93. See H.E. Mayer, ‘Sankt Samuel auf dem Freudenberge und sein Besitz nach einem unbekannten Diplom König Balduins V.’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 44 (1964), 36–41, 48–67.
94. See Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, pp. 169–72.
95. See Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 101–2, who suggests such evangelisation was not in the interests of the local baronage, who did not wish to provoke problems with the Muslim population.
96. See K. Elm, ‘Nec minori celebritate a catholicis cultoribus observatur et colitur. Zwei Berichte über die 1119/20 erfolgte Auffindung und Erhebung der Gebeine der Patriarchen Abraham, Isaak und Jakob’, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 49 (1997), 325–9, and Mayer, ‘Die Herrschaftsbildung in Hebron’, 65–75. Reynald of Châtillon became lord of Hebron in 1177: see Chapter 11, p. 268.
97. See Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 77.
98. See Elm, ‘Nec minori celebritate’, 318–44, and Pringle, Churches, vol. 1, pp. 223–9.
99. WT, 20.3, p. 914. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 346.
100. FC, 3.9, pp. 638–42.
101. H.E. Mayer, ‘Jérusalem et Antioche sous le règne de Baudouin II’, Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, année 1980 (1981), 718–19.
102. Mayer, ‘Jérusalem et Antioche’, 721–2. See Epp, Fulcher von Chartres, pp. 27–8, who thinks that by this time Fulcher had become a canon of the Holy Sepulchre and that the intensity of his language suggests that he might have been among those responsible for guarding the relic.
103. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 162.
104. See Mayer, Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 66–7.
105. FC, 3.34, p. 739.
106. WT, 12.14, p. 564.
107. FC, 3.12, pp. 651–2; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 166.
108. Matthew of Edessa, para. 87, pp. 228–9.
109. FC, 3.16, pp. 658–9; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 167. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, pp. 62–72.
110. FC, 3.23–6, pp. 676–93, 3.38, pp. 749–51; Matthew of Edessa, para. 96, pp. 232–3. Fulcher has an uncharacteristically long and detailed account of the adventures of Joscelin after his escape, although he admits it was difficult to find out the truth. The story obviously appealed to him, but it does have some romantic elements.
111. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 166.
112. WC, 2.16, pp. 114–15. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 171.
113. FC, 3.31, pp. 721–7.
114. See Chapter 5, pp. 112, 116.
115. See J. Riley-Smith, ‘The Venetian Crusade of 1122–1124’, in I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B.Z. Kedar, Genoa, 1986, pp. 340–2. There is no extant letter from the East, although it is most likely to have been sent at around the same time as that to Diego Gelmírez. Venetian sources say that nuncios were sent first to Rome and then to Venice: Cerbani Cerbani, Clerici Veneti, Translatio Mirifici Martyris Isidori a Chio Insula in Civitatem Venetam (Jun. 1125), in RHCr, Occid., vol. 5, pp. 322–3, and Historia Ducum Veneticorum, in MGHSS, vol. 14, p. 73. Reference to letters and envoys sent by Baldwin is made in the treaty between the Venetians and the leaders of the kingdom in 1123: WT, 12.25, p. 578.
116. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1. Nicaea to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner, London, 1990, pp. 191–2.
117. See Queller and Katele, ‘Venice and the Conquest of the Latin Kingdom’, 16–28, for Venetian activity in the East in the first decade of the twelfth century.
118. WT, 12.22, p. 573.
119. FC, 3.14–15, pp. 655–8.
120. See Riley-Smith, ‘Venetian Crusade’, p. 343.
121. FC, 3.17–20, pp. 661–72; WT, 12.22–3, pp. 573–5. A continuous sea blockade was difficult to achieve so the obvious solution was to eliminate any enemy fleet before the siege actually began. See Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare, p. 68.
122. WT, 12.24, p. 576.
123. FC, 3.27, p. 694.
124. Historia Ducum Veneticorum, p. 74.
125. FC, 3.16, pp. 659–61, 3.22, pp. 674–5.
126. See Chapter 4, p. 91.
127. Pagan had become increasingly powerful, taking a more active political role and leaving more of the work of drafting charters to his staff, notably the notary Hemelin, who, in c.1124, became vice-chancellor and, in 1130, succeeded Pagan as chancellor: see Mayer, Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 67–8.
128. Sidon fell in 1110 with the help of Norwegian and Venetian fleets, but an unsuccessful attack was made on it in 1107–8, in conjunction with the Italians, including the Venetians: AA, 10.46, pp. 760–1. See Chapter 4, p. 93.
129. M. Pozza, ‘Venezia e il Regno di Gerusalemme dagli Svevi agli Angioini’, in I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B.Z. Kedar, Genoa, 1986, Appendix, no. 1, pp. 373–9; WT, 12.25, pp. 577–8. FC, 3.36, pp. 745–6, makes it clear that the Venetians had properties both around the harbour and in the city itself. According to the Historia Ducum Veneticorum, p. 74, the Venetians had first been offered two-thirds of the city, but had said they were content with a third.
130. FC does not mention any such controversy.
131. WT, 13.13, p. 601. For Scandelion, see Chapter 5, p. 116.
132. FC, 3.11, pp. 646–7. See Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina, vol. 2, p. 234, and Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 66. This would have been a preliminary to the appointment of suffragan bishops for the other coastal dioceses. In fact, Odo died before the city was taken and Warmund does not seem to have appointed anybody else until c.1127, when William, prior of the Holy Sepulchre, was chosen.
133. WT, 13.7, pp. 594–5.
134. See M. Balard, ‘Communes italiennes, pouvoir et habitants des états francs de Syrie-Palestine au XIIe siècle’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. M. Shatzmiller, Leiden, 1993, pp. 53–4. Balard points out that the Italians were chiefly interested in certain key ports, which meant Acre, Tyre, Tripoli, Latakia and Saint Simeon (for Antioch).
135. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 163–4, 170–1.
136. FC, 3.28, pp. 695–6, 3.34, p. 735, gives 7 June; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 172, gives 8 June. See Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare, pp. 82–3.
137. WT, 13.7, p. 594, 13.9, pp. 595–7. There had been a temporary estrangement between Baldwin and Pons in 1122, when the king had been ready to use force to compel his submission, but this had been settled by mediation; FC, 3.11, pp. 647–8.
138. WT, 13.6, pp. 593–4, 13.10, pp. 597–8.
139. WT, 13.9, pp. 595–7
140. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 171–2.
141. FC, 3.34, pp. 736–7.
142. FC, 3.56, pp. 803–5.
143. FC, 3.38–40, pp. 749–57; WT, 13.15, pp. 603–4.
144. Pozza, ‘Venezia e il Regno di Gerusalemme’, no. 2, pp. 179–85; ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 93, pp. 241–7. See D. Jacoby, ‘The Venetian Privileges in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Interpretations and Implementation’, 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. 155–75. Jacoby points out that, far from creating a quasi-independent enclave as has sometimes been argued, the Venetians were obliged to undertake some ‘tough bargaining’ and evidently believed the Pactum Warmundi was ‘more advantageous than the charter of 1125’.
145. FC, 3.42, pp. 761–5; Kemal ed-Din, p. 644. See Chapter 5, pp. 102–3.
146. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 173; FC, 3.42, pp. 763–4.
147. FC, 3.42, p. 765; WT, 13.16, pp. 604–6; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 169–70 (wrongly placing this in 1123–4); Matthew of Edessa, para. 102, pp. 234–6. See also Nicholson, Joscelyn I, pp. 75–6.
148. FC, 3.44, pp. 769–71.
149. See Asbridge, Creation of the Principality, pp. 81–9.
150. WT, 13.16, p. 605.
151. FC, 3.42, p. 763.
152. A. Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Factionalism and Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118–34’, Nottingham Medieval Stu
dies, 38 (1994), 69–75.
153. Galbertus Notarius Brugensis, De Multro, Traditione, et Occisione Gloriosi Karoli Comitis Flandriarum, ed. J. Rider, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 131, Turnhout, 1994, pp. 14–15; Tr. Galbert of Bruges, The Murder of Charles the Good, tr. and ed. J.B. Ross, Toronto, 1967 (originally 1959), pp. 92–3.
154. Galbertus, p. 31. See Galbert, tr. Ross, p. 113, n. 8, for possible dates. Charles was probably in his thirties at this time.
155. FC, 3.50, pp. 784–93; WT, 13.18, pp. 608–10.
156. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 174. It was presumably also meant to deter Tughtigin from mustering an attack from this region now that the Christians held Tyre.
157. Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles’, 75–81, offers some speculations as to the identity of those involved, but there is no solid evidence.
158. FC, 3.61, pp. 819–22; WT, 13.21, pp. 613–14. See Asbridge, Creation of the Principality, pp. 146–7.
159. See R. Hiestand, ‘Chronologisches zur Geschichte des Königreiches Jerusalem um 1130’, Deutches Archiv, 26 (1970), 223. Morphia died on 1 October, but the precise year is not known, other than that it must have been 1126–8. If she died in 1126, this in itself might have been a significant reason for seeking a husband for Melisende.
160. WT, 13.26, p. 620.
161. WT, 13.24, p. 618, 14.2, p. 633. See Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles’, 76.
162. Pozza, ‘Venezia e il Regno di Gerusalemme’, no. 2, p. 382. His companions are listed in the Latin Rule of the Temple, given to the order at the council of Troyes in 1129; Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi Templique Salomonici, ed. S. Cerrini, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, Prologue (forthcoming).
163. WT, 14.1, pp. 631–3.
164. Recueil d'annales angevines et vendômoises, ed. L. Halphen, Paris, 1903, pp. 8, 120; Orderic Vitalis, vol. 6, pp. 308–11, who dates the pilgrimage to 1120. WT, 14.2, p. 633, records the funding of the 100 knights, but places his pilgrimage after the death of his wife, Eremburge. This is highly unlikely as she did not die until late 1126: see the discussion by Hans Mayer, ‘The Succession of Baldwin II in Jerusalem: English Impact on the East’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 39 (1985), 145, n. 35.
165. Among the preparations would have been the need to obtain permission from King Louis VI as overlord. The Angevin chroniclers record that the offer was ‘on the advice’ of the king, but this does not mean that Louis chose Fulk; see Mayer, ‘Succession’, 140.
166. See J. Gillingham, The Angevin Empire, 2nd edn, London, 2001, pp. 8–12.
167. See Mayer, ‘Succession’, 146–7, for the chronology.
168. Cartulaire général de l'Ordre du Temple 1119?–1150: Recueil des chartes et des bulles relatives à l'Ordre du Temple, ed. G.A.M. d'Albon, Paris, 1913, no. 8, pp. 5–6; no. 12, pp. 8–10. Ironically, William Clito had been killed in battle on 27 May 1128.
169. Cartulaire général du Temple, no. 12, pp. 8–10; RRH, no. 122, p. 30.
170. The phrase is cum spe regni post regis obitum traderetur, where spes carries a much stronger connotation than merely ‘hope’. It has been argued by Hans Mayer that lengthy negotiations were needed before Fulk was convinced, and that Guy Brisbarre had travelled back to Jerusalem in the course of the year 1128–9 in order to obtain an assurance that Melisende was officially designated Baldwin's heir: ‘Succession to Baldwin II’, 143–5. This is chronologically possible but, given the comprehensive nature of the settlements in Anjou in the spring of 1128, seems unlikely. Guy Brisbarre may equally have been elsewhere in France, helping in the drive to persuade men to take the Cross.
171. WT, 13.24, pp. 618–19. It is not clear when Hugh and his companions returned, but other crusaders and pilgrims must have been arriving in separate groups throughout the summer.
172. See Barber, New Knighthood, pp. 11–19, and J. Phillips, ‘Hugh of Payns and the 1129 Damascus Crusade’, in The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. M. Barber, Aldershot, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 141–7. The patriarchs do not seem to have intended that the Templars would develop in this way. Elm, ‘Kanoniker und Ritter’, pp. 163–7, suggests that they had originally seen them as their own militia Sancti Sepulcri, who would have formed a small cadre of permanent knights in Jerusalem who could have acted as a focal point for the organisation of visiting knights from the West.
173. Gesta Ambaziensium dominorum, in Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou, ed. L. Halphen and R. Poupardin, Paris, 1913, p. 115. Hugh of Amboise died in Jerusalem on 24 July, presumably in 1130. He was buried on the Mount of Olives, near the church. After the First Crusade he had returned to Anjou at Easter 1100. One of his sons later joined Fulk in Jerusalem. On the importance of these crusading exploits to the family, see N.L. Paul, ‘Crusade, Memory and Regional Politics in Twelfth-Century Amboise’, Journal of Medieval History, 31 (2005), 127–41.
174. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 179–95. See Lewis, ‘The Ism'lites and the Assassins’, pp. 116–17.
175. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 196.
176. WT, 13.26, pp. 620–2; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 195–200. Not surprisingly, given the large crusader presence, news of the failure soon reached the West, where Henry of Huntingdon attributed it to the debauchery of the settlers in Palestine: 7.40, pp. 484–5.
177. Michael the Syrian, 16.3, pp. 226–7.
178. Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 278, however, says that it was cold and wet – although, of course, he was writing much later.
179. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 200.
7 The Second Generation
1. WT, 13.27–8, pp. 623–5.
2. WT, 14.2, pp. 633–4. See Mayer, ‘Das Pontifikale von Tyrus’, 154–5. The day chosen was one of the great feasts of the Holy Sepulchre, for it was the date that commemorated the return of the Cross to Jerusalem in 629 after the end of the Persian wars. Mayer argues that the appearance of the two previous kings wearing crowns in the city of Jerusalem was sufficient precedent for the shift from Bethlehem to the Holy Sepulchre.
3. WT, 13.28, p. 625, 12.4, pp. 550–1. See Chapter 6, p. 143.
4. Matthew of Edessa, 3.75, p. 221.
5. B.Z. Kedar, ‘Gerard of Nazareth: A Neglected Twelfth-Century Writer in the Latin East. A Contribution to the Intellectual and Monastic History of the Crusader States’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 37 (1983), 73.
6. Matthew of Edessa, 3.75, p. 222.
7. FC, 3.21, pp. 673–4, 3.24, p. 687. Tr. Ryan, p. 245. See Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles’, 74–5.
8. See Murray, ‘Baldwin II and his Nobles’, 73–4.
9. D. Gerish, ‘Ancestors and Predecessors: Royal Continuity and Identity in the First Kingdom of Jerusalem’, in Anglo-Norman Studies, 20, Proceedings of the Battle Conference in Dublin, 1997, Woodbridge, 1998, pp. 133–4, 141–2. See ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 83, pp. 220–2, no. 85, pp. 225–30, no. 86, pp. 230–3.
10. See R. Hiestand, ‘Chronologisches zur Geschichte des Königreiches Jerusalem im 12. Jahrhundert’, Deutsches Archiv, 35 (1979), 542–55, and Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 67–8.
11. See Chapter 3, pp. 55–60, and Chapter 4, pp. 73–4.
12. WT, 13.25, pp. 619–20.
13. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 208.
14. WT, 13.21, pp. 613–14. See Asbridge, Creation of the Principality, pp. 89–90.
15. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 177–8.
16. Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 273.
17. WT, 13.22, pp. 614–15; Ibn al-Athir, part 1, pp. 272–3.
18. WT, 13.27, p. 623. Michael the Syrian, 16.3, p. 227, says that Bohemond was killed because the Turks did not recognise him, implying that he might otherwise have been ransomed.
19. WT, 13.27, pp. 623–5. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, p. 88.
20. WT, 14.4, p. 636 (regionis illius magnates).
21. FC, 3.11, pp. 646–8.
22. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 215. See Richard, Comté, pp. 32–8, for a discussion of what he calls the ‘limited vassality’ of the counts, which he sees as analogous to the position of the great fiefs of Fra
nce at the same period.
23. WT, 14.4–5, pp. 635–7. Rainald had been captured at the Field of Blood in 1119: see Chapter 6, p. 124.
24. WT, 14.7, pp. 638–9; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 222–3. Both agree that the Muslim forces were routed, but Ibn al-Qalanisi mentions further engagements in which the Aleppans were victorious.
25. WT, 14.1, p. 632. William had actually held Fulk prisoner for a time as a bargaining tool for lands he claimed from Fulk IV, but this does not seem to have deterred the king from seeking a husband for Constance at the Poitevin court.
26. WT, 14.9, pp. 640–1. See B. Hamilton, ‘Ralph of Domfront, Patriarch of Antioch (1135–40)’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 28 (1984), 3. Constance was the great-granddaughter of Robert Guiscard, uncle of Roger II.
27. T. Asbridge, ‘Alice of Antioch: a case study of female power in the twelfth century’, in The Experience of Crusading, vol. 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 29–47.
28. Asbridge, ‘Alice of Antioch’, p. 43. For the dating of the revolt and Fulk's return from Antioch in the late summer or autumn of 1134, see H.E. Mayer, ‘Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 26 (1972), 104–5.
29. WT, 14.15, pp. 651–2. She must have remarried almost immediately, as she is designated as the wife of Hugh in a charter issued at Acre in 1123: RRH, no. 102a, p. 7. See J.L. La Monte, ‘The Lords of Le Puiset on the Crusades’, Speculum, 17 (1942), 100–18, and Murray, ‘Dynastic Continuity or Dynastic Change?’, 16–19. At the time of the marriage Baldwin was in prison, but there is no evidence he had any objection to the match when he returned to the kingdom in 1125. It does, however, appear that noble women had more freedom to marry without consent than was later the case: see S. Schein, ‘Women in Medieval Colonial Society: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century’, in Gendering the Crusades, ed. S. Edgington and S. Lambert, Cardiff, 2001, p. 141.
30. WT, 15.21, pp. 703–4; ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 105, p. 263.
The Crusader States Page 57
