The Crusades 1095-1197

by Jonathan Phillips

  The tribe of polytheism do not reject [any kind] of corruption.

  Nor do they recognise any moderation in tyranny . . .

  How many young girls have begun to beat their throats and necks out of fear of them [the Franks]?

  How many nubile girls have not known the heat [of the day] nor felt the cold at night [until now]?

  They are almost wasting away with fear and dying of grief and agitation.

  Carole Hillenbrand, ‘The First Crusade: The Muslim Perspective’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. Jonathan Phillips, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1997, pp. 137-8.

  (iii) Al-Sulami, 1105

  A number fell upon the island of Sicily at a time of difference and competition, and likewise they gained possession of town after town in Spain . . . and Jerusalem was the summit of their wishes. . . . Then they looked down from Syria on disunited kingdoms, hearts in disagreement and differing opinions, linked with secret resentments. Thereby their ambitions grew in strength, and extended to what they beheld. They continued assiduously in the holy war against the Muslims, while the Muslims did not trouble about them or join forces to fight them, leaving to each other the encounter until they [i.e. the Franks] made themselves rulers of lands beyond their utmost hopes.

  Peter Holt, The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517, Longman, London, 1986, p. 86.

  DOCUMENT 6 FRANKISH SETTLEMENT AND IDENTITY

  (i) This extract from Fulcher of Chartres’s Historia Hierosolymitana reveals how the early generations of Frankish settlers formed a sense of identity for themselves in the Levant. Fulcher, a priest, participated in the First Crusade and accompanied his lord, Baldwin of Boulogne, in the capture of Edessa (1098) and thence south to Jerusalem when Baldwin became king in 1100. His work covers the period 1095 to 1127 and is the most valuable account of the first decades of the Latin East.

  We who were once Occidentals [westerners] have now become Orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank has, in this land, been made into a Galilean or a Palestinian. He who was of Rheims or Chartres has now become a citizen of Tyre or Antioch. We have already forgotten the places of our birth; already these are unknown to many of us or not mentioned any more. Some already possess homes or households by inheritance. Some have taken wives not only of their own people, but Syrians, Armenians, or even Saracens who have achieved the grace of baptism. Words of different languages have become common property known to each nationality, and mutual faith unites those who are ignorant of their descent. . . . He who was born a stranger is now as one born here; he who was born an alien has become a native. Our relatives and parents join us from time to time, sacrificing, even reluctantly, all that they formerly possessed. Those who were poor in the Occident, God makes wealthy in this land. Therefore why should one return to the Occident who has found the Orient like this? God does not wish those to suffer want, those who with their crosses dedicated themselves to follow Him, even to the end.

  Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, ed. Harold Fink, tr. Frances Ryan, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN, 1969, pp. 271-2.

  (ii) William of Malmesbury was one of the most important historians of what we call Anglo-Norman England and he wrote this History of the English Kings during the 1120s. He made mention of the success of the First Crusade and his comments here reflect a recognition of the magnitude of that achievement, the heroic status accorded to the leaders of the expedition and the difficulties faced by the Frankish settlers in the Levant.

  Only Godfrey and Tancred remained, leaders of high renown, to whose praises posterity, if it judge aright, will assign no limits; heroes who from the cold of uttermost Europe plunged into the intolerable heat of the East, careless of their own lives, if only they could bring help to Christendom in its hour of trial. Besides the fear of barbarian attacks, exposed to constant apprehension from the rigours of an unfamiliar climate, they made light of the certainty of peace and health in their own country; few as they were, they overwhelmed so many enemy cities by the fame and operation of their prowess, setting a noteworthy example of trust in God, in that they were ready to remain without hesitation in a place where either the air they breathed would be loaded with pestilence, or they would be killed by the fury of the Saracens. Let poets with their eulogies now give place, and fabled history no longer laud the heroes of Antiquity. Nothing to be compared with their glory has ever been begotten in any age. Such valour as the Ancients had vanished after their death into dust and ashes in the grave, for it was spent on the mirage of worldly splendour rather than on the solid aim of some goodly purpose; while of these brave heroes of ours, men will enjoy benefit and tell the proud story, as long as the round world endures and the holy Church of Christ flourishes.

  William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, ed. and tr. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998, vol. 1, p. 655.

  DOCUMENT 7 THE MILITARY ORDERS

  Such was the radical nature of the idea of a fighting monk that it was necessary for Hugh of Payns, the first master of the Templars, to get the leading churchman of western Europe, Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, to explain why the concept was valid. Some people presumably had reservations about this, but the strength of Bernard’s argument and the enormously positive response to the launch of the Templars indicates that most were soon convinced. The second document is a translation of a recently discovered account of the treatment of the sick in the Hospital of St John in Jerusalem c. 1180 and gives an indication of contemporary healthcare.

  (i) A Justification of the Knights Templar, c. 1130. Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘In Praise of the New Knighthood’.

  To Hugh, knight of Christ and master of Christ’s militia, Bernard, abbot in name only of Clairvaux, may you fight the good fight. . . . I will briefly describe the (ideal) life and virtues of the knights of Christ. . . . First, they are disciplined and obedient. . . . Therefore these knights come and go at the order of their superior. . . . They live as brothers in joyful and sober company, without wives or children. So that their spiritual perfection will lack nothing, they dwell in one family without any personal property. . . . They never sit idly nor wander aimlessly. . . . There is no distinction (by rank) among them: deference is shown to merit rather than to noble birth. . . . No inappropriate word, idle deed, unrestrained laughter, not even the slightest whisper or murmur is left uncorrected, once detected. They forswear dice and chess. They abhor hunting, and they take no delight in the ridiculous cruelty of falconry. . . . Indeed, seldom do they wash, and never do they set their hair, being content to appear tousled and dusty, bearing the marks of the sun and of their armour.

  When the battle is at hand, they arm themselves inwardly with faith and outwardly with steel rather than with decorations of gold, since their business is to strike fear in the enemy rather than to incite cupidity. They seek out strong and fast horses rather than well-plumed ones, for they fight to win rather than to display pomp. They think not of glory but rather seek to be formidable. At the same time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but draw themselves up into orderly ranks in a sober, prudent, and purposeful manner.

  No matter how outnumbered, they are never awed by the fierce enemy hordes. Nor do they overestimate their own strength, but trust in the Lord to grant them victory.

  I do not know if it is more appropriate to call them monks or knights; perhaps it is better to recognize them as being both, for they lack neither monastic meekness nor military fortitude. What can I say except that God has empowered this (new order), and it is a marvellous sight to my eyes. God chose these men whom he recruited from the ends of the earth; they are valiant men of Israel chosen to guard the tomb of Solomon, each man, sword in hand, superbly trained to conduct war.

  Theodore Evergates, Feudal Society in Medieval France: Documents from the County of Champagne, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1
993, pp. 98-101.

  (ii) A Contemporary Account of the Treatment of the Sick in the Hospital of St John, Jerusalem (Anonymous)

  It was ordained by the master of the Hospital and by the General Chapter that each patient should have each day half a soft loaf and sufficient house-bread, and the same wine as the convent. The doctors should observe closely the qualities of the sick and what illnesses they have, and should inspect their urine and give syrups and electuaries and other things which may be necessary for sick people and forbid contrary things and give them useful ones and the more ill and the more infirm are the patients they see, the more concerned yet they should be to restore their health. Foods for the sick should be thus: from Easter to Michaelmas they have the meat of chickens and other fowl, and meat of goats and lambs not yet one year old and meat of sheep one year old and more as often as the physician may instruct them to be provided. From Michaelmas to Lent, meat of chickens and the same as was said before, and pork from the male animal one year old according as the doctor shall prescribe. Sick people should never eat female flesh from an animal with four feet, nor are the brothers who serve the sick ever to give them any. In Lent fresh fish is to be given to the sick three times a week, if the patient dare to eat it for his sickness, and this is to be done on the advice of the doctor. Broth and other cooked dishes of vegetables and barley flour and other foods suitable for the sick are to be given to them on the advice of the doctor, and they are to be given to them well prepared on the days appointed. Eels and cheese and lentils and beans and cabbages and other foods which are contraindicated for the sick, we prohibit them to be given to them.

  A third part of the tree-fruits, such as pomegranates and other apples, pears, plums, figs and grapes are to be given to them as the masters who were before us laid down and ordained in the chapter of the hospital of Jerusalem both for the use of the poor and for their provision.

  In each ward of sick people there are to be now and henceforth 12 sergeants who make the beds for the sick and keep them from soiling and take them to the privies and guide them and support them closely. From procession to procession — that is, from Easter to the feast of the Holy Cross — more sergeants are to be appointed according to the organisation of the brother Hospitaller. Among the wards are to be brothers who keep watch at night, that is to say two brothers who are to keep watch each night in order that nothing adverse should happen to our sick lords.

  Translated by Susan Edgington, from MS Vat. Lat. 4852, ff. 89r-91r.

  DOCUMENT 8 TRADING PRIVILEGES OF THE VENETIANS, 1123-24

  The Pactum Warmundi is taken from William of Tyre’s Historia. It is a formal legal agreement outlining the privileges accorded to the Venetians for their support in the attack and capture of Tyre. William was also chancellor of the kingdom of Jerusalem and it is likely that he copied this document directly from the royal archives into his history during its composition c. 1170-85.

  A copy of the treaty containing the agreement made between the Venetians and the princes of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the matter of the siege of Tyre.

  In the name of the holy and indivisible trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost . . . Domenigo Michieli, doge of Venice, of Dalmatia and Croatia, and prince of the empire, accompanied by a great host of knights and a mighty fleet of vessels, came as a conqueror to the much-needed defence of the Christians. He had come directly from his victory over the pagan fleet of the king of Babylon, upon which he had wrought terrible havoc as it lay before the harbourless shores of Ascalon.

  Baldwin, the second king of Jerusalem, was at that time, because of our sins, held captive with many others in the toils of the pagans, a prisoner of Balak, prince of the Parthians. Therefore, we, Gormond, by the grace of God patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem, being assembled at the city of Acre, in the church of the Holy Cross, with the suffragan brethren of our church, with William of Bures, the constable, with Payens, the chancellor, and in conjunction with the allied forces of the whole kingdom, we, I say, have confirmed the promises of the said King Baldwin according to the propositions made in his own letters and messages which the king himself had previously sent by his own envoys to Venice to the same doge of the Venetians. This we have given by our own hand and by the hand of the bishops and the chancellor, with the kiss of peace also, as our rank required. All the barons also whose names are written below have decreed and confirmed on the holy scriptures of the blessed apostle Mark, to the aforesaid doge and his successors, and to the people of Venice, the conditions of the treaty as written below; that, without any contradiction, these promises just as they are written below, so shall they remain unalterable and inviolate in the future to him and his people forever. Amen.

  In every city of the above-mentioned king, under the rule of his successors also, and in the cities of all his barons, the Venetians shall have a church and one entire street of their own; also a square and a bath and an oven to be held forever by hereditary right, free from all taxation as is the king’s own property.

  In the square at Jerusalem, however, they shall have for their own only as much as the king is wont to have. But if the Venetians desire to set up at Acre, in their own quarter, an oven, a mill, a bath, scales, measures and bottles for measuring wine, oil, and honey, it shall be permitted freely to each person dwelling there without contradiction to cook, mill, or bathe just as it is freely permitted on the king’s property. They may use the measures, and the scales, and the measuring bottles as follows: when the Venetians trade with each other, they must use their own measures, that is the measures of Venice; and when the Venetians sell their wares to other races, they must sell with their own measures, that is, with the measures of Venice; but when the Venetians purchase and receive anything in trade from any foreign nation other that the Venetians, it is permitted them to take it by the royal measure and at a given price. For these privileges the Venetians need pay no tax whatever, whether according to custom or for any reason whatsoever, either on entering, staying, buying, selling, either while remaining there or on departing. For no reason whatever need they pay any tax excepting only when they come or go, carrying pilgrims with their own vessels. Then indeed, according to the king’s custom, they must give a third part to the king himself.

  Wherefore, the king of Jerusalem and all of us on behalf of the king agree to pay the doge of Venice, from the revenues of Tyre, on the feast day of the apostles Peter and Paul, three hundred Saracen besants yearly, as agreed upon.

  Moreover, we promise you, doge of Venice, and your people that we will take nothing more from those nations who trade with you beyond what they are accustomed to give and as much as we receive from those who trade with other nations.

  William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, ed. Emily Babcock, tr. August Krey, 2 vols, Columbia University Press, New York, 1943, vol. 1, pp. 552-5.

  DOCUMENT 9 THE REBELLION OF COUNT HUGH OF JAFFA, 1134

  The rebellion of Count of Hugh of Jaffa is an interesting episode for several reasons. It shows the tensions in accommodating newcomers into the political structure of the kingdom of Jerusalem and reveals the twists and turns in the legacy of King Baldwin II. Note the change in the terms of Fulk’s kinship. In i(a) he married Melisende (in 1129) in the expectation of ruling in his own right. In i(b), two years later, he is made to rule alongside his wife and son. It also demonstates the agenda of William of Tyre who, writing c. 1170-85, was concerned to justify the settlers’ defence of the Holy Land to those in the West. Here, he chose to blur an episode, distant to his own time, that reflected badly on the relationship between the Franks of the East and newcomers from Europe. The account of Orderic Vitalis, an Anglo-Norman monk who composed this section of his Ecclesiastical History in c. 1136-41, provides a complement to William of Tyre’s version and probably reveals the real reason behind Hugh of Jaffa’s revolt.

  (i) William of Tyre’s version

  (a) Baldwin was anxious . . . to provide for the succession. Accordingly, after long deliberation
, by the unanimous advice of the nobles . . . he sent to invite Fulk to marry his daughter and become the heir to the throne. The count accordingly arranged his own affairs and set the county [of Anjou] in order . . . he set forth on the journey attended by a splendid retinue of nobles. Within a few days of his arrival in the kingdom, the king gave him his eldest daughter to wife [1129].

  (b) The king [Baldwin II] perceived that the day of his death [21 August 1131] was at hand. . . . He then summoned to him his daughter [Melisende] and his son-in-law [Fulk] and the boy Baldwin [the future Baldwin III]. To them, in the presence of the patriarch and the prelates of the Church and some of the nobles who happened to be present, he committed the care of the kingdom with full power.

  (c) On the return of the king from Antioch, a very dangerous disturbance arose. For certain reasons, some of the highest nobles of the realm: namely, Hugh, count of Jaffa, and Romain of Le Puy, lord of the region beyond the Jordan, are said to have conspired against the lord king. . . .

  Some said that the king cherished a deep mistrust of the count who was rumoured to be on too familiar terms with the queen, and of this there seemed to be many proofs. Hence, spurred on by a husband’s jealousy, the king is said to have conceived an inexorable hatred against the man.

  Count Hugh was young, tall of stature, and of handsome countenance . . . in respect to physical beauty and nobility of birth, as well as experience in the art of war, he had no equal in the kingdom.

  One day, Walter of Caesarea . . . at the instigation of the king himself, it was claimed, publicly accused Hugh of high treason and of having conspired against the life of the king. The count denied the charge, but said that although he was innocent he would submit to the judgement of the court on the accusations. . . . Single combat was decreed according to the custom of the Franks, and a suitable day was set for the combat. The count then left the court and returned to Jaffa. He did not present himself on the appointed day, however . . . and his actions brought upon himself . . . even greater suspicion of the crime imputed to him. The assembly of nobles condemned him in his absence as guilty of the charge against him.