The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  60. See Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 181–213.

  61. Michael the Syrian, 15.7, p. 183.

  62. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, no. XVI, p. 164.

  63. WT, 4.23, p. 265. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 221.

  64. WT, 5.11, p. 286. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 241. See C. MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance, Philadelphia, PA, 2008, pp. 101–34, 169.

  65. Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 188.

  66. A.S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity, London, 1968, pp. 305–33; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 200–1.

  67. Kedar, ‘Tractatus’, p. 124.

  68. ODCC, pp. 1104–5. There were many variants.

  69. Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 190–1.

  70. See A. Palmer, ‘The History of the Syrian Orthodox in Jerusalem’, Oriens Christianus, 75 (1991), 16–37, and D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 3, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 327–35.

  71. WT, 22.9(8), pp. 1018–19. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, pp. 458–9.

  72. See R.W. Crawford, ‘William of Tyre and the Maronites’, Speculum, 30 (1955), 222–8.

  73. Atiya, Eastern Christianity, pp. 16–97.

  74. ODCC, pp. 1138–9; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 209–10; Atiya, Eastern Christianity, pp. 239–66. Atiya thinks that in the early middle ages the Nestorians formed the single largest Christian Church.

  75. See Pringle, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom, vol. 2, Cambridge, 1998, no. 145, pp. 33–40.

  76. Daniel, in JP, p. 150; John Phocas, in JP, p. 326; PL, vol. 162, p. 730.

  77. PL, vol. 162, p. 730.

  78. See J. Pahlitzsch, ‘Georgians and Greeks in Jerusalem (1099–1310)’, in East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts – Confrontations, vol. 3, Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in September 2000, ed. K. Ciggaar and H. Teule, Louvain, 2003, pp. 35–9.

  79. J. Prawer, The History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, 1988, pp. 153–9.

  80. France, Victory in the East, p. 355.

  81. See A. Grabois, ‘The First Crusade and the Jews’, in The Crusades: Other Experiences, Alternate Perspectives, ed. K.I. Semaan, Binghampton, New York, 2003, p. 22.

  82. R. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge, 1998, p. 260.

  83. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Travels in the Middle Ages, introd. M.A. Signer, M.N. Adler and A. Asher, Malibu, CA, 1983, p. 82.

  84. B.Z. Kedar, ‘The Frankish Period’, in The Samaritans, ed. A.D. Crown, Tübingen, 1989, pp. 82–7.

  85. Ibn Shaddad, p. 18.

  86. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 331.

  87. See F.E. Peters, ‘The Quest of the Historical Muhammad’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23 (1991), 291–315.

  88. AA, 3.59, pp. 230–1. Cf. WT, 4.24, pp. 267–8. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 223–4. For William, ‘a deep and inveterate enmity had existed between the Orientals and the Egyptians, arising out of differences in their religious beliefs and their opposite dogmas’.

  89. WT, 19.21, pp. 890–2. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, pp. 323–5.

  90. Some explanation of this seems to have been given by the Egyptian envoys who negotiated with the Latins during the First Crusade, since Raymond of Aguilers heard a story that the Turks had promised to revere Ali, ‘the brother-in-law (de genere) of Muhammed’, if the Fatimid vizier would ally with them against the Franks. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 110. Tr. Hill and Hill, p. 89.

  91. AA, 8.19, pp. 612–13.

  92. Gesta Francorum, p. 21. Cf. WT, 1.7, pp. 114–17. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 71–4.

  93. B.Z. Kedar, ‘A Western Survey of Saladin's Forces at the Siege of Acre’, in Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B.Z. Kedar, J. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand, Aldershot, 1997, pp. 116–17, 122. This appears as an addition to the survey known as the Tractatus: see p. 374, n. 19.

  94. See B. Lewis, ‘The Isma'ilites and the Assassins’, in A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, The First Hundred Years, ed. M.W. Baldwin (Madison, 1969), pp. 99–132. The Assassins had previously made an unsuccessful attempt to establish themselves at Banyas, but did not survive there beyond 1130. See Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 186–95.

  95. WT, 20.29, p. 953.

  96. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement, pp. 36–7, 222–76.

  97. Peregrinationes Tres, p. 187. Tr. JP, pp. 310–11.

  98. WT, 1.7, pp. 114–17. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 71–4.

  99. Michael the Syrian, 21.5, pp. 400–2.

  100. See J. Schenk, ‘Nomadic Violence in the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Military Orders’, Reading Medieval Studies, 36 (2010), 39–47.

  101. WT, 18.11, p. 825; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 327–8.

  102. See Epp, Fulcher von Chartres, pp. 38–44. These attitudes can be seen particularly in Fulcher's revised version of his chronicle, made after 1124.

  103. FC, 3.37, pp. 748–9. Tr. Ryan, pp. 271–2. Isaiah 65:25.

  3 The First Settlers

  1. AA, 7. 17–21, pp. 508–17. For Warner, see Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 234–5, n. 133.

  2. WT, 9.23, p. 449. Tr., vol. 1, p. 413; Ekkehard of Aura, cap. XX, pp. 26–7; caps XXIII–XXIV, pp. 29–30, for his visit in 1101. William of Malmesbury, pp. 658–9 says that he had an attack of ‘his old fever’ immediately after the battle of Ascalon, a piece of information that he may have derived from an oral source. It is clear that in both Outremer and the West many suffered from low-level fevers at his period, and that these could quite suddenly become serious. On the inevitable rumours that he had been poisoned, especially after his visit to the emir of Caesarea, see Edgington in AA, pp. 512–13, n. 24.

  3. AA, 3.4, pp. 142–5, for the bear attack. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 51, says that he was killed by an arrow while attacking Acre, perhaps wanting to claim that it was the Muslims who had ended the life of such a famous Christian hero.

  4. AA, 6.34–5, pp. 446–9.

  5. Baldric of Dol, p. 110. Baldric used material from the Gesta Francorum, but this information seems to have come from eyewitnesses.

  6. AA, 6.51, pp. 470–1.

  7. Ralph of Caen, p. 117. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 154; William of Malmesbury, pp. 698–9.

  8. According to Albert of Aachen, 6.51, pp. 472–3, a few days later Raymond acted in the same way at Arsuf, when frustrated in his desire to obtain it for himself. J.H. and L.L. Hill, Raymond IV, p. 137, point out that the events of 13–17 August have been largely reconstructed from chroniclers who were not there and that all of them show anti-Raymond bias. However, the two leaders certainly quarrelled over the city, a circumstance that according to Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 49, not only prevented them from taking Ascalon, but also lost them the tribute that had been promised. Whatever the truth of the matter, the incident was sufficiently well known to be used a century later by Geoffrey of Villehardouin to demonstrate the dangers of rivalry within the Christian ranks: see J.M. Powell, ‘Myth, Legend, Propaganda, History: The First Crusade, 1140–ca.1300’, in Autour de la Première Croisade’, ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, p. 134.

  9. WT, 9.19, pp. 446–7. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 408–10.

  10. FC, 1.33, pp. 330–3.

  11. AA, 7.1–6, pp. 486–95.

  12. AA, 7.9–15, pp. 498–507. For Gerard, see Murray, Crusader Kingdom, no. 47, p. 199.

  13. AA, 7.16–17, pp. 506–11.

  14. AA, 7.2–3, pp. 486–91, 9, pp. 498–9.

  15. AA, 7.16, pp. 506–7.

  16. See J. Richard, ‘La noblesse de Terre Sainte (1097–1187)’, Arquivos do centro cultural português, 26 (1989), 323–5.

  17. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 79–81.

  18. See D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 223–4.

  19. See H.E. Mayer, ‘Die Herrschaftsbildung in Hebron’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pal
ästina-Vereins, 101 (1985), 66, and Murray, Crusader Kingdom, no. 110, p. 225.

  20. For Geldemar, see Murray, Crusader Kingdom, no. 44, p. 198.

  21. AA, 7.15, pp. 506–7, 12, pp. 502–3, 22, pp. 516–17, 37, pp. 540–1.

  22. WT, 9.19, p. 446. Such an edict makes sense in the context within which Godfrey was obliged to operate, although it may be that William attributed it to him more because of his perception of Godfrey's founding role than because he actually had solid documentary evidence.

  23. See Chapter 1, p. 17.

  24. See A.V. Murray, ‘Sex, death and the problem of single women in the armies of the First Crusade’, in Shipping, Trade and Crusade in the Medieval Mediterranean: Studies in honour of John Pryor, ed. R. Gertwagen and E. Jeffreys, Farnham, 2012 (forthcoming).

  25. See Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, pp. 7, 97–101.

  26. D. Pringle, ‘Magna Mahumeria (al-Bra): The Archaeology of a Frankish New Town in Palestine’, in Crusade and Settlement, ed. P.W. Edbury, Cardiff, 1985, pp. 147–68.

  27. FC, 3.33, pp. 731–2.

  28. AA, 7.16–17, pp. 506–11.

  29. Ralph of Caen, p. 117. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 155.

  30. Letter of Daibert, Godfrey and Raymond of Toulouse to the pope (September, 1099), Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, no. XVIII, p. 170.

  31. WT, 8.9, p. 99.

  32. Peregrinationes Tres, pp. 63–4.

  33. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, no. XVIII, p. 170.

  34. Guibert de Nogent, 7.38, p. 338. Tr. Levine, Gesta Dei per Francos, Woodbridge, 1997, p. 159.

  35. Ibn al-Qalanisi, introd. Gibb, pp. 21–38.

  36. J.H. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean, 649–1571, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 114–15.

  37. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War, p. 116.

  38. AA, 7.6, pp. 494–5.

  39. G. Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina in Oriente, vol. 1, Verona, 1973, pp. 91–3, Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 14–15, and M. Matzke, Daibert von Pisa. Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug, Sigmaringen, 1998, p. 137, believe that he was, or had been, the papal legate, contrary to the view of Krey, ‘Urban's Crusade – Success or Failure’, 240–2. Krey's view that the Pisan fleet set sail before Urban could have had news of Adhémar's death is unconvincing. The fleet could have set out in spring 1099 and still have had time to occupy various islands in the eastern Mediterranean before arriving at Latakia in September 1099: H. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de la Première Croisade, 1094–1100, Paris, 1902, no. 428, pp. 269–70. See Murray, Crusader Kingdom, p. 82, for a summary of the arguments.

  40. See Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 81–93.

  41. Ralph of Caen, p. 118. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 156. See Chapter 1, p. 22. Arnulf does not seem to have been consecrated bishop at this time.

  42. See Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 14–16. Albert of Aachen, 6.39, pp. 452–55, says that they appointed Arnulf ‘as chancellor of the holy church of Jerusalem, procurator of the holy relics, and keeper of the alms of the faithful’. He may well have held the second and third of these positions, but there was no patriarchal chancellor until the mid-1130s: see H.E. Mayer, Die Kanzlei der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem, vol. 1, Hanover, 1996, p. 47.

  43. WT, 9.15, p. 440. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 403. No contemporary chronicler was present to record this investiture but, if a passing reference to it by Fulcher of Chartres in 1124, 3.34, p. 741, is any indication, it appears to have been well known, for Fulcher evidently did not think it required further explanation.

  44. WT, 10.4, p. 456. As Daibert put it in a letter to Bohemond: ‘With the assent of the clergy, leaders, and the people alike, you brought about my election.’ See also Yewdale, Bohemond I, p. 91.

  45. AA, 6.54–9, pp. 474–85. See also Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 84–5, who argues that this shows that not all the crusaders had turned against Byzantium. However, it made little practical difference as the two dukes were on their way home in any case, leaving Raymond as the only important crusade leader willing to defend Byzantine claims.

  46. Ralph of Caen, p. 118. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 156. See Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 16, 22–5.

  47. AA, 7.8, pp. 496–9; FC, 1.33, p. 334.

  48. WT, 9.15–16, pp. 440–2. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 402–4; 10.4, p. 456. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 419, for Daibert's version.

  49. WT, 9.17–18, pp. 442–4. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 405–8. See J. Prawer, ‘The Patriarch's Lordship in Jerusalem’, in Crusader Institutions, Oxford, 1980, pp. 296–303, showing the area concerned, and Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 42–6.

  50. AA, 7.27, pp. 522–3. See Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 87–9, and P.W. Edbury and J.G. Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 49–50.

  51. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, p. 86.

  52. This in itself is evidence that the letter reproduced in William's chronicle is not the original.

  53. Work on Geography, in JP, p. 210.

  54. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 89–90.

  55. Hiestand, ‘Some Reflections’, p. 10.

  56. J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 2nd edn, London, 2005, pp. 62–5.

  57. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, no. XXI, pp. 176–7. The choice of the German people was presumably meant to appeal to their pride in Godfrey's election.

  58. FC, 1.33, pp. 333–4. Tr. 132; WT, 10.4, p. 457. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 421.

  59. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, p. 83.

  60. AA, 7.6–7, pp. 494–7; WT, 9.15, p. 440.

  61. Monachi Anonymi Littorensis Historia de Translatio Sanctorum Magni Nicolai, in RHCr, Occid., vol. 5, Paris, 1895, pp. 272, 275; ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 105–7; Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, no. 472, pp. 299–300, no. 478, pp. 302–3. The right to goods from ships wrecked on the coast would normally have belonged to the ruler, so this was a useful concession for the Venetians. D.E. Queller and I.B. Katele, ‘Venice and the Conquest of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Studi Venetiani, 12 (1986), 24–5, argue that these concessions, although they seem generous, reflect the size of the Venetian expedition, which seems to have involved between 8,100 and 9,000 men.

  62. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War, pp. 1–3.

  63. Translatio, p. 275; Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, no. 484, pp. 306–7, no. 487, pp. 308–9. Hagenmeyer fixes the date of the message of Tancred and Daibert to the Venetians, in which they inform them they are now intending to attack Haifa, as 23 July, which makes it quite possible that the change of target was determined by the news of Godfrey's death.

  64. AA, 7.23–6, pp. 516–23; Translatio, pp. 275–8. The Venetians did not take part in the actual storming of the city and therefore appear to have gained little from the enterprise, despite the terms of their agreement with the Franks: Queller and Katele, ‘Venice and the Conquest of the Latin Kingdom’, 25–6.

  65. AA, 7.30, pp. 528–9.

  66. WT, 10.4, p. 457. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 420–1.

  67. WT, 10.3, p. 455. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 418.

  68. See Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 89–90. The phrase is absque herede masculo, translated as ‘without male issue’ by Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 419, which makes a crucial difference. William, 9.16, p. 441, paraphrases this as absque legitimo … herede, translated by Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 404, as ‘legitimate heir’.

  69. AA, 7.27, pp. 522–3, and n. 30 for a discussion about the authenticity of the letter.

  70. A.V. Murray, ‘Daimbert of Pisa, the Domus Godefridi and the Accession of Baldwin I’, in From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. A.V. Murray, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 81–99.

  71. AA, 7.27, pp. 522–3, 47, pp. 554–5.

  72. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, nos 497–9, pp. 318–21.

  73. FC, 2.1, pp. 352–3. Tr. Ryan, p. 137.

  74. Albert of Aachen says 400 knights and 1,000 foot, but Fulche
r was actually with what he calls Baldwin's ‘little army’.

  75. Matthew of Edessa, 2.134, p. 177.

  76. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, no. 504, pp. 325–6.

  77. WT, 10.5, p. 458.

  78. AA, 7.31, pp. 530–1.

  79. Caffaro, Liber de liberatione civitatum Orientis, in Annali Genovesi di Caffaro e de’ suoi continuari, ed. L.T. Belgrano, vol. 1, Rome, 1890, pp. 112–13. Caffaro was the son of Rustico of Caschifellone. He took part in this expedition and provides first-hand knowledge of events. See R. Face, ‘Secular History in Twelfth-Century Italy: Caffaro of Genoa’, Journal of Medieval History, 6 (1980), 169–84.

  80. FC, 2.2–3, pp. 357–65.

  81. FC, 2.3, p. 366.

  82. AA, 7.35–6, pp. 538–41.

  83. FC, 2.3, pp. 367–9.

  84. WT, 10.8, p. 462. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 426.

  85. FC, 2.4–5, pp. 370–84; AA, 7.38–40, pp. 542–7. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, nos 516–20, pp. 336–41.

  86. AA, 7.38, pp. 542–3.

  87. Peregrinationes Tres, pp. 71–2. Saewulf says that the rest of the town, however, was ruined.

  88. Daniel, in JP, p. 143.

  89. FC, 2.6, pp. 384–7. Tr. Ryan, pp. 148–9. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, p. 96, suggests that the messianic fervour of the previous year had much diminished.

  90. See J.F.A. Mason, ‘Saint Anselm's Relations with Laymen: Selected Letters’, in Spicilegium Beccense, I, Congrès international du IXe centenaire de l'arrivée d'Anselme au Bec, Paris, 1959, pp. 556–9.

  91. WT, 10.9, p. 463.

  92. AA, 7.44, pp. 550–1. See Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 55. The coronation was later confirmed by Paschal II.

  4 The Origins of the Latin States

  1. AA, 7.44–5, pp. 550–5.

  2. Ralph of Caen, p. 119. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 158.

  3. WT, 10.9, pp. 463–4. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 428.