Free from external attack, Raymond could now once again turn his attention to Tripoli, but while small forces can sometimes succeed against great odds in the very risky and short-term circumstances of a battle, they are much less likely to bring a prolonged siege to a successful conclusion. Raymond therefore established himself on a ridge about 2 miles east of Tripoli along the main route from the north and the east, which became known as Mount Pilgrim. This was more than a temporary camp, for here he built a permanent castle with a rectangular keep and walled bailey, which became known as Qal ‘at Sanjil (Saint-Gilles).110 This castle was used both as a residence and as a long-term threat to Tripoli, a technique later adopted in the kingdom of Jerusalem against both Tyre and Ascalon. By these means Raymond extracted an annual tribute from Tripoli, but he could not take it before his death on 28 February 1105.111 In one sense, however, Fakhr al-Mulk had the last word, since, on 12 September 1104, he launched a surprise attack upon Mount Pilgrim, killing many members of the garrison, setting fire to parts of the settlement and taking much plunder. According to a late twelfth-century source, Ibn al-Athir, this was the direct cause of Raymond's death, since he died from injuries received when a burning roof collapsed underneath him.112
Even so, by this time he had extended his conquests sufficiently for the outlines of a new state to emerge, most importantly capturing Gibelet, south of Tripoli, with the help of the Genoese, probably in spring, 1104.113 In 1103, he started to call himself the count of Tripoli, while at about the same time he named one of his followers, Albert, abbot of St Evrard, as bishop of Tripoli.114 In 1102, he had begun to make pious grants, both actual and anticipatory, which show that he intended to make the city of Tripoli his capital. He particularly favoured religious institutions established in the East that aided pilgrims or took care of the holy shrines, interests closely related to his own original motivation for taking the Cross.115
Both the Holy Sepulchre and the Benedictine monastery of St Mary Latin were beneficiaries. In c.1103, the canons of the Holy Sepulchre were granted a former mosque on Mount Pilgrim, on the site of which they built a church, as well as the church of St George, located somewhere in the Lebanese mountains. Raymond also promised them that, after the conquest of Tripoli, they would receive the second most important church in the city, together with the funds to support thirteen clerics to serve it.116 The Benedictine monastery of St Mary Latin was already maintaining a pilgrim hospice in Jerusalem before 1071, and since then had added two further refuges for men and women. Early in 1102, Raymond had offered to found a church for this monastery, a promise he and his wife, Elvira, fulfilled the following year, when they granted a site for a church next to the new castle of Mount Pilgrim, together with a mill, a terrain and a casal (village) with its dependants: ‘I do this for my soul and that of my wife Elvira and all my relatives and in order that the good beginning achieved with the new castle should terminate with a better end.’117 Part of the ‘better end’ involved the colonisation of what was already a prosperous agricultural area with Christian settlers owing allegiance to Latin ecclesiastical institutions, in a manner already demonstrated by Godfrey of Bouillon in his grant of 1100 to the canons of the Holy Sepulchre to the north of Jerusalem.
At the same time Raymond appreciated the value of consolidating links with his homeland, where the two great congregations of Augustinian canons, St Victor of Marseille and Saint-Ruf of Avignon, had already spread their influence into northern France, Spain and Italy. It is noticeable that the first witness to the 1103 charter to St Mary Latin is Richard of Marseille, abbot of St Victor, who, on 16 January, was promised half the city of Gibelet for his monastery, while during the next two years Raymond built a new church for Saint-Ruf, ‘in the region of Tripoli’, at his own expense.118 These links were strengthened by Pons, count from 1112, who established the church of St James in Tripoli for Saint-Ruf sometime between 1114 and 1122. By 1123, Saint-Ruf held at least four churches, as well as three mills in the county.119
Raymond of Toulouse was not popular in his own time. His bitter enmity with the Normans and his unwillingness to co-operate with the Lotharingians, together with his alliance with Alexius Comnenus, had made him an isolated figure, unable to gain control of either Antioch or Jerusalem as he appears to have wanted. The pro-Norman Ralph of Caen claimed that it was hatred that had brought Raymond and Alexius together.120 As count of Toulouse, he was by far the most prestigious and wealthy of the crusade leaders, yet he died while attempting to conquer the only strip of the Syrian coast left after men of lower status and power had seized the bigger prizes. The failure of the crusade of 1101, in which he was deeply involved, meant that he had very little leverage when he did return to Syria, giving him no opportunity to change the balance of power in what at that time was still a fluid situation. Even so, he had not settled for a minor role. Not only had he been intent on gaining Tripoli and the coast, but he had evidently planned to expand inland, since Albert of Aachen describes William-Jordan, count of Cerdagne, as succeeding by hereditary right ‘to the land and towns of Camolla’, which was the name used by the crusaders for Homs and its hinterland.121
Such actions and attitudes are consistent with what is known of Raymond's character. As the second son of Pons, count of Toulouse, he had not originally been among the great lords of Languedoc, yet by the mid-1090s he had built up a large agglomeration of fiefs, adding the titles of duke of Narbonne and marquis of Provence to that of count of Toulouse. At the same time he had been a supporter of the papal programme since the 1070s, when, with William I, count of Burgundy, he was named among those magnates willing to bring armed force to support Gregory VII against the Normans of southern Italy. After that, said Gregory, they would be able to cross over to Constantinople ‘to bring aid to Christians who are grievously afflicted by the most frequent ravagings of the Saracens’.122 His commitment was reaffirmed by his meeting with Adhémar of Le Puy in 1087,123 and it is not surprising that Urban chose to contact him in advance of his Clermont speech. Later generations therefore saw Raymond's exploits in a quite different light, which made him an appropriate choice for William of Tyre when he wished to inspire what the archbishop saw as the lesser men of his own generation. ‘We believe,’ says William,
that the notable perseverance and courage of the venerable Raymond should be admired and lauded not only by the present generation but by those of the future as well. For when he had once undertaken the pilgrimage for Christ, he patiently and resolutely continued on that way to the very end of his life. In his native land he was a distinguished man of very great power, possessed of extensive ancestral holdings, and he might have had in abundance everything he desired. Yet he chose to leave land and kindred in humble obedience to the Lord rather than flourish in the tabernacles of sinners among his own people. After the Holy City had been restored to freedom, the other leaders who had undertaken the same pilgrimage felt that they had obtained fulfillment of their desires and returned to their own lands. But he, having once assumed the cross, feared to lay it aside. Even when his own friends and members of his household eagerly suggested that, since his vow had been accomplished, he should return to the country which so longed for his presence, he preferred to offer himself as a holocaust to the Lord, rather than to return to the attractions of the world.124
A state based on Tripoli and Homs would have made its ruler a major player in Syrian politics, but in the end Raymond captured neither, and the county he founded was mainly confined to the coastal region between the sea and the Lebanese mountains. In this situation the defence of the passes became vital, especially in the north of the county, where the mountains were lower and the coastal plain around the Kebir River more accessible through al-Buqai'ah. Equally, however, conflict with the inland cities of the valleys of the Litani and the Upper Orontes was muted by the commercial needs of both Christians and Muslims, for Tortosa and Tripoli were the natural outlets for Hama, Homs and Baalbek.125
Not surprisingly, therefore, Raymond's
designated successor, William-Jordan, his cousin and a companion on the crusade between 1096 and 1099, continued to press Tripoli, aided at times by Byzantine ships, and its ruler, Fahkr al-Mulk, became increasingly desperate. In 1108, the latter paid a personal visit to the caliph and sultan in Baghdad, where he was lavishly treated but ultimately gained no more than promises of support. When he returned, he found the Tripolitan nobles had called in the Egyptians, and he was obliged to take refuge in Jabala.126 Tripoli, situated at the limit of the range of the Egyptian fleets, now became a key strategic goal for the Latins but, partly because of this, it also served as a focal point for Frankish rivalries. These rivalries were complicated by Raymond's legacy, for as well as leaving an adult son, Bertrand, from his first marriage, by his second wife, Elvira, he had also fathered another son, Alfonso-Jordan, who was aged only three at the count's death. Moreover, he seems to have maintained links with the county of Toulouse, which served to unsettle even further the succession in Tripoli.127 Thus, although Bertrand had been accepted as ruler of Toulouse, when the barons invited Elvira to bring Alfonso-Jordan to the West in 1108, he naturally looked towards Raymond's Syrian lands. Bertrand's arrival in the East in March 1109, with a large force of 4,000 soldiers and forty galleys, as well as about sixty Genoese ships, was, in one sense, a welcome addition to the exiguous forces trying to conquer Syria, but at the same time it constituted a direct threat to William-Jordan, who had exerted enough pressure on the Tripolitans to force a change of ruler, and had added Arqa to Raymond's conquests in 1108.
The events that followed culminated in the defining moment for the settlers of the first generation. Bertrand first tried to gain Tancred's support, but when this failed he brought his forces to the siege of Tripoli, while at the same time pressing William-Jordan at his base on Mount Pilgrim. Both sides looked for outside help, William-Jordan to Tancred and Bertrand to King Baldwin. According to Albert of Aachen, Bertrand sent envoys to the king, complaining that William-Jordan and Tancred were using force to prevent him entering his father's cities and ‘on this account he badly needed his help to deal with these injustices, asserting that he himself would remain in his allegiance’. This appeal to Baldwin's overlordship opened an opportunity that the king immediately grasped, for he sent Pagan of Haifa and Eustace Grenier, two of the kingdom's leading nobles, to summon the parties concerned, as well as Baldwin of Bourcq and Joscelin of Courtenay to what Albert calls ‘an assembly and council’. Eustace Grenier may well have played a key role in preparing the ground, for he appears to have been one of Baldwin's long-term companions, probably a rear-vassal of Eustace of Boulogne, the king's brother, who had accompanied him on crusade.128
At the assembly, which took place near Tripoli in June 1109, when ‘all the injuries on both sides had been recited in the presence of the king and his loyal men’, Baldwin handed down his judgments. Baldwin of Bourcq and Tancred were reconciled and Tancred returned Baldwin's lands. The king regranted to Tancred his original conquests in what had since become the kingdom of Jerusalem, which were listed as Haifa, the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, Tiberias and Nazareth, ‘when he had received loyalty from him’. Bertrand, who had already sworn allegiance to the king, was granted his father's inheritance, except for Tortosa and Arqa, which were to be held by William-Jordan.129 In fact, William-Jordan did not benefit, as he was murdered soon after, either in a night ambush or in a dispute with Bertrand's squires over his crops. Fulcher of Chartres says that ‘all asked who had done it, but they were not able to find out’.130 Whoever was responsible, the effect was to further the king's influence for, by 1111, William, an illegitimate son of Robert of Normandy, had become lord of Tortosa. William had come to the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1106 after the defeat of his father at Tinchebrai and had since become one of Baldwin's trusted military leaders, so his acquisition of Tortosa was evidently an expression of the royal will.131
The assembly was a landmark in the early history of the crusader states, for which it had no precedent. However, it can readily be compared to contemporary judicial practices in north-western Europe, which are closely associated with the development of royal power. There are striking similarities with the great trials ordered by William the Conqueror in England, which were instituted by royal writ and presided over by the king's representatives. At Pinnenden Heath, near Maidstone, for example, in 1072 or 1075–6, a long-running dispute between Odo of Bayeux and Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, was settled through the judgment of Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, acting in the king's name.132 The difference lies in the context. By holding sessions in the shire courts, William was able to make use of existing Anglo-Saxon legal customs, but such traditions were not available to the embryonic Latin states in the East, so that the parties concerned were obliged to look back to their places of origin for models of dispute settlement. Baldwin was aware of the potential difficulties, according to Albert of Aachen, carefully using the phrase ‘it pleases the whole church of Jerusalem’ when summoning Tancred and William-Jordan, neither of whom was his vassal as such.
The immediate military consequence was the collapse of the long-standing resistance of the Tripolitans, faced now by both the combined forces of the major leaders and a maritime blockade. On about 26 June, they therefore surrendered to the king on the basis of a safe-conduct out of the city, evidently fearing a repeat of the massacre that had occurred at Acre. Even so, according to Fulcher of Chartres, the king was unable to control the lower classes (minores) among the Genoese, who scaled the walls and killed any inhabitants they came across.133 Ibn al-Qalanisi's account of plunder and enslavement is therefore plausible, painting a picture of a prosperous and cultured city badly damaged by the Franks: ‘the quantities of material that fell into their hands from its merchandise and storehouses, and the books in its college and in the libraries of private owners, exceed all computation.’134 Whatever the full extent of the seizures, the Genoese were granted a third of the city for their help, while their existing third share of Gibelet was now converted into full possession.135
The significance of the fall of Tripoli can be measured by the behaviour of the Egyptian fleet, which was sent to help the city resist but arrived eight days late. Ibn al-Qalanisi describes it as ‘such a fleet as had never before been dispatched by the Egyptians in regard to the number of men and vessels and quantity of equipment and provisions.’ Despite this, its commanders could not help; the populations of Tyre, Sidon and Beirut ‘made representations of their lamentable condition, and their incapacity to fight the Franks, but the fleet could not stay and returned to Egypt’.136 The fleet could not stay because, lacking watering facilities, its range and time at sea were subject to rigid constraints, and its failure to arrive in time inevitably forced it to return to Egypt or risk destruction.137 Shipping lost could not easily be replaced, for Egypt had very little timber and, from now on, access to supplies would be limited mainly to contraband.138 The wood that was available was now exported through Syrian ports such as Latakia and Tortosa, which the Latins controlled.139 The capture of Tripoli therefore not only gained the Franks a valuable city, it also severely limited the operational viability of Egypt's navy, conceding domination of the north-eastern Mediterranean to Christian shipping until the 1180s, when Saladin once more tried to challenge Christian naval supremacy.
With the fall of Tripoli, as William of Tyre perceived, ‘there still remained on our shore four rebellious cities: namely Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, and Ascalon, a circumstance which greatly hindered our plans for enlarging our young kingdom’.140 While Tripoli held out, these managed to survive by paying tribute but, as their plea to the fleet shows, they were now very aware of their vulnerability. Two of them – Beirut and Sidon – fell in the course of 1110, on 13 May and 5 December respectively. Both capitulated because of the combined use of land and sea power, by the Genoese at Beirut, and by the Norwegians and Venetians at Sidon. The Norwegians were led by Sigurd Jorsalfar, joint king of Norway, and had arrived with a fleet of about sixty
ships. Such a presence was certainly intimidating, and the Egyptian ships in Tyre did not dare leave harbour to challenge it. Neither siege was easy: Beirut resisted for seventy-five days and Sidon for forty-seven. On both occasions the Egyptians tried to send help, and Ibn al-Qalanisi described the battle for Sidon as more hard-fought than any the Franks had encountered before or since.141 The king granted Sidon to Eustace Grenier, who had played such an important role in arranging the assembly of the previous year.142
By the end of 1110, the shape of the crusader states in Syria and Palestine can be discerned. Baldwin was the head of a feudal hierarchy in the kingdom of Jerusalem, including the lands held by Tancred, and overlord of the rulers of Tripoli and Edessa.143 His kingdom extended as far north as Beirut, while his expedition beyond the Dead Sea in 1100 and his persistent attempts to overcome Ascalon suggest plans for southern expansion once circumstances allowed. In this year, too, is found the first mention of the existence of burgesses (burgenses), whose activities came under the control of a royal official, the viscount. Burgesses were key subjects of the king, covering a great range of non-noble occupations, including administrators, professions, traders and farmers, and were clearly numerous enough by this date to form a definable group. They are listed as the third of the Crown's lay orders, after the magnates (optimates) and knights (milites). By the 1140s, they were encompassed within a more formal legal structure in the shape of a Court of Burgesses, found not only in Jerusalem but also in other royal cities, most notably Acre and Tyre, although it is likely that a court of justice for burgesses was established in Jerusalem much earlier than this, probably in the first decade of settlement.144 Burgesses held tenancies which came to be known as burgesia or borgesies, for which they paid a cens or fixed rent proportional to the size and value of the property.145
The Crusader States Page 13