The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  134. Innocent's attitude to this dispute was, as Hamilton shows, to some extent determined by the state of his relations with Roger II of Sicily: ‘Ralph of Domfront’, 11–15.

  135. WT, 15.27, pp. 710–11. See Mitchell, Medicine in the Crusades, p. 164.

  136. Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, p. 135, does not mince his words: ‘Fulk neither understood the true interests of Jerusalem nor realised the gravity of the situation in the north.’

  137. WT, 14.6, p. 638. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 56.

  8 The Zengid Threat

  1. WT, 18.27, p. 850.

  2. Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, pp. 80–1.

  3. Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, p. 98.

  4. Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, pp. 82–3.

  5. Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 8, Epistolae, no. 354, pp. 297–8. The Letters of St Bernard of Clairvaux, tr. B.S. James, introd. B.M. Kienzle, Stroud, 1998, no. 273, p. 346.

  6. Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 8, Epistolae, no. 289, pp. 205–6. Letters of St Bernard, no. 274, pp. 347–8. These letters are not dated, but the first must have been written soon after Fulk's death. The second may be as late as 1153, as suggested in the translation of the Letters, p. 546, but could be earlier.

  7. See Chapter 8, p. 197. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 287–8, says his mother and does not mention a sister.

  8. WT, 16.28, p. 756.

  9. See K. Ciggaar, ‘The Abbey of Prémontré – Royal Contacts, Royal News: The Context of the So-Called Continuatio Praemonstratensis’, in East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts – Confrontations, III, Acts of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in September 2000, ed. K. Ciggaar and H. Teule, Louvain, 2003, pp. 21–33.

  10. Modern historians are similarly divided. Edbury and Rowe carefully express themselves in the passive voice. ‘Melisende can be seen as an ambitious, scheming woman who clung to power, and whose behaviour endangered the stability of the kingdom. In this she can be thought of as a true sister of Alice of Antioch, whose reckless ambition William had condemned.’ Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, p. 82. This might be compared with Bernard Hamilton's view. ‘Melisende has often been criticised for not resigning power gracefully to her son at this time [1151–2]: it is difficult to see what justification she would have felt for doing so; she obviously had the support of the Church and most of the southern lords; she was not a regent clinging tenaciously to power after the heir had reached his majority, but the acknowledged co-ruler of the kingdom; she had governed well, but her son was inexperienced and had shown little capacity for government hitherto.’ Hamilton, ‘Women in the Crusader States’, p. 153.

  11. See Chapter 6, p. 140.

  12. See H.E. Mayer, ‘Manasses of Hierges in East and West’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 66 (1988), 757–60. See La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, pp. 118–20, on the role of the constable.

  13. WT, 17.13, pp. 777–8. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 204. Although William remembers seeing Manasses, he was not in the kingdom after 1145, but several of the main protagonists were alive in the late 1160s and after from whom he could have formed this view.

  14. For the situation of the family at this time, see Edbury, John of Ibelin, pp. 5–6.

  15. See M. Barber, ‘The career of Philip of Nablus in the kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Experience of Crusading, vol. 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 61–5.

  16. See Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 118–20.

  17. See Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 115–16.

  18. WT, 16.17, p. 738. See Mayer, Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 83–101.

  19. RRH, no. 172, p. 43, no. 173, p. 43. See Mayer, Bistümer, Klöster und Stifte, p. 224.

  20. See R. Hiestand, ‘Gaudfridus abbas Templi Domini: an underestimated figure in the early history of the kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Experience of Crusading, vol. 2, ed. P.W. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 48–59. As an intellectual, Hiestand compares Geoffrey to Aimery of Limoges.

  21. See W.R. Taylor, ‘A New Syriac Fragment Dealing with Incidents in the Second Crusade’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11 (1929–30), 120–30, and A. Palmer, ‘The History of the Syrian Orthodox in Jerusalem, Part Two: Queen Melisende and the Jacobite Estates’, Oriens Christianus, 76 (1992), 76–85.

  22. See B.Z. Kedar, ‘Palmarée, abbaye clunisienne du XIIe siècle, en Galilee’, Revue bénédictine, 93 (1983), 261–4.

  23. WT, 16.17, pp. 738–9, who says that Ralph was strongly supported by both the king and his mother. See Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 126–7, and Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 101–12.

  24. WT, 16.4, p. 718. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, pp. 140–1. William makes Joscelin permanently resident in Turbessel, but Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 266, and Ibn al-Athir, p. 372, think that his absence was temporary. His son, Joscelin III, was royal seneschal in the 1170s and ‘80s and was associated with a group in government of which William of Tyre strongly disapproved; see Chapter 11, pp. 268, 285. This may well have influenced the way he portrayed his father.

  25. Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 372.

  26. Gregory the Priest, p. 243. On the city itself, see Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 40–2.

  27. Michael the Syrian, 17.2, p. 262. Hugh was in his mid-sixties, a Fleming who had been archbishop since at least 1122. Later attempts to present him as a martyr did not succeed: see R. Hiestand, ‘L'archevêque Hugues d'Edesse et son destin posthume’, in Dei gesta per Francos: Etudes sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard, ed. M. Balard, B.Z. Kedar and J. Riley-Smith, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 171–7.

  28. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 267–8; Michael the Syrian, 17.2, pp. 260–4. For dating, see Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, p. 151, n. 1.

  29. Michael the Syrian, 17.2, pp. 262–3.

  30. Nerss norhali, Lament on Edessa, tr. T.M. van Lint, in East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts – Confrontations, II, Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in May 1997, ed. K. Ciggaar and H. Teule, Louvain, 1999, p. 53. However, as Nerses is primarily concerned to present Zengi as the unwitting instrument of God, intent on punishing Christian sin, ultimately this made no difference. See T.M. van Lint, ‘Seeking Meaning in Catastrophe: Nerss norhali's Lament on Edessa’, in East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts – Confrontations, II, Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in May 1997, ed. K. Ciggaar and H. Teule, Louvain, 1999, p. 42.

  31. Mayer ascribes this to Melisende's determination to marginalise her son by depriving him of the opportunity to gain a military reputation, which, of course, was denied to her: ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 117–18.

  32. See Chapter 3, p. 62.

  33. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 269.

  34. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 267–8.

  35. Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 373.

  36. Kinnamos, pp. 35–6. See Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 144–5.

  37. Loyalty to the Franks could never be certain. William of Tyre, 4.2, p. 235, says that the inhabitants of the city itself were Christian, but that the surrounding region contained a mixed population. Matthew of Edessa's disillusion with the Franks can be seen as early as 1105–6: 3.30, pp. 197–8, 3.40, pp. 201–2.

  38. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 266.

  39. See C. Hillenbrand, ‘"Abominable acts”: the career of Zengi’, in The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences, ed. J. Phillips and M. Hoch, Manchester, 2001, pp. 111–32, and N. Elisséeff, Nr ad-Dn: Un grand prince musulman de Syrie au temps des croisades (511–569 H./1118–1174), vol. 2, Damascus, 1967, pp. 293–388.

  40. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 260.

  41. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 271–2, who says that the man was one of Zengi's attendants and that the matter was personal. According to him, the murderer was Frankish in origin which, given the number of Frankish women held as prisoners, is quite possible. There must have been many men of mixed background in the service of Muslim rulers in the East at this period. For the possibl
e Damascene connection, see Hillenbrand, ‘"Abominable Acts"’, p. 130, n. 63.

  42. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 272.

  43. See G. Beech, ‘The Crusader Lordship of Marash in Armenian Cilicia, 1104–1149’, Viator, 27 (1996), 45–50. Baldwin may have been a younger brother of Raymond of Poitiers, and Beech speculates that this support for Joscelin may have been the cause of a quarrel between them.

  44. WT, 16.14–16, pp. 734–8; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 274–5. Michael the Syrian, 16.5, p. 271, says that Baldwin's body was never found. See Elisséeff, Nr ad-Dn, vol. 2, pp. 396–401. Nur al-Din's rapid response was a consequence of his excellent system of communication, inherited from his father. He reacted as soon as he heard that Joscelin had left Turbessel.

  45. Michael the Syrian, 16.5, pp. 271–2.

  46. See Elisséeff, Nr ad-Dn, vol. 1, pp. 261–75. WT, 22.21(20), pp. 1038–9, has a description of the cisterns.

  47. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 275, who dates the marriage contract 30 March 1147.

  48. WT, 16.9, p. 726. The phrase used is plebs indiscreta. Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 122–4, thinks that the king was having second thoughts.

  49. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 277.

  50. Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, p. 124.

  51. WT, 16.8–13, pp. 723–34. See Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 158–9, who uses it as an example of the ability of the Franks to fight in a marching column, a method used with varying degrees of success by other crusading leaders in the twelfth century, most notably by Louis VII of France and Richard I of England.

  52. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 278.

  53. Otto of Freising, Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGHSS, vol. 45, Hanover, 1912, 7.33, pp. 363–5. Tr. C.C. Mierow, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Years 1146 A.D., New York, 1928, p. 443. See J. Phillips, ‘Armenia, Edessa and the Second Crusade’, in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. N. Housley, Aldershot, 2007, pp. 39–50.

  54. ‘Der Text der Kreuzzugsbulle Eugens III’, ed. P. Rassow, Neues Archiv, 45 (1924), 302–5. Tr. L. and J. Riley-Smith, Crusades, pp. 57–9. See J. Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, 3rd edn, Basingstoke, 2002, pp. 59–64, on the significance of the pope's offer.

  55. WT, 16.18, pp. 739–41. Tr. Babcock and Krey, pp. 163–4.

  56. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris auctoribus Ottone et Ragetvino praeposito Frisingensibus, ed. R. Wilmans, MGHSS, vol. 20, Hanover, 1925, 1.39, pp. 372–3. There is good evidence that, unlike Louis VII, Conrad had already been on a pilgrimage/crusade to the Holy Land in 1125, twelve years before he became king: see R. Hiestand, ‘"Kaiser” Konrad III., der zweite Kreuzzug und ein verlorenes Diplom für den Berg Thabor’, Deutsches Archiv, 35 (1979), 124–5.

  57. See J. Phillips, The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom, New Haven and London, 2007, pp. 61–79, and M. Bull, ‘The Capetian Monarchy and the Early Crusade Movement: Hugh of Vermandois and Louis VII’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 40 (1996), 43–6. Bull, p. 45, stresses that Louis was committing the full prestige of the dynasty to the crusade and not simply using it as a means of undertaking a penitential pilgrimage.

  58. See G. Constable, ‘The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries’, Traditio, 9 (1953), 213–79.

  59. Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, ed. F. Hausmann, vol. 9, MGH, Diplomata, Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1969, no. 195, pp. 354–5; Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I., 1.44, p. 375, 1.58, p. 385.

  60. WT, 16.28, pp. 755–6.

  61. Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem, ed. and tr. V.G. Berry, New York, 1948, bk 4, pp. 68–70, bk 6, pp. 111–41.

  62. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 280–2.

  63. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 282.

  64. Diplomatum Regum, no. 195, p. 355. According to John of Salisbury, at this time in papal service at Rome, ‘they [the Germans] would wait for no-one whatsoever until Edessa, which they came to liberate, had been captured’: Historia Pontificalis, ed. and tr. M. Chibnall, Oxford, 1956, chap. 24, p. 54.

  65. See Hiestand, ‘"Kaiser” Konrad’, 85–7.

  66. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I., 1.34, p. 370. Otto says that Louis desired to fulfil a vow to go to Jerusalem made by his late brother, Philip (died 1131). Odo of Deuil, bk 1, pp. 6–7, implies that Edessa was the king's original goal. On the situation in Edessa, see Amouroux-Mourand, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 86–7.

  67. Phillips, Second Crusade, p. 208.

  68. WT, 16.27, pp. 754–5. Tr. Babcock and Krey, p. 180.

  69. John of Salisbury, 23, p. 53. See Phillips, Second Crusade, pp. 210–12.

  70. WT, 17.1, pp. 760–1.

  71. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I., 1.58, p. 385. See Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, p. 127.

  72. See Barber, New Knighthood, pp. 66–8.

  73. See Hiestand, ‘"Kaiser” Konrad’, 93–7, 113–26.

  74. WT, 16.28, p. 756.

  75. See J. Richard, ‘Le siège de Damas dans l'histoire et dans la légende’, in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period, ed. M. Goodich, S. Menache and S. Schein, New York, 1995, p. 228; M. Hoch, ‘The Choice of Damascus as the Objective of the Second Crusade: A Re-evaluation’, in Autour de la Première Croisade: Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, pp. 359–69; and G. Loud, ‘Some Reflections on the Failure of the Second Crusade’, Crusades, 4 (2005), 9–14.

  76. WT, 17.2–6, pp. 761–8.

  77. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 282–7.

  78. Krey argues that the army was not large and that there were ‘too many officers and not enough troops’: tr. Babcock and Krey, pp. 194–5, n. 13. This is based on William's statement, 16.22, p. 747, that only about a tenth of Conrad's army escaped the defeat at Dorylaeum. Krey, p. 172, n. 43, thinks that this proportion of losses ‘is probably fairly accurate’.

  79. Diplomatum Regum, no. 197, pp. 356–7.

  80. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 196. See Chapter 6, p. 147.

  81. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 21–2.

  82. Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, pp. 161–2. Richard, Crusades, p. 167. See Phillips, Second Crusade, pp. 224–6.

  83. Among modern historians, see, for example, Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, p. 128, who suggests possible reasons for the queen's interest in promoting failure.

  84. Richard, ‘Le siège de Damas’, p. 229, n. 11, suggests that William has confused this with the attribution of Shaizar to Thierry in 1157. See Chapter 9, pp. 211–12.

  85. WT, 17.7, pp. 768–9. If it had been generally known that the money was worthless, it seems unlikely that those who had received it would have remained anonymous.

  86. Michael the Syrian, 17.6, p. 276.

  87. Annales Herbipolensis, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGHSS, vol. 16, Hanover, 1859, p. 7. John of Salisbury reports this story, 25, p. 57, but says that King Louis ‘always endeavoured to exonerate the brothers of the Temple’.

  88. Diplomatum Regum, no. 197, pp. 357.

  89. See Chapter 10, pp. 238, 241–2.

  90. See Taylor, ‘A New Syriac Fragment’, 123–4.

  91. See Pringle, ‘Churches and Settlement’, p. 169.

  92. Peregrinationes Tres, p. 124.

  93. WT, 16.22, p. 747, 16.25, p. 752, 17.5, p. 766, 17.8, pp. 769–70. Cf. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I., 1.60, pp. 386–7.

  94. Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, pp. 160–1.

  95. WT, 16.13, p. 734. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 157.

  96. See M. Hoch, ‘The price of failure: The Second Crusade as a turning-point in the history of the Latin East?’, in The Second Crusade, ed. Phillips and Hoch, pp. 183–5, 193.

  97. WT, 17.6, pp. 767–8. Tr. Babcock and Krey, pp. 192–3.

  98. WT, 16.25, pp. 751–2. Tr. Babcock and Krey, p. 177.

  99. WT, 17.9, pp. 770–2; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 290–2. William dates the battle to 27 June whil
e Ibn al-Qalanisi gives the 29th. Kinnamos, p. 97, says that Raymond would have preferred to camp on a nearby hill. Under pressure from his exhausted forces and against his better judgement, he had settled for a place he knew to be vulnerable.

  100. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 292; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 31.

  101. RHG, vol. 15, pp. 540–1.

  102. WT, 17.10, pp. 772–3.

  103. The suits of armour were valuable, as they often had to be ordered individually or in small batches from specialist western manufacturers.

  104. WT, 17.11, pp. 774–5.

  105. Michael the Syrian, 17.6, pp. 277–8, 17.9, pp. 283–8, 17.11, pp. 294–6. See C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l'époque des croisades, Paris, 1940, pp. 341–3. Part of the problem was Joscelin's lack of money, exacerbated by the loss of Edessa.

  106. WT, 17.15, pp. 780–1.

  107. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 300–1.

  108. WT, 17.15–17, pp. 780–4. The dating of these events is problematical, since their position in William of Tyre's account suggests they occurred in 1152, as does his reference to Humphrey of Toron as constable, a position he did not attain until that year. However, the refusal of the supporters of Queen Melisende to take part, the fact that this was a response to Joscelin's capture in May 1150 and the references to these campaigns in Ibn al-Qalanisi all suggest that 1150 is more likely. See Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 148–9.

  109. See Hamilton, ‘Women in the Crusader States’, pp. 152–3, who makes it clear she was in fact co-ruler.

  110. Mayer, ‘Queen Melisende’, pp. 118, 136–7, 148–9.

  111. The word used by William is laureatus. Hamilton, ‘Women in the Crusader States’, p. 153, presumes that the patriarch would not allow him access to the crown jewels. See Mayer, ‘Das Pontifikale von Tyrus’, 167–8, who stresses that the form was less important than the manifest demonstration to the people.

  112. William of Tyre refers to him as constable during Baldwin's campaigns in the north in 1149 and 1150, although he does not appear with this title in a charter until 1153.

  113. ULKJ, no. 226, p. 415. See Mayer, Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 113–16. Between 1146 and 1152, while Ralph was archbishop-elect of Tyre, the kingdom had been without a chancellor, for it was not customary to hold both this post and an episcopal see simultaneously. This had led to the creation of rival scriptoria, hardly conducive to stable government. However, Ralph did ultimately gain ecclesiastical preferment without relinquishing his position as chancellor when he was chosen as bishop of Bethlehem in 1156, achieved, according to William of Tyre, 16.17, p. 739, through the favour of Pope Hadrian IV, ‘since he was his fellow-countryman’.