The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  Aimery's own correspondence with Pope Eugenius III in c.1150, and with the famous theologian Hugh Eteriano, resident in Constantinople, in the mid-1170s, confirms that contemporary scholars knew that Antioch and its neighbouring monasteries held important texts, some of which were not available to them in the West. In 1177, Aimery even tried to tempt Hugh to come and live in Antioch by the offer of a prebend worth 1,000 besants, which he clearly did not believe was an outlandish suggestion for a man of such eminence.40 Aimery was not therefore an isolated figure among the warriors and traders of the East: among previous works produced in Antioch were Walter the Chancellor's chronicle and, in 1127, Stephen of Pisa's translation of the Arabic medical work Kitab al-malaki (or Royal Book) of ‘Ali ibn al-'Abbas. Aimery himself was replaced as archdeacon of Antioch by Rorgo Fretellus, a former chancellor to the prince of Galilee and chaplain of the church of Nazareth. Rorgo was the author of a popular Descriptio of the Holy Land, widely copied in the West and datable to c.1137–8.41

  Such a man was never likely to welcome Reynald of Châtillon, who would inevitably expect to displace the patriarch as the dominant figure in the principality. This would have been all the more galling to Aimery since his ecclesiastical authority had already been reduced by the loss of the three Edessan archdioceses and that of Apamea, as well as the Cilician archbishoprics, held by the Greeks since the expedition of John Comnenus in 1138.42 William of Tyre's suggestion that Aimery may have been behind Constance's refusal to take any of the husbands offered to her at Tripoli in 1152 probably has some substance, while it cannot be imagined that Aimery would have been any more enthusiastic about the Caesar John Roger sent by the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, as a possible husband in the same year.43 But it was not simply a question of authority. Antioch was under continuing pressure from Nur al-Din, and Reynald, with no resources of his own, was in dire need of money, which the patriarch was unwilling to supply. In a letter to Louis VII in 1155 or 1156, Reynald appealed to the king to come to the East again, telling him that it was impossible to describe ‘what deprivation and anxiety we have to endure’, and asking him to arrange marriages for Maria and Philippa, the two daughters of Raymond of Poitiers, deprived of husbands locally because of ‘the harshness of their country and the problems of consanguinity’.44

  Aimery's refusal to co-operate enraged Reynald of Châtillon, whose volatile nature would be demonstrated throughout his career. William of Tyre, usually more given to moral outrage than dry comment, calls him ‘a most impetuous man, both in transgressing and in making satisfaction’.45 In revenge for his intransigence, Aimery was stripped, thrashed and forced to sit naked in the sun, his wounds smeared with honey, while he was plagued by the insects of a Syrian summer. Naturally enough, he agreed to hand over his wealth. Reynald, having achieved his end, then dressed the patriarch in his ecclesiastical vestments and led him through the streets on horseback, while he himself held the cord of the saddle. Baldwin, shocked by this behaviour, sent Frederick, bishop of Acre, and Ralph, his chancellor, to sort out the quarrel, and Reynald restored the goods he had taken. However, in one sense, Reynald had his own way, for the patriarch left the city, probably in the company of the envoys, and did not return until 1159.46

  Like his predecessor, Reynald was caught between the demands of the Byzantines to the west and the Zengid attacks from the east. In 1155, he was asked by Emperor Manuel Comnenus to put a stop to raids into Byzantine Cilicia by the Roupenid ruler, Thoros II, based at Tarsus. He seems to have done this effectively enough, but Manuel delayed the payment promised, provoking Reynald's temper in the same way as had Aimery of Limoges two years before. Indeed, the cause was basically the same: Reynald's acute shortage of resources. Manuel's motives are not clear, but the delay may have been connected to Reynald's grant of some of the land regained from Thoros to the Templars, apparently including the castles of Baghras, Darbsak and La Roche Guillaume. Manuel's caution was justified, for the Templars substantially rebuilt the castles, forming a screen along the northern approaches to the principality.47 Reynald's retaliation was extravagant, taking the form of an attack on Byzantine Cyprus, which his troops ravaged for several days, raping and looting, before returning to the mainland ‘laden with a vast amount of riches and spoils of every kind’. William of Tyre calls this ‘a shameful deed’, provoked by ‘evil men’ who were a great influence on Reynald. Cyprus, he says, was an island ‘which had always been useful and friendly to our realm and which had a large population of Christians’.48

  Although the gratuitous violence of the raid on Cyprus was extreme, none of the rulers of the Latin East was immune from the pressures that had driven Reynald. Baldwin III was ‘burdened by debt and held fast by many obligations which he had no means of satisfying’, and therefore easily tempted by any plan that might alleviate his problems.49 The kind of warfare involved in the siege of Ascalon was extremely costly. The wood used for building the siege engine had been made from ships that had sailed over in the spring crossing of 1153 and was therefore very expensive. Moreover, Reynald of Châtillon was only one of many who had served for pay; all those who arrived on the spring crossing had been added to the wage bill.50 In February 1157, therefore, Baldwin fell upon nomadic Arabs (presumably Bedouins) and Turcomans grazing their flocks in the area known as the forest of Banyas, despite the fact that they were covered by a treaty and had the king's permission to be there. Totally unprepared, they were massacred or enslaved and huge booty was taken. Ibn al-Qalanisi says that the Franks had been encouraged to do this because they wished to take advantage of the arrival of reinforcements from the West, although it seems unlikely they had crossed during the winter. Whatever the reason, it proved counterproductive, for Nur al-Din considered it had broken the one-year truce made with the Franks in the previous September under which he had agreed payment of tribute from Damascus of 8,000 dinars of Tyre.51 In accordance with the usual chroniclers’ formula, William of Tyre blames evil counsellors, but his indignation is unambiguous. Such action brought down the vengeance of the Lord.52

  Vengeance took the form of Nur al-Din. Banyas was an important target for any ruler of Damascus, as it could be used as a base or assembly point for Christian armies intending to invade the Hauran (and thus threaten food supplies) or even to attack Damascus itself. As it was so vulnerable, it was expensive to maintain and its lord, Humphrey of Toron, the royal constable, decided to share control with the Hospitallers. However, on 26 April 1157, Nusrat al-Din, Nur al-Din's brother, attacked a Hospitaller supply train, killing most of the escort and seizing materials intended for the defence of Banyas. As a consequence the Hospitallers withdrew from their agreement with the constable, while Nur al-Din was encouraged to launch an attack on Banyas itself. After a siege lasting a month in May and June 1157, his forces broke into the town, although they could not take the citadel. Only a large relief army under the king caused them to withdraw, although not before they had wrecked parts of the town and its defences.

  Baldwin then refortified the town before setting off to return to Jerusalem, apparently unaware that Nur al-Din was still in the area. His army was therefore prematurely disbanded (perhaps for reasons of cost), and important contingents such as those led by Philip of Nablus were allowed to leave the host. Nur al-Din's ambush at Jacob's Ford on the Upper Jordan between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Galilee on 19 June therefore caught them totally off-guard. Although the king escaped to Safad, Nur al-Din captured several important leaders, including Hugh of Ibelin, Odo of Saint-Amand, the marshal, and Bertrand of Blancfort, master of the Templars.53 It was reported to Pope Hadrian that eighty-seven Templars were captured and another 300 knights captured or killed, while huge quantities of horses, arms and other equipment were lost.54 In many ways the taking of high-status prisoners was of greater value to Nur al-Din than their deaths, since their subsequent parade through Damascus served to confirm the legitimacy of Nur al-Din's leadership of the jihad and therefore his right to control the city. Huge crowds turned out to see the
heads of the dead tied to the Frankish standards, while the prisoners were carried along on horses roped together in groups. Ibn al-Qalanisi calls it a ‘brilliant victory’ and says that the Damascenes ‘multiplied their praises and glorification to God, and their fervent prayers for al-Malik al-'Adil Nr al-Dn, their defender and protector’.55

  This turned out to be the high point for Nur al-Din in 1157. A second attack on Banyas was aborted when he realised that, at Chastel Neuf, Baldwin had assembled forces from Tripoli under Count Raymond III and from Antioch under Reynald of Châtillon, as well as what he had left from the kingdom of Jerusalem.56 Then, from the middle of July, a renewed series of earthquakes hit the region, exacerbating the damage of the previous autumn and having a particularly devastating impact on Aleppo, Hama and Homs.57 Finally, Nur al-Din himself fell so seriously ill that he appeared to be on the verge of death, provoking the pillage of his possessions by those who believed his end had come. As Nur al-Din was carried on a litter to Aleppo, Ibn al-Qalanisi says that ‘the armies of the Muslims dispersed, the provinces were thrown into confusion, and the Franks were emboldened’.58

  At about the same time, probably in early September, Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, and his wife, Sibylla, Baldwin's half-sister, landed at Beirut. This was Thierry's third expedition and it offered an opportunity to mount a new campaign. The Christians, including Raymond of Tripoli, gathered their forces at La Boquée, but failed in their attack on Chastel Rouge (Rugia). However, Reynald of Châtillon was anxious to use this army for his own advantage and they moved on to Antioch. There they were joined by Thoros II and the combined force returned south along the Orontes towards Shaizar, probably arriving in November. The army soon broke into the lower city, driving the inhabitants into the citadel, which was protected by the river on one side and the residential area on the other. William of Tyre says that it was primarily a commercial centre rather than a military camp, and that the people had been unaware of Nur al-Din's illness and therefore had not expected to be attacked. Confident of success, Baldwin assigned the city to Thierry of Flanders on the basis that he had the resources to defend it, but Reynald claimed that it was part of the principality of Antioch and that its lord owed him homage. Not surprisingly, as a tenant-in-chief of the king of France and count of one of the richest fiefs in north-west Europe, Thierry was willing only to do homage to King Baldwin III. The issue could not be resolved and, despite the progress made, the attack was abandoned.59 The failure to take Shaizar was partly compensated by the recapture of Harim in January 1158, only possible, thought William of Tyre, because of Nur al-Din's incapacity.60

  Baldwin III was now twenty-seven years old. In the summer of 1157, he had barely escaped capture; indeed, there were strong rumours that he had been killed and Nur al-Din's men made a careful search of the battlefield at Jacob's Ford in an effort to find his body. ‘If our lord had fallen that day,’ says William of Tyre, ‘the whole realm would, without question, have been plunged into the deepest peril. Which may God avert! For in the case of a knight, however great, the fortune of one man only is concerned; but the peril of the king involves danger to the entire nation. Thus, loyal David, when full of anxiety about his king, implored, “Lord, preserve the king.”’61 There was an urgent need for a male heir and at a meeting of the High Court it was decided to seek a wife for the king in Constantinople. In the autumn, envoys led by Lethard, archbishop of Nazareth, and Humphrey of Toron, the constable, supported by Joscelin Pisellus and William of Barra, were sent to negotiate with Emperor Manuel. William of Tyre says that they considered various options before reaching the conclusion that only the Byzantines had the necessary resources to relieve the financial problems of the crusader states.62 Moreover, the king was well aware that Manuel was no more willing to grant Antioch autonomy than his father had been, while in the wake of the Second Crusade the enthusiasm for crusading displayed by Thierry of Flanders was unlikely to be replicated by other powerful men.

  Although Archbishop Lethard died during the mission, the embassy was successful in obtaining a bride for Baldwin and, in September 1158, Theodora, the twelve-year-old niece of the emperor, landed at Tyre. Manuel had granted her a dowry of 100,000 hypereroi of standard weight (which seems to have meant Byzantine gold solidi, still valuable, although less stable than in the past), plus another 14,000 for the wedding. According to Gregory the Priest, he promised that he would personally come to the assistance of Jerusalem.63 For his part, Baldwin gave her the city of Acre as her marriage portion. Theodora was consecrated and crowned and, within a few days, married to Baldwin.64 The ceremonies were carried out by Aimery of Limoges, patriarch of Antioch, still living in Jerusalem, since Fulcher, patriarch of Jerusalem, had died in November 1157 and Amalric of Nesle, his successor, had not yet been consecrated.65

  Manuel was now determined to deal with both Thoros II and Reynald of Châtillon. Thoros was caught almost completely by surprise, escaping only because he had been warned by a Latin pilgrim who had encountered the Byzantine army in the course of his journey. During December 1158, Manuel took Tarsus and began to march through Cilicia, throwing Reynald into a panic. Reynald, accompanied by Gerard, bishop of Latakia, hurried to meet the emperor at Mamistra where, in an elaborate display of penitence, he appeared wearing a woollen tunic, barefooted and with a rope around his neck. He then presented the hilt of a sword to the emperor, while he held the point. Finally, he lay prostrate on the ground beneath the raised dais on which the emperor was seated. According to John Kinnamos, this exhibition astonished the envoys present, who had come from all over the Middle East and Asia; William of Tyre described it as shameful to the Latins. At length Manuel relented, but on condition ‘that he would act according to the emperor's will, especially that according to old custom a bishop would be sent to Antioch from Byzantion’. In short, Manuel had achieved his major aims for Antioch: the vassalage of its ruler and the restoration of the Greek patriarch. Aimery of Limoges, who, according to Kinnamos, had several times offered ‘to betray’ Reynald to the emperor, once more found he had been marginalised.66

  The Byzantines now moved into the principality itself and encamped near Antioch. Baldwin III hurried north, where he was warmly received, although his inferior status was emphasised by his being given a throne slightly lower than that of the emperor. It was worth it: during the ten days he was with Manuel, he seems to have established a good relationship with him, and he was granted a subsidy of 22,000 hypereroi and 3,000 marks of silver, as well as receiving a range of lavish gifts. Baldwin, too, was able to intercede for Thoros, who now re-emerged from the Taurus mountains into which he had fled and took an oath of fealty to the emperor. At the same time he surrendered an unnamed fortress, perhaps as a symbol of submission. Gregory the Priest says that he promised to ‘remain obedient and subject to the emperor's commands, a promise he scrupulously carried out’.67 The imperial triumph was completed on 12 April 1159 by a ceremonial entry into the city with Reynald of Châtillon holding the bridle of his horse and King Baldwin riding some distance behind. Reaching the cathedral of St Peter, he was met by the patriarch and clergy bearing the Holy Scriptures, and welcomed with great ceremony. Even so, Manuel did not entirely trust the Antiochenes. Although ostensibly unarmed, he wore a breastplate under a costly outer garment, decorated with precious stones, and was escorted by a company of the Varangian Guard carrying axes.

  This certainly had its effect in Aleppo, where Nur al-Din released a large number of prisoners, including Bertrand of Toulouse and the Templar master, Bertrand of Blancfort. Some of these he had held since the time of the Second Crusade. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, the emperor ‘recompensed this generous act with gifts rivalling those of the greatest and most powerful sovereigns: magnificent brocade robes of various kinds and in large numbers, precious jewels, a brocade tent of great value, and a gratifying number of local horses’.68 In addition, says John Kinnamos, Nur al-Din agreed to ally with Manuel ‘in his wars in Asia’, presumably meaning the Byzantin
e campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor. This alliance nearly broke down when Manuel's party was attacked by some Turks while out hunting, for which he seems to have blamed Nur al-Din. Nothing came of this, says Kinnamos, because rumours from the west ‘reported that matters were in uproar there’.69

  It was an impressive performance. The entry into Antioch had been a great piece of Byzantine stagecraft, intended to play to the wider audience of representatives of other powers, and exactly suited to the Byzantine perception of the role of the empire.70 Manuel had even demonstrated his medical skills by attending to Baldwin's broken arm, sustained in an accident dangerously similar to the one that had killed his father when he fell from his horse while hunting. Using little actual force, Manuel had established his supremacy in the crusader states, had brought Armenian Cilicia back under imperial control and had obliged Nur al-Din to tread cautiously in his dealings with Christians. It had led to a major reorientation of policy in the region and had opened the way for further intervention in the future. Moreover, it facilitated Baldwin's southern policy, for Nur al-Din no longer emphasised the liberation of Jerusalem in his propaganda, leaving the Fatimids largely isolated.71

  Manuel's alliance with Nur al-Din committed the latter to campaign in the lands of the sultan of Iconium, Kilij Arslan II. William of Tyre believed that the sultan was actually stronger than Nur al-Din, but that he was too far away to prevent him from taking Marash and other strongholds. Baldwin, for his part, took advantage of Nur al-Din's absence to ravage and plunder the Hauran and consequently was able to extort 4,000 pieces of gold, together with the release of six knights from Najm al-Din, the governor of Damascus. Late in November 1161, Reynald of Châtillon sought to do the same, moving into the lands between Marash and Duluk to plunder the herds of the local population. However, this region was far to the north-east, nearly 100 miles from Antioch, making it difficult to drive back large numbers of animals on the hoof. William of Tyre was highly critical, as most of the inhabitants were Syrian and Armenian Christians; the only Turks were in the urban garrisons. As William saw it, Reynald paid an appropriate price for an action the archbishop considered ill-omened; on the way back he was captured by Majd al-Din, the governor of Aleppo. Once more the king of Jerusalem was obliged to go north to arrange the affairs of Antioch, and Aimery of Limoges was left in control until such time as Baldwin could return.72