The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  4. FC, 2.6, pp. 387–90.

  5. See K. Elm, ‘Kanoniker und Ritter vom Heiligen Grab: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung und Frühgeschichte der palästinensischen Ritterorden’, in Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, ed. J. Fleckenstein and M. Hellmann, Sigmaringen, 1980, pp. 156–9. WT, 22.17(16), p. 1032, disapproved of canons appearing on the battlefield, but it seems they were still doing so in the 1180s.

  6. A.V. Murray, ‘The Origins of the Frankish Nobility in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100–1118’, Mediterranean Historical Review, 4 (1989), 282–3.

  7. AA, 9.11, pp. 648–51. See J. Pryor, ‘The Voyages of Saewulf’, in Peregrinationes Tres, p. 36.

  8. P.A. Adair, ‘Flemish Comital Family and the Crusades’, in The Crusades: Other Experiences, Alternate Perspectives, ed. K.I. Semaan, Binghampton, New York, 2003, pp. 101–12.

  9. Riley-Smith, Crusades, pp. 90–4. For a contrary view, see S. Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291, Oxford, 1989, pp. 5–65. There are difficulties over contemporary terminology, especially the use of the word ‘vassal’, which was not common in the twelfth-century Latin East. However, men did swear oaths of fidelity and they did supply essential military forces raised from the lands or monetary incomes they received as grants. This does not presuppose an existing ‘system’ – indeed, it could not, given the initial nature of the settlement – but it does reflect the necessary arrangements of practical men. For a concise summary of the arguments, see J. Rubin, ‘The Debate on Twelfth-Century Frankish Feudalism: Additional Evidence from William of Tyre's Chronicon’, Crusades, 8 (2009), 53–62.

  10. See D.M. Metcalf, ‘East Meets West, and Money Changes Hands’, in East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts – Confrontations, III. Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in September 2000, ed. K. Ciggaar and H. Teule, Louvain, 2003, p. 231.

  11. WT, 10.13(14), p. 468. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 433.

  12. Caffaro, Liber, in Annali Genovesi, vol. 1, pp. 111–12. See F. Cardini, ‘Profilo di un crociato Guglielmo Embriaco’, Archivio Storico Italiano, 136 (1978), 405–36, and S. Epstein, Genoa and the Genoese, 958–1528, Chapel Hill, NC, 1996, pp. 27–31.

  13. WT, 10.15, p. 470.

  14. FC, 2.25, pp. 462–3. Tr. Ryan, p.176.

  15. Epstein, Genoa and the Genoese, pp. 10–28.

  16. See D. Jacoby, ‘The Economic Function of the Crusader States of the Levant: A New Approach’, in Europe's Economic Relations with the Islamic World, 13th–18th Centuries, ed. S. Cavaciocchi, Florence, 2007, p. 179.

  17. Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, ed. C. Imperiale di Sant'Angelo, vol. 1, Rome, 1936, p. 20; RRH, no. 43, p. 8. See Epstein, Genoa and the Genoese, pp. 31–2.

  18. There is controversy over this. Hans Mayer and Marie-Luise Favreau believe that the charter of privileges was forged and that therefore the inscription never existed: ‘Das Diplom Balduins I. für Genua und Genuas Goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche’, Quellen und Forschungen aus ital-ienischen Archiven und Bibiliotheken, 55–6 (1976), 22–95, and ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 29, pp. 137–44. However, Benjamin Kedar has argued that, although the charter may have been tampered with later in the twelfth century, it contains the core of the privileges granted and that this was publicly acknowledged in the inscription: ‘Genoa's golden inscriptions in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: a case for the defence’, in I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B.Z. Kedar, Genoa, 1986, pp. 317–35, and ‘Again: Genoa's Golden Inscription and King Baldwin I's Privilege of 1104’, in Chemins d'Outre-Mer: Études d'histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. D. Coulon, C. Otten-Froux, P. Pagès and D. Valérian, vol. 1, Paris, 2004, pp. 495–502. It was prestigious for the Genoese to be involved in the creation of the new kingdom and therefore tempting for them to magnify their role, but it is clear that their help in the capture of the coastal cities was indispensable, so Kedar's view seems the more credible.

  19. C. Marshall, ‘The crusading motivation of the Italian city republics in the Latin East, 1096–1104’, in The Experience of Crusading, vol. 1, Western Approaches, ed. M. Bull and N. Housley, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 60–79.

  20. AA, 9.30, pp. 674–5.

  21. AA, 7.55–6, pp. 562–5.

  22. FC, 2.9, p. 403. David Hay, ‘Gender Bias and Religious Intolerance in Accounts of the “Massacres” of the First Crusade’, in Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades, ed. M. Gervers and J.M. Powell, Syracuse, NY, 2001, pp. 3–10, 135–9, argues that, in fact, even during the First Crusade, the massacres described by the chroniclers were exaggerated, partly for ideological reasons, and that some modern historians have taken these accounts too literally.

  23. See Y. Friedman, Encounter between Enemies: Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Leiden, 2002, pp. 30–1.

  24. See J. Prawer, ‘The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem’, Speculum, 27 (1952), 490–503.

  25. AA, 10.49, pp. 762–3.

  26. FC, 2.10–14, pp. 404–24.

  27. Guibert of Nogent, 7.24, p. 316. Guibert depended greatly on written sources, but he does include anecdotes from participants, which is presumably the case here. When Arpin returned to France, he became a monk at Cluny and Guibert probably heard the story on the monastic grapevine. See Orderic Vitalis, vol. 5, pp. 350–3.

  28. FC, 2.15, pp. 424–8, 2.18–21, pp. 435–55; AA, 9.2–12, pp. 638–53.

  29. The crusaders were already familiar with the tourkopouloi, troops of Turkish origin used in the Byzantine army. See J. Richard, ‘Les turcoples au service des royaumes de Jérusalem et de Chypre: Musulmans convertis ou chrétiens orientaux?’, in Mélanges Dominique Sourdel/Revue des études islamiques, 54 (1986), 259–70, and R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare, 1097–1193, Cambridge, 1956, pp. 111–12. The reference is not, however, precise, and the mounted warriors may also have included westerners equipped as horse archers.

  30. FC, 2.31–2, pp. 489–501.

  31. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 131. Raymond is the only chronicler to associate Arnulf with this discovery, but, given his antipathy towards him, it seems unlikely he would have credited it to him if it had not been achieved through his efforts. Riley-Smith, First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 98, suggests that he might have found it in the ‘garden area’ of the Holy Sepulchre compound.

  32. AA, 6.38, pp. 450–3, 6.44, pp. 460–1.

  33. FC, 2.21, pp. 453–4. Tr. Ryan, p. 173. See also 2.11, pp. 409–10 (1101), 2.32, p. 495 (1105).

  34. FC, 2.31–2, pp. 493–5. See A.V. Murray, ‘"Mighty against the Enemies of Christ”: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. J. France and W.G. Zajac, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 217–38, and Jaspert, ‘Das Heilige Grab, das Wahre Kreuz, Jerusalem und das Heilige Land’, pp. 69–70, 87–9.

  35. FC, 2.26, pp. 466–7. Tr. Ryan, p. 177.

  36. WT, 10.24(25)–25(26), pp. 483–5. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 452–3. See Murray, Crusader Kingdom, no. 36, p. 195.

  37. WT, 11.4, p. 500. See H. Hagenmeyer, ‘Chronologie de l'histoire du royaume de Jérusalem: Règne de Baldouin I (1101–1118)’, ROL, 12 (1909–11), no. 747, pp. 312–13, for the date.

  38. Hagenmeyer, ‘Chronologie de l'histoire du royaume’, ROL, 9 (1902), no. 539, p. 404.

  39. AA, 7.46–51, pp. 554–61. Albert wrongly implies that Maurice had been appointed in response to a royal appeal lodged against Daibert at the papal curia: 7.46–7, pp. 554–7.

  40. AA, 7.58–63, pp. 568–75.

  41. AA, 9.14–17, pp. 654–9.

  42. AA, 10.58, pp. 772–3.

  43. FC, 2.37, pp. 512–14. Tr. Ryan, pp. 190–1.

  44. Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 90, pp. 204–6; WT, 11.4, p. 500, says that Evremar set out before news of Daibert's death had arrived (antequam de obitu eius), which could not be the case if Hagenmeyer's argu
ment that he died in June 1105 is correct. For a discussion of this matter, see Edgington, pp. 772–3, n. 68.

  45. WT, 10.25(26), pp. 484–5, 11.4, p. 501. William therefore did not accept that Evremar had been patriarch in the first place.

  46. WT, 11.4, p. 501. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 468. See Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina, vol. 2, p. 60, and Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 57–8.

  47. AA, 10.59, pp. 772–3.

  48. 17 October 1097. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de la Première Croisade, no. 199, p. 103.

  49. W.B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East, Cambridge, 1907, pp. 22–3 and n. 2; Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 58–61; Asbridge, First Crusade, pp. 140–2.

  50. AA, 4.9, pp. 260–3.

  51. Matthew of Edessa, 2.113, p. 166; WT, 4.2, p. 235.

  52. AA, 3.17, pp. 164–5. Pakrad's existence must have been known to the leaders of the army, even if it was Baldwin who had taken him on.

  53. FC, 1.14, p. 210. Matthew of Edessa, 2.113, p. 166, 2.117, p. 168, says that he had 100 horsemen at Turbessel, but this was reduced to sixty for the journey to Edessa.

  54. See Chapter 1, p. 16.

  55. AA, 3.17, pp. 164–5. WT, 4.1, p. 233, places all the blame on Baldwin in keeping with his view that Tancred was one of the heroes of the First Crusade.

  56. FC, 1.14, pp. 206–15. Tr. Ryan, p. 91. See Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 213–14, n.36.

  57. See A.A. Beaumont, ‘Albert of Aachen and the County of Edessa’, in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, ed. L.J. Paetow, New York, 1928, pp. 105–7.

  58. AA, 3.17–25, pp. 164–81; Matthew of Edessa, 2.118, pp. 169–70; WT, 4.6, pp. 239–40. See Beaumont, ‘Albert of Aachen’, pp. 107–13.

  59. WT, 4.2, pp. 234–5. See Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 40–2.

  60. AA, 3.18, pp. 166–7.

  61. AA, 5.22, pp. 364–5. Balduk had taken part in Kerbogha's battle with the crusaders at Antioch on 28 June which in itself was sufficient reason for Baldwin to regard him as an enemy: AA, 4.8, pp. 260–1, 4.51, pp. 328–9.

  62. AA, 5.5, pp. 344–5, 5.13, pp. 354–5.

  63. FC, 1.33, p. 324. Tr. Ryan, p. 129.

  64. WT, 5.14, pp. 289–90. William has been followed in this view by most historians, but Asbridge, First Crusade, p. 205, thinks that Bohemond could have brought about the fall of Antioch much sooner had it suited him and that therefore the timing was not so crucial. William bases his three weeks on Fulcher of Chartres, 1.19, p. 242, who makes no comment on its significance but who is the most reliable witness since he was in the city at the time. Albert of Aachen, 4.12, pp. 266–7, says the siege lasted only three days, while Matthew of Edessa, 2.119, p. 170, has forty days, although this seems to represent the total time Kerbogha spent in the region, rather than the siege alone.

  65. AA, 3.19–20, pp. 168–9.

  66. Guibert de Nogent, 7.39, pp. 338–9. Tr. Levine, p. 159.

  67. AA, 3.32, pp. 188–9; WT, 10.1, p. 453. Baldwin had been promised a large payment as well, but Albert says he only received a small proportion.

  68. WT, 4.2, pp. 234–5.

  69. See Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 97–100, who suggests that there was less trouble from the Syrians because they had never been the dominant group in the past. See also C. MacEvitt, ‘Christian Authority in the Latin East: Edessa in Crusader History’, in The Medieval Crusade, ed. S.J. Ridyard, Woodbridge, 2004, pp. 71–83, who argues that historians have been unduly influenced by Matthew of Edessa, and that relations between Latins and Armenians were more complex than they have sometimes been presented.

  70. AA, 5.16, pp. 356–61.

  71. Ralph of Caen, p. 118. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, pp. 156–7. Matthew of Edessa, 2.134, pp. 176–7; AA, 7.28, pp. 532–5. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 313–16, giving c.15 August.

  72. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 11.7, p. 288.

  73. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, no. XIII, pp. 155–6; no. XIV, p. 156; RRH, no. 12, p. 2.

  74. Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, vol. 1, p. 16; RRH, no. 35, p. 5. There is clearly a difference between ruga and fundus, but there remains some ambiguity about their meaning.

  75. FC, 1.35, pp. 347–9; AA, 7.29, pp. 526–7.

  76. Ralph of Caen, p. 123. Matthew of Edessa, 3.14, pp. 191–2, says that Kogh Vasil contributed 10,000 pieces himself. Various stories circulated about the circumstances of his release, perhaps promoted by Bohemond himself. See, for example, AA, 9.36, pp. 684–7, and Orderic Vitalis, vol. 5, pp. 358–78.

  77. FC, 2.23, p. 460.

  78. FC, 2.27, p. 473 (atrociorem).

  79. WT, 10.29(30), p. 491 (periculosum). Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 459.

  80. WT, 10.23(24), pp. 482–3. See R.L. Nicholson, Joscelyn I, Prince of Edessa, Urbana, IL, 1954, pp. 1–5, and Amouroux-Mourad, Le comté d'Édesse, pp. 63–4.

  81. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 60; WT, 10.28(29), pp. 488–9.

  82. Ralph of Caen, pp. 124–6, presents Tancred as the only leader who was properly prepared. AA, 9.38–41, pp. 688–95, has broadly the same story, but with much less emphasis on Tancred. See Beaumont, ‘Albert of Aachen’, pp. 124–7.

  83. Matthew of Edessa, 3.18–19, pp. 192–4.

  84. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 61.

  85. AA, 9.42–4, pp. 694–701.

  86. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 69.

  87. Ralph of Caen, pp. 128–9. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, p. 170. See T. Asbridge, ‘The significance and causes of the battle of the Field of Blood’, Journal of Medieval History, 23 (1997), fig. 2, p. 305, for maps showing the losses experienced by Antioch at this time.

  88. See Yewdale, Bohemond I, pp. 106–34. Anna Comnena allocates much space to this, including giving the details of the treaty, as it enhanced her father's reputation to have overcome the great Bohemond: see Alexiad, 13.1–12, pp. 323–58. See R.J. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096–1204, tr. J.C. Morris and J.E. Ridings, Oxford, 1993, pp. 75–82, who sees the treaty more as a negotiated settlement than as a defeat for Bohemond.

  89. Ralph of Caen, p. 17. Tr. Bachrach and Bachrach, pp. 35–6.

  90. See Beech, ‘A Norman-Italian Adventurer’, pp. 35–6. According to Matthew of Edessa, 3.40, pp. 201–2, he ‘caused the ruin of many persons’.

  91. AA, 9.47, pp. 702–4, 10.20–4, pp. 734–41; Ralph of Caen, pp. 129–31; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 69–70, 72–4.

  92. RRH, no. 53, p. 11.

  93. See D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, 2nd edn., London, 1995, pp. 22–30. On one issue it was thought he was wearing a turban, but this now seems unlikely: p. 27.

  94. AA, 9.47, pp. 702–3. See also Friedman, Encounter between Enemies, pp. 31–2.

  95. FC, 2.28, p. 479. Tr. Ryan, pp. 180–1.

  96. Matthew of Edessa, 3.39, p. 201, claims that 2,000 Christians were killed in the battle. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, pp. 12–22.

  97. AA, 8.43, pp. 632–3. Ralph of Caen, p. 122, says that Raymond ‘abjured or swore whatever he was ordered to’. For the date, see Hagenmeyer, ‘Chronologie de l'histoire du royaume’, ROL, 10 (1903–4), no. 627, pp. 396–8. See also Chapter 4, p. 81.

  98. See Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina, vol. 2, p. 33, and Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 10–11, 23.

  99. J. Richard, ‘Note sur l'archidiocèse d'Apamée et les conquêtes de Raymond de Saint-Gilles en Syrie du Nord’, Syria, 25 (1946–8), 103–6; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 10–11, 23. Peter was, it appears, initially consecrated by John IV, the Greek patriarch: Gesta Francorum, p. 75.

  100. See T. Asbridge, ‘The Principality of Antioch and the Jabal as-Summq’, in The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. Phillips, Manchester, 1997, pp. 142–52.

  101. Anna Comnena says her father trusted Raymond and often discussed important matters with him: Alexiad, 10.11, p. 267. See Richard, Comté, pp. 27–30. The Byzantines had not held Tripoli since the seventh century, but retained a strong interest in the north around Tortosa
and Maraclea.

  102. See France, Victory in the East, pp. 311–23; Richard, ‘Note sur l'archdiocèse d'Apamée’, 103–5. See also Chapter 1, p. 18.

  103. Richard, Comté, p. 12.

  104. Raymond of Aguilers, bk 13, pp. 124–5. Tr. Hill and Hill, pp. 83–4.

  105. AA, 8.43, pp. 632–4; FC, 2.17, pp. 434–5. Tortosa had been taken in 1099, but had been lost again.

  106. Gesta Francorum, pp. 83–4; Raymond of Aguilers, bk 11, p. 108; AA, 5.31, pp. 376–7. See Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, p. 143, for the territories taken by Raymond in this region in 1098 and 1099.

  107. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 1, pp. 105–6.

  108. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 1, pp. 59–60. Translated as ‘men’, but it cannot have been his total force: see Richard, Comté, pp. 52–3. Janah al-Daula was nominally dependent on Aleppo, but in practice was an independent ruler: Richard, Comté, p. 13.

  109. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 55.

  110. H. Kennedy, Crusader Castles, Cambridge, 1994, p. 63.

  111. WT, 10.26(27), p. 486.

  112. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 65; Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 104.

  113. AA, 9.27, pp. 670–1; Caffaro, Liber, in Annali Genovesi, vol. 1, p. 121. There is some controversy whether this occurred in this year, as WT, 11.9, pp. 509–10, places its capture in 1109, but 1104 seems more probable: see Edgington, pp. 670–1, n. 55. The Genoese received a third of the town.

  114. Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina, vol. 2, p. 231; Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 25. He took up the position in 1109 after the capture of the city.

  115. J. Richard, ‘Le Chartrier de Sainte-Marie-Latine et l'établissement de Raymond de Saint-Gilles à Mont-Pèlerin’, in Mélanges de l'histoire du Moyen Age dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen, Paris, 1951, pp. 605–12; Richard, Comté, p. 59.

  116. Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 79, pp. 185–7. This is a confirmation, probably of 1143. See D. Pringle, ‘The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Castle of Tripoli (Mont-Pèlerin)’, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, ed. U. Vermeulen and K. D'Hulster, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 169, Louvain, 2007, pp. 167–82. The present remains of the church do not appear to incorporate any Muslim building, so it was probably newly built rather than a conversion from the mosque. An octagon to the east may have been a family burial crypt.