Figure 8.27 The Pisa Griffin, cartouche with pigeon, cast and engraved bronze, eleventh century, Egypt (?)
At the siege of Alexandria in 570/1174–5 news came to the Muslim camp by pigeon (‘on the wing of the bird’).142
Spies
We may assume that a network of spies existed on both sides; they provided information on local conditions. Such a network may well have included ex-prisoners, converts to the faith of the other side, who, faced with the stark choice of death or conversion, preferred to embrace a new religion and live.
Nizam al-Mulk mentions the necessity for spies in his Book of Government.143 Spies must constantly go out to the limits of the kingdom in the guise of merchants, travellers, Sufis, pedlars and mendicants, and bring back reports of everything they hear, so that no matters of any kind remain concealed. Nizam al-Mulk is suspicious of formal ambassadors, pointing out that there is often a secret purpose to their visit: ‘In fact they want to know about the state of pthe roads, mountain-passes and rivers, to see whether an army can pass or not.’ He then goes on to mention a host of other items of information an ambassador may wish to acquire in addition to the overt purpose of his embassy.144
Al-Ansari also devotes considerable space in his military manual to spies, couriers and informers.145 Spies, in his, view, should be trustworthy, possessed of excellent insight and sound judgement, shrewd and crafty, well travelled and fully conversant with the language of the enemy.146
A typical example of a possible spy was William the Frank, a Genoese merchant, who appeared in Cairo in 607/1210–11, bringing gifts for al-’Adil. The sultan asked him to live in his entourage and to accompany him to Syria. In reality, so al-Maqrizi says, he was a Frankish spy. Nevertheless, when al-’Adil took up residence in Cairo four years later, William was requested to live with him.147
The Treatment of Prisoners
Muslim Prisoners in Frankish Captivity
There is no doubt that Muslim prisoners languished in Frankish prisons but their numbers cannot be assessed. There is, for example, little credibility in the statement by Ibn Shaddad that 3,000 Muslim prisoners were held in Jerusalem in 1187.148 Even more grossly exaggerated is the suggestion made by Saladin’s enthusiastic biographer, ‘Imad al-Din, that Saladin freed 20,000 Muslim prisoners in his campaign of reconquest.149
Despite these understandable inaccuracies, it does seem clear that Muslim prisoners in Crusader hands must have been quite numerous, especially in the period of the greatest Crusader military and territorial successes. Kedar argues that Muslim prisoners must have contributed significantly to the Frankish economy.150 According to Ibn al-Furat, a thousand Muslim prisoners were involved in the building of Safad.151 The relentless programme of castle-building which took up so much of Frankish energies during the twelfth century must have created a well-nigh inexhaustible demand for manpower – for the quarrying of stone, the transport of materials, the construction of ramps and the digging of moats. Muslim prisoners were an essential element in this endless and ambitious enterprise.
In 661/1263 Sultan Baybars castigated the Crusaders for not keeping to the terms of an agreement and for holding on to Muslim prisoners to use them as forced labour rather than exchanging them for their counterparts languishing in Muslim jails:
We have sent the prisoners to Nablus and thence to Damascus; you have sent nobody… You have not taken pity on the prisoners who have professed the same religion (milla) as you and who had already arrived at the doors of your house. All that was in order that your jobs undertaken by Muslim prisoners should not be discontinued.152
Usama admits that he used to visit the king of the Franks (Fulk V) often in times of truce. He writes that the queen’s father, King Baldwin, ‘was under obligation to my father’. During such visits the Franks used to allow Usama to buy off some of their Muslim captives.153 Usama also talks about a ‘devil of a Frank called William Jiba’ who captured around 400 Maghribi pilgrims. Some of these were brought to Usama by their owners and he would buy those of them that he could.154 Later, Usama reports that some of these captives actually escaped and were hidden away by the inhabitants of the villages of ‘Akka: ‘Being all Muslims, whenever a captive came to them they would hide him and see that he got into Muslim territory.’155
Isolated anecdotal references, such as the testimony of Ibn Jubayr, should be treated with caution, since they cannot be taken as broad generalisations about the way in which the Crusaders treated Muslim prisoners. Clearly, both sides handled their captives with varying degrees of severity depending on particular circumstances. Ibn Jubayr rises to great heights of emotion when describing the plight of Muslim prisoners:
Among the misfortunes that one who visits their land will see are the Muslim prisoners walking in shackles and put to painful labour like slaves. In like condition are the Muslim women prisoners, their legs in iron rings. Hearts are rent for them, but compassion avails them nothing.156
Richard the Lionheart, otherwise noted for his chivalrous conduct, was nonetheless capable on occasion of extreme severity towards prisoners. In 587/1191, according to al-‘Umari, he had many Muslim prisoners killed at Acre.157 Ibn Shaddad does not mince his words in his account:158
They were in his custody and he behaved treacherously towards them … Then they summoned from amongst the Muslim prisoners those whose martyrdom God had written down that day. They numbered around 3,000 in ropes. They [the Franks] attacked them to a man and killed them all in cold blood by sword and lance.159
There may well have been coercive measures applied by Frankish captors towards those Muslim prisoners in their hands. This is certainly the implication of a letter written by Ibn Taymiyya to a ‘king’ in Cyprus around the year 703/1304. Ibn Taymiyya requests that the king should show kindness towards some of his Muslim prisoners and he invites him to release them. They were probably the victims of a raid by Frankish pirates off the Levantine coast and had little hope of finding ransom money. At the end of the letter he asks the Frankish king to refrain from changing the religion of the prisoners: ‘I will seal up this letter by recommending (to the King) to treat with indulgence those people of the Qur’an … and to refrain from changing the religion of a single one of them.’160
Figure 8.28 Prisoners wearing the yoke or cangue, early fourteenth-century album painting, probably Tabriz, Iran
A relevant contemporary document is an Arabic inscription on a block of basalt preserved in the mosque known as Dayr al-Muslimin (or Dayr al-Muslim) at Busra in southern Syria. It records an endowment of an oven and a mill by the atabeg Mu’in al-Din Unur, and states that their revenue is to be used for ‘the liberation of Muslims from infidel prisons’, and specifically ‘those who are without family and cannot free themselves. They must be Sunnis, must not distance themselves from the community and must know the Qur’an by heart’. In addition to this endowment, the inscription mentions a certain Surkhak who had set aside one-sixth of the revenue of a little village called Marj Harasa for the same purpose. This inscription, securely datable on historical grounds to the year that Unur died, that is 544/1149,161 is larded with Qur’anic quotations (2: 177, 229 and 231), and the titles of Unur stress his piety.162 It offers valuable insights into the mechanics and conditions of ransoming Muslim prisoners. Another (now lost) inscription from Busra also dealt with the ransom of prisoners;163 this custom was widespread at the time,164 and indeed continued well into the Mamluk period. In the reign of Baybars a governor of Damascus set up a special foundation for this purpose,165 and as late as the fourteenth century Muslims were ransoming their co-religionists from the Franks of Cyprus.166 Finally, it is worth noting that, as Usama’s Memoirs make clear, he and his friend Unur competed with each other in the pious task of ransoming Muslim pilgrims captured by the Franks.167
Frankish Prisoners in Muslim Captivity
The number of Frankish prisoners in Muslim hands was probably significantly smaller given that the Franks were always a minority in the Levant. Moreover, the Musli
ms would have less need for forced labour than the Franks, with their huge and urgent building enter-prises – though the citadel at Cairo was built with the help of large contingents of Frankish prisoners of war.
The Islamic sources are full of stories about the fate of famous Crusader prisoners who fell into Muslim hands; these accounts testify sometimes to cruelty and sometimes to chivalry. The early twelfth-century Turkish ruler of Damascus, Tughtegin, who was involved in the first tentative Islamic military responses to the Crusaders, was tough and uncompromising in his treatment of important Crusader captives who had the misfortune to fall into his hands.
In 502/1108–9, he took captive the nephew of Baldwin of Jerusalem. As Ibn al-Athir relates:
Tughtegin offered Islam but he refused, offering as a ransom for himself thirty thousand dinars and the release of five hundred prisoners. But Tughtegin was not satisfied with that without Islam and when he did not respond he killed him with his own hand and he sent the prisoners to the caliph and the sultan.168
Figure 8.29 Warrior wearing the khayagh or ‘cut coat’ in lamellar armour, Rashid al-Din, Jami‘ al-Tawarikh (‘World History’), 714/1314, Tabriz, Iran
The passage could be interpreted to mean that he was offering the release of 500 Muslims in Frankish captivity, but it seems more likely that he was proposing that Tughtegin should release not only himself but also 500 Frankish prisoners for a total of 30,000 dinars.
This story has implications that extend beyond the treatment of prisoners. It indicates that, whether for political or religious reasons, Tughtegin was set upon making the nephew of the Frankish King of Jerusalem apostasise, and that in pursuit of this aim he was prepared to forego the huge fortune of 30,000 gold coins. It is possible, of course, that for military reasons alone he was not prepared to release 500 Frankish prisoners. But the episode is perhaps an indication of the power of piety on both sides at this time.
Robert, son of Fulk, the lord of Sahyun, was a valiant warrior and on good terms with Tughtegin. Nevertheless, neither this previous friendly relationship nor the fact that Robert was a leper (abras) occasioned any soft treatment on the part of Tughtegin. Robert fell from his horse in battle in 1119 and was taken prisoner by Tughtegin, who executed him personally.169
Tughtegin captured Count Gervase of Basoches, the Lord of Tiberias, in Shawwal 501/14 May-11 June 1108: ‘He hollowed out his skull while he was still alive and drank wine from it with the count watching him. He lived for an hour and then died.’170
Such gruesome and in this case medically nonsensical episodes as this were often laid at the door of Turkish commanders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. These Turkish notables are often mentioned as indulging in drunkenness and their conduct is viewed by Muslim, especially Arab, chroniclers as unacceptable. Such writers relate stories involving Turkish rulers cutting prisoners in half and the inflicting of hideous punishments on captives. A particular villain was Salah al-Din al-Yaghi-Siyani. The Arab aristocrat Usama describes this Turkish amir who feared neither God nor Zengi as possessing unusual ferocity and cruelty.171 Ibn al-Azraq, the town chronicler of Mayyafariqin, records that in 528/1133–4 al-Yaghi-Siyani punished an employee of his by tying him to a dog and then putting both of them into a sack. The resourceful official managed to trap the dog’s neck between his thighs inside the sack, strangle the animal and escape.172 Such stories as these, apocryphal as they probably are for the most part, are a reflection of the strong resentment felt by the Arabs at being ruled by the Turks. Usama asks God to overlook the excesses of al-Yaghi-Siyani and speaks of tales which would ‘make the hair of the newborn turn white’.173
Baybars seems to have exacted unusually severe punishments even by the standards of the time. All but two of the defenders of Safad in 664/1266 were killed and about 1,500 men were beheaded on a nearby hill.174
High-ranking Frankish captives would usually be kept until they could purchase their liberty. Usama writes: ‘Allah decreed that the Frankish captives who were taken in Kafartab be set free, since the amirs divided them among themselves and kept them under their charge until they could buy themselves off.’175
It could take years for the ransom to be paid, during which time the captive would languish and perhaps even die in a dungeon. Alternatively, a high-ranking – and especially – royal captive might be given special treatment befitting his status. Thus in 648/1250–1 St Louis, the French king, was taken to al-Mansura; he was fettered by the leg and confined in a house which had belonged to a high-ranking chancery official. He was allotted a special person to look after him and bring him food. The ordinary Frankish prisoners, however, were killed in batches each night and their bodies thrown into the Nile.176
Protracted and intricate negotiations which might boil down to direct bargaining were apt to occur between captor and captive. A typical example is the episode of the Muslim ruler of Mosul, Jawali, and his Frankish prisoner, referred to by Ibn al-Athir as the ‘Frankish count’ (Baldwin). Under the year 502/1108–9, he writes:
When he [Jawali] came to Maskin he released the Frankish count who was a prisoner in Mosul. He had taken him with him. His name was Baldwin and he was the lord of Edessa and Saruj and other places. He had remained in custody until then and had spent much money but had not been released. At the appropriate moment Jawali released him and put ceremonial garments on him. His stay in prison was nearly five years. Jawali had stipulated with him that he should ransom himself with money and that he should release the Muslim prisoners who were in his prison and that he should support him personally and with his troops and money whenever he wanted.177
Figure 8.30 Warrior, album, early fourteenth century, Tabriz, Iran
This was not, however, the end of the story for Baldwin was sent to Qal‘at Ja’bar and was not released until Joscelin, the lord of Tell Bashir, became a hostage in place of Baldwin. Jawali then released Joscelin, replacing him with his brother-in-law and Baldwin’s brother-in-law.178
Hostages were part of everyday life: they were offered as a pledge of good faith in a deal between Frank and Muslim. Usama gives a number of examples of this practice. In Shayzar, on one occasion, Baldwin II had sent hostages – Frankish and Armenian knights – as security for a debt he owed to the Muslim Artuqid ruler of Mardin, Timurtash. When the amount was paid, the hostages could go home.179 It is worth pointing out that such was the sense of family honour that Usama’s father insisted on rescuing these selfsame Frankish hostages when they were captured by Muslims from Hama on their way home.180
The Islamic sources do not describe the unusual appearance of the Knights Templar (in their garb of white cloaks and red crosses) and the Hospitallers (with their black robes and white crosses) but such alien groups must have stood out prominently and struck the Muslims who saw them. Saladin, fabled in both East and West for his chivalry, singled out these military orders for ruthless treatment, killing all those who would not convert to Islam after the battle of Hattin in 1187. The mood of the massacre is one of high religious exultation. Volunteer warriors, religious scholars, Sufis and ascetics who were in Saladin’s company were each asked to kill one of the prisoners: ‘The sultan was sitting with his face delighted and the infidels were glowering.’181 No reason is given for this severity but it may be assumed with confidence that these easily identifiable warriors particularly symbolised Western Christian fanaticism as well as arousing the ancient Islamic dislike of monkery. Hence the deep hatred and resentment which the narrative exudes.
Figure 8.31 Warrior wearing the khayagh or ‘cut coat’ in lamellar armour, Firdawsi, Shahnama (‘Book of Kings’ – the Great Mongol Shahnama), c. 1330, Tabriz, Iran
On an earlier occasion, in 575/1179, Saladin had inspected a large group of prisoners, ‘all enchained’.182 Amongst the prisoners was Baldwin II of Ibelin who was ransomed after a year. Al-Maqrizi also records that Odo, the Grand Master of the Templars, was one of these prisoners, but he died in custody.183
It was occasionally possible to escape fro
m prison, whether by bribe, ruse or ingenuity. The vizier al-Afdal Ridwan al-Walakhshi was imprisoned in a building on one side of the palace in Cairo but he escaped by digging a hole fourteen cubits long with an iron nail.184 The chronicler al-’Azimi records that the Artuqid prince Balak took Baldwin king of Antioch captive in 517/1123–4 and threw him into the pit (jubb) of Khartpert with Joscelin. Joscelin managed to escape from there in disguise.185 Since Khartpert (modern Harput) is in eastern Turkey, not far from Hisn Kayfa, he was a long way from Crusader territory, and it would have been no easy matter for him to regain it.
How were captives treated? As noted above, the Muslim captives who awoke the pity of Ibn Jubayr were shackled and, in the case of the women, had leg rings. According to Usama, on one occasion – at the surrender of Kafartab in 509/1115 – the Christian captives were chained in twos to one captor:
The Crusades- Islamic Perspectives Page 60
