The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  The sacramentary shows southern French, Italian and English influences and, inevitably, a strong sense of the Byzantine context. Just as the crusader states occupied a unique position within Christendom, so their artistic products reflect the combination of Latin, Greek and Armenian cultures that defined them. Both the Melisende Psalter and a near-contemporary missal made for an Augustinian house in Jerusalem show the importance of the Armenian world, in the former case in the use of colour, and in the latter through the scribe, who seems to have been Armenian.68 At the same time the powerful presence of the Byzantine artistic tradition was unavoidable, despite the ambivalent relationship of the Latin states with Constantinople. The use of Byzantine models, the employment of Greek or Greek-trained artists and craftsmen, and even the accessibility of the Greek patriarchal library in Jerusalem all served to reinforce this pervasive presence.69 The psalter made for the queen therefore was one of many books produced by the scriptorium down to its demise when Jerusalem fell in October 1187.70 Illustrated gospel books of St John and St Mark, from the 1140s and c.1167 respectively, demonstrate the quality achieved during these years (see plate 9).71

  The Melisende Psalter is a small book intended for private devotion by a lady of high social status, but the covers are a very overt assertion of the royal patronage that lay behind it. Both contain six paired medallions within a frame. On the front are scenes from the life of King David, warrior and unifier of the Israelites, and believed to be the author of the Psalms (see plate 7). In the interstices are the individual combats of the Virtues and the Vices, taken, as was common in the West at this time, from the Psychomachia by the late fourth-century Spanish poet Prudentius. On the back, a Christian king, wearing different types of Byzantine imperial costume, performs the six works of mercy as set out in verses 35 and 36 of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25. The themes are entirely appropriate for a king in Christ's holy city, a title Godfrey of Bouillon had been so reluctant to adopt: a leader fortified by the Virtues who combats the Vices of the infidel, while at the same time extending his hand to protect the vulnerable and the sick, acts intended to ensure that the king will be among the righteous who will be saved. The use of the Old Testament on the front and the New Testament on the back reasserts the continuity of the two in which the one prefigures the other. The miniatures within are the work of four different artists: twenty-four full-page New Testament scenes on one of which the artist identifies himself as Basil (who may have been Greek or a Greek-trained Latin); a calendar with twelve signs of the zodiac contained within medallions by a north European artist; eight full-page gold initials marking the liturgical divisions of the psalms by a Mediterranean artist (Italian or Levantine); and nine portraits of saints at the head of the final prayers by a western artist who is thought to have been employed to help Basil, perhaps a relative newcomer to the Latin East (see plate 8).72

  However, despite the revolts in Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem in the early 1130s, Fulk was not the incompetent successor of a previously effective ruler that Ibn al-Qalanisi portrays him as being. As the arrangements he had left for the succession of his son Geoffrey show, he was the head of a leading French dynasty, whose members had, over two centuries, built up a great power base around the middle Loire. Since his accession to Anjou in 1109, he had further developed its territories and, by his marriage to Eremburge, daughter of Hélie, count of Maine, had added another county to this complex of lands. Such an experienced ruler could not be content merely to react to circumstances – indeed, it appears to have been his very vigorous approach to government that contributed to the alienation of some of the baronage in 1134 – and there are signs of an increasingly systematic approach to the military and economic needs of the kingdom.

  Ascalon was clearly a priority. In 1123, when the decision had been taken to concentrate on Tyre, a strong body of opinion had favoured an attack on Ascalon instead. Egyptian forces based there remained troublesome, despite the isolation of the city from other Muslim powers. William of Tyre says that the government in Cairo took the matter very seriously, rotating the garrison every three months and keeping the city well supplied with arms and provisions.73 The forces there had the capability to strike at the lands around Jerusalem itself, and it was to counter this that, in 1132–3, the patriarch and the citizens built Castle Arnold, about 12 miles from Jerusalem, near the more northerly of the two roads from Jaffa. It was sited at the point where the plain met the hills leading up to Jerusalem since there was a narrow defile in which, despite the Templar initiative, pilgrims were still being ambushed.74 The consequence was not only a safer passage for pilgrims, but also easier transit for goods, leading to a drop in the price of food in Jerusalem.75

  The king, however, decided to confront Ascalon more directly. William of Tyre claims that ‘the Ascalonites were becoming increasingly bold and insolent and overrunning the entire region without restraint’.76 In about 1134, Fulk therefore began the construction of a castle at Bait Jibrin (Bethgibelin) about 20 miles east of Ascalon. William of Tyre says that it was strongly fortified with walls, towers, ramparts and a moat.77 In 1136, it was given to the Hospitallers, a grant that suggests that the order had by this time acquired military capabilities.78 It developed these defences in the following decades, although the chronology is unclear. Remains show that an additional, outer wall was built, forming a concentric castle.79 In 1141 and 1142, two further castles were built at Ibelin (near Ramla), about 20 miles to the north, and at-Tall as-Safiyah, about 17 miles to the east. The second of these was called Blanchegarde and was nearest to Ascalon, which could be seen from the top of the new towers. Both castles were situated on small hills, again with square enceintes and corner towers. Blanchegarde was initially very small, with an enclosure of only 16 × 16 metres, which suggests that it was primarily intended to provide early warning of any military activity in Ascalon itself rather than having any offensive capability of its own, and that any counter-attack would come from the garrison at Bait Jibrin.80 Ibelin was granted to Barisan, the former constable of Jaffa, perhaps partly as a reward for his loyalty during Hugh of Le Puiset's revolt, and his family thereafter took its name from this place.81

  These castles were not exclusively military in function, although they had been built to hem in Ascalon in the some way that pressure had been put on Tripoli and Tyre in the past. Forays by the Egyptians from Ascalon had made even the settlements around Jerusalem unsafe, so much potentially useful land in the south was wasted because of the danger of attack. However, the establishment of Blanchegarde led to extensive agricultural development in the vicinity, supplying food for the region, while charters to burgesses and craftsmen confirming grants of Raymond du Puy, the Hospitaller master, set down the rights and obligations of colonists living around Bait Jibrin.82 Indeed, the choice of the site of Bait Jibrin had been as much an economic as a military decision, for it was situated in a valley with a spring at a place where roads from Gaza, Ascalon, Jerusalem and Hebron converged, the importance of which had already been shown by the presence there of a ruined Byzantine city.

  At the same time there are signs that a concept of an eastern frontier was emerging, not in the modern sense of a specific line, but rather as a series of territories, often related to a specific fortification. The existence of these castles along the borders, although unevenly distributed, contributed greatly to the security of the crusader states, since they could often delay enemy penetration, giving time for defensive forces to be gathered.83 When Thierry, count of Flanders, Fulk's son-in-law, came to Jerusalem on pilgrimage in the summer of 1139, the king took advantage of his presence to seize a cave fortress near Ajlun, in Gilead beyond the Jordan, from which raids had been made into the kingdom, although the force he took was so great he left insufficient defenders behind and some damage was done to the crusader lands on the western side of the Jordan while he was away.84

  Baldwin I had been interested in the Transjordan since the beginning of his reign, and in 1115 and 1116 he had built t
he castles of Montréal, Li Vaux Moise and Ailah, extending his reach to Aquaba.85 In 1142, Pagan the Butler, lord of Transjordan, built another castle, at Kerak about 44 miles north of Montréal and about 12 miles east of the Dead Sea, which thereafter became the main seat of the lordship. Kerak was situated on a ridge, with the town at the northern end, separated from the castle by a deep rock-cut ditch.86 Pagan's successors, his nephew Maurice and Philip of Milly, added huge square towers and a reservoir in the ditch to the south.87

  Three more castles along the eastern flank were built or reconstructed in 1139–40: Belvoir, set high above the Jordan valley about 9 miles south of the Sea of Galilee; Safad, held by the crusaders since 1101–2, about 25 miles east of Acre; and Beaufort, above the Litani River in the Leontes valley, about 17 miles east of Tyre. All three commanded the heights and were extensively developed in later years, especially Belvoir and Safad, after they were acquired by the Hospitallers and Templars respectively in 1168. These were important long-term projects, serving both as defences and as bases for raids into Muslim territory: Safad, for example, situated at an altitude of over 2,600 feet, commanded views of Mount Carmel to the west and the Golan Heights to the east, and overlooked the main routes between Damascus and Acre.88

  Fulk may have been influenced by the loss of Banyas, fortuitously acquired from the Assassins in 1129 and used as a base for the attack on Damascus soon after. In December 1132, while the king was in the north, Shams al-Muluk, Böri's son and successor as atabeg of Damascus, had regained the castle and the town, slaughtering many of the defenders and inhabitants, and taking the rest back to Damascus, where they had been paraded through the city. Rainier of Brus, its lord, was absent at the time, presumably with the royal army at Antioch, but his wife was among the prisoners.89 Ibn al-Qalanisi says this loss had come as a severe shock to the Franks, who ‘were greatly astonished that Banyas should have been taken with such ease and in so short a time in spite of the strength of its fortifications and the number of its defenders’.90

  Banyas was both a key strategic point and an important emotional focus for the Franks, who believed it had been the northern limit of the land of the children of Israel.91 Situated on the road from Tyre to Damascus, it was roughly midway between Safad and Beaufort but in a more advanced position, and was both a threat to Damascus and a defence for the important Frankish settlements in Galilee. However, in the past it had been of considerable economic importance to Damascus. In the late tenth century, al-Muqaddasi called it ‘the granary of Damascus’ and described how its river, which ran through the city and was one of the sources of the Jordan, was used to irrigate cotton and rice fields.92 The establishment of the crusaders cut an artificial line across the Damascene hinterland and possession of the city continued to be fiercely contested until it was finally taken by Nur al-Din, Zengi's son, in 1164.93

  Not surprisingly, when the opportunity presented itself, Fulk made a huge effort to regain it. Shams al-Muluk had been assassinated in 1135 and, although he had been replaced by his brothers, first by Mahmud and then, in 1139, by Muhammad, the real power in Damascus was the atabeg, Mu'in al-Din Unur. Unur was deeply concerned at the increasing power of Zengi, whose determination to take Damascus was all too obvious. In 1137, Zengi gained the adherence of the governor of Banyas and in these circumstances Unur was prepared to offer the city to the Franks if they would provide him with military support. William of Tyre says that the decisive factor in accepting the alliance was the offer of Banyas, and the rulers of both Antioch and Tripoli were called in to help with the siege. Such overwhelming force brought the surrender of the city on 12 June 1140, after nearly a month of effort. With Banyas back in Christian hands, Rainier of Brus was restored and Adam, archdeacon of Acre, was chosen as its first bishop, established as a suffragan of the archbishop of Tyre.94

  Zengi presented an even more direct threat to the county of Tripoli, where the counts had considerable difficulty defending themselves. Fulk was obliged to intervene twice – in 1133 and 1137 – to counter the atabeg's attacks on Montferrand, and on the second occasion the consequences were near fatal. Pons of Tripoli was killed in battle with the Damascenes on 25 March 1137, and Zengi sought to take advantage of the lack of defenders that resulted. Montferrand was within the count's demesne but it was situated on the heights above Raphaniya, more than 50 miles to the north-east of the city of Tripoli itself. Pons and Baldwin II had taken Raphaniya in a joint attack in March 1126, but now, facing the Muslim cities of Shaizar, Hama and Homs on the Upper Orontes, this had become a vulnerable frontier region, the defence of which, Fulk decided, took priority over Antioch, which was simultaneously faced by the appearance of a huge Byzantine army led by the emperor, John Comnenus.95

  Fulk's campaign, however, was a disaster. Misled by guides, according to William of Tyre, his army was caught in the narrow defiles of the mountains, most of the foot soldiers were killed and the supplies he had brought for the relief of the fortress entirely lost. Raymond of Tripoli was captured and Fulk himself, together with the leading nobles of the kingdom, was forced to take refuge in Montferrand, now heaving with people and close to starvation. Urgent calls for help were sent to all possible sources, including Raymond of Poitiers, Joscelin of Edessa and William of Messines, patriarch of Jerusalem.

  Zengi now concentrated his forces against the castle, hurling huge rocks from his siege engines and keeping up unremitting pressure by using his men in shifts. Food shortages forced the besieged to eat their horses. They must have been surprised when, in the third week of August, Zengi offered terms. In return for the surrender of Montferrand and a payment of 50,000 dinars, Fulk and his men were allowed free passage and the prisoners, including Raymond of Tripoli, were released. Zengi's uncharacteristic show of mercy was, in fact, brought about by his knowledge that the relieving forces were now close by and, perhaps most of all, because he feared the approach of the Byzantine emperor.96 Even so, this victory left Zengi in a dominant position in the region; he already held Hama and, in June 1138, he took over Homs as well, obliging its governor to take Montferrand in its place.97

  In these circumstances Raymond II appears to have decided that the eastern defences of the county needed to be fundamentally reorganised. In a charter of 1142, he ceded to the Hospitallers all his rights over Montferrand, Raphaniya and Mardabech, as well as fishing rights on the western side of the lake of Homs. Most importantly he granted them the four castles of Le Crat, La Boquée, Felis and Lac. Montferrand and Raphaniya were, of course, no longer under his control but, in an evident attempt to induce the Hospitallers to try to retake them, Raymond conceded them the rights he had held there five years before.98

  The key element in the grant, however, was the cession of the castles, which were situated in al-Buqai'ah between the Jabal Ansariyah to the north and Mount Lebanon to the south. This was a fertile and well-watered region through which ran the main routes from the Upper Orontes to the coast. In the centre of this was Hisn al-Akrad, or the Castle of the Kurds, originally built by the emir of Homs in 1031. Raymond of Toulouse had held the castle briefly in 1099 and had tried unsuccessfully to take it again three years later. In 1109, it had fallen to Tancred and, in 1112, he had granted it to Pons of Tripoli.99 By 1142, it was known as Le Crat and its lord, William, who also held La Boquée, was compensated with a new lordship based on a castle known as ‘the cave (cavea) of David the Syrian’. This came with what is described as the rasagium of the mountain (probably a collection of villages associated with it governed by the local rais or headman), and the fief of Pons Guilhem, consisting of two knights’ fees. In addition he received a payment of 600 besants and all the knights’ fees on the mountain worth seven besants each for the next ten years. Gilbert of Puylaurens had held Felis, Lac and Gibelacar, the last of which he retained, and received 1,000 besants in compensation for the other two castles.100

  These dispositions were seen both at the time and since as highly significant. They were made in Raymond's court and the barons a
nd the bishop of Tripoli each contributed 200 besants to the compensation received by William of Le Crat. The charter itself was witnessed by the prelates, barons and burgesses of Tripoli. Among the other witnesses were Rainier, the constable, and Fulcrand, the marshal, while the charter was written by Peter, the chancellor, clear indications that under Raymond II the county had an established administrative structure.101 In 1145, confirmation was made by King Baldwin and Queen Melisende, as suzerains of Felis and Lac, and Raymond of Antioch and Princess Constance, as suzerains of Le Crat.102

  The Hospitallers themselves had been a presence in the county since before 1112, when they were granted a church, and between 1125 and 1127 they had received further lands and income.103 However, these were all intended to support their charitable functions, whereas in 1142 they were established as a quasi-autonomous lordship, owing no feudal obligations to the count, and were quite unambiguously the designated military guardians of the area. No truces could be made without their consent and all booty acquired belonged to them unless the count were personally present, when it was divided equally. The extent of the order's militarisation in 1136, when it had taken over Bait Jibrin, may remain in doubt, but this grant clearly shows an institution regarded as possessing a developed military capacity.104