The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

89. See Mayer, ‘Latins, Muslims and Greeks’, 188–92. Mayer believes that this had been achieved by 1164. This did not mean, however, that Manuel could appoint Greek Orthodox prelates from Constantinople.

  90. WT, 20.6, p. 918. ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 337, p. 584, shows the king at Ascalon, the usual departure point for Egypt at that date.

  91. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 165.

  92. WT, 20.5, p. 917. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 350. The key phrase is aliquam haberet excusat-ionem.

  93. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 171–2

  94. WT, 20.5, p. 918. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, pp. 350–1.

  95. Cart., vol. 1, no. 402, pp. 275–6; ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 336, pp. 578–82. See Riley-Smith, Knights of St John, pp. 71–3, 324. William of Tyre's assertion that Gilbert of Assailly was the driving force behind this campaign is confirmed by this charter, which seems to have been prepared by the Hospitallers themselves, as was the agreement with the order made the following summer. See Mayer, ‘Die Hofkapelle’, 506.

  96. ‘Old besants’ seems to mean dinars of Alexandria rather than the Frankish imitations from Acre, which were between one-third and two-fifths lighter. See G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de l'Orient latin, Paris, 1878, pp. 130–43, Additions et rectifications, p. 10, and the discussion in Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 43–6.

  97. WT, 18.14, p. 831, 20.5, pp. 917–18; RHG, vol. 15, pp. 681–2. See also Chapter 9, pp. 210–11.

  98. ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 325, pp. 562–3.

  99. Favreau-Lilie, ‘Landesausbau und Burg’, 84–5, suggests that some of the cost was offset by taxes in kind from the dependent villages as well as contributions from local farmers, now much better protected from raids and plundering than in the past, perhaps enabling them to expand the cultivated area.

  100. See J. Burgtorf, ‘The Military Orders in the Crusader Principality of Antioch’, in East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 1, Antioch from the Byzantine Reconquest until the End of the Crusader Principality, ed. K. Ciggaar and D.M. Metcalf, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 147, Louvain, 2006, pp. 226, 233.

  101. Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 110.

  102. WT, 19.11, p. 879. William first places this at around the same time as the death of King William I of Sicily, which occurred in May 1166, but then concludes the book by saying that the year was the third of the reign, which would mean that it was before 18 February 1166.

  103. J. Delaville Le Roulx, ‘Chartes de Terre Sainte’, ROL, 11 (1905–8), no. 2, pp. 183–4; ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 314, pp. 548–50.

  104. For possible identification, see P. Deschamps, Les Châteaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte, vol. 2, La défense du royaume de Jérusalem, Paris, 1939, p. 116.

  105. Ibn Shaddad, p. 43.

  106. WT, 20.6–9, pp. 918–23.

  107. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 172. His worries may have been compounded by the knowledge that Fustat was largely inhabited by Christians and Jews.

  108. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 173–4.

  109. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 174.

  110. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 174–5; Ibn Shaddad, p. 44. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 24–7.

  111. WT, 20.10, p. 924.

  112. WT, 20.12, p. 926. His view may have been coloured by an apparent quarrel he had with the archbishop, which led him to travel to Rome in 1169 in an attempt to settle the matter: 20.17, p. 934. See Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land, pp. 168–207, for the mission.

  113. WT, 20.3, pp. 914–15, 20.25, p. 947. See E. Joranson, ‘The Pilgrimage of Henry the Lion’, in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, Chicago, 1938, pp. 146–225.

  114. WT, 20.25, p. 947. See Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land, pp. 177–9, 204–7, and Hamilton, Leper King, pp. 30–1.

  115. WT, 20.13, pp. 926–7. Niketas Choniates, pp. 91–2, says that Andronicus met Amalric in Jerusalem before the expedition began. Kinnamos, 6.9, p. 208, has the fleet go straight to Egypt, but this is not likely.

  116. Cart., vol. 1, no. 409, p. 283; ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 341, pp. 591–5.

  117. See Barber, ‘Philip of Nablus’, pp. 73–4.

  118. WT, 20.11, p. 925.

  119. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 176–80. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 27–36.

  120. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 183; Ibn Shaddad, p. 46.

  121. WT, 20.16, pp. 931–3. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 368. See Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare, pp. 84–6.

  122. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 183.

  123. WT, 20.5, pp. 917–18. See H. Nicholson, The Knights Hospitaller, Woodbridge, 2001, pp. 21–2.

  124. See Riley-Smith, Knights of St. John, pp. 60–3. The date of his resignation is not known, but it was probably early in 1170. Such a resignation was unprecedented in the Hospital, although the Templar master, Everard des Barres, resigned to join the Cistercians in 1152. Gilbert was, in fact, persuaded by the patriarch to rescind his decision, but the imposition of conditions by the chapter precipitated a second resignation.

  125. Niketas Choniates, p. 96; WT, 20.17, p. 933.

  126. Kinnamos, 6.9, p. 209. Niketas Choniates, p. 96, confirms this, but says nothing about plans for any further attack.

  127. WT, 20.17, p. 934. See also Möhring, Saladin, p. 35.

  128. Michael the Syrian, 19.6, p. 336.

  129. This has the ring of truth, since the end of October was effectively the close of the sailing season, except in very unusual circumstances. As Amalric did not even arrive at Damietta until 27 October, only a very quick victory would have sufficed.

  130. Kinnamos, 6.9, pp. 208–9; Niketas Choniates, pp. 91–6.

  131. See Mayer, ‘Das syrische Erdbeben’, 474–84.

  132. Michael the Syrian, 19.7, p. 339. See Hamilton, ‘Aimery of Limoges’, 276.

  133. WT, 20.18, p. 935; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 185–6.

  134. Mayer, ‘Das syrische Erdbeben’, 484, for the text. The rather abrupt ending suggests that this is not the complete letter.

  135. Cart., vol. 1, no. 411, pp. 284–6; ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 346, pp. 601–5. See Riley-Smith, Knights of St John, pp. 66–7. Mayer, ‘Das syrische Erdbeben’, 478, points out that this brought the Hospitallers considerably closer to Tripoli itself, and would not have met with much support from Raymond had he been in a position to intervene. In the end the Hospitallers did not take over these castles, despite holding other properties in the region, perhaps because Raymond III did not confirm the grant after his release from prison in 1174. See J. Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli dans les chartes du Fonds des Porcellet’, Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 130 (1972), 344–7.

  136. Ibn Shaddad, p. 45.

  137. It is not clear if they were volunteers, or part of a wider call-up.

  138. WT, 20.19–21, pp. 936–40. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 42–3.

  139. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 194.

  140. Ibn al-Athir, pp. 196–8. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 44–6. Al-Adid's heirs seem to have been held in a form of house arrest, prevented from having contact with women, so that the dynasty slowly died out.

  141. See Metcalf, ‘Describe the Currency’, p. 193. He suggests a date of c.1169. See Chapter 9, p. 218, for Baldwin's recoining.

  142. For Odo's career, see Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri, pp. 87–105.

  143. WT, 20.22–4, pp. 940–6. See S. Runciman, ‘The Visit of King Amalric I to Constantinople in 1171’, in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer and R.C. Smail, Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 153–8. Runciman believes that William was part of Amalric's entourage. However, William does not say so, and Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, p. 55, think he reconstructed the account from eyewitnesses, as he does on other occasions.

  144. Kinnamos, 6.9, pp. 208–9. The reference to Amalric is very brief, as Kinnamos was much more interested in Manuel's general arrest of the Venetians in the empire, which had occurred in March, shortly
before Amalric's arrival. William of Tyre was apparently unaware of the arrest of the Venetians, but devotes three chapters to Amalric's visit. Kinnamos, 5.13, p. 179, says that Amalric took an oath to Manuel at the time of his marriage to Maria Comnena, ‘as his brother Baldwin had done’, but it is difficult to know what this means in western feudal terms. See Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 204–9, J.L. La Monte, ‘To What Extent Was the Byzantine Empire the Suzerain of the Latin Crusading States?’, Byzantion, 7 (1932), 253–64, and Hamilton, ‘William of Tyre and the Byzantine Empire’, pp. 226–7.

  145. See Kühnel, Wall Painting, pp. 149–80, and Folda, Art of the Crusaders, pp. 382–90. The reason for the failure to decorate the whole church has been the subject of much speculation. It might, however, be connected to the decline of Byzantine influence in the kingdom during the next reign, especially as a result of the anti-Byzantine policies of Raymond III of Tripoli, bailli between late 1174 and July 1176: see Chapter 11, pp. 265–7.

  146. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 198–200. William of Tyre, 20.25, p. 946, does not link the two attacks, but in this instance Ibn al-Athir appears to have greater inside knowledge. See also Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 47–8. Möhring, Saladin, pp. 45–6, even speculates that there might have been a secret agreement between Saladin and Amalric offering mutual protection against Nur al-Din should circumstances demand it.

  147. WT, 20.26, pp. 948–50; Michael the Syrian, 19.3, p. 331, 19.6, p. 337.

  148. WT, 20.29–30, pp. 953–6. The French translation expresses this more forcefully. Amalric sent letters to all Christian princes, not only telling them about the great damage that the order had done to the faith, but also encouraging them to act against the Templars in their own lands; Eracles, vol. 1 (ii), p. 999.

  149. Walter Map, De nugis curialium, ed. and tr. M.R. James, rev. edn. C.N.L. Brooke and R.A.B. Mynors, Oxford, 1983, pp. 66–7. Nicholson argues that Walter Map could have learned of these events from William of Tyre at the Third Lateran Council of 1179 and that he is not therefore an independent source. See Nicholson, ‘Before William of Tyre’, p. 112.

  150. See Barber, New Knighthood, pp. 100–5, for this incident.

  151. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 222–3.

  152. WT, 20.31, p. 956. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 394.

  153. Michael the Syrian, 19.11, p. 353.

  154. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 225–6. See also the historian of Aleppo, Kamal al-Din, L'histoire d'Alep, tr. E. Blochet, ROL, 3 (1895), 518–19, who describes the setting-up of colleges and caravanserais and the gathering together of wise men and experts in law in the city by Nur al-Din.

  155. WT, 20.32, pp. 956–7. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, p. 396; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 234. Michael the Syrian, 20.1, p. 356, saw his death as a tragedy, for, after Nur al-Din's death, the Christians had hoped that Amalric would be their saviour.

  11 The Disintegration of the Crusader States

  1. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 198–200, 221.

  2. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 223–6.

  3. WT, 21.3, p. 963; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 229–30.

  4. See Hamilton, Leper King, pp. 75–6, 86–8, and Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land, pp. 222–4.

  5. WT, 21.6, pp. 967–8; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 231–5. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 77–95.

  6. Neither the exact date nor the reason for Raymond's release is known, which is unfortunate given the huge consequences of his presence in the crusader states in the 1170s and 1180s. William of Tyre, 20.28, p. 952, says that Amalric paid part of the ransom, which is likely, as he must have found the government of Tripoli an extra burden, but Nur al-Din's motives are not clear. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 234, says he was released by the emir Gumushtekin, Sa'd al-Din, formerly Nur al-Din's deputy in Mosul, early in 1175. As Gumushtekin was holding al-Salih in Aleppo at the time and was desperate to fend off Saladin, such a move would have been in his interests. However, William of Tyre is quite clear that the release occurred while Amalric was still alive, a statement confirmed by Raymond's appearance as a witness on a royal charter for the Hospitallers on 18 April 1174: ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 362, p. 629. See M.W. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem (1140–1187), New York, 1936, pp. 11, 14–15, for this issue.

  7. WT, 21.8, pp. 972–4; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 234, says that Raymond's siege of Homs began on 1 February. According to William of Tyre, the whole campaign lasted from January to May.

  8. WT, 21.1–2, pp. 961–2. On the nature of the disease, see P.D. Mitchell, ‘An Evaluation of the Leprosy of King Baldwin IV in the Context of the Medieval World’, in Hamilton, Leper King, pp. 245–58. Saladin's information, however, was that the Franks did not immediately agree on Amalric's successor. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 75.

  9. See S. Lay, ‘A leper in purple: the coronation of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem’, Journal of Medieval History, 23 (1997), 317–34, who argues that it was not obvious that he had leprosy until around the age of fifteen when skin lesions began to appear.

  10. See M. Barber, ‘The Order of St Lazarus and the Crusades’, Catholic Historical Review, 80 (1994), 439–56.

  11. See E. Kohlberg and B.Z. Kedar, ‘A Melkite Physician in Frankish Jerusalem and Ayyubid Damascus: Muwaffaq al-Dn Ya'qb b. Siqlb’, in Asian and African Studies, 22 (1988), 114.

  12. Hamilton, Leper King, p. 38.

  13. Any claims that might have been made by Agnes of Courtenay as the king's mother (perhaps based on the precedent of Queen Melisende) were negated by the fact that she was not the dowager queen. Her exclusion in 1163 suggests baronial anticipation that such a situation might arise. Similarly, Maria Comnena, Amalric's widow, who was dowager queen, was not the king's mother. In these circumstances, it is possible that Amalric might have designated Miles of Plancy as head of the government during the minority. See H.E. Mayer, ‘Die Legitimität Balduins IV. von Jerusalem und das Testament der Agnes von Courtenay’, Historisches Jahrbuch, 108 (1988), 66–7.

  14. WT, 20.9, p. 921. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 2, pp. 354–5.

  15. WT, 21. 3–4, pp. 963–5. See B. Hamilton, ‘Miles of Plancy and the Fief of Beirut’, in The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, London, 1992, pp. 136–46, and Leper King, pp. 91–3.

  16. WT, 21.5, p. 966. William says that he received procuratio et potestas. A parallel may be drawn with Amalric, described in 1170 as procurans of the county of Tripoli: Cart., vol. 1, no. 411, p. 284; ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 346, p. 604. Cf. Fulk's position in Antioch in 1135; see Chapter 7, p. 156. The term regens in the sense of regent does not seem to have been used until the fourteenth century. William does not date these events, but places them after the assassination of Miles of Plancy.

  17. In John of Ibelin's list of the mid-1260s, Galilee and Tripoli are presented as two of the four great baronies of the kingdom: Le livre des assises, X, pp. 113–14, 193. However, this can only give an approximate picture of the situation in the 1160s.

  18. WT, 21.3, pp. 963–4.

  19. WT, 21.5, pp. 965–7; 22.10(9), p. 1019.

  20. William says that Ralph died during the summer and his last signed charter is 18 April 1174: ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 362, p. 629. On 3 July, the king was using Peter, the vice-chancellor: ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 364, p. 635. William first appears on 13 December: ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 381, p. 657. However, he does not seem to have exercised the office immediately, partly because he was probably on a mission to Constantinople between late 1175 and early 1176, and partly because of the hostility of Agnes of Courtenay. See Mayer, Die Kanzlei, vol. 1, pp. 166, 210–37, and Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, pp. 18–19.

  21. For a more jaundiced Muslim view, see Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 197.

  22. See Chapter 9, p. 215.

  23. See B. Hamilton, ‘Manuel I Comnenus and Baldwin IV of Jerusalem’, in Kathegetria: Essays Presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th Birthday, ed. J. Chrysostomides, Camberley, 1988, pp. 355–7.

  24. WT, 21.12(13), pp. 977–8.

  25. See Hami
lton, ‘Manuel I Comnenus and Baldwin IV’, p. 357.

  26. WT, 21.11(12), pp. 976–7. See M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History, London, 1984, pp. 192–4.

  27. WT, 21.15–16, pp. 981–3. See Hamilton, ‘Manuel I Comnenus and Baldwin IV of Jerusalem’, pp. 359–60.

  28. WT, 21.10(11), p. 976; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 183; Michael the Syrian, vol. 3, 20.3, pp. 365–6. Saladin made peace with Aleppo on 29 July, so presumably the two men were released well before this date: Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 243–4.

  29. See R.L. Nicholson, Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States, 1134–1199, Leiden, 1973, pp. 37–9, 63–4.

  30. See Hamilton, ‘Titular Nobility’, pp. 200–1, and Mayer, ‘Die Legitimität’, 68–9.

  31. See Nicholson, Joscelyn III, pp. 73–7. Bohemond's motives are not known, but he may have been attempting to revive traditional Antiochene claims of lordship over the rulers of Edessa.

  32. WT, 21.4, p. 964. Humphrey III died c.1173, predeceasing his father.

  33. Reynald was ‘lord of Hebron and Montréal’ by November 1177; RRH, no. 551, p. 146. The northern part of the fief had been granted to the Templars in 1166; see Chapter 10, pp. 250–1.

  34. ULKJ, vol. 2, no. 390, p. 670; RRH, no. 539, pp. 143–4, no. 572, p. 152. See Mayer, ‘Die Herrschaftsbildung in Hebron’, 75–6, 80.

  35. See the genealogy in Hamilton, Leper King, p. xx. Philip had been one of the targets of the delegation led by Frederick, archbishop of Tyre, in 1169: see Chapter 10, p. 252. Philip developed his financial resources very effectively: see D. Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, London, 1992, pp. 79–81.

  36. WT, 21.13(14), p. 979: obtulit ei potestatem et liberam et generalem administrationem super regnum universum.

  37. WT, 21.17(18), p. 985. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 254–5, thought that Philip had left for the north because he believed Saladin was no longer a danger after his defeat at Mont Gisard on 25 November, but William says clearly that he left at the beginning of October.

  38. WT, 21.18(19), pp. 986–7, 21.24(25), pp. 994–6; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 255–6.