London, 1896–1897. Adim, Kamal al-Din Ibn al-. Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab. 2 vols. Edited by Sami al-Dahhan. Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1954. -------. Bughyat al-Talab fi Tarikh Halab. Edited by Suhayl Zakkar I. Damascus, 1988. Adler, Alfred. “Rainouart and the Comparison of the Chanson de Guillaume.” Modern Philology 49 (1952): 161–163. Adontz, Nicolas. “Asot Erkat ou de fer Roi d’Arménie de 913 à 929.” Byzantion (1935): 22–24. Ahmad, Aziz. A History of Islamic Sicily. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1975. Alberti Aquensis (Albert of Aachen or of Aix). Liber Christianae Edpeditionis pro Erptione Emundantione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesia. 1093

1094

THE CRUSADES

In Recueil des historiens des Croisades: Occ. 4. Paris: Imprimerie National, 1867. Al-Irhab al-Islami wa Ahl al-Kitab. n.d. and n.p. Ali, Abdallah Yousuf. The Glorious Kur’an: Translation and Commentary. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d. Allen Born, R. The Normans. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984. Alphandéry, Paul and Alphonse Dupront. La Chretiente et l´idée de Croisade. Volume 1. Paris: A. Michel, 1954. Al-Tabshir al-Salibi: al-Wasai’l wa al-Ahdaf [The Crusading Missionary Activities: Its Methods and Objectives]. The United Arab Emirates: The Society of Reform and Social Guidance, n.d. Altamira, Rafael. A History of Spain. Third edition. Translated by Muna Lee. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1955. -------. “Spain, 1031–1248.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Amari, Michele, ed. Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula. Leipzig: Presso F. A. Bockhaus, 1857. -------. Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia. Edited by C. A. Nallino, III. Catania: R. Prompolini, 1933–1939. Amatus of Monte Cassino. “The Chronicle of Monte Casino.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, volume 6: 651–652. Ambroise. L’Estoire de la guerre Sainte. Edited by Gaston Paris in Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France. Paris: 1897. Translated by Merton Jerome Hubert with Notes and Documentation by John L. La Monte as The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. Reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1976. -------. L’Estoire de la guerre Sainte. Translated by Edward Noble Stone as The History of the Holy War in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades. Seattle: University of Washington, 1939. Andressohn, John C. The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1947. Reprint, 1972. Anonymous Edessan. Chronicon Ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens. Edited by J. B. Chabot. Volume 15, Corpus Scriptorum Orientalium: Scriptores Syri. Paris, 1916. -------. Chronicon Ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens. Partial translation by A. S. Tritton with Notes by Hamilton A. R. Gibb as “The First and Second Crusades from an Anonymous Syriac Chronicle.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Part I (January, 1933): 96–101, and Part II (April, 1933): 273–305.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1095

-------. Chronicon Ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens. Translated by Rev. Ishaq Armala as al-Hurub al-Salibiyya fi al-Athar al-Suryaniyya. Beirut: AlMatba’, 1929. -------. Chronicon Ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens. Translated by Albert Abouna in vol. 2, Tarikh al-Ruhawi al-Majhul. Baghdad: Matba’at Shafiq, 1986. Ansbert Historia de Expeditione Friderici Impwratoris, der so-genante Ansbert. Edited by Anton Chroust. In volume 5, Quelle zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I. Monumenta germaine: Scriptores Germanicarum. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1928. Archer, T.A. “ The Council of Clermont and the First Crusade.” The Scottish Review 15 (1895): 274–276. -------. The Crusade of Richard I 1189–1192. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1889. ------- and Charles Kingsford, The Crusades: The Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1894. Armala, Ishaq. al-Hurub al-Salibiyya fi al-Athar al-Suryaniyya. Beirut: al-Matba’a al-Suryaniyya, 1929. Armstrong, Karen. “The Crusades Even Now.” The New York Times Magazine (September 19, 1999): 74–75. Arslan, Shakib. Tarikh Ghazawat al-Arab fi Faransa, Sewisra, Itlaia wa Jaza’ir alBahr al-Mutawassit. Cairo: ‘Isa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1933. Artsruni, Thomas. History of the House of the Artsrunik. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985. Ashbakh, Yusuf. Tarikh al-Andalus fi Ahd al-Murabitin wa al-Muwahhidin. 2 volumes. Cairo, 1940. Ashur, Fayid Hammad Muhammad. al-Jihad al-Islami Didd al-Salibiyyin wa alMaghul fi al-Asr al-Mamluki. Tripoli: Jros Press, 1995. Ashur, Sa’id Abd al-Fattah. al-Haraka al-Salibiyya: Safha Mushriqa fi Tarikh alJihad al-Arabi fi al-Usur al-Wusta. 2 volumes. Cairo: Maktabat al-Angloal-Misriyya, 1963. -------. Qubrus wa al-Hurub al-Salibiyya (Cyprus and the Crusades). Cairo, 1957. Astarjian, K. L. Tarikh al-Umma al-Armaniyya. Mosul: Matba’at al-Ittihad alJadida, 1951. Athir, Izz al-Din Ibn al-, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh. Second edition. Volume 5. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, 1967. -------. al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh. In volumes 1 and 2, Recueil Des historiens des Croisades. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872. Reprint, Israel, 1969: 189– 744; Volume 2. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887. Reprint, Israel, 1969: 3–179.

1096

THE CRUSADES

-------. al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya. Edited by Abd al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat. Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1963. Atiya, Aziz. Crusades, Commerce and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. -------. The Crusades in Later Middle Ages. London: Methuen and Company, 1938. -------. The Crusades: Historiography and Bibliography. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962. Atiya, Husayn Muhammad. Imarat Antakiya al-Salibiyya wa al-Muslimun 1171– 1286. Alexandria: Dar al-Ma’rifa al-Jami’iyya, 1989. Ault, Warren O. Europe in the Middle Ages. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1946. Awad, Badawi Abd al-Latif ed. Tarikh al-Fariqi. Ayni, Badr al-Din al-. Iqd al-Juman. Volume 2. Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: 183–250. Azimi, Muhammad ibn Ali al-. Tarikh Halab. Edited by Ibrahim Zu’rur. Damascus, 1984. Bachrach, Bernard S. and David S. Bachrach. The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of the Normans on the First Crusade. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. Badawi, Ahmad. al-Hayat al-Adabiyya fi Asr al-Hurub al-Salibiyya bi Misr wa alSham. Second edition. Cairo: Dar Nahdat Misr li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1979. Bahr al-Fawa’id [Sea of Precious Virtues], quoted in Robert Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades, 1096–1699.” In The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Baladhuri, Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-. Futuh al-Buldan. 3 volumes. Edited by Salah al-Din al-Munajjid. Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1956. Baldric of Dol. Historia Jherosolimitana. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 4. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879: 1–111. Baldwin, Marshall W. “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem 1174–1189.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 590–621. -------. “The Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric 1, 1143–1174.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 528–561. -------. “Miscellany: Some Recent Interpretations of Pope Urban II’s Eastern Policy.” Catholic Historical Review 25 (1940): 459–466. -------. “The Papacy and the Levant During the Twelfth Century.” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 3 (1945): 277–287.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1097

-------. Raymond III of Tripoli and the Fall of Jerusalem, 1140–1187. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936. Reprint. New York: AMS, 1978. -------, ed. A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Barber, Malcolm. The New Knighthood A History of the Order of the Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. -------. ed. The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick. Aldershot, 1994. Bar Hebraeus, Gregorius Abu al-Faraj. The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus. 2 volumes. Translated by Ernest Wallis Budge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932. -------. Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal. Edited by Anton Salihani. Beirut: alMatba’a al-Catholikiyya, 1958. Barker, Ernest. The Crusades. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1923. Reprint, 1971. -------. “The Crusades.” In The Legacy of Islam. Edited by Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Barsoum, Ignatius Aphram. al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab al-Syrianiyya. Aleppo, 1956. Translated by Matti Moosa as History of Syriac Literature and Sciences. Pueblo, CO: Passeggiata Press, 2000. Second revised edition, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003. Bartholomaeis, Vincenzo de, ed. Storia dei Normanni di Amato di Montecassino. Cassino: Francesco Ciolfi, 1999. Barton, Simon, “Notes and Documents on a Forgotten Crusade: Alfonso VII of Léon-Castile and the Campaign of Jaén (1148).” Historical Research 73, No. 182 (October, 2000): 312–320. Bayyumi, Muhammad Rajab al-. Salah al-Din Qahir al-Udwan al-Salibi. Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1998. Beaumont, Jr. André Alden. “Albert of Aachen and the Count of Edessa.” In The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro. Edited by Louis J. Paetow. New York: F.S. Crofts, 1928. Beazley, C. Raymond. The Dawn of Modern Geography. 3 volumes. New York: Peter Smith, 1949. Becker, Alfonso. “Papst Urban II.” In vol. 19, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Stuttgart, 1964: 227–229. -------. “Papst Urban II.” Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Volume 2. Stuttgart, 1988. Becker, C. H. “The Expansion of the Saracens–The East.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913: 329– 390.

1098

THE CRUSADES

-------. Vom Verden und Wesen des Islamischen Welt: Islamstudien. Volume 1. Leipzig, 1924. Behnam, Bulus (later Bishop Gregorius). “Dayr Mar Barsoum Qurb Malatiya” (The Monastery of Mar Barsoum Near Melitene). In Lisan al-Mashriq Nos. 4–6 (Mosul, Iraq, 1951): 153–208. Benedict of Peterborough. Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis. Edited by William Stubbs as The Chronicle of Henry II and Richard I, A. D. 1189– 1192. London, 1867. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965. Bennett, Matthew. “Military Aspects of the Conquest of Lisbon, 1147.” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hochs. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Bernard of Clairvaux. The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Translated by Bruno Scott James. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. Bernhardi, Wilhelm. Konrad III. 1883. Reprint, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1975. Berry, Virginia G. “The Second Crusade.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 463–512. See Odo of Deui. Besant, Walter and E.H. Palmer. Jerusalem, The City of Herod and Saladin. 4th edition. London: Chatto and Windus, 1899. Bin Musa, Taysir. Nazra Arabiyya ala Ghazawat al-Ifranj min Bidayat al-Hurub al-Salibiyya hatta Wafat Nur al-Din (Zangi). Tunis: al-Dar al-Arabiyya li al-Kitab, 1979. Blake, Ernest O. “The Formation of the Crusade Idea.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970): 11–31. -------. and Colin Morris. “A Hermit Goes to War: Peter the Origins of the First Crusade.” Studies in Church History 22 (1985): 70–107. Blanca, Gari. “Why Almeria? An Islamic Port in the Compass of Genoa.” Journal of Medieval History 18 (1992): 211–231. Blank, David. “Let my right hand forget her cunning.” al-Ahram Weekly. July 15–21, 1999. Blumenthal, Uta-Renata The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Boase, T.S.R. ed. “The History of the Kingdom.” In The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978. Born, R. Allen. The Normans. New York, 1984. Brand, Charles. M. Byzantium Confronts the West 1180–1204. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1099

Brandt, Walther I., ed. The Recovery of the Holy Land. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Bredero, A.H. “Jérusalem dans l’occident medieval.” In Mélanges offerts â René Crozet. Poitiers, 1966: 259–271. Bréhier, Louis. “Charlemagne et la Palestine.” Revue Historique 157 (1928): 277–291. -------. L‘Église et l‘Orient au moyen age—Les Croisades. 6th edition. Paris: Lecoffred, J. Gabalda, 1928. -------. Histoire anonyme de la première croisade. Paris, 1924. -------. L’Orient au moyen Age: Les Croisades. 2nd edition. Paris, 1907. -------. “Les Origines des Rapports entre la France et la Syrie: Le Protectorat de Charlemagne.” In fasc. 2, Section d’Archéologie, Histoire, Géographie et Ethnographie. From Chamber de Commerce de Marseille: Congrès Français de la Syrie. Marseille and Paris, 1919. -------. “The Recovery of the Holy Land.” In The Crusades: Motives and Achievements. Edited by James A. Brundage. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964. -------. “La Situation des Chrétiens la Fin du VIII siecle et de Palestine à l’Establishment du Protectorat des Charlemagne.” Moyen Age 21 (1919): 67–75. Breviarius de Hierosolyma [A Short Description of the Holy Land]. Quoted in the Book of Theodosius. Gildemeister, 1882. Bridge, Antony. Richard the Lionheart. London: Grafton Books and New York: M. Evans, 1989. Broadhurst, R.J.C. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr. London: Jonathan Cape, 1952. Brooks, E.W. “The Struggle with the Saracens.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 119–138. Brosset, M. Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’antiquité jusqu-au XIXe siècle. Volume 1. St. Petersburg: MM Eggers et companie, 1849. Brown, E.A.R. and Michael Cothren. “The Twelfth-Century Crusading Window of the Abbey of St. Dennis.” Journal of the Warburg and Cortauld Institutes 49 (1968): 1–40. Brundage, James A. “Adhemar of Puy: The Bishop and His Critics.” Speculum 34 (1959): 201–212. -------. The Crusades: A Documentary Survey. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962. -------. “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois.” Traditio 16 (1960): 388–395. -------. Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.

1100

THE CRUSADES

-------. “Prostitution, Miscegenation and Sexual Purity in the First Crusade.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College of Cardiff, 1985: 57–65. -------. “Recent Crusade Historiography: Some Observations and Suggestions.” The Catholic Historical Review 49 (January, 1946): 493–507. -------. Richard Lion Heart. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974. -------, ed. The Crusades: Motives and Achievements. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1964. Bryer, Anthony and Michael Ursinus, eds. “Manzikert to Lepanto: The Byzantine World and the Turks, 1071–1571.” Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (Amsterdam, 1991). Bull, Marcus. Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony 970–1130. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Bündung, Margret. Das Imperium Christianum und die deutschen Ostkrieg vom zehnten bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert. Historische Studien. Edited by Edeberg. Berlin, 1940. Burr, George Lincoln. “The Year 1000 and the Antecedents of the Crusades.” The American Historical Review 6 (1901): 429–439. Bury, J.B. A History of the Byzantine Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil. 2 volumes. London: Macmillan and Co., 1912. Reprint, 1958. Caffaro of Caschifellone. Annali Genovese di Caffaro e de’soui continuatori. Volume 1. Edited by L.T. Belgrano. Genoa, 1890. -------. De Captione Almeria et Tortuose. Edited by Antonio Ubieto Arteta. Valencia, 1973. -------. Genuensis consulis, liberatione civitatum Orientis. Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 5. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1895. -------. Ystoria captionis Almarie et Turtuose. Edited by L.T. Belgrano. Genoa, 1890. Cahen, Claude. “La Compagne de Manzikert d’apré les sources musulmanes.” Byzantion 9 (1934): 613–642. -------. Orient et Occident au temps des Croisades. Translated by Ahmad al-Shaykh as al-Sharq wa al-Gharb Zaman al-Hurub al-Salibiyya. Cairo: Sina li alNashr, 1995. -------. Pre-Ottoman Turkey. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1968. -------. La Syrie du Nord á l’Epoque des Croisades et la principauté Franque D’Antioche. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1940. -------. “The Turkish Invasion: The Selchükids.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 135–176.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1101

-------. “The Turks in Iran and Anatolia before the Mongol Invasion.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 661–692. Canard, M. L. “Arménie et le Califate Arabe de Tur-Levonian.” Revue des Études Byzantines 13 (1978–1979): 387–407. -------. “Arminiya.” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, volume 1. 1960: 635–636. -------. “Les Expéditions des Arabes contra Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la légende.” Journal Asiatique 128 (1926): 63–80. -------. “Fatimids.” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, volume 2. 1965: 850–862 Carter, P. “The Historical Content of William of Malmsbury’s Miracles of the Virgin Mary.” In The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern. Edited by R. H. C. Davis and J. M. WallaceHadrill. Oxford, 1981. Castro, Américo. The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History. Translated by Willard F. King and Selma Margaretten. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. Cate, James Lea. “The Crusade of 1101.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 343–367. Catholicos, J. Historie de Armenie. Translated by M.J. Saint Martin. Paris, 1841. Cauwenbergh, E. van. Les Pélernages expiatoires et judicataire dans le droit communal de la Belgique au moyen-age. Louvain, 1922. Chalandon, Ferdinand. “The Conquest of South Italy and Sicily by the Normans.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 167–207. -------. “The Early Comneni.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 333–334. -------. Essai sur la règne d’Alexis I Comnène 1081–1118. Paris: A. Picard, 1900. -------. Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile. 2 volumes. Paris: A. Picard, 1907. -------. Histoire de Première Croisade jusqu’ àl’Election de Godefroi de Bouillon. Paris: A. Picard, 1935. -------. Jean II Comnène (1118–43) et Manuel I Comnène, (1143–80). Paris: A. Picard, 1912. Chapman, Charles E. A History of Spain. New York: Macmillan, 1930. Charanis, Peter. The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire. Lisbon: Livraria Bertrand, 1963.

1102

THE CRUSADES

-------. “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by M. W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 177–219. -------. “Byzantium, the West, and the Origin of the First Crusade.” Byzantion 19 (1949): 42–36. Chibnall, Marjorie. Historia Pontificalis of John of Salisbury. London: Thomas Nelson, 1956. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. -------, trans. and ed. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. 6 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Choniates, Niketas. Annals of Niketas Choniates. Translated by Harry J. Magouilas as O City of Byzantium. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, Chronica Hispana Saeculi 12. Edited by E. Falque, J. Gill and A. Maya in Corpus Christianorum Medievalis, volume 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Chroust, Anton, ed. Quelle zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I. Monumenta Germaine historica: Scriptores Germanicarum, Nova Series 5. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1928. Cleve, Thomas C. Van. “The Crusade of Frederick II.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Edited by Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 429–462. Cohn, Norman. “The Pursuit of Millennium.” In The Crusades: Motives and Achievements. Edited by James A. Brundage: 34–41. Cole, Penny J. “O God, the heathens have come into your Inheritance: The Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade Documents, 1095–1188.” In Crusades and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria. Edited by Maya Schatzmiller. Leiden: Brill, 1993: 84–111. Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1967. Constable, Giles. “Medieval Charters As A Source For The History Of The Crusades.” In Crusades and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985: 73–89. -------. “A Note On The Route Of The Anglo-Flemish Crusaders of 1147.” Speculum 27 (1953): 525–526. -------. The Reformation of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. -------. “A Report of a Lost Sermon by St. Bernard on the Failure of the Second Crusade.” In Studies in Medieval Cistercian History Presented to Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan. Edited by Joseph O’Callaghan. Cistercian Studies Series 13 (1971): 49–54.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1103

-------. “The Second Crusade As Seen By Contemporaries.” Traditio 9 (1953): 213–297. Constable, O.R. Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial ReAlignment of the Iberian Peninsula, 900–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Cosack, H. “Konrads III Entschluss zum Kreuzzug.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtesforschung 35 (1914): 283–288. Coupe, M.D. “Peter the Hermit–Reassessment.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 31 (1987): 37–45. Cowdrey, H.J.E. The Age of Abbot Desiderius: Montecassino, the Papacy, and the Normans in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries. Oxford: 1983. -------. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Oxford: 1970. -------. “Pope Gregory VII’s ‘Crusading Plan of 1074.’” In Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem. Edited by B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer and R.C. Smail. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982: 27–40. -------. “Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade.” History 55 (1970): 177–188. Crozet, R. Revue Historique 179 (1937): 272–278. Curry, Andrew. “The First Holy War.” U. S. News & World Report (April 8, 2002), 39. Curtis, Edmund. Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1912. Czajowski, Anthony F. “The Siege of Antioch in the First Crusade.” Historical Bulletin 26 (1948): 82–84. Dahan, Gilbert. “Bernard de Clairvaux et les juifs.” Archives Juives 23 (1987): 59–65. Dajani-Shakeel, Hadia. “Some Aspects of Muslim-Frankish Christian Relations in the Sham Region in the Twelfth Century.” In Christian-Muslim Encounters. Edited by Yvonne-Yazbeck Haddad and Wadi Zaidain Haddad. Gainsville: University Press of Florida, 1995: 193–209. Daniel, Norman. The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe. London & New York: Longman, 1975. Reprint, 1979. David, Charles Wendell. Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy. Harvard Historical Studies 25. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. -------. ed. and trans. De expugnatione Lyxbonensi. Translated as The Conquest of Lisbon. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. Reprint, 2001. Davids, T. W. “Julianus.” In A Dictionary of Christian Biography volume 3. Edited by William Smith and Henry Wace, III. London: John Murray, 1882: 475–476.

1104

THE CRUSADES

Davies, J.G. “Pilgrimage and Crusade Literature.” In Journey Towards God: Pilgrimage and Crusade. Edited by Barbara N. Sargent-Baur. Medieval Institute Publications. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1992: 1–30. Davis, R.H.C. and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill. The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern. Oxford: 1981. Dawson, Christopher. Religion and the Rise of Western Culture. Image Books: 1961. Dayf, Shawqi. Asr al-Duwal wa al-Imarat: Libya, Tunis, Siqiliyya. Cairo: Dar alMa’arif, 1992. Daywachi, Sa’id. Tarikh al-Mawsil. Volume I. Baghdad: The Iraqi Academy, 1982. Dédéyan, Gérard. “Les colophons de manuscripts arméniens comme sources pour l’histoire des Croisades.” In The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton. Edited by John France and William G. Zajac. Ashgate, 1998: 96–97. Delaruelle, E. “Essai sur la formation de l’ldée de Croisades.” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique (1941): 86–103. Delbrück, Hans. Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte. Volume 3. Berlin, 1907. Dibs, Bishop Yusuf al-. Tarikh Suriyya. Volume 6. Beirut: Dar Nazir Abboud, 1900. Dinar, Ibn Abi. al-Mu’nis fi Akhbar Ifriqiyya wa Tunis. Tunis, 1869. Dolabani, Rev. Yuhanna. “Al-Suryan fi Filistin aw Dayr Maryam alMajdaliyya.” al-Hikma 9 (1928): 434–443. Dostourian, Ara, ed. Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993. Douglas, David C. The Norman Achievement, 1050–1100. London, 1996. Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Dozy, Rheinhart. Spanish Islam. Translated by Francis Griffin Stokes. London: Frank Cass, 1913. Reprint, 1972. Drasxanakertc’i, Yovhannes. History of Armenia. Translated by Rev. Krikor H. Maksoudian. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Dubois, Pierre. The Recovery of the Holy Land. Edited by Walther I. Brandt. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Duckworth, H.T.F. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher. London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1105

Duncalf, Frederic. “The Councils of Piacenza and Clermont.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 220–252. -------. “The First Crusade: Clermont to Constantinople.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 253–279. -------. “The Peasants’ Crusade.” American Historical Review 26 (1921): 440– 453. -------. “The Pope’s Plan for the First Crusade.” In The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro. Edited by Louis J. Paetow. New York: F.S. Crofts, 1928: 44–56. Reprinted in The Crusades: Motives and Achievements. Edited by James A. Brundage. Lexington, MA, 1964: 22–27. Dunn, Maryjane and Linda K. Davidson. The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. New York: Garland Press, 1994. Duruy, V. Histoire du Moyen age depuis la chute de l’empire d’Occident jusq’au milieu du XV Siècle. Paris: Hachette et cie., 1884. Dury, Taqi al-Din Arif al-. Siqiliyya: Alaqatuha bi Duwal al-Bahr al-Mutawassit al-Islamiyya. Baghdad: Dar al-Rashid li al-Nashr, 1980. Duval, Rubens. Histoire Politique, Relgieuse, et Littéraire D’Édesse. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1892. Edbury, Peter W. The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. -------. “Looking Back on the Second Crusade: Some Late Twelfth-Century English Perspective.” In The Second Crusade and the Cistercians. Edited by Michael Gervers. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992: 163–169. -------, ed. The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Transition. Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1996. -------. Crusade and Settlement: Papers Presented to R.C. Smail. Cardiff: University College Press, 1985. -------. Kingdoms of the Crusades From Jerusalem to Cyprus. Ashgate, 1999. Edgington, B. Susan. “Albert of Aachen Reappraised.” In From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and the Crusader Scotties, 1095–1500. Edited by Alan V. Murray. 1998: 55–67. -------. The First Crusade. London, 1996. -------. “The First Crusade: Reviewing the Evidence.” In The First Crusades. Edited by Jonathan Phillips. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997: 55–77. -------. The Historia Iherosolimitana of Albert of Aix: A Critical Edition. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of London, 1991.

1106

THE CRUSADES

-------. “Medical Knowledge in the Crusading Armies: The Evidence of Albert of Aachen and Others.” In The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick. Edited by Malcolm Barber. Aldershot, 1994: 320–326. -------. “Notes and Documents: The Lisbon Letter of the Second Crusade.” Institute of Historical Research 69 (1994): 328–339. -------, trans. “The Lisbon Letter.” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001: 61–67. Edwards, Robert W. The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oakes Research Library and Collections, 1949. Ehrenkreuz, Andrew S. Saladin. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. Eidelberg, Shlomo, ed. “The Chronicle of Solomon bar Simon.” In The Jews and the Crusades: The Hebrew Chronicle of the First and Second Crusades. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977. -------. ed. and trans. The Jews and the Crusades: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades. Hoboken, NJ, 1996. Einhard. The Life of Charlemagne. Foreword by Sidney Painter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964. Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Translated by Lewis Thorpe. Penguin Books, 1969. Ekkehard of Aura. “Chronicon universale.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, volume 6: 213. Elisséeff, N. Nur al-Din: un grand prince musulman de Syrie au temos des Croisades. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1967. Emerton, Ephraim. The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII. New York: Columbia University Press, 1932. Engreen, Fred E. “Pope John the Eighth and the Arabs.” Speculum 10 (1945): 318–330. Ephraim of Bonn (Rabbi). “Sefer Zekhiriah, or The Book of Remembrance.” In The Jews and the Crusades: The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades. Edited by Shlomo Eidelberg. Hoboken, NJ, 1996: 121– 122. Erdmann, Carl. Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1935. Translated by Marshall W. Baldwin and Walter Goffart as The Origin of the Idea of Crusade. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. -------. “Der Kreuzzugsgedanke in Portugal.” Historische Zeitschrift 141 (1929–1930).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1107

Evergates, Theodore. “Louis VII and the Count of Champagne.” In The Second Crusade and the Cistercians. Edited by Michael Gervers: 109–117. Fakhri, Majid. “Al-Suhrawardi wa Buzugh Hikmat al-Ishraq fi Bilad alSham.” al-Abhath 43 (1995): 3–30. Falcandus, Hugo. The History of the Tyrants of Sicily 1154–1169. Translated by Graham A. Loud and Thomas Wiedemann. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Fariqi, Ahmad ibn Yusuf ibn Ali ibn al-Azraq al-. Tarikh al-Fariqi. Edited by Badawi Abd al-Latif Awad. Cairo: 1959. Ferreiro, A. “The Siege of Barbastro, 1064–1065: A Reassessment.” Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983): 133–135. Ferzoco, George. “The Origin of the Second Crusade.” In The Second Crusade and the Cistercians. Edited by Michael Gervers: 92–99. Fida, al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Isma’il Abu al-. al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1872. Reprint,1969: 1–165. Fink, Harold S. “The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099–1118.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by M. W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 386–409. -------. “The Role of Damascus in The History of the Crusades.” The Muslim World 49 (1959): 41–53. Firestone, Reuven. Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Flahiff, George B. “Deus Non Vult: A Critic of the Third Crusade.” Medieval Studies 9 (1947): 162–188. Fletcher, Richard A. Moorish Spain. New York: Holt and Company, 1992. -------. “Reconquest and Crusade in Spain.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, 37 (1978). Forey, Alan. “The Failure of the Siege of Damascus in 1148.” Journal of Medieval History 10 (1984): 13–23. -------. “The Second Crusade: Scope and Objectives.” Durham University Journal 86 (1994): 165–175. Forse, James H. “Armenians and the First Crusade.” Journal of Medieval History 16 (1991): 13–32. Forester, Thomas, ed. The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1853. -------, ed. and trans. “Ordericus Vitalis.” In The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy. New York: AMS Press, 1968. Fortescue, Adrian. The Lesser Eastern Churches. London: Catholic Truth Society, 1913.

1108

THE CRUSADES

France, John. “Christianity, Violence and the Origin of Crusading: à Propos of a Recent Study.” Revue Belge De Philologie Et D’ Histoire 80 (2002): 593–598. -------. “A Critical Edition of the Historia Francorum qui cepernut Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1967. -------. “The Departure of Taktikios from the Crusaders Army.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 44 (1971): 137–147. -------. “The Election and the Title of Godfrey de Bouillon.” Canadian Journal of History 18 (1983): 321–329. -------. “The Occasion of the Coming of the Normans to Southern Italy.” Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991): 185–205. -------. “Patronage and the Appeal of the First Crusade.” In The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Edited by Jonathan Phillips. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997: 5–20. -------. Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ------- and William G. Zajac, eds. The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton. Ashgate, 1998. -------. “The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum in the Early TwelfthCentury Sources for the First Crusade.” In From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500. The International Medieval Research Series, volume 3. Edited by Alan V. Murray: 29–42. Franz, Eduard. Das Patriarchat von Jerusalem im Jahre 1099. Sagan: 1885 Fulcher of Chartres. Historia Iherosolymotana. In Recuil Des Historiens Des Croisades, volume 3. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 321–486. Book I translated by Martha Evelyn McGinty as Fulcher of Chartres Chronicle of the First Crusades. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941. -------. Historia Iherosolymotana. Translated by Frances Rita Ryan. In Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosilymitana (1095–1127) mit Erläuterungen und einem Anhange. Edited by Heinrich Hagenmeyer as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1913. Reprint, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969. Furber, Elizabeth Chapin. “The Kingdom of Cyprus, 1191–1291.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 599–629. Gabrielli, Francesco. Arab Historians of the Crusades. Translated by E.J. Costello. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1109

-------. “La politique arabe des Normands de Sicile.” Studia Islamica 9 (1958): 95. Gal, Zvi. “Saladin’s Dome of Victory at the Horns of Hattin.” In The Horns of Hattin. Edited by Benjamin Z. Kedar. London and Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zev, Varioirum, 1992: 213–215. Gari, Blanca. “Why Almeria? An Islamic Port in the Compass of Genoa.” Journal of Medieval History 18 (1992): 211–23. Gaus, Julia. Ost und West in der Kirchen-und Papstgeschichte des 11. Jahrhunderts. Zurich, 1967: 41–68. Gerald of Wales. Expugnatio Hibernica. Translated by A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1978. -------. De Principis Instructione Liber. Volume 8. De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis. Edited by George F. Warner. London, 1891. -------. De rebus a se gestis. Edited by J. S. Brewer. London, 1861. -------. Speculum ecclesiae. Volumes 1 and 4. De Vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis. Edited by J.S. Brewer. London, 1873. Gerson, Paula, Jeanne Krochalis, Annie Shaver-Crandell and Alison Stones. The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Critical Edition. London: Harvey Miller, 1996. Gervasii Cantuariensis. Opera Historica. Edited by William Stubbs as volume 1, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury. London, 1879. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965. Gervers, Michael, ed. The Second Crusade and the Cistercians. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum. Translated by Rosalind Hill as The Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962. Ghani, Abd al-Rahman Mahmud al-Abd al-. Armenia wa Alaqatuha alSiyasiyya bi kul min al-Byzantiyyin wa al-Muslimin 653–664. Al-Kuwait: 1989. Ghazan, Robert. European Jewry and the First Crusade. Berkeley, 1987. Ghazarian, M. Armenian unter der Arabischen Herrschaft. Marburg, 1903. Gibb, Hamilton A. R. “The Achievement of Saladin.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 33, no. 1 (1952): 44–60. -------. “The Caliphate and the Arab States.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 81–98. -------. “The Career of Nur al-Din.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 513–527.

1110

THE CRUSADES

-------. The Damascus Chronicle of the East. Being Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq by alQalanisi. London: Luzac and Company, 1967. See Qalanisi. -------. “The Rise of Saladin 1169–1189.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 563–589. -------. Saladin: Studies in Islamic History. Edited by Yusuf Ibish. Beirut: The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974. -------. “Zengi and the Fall of Edessa.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 449–462. Gieysztor, Alexander. “The Genesis of the Crusades: The Encyclical of Sergius IV (1009–1012).” Medievalia et Humanistica 5 (1948): 3–23 and 6 (1949): 3–34. Gilbert, Major Vivian. The Romance of the Last Crusade with Allenby to Jerusalem. New York & London: D. Appleton, 1923. Gilchrist, John. “The Erdmann Thesis and the Canon Law, 1083–1141.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985: 37–45. -------. “The Papacy and War Against the ‘Saracens.’” The International History Review 10 (1988): 174–197. Gillingham, John. Richard Coer De Lion. London: The Hambledon Press, 1994. Gindler, Paul. Graf Balduin I von Edessa. Halle, 1901. Giraldus Cambrensis. Expugnatio Hibernica. Translated by A.B. Scott and F.X. Martin. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1978. Gleber, Helmut. Papst Eugen III 1145–1153: unter besonderer Betücksichtigung seiner politischen Tätigkeit. Jena, 1936. Gobry, Ivan. Deux papes champenois: Urbain II, Urbain IV. Troyes, 1994. Goitein, S. D. “Contemporary Letters on the Capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.” The Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952): 162–177. Graboïs, Areyh. “The Crusade of King Louis VII: A Reconstruction.” In Crusade And Settlement: Papers Presented to R.C. Smail. Edited by Peter W Edbury. Cardiff: University College Press, 1985: 94–104. Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Gay, Jules. L’Italie mérdionale et l’empire byzantin, depuis l’avènment de Basil I jusqu’ à la prise de Bari par les Normands, 867–1071. 2 volumes. New York, 1960. Gregory of Nyssa. “Epistle II,” Patrologia Graeca 46. Edited by J. P. Migne. Petit-Montrough, 1858: 1009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1111

Gregory the Priest. “The Continuation of Matthew of Edessa.” In Matthew of Edessa. Translated by Ara Edmond Dostourian. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993: 241–280. Grillmeir, A. and H. Bacht. Das Konzil Von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Würzburg, 1954. Grousset, René. The Epic of the Crusades. Translated by Noel Lindsay. New York: Orion Press, 1970. -------. L’ Empire du Levant d’ Orient Historie de la Question. Paris: 1964. -------. Histoire de l’ Armênie des Origines à 1071. Paris: Payot, 1947. -------. Histoire des Croisade et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem. 3 volumes. Paris: Librairie Jules Tallander, 1934–1936. Guibert of Nogent. Gesta Dei per Francos. In Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, volume 6. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879: 117–713. Translated by Robert Levine as The Deeds of God through the Franks. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997. See Levine, Robert. Habashi, Hasan. al-Harb al-Salibiyya al-Ula. Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Arabiyya, 1958. -------. A’mal al-Firanja wa Hujjaj Bayt al-Maqdis. (A transaction of the GestaFrancorumi, 970. See Gesta Francorum. -------. Nur al-Din wa al-Salibiyyun. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1948. Hackett, J. History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus. London, 1901. Haddan, Arthur West. “Agatha.” In A Dictionary of Christian Biography, volume 1. Edited by William Smith and Henry Wace. Boston: Little, Brown, 1877: 58–59. Hagemeyer, Heinrich. “Chronologie de la première croisade 1094–1100.” Revue de l’Orient 6–7 (Paris, 1898–1901): 366, 370. -------. Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana 1095–1127. Heidelberg, 1913. -------. Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100. Innsbruck: Hildersheim, 1901. -------. Peter der Eremite: Ein kritischer Beitrag zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges. Leipzig: Otto Harrasowitz, 1879. -------, ed. Anonymi gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum. Heidelberg, 1890. -------. Ekkehardi Uraugiensis abbatis hierosolymitana. Tübingen, 1877. -------. Epistulae et chartae ad Historiam primi belli sacri sectantes. New York: G. Olms, 1973. Hale, Edward Everett and Susan Hale. The Story of Spain. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1887.

1112

THE CRUSADES

Hamilton, Bernard. “Baldwin the Leper as War Leader.” In From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusaders Societies 1095–1500. Edited by Alan V. Murray. 1998: 119–130. -------. “The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon.” In Religious Motivation: Biographical and Socilogical Problems for the Church Historian. Edited by D. Baker. Studies in Church History 15. 1978: 106–107. -------. The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church. London: Variorum, 1980. Hariri, Sayyid Ali al-. Kitab al-Akhbar al-Saniyya fi al-Hurub al-Salibiyya. Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Umawiyya, 1899–1900. Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. 7 volumes. New York: Dover Publications, 1961. -------. Mönchtum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte. Giessen, 1908. Hasanayn, Abd al-Mun’im Muhammad. Salajiqat Iran wa al-Iraq. Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, 1970. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Normans in European History. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1966. Havet, Julien. ed. Letters de Gerbert 983–987. Paris: A. Picard, 1889. Hawqal, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Ali. Surat al-Ard. 2nd edition. Beirut: Maktabat al-Hayat, 1964. Head, Thomas and Richard Landes. eds. The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Reform in France Around the year 1000. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. Hefele, Charles-Joseph. Histoire des Conciles. Volume 5. Translated by H. Leclercq. Paris, 1912. Helmold, Priest of Bosau, The Chronicle of the Slavs. Translated by Francis Joseph Tschan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1935. Reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1966. Hell, Hellmut and Vera Hell.The Great Pilgrimage of the Middle Ages. Translated by Alisa Jaffa. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1966. Heyd, W. Wilhelm. Geschichte des Levantehandel im Mittelalter. Volume 1. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta’schen, 1879. Hiestand, Rudolph. “The Papacy and the Second Crusade.” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hochs. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001: 32–53. -------. “Reconquista, Kreuzzug und heiliges Grab.” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kuturgeschichte Spanien 31 (1984): 156–157. Hill, G. History of Cyprus. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948–1952.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1113

Hill, John Hugh. “The Convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of Saint-Gilles.” American Historical Review 58 (1953): 322–327. -------. Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press: 1962. -------. “Raymond of Saint Gilles in Urban’s Plan of Greek and Latin Friendship.” Speculum 27 (1951): 265–276. ------- and Laurita L. Hill. “Contemporary Accounts and the Later Reputation of Adhémar of Le Puy.” Medievalia et Humanistica 9 (1955): 30–38. See also Tudebode, Peter and Raymond of Aguilers. Hillenbrand, Carole. “Abominable Acts: The Career of Zengi.” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001: 111– 132. -------. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 1999. History of Lewond (Ghevond), The Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians. Translated by Zaven Arzoumanian. Philadelphia, 1982. Hitti, Philip. History of the Arabs. 10th ed. London: Macmillan-St. Martin’s Press, 1970. -------. History of Syria. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951. -------, ed. An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn Munqidh. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929. Holt, P. M. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. London: Longman, 1986. Honigmann, E. “Malatya.” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, volume 6. Edited by C. E. Bosworth, et al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991: 230–231. Housley, Norman. “Jerusalem and the Development of the Crusades Idea, 1099–1128.” In The Horns of Hattin. Edited by B.Z. Kedar. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Variorum, 1992: 27–40. Henry of Huntingdon. The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon. Translated by Thomas Forester. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853. Hurgronje, C. Snouck. The Holy War “Made in Germany.” Translated by Joseph Gillet. London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915. Ibn Jubayr. Rihlat Ibn Jubayr. Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1864. Idris, (al-Idrisi) Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abd Allah Ibn. Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, in Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula. Edited by Michele Amari. Leipzig: Presso F.A. Bockaus, 1857. Illgen, T. Markgraf Conrad von Montferrart. Marburg, 1880. Iorga (Jorga), Nicolas. L’Arménie Cilicienne. Paris: J. Gamber, 1930. -------. Brève Histoire des Croisades. Paris, 1924.

1114

THE CRUSADES

Irwin, Robert. “Islam and the Crusades, 1096–1699.” In The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Edited by Jonathan Riley-Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995: 217–259. Isfahani, Imad al-Din al- (al-Imad al-Katib). al-Fath al-Qussi fi al-Fath alQudsi. Edited by Muhammad Mahmud Subh. Cairo: al-Dar alQawmiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1965. -------. Sana al-Barq al-Shami. Abridged by Qiwam al-Din al-Fath ibn Ali alBundari. Edited by Ramazan Sheshen. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1971. -------. Sana al-Barq al-Shami. Edited by Fathiyya al-Nabrawi. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji bi Misr, 1979. -------. Tawarikh Al Seljuk. Abridged by al-Fath ibn Ali al-Bundari. Edited by M.Th. Houtsma. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1889. Iskenderian, Ter-Grigorian (Galust). Die Kreuzfahrer und ihre Beziehungen zu den armenischen Nachbarfürsten bis zum Untergange der Grafschaft Edessa. Weide i.Th.: Druck von Thomas and Hubert, 1915. Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Translated by Helen J. Nicholson as Chronicle of the Third Crusade. Ashgate, 1997. See Nicholson, Helen. Itinerary of Bernard the Wise. Translated by J. H. Bernard. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1893. Jabbur, George. Risala ila Qadasat al-Papa bi Munasabat al-Dhikra al- 900 li I’lan Hurub al-Firanja [A Letter to His Holiness the Pope on the Occasion of the Commemoration of 900 Years Since the Declaration of the Wars of the Franks]. Beirut: Dar al-Kunuz al-Adabiyya, 1995. Jabhan, Ibrahim Sulayman al-. Ma’awil al-Tadmir fi al-Nasraniyya wa al-Tabshir. 2nd edition. Al-Riyad, Saudi Arabia: al-rail Press, 1978. Jacoby, D. “L’expansion occidentale dans le Levant: les Vénitiens à Acre dans la seconde moitié du trezième siècle.” Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977): 240–242. -------. “Conrad Marquise of Montferrat, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1187-1192),” in Laura Bolleto (ed.) Dai feudi monferrini e dal Piemonte ai nouvi mondi alter gli oceani (Alexandria, 1993), pp. 187-238. Jad al-Haqq Ali Jad al-Haqq. 800 Hittin Salah al-Din wa al-Amal al-Arabi alMuwahhad. Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1989: 18–19. James, Waltz. “The Significance of the Voluntary Martyrs of Ninth-Century Cordoba.” The Msulim World 60 (1970): 143–159. Janzuri, Aliyya Abd al-Sami al-. Imarat al-Ruha al-Salibiyya. Cairo: n.p., 1975. Jaspert, Nicolas. “Capta est Dertosa, Clavis Christianorum: Tortosa and the Crusades.” In The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Edited by Jonathan

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1115

Phillips and Martin Hoch. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001: 90–110. Jawzi, Abu al-Faraj Abd al-Rahman ibn al-. al-Muntazam fi Tarikh al-Muluk wa al-Umam. Edited by Muhammad Abd al-Qadir Ata and Mustafa Abd al-Qadir Ata. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1992. Jawzi, Abu al-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn Kizoghlou. Mir'at al-Zaman fi Tarikh alA'yan. In vol. 3, Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884: 517–570. Jenkins, Claude. “Christian Pilgrimage, A. D. 500–800.” In Travel and Travellers in the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur Percival Newton. New York: n.p., 1968. Jenkins, Romilly. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A. D. 610–1071. New York: n.p., 1969. John Chrysostom. “Ad populum Antiochenum.” Patrologia Graeca 146: PetitMontrough, 1865. 106 A. -------. “ad Ephisios.” Patrologia Graeca 62 Petit-Montrough, 1860: 57. John of Ephesus. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus. Translated by R. Payne Smith. Oxford: University Press, 1860. John of Salisbury. Historia Pontificalis Quae Supersunt. Edited by Reginald L. Poole. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927. Translated by Marjorie Chibnall as The Historia Pontificalis of John of Salisbury. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Johnson, Edgar N. “The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa I and Henry VI.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 87–122. Jones, John Harris, ed. Dhikr Fath al-Andalus. Translated as History of the Conquest of Spain. New York: Burt Franklin, 1969. Joranson, Einar. “The Alleged Frankish Protectorate in Palestine.” The American Historical Review 32 (1927): 241–261. -------. “The Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–1065.” In The Crusades and other Historical Essays, Presented to Dana C. Munro. Edited by L. J. Paetow. New York: F.S. Crofts, 1928: 1–43. -------. “The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy–Legend and History.” Speculum 23 (July, 1948): 353–396. -------. “The Spurious Letter of Emperor Alexius to the Count of Flanders.” The American Historical Review 55 (1950): 811–832. Jundi, Anwar al-. al-Islam wa al-Gharb. Sayda-Beirut: Manshurat al-Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, 1982.

1116

THE CRUSADES

Juni, Wafa. Dimashq wa al-Mamlaka al-Latiniyya mundhu Awakhir al-Qarn alHadi Ashar hatta Awakhir al-Qarn al-Thani Ashar al-Miladiyyayn 1089– 1174. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1997. Kahle, Paul. “Zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Alexandria.” Der Islam 12 (1922): 32–35. Katzir, Yael. “The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Primate of the Latin Kingdom.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985: 169–75. Kedar, Benjamin Z. Crusade and Mission: European Approach Toward the Muslims. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. -------, ed. The Franks in the Levant, 11th to 14th Centuries. Aldershot: Variorum, 1993. -------. The Horns of Hattin. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1992. -------, H.E. Mayer and R.K. Smail, eds. Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982. Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. London: Longman, 1996. Kenrick, Thomas D. St. James in Spain. London: Methuen, 1960. Khaldun, Abd al-Rahman Ibn. Kitab al-Ibar. In Biblioteca-Arabo Sicula. Edited by M. Amari. Leipzig: Presso F. A. Bockhaus, 1857: 461. Khalidi, Mustafa and Omar Farrukh. al-Tabshir wa al-Ist’imar [Engelization and Imperialism]. Beirut, 1953. Reprint, Beirut: al-Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, 1982. Khallikan, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn. Wafayyat al-A’yan wa Inba Abna alZaman. Volume 6. Edited by Ihsan Abbas. Beirut: Dar al-Thaqafa, 1968. Khatib, Ibn al-. al-Hulal al-Mawshiyya fi Dhikr al-Akhbar al-Marakushiyya. Tunis: n.p., 1911. King, E.J. The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land. London: Methuen, 1931. Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge. “The Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099–1291.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957: 300–319. Kinnamos (Cinnamus), John. Deeds of John Manuel Comnenus. Translated by Charles M. Brand. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Klein, Clemens. Raimund von Aguilers Quellenstudie zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges. Berlin, 1982. Kleinclausz, A. “La legende du protectorate de Charlemagne sur la terre sainte.” Syria 7 (1926): 211–233.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1117

Knappen, M.M. “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade.” In The Crusades and Other Historical Essays, presented to Dana C. Munro. Edited by L. J. Paetow. New York: F.S. Croft, 1928: 79–100. Kreutz, Barbara M. Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Philadelphia: n.p., 1991. Krey, A. C. “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade.” In The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, by His Former Students. Edited by Louis J. Paetow. New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928: 57–78. -------. “Urban’s Crusades–Success or Failure?” The American Historical Review 52 (January, 1948): 230. Krueger, Hilmar. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1921. Reprint, Glouster, MA: n.p., 1958. -------. “The Italian Cities and the Arabs before 1095.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 40–53. -------. “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and Its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade.” In The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro. Edited by Louis J. Paetow. New York: F. S. Crofts, 1928: 57–78. -------. “Urban’s Crusades–Success or Failure.” American Historical Review 52 (January 1948): 235–250. Kugler, Bernhard. Albert von Aachen. Stuttgart, 1885. -------. Boemund und Tankred, Fürsten von Antiochien. Tübingen, 1862. -------. Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. Berlin: G. Grotesche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1880. -------. Studien Zur Geschichte Des Zweiten Kreuzzuges. Stuttgart: 1866. Reprint, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1973. Kühne, E. Zur Geschichte des Fürstentums Antiochia. Berlin, 1897. Kurd Ali, Muhammad. al-Islam wa al-Hadara al-Arabiyya. Cairo: Matba’at Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, 1934. Kurkijian, V. A History of Armenia. New York: n.p., 1958. Labbe, Philip and Cossartii Gabriel, eds. Sacrosancta Concilia. Volume 2. Paris: Typographicae Librorum Ecclesiasticorum Jusso Regis Constitutataea, 1671. Laistner, M.L.W. “The Decay of Geographical Knowledge and the Decline of Exploration, A.D. 300–500.” In Travel and Travellers of the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur Percival Newton. New York, 1968. Lamb, Harold. The Crusades: The Flame of Islam. New York: n.p., 1931.

1118

THE CRUSADES

Lambert of Arras, ed. “Canons of the Council of Clermont.” In Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et Amplissima Collectio, volume 20. Edited by Giovanni D. Mansi. Florence and Venice, 1759–1798: 815–820. La Monte, John L. Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. -------. “Some Problems in Crusading Historiography.” Speculum 15 (1940): 57–75. -------. “Taqi al-Din, prince of Hama.” The Moslem World 31 (1941): 149– 160. Landon, Lionel. The Itinerary of Richard I. London: J.W. Ruddock, 1935. Lane Poole, Austin. “Germany, 1125–1152.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957): 334–358. Lane-Poole, Stanley. Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. London: 1898. Reprint, Beirut: Khavats, 1964. Lang, David Marshall. Armenia: Cradle of Civilization. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970. -------. The Armenians: A People in Exile. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981. Latrie, M.L. De Mas, ed. Chronique D’ Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier. Paris: M.V. Jules Renouard, 1871. Laurent, J. L’Armé entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la Conquête Arabe en 886. 2nd edition. Paris, 1980. -------. “Byzance et Antioche sous le curopalate Philarète.” Revue des études arméniennes 9 (1929): 61–72. -------. “Des Grecs aux Croisés.” Byzantion 1 (1924): 405–410. Leib, Bernard S.J. Rome, Kieve, et Byzance à la Fin du XIe Siècle. Paris: A. Picard, 1924. L’Estoire d’Éracles empéreur et la conqueste de la Terre d’outremer. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 2. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1859. Le Quien, M. Oriens Christianus. Volume 3. Paris, 1740. Le Strange, Guy. Palestine Under the Moslems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1890. Reprint, Beirut: Khayats, 1965. Lev, Yaacov. Saladin in Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Lévi-Provençal, Evariste. “España musulmana.” Historia de España 4 (1967): 423. -------. “Les Mémoires de Abd Allah, dernier roi zirid de Grenada.” AlAndalus 6 (1936): 29–145. Levine, Robert, ed. Gesta Dei per Francos [The Deeds of God through the Franks]. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1119

Lewis, Bernard. The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1968. -------. “The Ismai’lites and the Assassins.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 99–131. -------. “The Sources for the History of the Syrian Assassins.” Speculum 27 (1952): 485–486. Li estoires de chiaus qui conquisent Constantinople. Translated by Edward Noble Stone as The History of Them That Took Constantinople in Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades: 161–245. Lilie, Ralph-Johannes. Byzantine and Crusader States 1096–1204. Translated by J.C. Morris and Jean E. Ridings. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Reprint, 1998. Livermore, Harold, “The ‘Conquest of Lisbon’ and its Author.” Portuguese Studies 6 (1990): 1–16. -------. A History of Portugal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Loewe, Herbert M.J. “The Seljuqs.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 299–317. Lomax, Derek W. The Reconquest of Spain. London: Longman, 1978. Lopez, R.S. “Fulfillment and Diversion in the Eighth Crusades.” In Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem. Edited by B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer and R.C. Smith. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi Institute, 1982: 19–20. -------. “The Norman Conquest of Sicily.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 65–67. Loud, Graham A. “Norman Italy and the Holy Land.” In The Horns of Hattin. Edited by B.Z. Kedar. Jerusalem: Variorum, 1992. Luddy, Ailbe J. Life and Teaching of St. Bernard. Dublin: M.H. Gill & Sons, 1927. Reprint, 1937 and 1950. Lyons, M.C. and D.E.P. Jackson. Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Mack Smit, Dennis. A History of Sicily 800–1715. London: Chatto and Windus, 1968. Macler, Frédéric. “Armenia.” In The Cambridge Mediaeval History 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 153–182. Madden, Thomas F. A Concise History of the Crusades. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Magouilas, Harry J. ed. Annals of Niketas Choniates. Translated as O City of Byzantium. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984.

1120

THE CRUSADES

Mähl, S. “Jerusalem in mittelalterlicher Sicht.” Der Welt als Geschichte 22 (1962): 11–26. Mahmud, Hasan Ahmad. Qiyam Dawlat al-Murabitin. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr alArabi, 1985. Malaterra, Gaufredo Malaterra. De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis Frateris Eius, III. In Raccolta Degli Storici Italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquecent, volume 5, part 1. Edited by L.A. Muratori. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1926. Malik, Muhammad Zaman. “The Inevitable Denouement.” Defence Journal (April 4, 2001). William of Malmesbury. The History of the Kings of England and the Modern History of William of Malmesbury. Translated by John Sharpe. London: W. Bulmer and Co., 1815. Mansi, Giovanni D. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collection. Volume 20. Florence and Venice, 1759–1798. Maqdisi, Diya al-Din Abd al-Wahid al-. Sabab Hijrat al-Maqadisa ila Dimashq, in al-Qala’id al-Jawhariyya fi Tarikh al-Salibiyya. Edited by M. A. Dahman. Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ali Ibn Tulun 1. Damascus, 1980. Maqqari, Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tilmisani al. Khuruj al-Andalus min Yad al-Muslimin. Edited by Muhammad Shuja Dayf Allah. Kuwait: Dar alAwrad, 1993. -------. Nafh al-Tib min Ghusn al-Andalus al-Ratib wa Dhike Wazirih Lisan alDin ibn al-Khatib. Volumes 3–4. Edited by Ihsan Abbas. Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1968. Maqrizi, Taqi al-Din al-. al-Suluk fi Ma’rifat Duwal al-Muluk. Volume 1. Edited by Muhammad Mustafa Ziyada. Cairo, 1934–1958. Maqsud, Abd al-Fattah Abd al-. Salibiyya ila al-Abad. Beirut: Maktabat alIrfan, n. d. Marques, A.H. De Oliveira. History of Portugal. Volume 1, From Lusitania to Empire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Marr, N. “The Caucasian Cultural World and Armenia.” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction 57 (1915): 313–314. Martin M. L’Abbe, ed. “Les Premieres Princes Croisadés et Les Syriens Jacobites de Jérusalem.” Journal Asiatique 12 (Nov- Dec. 1888): 471– 491 and 13 (January 1889): 33–79. Masson, Gustave. Charlemagne and the Carlovingians. London: S. Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1880. Matthew, Donald. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1121

Matthew of Edessa. Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. Translated by Ara Edmond Dostourian. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993. Matwi, Muhammad al-Amrusi al-. al-Hurub al-Salibiyya fi al Mashriq wa alMaghrib. Beirut: Dar al-Gharba al-Islami, 1982. Mayer Hans Eberhard. “Der Brief Kaiser Frederichs I. an Saladin vom Jahre 1188.” Deutsches Archiv fϋr Erforschung des Mittelalters 14 (1958): 488–494. -------. The Crusades. 2nd ed. Translated by John Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. -------. “Henry II of England and the Holy Land.” The English Historical Review 385 (October, 1982): 721–739. -------. “Latins, Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.” Variorum Reprints. London, 1983: 175–192. -------. “Studies in the History of Queen Melisend of Jerusalem.” Dumbarton Oakes Papers 26 (1972): 95–182. -------, ed. Das Itinerarium Peregrinorum: eine zeitgenössiche englische Ckronik zum dritten Keuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt. Stuttgart, 1962. Melczer, William. The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela. New York: Italica Press, 1993. Mélikoff, I. “Danishmendids.” In The Encyclopedia of Isalm, volume 2. Edited by B. Lewis, C. Pellat and J. Schacht. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965: 110–111. Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past. Vatican: 1999. Merriman, Roger Bigelow. The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New. Volume 1. New York: Macmillan, 1918. Metcalfe, Alex. Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the End of Islam. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Michael Rabo. Makthabanuth Zabne. Edited by J.B. Chabot as Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–1199. Paris: n.p., 1899–1910. Reprint, Brussels, 1963. -------. Makthabanuth Zabne. Translated by Mar Gregorius Saliba Shamoun as Tarikh Mar Mikha’il al-Suryani al-Kabir. 3 volumes. Aleppo: Dar Mardin, 1996. Michaud, Joseph François. History of the Crusades. 3 volumes. Translated by W. Robson. London: John Routledge, 1852. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1973. Minorsky, Vladimir. Studies in Caucasian History. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1953.

1122

THE CRUSADES

Mitchell, Piers D. “Leprosy and the Case of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Mycobacterial Disease in the Crusader States of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” International Journal of Leprosy 61 (1993): 283–291. Monk, Robert the. See Roberus Monachus Moosa, Matti. Extremist Shi’ites: The Ghulat Sects. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1988. -------. The Maronites in History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. -------. “The Crusades: An Eastern Perspective, With Emphasis on Syriac Sources.” The Muslim World 93 (April, 2003): 249–289. -------. “Origins of the Christian Minorities in the Middle East.” Bibliophilus 1, no. 2 (Spring 1982): 83–97. Moreno, Martino Mario. al-Muslimun fi Siqiliyya. Beirut: al-Matba’a alCatholikiyya, 1957. Morgan, J. de. Histoire du peuple Arménien depuis les temps plus reculeis de des annals jusq’ae nos jours. Paris: Nancy, Berger-Levrault, 1919. Morgan, M.R. The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuations of Williams of Tyre. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. -------. “The Meaning of the Old French Polain, Latin Pullanus.” Medium Aevum 48 (1979): 40–50. -------. “The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre.” In Outremer Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Presented to Joshua Prawer. Edited by B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer, and R.C. Smail. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982: 244–257. -------, ed. La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyre 1184–1197. Paris, 1982. Morris, Colin. “The Aims and Spirituality of the First Crusade as Seen Through the Eyes of Albert of Aachen.” Reading Medieval Studies: Annual Proceedings of the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies in the University of Reading 16 (1999): 99–117. -------. “The Gesta Francorum as Narrative History.” Reading Medieval Studies: Annual Proceedings of the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies in the University of Reading 19 (1993): 55–71. -------. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: 1989. -------. “Peter the Hermit and the Chroniclers.” In The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Edited by Jonathan Phillips. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997: 21–34. Mullet, Margaret and Dion Smythe, eds. Alexios I Komnenos. Belfast: Byzantine Enterprises, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1123

Mu’nis, Husayn, Nur al-Din Mahmud: Sirat Mujahid Sadiq. Cairo: al-Sharika al-‘Arabiyya li al-Tiba’a wa al-Nashr, 1959. Munro, Dana Carlton. “Did the Emperor Alexius I Ask for Aid at the Council of Piacenza, 1095?” The American Historical Review 27 (1922): 731–733. -------. The Kingdom of the Crusaders. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1935. -------. “The Popes and the Crusades.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 55 (1916): 348–356. -------. “The Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont.” The American Historical Review 11 (1906): 234–235. Munz, Peter. Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969. Murray, Alan V., ed. “From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500.” Medieval Research Series: Selected Proceeding of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 1998. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. -------. “Daimbert of Pisa, the Domus Godefridi and the Accession of Baldwin I of Jerusalem.” In From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500. Edited by Alan V. Murray. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998: 81–102. Muyyassir, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn. Muntakhabat from Tarikh Ibn Muyassar. In vol. 3, Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Paris: Imprimerie National 1884. Reprint. 1969. 461–473. Nahawi, Adnan Ali Rida al-. al-Ta’amul ma Mujtama Ghayr Muslim min Khilal al-Intima al-Sadiq ila al-Islam [Dealing with a non-Muslim Society through True Adherence to Islam]. Riyad, Saudi Arabia: Dar alNahawi li al-Nashr was al-Tawzi’, 1997. Neale, John Mason. A History of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Antioch. London: Rivingtons, 1873. Nersessian, Sirapie Der. The Armenians. New York: Praeger, 1970. Newby, P.H. Saladin In His Time. London: Faber and Faber, 1983. Nicephorus Callistus. “Historia Ecclesiastica.” Patrologia Graeca 14. Edited by J.P. Migne. Bibliotheca Cleri, 1857: 146. Nicholson, Helen J. Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291. London: Leicester University Press, 1995. -------. “Women on the Third Crusade.” Journal of Medieval History 23 (1997): 335–349. -------, ed. and trans. Chronicle of the Third Crusade. Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Ashgate, 1997.

1124

THE CRUSADES

Nicholson, Robert Lawrence. Joscelyn I, Prince of Edessa. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1954. -------. Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine. Chicago: University of Chicago’s Libraries, 1940. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1978. -------. “The Growth of the Latin States, 1118–1144.” In A History of the Crusades. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 410–447. Nogent, Guibert of. See Guibert of Nogent. Norgate, Kate. Richard the Lion Heart. New York, 1924. Noth, Albrecht. Heiliger Kriek und Heiliger Kampf in Islam und Christentum. Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, 1966. Notker the Stammerer. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Translated by Lewis Thorpe. Penguin Books, 1969. Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq. See Idris. O’Callaghan, Joseph F. A History of Medieval Spain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. Odo of Deuil, De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem. Translated by Virginia Gingerick Berry. New York: W.W. Norton, 1948. Oldenbourg, Zoé. The Crusades. New York: Pantheon Books, 1966. Oman Charles. A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages. 2nd edition. 2 volumes. New York: Burt Franklin, 1924. Ordericus Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy. 2 volumes. Translated by Thomas Forester. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1968. -------. The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy. Translated by Marjorie Chibnall as The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. 6 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Translated by Joan Hussey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1957. Revised edition, 1969. Otto of Freising. Chronica. Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow as The Two Cities: A Chronicle of the Universal History to the Year 1146 A.D. New York: Octagon Books, 1966. -------. Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica. Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow as The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. -------. Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica. Translated by Adolph Schmidt as Die Taten Friedrichs oder richter Cronica. Darmstadt, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1125

Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, The. Edited by Jonathan Riley-Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Paetow, Louis J., ed. The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by His former Students. New York F. S. Croft, 1928. Painter, Sidney. “The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 44–85. Palgrave, Sir Francis. The History of Normandy and England. Volume 4. London, 1851–1864. Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973. Payne Smith, R. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1860. Pernoud, Régine, ed. The Crusades. Translated by Enid McLeod. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1963. Peters, Edward, ed. The First Crusade. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971. 2nd edition, 1998. Peters, Rudolph. Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977. Petrus Tudebodus (Peter Tudebode). Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. In Recueil Historiens Des Croisades. Translated by John Hugh Hill and Laurita A. Hill. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974. Phillips, Jonathan. Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations Between the Latin East and the West, 1119–1187. Oxford, 1996. -------. “St. Bernard of Claivaux, The Low Countries and the Lisbon Letter of the Second Crusade.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 3 (July, 1997): 485–497. -------, ed. The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. -------. and Martin Hoch, eds. The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Pidal, Ramón Menédez. La España del Cid. Translated by Harold Sunderland as The Cid and His Spain. London: Frank Cass, 1934. Reprint, 1971. -------. The Spaniards in Their History. Translated by Walter Starkie. New York: W.W. Norton, 1950. Pierre de Blois. “Passio Reginaldi Principis Olim Antiocheni.” In Patroligia Cursus 207. Edited by J.P. Migne. Paris, 1844–1866: 957–976. Pirenne, Henri. Mohammad and Charlemagne. New York: Meridian Books, 1960.

1126

THE CRUSADES

Poole, Austin Lane. “Germany, 1125–1152.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Porges, Walter. “The Clergy, the Poor and the Non-Combatants on the First Crusade.” Speculum 21 (January, 1946): 1–21. Reproduced in The Crusades: Motives and Achievements. Edited by James A. Brundage: 42–55. Prawer, Joshua. Crusader Institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. -------. “La Bataille de Hattin.” Israel Exploration Journal 14 (1964): 160–178. -------. “Jerusalem in the Christian and Jewish Perspectives of the Early Middle Ages.” In Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’altro medioevo. Gli Ebrel nell’altro medioevo, volume 26. Spoleto: 1980: 739–795. -------. “The Jerusalem the Crusaders Captured: a Contribution to the Medieval Topography of the City.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College Cardiff, 1985: 1–16. -------. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972. -------. “The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem.” Speculum 27 (1952): 490–503. -------. The World of the Crusaders. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972. Prestige, Edgar. Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations. Greenwood Press Publishers, 1934. Reprint, 1971. Pringle, Denys. “King Richard I and the Walls of Ascalon.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 116 (1984): 133–147. Prutz, Hans. Kaiser Friedrich III. Danzig: A.W. Kafemann, 1874. -------. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge. Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mitter und Sohn, 1883. Qalanisi, Abu Ya’la Hamza Ibn al-. Dhayl Tarikh Dimashq. Edited by H.F. Amedroz. Beirut: Matba’at al-Ab al-Yasu’iyyin, 1908. See Gibb, Hamilton A.R. Qarmani, Abu al-Abbas al-. Akhbar al-Duwal wa Athar al-Uwal fi al-Tarikh. Volume 3. Edited by Ahmad Hutayt and Fahmi Sa’d. Beirut: ‘Alam alKutub, 1992. Ralph of Caen (Radulfus Cadomensis). Gesta Tancredi Siciliaee Regis. In Expedtione Hierosolymitana, volume 1; in Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 3. Paris: Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1866: 603–716. Ralph (Radulphi) of Coggeshall. Chronicon Angilcarum. Edited by Joseph Stevenson. London: Longman, 1875. Ralph of Diceto. Radulfi De Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica. Translated by William Stubbs as The Historical Works of Master Ralph De Diceto, Dean of London. 2 volumes. London, 1876. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1127

Ramdun, Abd al-Baqi. al-Jihad Sabiluna [Islam is Our Pathway]. Beirut: Mu’ssasat al-Risala, 1990. Rassow, Peter. “Die Kanzelei St. Bernhard von Clairvaux.” Studien und Mittelungen zur Geschichte des Benediktineorordens und seiner Zweige 3 (1913): 63– 103 and 243–293. -------. “Die Urkunden Kaiser Alfons’ VII. von Spanien.” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10, No. 3 (1928): 362. Raymond of Aguillers, Historia Francorum qui Cepernut Iherusalem. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Translated by John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968. Read, Jan. The Moors in Spain and Portugal. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1975. Reilly, Bernard F. The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain 1031–1157. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992. -------, ed. The Kingdom of Leon-Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1065–1109. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Reinaud, Joseph. Invasion Des Sarrazins en France et de De France en Savoie, en Piémont et dans La Suisse Pendant les huitième, neuvième et dixiè siécles de notre ère, D’aprré Les auteur Chrétiens et Mahométans. Paris: 1836. Translated by Haroon Sherwani as Muslim Colonies in France, Northern Italy, and Switzerland. Lahore: Sh. Nuhammad Ashraf, 1964. -------. Invasion Des Sarrazins en France et de De France en Savoie, en Piémont et dans La Suisse Pendant les huitième, neuvième et dixiè siécles de notre ère, D’aprré Les auteur Chrétiens et Mahométans. Translated by Shakib Arslan as Tarikh Ghazawat al-Arab fi Faransa, Sewisra, Itlaia wa Jaza’ir al-Bahr al-Mutawassit. Cairo: Isa al-babi al-Halabi, 1933. Remensnyder, Amy G. Remembering Kings Past: Monastic Foundation Legends in Medieval Southern France. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Riant Paul. E. Comte. Expeditions et Pèlerinages des Scandinaves en terre sainte. Paris: 1865. -------. “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des Croisades.” In Archives De L’Orient Latin. Volume 1. Paris: E. Leroux, 1881. Richard, Alfred. Histoire des Comtes do Poitu. In Archives Departmentals de Poitiers (778–1204), volume 1. Paris: A. Picard, 1903. Richard, J. Le Royame Latin de Jerusalem. Paris: 1953. Richard, Jean. “An Account of the Battle of Hattin Referring to the Frankish Mercenaries in the Oriental Moslem States.” Speculum 24 (1952): 168–177. -------. The Crusades 1071–1291. Translated by Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

1128

THE CRUSADES

Richards, D.S. “The Early History of Saladin.” The Islamic Quarterly 17 (JulyDecember, 1973): 140–159. Richard of Devizes. Chronicon Richardi Divisensis De Tempore Regis Richardi Primi. Translated by John T. Appleby as The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963. Rihlat Ibn Jubayr. Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1964. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria. Edited by M. Shatzmiller. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993. -------. The Crusades: A Short History. London, 1987. -------. “Death on the First Crusade.” Speculum 21 (1946): 2. -------. The Feudal Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277. London, 1973. -------. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986. -------. “The First Crusade and St. Peter.” In Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem. Edited by B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer and R.C. Smail. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982: 41–63. -------. “The Templars and the Teutonic Knights in Cilician Armenia.” In The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia. Edited by T.S.R. Boase. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978. -------. What Were the Crusades? Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1977. -------., ed. Atlas of the Crusades. London, 1991. -------. “The Causing Movement and Historians.” In The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995: 1–12. ------- and L. Smith. The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274. London, 1981. Rizzitano, Umberto. “Ibn al-Thumna.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, volume 3: 956. Robinson, I.S. “Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ.” History 58 (1973): 184–190. Robertus Monachus (Robert the Monk of Reims). Historia Iherosolimitana. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 3. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: 716–882. See Sweetenham, Carol. Roger of Hoveden (Howden). The Annals of Roger De Hoveden. Translated by Henry T. Riley. 2 volumes. London: H.G. Bohn, 1853. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1968. Roger of Wendover. The Flowers Of History From The Year Of Our Lord 1154, And The First Year Of Henry The Second, King Of The English. Volume 1. Edited by Henry G. Hewlett. London, 1886.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1129

Röhricht, Reinhold. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. Volume 2. Berlin: n.p., 1874–1878. -------. Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens. Stuttgart: W. Kollhammer Verlag, 1935. Translated by Marshall W. Baldwin as The Origin of the Idea of the Crusade. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. -------. Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzuges. Innsbruck, 1901. -------. Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100–1291. Innsbruck, 1898. -------. “Die Kreuzpredigten gegen den Islam: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christlichen Prediger im 12 und 13 Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengechichte 6 (1884): 550–572. -------. “Die Pilgerfahrten nach dem Heiligen Lande vor den Kreuzzügen.” In Historiches Taschenbuch. Leipzig, 1875. Rowe, John Gordon. “The Origins of the Second Crusade: Pope Eugenius III, Bernard of Clairvaux and Louis VII of France.” In The Second Crusade and the Cistercians. Edited by Michael Gervers. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992: 79–82. -------. “Paschal II and the Relation Between the Spiritual and the Temporal Powers in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” Speculum 32 (1957): 472–487. Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. London, 1933. -------. “Charlemagne and Palestine.” English Historical Review (October, 1935): 606–619. -------. The Eastern Schism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Reprint, 1963. -------. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign: A History of Tenth-Century Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929. -------. “The First Crusade: Journey Across the Balkan Peninsula.” Byzantion 19 (1949): 220ff. -------. A History of the Crusades. 3 vols. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964, 1965, 1967. -------. “The Holy Lance Found at Antioch.” Analecta Bollandiana 68 (1950): 197–209. -------. “The Pilgrimage to Palestine before 1095,” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 68–78. Rustum, Asad. Al-Rum: fi Siyasatihim wa Hadaratihim wa Dinihim wa Thaqafatihim wa Silatihim bi al-Arab. 2 volumes. Beirut: Dar al-Mashuf, 1955. von Ruville, Albert. Die Kreuzzüge. Bonn and Leipzig, 1920. Ryan, Frances Rita, ed. Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosilymitana. Translated as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1969. See Fulcher of Chartres. Sabiq, Al-Sayyid. Fiqh al-Sunna. 3 volumes. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1981.

1130

THE CRUSADES

Sackur, Ernst. Die Cluniacenser. Volume 2. Halle-Saale, 1894. Sa’igh, Sulayman. Tarikh al-Mawsil. 2 volumes. Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Salafiyya, 1923–1928. Sahih al-Bukhari. Edited by Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baz. 9 volumes. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr li al-Tibaa wa al-Nashr, 1991. Sahih Muslim [The Most Correct Compendium of Traditions]. 8 volumes. Cairo: Makatabat wa Matbaat Muhammad Sabih wa Awladuh, 1915. Salisbury, John of. Historia Pontificalis Quae Supersunt. Edited by Reginald L. Poole. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927. Translated by Marjorie Chibnall as The Historia Pontificalis of John of Salisbury. London: Thomas Nelson, 1956. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. See Chibnall, Marjorie. Salisbury, Stephen. “President Bush’s ‘crusade’ draws fire around globe.” Philadelphia Inquirer, September 30, 2001. Salloch, M. Die lateinische Fortsetzung Willelms von Tyrus. Leipzig, 1934. Samuel, V.C. The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch. Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1977. -------. The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined. Madras, India: The Senate of Serampore College, 1977. Santiago, camino de Europa: Culto y cultura en la peregrinación a Compostela. Madrid, 1993. Sargent-Baur, Barbara N., ed. Journey Towards God: Pilgrimage and Crusade. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1992. Saunders, J.J. Aspects of the Crusades. Christchurch, 1962: 17–21. Reproduced in The Crusades Motives and Achievement as The Crusade as a Holy War. Edited by James A Brundage. 1964: 56–58. Schatzmiller, Maya, ed. Crusades and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Schlumberger, Gustave. Renaud de Chatillion. Paris: Plon, 1898. Reprint, 1923. -------. Recits de Byzance et des Croisades. Paris: Plon-Nourrit, 1917. Schnorhali, Saint Nersès. Élégie sur la prise d'Édesse. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 1. Edited by E. Dulaurier. Paris: Imprimerie National, 1869: 245–255. Scott, James Bruno, trans. The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. See Bernard of Clairvaux. Scott, S. P. History of the Moorish Empire in Europe. 2 volumes. Philadelphia and London, 1904.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1131

Seeliger, Gerhard. “Conquests and Imperial Coronation of Charles the Great.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913: 595–629. Segal, J.B. Edessa, The Blessed City. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Sellers, R. V. The Council of Chalcedon. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1953. -------. Two Ancient Christologies. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1940. Setton, Kenneth M., ed. A History of the Crusades. 2 volumes. Madison: Unversity of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Shaddad, Al-Qadi Baha al-Din Ibn. al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin alYusufiyya. In vol. 3, Recueil des historiens des Croisades. Paris: Imprimerie National, 1884. Reprint, Israel, 1969. Translated by D.S. Richards. Ashgate: 2001. Shama, Shihab al-Din Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ibn Ismai’l ibn Ibrahim al-Maqdisi, known as Abu Shama. See Abu Shama. Sharper, John. See William of Malmesbury. Shaver-Crandell, Annie and Paula Gerson. The Pilgrim’s Guide to Santiago de Compostela: A Gazeteer. London, 1995. Shea, Nina. In the Lion’s Den. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997. Sheffy, Lester Fields. The Use of the Holy Lance in the First Crusade. Masters thesis. University of Texas, 1915. Shepard, Jonathan. “Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy Towards the West in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Byzantium and the West, 850–1200. Edited by J.D. Howard-Johnston in Byzantinische Frochungen 13. Amsterdam, 1988: 66–118. -------. “Cross-Purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusades.” In The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Edited by Jonathan Phillips. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997: 107–129. -------. “Father Or Scorpion? Style and Substance in Alexios’s Diplomacy.” In Alexios I Komnenos. Edited by Margaret Mullet and Dion Smythe. Belfast: Byzantine Enterprises, 1996: 68–132. -------. “When Greek meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–1098.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988): 185–277. Sherwani, Haroon. Muslim Colonies in France, Northern Italy, and Switzerland. Revised edition. Lahore: Sh. Muhammmad Ashraf, 1964. See Reinaud, Joseph. Shirley, Janet, ed. “The Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre Text.” In Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century. Ashgate: 1999.

1132

THE CRUSADES

Siberry, Elizabeth. Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. -------. “Criticism of Crusading in Fourteenth Century England.” In Crusade and Settlement. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff: University College of Cardiff Press, 1985: 127–134. -------. The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries. Ashgate, 2000. Siedschlag, Beatrice. English Participation in the Crusades 1150–1220. Randolph, WI, 1939. Slaughter, R. Gertrude. Saladin. New York: Exposition Press, 1955. Smail, R.C. The Crusaders, In Syria and the Holy Land. New York: Praeger Publisher, 1973. -------. Crusading Warfare 1097–1193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Reprint, 1972. -------. “The Predicament of Guy of Lusignan.” In Outremer Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Presented to Joshua Prawer. Edited by B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer, R.C. Smail. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982: 159–175. Smith, Denis Mack. A History of Medieval Sicily. London: Chatto and Windus, 1968. Somerville, Robert. The Council of Urban II. Decreta Claromontensia, volume 1. In Annuarium Historia Conciliorum, Supplement I. Amsterdam, 1972. -------. “The Council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian Society.” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 12 (1974): 55–90. -------. “The French Councils of Pope Urban II.” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 2 (1970): 56–65. Spufford, Peter. Handbook of Medieval Exchange. London: Office of the Royal Historical Society, 1986. St. Augustine. “Epistle LXXVII.” Patrologia Graeca 33. Edited by J.P. Migne, Bibliotheca Cleri, 1857: 268–269. -------. “Contra Faustus Manichaeum.” Patrologia Graeca 42: 384–385. Stenton, Doris M. “Roger of Hoveden and Benedict.” English Historical Review 68 (1953): 374–382. Stevenson, Joseph, ed. De Expugnatione Terrae Sancte per Saladinum Libellus. London: Longman, 1875. Stevenson, William B. The Crusaders in the East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907. -------. “The First Crusade.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957: 265–299.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1133

-------. “Islam in Syria and Egypt 750–1100.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957: 240–264. Stieler, Adolf. Handatlas über alle Theile der Erde und über das Weltgebaüde. Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1881. Stokstad, Marilyn. Santiago de Compostela. Norman, OK, 1978. Stone, Edward Noble. The History of them that took Constantinople. In Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1939. 9-167. See Ambroise. -------, ed. Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1939. 9-167. See Ambroise. Stubbs, William. See Benedict of Peterborough, Ralph of Diceto, and Gervasii Cantuanensis. Sumberg, Lewis A.M. “The ‘Tafurs’ and the First Crusades.” Mediaeval Studies 21 (1959): 224–246. Sweetenham, Carol. Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade. Ashgate, 2006. Syrian, Michael the. See Michael Rabo. Sybel, Heinrich von. Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs. Dusseldorf, 1841. Second edition. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer, 1881. -------. The History and Literature of the Crusaders. Translated by Lady Duff Gordon. London: Chapman and Hall, 1861. -------. “Über den zweiten Kreuzzug.” In Kleine historische Schriften volume 1. Stuttgart, 1880–1897: 415–456. First published in vol. 5, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften. 1854: 192–228. Tabari, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-. Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk. 8 volumes. Cairo: Matba’at al-Istiqama, 1939. Taghri Birdi, Abu al-Mahasin Jamal al-Din Ibn. al-Nujum al-Zahira. In Recueil des historiens des Croisades, volume 3. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1884: 481–509. Tajir, Jacque. Aqbat wa Muslimun mundhu al-Fath al-Arabi ila Am 1922. 1952. Jersey City, NJ: American, Canadian and Australian Coptic Association, 1984. Talmon-Heller, Daniella. “Arabic Sources on Muslim Villagers under Frankish Rule.” In From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies 1095–1500. Edited by Alan V. Murray. Turnhout, Brepols: 1998: 103–117. Tarikh Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Antaki. Beirut: Matba’at al-Aba al-Yasu’iyyin, 1909. Tawfiq, Umar Kamal. Muqaddimat al-Udwan al-Salibi. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1966.

1134

THE CRUSADES

Taylor, W.R. “A New Syriac Fragment Dealing With Incidents in The Second Crusades.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 11 (1929–1930): 122. Telenbach, Gerd. The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. Translated by Timothy Reuter. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993. Theodosius. Translated by J. H. Bernard. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1893. Theophanes. Chronographia. Edited by Carolus de Boor. Leipzig, 1885. Thompson, Alexander Hamilton. “Medieval Doctrine to the Lateran Council of 1215.” In The Cambridge Medieval History 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964: 634–698. Thompson, James Westfall. Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 300–1300. 2 volumes. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1959. -------. “The German Church and the Conversion of the Baltic Slavs.” The American Journal of Theology 20 (1916): 205–230 and 372–389. Tlass, Muhammad As’ad. Asr al-Inhidar. Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1963. Tournebize, H. Francois. Histoire Politique et Religieuse de Armennie. Paris, 1900. Tout, T. E. The Empire and the Papacy. London, 1924. Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study of History. Volume 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. Translatio S. Nicolai Venetiam. In R.H.C. Occ., 5. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1895. Trend, J.B. “Spain and Portugal.” In The Legacy of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931. Reprint, 1965. Tschan, Francis Joseph. “Helmold: Chronicler of the North Saxon Missions.” The Catholic Historical Review 16, no. 4 (1931): 379–414. Tudebode, Peter. Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. Edited by John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974. Tulun, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ali Ibn. al-Qala’id al-Jawhariyya fi Traikh al-Salibiyya. Volume 1. Edited by M.A. Dahman. Damascus: 1980. Tuthil, Edward. “The Appeal of Alexius for Aid in 1095.” University of Colorado Studies 4, no. 3 (1906–1907): 135–143. Tyerman, Christopher C. England and the Crusades, 1095–1588. Chicago and London, 1988. -------. The Invention of the Crusades. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1135

Ubayd, Ishaq Tawdros. Roma wa Byzanta min Qati'at Photius hatta al-Ghazu alLatini li Madinat Constantine. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif bi Misr, 1970. Umar, Faruq, ed. al-Khilafa al-Abasiyya fi Asr al-Fuda al-Askariyya. 2nd edition. Baghdad: Matba’at al-Muthanna, 1977. Uryan, Muhammad Sa’id al- and Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal. Qissat al-Kifah bayn al-Arab wa al-Isti'mar [The Story of the Struggle Between the Arabs and Imperialism.] Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif bi Misr, 1960. Usama ibn Munqidh. Kitab al-I’itibar. Translated by Philip Hitti as An ArabSyrian Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn Munqidh. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929. Usaybi’a, Muwaffaq al-Din Abu al-Abbas. Ibn Abi-. Uyun al-Anba fi Tabaqat al-Atibba. Edited by Nizar Rida. Beirut, 1965. Van Cleve, Thomas C. “The Crusade of Frederick II.” In A History of the Crusades: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, volume 2. Edited by Robert Lee Wolfe and Harry W. Hazard. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 429–462. Vasiliev, A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire. 2 volumes. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954. -------. “The Struggle with the Saracens (867–1057).” In The Cambridge Medieval History 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923: 130– 150. Vitalis. See Ordericus Vitalis. Vitry, Jacques De. The History of Jerusalem AD 1180. Translated by Aubrey Stewart. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1896. Vryonis, Jr., Speros. “The Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975): 43–71. Waas, Adolph. Geschichte der Kreuzzüge. Freiburg, 1956. Walker, Christopher J. Armenia: The Survival of a Nation. London: St. Martin’s Press, 1980. Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. The Barbarian West, 400–1000. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1952. Reprint, 1961. Waltz, James. “The Significance of the Voluntary Martyrs of 9th-Century Cordoba.” The Muslim World 60 (1970): 143–159. Waqidi, Abu Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Umar al-, Futuh a-Sham. 2 volumes. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Ahliyya, 1966. Wardi, Ali al-. Mahzalat al-Aql al-Bashari. London: Kuffan Publishing, 1994. Wasil, Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Salim Ibn. Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhbar Bani Ayyub. Edited by Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal. 2 volumes. Vol. 1. Cairo: Matba’at Fu’ad al-Awwal, 1953. Vol. 2. Cairo: al-Matba’a alAmiriyya, 1957.

1136

THE CRUSADES

Warren, F.M. “The Enamoured Moslim Princess in Ordericus Vitalis and the French Epic.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 29 (1914): 341–358. Watt, W. Montgomery. A History of Islamic Spain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965. Reprint, 1967. Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961. Wiet, G. L’Égypt arabe de la conquête arabe à la conquête ottomane, 642–1517. Paris, 1937. Wellhausen, Julius. Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz. Berlin, 1902. Wheeler, Benjamin W. “The Reconquest of Spain.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 1. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 31–35. Wieruszowki, Helene. “The Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Crusades.” In A History of the Crusades, volume 2. Edited by Marshall W. Baldwin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969: 3–42. William of Malmesbury. See Malmesbury. William of Newburgh. Historia Rerum Anglicarum. Edited by Richard Howlett as Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. Volume 1. London, 1884. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964. William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the See. 2 vols. Translated by Emily Atwater Babcock and A. C. Krey. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943. Williams, John Bryan. “The Making of a Crusade: the Genoese AntiMuslim Attacks in Spain, 1146–1148.” Journal of Medieval History 23 (1997): 29–53. Williams, Watkin. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935. Reprint, 1952. Winston, Richard. Charlemagne From the Hammer to the Cross. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954. Wolf, Kenneth Baxter. Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. -------. “Crusade and Narrative: Bohemond and the Gesta Francorum,” Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991): 207–216. -------. Making History: The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-Century Italy. Philadelphia, 1995. Wolff, Robert Lee and Harry W. Hazard, eds. A History of the Crusades. Volume 2. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Wolff, Theodore. Die Bauernkreuzzüge des Jahres 1096. Tübingen, 1891.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1137

Wright, Thomas. Early Travels in Palestine. London, 1848. Reprint, New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968. -------. Biographia Britannica Literaria. Volume 1. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1968. Yaqub III, Patriarch Ignatius. Dufaqat al-Tib fi Tarikh Dayr al-Qiddis Mar Matta al-Ajib. Zahla: Matba’at al-Rasi, 1961. Yaqubi, Ahmad Ibn Wadih al-. Tarikh al-Yaqubi. 3 vols. Al-Najaf: Mabat’at al-Ghari, 1939. Yewdale, Ralph Bailey. Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1924. Zaborov, Mikhail A. al-Salibiyyun fi al-Sharq. Translated by Elias Shahin. Moscow: Dar al-Taqaddum, 1986. Zakkar, Suhayl. Hittin: Masirat al-Tahrir min Dimashq ila al-Quds [Hittin: The March of Liberation from Damascus to Jerusalem]. Damascus: Dar Hassan, 1984. -------. Madkhal ila Tarikh al-Hurub al-Salibiyya. 2nd edition. Beirut: Dar alAmana, 1972. -------. al-Hurub al-Salibiyya: al-Hamlatan al-Ula wa al-Thaniya hasb Riwayat Shuhud ‘Ayan. Volume 1. Damascus: Dar Hassan, 1984. Zuhayli, Wahba. “Alaqat al-Alam al-Islami bi al-Alam al-Masihi.” Nahj alIslam 57, no. 15. Damascus: 1994. Zuqnin (The Anonymous Monk of the Monastery of). The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV, A.D. 488–775. Translated by Amir Harrak. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.

INDEX Nun, 752, 753, 754 ‘Adid li Din Allah, al, 727 Arqa, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423 Abah, Qutlugh, 526 Abd al-Masih, Fakhr al-Din, 688, 746 Halhuli,, 637 Abd al-Rahman I al-Dakhil, 167 Abd al-Rahman III, 167, 174 Abd al-Wahhab, Diya al-Din, 904 Abu al-Fath Isma’il, Shams al-Muluk, 543 Abu al-Fath, Malik Shah, 327 Abu al-Fida, 369, 394, 554, 1089 Abu al-Futuh, 725 Abu al-Gharib, 89, 504, 513 Abu al-Hayja al-Samin, 779, 1052 Abu al-Qasim Hasan, 696 Abu al-Wafa, 538 Abu al-Walid al-Baji, 192 Abu Bakr al-Adili, al-Hajib, 1062 Abu Muhammad al-Adl, Najib alDin, 1014 Abu Nasr Muhammad, 904 Abu Sa’d al-Hulwani, 444 Abu Salih al-Ajami, al-Adl Shihab alDin, 742 Abu Shama, 31, 540, 541, 559, 561, 564, 565, 566, 633, 636, 637, 641, 645, 653, 681, 688, 702, 706, 715, 719, 721, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 730, 732, 733, 734, 738, 739, 740, 742, 743, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 755, 758, 759, 762, 763, 764,

765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 813, 814, 815, 816, 818, 822, 823, 825, 829, 831, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 848, 849, 851, 858, 859, 862, 865, 866, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 881, 883, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 903, 904, 907, 910, 916, 919, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 928, 929, 930, 934, 937, 948, 952, 953, 954, 956, 957, 958, 960, 962, 963, 974, 976, 980, 982, 983, 986, 988, 989, 990, 997, 1003, 1007, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1027, 1036, 1039, 1044, 1047, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1060, 1063, 1064, 1067, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1083, 1088 Abulafia, Anna Sapir, 260, 1093 Acre, vi, 37, 87, 118, 413, 425, 460, 461, 463, 471, 477, 479, 482, 530, 546, 548, 634, 635, 638, 639, 679, 700, 733, 755, 769, 775, 776, 777, 791, 818, 821, 825, 827, 838, 841, 856, 863, 870, 871, 872, 876, 877, 878, 900, 902, 904, 909, 910, 911,

1139

1140

THE CRUSADES

912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 930, 932, 933, 960, 961, 962, 963, 965, 969, 972, 974, 976, 977, 978, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1019, 1021, 1022, 1025, 1027, 1028, 1030, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1039, 1040, 1043, 1046, 1047, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1056, 1057, 1061, 1068, 1070, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1077, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1083, 1086, 1087, 1089 Adam of Banyas, 635 Adelacham, 150 Adhémar, 101, 123, 124, 187, 273, 293, 298, 299, 300, 301, 308, 310, 344, 347, 349, 376, 378, 381, 382, 383, 393, 397, 402, 403, 405, 421, 434, 445, 446, 447, 448 Adil Sayf al-Islam, al-Malik al-, 873 Adil, Majd al-Islam al-, 715 Adili, Qaymaz al-, 1010, 1050 Adrian IV, 641 Afdal Shahanshah, al-, 452 Afdal, Sayf al-Islam Shahanshah al-, 355 Affonso Henriques, 601, 602, 604, 606, 608 Ajami, Abu Tahir al-Sa'igh al-, 537 Ajami, Isma'il al-, 538 Albert of Aachen, 246, 248, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 266, 267, 273, 274, 277, 278, 279, 281, 283, 300, 301, 310, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 344, 346, 348, 349, 356, 357, 359, 361, 362,

363, 367, 371, 376, 379, 383, 393, 396, 397, 399, 401, 404, 417, 418, 424, 425, 426, 432, 434, 436, 437, 438, 439, 441, 445, 450, 452, 455, 456, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 470, 471, 477, 484, 488, 489, 492, 493, 495, 498, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 511, 599, 607, 609 Aleppo, 80, 81, 85, 154, 265, 328, 336, 341, 342, 345, 348, 353, 357, 361, 369, 370, 374, 394, 403, 404, 472, 476, 484, 494, 495, 498, 501, 502, 506, 507, 508, 513, 514, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 528, 530, 531, 534, 535, 537, 538, 540, 541, 544, 546, 551, 555, 557, 560, 564, 565, 566, 568, 569, 570, 571, 573, 576, 632, 633, 635, 642, 643, 644, 650, 669, 670, 671, 682, 684, 687, 731, 732, 733, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 758, 759, 770, 771, 772, 777, 778, 780, 782, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 796, 797, 799, 800, 802, 806, 808, 809, 810, 816, 818, 822, 844, 847, 852, 856, 858, 871, 897, 903, 921, 925, 958, 960, 975, 986, 1011, 1043, 1088, 1090 Alexander II, 185, 186, 196 Alexandretta, 323, 344, 370, 371, 654 Alexandria, 35, 37, 38, 51, 77, 78, 137, 142, 150, 153, 235, 343, 348, 399, 422, 426, 462, 678, 717, 728, 773, 775, 796, 797, 922, 1016, 1087 Alexius Comnenus, 12, 76, 103, 104, 111, 119, 222, 276, 279, 287, 294, 355, 481, 620, 936 Alexius I, 47, 91, 102, 113, 250, 252, 253, 261, 291, 545, 710 Alexius of Rome, 137 Alfonso I, 167, 195, 617

INDEX Alfonso II, 167, 171 Alfonso III, 165 Alfonso of Toulouse, 578 Alfonso V, 179, 188 Alfonso VI, 174, 180, 184, 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 448 Alfonso VII, 184, 578, 582, 599, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614 al-Hajib al-Mansur, 177, 179 al-Harrani, Qaymaz, 921 Alice, 249, 527, 530, 531, 533, 930, 941 Allah, Abd, 36, 43, 60, 61, 180, 190, 194, 206, 208, 210, 211, 226, 688, 841 Allenby, Edmund, 17 al-Mamun, 53, 80 al-Mu’tamid, 65, 184, 191, 192, 194, 195 al-Muqawqis (Cyril), 35 al-Sawafi, Muhammad, 62 Amadeus III, 578, 587 Amalfi, 35, 123, 150, 153, 212, 213, 219, 283, 284 Amalric I, 388, 479, 566, 644, 683, 728, 755 Amid, 66, 83, 95, 97, 525, 540, 552, 643, 659, 664, 696, 701, 782, 783, 799, 803, 844, 852, 946 Anacletus II, 232 Andrew de Chavigny, 1061, 1077 Andrew of Chavigni, 1017, 1043 Andronicus Comnenus, 710, 899, 936, 966 Anna Comnena, 12, 90, 91, 106, 107, 197, 222, 249, 250, 262, 263, 264, 266, 270, 271, 276, 280, 281, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290, 295, 296, 298, 299, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 344, 353, 354, 361, 365, 376, 377, 378, 388, 389, 458, 496, 497 Anonymous Edessan, 9, 72, 86, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 327, 330, 332, 333, 361, 362, 365, 367, 370, 380,

1141 390, 466, 477, 485, 486, 487, 488, 490, 491, 493, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 509, 511, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 522, 523, 524, 526, 527, 529, 532, 539, 541, 545, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 557, 558, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571 Anselm of Ribemont, 303, 346, 347, 357, 359, 415 Antioch, v, 47, 56, 66, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 86, 91, 92, 113, 118, 119, 122, 135, 138, 139, 154, 161, 162, 170, 221, 243, 264, 265, 269, 272, 289, 290, 291, 299, 306, 315, 316, 317, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 335, 336, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 407, 410, 411, 413, 416, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 430, 438, 441, 446, 449, 451, 458, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 472, 474, 478, 480, 481, 482, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 491, 492, 494, 495, 496, 497, 499, 501, 502, 505, 507, 508, 511, 515, 517, 518, 519, 522, 523, 524, 526, 527, 528, 530, 531, 533, 537, 542, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 553, 560, 566, 575, 576, 584, 586, 588, 621, 625, 626, 630, 632, 633, 634, 635, 638, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 648, 652, 658, 659, 661, 664, 669, 670, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 683, 688, 694, 708, 743, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 767, 769, 791, 814, 852, 860, 866, 894,

1142

THE CRUSADES

899, 901, 903, 956, 957, 959, 969, 996, 1043, 1056, 1073, 1074, 1082 Archer, T. A., 116, 133, 757, 850, 939, 964, 1006, 1043 Archer, T.A., 18 Archibald of Bourbon, 587, 628 Arculf, 141, 142, 151 Arles, 40, 41, 136, 384 Armenia, 59, 61, 63, 64, 71, 74, 75, 88, 289, 301, 304, 310, 314, 320, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 338, 389, 392, 393, 396, 441, 463, 464, 466, 483, 485, 486, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 548, 662, 684 Armstrong, Karen, 25 Arnulf of Chocques, 383, 443, 446, 448, 449, 451 Arnulf of Marturaran, 446 Arslan Shah II, Nur al-Din, 702 Arslan, Alp, 40, 41, 72, 73, 89, 106, 120, 160, 178, 182, 183, 213, 307, 355, 537, 551, 561, 643, 780, 783, 802 Arslan, Kara, 551, 643, 647, 648, 649, 782, 783, 803, 805 Arslan, Kilij, 95, 263, 264, 265, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305, 308, 309, 313, 316, 490, 532, 621, 708, 709, 710, 711, 752, 753, 754, 755, 770, 771, 773, 792, 803, 945, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955 Ascalon, 170, 356, 438, 441, 444, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 459, 461, 462, 463, 471, 548, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 756, 761, 762, 763, 764, 776, 792, 856, 861, 862, 875, 877, 878, 879, 880, 883, 885, 886, 901, 902, 904, 993, 1001, 1005, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1017,

1019, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1039, 1044, 1046, 1053, 1055, 1056, 1063, 1068, 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1075 Ashot I, 65 Ashot II, 65 Ashot III, 66 Ashraf, al-, 35, 1091 Ashur, Fayid Hammad Muhammad, 44 Ashur, Sa'id Abd al-Fattah, 22, 25, 48, 93, 180, 308, 335, 345, 393, 460, 492, 535, 573, 633, 734, 744, 749, 792, 851, 859, 899, 919, 959, 1005, 1037, 1041, 1051 Astarjian, K.L., 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 683, 1095 Ataturk, Mustafa Kamal, 21 Athanasius V Haya, 84 Athanasius VI, Abu al-Faraj, 574, 657 Atiya, Aziz, 16, 553 Atsiz, 120, 160, 355 Attaliotae, Michaelis, 90 Augustine, 136, 137, 601 Avignon, 40 Awq, 120, 160 Aziz Uthman, al-Malik al-, 788 Aziz, Umar II ibn Abd al-, 52 Azizi, Aibek al-, 1062 Babcock, Emily Babcock, 94, 98, 115, 244, 269, 299, 320, 343, 365, 388, 430, 449, 482, 584, 619, 670, 681, 716, 751, 786, 856, 1136 Baghdad, 8, 30, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 73, 146, 208, 307, 327, 355, 356, 444, 487, 494, 505, 506, 529, 534, 535, 538, 543, 544, 642, 645, 656, 682, 689, 690, 694, 699, 724, 725, 744, 753, 771, 780, 789, 791, 801, 803, 805, 810, 843, 873, 890, 896, 904, 910

INDEX Baghdadi, Fakhr al-Din Aub Shuja al-, 804 Bagratuni, Ashot, 59 Bagratuni, Smbat, 60, 62 Baladhuri, Ahmad al-, 51, 79, 208 Balasani, Majd al-Mulk al-, 444 Baldric of Dol, 104, 115, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 290, 380, 439, 440, 456, 459 Baldwin I, 231, 371, 450, 483, 550, 659, 723 Baldwin II, 475, 483, 515, 517, 519, 522, 523, 524, 526, 527, 528, 530, 531, 533, 542, 548, 657, 673 Baldwin III, 388, 548, 549, 551, 560, 566, 635, 637, 641, 644, 645, 649, 650, 651, 652, 654, 655, 664, 674, 675 Baldwin IV, 679, 739, 751, 755, 757, 762, 765, 767, 768, 774, 777, 791, 792, 798, 813, 855, 856, 857, 858, 860, 861, 862, 863, 868, 1017 Baldwin of Bouillon, 468, 474 Baldwin of Boulogne, 175, 361, 464, 466, 480, 485, 504 Baldwin of Caesarea, 635 Baldwin of Flanders, 112 Baldwin of Le Bourg, 323, 426, 464, 483, 485, 487, 489, 491, 492, 493, 499, 500, 501, 503, 504, 505, 507, 510, 512, 513, 514 Baldwin V, 756, 813, 857, 863, 864, 865, 931 Baldwin, Marshall W., 11, 46, 56, 71, 106, 125, 133, 166, 337, 388, 412, 536, 566, 575, 620, 644, 740, 754, 792, 813, 821, 830, 836, 852, 855, 865, 894, 899, 931, 966, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1110, 1115, 1117, 1119, 1124, 1125, 1129, 1136 Balian II, 768, 817, 831, 836, 840, 862, 884, 931, 1030, 1037, 1069, 1074, 1082

1143 Balian of Ibelin, 635, 817, 820, 822, 824, 858, 888, 889, 892, 931, 1079 Bar Camra, Athanasius Abu al-Faraj, 94 Bar Hebraeus, 9, 31, 71, 72, 73, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 155, 161, 175, 176, 203, 365, 366, 369, 370, 389, 390, 393, 406, 407, 412, 414, 424, 429, 440, 466, 488, 499, 500, 501, 503, 507, 511, 512, 513, 514, 516, 520, 521, 525, 526, 528, 529, 530, 532, 541, 545, 551, 553, 556, 564, 566, 571, 572, 625, 662, 681, 741, 785, 814 bar Kulaib, Hasan, 691, 694 Bar Sabuni, Abu Ghalib, 484 Bar Sabuni, Sa'id, 94, 95, 96 Baradaeus, Jacob, 79 Bari, 107, 150, 153, 210, 212, 214, 219, 220, 224, 234, 270, 271, 496 Barker, Ernest, 33 Bartholomew of Mortimer, 1065 Basil I, 65, 68, 209, 210 Basil II, 57, 67, 68, 70, 154, 219 Basil II Bulgaroctonus, 57 Basilius Bar Shumanna, 552, 553, 556, 562, 568, 571, 663, 664, 676 Bela III, 942, 945, 947 Benedict IX, 157 Benedict VIII, 214 Benedict X, 222 Berengaria, 966, 967, 968, 970, 971, 973, 974, 1016, 1080 Bernard of Clairvaux, 126, 576, 579, 582, 584, 586, 599, 600, 639, 640 Bernard of Sidon, 635 Bernard the Wise, 147, 149, 150 Bernold of St. Blasien, 103 Berry, Virgina G., 575, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 590, 591, 592, 593, 597, 599, 611, 620, 621, 622, 623, 626, 627, 629, 630, 631, 633, 635, 1098, 1124 Berter of Orleans, 942

1144

THE CRUSADES

Bin Musa, Taysir, 21, 22 Bohemond I, 47, 113, 119, 221, 222, 269, 272, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 295, 317, 343, 344, 350, 354, 359, 367, 391, 397, 398, 401, 403, 450, 465, 466, 468, 487, 488, 489, 495, 496, 497 Bohemond II, 497, 526, 527, 528, 529 Bohemond III, 671, 672, 743, 757, 759, 760, 767, 791, 799, 814, 816, 826, 857, 859, 875, 900, 903, 969, 996, 1043, 1082 Bohemond IV, 894, 900, 959 Bohemond of Taranto, 113, 123, 170, 273, 282 Bosporus, 261, 262, 266, 282, 283, 299, 623 Bosra, 36, 642, 651, 734, 790 Bridge, Antony, 965, 971 Burel, Geoffrey, 265 Bursuki, Aksunkur al-, 511, 522, 523, 527, 534, 538, 541 Caesarea, 73, 75, 89, 133, 136, 158, 315, 323, 397, 425, 451, 453, 459, 460, 461, 463, 477, 482, 516, 634, 636, 752, 872, 958, 994, 1007, 1016, 1027, 1056, 1061, 1063, 1064, 1068, 1069, 1073 Cahen, Claude, 56, 70, 71, 72, 75, 95, 307, 331, 332, 409, 412, 478, 484, 951, 1090, 1100 Carpinel, Galdemar, 433, 465, 467 Chabot, J. B., 9, 677, 1094, 1121 Chabot, J.B., 56, 73, 83, 161, 261, 341, 388, 446, 481, 621, 637, 658, 662, 684, 690, 696, 728, 736, 743, 766, 799, 814, 866, 890, 913, 954, 1004, 1083 Chalcedon, 8, 38, 59, 69, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 87, 281, 661, 663, 673, 676 Charlemagne, 13, 16, 35, 41, 48, 49, 50, 120, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 167, 168, 169,

170, 177, 188, 212, 327, 464, 610, 615, 944, 966 Charles III, 216 Charles the Bald, 183, 213 Civitot, 262, 263, 264, 265, 281, 299, 302 Clarebold of Vendeuil, 257, 270, 274 Clement III, 909, 940 Clermont, 11, 14, 18, 97, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 113, 116, 117, 119, 122, 124, 127, 129, 132, 162, 169, 176, 186, 196, 200, 243, 244, 246, 248, 270, 283, 293, 450, 478, 930 Coloman, 252, 256, 273 Compostela, 101, 153, 171, 172, 173, 178, 188, 189, 201 Conrad III, v, 576, 577, 578, 587, 589, 591, 593, 617, 619, 620, 639, 641, 944 Conrad of Montferrat, 756, 895, 901, 902, 909, 912, 913, 918, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 933, 935, 961, 969, 974, 978, 985, 990, 993, 994, 997, 1014, 1015, 1025, 1027, 1032, 1033, 1081 Constans II, 38 Constantine, 38, 48, 57, 66, 72, 73, 84, 88, 119, 123, 133, 134, 140, 142, 156, 197, 209, 224, 316, 331, 333, 337, 512, 513, 529, 886 Constantine IV Pogonatus, 38 Constantine IX Monomachus, 75 Constantine Monomachus, 67 Constantinople, 9, 24, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 57, 65, 67, 68, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 134, 137, 140, 142, 144, 154, 156, 158, 161, 169, 176, 184, 207, 209, 211, 219, 246, 252, 253, 255, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293,

INDEX 294, 296, 297, 302, 304, 305, 307, 317, 323, 326, 335, 339, 341, 342, 350, 351, 356, 358, 377, 383, 388, 389, 390, 397, 400, 401, 419, 420, 449, 458, 465, 482, 489, 512, 513, 545, 549, 570, 578, 620, 621, 623, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 634, 639, 710, 752, 753, 754, 755, 761, 769, 860, 864, 877, 878, 880, 936, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 958, 966, 1033, 1034, 1038 Contacuzenus, 496 Curcuas, John, 66 Curthose, Robert, 296, 320, 358, 367, 368, 383, 386, 411, 432, 445, 447, 451, 455, 458 Curtis, Edmund, 211, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 588, 621, 1103 Daimbert, 448, 449, 450, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 467, 474, 492, 496 Damascus, 17, 24, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 53, 56, 59, 79, 101, 114, 142, 144, 161, 261, 289, 327, 330, 341, 342, 345, 348, 358, 388, 389, 411, 422, 444, 446, 459, 460, 463, 464, 466, 471, 472, 476, 477, 478, 479, 481, 492, 505, 507, 508, 510, 511, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 533, 538, 541, 542, 543, 544, 547, 548, 551, 560, 566, 576, 581, 621, 635, 636, 637, 638, 641, 642, 643, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 658, 682, 684, 697, 700, 713, 714, 717, 718, 723, 726, 728, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 739, 742, 743, 745, 749, 750, 751, 758, 766, 767, 769, 770, 772, 775, 776, 777, 779, 788, 790, 791, 793, 795, 797, 798, 799, 800, 806, 808, 810, 811, 813, 814, 815, 818, 827, 841, 843, 844, 845, 848, 850, 852, 865, 866, 874, 879, 886, 887, 890, 896, 901, 904, 906, 907, 913,

1145 918, 926, 954, 986, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1058, 1083, 1084, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1090 Damghani, Abu Muhammad al-, 444 Darraz, Sunkur, 512 Dawla Bahram, Taj al-, 650 Dawla Belek, Nur al-, 484, 514 Dawla Muhammad, Shams al-, 543 Dawla Sadaqa, Sayf al-, 520 Dawla Sukman, Mu'in al-, 485, 492 Dawla Turanshah, Shams al-, 722, 728, 751, 758, 765 Dawla, Ayn al-, 552, 721 Dawla, Iftikhar al-, 429, 436, 438, 456 Din Abaq, Mujir al-, 547, 652, 653, 654, 655, 714 Din Abu Bakr, al-Malik al-Adil Sayf al-, 740, 796 Din al-Ayni, Badr al-, 679, 1089, 1090 Din Anushirwan Sanjar, Sharaf al-, 535 Din Arsel, Izz al-, 988 Din Ayyub Shadhi, Najm al-, 713 Din Ayyub, al-Malik al-Salih Najm al-, 1090 Din Bahruz, Mujahid al-, 714 Din Bishara, Husam al-, 1019 Din Burtuqush, Asad al-, 805 Din Chaqar, Nasir al-, 543, 561 Din Faraj, Jamal al-, 1072 Din Farrukhshah, Izz al-, 767, 776 Din Ghazi I, Sayf al-, 638, 687 Din Ghazi, al-Malik al-Zahir Ghiyath al-, 791 Din Gümüshtigin, Sa'd al-, 688, 738, 740, 746, 758, 759 Din Ishaq, Mu'izz al-, 806 Din Jurdik, Izz al-, 719, 793, 988, 1002, 1052, 1059, 1060, 1072 Din Khumartigin, Nasih al-, 738 Din Khurram Shah, Ala al-, 919 Din Kirkhan, Samsam al-, 522, 542

1146

THE CRUSADES

Din Kukburi, Muzaffar al-, 702, 703, 777, 780, 804, 807, 818, 873, 893 Din Lajin, Shams al-, 546 Din Lulu, Badr al-, 702, 703 Din Mahmud Zulfindar, Izz al-, 731 Din Mahmud, Nasir al-, 702, 703 Din Mahmud, Shihab al-, 544, 547, 721, 750 Din Manguberti, Jalal al-, 1090 Din Mas’ud II, al-Malik al-Qahir Izz al-, 702 Din Mas’ud, Izz al-, 526, 702, 741, 771, 772, 778, 780, 781, 782, 800, 802, 810 Din Muhammad, Sukman II, Nasir al-, 701 Din Qalawun, al-Malik al-Mansur Sauf al-, 1091 Din Qaraqosh, Baha al-, 726, 872, 919, 922, 933, 986, 987, 991, 997, 1002, 1027, 1054, 1083 Din Qaymaz, Mujahid al-, 771, 780, 802 Din Qaysar, Alam al-, 1012, 1013, 1043, 1044, 1059, 1075 Din Sawar, Sayf al-, 544 Din Shirkuh, Asad al-, 714, 715, 716, 718, 719, 780, 807, 988, 1088 Din Shukhtirin, Jamal al-, 779 Din Siwinj, Baha al-, 542 Din Umar, Taqi al-, 723, 767, 772, 776, 781, 782, 789, 790, 799, 811, 836, 870, 872, 873, 897, 914, 976, 985, 1009, 1010 Din Unur, Mu'in al-, 544, 545, 547, 548, 566, 636, 638, 643, 649, 714, 749 Din Usama, Izz al-, 922 Din, Falak al-, 1050 Din, Imad al-, 10, 23, 30, 31, 344, 476, 511, 530, 533, 535, 536, 537, 539, 540, 541, 543, 546, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564,

565, 566, 567, 570, 575, 576, 664, 687, 688, 702, 714, 715, 721, 725, 726, 727, 730, 738, 740, 741, 742, 745, 751, 758, 764, 765, 768, 772, 775, 778, 780, 781, 783, 785, 786, 787, 789, 790, 792, 803, 807, 809, 813, 826, 829, 851, 859, 873, 883, 898, 909, 914, 919, 928, 937, 952, 962, 982, 1003, 1013, 1044 Din, Ismat al-, 749 Din, Jamal al-, 21, 93, 328, 391, 540, 547, 552, 636, 671, 681, 713, 741, 785, 808, 814, 858, 886, 909, 935, 962, 1003, 1044, 1059, 1072 Din, Muhyi al-, 698, 699, 897 Dionysius Lazarus, 93 Dionysius Tall Mahre, 52, 53 Dorylaeum, 169, 200, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 624 Drogo de Merlo, 972 Drogo of Nesle, 257, 270, 274 Duqaq Shams al-Muluk, 345 Durazzo, 261, 270, 271, 272, 284, 288, 296, 497 Dvin, 58, 61, 65 Dyrrachium, 261, 270, 271, 497 Edessa, v, 10, 56, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 120, 136, 137, 138, 289, 301, 304, 310, 316, 320, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 344, 345, 349, 355, 361, 364, 366, 369, 370, 372, 382, 389, 392, 393, 396, 397, 399, 403, 404, 440, 441, 450, 463, 464, 466, 468, 472, 476, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 531, 533, 541, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556,

INDEX 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 575, 576, 577, 584, 585, 586, 598, 619, 621, 632, 634, 635, 642, 643, 645, 647, 657, 658, 659, 661, 662, 663, 664, 669, 674, 675, 676, 692, 695, 700, 731, 736, 746, 778, 802, 803, 807, 818, 840, 844, 873, 893, 1090 Ehrenkreuz, Andrew S., 713, 714, 1106 Ekkehard of Aura, 105, 115, 123, 170, 246, 256, 460, 463, 464 Engreen, Fred E., 213, 214, 216, 217, 1106 Enguerrand of Coucy, 587 Erdmann, Carl, 11, 12, 16, 46, 98, 99, 125, 154, 168, 205, 227, 612 Ermengol III, 183 Eugenius III, 554, 577, 580, 582, 584, 588, 590, 593, 595, 611, 615, 639 Euphemius, 208 Eusebius of Cremona, 135 Eustace of Boulogne, 398, 455 Fadil, al-Qadi al-, 783, 789, 790, 811, 847, 895 Farisi, Badran al-, 900 Farrukh, Omar, 18, 19, 1116 Ferdinand I, 179, 187 Firuz, 353, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 372, 400 Forey, Alan, 580, 581, 582, 583, 638, 1107 France, John, 11, 12, 14, 218, 262, 279, 311, 314, 344, 354, 476, 672, 1104 Frederick (Barbarossa), 623 Frederick Barbarossa, 222, 554, 576, 590, 630, 917, 939, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 951, 955, 956, 957, 958, 991 Frederick II, 205, 206, 239, 240, 679, 905, 906, 1089

1147 Frederick of Swabia, 924, 926, 930, 945, 947, 953, 955, 959, 991 Fulcher of Chartres, 104, 114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 132, 243, 244, 245, 269, 271, 274, 293, 295, 296, 297, 300, 302, 303, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 319, 322, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 337, 355, 358, 362, 368, 370, 371, 379, 386, 393, 395, 396, 398, 399, 402, 407, 409, 410, 411, 415, 426, 431, 440, 441, 443, 444, 446, 448, 450, 455, 457, 458, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 474, 479, 485, 487, 488, 492, 493, 497, 504, 513, 516, 517, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527 Gagik II, 67, 88, 89 Garcia Ramirez, 610, 612 Gaston of Béarn, 393, 435, 439, 455 Gatea, 35 Geoffrey of Lusignan, 902, 983, 1014, 1016, 1023 Gerald of Bethlehem, 635 Gerard of Furnival, 1065 Gerard of Ridefort, 817, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 825, 826, 828, 830, 831, 834, 853, 863, 867, 879, 909, 913 Gesta Francorum, 11, 14, 15, 104, 114, 115, 117, 122, 123, 132, 169, 170, 200, 222, 244, 256, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, 276, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 329, 343, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357, 359, 362, 363, 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 381, 385, 386, 387, 391, 392, 393, 394, 396, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 411, 412,

1148

THE CRUSADES

413, 414, 415, 416, 420, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 445, 447, 450, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 468, 492, 493, 495, 496, 554, 707, 714, 735, 749, 757, 819, 856, 896, 901, 909, 938, 943, 963, 999, 1088 Géza II, 620 Ghidi, al-Nasih al-, 848 Gibb, H. A. R., 56, 73, 369, 477, 492, 493, 494, 498, 504, 505, 509, 515, 516, 522, 543, 554, 558, 564, 566, 567, 571, 600, 642, 643, 644, 645, 722, 735, 736, 765, 766, 772, 773, 788, 802, 814 Gibb, Hamilton A. R., 1094, 1109 Gilbert, Vivian, 850, 851 Gilchrist, John, 12, 199 Godfrey de la Roche, 586, 587 Godfrey of Bouillon, 169, 222, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 287, 292, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 308, 310, 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 322, 323, 326, 330, 339, 344, 358, 366, 378, 379, 389, 393, 398, 400, 403, 404, 410, 411, 416, 417, 418, 422, 423, 425, 426, 430, 431, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 445, 446, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 474, 483, 517, 586, 587, 592, 627, 629, 635, 644, 672, 673, 851, 889, 946 Godfrey of Lorraine, 222, 398 Gouraud, 17, 18, 176 Graboïs, Areyh, 576, 577, 1110 Gratian, 126 Gregory IV, 698 Gregory of Nyssa, 136 Gregory VII, 13, 100, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 119, 121, 124, 125, 128,

129, 162, 176, 186, 187, 196, 197, 198, 199, 222, 228, 256 Gregory VIII, 939, 940, 946 Guaimar IV, 218, 220 Guaimar V, 220 Guibert of Nogent, 104, 105, 113, 115, 123, 124, 127, 128, 170, 200, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 270, 271, 276, 277, 285, 286, 287, 290, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 319, 324, 325, 329, 331, 349, 350, 352, 363, 366, 369, 379, 381, 387, 388, 396, 399, 400, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 414, 415, 416, 421, 424, 425, 426, 429, 432, 433, 435, 437, 438, 439, 440, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 457, 464 Guiscard, Robert, 107, 113, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 269, 272, 284, 287, 354, 443, 458 Gunther of Bamberg, 157 Guy of Beirut, 635 Guy of Lusignan, 792, 794, 813, 814, 815, 816, 821, 822, 825, 831, 839, 840, 842, 845, 846, 856, 857, 861, 863, 864, 867, 879, 890, 893, 965, 969, 972, 978, 993, 1015, 1022, 1027, 1040 Habashi, Hasan, 20, 114, 560, 572, 633 Hafiz li Din Allah, al-, 650, 673 Hajj Yusuf, al-, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056 Hakam, Abd al-, 39, 150 Hakim bi Amr Allah, al-, 97 Hakkari, Diya al-Din Isa al-, 721 Hakkari, Isa al-, 871 Hanbali, Ahmad al-, 808 Haritha, Usama ibn Zayd ibn, 36 Hartman, Martin, 47, 257 Haskins, Charles Homer, 107, 219, 1112 Haya, Dionysius, 83

INDEX Helmold of Bosau, 49, 50, 580, 589, 594, 604, 625, 640 Henri II, 1033, 1038, 1039 Henri of Champagne, 921, 924, 926, 930, 1009, 1025, 1030, 1032, 1044, 1046, 1047, 1053, 1054, 1064, 1065, 1067, 1074, 1075 Henry II, 219, 220, 573, 577, 619, 620, 624, 749, 756, 757, 813, 819, 823, 855, 856, 867, 868, 869, 890, 894, 896, 909, 929, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 946, 961, 963, 999, 1001, 1062, 1070 Henry III, 221 Henry IV, 47, 109, 110, 111, 124, 198, 222, 225, 256, 259, 965 Henry of Austria, 635, 991 Henry of Huntingdon, 101, 273, 304, 361, 581, 600, 613, 640, 1107, 1113 Henry of Mainz, 588 Henry of Toul, 634 Henry of Troyes, 635 Henry Teuton, 1065 Henry VI, 197, 238, 239, 939, 944 Heraclius, 35, 36, 80, 85, 140, 860, 863, 864, 868, 884, 885, 888, 892, 893, 909, 926, 932, 1005 Herbert VI, 270 Hijaz, 51, 795, 796, 798, 866 Hill, John Hugh, 123, 124, 170, 261, 262, 272, 273, 293, 295, 361, 362, 381, 393, 399, 400, 401, 402, 411, 429, 435, 458, 459, 1125, 1127, 1134 Hill, Laurita L., 293, 361, 375, 399, 401, 402, 405, 411, 416, 419, 422, 433, 435, 448, 458 Hill, Rosalind, 11, 14, 15, 132, 244, 343, 374, 375, 1109 Hillenbrand, Carole, 30, 45, 197, 539, 540, 682, 1113

1149 Hitti, Philip, 36, 45, 79, 146, 205, 412, 520, 637, 845, 904, 1090, 1135 Hugh III, 995, 1006 Hugh of Jubayl, 841, 844 Hugh of Neville, 1065 Hugh of Tiberias, 768, 841, 1084 Hugh of Vermandois, 269, 272, 274, 280, 298, 344 Hugh the Great, 261, 271, 274, 308, 310, 350, 351, 393, 400 Humphrey IV, 797, 931, 969, 1038 Humphrey of Toron, 635, 651, 767, 841, 844, 932, 1008, 1028 Hurgronje, C. Snouck, 18, 45 Husayn, Sana al-Mulk, 470 ibn Abaq, Mujir al-Din, 636 ibn Abbad, al-Mu'tamid, 193 ibn Abd Allah al-Shahrzuri, Abu alFada'il al-Qasim Yahya, 803 ibn Abd al-Malik, al-Walid, 60 ibn Abd al-Mu'min, Ya'qub ibn Yusuf, 919 ibn Abd al-Wahid, Abd al-Halim, 234 ibn Abeq, Yusuf, 394 ibn Abi al-Fawaris, Ali ibnn Ahmad, 210 ibn Abi al-Huqayq, Sallam, 35 Ibn Abi Asrun, 844 ibn Abi Bakr, Sayr, 193, 195 ibn Abi Durra, Abd al-Masih, 659 ibn Abi Husayn, Ahmad, 210 ibn Abi Sufyan, Mu’awiya, 37, 208 ibn Abi Talib, Ali, 35, 37 ibn Abi Tayy, Yahya, 724, 727, 739, 740, 744, 750 ibn Affan, Uthman, 58 ibn Ahmad al-Azdi, al-Ala, 63 ibn Ahmad al-Hakkari al-Mashtub, Sayf al-Din Ali, 721 ibn Ahmad al-Muqaddasi, Abd Allah, 843 ibn al-Aas, Amr, 51

1150

THE CRUSADES

ibn al-Ajami, al-Adl Abu Salih, 730 ibn al-Akhal, Ahmad, 210 Ibn al–Athir, Izz al-Din Abu alHasan Ali, 7, 64, 92, 175, 176, 180, 190, 203, 208, 209, 210, 211, 217, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 241, 328, 336, 346, 355, 365, 369, 379, 390, 410, 412, 418, 429, 440, 463, 469, 471, 485, 487, 489, 499, 501, 502, 506, 507, 509, 510, 512, 515, 533, 534, 535, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542, 544, 547, 549, 550, 558, 559, 565, 567, 636, 642, 670, 671, 681, 682, 685, 688, 713, 715, 716, 717, 719, 728, 729, 730, 732, 733, 734, 738, 741, 744, 750, 751, 758, 759, 767, 770, 771, 772, 776, 780, 785, 814, 821, 828, 836, 838, 839, 840, 842, 849, 850, 858, 865, 866, 871, 874, 875, 876, 878, 885, 887, 910, 913, 914, 935, 952, 957, 958, 963, 976, 1003, 1013, 1015, 1021, 1024, 1036, 1037, 1044, 1067, 1074 ibn al-Daya, Abu Bakr Majd al-Din, 671 ibn al-Daya, Badr al-Din Hasan, 790 ibn al-Furat, Abd Allah Asad, 209 ibn Ali al-Azimi, Muhammad, 342 ibn Ali, Abd al-Mu'min, 196 Ibn al-Jawzi, 355, 440 ibn al-Khashshab, Abu al-Hasan, 518 ibn al-Mawj al-Faw’i, al-Qadi Hasan, 341, 342 ibn al-Muqaddam, Izz al-Din, 1019 ibn al-Muqaddam, Shams al-Din, 546, 730, 732, 734, 766, 779 ibn al-Qabid, al-Safi, 848, 874 ibn al-Qadisi, Muhammad, 843, 844 ibn al-Qalanisi, Abu Ya'la Hamza, 160, 289, 328, 342, 393, 441, 456, 485, 536, 633 Ibn al-Qaysarani, 642

Ibn al-Ramimi, 610 ibn al-Sabbah, al-Hasan, 536 ibn al-Shahrzuri, al-Qadi Baha al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali, 541 ibn al-Sufi, Mu'ayyid al-Din, 655 ibn al-Thumna, Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, 211, 217 Ibn al-Za’farani, 779 ibn al-Zaf’arani, Fakhr al-Din Mas'ud, 779 ibn Ammar, Abu Ali, 466 ibn Ammar, Abu Ali Fakhr al-Mulk, 413 ibn Artuk, Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi, 503 ibn Artuk, Sukman, 484, 492, 503 ibn Asad al-Din Shirkuh, Nasir alDin Muhammad, 742 Ibn Asrun, 686, 808 ibn Ayyub al-Yaghisiyani, Salah alDin Muhammad, 566 ibn Badi, Sa'id, 537 ibn Badi’, Fada'il, 526 ibn Badis, Mu'izz al-Din, 210 Ibn Balkin al-Ziri, Abd Allah, 192 ibn Barik al-Mihrani, Husam al-Din, 1002 ibn Danishmend, Isma'il, 489 ibn Dhi al-Nun, Abd al-Qadir bi Allah ibn al-Ma'mun, 180 ibn Faris al-Faw’i, al-Mujann Barakat, 341 ibn Firuz, Sayf al-Dawla Yusuf, 544 ibn Haffaz al-Sulami, Ata, 655 ibn Hasan al-Kalbi, 210 ibn Hassan, Qutb al-Din ibn Yinal, 71, 747, 779 ibn Hud, Ahmad al-Muqtadir, 185 ibn Hud, Yusuf ibn Sulayman, 184 ibn Ikaldi, Mahmud, 782 ibn Isma’il, Amir, 61 ibn Jandar, Alam al-Din Sulayman, 790, 1008, 1012, 1019 ibn Khalid, Muhammad, 62

INDEX ibn Khumartigin, Nasih al-Din Muhammad, 785 ibn Khushtirin, Muhammad, 768 ibn Kutulmish, Sulayman, 73, 162, 342 ibn Mahmud, Waththab, 348, 393, 394 ibn Malik al-Uqayli, Izz al-Din Isa, 888 ibn Malik, Salim, 486, 499, 521, 537 ibn Mamin, Mujahid al-Din Buzan, 644 ibn Mansur, al-Qadi Abu Mahmud "Ubayd Allah, 416 ibn Marwan, Ahmad, 373, 399 ibn Marwan, Mujalli, 913 ibn Massal al-Maghribi, Abu al-Fath, 650 ibn Mazyad, Dubays ibn Sadaqa, 534 ibn Muhammad, Marwan, 60 ibn Mujir al-Sa’di, Abu Shuja' Shawar, 715 ibn Munqidh, Hattan, 789 ibn Munqidh, Mu'ayyid al-Dawla, 671 ibn Munqidh, Usama, 412, 520, 526, 527, 537, 637, 650, 651 ibn Muslim al-Uqayli, Bakkr, 61 ibn Nafi’, Uqba, 208 ibn Ni’ma, Ali, 211 ibn Nisan, Mu'ayyid al-Din Abu Ali, 782 ibn Nusayr, Musa, 182 ibn Qahtaba al-Ta'i, al-Hasan, 62 ibn Qays al-Dizaqi, Abd Allah, 208 ibn Qurhub, Ahmad, 210 ibn Rawaha al-Hamawi, Jamal al-Din Abu Ali, 913 ibn Razzam, Yasir, 35 ibn Ruzzik, al-Salih Abu al-Gharat Talai'i, 715 ibn Sa’d al-Mazdaghani, Abu Ali Tahir, 538 ibn Salim ibn Mali, Isa, 522

1151 ibn Sallar, al-Adil, 650, 651 ibn Sawwar, Abu al-Ashbal Nur alDin Ali Dirgham, 715 Ibn Shaddad, 31, 477, 681, 706, 714, 717, 718, 720, 741, 744, 750, 759, 762, 781, 785, 794, 801, 808, 810, 816, 825, 837, 838, 841, 844, 846, 859, 875, 878, 885, 887, 895, 899, 900, 902, 903, 906, 907, 909, 911, 913, 914, 915, 921, 923, 925, 927, 928, 930, 933, 935, 948, 952, 954, 956, 957, 958, 959, 962, 963, 978, 980, 981, 982, 985, 986, 987, 988, 990, 1002, 1003, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1011, 1012, 1016, 1019, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1036, 1044, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1056, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1066, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086 ibn Shadhi, Najm al-Din Ayyub, 566 ibn Taghri Birdi, Abu al-Mahasin, 418 ibn Tahir al-Sulami, Ali, 175 ibn Talil, Qutb al-Din Khosro, 721 ibn Tashfin, Yusuf, 184, 194 ibn Ubayd al-Ansari, Fadala, 38 ibn Umar, Jazirat, 511, 704, 705, 731 ibn Umayya, Mu'awiya ibn alMughira ibn Abi al-'Aas, 36 ibn Wafa, Ali, 643, 644 ibn Wazir, Abu Muhammad Sidrey, 606 ibn Yahya al-Armani, Ali, 64 ibn Yunus, Shams al-Din, 703 ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, al-Hajjaj, 52 ibn Zaki al-Din Ali al-Qurashi, Muhyi al-Din Abu al-Ma'ali Muhammad, 897 ibn Zayn al-Din Ali Kukburi, Muzaffar al-Din, 802 ibn Zurara, Musa, 62 Ignatius Dawud, 679

1152

THE CRUSADES

Ignatius III, 84, 85, 677, 679 Ilghazi, Qutb al-Din, 355, 491, 514, 519, 529, 531, 537, 543, 781 Innocent II, 126 Isaac Angelus, 899, 945, 948, 949, 950 Isaac Comnenus, 76, 84, 936, 965, 966, 967, 968, 974 Isaac Comnenus Sebastocrator, 76 Isbahbad Sabawa, 471 Isfahani, Muhammad al-, 492 Ishiltan, Fikrat, 23 Ives de Nesle, 635 Ja’far, Fadl Allah, 552 Jabhan, Ibrahim Sulayman al-, 20, 21 Jackson, D. E. P., 832, 839, 841, 989, 1045, 1119 Jacques De Vitry, 69, 87, 118, 135, 482, 1088 Jacques of Avesnes, 1009, 1010 Jad al-Haqq Ali Jad al-Haqq, 22, 1114 Jamal Abd al-Nasir, 25 Jamali, Badr al-Din al-, 355, 536 James (Santiago) de Compostela, 171 James of Avesnes, 910, 911, 921, 1006 Janah, al-, 1067 Janzuri, Aliyya Abd al-Sami al-, 75, 573 Jekermish, Shams al-Dawla, 484, 486, 492 Jerome, 135, 136, 137, 602, 707, 813, 875, 901, 939, 961, 999, 1043, 1046 Joan, 65, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 971, 983, 1016, 1019, 1080 John Chrysostom, 136, 144, 602 John of Ephesus, 78 John of Salisbury, 591, 594, 626, 627, 628, 629, 633, 634, 636, 637, 638, 639, 1102, 1115, 1130 John VIII, 84, 88, 213, 215, 216 John X, 214

Jordan, Alfonso, 587, 626, 634 Joscelin I, 484, 492, 493, 494, 499, 514, 524, 550, 659, 660 Joscelin II, 480, 514, 531, 546, 549, 550, 551, 560, 566, 567, 568, 569, 573, 633, 642, 643, 648, 649, 661, 663, 664, 665, 668, 669, 671, 672, 674, 710, 740, 743 Joscelin III, 840, 858, 862, 863, 870 Joscius of Tyre, 935 Jundi, Anwar al-, 17, 20 Justinian I, 58, 85, 138, 208, 285 Justinian II Rhinotmetus, 60 Kamal Ataturk, 20 Kamil Muhammad, al-, 679 Kedar, Benjamin, 201, 841 Kerbogha, Qiwam al-Dawla, 348, 360, 487 Khalidi, Mustafa, 18 Khattab, Umar ibn al-, 36, 51, 52, 58, 898 Khawas, Shams al-, 495, 524, 542 Khayushani, Muhammad ibn alMuwaffaq al-, 724 Khulafa al-Rashidun, al-, 681, 1084 Kilab, Banu, 348 Kilij, Ghars al-Din, 805, 872 Kindi, Mu'awiya ibn Hudayj al-, 208 Kingsford, Charles L., 134, 136, 141, 145, 146, 151, 152, 474, 850, 939, 1095, 1116 Krey, A. C., 98, 102, 103, 246, 290, 320, 347, 385, 716, 1136 Krikor II, 65 Kuchuk, Zayn al-Din Ali, 552, 557, 558, 561, 801, 919 Kugler, Bernhard, 33, 132, 276, 326, 331, 332, 337, 350, 359, 412, 426, 440, 444, 458, 459, 460, 465, 466, 468, 492, 503, 527, 577, 578, 590, 592, 620, 624, 625, 629, 631, 638, 1117 Kurd Ali, Muhammad, 24

INDEX Lajin, Husam al-Din Muhammad ibn Umar, 815 Lane-Poole, Stanley, 596, 597, 598, 739, 744, 839, 841, 843, 850, 859, 875, 894, 1029, 1085, 1118 Leo I, 78, 682 Leo IV, 213, 215, 217 Leo IX, 221, 222, 223 Leo the Isaurian, 39 Leo VI, 68 Longchamp, Stephen, 1043, 1047 Lopez, Robert S., 48, 107, 205, 206, 207, 1119 Louis II, 213, 215 Louis the Pious, 167, 169, 615 Louis VII, v, 554, 576, 577, 578, 581, 584, 585, 588, 591, 592, 593, 617, 619, 620, 626, 629, 639, 641, 756, 868 Lulu, Husam al-Din, 796, 885, 916 Lyons, 40, 662, 832, 839, 841, 989, 1045 Lyons, M. C., 1119 Ma’arri al-Aqra’, al-Muzaffar al-Din al-, 746 Madden, Thomas F., 47, 121, 1119 Maghribi, Abd al-Salam al-, 900 Maghribi, Yusuf ibn dhi Nas alFindalawi al-, 637 Mahdi, Ubayd Allah al-, 209, 210 Mahmud II, 25 Mahrani, Husam al-Din Ibrahim ibn Husayn al-, 881 Majd al-Din, 671, 796, 925, 1052 Malik Shah, Qutb al-Din, 951, 953 Mamikonian, Artawazd, 61 Mamikonian, Mushigh, 62 Mamistra, 318, 320, 321, 322, 353, 383, 403, 481, 496, 545, 682 Mansur, Abu Jafar al-, 61 Mansur, al-Hajib al-, 172 Manuel I, 85, 86, 320, 388, 545, 587, 620, 622, 625, 628, 639, 671, 752, 859, 936, 966, 973

1153 Manzikert, 8, 28, 30, 34, 57, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 89, 90, 106, 107, 120, 160, 311, 312 Maqsud, Abd al-Fattah, 20 Margaret of Navarre, 235 Maria Comnena, 931 Martel, Charles, 9, 40, 167, 207 Marwazi, Abu Said al-, 62 Matilda of Tuscany, 105 Matthew of Edessa, 66, 67, 68, 73, 88, 91, 289, 301, 326, 330, 331, 344, 366, 389, 441, 466, 483, 488, 499, 502, 503, 505, 509, 510, 513, 515, 554, 662 Mawdud Altontash (al-Tuwaynaki), Sharaf al-Din, 503 Mawdud, Qutb al-Din, 685, 687, 781 Maysun, 37 Mecca, 24, 36, 46, 51, 171, 172, 471, 773, 795, 796, 797, 811, 815, 889, 1075, 1084 Medina, 44, 46, 51, 232, 471, 866, 1084 Melaz, 490 Melisend, 530, 548, 549, 551, 560, 634, 635, 673, 674, 675 Melitene, 66, 71, 73, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 301, 333, 466, 484, 487, 488, 529, 657, 661, 663, 665, 668, 695, 707, 708, 709, 710, 754, 770 Michael II, 209 Michael III, 64 Michael IV, 67, 72, 88, 156, 210 Michael VI Stratioticus, 75 Michael VII, 91, 106, 107 Michael VII Ducas Parapinakes, 91, 106 Michaud, F. J., 50, 134, 248, 275, 296, 315, 320, 332, 337, 846, 1121 Mihrani, Dirbas al-, 1059 Morgan, Margaret Ruth, 65, 473, 792, 818, 830, 831, 845, 853, 931, 966, 1085, 1089, 1122

1154

THE CRUSADES

Mosul, 24, 56, 59, 66, 70, 329, 348, 353, 361, 396, 476, 484, 486, 492, 494, 498, 499, 500, 502, 503, 506, 511, 522, 524, 525, 526, 534, 537, 538, 540, 541, 542, 543, 550, 551, 561, 565, 566, 567, 638, 661, 664, 682, 683, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 693, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 706, 707, 708, 714, 724, 731, 732, 736, 741, 742, 745, 746, 747, 748, 750, 770, 771, 772, 773, 778, 780, 781, 782, 792, 800, 802, 803, 804, 806, 807, 809, 810, 815, 822, 844, 852, 859, 919, 928, 958, 1010, 1071 Mu’nis, Husayn, 25, 573, 682 Muhammad, 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, 36, 37, 38, 43, 45, 51, 62, 93, 114, 165, 173, 177, 182, 206, 208, 289, 327, 342, 348, 355, 360, 365, 373, 399, 411, 413, 440, 444, 455, 463, 478, 486, 499, 503, 505, 511, 534, 535, 537 Mu'izz li Din Allah, al-, 210 Mujahid, al-Malik al-, 808, 809 Mulk Zumurrud, Safwat al-, 544 Mulk, Nizam al-, 536 Muluk Buri, Taj al-, 538, 539, 542, 547, 787 Muqtadi, al-, 92 Musta’in bi Allah, al-, 64 Musta’li, al-, 452 Mustadi bi Amr Allah, al-, 682 Mustarshid bi Allah, al-, 534 Mustazhir bi Allah, al-, 506 Mutawakkil, al-, 62, 63, 64 Muzaffar Taqi al-Din, al-Malik al-, 928 Najd, 51 Naples, 35, 212, 213, 214, 219, 220 Nasir li Din Allah, al-, 702, 780, 800, 873 Nazif, Sulayman, 24 Neges, 35

Nersis, 86, 87 Nicaea, 48, 74, 77, 85, 103, 156, 200, 243, 263, 264, 289, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 313, 325, 326, 351, 371, 378 Nicephorus III Botaniates, 107 Nicholas II, 223, 226 Nicholson, Helen, 830, 865, 1060 Nicholson, Robert L., 221, 292, 306, 307, 315, 316, 317, 320, 321, 322, 323, 359, 368, 396, 403, 411, 418, 420, 426, 430, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 455, 456, 459, 460, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 484, 491, 492, 493, 494, 501, 502, 503, 508, 510, 514, 515, 516, 520, 521, 525, 526, 527, 528, 530, 532, 536, 546, 550, 554, 621, 707, 714, 715, 735, 749, 813, 814, 815, 819, 822, 823, 829, 830, 832, 838, 840, 843, 844, 845, 848, 850, 866, 875, 878, 880, 881, 885, 901, 902, 910, 911, 912, 913, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 947, 949, 951, 953, 954, 956, 957, 959, 961, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 979, 980, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 996, 997, 999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1053, 1057, 1058, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1071, 1075, 1076,

INDEX 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1084, 1088, 1114, 1119, 1123, 1124 Niclot, 596, 597 Nicomedia, 263, 281, 299, 300 Niketas, 252, 254, 255, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 625, 626, 954, 956, 957 Norgate, Kate, 940, 941, 942, 943, 964, 965, 967, 969, 973, 992, 994, 1005, 1018, 1026, 1030, 1035, 1036, 1041, 1062, 1069, 1071, 1074, 1080, 1124 Notker the Stammerer, 49, 148, 149 Nur al-Din, 10, 25, 26, 30, 546, 558, 560, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 571, 572, 573, 632, 633, 635, 636, 638, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 655, 669, 670, 671, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 702, 708, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 740, 741, 745, 746, 748, 749, 750, 758, 759, 770, 771, 778, 783, 787, 788, 790, 796, 799, 800, 803, 806, 810, 818, 856, 877, 897, 991, 1039, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1098, 1106, 1109, 1111, 1123, See , See , See Odo of Burgundy, 196 Oman, Charles, 39, 307, 313, 394, 432, 493, 828, 853, 913, 1010, 1062 Otto of Freising, 222, 244, 257, 576, 579, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 592, 593, 594, 595, 620, 621, 623, 624, 634, 639, 943 Otto of Ratisbon, 157 Palermo, 150, 210, 211, 217, 226, 230, 235, 236, 239, 936, 938, 964, 965 Palmer, Alasdair, 28, 29 Pandulf (Paldolf) III, 220

1155 Parapinakes, Michael, 90 Paschal II, 202, 446, 448, 449, 451, 474, 475, 599 Paul of Riant, 147 Paula, 135, 137, 172 Paulinus, 135 Pelayo, 165, 166 Pepin the Short, 40, 41, 50, 167 Peter Angoulême, 1040 Peter Bartholomew, 378, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 388, 402, 406, 416, 421, 434 Peter des Préaux, 999, 1061 Peter the Hermit, 113, 170, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 256, 257, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 269, 275, 299, 349, 350, 391, 392, 409, 417, 434, 454 Philaretus, 75, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 162, 344, 364, 487 Philip I, 109, 188, 261, 270, 497, 755, 995 Philip II Augustus, vi, 868, 940, 943, 946, 961 Philip of Alsace, 940 Philomelium, 354, 372, 376, 377 Phocas, Nicephorus, 66 Piacenza, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 113, 133, 139, 186, 196, 283 Pidal, Ramón Menédez, 166, 181, 184, 185, 196, 202, 203, 1125 Pilet, Raymond, 403 Pirenne, Henri, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 168, 212, 1125 Poitiers, 40, 101, 129, 546, 550, 551, 566, 567, 576, 588, 621, 626, 632, 633, 635, 638, 642, 643, 644, 646, 671 Porchet, Rainald, 359, 360 Prawer, Joshua, 14 Prutz, Hans, 47, 945, 956, 1126 Qaraja, 492, 522, 523, 542 Qasim, 60, 237, 511, 540, 572, 696 Qawasi, Sa'd al-Dawla al-, 470

1156

THE CRUSADES

Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, 587 Rabib, Baha al-Din al-, 810 Rabo, Michael, 9, 10, 53, 56, 57, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 161, 261, 330, 341, 342, 360, 365, 369, 370, 380, 388, 389, 390, 397, 398, 446, 466, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 488, 491, 493, 494, 498, 499, 500, 509, 511, 512, 513, 514, 516, 517, 519, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 526, 528, 529, 530, 532, 545, 550, 551, 553, 555, 556, 558, 561, 562, 564, 568, 571, 572, 621, 658, 684, 728, 743, 798, 814, 866, 890, 913, 954, 1004, 1083 Rainald, 263 Ralph of Caen, 123, 169, 292, 306, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 325, 329, 359, 363, 367, 368, 371, 386, 387, 392, 394, 415, 420, 422, 426, 430, 431, 432, 436, 437, 441, 443, 450, 456, 457, 458, 459, 468, 492, 493, 495, 496 Ralph of Jerusalem, 1058 Ralph of Mauleon, 1065 Ramiro I, 173, 188 Ramiro II, 174 Ramla, 158, 159, 371, 425, 433, 453, 465, 469, 470, 759, 763, 764, 768, 798, 817, 826, 858, 879, 885, 1013, 1017, 1021, 1024, 1025, 1044, 1047, 1048, 1050, 1053, 1057, 1067, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1077, 1078 Ramon Berenger III, 614 Ramon Berenger IV, 184, 610, 612, 614, 615, 616, 617 Ranulph of Glanville, 965 Rashad V, Muhammad, 45 Rashtuni, Theodore, 59 Raymond Berenger, 124 Raymond III, 560, 739, 740, 745, 751, 756, 757, 767, 768, 769, 775,

791, 792, 793, 794, 813, 814, 815, 816, 818, 819, 821, 822, 825, 826, 828, 829, 830, 834, 836, 838, 840, 841, 849, 851, 853, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 861, 862, 863, 864, 866, 870, 874, 899, 900, 901 Raymond IV, 123, 273, 293, 361, 400, 401, 402, 413, 414, 433, 743 Raymond of Aguilers, 116, 261, 262, 265, 293, 294, 300, 301, 302, 309, 313, 314, 317, 343, 346, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 359, 361, 363, 367, 368, 369, 375, 376, 378, 379, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 442, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452, 453, 454, 455 Raymond of Saint Gilles, 101, 124, 127, 459 Raymond of Saint-Gilles, 276, 292, 293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 308, 309, 310, 314, 323, 324, 344, 346, 358, 359, 364, 366, 378, 381, 382, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 393, 398, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 411, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 425, 431, 433, 434, 436, 438, 445, 449, 451, 453, 454, 455, 456, 458, 461, 465, 489, 496, 504, 507, 634 Raymond of St. Gilles, 108, 626, 740 Raymond of Tripoli, 816, 817, 827, 830, 831, 833, 835, 839, 840, 862, 867 Reginald of Châtillon, 480, 651, 652, 675, 740, 743, 751, 763, 774, 775, 795, 798, 799, 814, 822, 824, 825,

INDEX 826, 828, 830, 840, 842, 846, 856, 860, 863, 864, 866, 893, 1005 Reginald of Grenier, 1082 Reginald of Sidon, 817, 836, 840, 858, 875, 878, 904, 906, 931, 1030, 1035 Reuben III, 57, 672, 760, 773, 791, 860 Richard I, 156, 573, 577, 619, 624, 749, 757, 813, 819, 855, 856, 894, 896, 909, 929, 938, 941, 961, 963, 999, 1001, 1006, 1043, 1062 Richard II, 156 Richard Lion-Heart, 707, 813, 814, 829, 838, 875, 881, 901, 910, 911, 939, 940, 961, 963, 999, 1043, 1046 Richard of Capua, 223, 224 Richard of Salerno, 282, 321, 497, 498, 502 Riley-Smith, Jonathan, 11, 15, 16, 23, 102, 117, 119, 122, 127, 128, 169, 175, 201, 202, 259, 1114, 1125 Robert II, 113, 296, 344, 346, 348, 376, 417, 426, 431, 911 Robert of Calataboiano, 235 Robert of Crespin, 183 Robert of Dreux, 587 Robert of Flanders, 102, 113, 169, 294, 297, 298, 300, 302, 308, 310, 325, 344, 347, 348, 366, 367, 375, 378, 398, 405, 410, 416, 417, 423, 425, 430, 432, 436, 449, 451, 453, 455, 456, 458 Robert of Nazareth, 635 Robert of Normandy, 102, 296, 297, 308, 310, 344, 367, 378, 383, 393, 398, 410, 415, 417, 423, 430, 432, 435, 436, 449, 451, 453, 455, 456, 457, 458 Robert of Perche, 635 Roderic, 165 Roger I, 205, 226, 228, 229, 230, 241, 339

1157 Roger II, 205, 206, 228, 231, 232, 234, 238, 587, 590, 592, 621, 629 Roger III, 239 Roger of Barneville, 302, 376 Roger of Harcourt, 968 Roger of Moulins, 817, 819, 822, 860 Roger of Sacy, 1065 Roger of Sicily, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 587, 588, 592, 621 Roger of Wendover, 115, 840, 911, 942, 943, 944, 945, 956, 964, 966, 1035, 1044, 1046, 1081 Röhricht, Reinhold, 106, 114, 115, 132, 157, 246, 247, 316, 317, 338, 349, 398, 465, 466, 467, 500, 530, 601, 642, 672, 679, 681, 739, 740, 744, 764, 766, 769, 798, 799, 815, 823, 830, 838, 841, 849, 857, 858, 862, 863, 867, 937, 1084, 1129 Roland of Arles, 41, 168, 169, 409, 966, 983 Romanus I Lecapenus, 65 Romanus III Argyrus, 81, 83, 155 Romanus IV Diogenes, 73, 90 Romuald of Salerno, 232 Rorgo of Acre, 635 Runciman, Steven, 149 Saffah, Abu al-Abbas al-, 61 Sahak III, 60 Sahak IV, 59 Saladin (Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi), 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 51, 141, 235, 248, 312, 360, 476, 477, 539, 560, 566 Salih Isma’il, al-Malik al-, 703, 704, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 739, 744, 748, 750, 778, 1088 Salti, Mas'ud al-, 901 Samarra, 63, 64 Samin, Husam al-Din Abu al-Hayja al-, 927 Sancho IV, 966 Saqqa, Maysara al-, 208

1158

THE CRUSADES

Saunders, J. J., 31, 46 Sebastea, 30, 67, 75, 138, 466, 488, 754, 800, 820, 872 Seljuk Turks, 8, 28, 34, 55, 57, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 81, 87, 89, 90, 91, 106, 108, 112, 160, 169, 200, 231, 275, 307, 317, 355, 356, 357, 426, 491, 511, 512 Senek’erim, John, 67, 70 Sergius I, 212, 213 Sergius IV, 98, 99, 100, 220 Shahrzuri, Diya al-Din al-, 904 Shahrzuri, Kamal al-Din al-, 730, 732, 734 Shayyal, Jamal al-Din al-, 21 Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din, 846, 847 Siberry, Elizabeth, 15, 16, 245 Sibyl, 755, 792, 856, 857, 859, 861, 862, 863, 864, 880, 901, 903, 930 Sibylla, 239, 755 Sicily, 7, 9, 14, 28, 30, 38, 39, 99, 100, 107, 130, 137, 139, 143, 144, 175, 176, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 217, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 284, 339, 421, 451, 458, 559 Siegfried of Mainz, 157 Silvia of Aquitaine, 136 Simon, William, 251 Sinan, Rashid al-Din, 738, 1033, 1036, 1037 Siyan, Yaghi, 328, 341, 342, 344, 345, 347, 348, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370, 372, 394, 401, 522, 537 Smail, R. C., 48, 108, 169, 310, 314, 396, 491, 576, 792, 814, 861, 1011, 1089, 1103, 1105, 1110, 1116, 1122, 1128, 1132 Smbat II, 66

Smith, Dennis Mack, 15, 16, 17, 78, 100, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 169, 170, 186, 228, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 421, 548, 580, 663, 793, 1097, 1103, 1111, 1115, 1119, 1125, 1128, 1132 Sofia, 252, 253, 274, 622, 628, 950 Sophronius, 36 St. Simeon, 344, 346, 353, 358, 359, 367, 376, 402, 632 Stephen of Blois, 102, 296, 297, 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 323, 344, 354, 357, 358, 370, 371, 372, 376, 470, 484, 489, 497 Stephen of Metz, 634 Stephen of Valence, 421 Stevenson, W. B., 424, 496, 541, 621, 739, 794, 813, 857, 1087 Stevenson, William B., 13 Sufi al-Armawi, Isma'il al-, 913 Suger of St. Denis, 586, 592 Sukman, Rukn al-Dawla Dawus ibn Mu'in al-Din, 543 Sunkur, Husam al-Din, 806 Sybel, Heinrich von, 7, 33, 103, 131, 248, 291, 338, 414, 434, 439, 577 Syracuse, 55, 85, 119, 123, 208, 211, 217, 226, 285, 293, 361, 400, 433, 482, 847 Ta’if, 51 Tancred, 170, 221, 223, 225, 238, 239, 282, 284, 286, 287, 291, 292, 300, 306, 307, 308, 310, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 344, 349, 354, 359, 368, 374, 378, 386, 389, 393, 394, 396, 403, 410, 411, 413, 415, 417, 418, 420, 426, 430, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 451, 452, 453, 455, 456, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 485, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497,

INDEX 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507, 508, 510, 511, 938, 964, 965, 1081 Tancred of Hauteville, 221 Taticius, 296, 303, 305, 308, 351, 352, 353, 354 Tawil, Ayaz al-, 925, 1007, 1008 Theobald II, 585, 587 Theobald of Blois, 926, 930 Theodosius I, 48, 49 Theorianus, 86 Thierry of Flanders, 587, 634, 635, 638 Thoros, 316, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, 479, 512, 529, 675, 683 Thoros II, 479 Tours, 9, 40, 102, 138, 139, 207, 971 Toynbee, Arnold, 28 Toynbee, Arnold J., 14, 15 Tripoli, 24, 45, 150, 158, 335, 386, 388, 389, 397, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 422, 423, 424, 458, 462, 466, 468, 472, 477, 481, 496, 498, 504, 507, 524, 531, 539, 544, 545, 560, 633, 634, 635, 739, 740, 745, 751, 757, 768, 769, 770, 771, 775, 791, 793, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 824, 825, 831, 833, 837, 838, 849, 852, 853, 856, 858, 874, 878, 881, 884, 894, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 938, 959, 969, 973, 1040, 1073, 1074 Tudebode, Peter, 170, 261, 263, 272, 277, 285, 286, 290, 293, 300, 302, 303, 313, 324, 346, 351, 359, 362, 366, 375, 381, 385, 391, 392, 414, 424, 430, 431, 435, 436, 443, 452 Tughrul Beg, 30, 70 Tughtekin, Zahir al-Din, 348 Tuta of Navarre, 174 Tuthil, Edward, 105, 106, 1134 Tutush, Taj al-Dawla, 327, 344, 471 Tzimisces, John, 23, 66

1159 Urban II, 8, 12, 13, 18, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 128, 129, 132, 162, 169, 176, 190, 199, 200, 202, 215, 230, 243, 244, 246, 247, 250, 256, 269, 273, 283, 293, 296, 349, 445, 446, 448, 449, 458, 474 Urban III, 819, 821, 840, 845, 938, 939 Uryan, Muhammad Said al-, 21 Vasiliev, A. A., 36, 38, 39, 48, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75, 90, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 145, 147, 154, 156, 209, 211, 267, 275, 276, 285, 494, 497, 545, 546, 626, 936, 948, 1135 Venice, 35, 98, 113, 153, 224, 461 Vitalis, Ordericus, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 132, 146, 217, 218, 220, 223, 224, 243, 246, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 270, 272, 282, 285, 286, 292, 296, 297, 300, 302, 303, 308, 309, 311, 313, 314, 315, 319, 323, 324, 325, 327, 330, 334, 335, 336, 337, 351, 354, 381, 385, 391, 414, 416, 422, 425, 429, 430, 431, 436, 437, 438, 439, 441, 442, 444, 446, 447, 449, 452, 453, 455, 456, 457, 458, 463, 464, 466, 470, 484, 489, 490, 491, 497 Walter of Poissi, 251, 253 Walter Sans-Avoir, 251, 252 Walter the Penniless, 245, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 262, 265 Walter, Hubert, 926, 928, 929, 930, 965, 1069, 1073, 1078 Wardi, Ali al-, 46 Wathiq bi Allah, al-, 62 William du Bois, 968 William Hugh of Monteil, 421, 422, 434

1160

THE CRUSADES

William I, 228, 234, 235 William II, 205, 228, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 936, 938, 965, 1019 William III, 156, 239, 592, 627, 630, 875 William Longchamp, 966, 1032 William of Beirut, 635 William of Grandmesnil, 376 William of L’Etang, 1014 William of Malmesbury, 14, 101, 102, 105, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 122, 124, 127, 128, 132, 144, 150, 152, 169, 175, 200, 243, 244, 245, 272, 274, 283, 284, 290, 293, 297, 308, 314, 325, 343, 351, 401, 426, 440, 441, 442, 444, 446, 464, 467, 468, 470 William of Montferrat, 856, 862, 875, 901 William of Montreuil, 183, 224 William of Newburgh, 573, 577, 619, 624, 625, 626, 640, 749, 755, 760, 764, 766, 767, 813, 814, 819, 837, 838, 840, 848, 850, 855, 859, 862, 865, 894, 929, 930, 941, 949, 951, 956, 961, 970, 974, 977, 978, 989, 995, 997, 1001, 1010, 1013, 1035, 1038, 1062, 1068, 1071, 1078, 1080, 1082, 1084, 1136 William of Poitou, 531 William of Tyre, 94, 98, 115, 149, 155, 156, 160, 161, 199, 244, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 273, 274, 278, 279, 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 295, 296, 297, 299, 301, 302, 304, 309, 310, 311, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 343, 350, 352, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 369, 371, 376, 379, 387, 388, 396, 397, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 415,

416, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 432, 433, 435, 436, 440, 443, 445, 447, 449, 450, 451, 458, 459, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 473, 474, 475, 482, 483, 484, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 497, 501, 514, 516, 517, 518, 519, 521, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 530, 531, 532, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 554, 559, 565, 566, 567, 569, 570, 584, 619, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 645, 646, 650, 651, 652, 654, 670, 671, 672, 681, 683, 685, 716, 718, 719, 727, 728, 729, 730, 733, 739, 740, 751, 753, 754, 755, 756, 758, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 774, 775, 776, 777, 783, 786, 791, 792, 793, 794, 796, 797, 798, 813, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 833, 834, 836, 838, 841, 844, 845, 848, 849, 853, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 870, 871, 874, 875, 877, 878, 879, 880, 884, 886, 888, 891, 894, 895, 897, 904, 909, 914, 931, 933, 936, 938, 952, 954, 957, 961, 966, 970, 971, 979, 987, 995, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1015, 1020, 1024, 1034, 1038, 1049, 1050, 1065, 1066, 1069, 1085, 1089 William of Utrecht, 157 William the Carpenter, 170, 257, 261, 270, 274, 349, 350 William VI, 109, 610, 612, 615, 631 William VIII, 183, 627, 630 Willibald, 143, 144, 152 Yarmuk, 33, 36, 59, 789 Yaruki, Badr al-Din Dulderim al-, 790, 818 Yaruki, Husam al-Din Tuman al-, 786

INDEX Yazid, 38, 61, 62, 143 Yewdale, Ralph Bailey, 47, 113, 119, 221, 222, 269, 272, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 295, 316, 317, 343, 344, 350, 353, 354, 359, 367, 391, 397, 398, 401, 403, 450, 465, 466, 468, 488, 489, 495, 496, 497, 1137 Yezdegird III, 35 Yuhanna VIII Bar Abdun, 81 Zaborov, Mikhail Abramovich, 13 Zafir bi Amr Allah, al-, 650 Zahir Baybars, al-, 1091 Zahir li I’zaz Din Allah, al-, 156 Zakawi, Yaranqush al-, 535 Zakkar, Suhayl, 26, 27, 342, 389, 551, 841, 852

1161 Zangi II, Imad al-Din Abu al-Fath, 858 Zangi, Imad al-Din, 10, 21, 30, 476, 506, 511, 530, 533, 535, 536, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 570, 572 Zangids, v, 10, 30, 476, 533, 536, 576, 632, 635, 674, 729, 732, 735, 741, 742, 748, 749, 750, 771, 772, 773, 777, 780, 785, 788, 789, 806 Ziri, Yusuf ibn, 210 Ziyadat Allah, 209 Zuhayli, Wahba, 28 Zuhayli, Wahba al-, 27 Zvi Gal, 841