The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  15. See Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 313–15, for the signs of such divisions while Saladin was ill. The conflicts after his death in 1193 strongly suggest that a similar situation would have arisen in 1186. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 239–44, who, in contrast to Gibb and Möhring, describe this time as ‘the nadir of Saladin's career’.

  16. See Folda, Art of the Crusaders, p. 440.

  17. See Pringle, Churches, vol. 2, pp. 116–20, 123–34, and Folda, Art of the Crusaders, pp. 415–18.

  18. John Phocas, in JP, p. 320.

  19. See Folda, Art of the Crusaders, pp. 430–2.

  20. Nazareth is only 11 miles from Hattin and the capitals may have been buried as a precaution even before the battle, given the proximity of the two armies. It had fallen before the end of the month.

  21. See J. Folda, The Nazareth Capitals and the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, and M. Barasch, Crusader Figural Sculpture in the Holy Land, New Brunswick, NJ, 1971, pp. 69–176. Folda, p. 49, thinks that eight apostles were originally planned, all of whom were associated with Galilee.

  22. Folda, Art of the Crusaders, p. 415, draws attention to the rebuilding of neighbouring churches either before or at the same time as that of Nazareth, most importantly St Anne's at Saffuriya, the cathedral of St John at Sebaste and the church of the Resurrection at Nablus.

  23. The reason for his death is not known, but Raymond's care in ensuring that he did not have custody of the child might imply doubts about his health. On the dates of Baldwin's birth and death, see Hiestand, ‘Chronologisches zur Geschichte des Königreiches Jerusalem’, 553–5.

  24. Cont. WT, c. 17, pp. 30–1; Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 129–30. Joscelin had his own plans. After the coronation he attempted to expand his holdings in the north of the kingdom by adding Toron to his territories around Acre. As Mayer says, ‘Die Legitimität’, 87–9, in the end his complicated manoeuvres were negated by Saladin's victory at Hattin.

  25. Cont. WT, c. 10, pp. 24–5, c. 17, pp. 30–1; Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 125–6, 130–1. WT, 17.1, p. 760, records his presence on the Second Crusade.

  26. Cont. WT, c. 33, pp. 45–6; Ernoul–Bernard, p. 114. The story derives from the Old French continuations of William of Tyre with some variations in the details. See M. Barber, 'The Reputation of Gerard of Ridefort’, in The Military Orders, vol. 4, On Land and by Sea, ed. J. Upton–Ward, Aldershot, 2008, pp. 111–19.

  27. For a reconstruction, see Kedar, ‘Eraclius’, pp. 195–8. See also H. Nicholson, ‘"La roine preude femme et bonne dame”: Queen Sibyl of Jerusalem (1186–1190) in History and Legend, 1186–1300’, Haskins Society Journal, 15 (2004), 115–18, 124, for the extent to which the sources were influenced by gender stereotyping.

  28. Cont. WT, c. 18, pp. 32–3; Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 131–4. As Mayer, ‘Das Pontifikale von Tyrus’, 161, points out, there were many irregularities with the procedures that followed, not the least of which was the closing of the gates of the city, which prevented public access to the acclamation normally associated with coronations.

  29. The key section from Guy of Bazoches is quoted by Kedar, ‘Eraclius’, p. 197, n. 70; Roger of Howden, Chronica, vol. 2, pp. 315–16. The relevant passages are translated by Edbury, Conquest, pp. 154–5.

  30. See Baldwin, Raymond III, p. 77, n. 21, on the evidence of possible opposition.

  31. Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, ed. J. Stevenson, RS 66, London, 1875, p. 209. It is generally thought that the author may have been English and that he probably wrote up his experiences in the early thirteenth century. However, John Pryor places it within a corpus of material that was altered in various ways in order to encourage participation in a new expedition to the Holy Land, or at least as a means of soliciting contributions. See J.H. Pryor, ‘Two excitationes for the Third Crusade: The Letters of Brother Thierry of the Temple’, Mediterranean Historical Review, 26 (2011), 15.

  32. Hamilton, ‘Elephant of Christ’, p. 106, suggests that Reynald of Châtillon may have persuaded his stepson that this was the best course of action.

  33. Cont. WT, c. 18–21, pp. 33–6. Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 138–9, says that he did homage, but this passage is not in Cont. WT. Eracles, pp. 31–4.

  34. Cont. WT, c. 23, p. 36. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 29. Ernoul–Bernard, p. 141.

  35. ‘Imâd ad-Din al-Isfahânî, Conquête de la Syrie et de Palestine par Saladin, tr. H. Massé, Paris, 1972, pp. 19–20; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 316.

  36. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 258. On the idea that Raymond was ready to convert to Islam, which he dismisses, see Baldwin, Raymond III, pp. 83–5, esp. n. 35.

  37. See Hamilton, Leper King, p. 224. For the previous revolts, see Chapter 7, pp. 154–6, Chapter 10, pp. 236–7.

  38. Cont. WT, c. 23, pp. 36–7. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 30; Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 141–2. Given Ernoul's closeness to Balian, this is likely to be an accurate account of what happened.

  39. Cont. WT, c. 22, p. 36. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 29. Ernoul claims that Saladin's sister was among the prisoners, but this looks like an embellishment since the Muslim sources do not mention it.

  40. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 258–9; Ibn al-Athir, pp. 316–17. Hamilton, Leper King, p. 225, thinks that neither man would have made such a truce, and suggests that it was a story later spread about by Saladin's advisers to justify the execution of Reynald in July 1187.

  41. Ibn al-Athir, pp. 318–19; ‘Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 260–1.

  42. Cont. WT, cc. 25–8, pp. 37–43; Ernoul–Bernard, pp. 143–57, mentioning Ernoul by name, p. 149.

  43. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 319; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 262. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 249–50.

  44. See B.Z. Kedar and D. Pringle, ‘La Fève: A Crusader Castle in the Jezreel Valley’, Israel Exploration Journal, 35 (1985), 164–79.

  45. As can be seen from the master's letter to the pope, James of Mailly was not in fact the Templar marshal as designated by Ernoul. He soon attained legendary status: see the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, in Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, vol. 1, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 38, London, 1864, 1.2, pp. 6–7, the first book of which is a compilation about the Third Crusade, perhaps written in 1191–2, possibly by an English crusader. See Das Itinerarium Peregrinorum: Eine zeitgenössische englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt, ed. H.E. Mayer, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae historica, 18, Stuttgart, 1962, pp. 52–161. The Itinerarium as a whole, including the first book, was put together by Richard de Templo, prior of the Augustinian house of the Holy Trinity, London, probably between 1217 and 1222. Although he made extensive use of other accounts, especially that of the Norman poet Ambroise, nevertheless he was himself a crusader and added valuable material and opinions of his own. For a concise summary of the nature of the Itinerarium, see Helen Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Crusade Texts in Translation, 3, Aldershot, 1997, pp. 6–14.

  46. Libellus, pp. 211–12. See P.W. Edbury, ‘Gerard of Ridefort and the Battle of Le Cresson (1 May 1187): The Developing Narrative Tradition’, in On the Margins of Crusading: The Military Orders, the Papacy and the Christian World, Crusades Subsidia 4 ed. H. Nicholson, Farnham, 2011, pp. 45–60, on the differences between the Old French continuations of William of Tyre, where he shows that in some versions the master's actions are treated in a more neutral fashion than in the Lyon manuscript.

  47. See D. Pringle, ‘The Spring of the Cresson in Crusading History’, 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. 231–40.

  48. Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande, ed. Hiestand, no. 148, pp. 322–4. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, pp. 156–7. Ridefort's letter is not extant, but is mentioned in a letter of Urban III (3 September 1187).

  49. Ibn al-Athir, part
2, pp. 319–20. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 249–50.

  50. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 263. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 252–6.

  51. Cont. WT, c. 28, p. 42. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 35.

  52. Libellus, p. 218; Cont. WT, c. 31, p. 44. Given that he claimed 180,000 for Saladin's army, it seems probable that the Libellus is more reliable.

  53. Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, p. 11. Tr. Barber and Bate, Letters from the East, no. 45, p. 82. Although this letter has been widely cited, some caution may be needed in its use as a source, since John Pryor believes it is ‘an obvious forgery’: ‘Two excitationes’, 16, n.167.

  54. Cont. WT, cc. 30–2, pp. 43–5; Ernoul-Bernard, pp. 157–61; Libellus, pp. 221–2. The Genoese letter says that Raymond and Eschiva's sons persuaded the king to march on Tiberias, but a merchant based in Acre would naturally be less well informed about what happened at Saffuriya.

  55. The witness is al-Muqaddasi, who, as a child, had lived near Nablus before his community had left for Damascus in 1156. He was a member of Saladin's army and the information comes from a letter he wrote in August 1187. It is quoted in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 286.

  56. Cont. WT, c. 34, pp. 46–7; Ernoul-Bernard, pp. 161–2; Libellus, pp. 22–3.

  57. ‘Imad al–Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 264; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 321. ‘Imad al-Din says that the fall of the town had provoked Raymond into action, perhaps because ‘Imad wanted to emphasise the success of Saladin's manoeuvre: Conquête de la Syrie, p. 24.

  58. See Chapter 11, pp. 281–2.

  59. See, for example, the comments of Ibn Shaddad, p. 72; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 320.

  60. WT, 22.28(27), p. 1054.

  61. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 321.

  62. See Barber, ‘Reputation of Gerard of Ridefort’, pp. 116–17.

  63. See Mayer, ‘Henry II’, 728, 737. The implication is that the whole of Henry's deposits in the Holy Land needed his permission before they could be spent, although the 5,000 marks given for the general defence has the attached phrase nisi eam in vita mea repetere voluero. Thus, in addition, Henry could take back this money if he wished.

  64. See B.Z. Kedar, ‘The Battle of Hattin Revisited’, in The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, London, 1992, pp. 196–7. Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 259–60, argue that Guy may have planned to return to the springs at Turan if he found that Saladin blocked the way east. These springs are not mentioned in western sources. J. Prawer, ‘The Battle of Hattin’, in Crusader Institutions, Oxford, 1980, pp. 492–3, thought they were inaccessible in any case.

  65. Kedar, ‘Battle of Hattin Revisited’, pp. 200–1.

  66. Cont. WT, c. 40, p. 52; Libellus, pp. 222–3. For a discussion, see Baldwin, Raymond III, pp. 115–19.

  67. Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 261. Al-Muqaddasi says that the Muslims now enveloped the Franks, to the extent that the centre was now behind them: Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 287.

  68. Eracles, p. 62. See Prawer, ‘Battle of Hattin’, pp. 493–6, and Kedar, ‘Battle of Hattin Revisited’, pp. 198–202.

  69. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 266.

  70. Libellus, pp. 223–5; Cont. WT, c. 42, p. 53.

  71. Cont. WT, c. 42, pp. 53–4; Ernoul-Bernard, pp. 169–70; Libellus, p. 226; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 269–70; Ibn al-Athir, p. 322. The presence of Balian of Ibelin, who had been in the rearguard, suggests that either the formation of the army had disintegrated or that Raymond had gathered together what the Libellus calls the Pullani.

  72. Some confirmation for this is provided by the letter of the Genoese consuls, which says that there was no back-up for the Templars and that they were ‘hemmed in and slaughtered’. As the informant was not actually at the battle, however, it is not absolutely clear that he is referring to the same incident: Roger of Howden, Gesta, p. 11.

  73. See Kedar, ‘Battle of Hattin Revisited’, pp. 205–6.

  74. Cont. WT, c. 42, pp. 54–5; Libellus, pp. 226–8; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 274; Ibn al-Athir, p. 323.

  75. Cont. WT, c. 40, p. 52. Tr. Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem, p. 45. Libellus, pp. 222–3.

  76. Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 11–12. Tr. Barber and Bate, Letters from the East, no. 45, p. 82.

  77. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 322–3.

  78. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 270.

  79. J. Richard, ‘An Account of the Battle of Hattin Referring to the Frankish Mercenaries in Oriental Moslem States’, Speculum, 27 (1952), 175–6. John appears to have been a Frankish mercenary serving for pay rather than from religious conviction. His position was far from unique.

  80. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 271–2. See Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 261.

  81. Cont. WT, c. 43, pp. 55–6; ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, pp. 27–8; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 323–4. In certain circumstances non-Muslims in Islamic lands could claim the aman, that is the protection of the authorities. Ernoul says that the sultan's mamluks actually struck off his head.

  82. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 48.

  83. Ibn Shaddad, p. 37.

  84. Roger of Howden, Chronica, vol. 2, pp. 324–5. John Pryor has subjected the two letters that appear to have been written by Terricus from Tyre to close analysis and believes that they (and probably others) were among those later altered in order to serve as excitationes in the West. In that light he has redated this letter to early 1188, as well as suggesting that Terricus was not at Hattin as one version of the letter asserts. See ‘Two excitationes’, 1–28.

  85. ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, pp. 30–2.

  86. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 324.

  87. Cont. WT, c. 44, p. 56.

  88. Libellus, p. 228.

  89. Cont. WT, cc. 44–5, pp. 56–7; Libellus, pp. 234–5.

  90. ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, p. 33; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 324–5.

  91. Tr. Barber and Bate, Letters from East, no. 42, p. 78.

  92. ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, pp. 34–44; Ibn al-Athir, par 2, pp. 326–8.

  93. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 326.

  94. ULKJ, vol. 3, no. 769, pp. 1339–43.

  95. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 328.

  96. Cont. WT, cc. 48–9, pp. 60–2; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 328–9. See D. Jacoby, ‘Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1187–1192)’, in Atti del Congresso internazionale ‘Dai feudi monferrine e dal Piemonte ai nuovi mondi oltre gli Oceani’, Alessandria 2–6 aprile, Alessandria, 1993, pp. 188–91. For the Genoese version of Conrad's arrival in the East, see M. Mack, ‘A Genoese Perspective of the Third Crusade’, Crusades, 10 (2011), 45.

  97. Cont. WT, c. 49, pp. 62–3; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 313.

  98. This was apparently Ernoul's view: tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 54. According to Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 333, Guy was held in the citadel at Nablus. The town itself had been taken soon after Hattin; Libellus, p. 233; ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, pp. 35–6.

  99. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 329–30.

  100. Ibn Shaddad, p. 77; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 330.

  101. Cont. WT, c. 45, p. 57, c. 49, p. 63; Ernoul-Bernard, pp. 186–7.

  102. B.Z. Kedar, ‘Ein Hilferuf aus Jerusalem vom September 1187’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 35 (1982), 112–22; Jaspert, ‘Zwei unbekannte Hilfersuchen’, no. 2, pp. 511–16.

  103. Cont. WT, c. 50, pp. 63–4; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 331.

  104. Libellus, pp. 241–3.

  105. Libellus, p. 245.

  106. Cont. WT, c. 54, p. 67. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 59.

  107. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 332.

  108. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, p. 332. See also Cont. WT, c. 55, pp. 67–9; Libellus, pp. 246–8; ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, p. 329; Michael the Syrian, 20.6, p. 404, for some variations in these figures, but all agree on the application of a set tariff.

  109. See Friedman, Encoun
ter between Enemies, pp. 163–72.

  110. Cont. WT, c. 55, p. 68.

  111. ‘Imad al-Din, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 330–1. Ibn Shaddad, who wished to emphasise Saladin's virtues, comments on his generosity, both in the giving of alms and in making gifts and grants to individuals. Nevertheless, he implicity accepts the dangers of this when he recounts how the sultan's officials hid sums of money in case they were needed in a crisis: pp. 19, 25–6.

  112. Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 333–4.

  113. ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, p. 49.

  114. Cont. WT, c. 57, p. 72.

  115. Cont. WT, c. 57, pp. 70–1. Tr. Edbury, Conquest, p. 62.

  116. Ibn Shaddad, p. 78.

  117. Cont. WT, c. 59, p. 73.

  118. On Raymond's death, see Ibn Shaddad, p. 74; Ernoul-Bernard, p. 178. See also Baldwin, Raymond III, pp. 137–8. Ralph of Diceto, vol. 2, p. 56, says that the count died fifteen days after the fall of Jerusalem, that is, on 17 October.

  119. Cont. WT, cc. 59–61, pp. 73–5. The word used is governaus. See Pryor, Geography, Technology and War, pp. 31–2.

  120. Philip of Novara, cap. 47, pp. 118–21, 259–61.

  121. See P.W. Edbury, ‘Law and Custom in the Latin East: Les Letres dou Sepulcre’, in Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. B. Arbel, London, 1996, pp. 71–9.

  122. WT, 22.5, p. 1012. See ULKJ, vol. 1, p. 11.

  123. Ibn Shaddad, pp. 77–8; ‘Imad al-Lin, in Abu Shama, vol. 4, pp. 33–4.

  124. ‘Imad al-Din, Conquête de la Syrie, pp. 51–9; Ibn al-Athir, part 2, pp. 334–5; Cont. WT, c. 62, p. 75; Libellus, p. 250; Roger of Howden, Chronica, vol. 2, p. 346. Pryor (see note 84 above) dates this letter to post-July 1188.

  125. Roger of Howden, Chronica, vol. 2, p. 346. By Syrians he meant indigenous Orthodox priests, who seem to have been allowed to continue to say the offices in the period between 1187 and 1192, when Saladin accepted two Latin priests and two deacons in each of the three great shrine churches of the Holy Sepulchre, Bethlehem and Nazareth as part of his agreement with Richard I: Itinerarium, 4.13, p. 438. See A. Jotischky, ‘The Fate of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem at the End of the 12th Century’, in Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, ed. T. Hummel, K. Hintlian and U. Carmesund, London, 1999, pp. 192–4.