Further along David Street, the visitor came to the Hospitaller Quarter. The German pilgrims John of Würzburg and Theoderic, both of whom visited in the 1160s, were in awe of the ‘great palace of the sick’ built by the Hospitallers in the Muristan to the south of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. According to an anonymous cleric who described the Jerusalem hospital in the 1180s, this was divided into eleven wards, in addition to which there was a separate palacium for women.106 John of Würzburg was told by the servitors that it held 2,000 sick persons, while Theoderic said he could not judge the numbers of people but that he had seen 1,000 beds.107 However, it is very difficult to determine the exact function of many of the buildings on what was already a complicated site.108 It seems that the hospital wards were located to the south and east, adjacent to David Street, and that, contrary to the generally accepted view, the large vaulted hall in the north-west corner was part of the conventual buildings of the brothers themselves, over the three most northerly bays of which they had built a new church.109
William of Tyre was less enthusiastic than the pilgrim visitors. The Hospitaller buildings were directly opposite the south door of the Holy Sepulchre and he saw them as an overt challenge to the patriarch with whom the Hospitallers had a running dispute over the reception of the excommunicate and the payment of tithes. Matters deteriorated to such an extent that the Hospitallers deliberately rang their bells during times of interdict and when the patriarch preached from the Calvary chapel to the east of the south door, but what was most intolerable to William was the size of the main hall, which he said was higher and more costly than the church of the Holy Sepulchre itself.110 Indeed, the whole complex was larger than that of the Holy Sepulchre, including the patriarch's palace and the canons’ convent, since it encompassed, among many other buildings, not only the wards for the sick, but two churches, a series of conventual buildings, including a dormitory for the Knights, stables and at least two dozen cisterns.111
The location of gold- and silversmiths on the Street of Palms running between the Holy Sepulchre and the Hospital underlines the economic importance of pilgrimage to the city. For those who could afford it, the acquisition of reliquaries to hold their precious acquisitions was high on their list of priorities, providing employment for a considerable community of craftsmen from an early date. One of the most striking examples is the True Cross reliquary given to a noble pilgrim called Berthold by Patriarch Warmund in the mid-1120s, which he took back to the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre recently founded at Denkendorf, near Stuttgart. This silver-gilt double-armed cross, set with semi-precious stones, contained splinters of the True Cross set in slits.112 This represented the top end of the market, but many less expensive reliquaries were produced as well as other mementoes such as badges. It is no coincidence that the sale of palm fronds took place in the same area.113
Theoderic was equally impressed by the Templar headquarters at the southern end of the Haram al-Sharif. The area was entered by the Beautiful Gate on the western side, close to the Temple of the Lord. The Templars had taken over the al-Aqsa mosque after Baldwin II had moved to the other side of the city and had repaired the damage done by his predecessor. By the 1160s, they had built a new cloister to the west of the al-Aqsa, enclosed by vaulted buildings which included what Theoderic calls a new palace, and they were in the process of erecting a church that Theoderic says was ‘of magnificent size and workmanship’, although it was unfinished at the time of his visit. They had also developed the area to the east with houses, halls and water supplies, perhaps in a manner not dissimilar to the compound of the Temple of the Lord. Below the south-east corner was a large vaulted area, the exact size of which is now difficult to determine, but which was used for stabling. Both John of Würzburg and Theoderic were shown these stables, although their very different figures for the numbers of horses and camels that could be accommodated are clearly only guesses. Five hundred might be a reasonable estimate, judging by the present size. The whole quarter was well fortified, strengthened by the order's construction of a barbican to the south which protected the two gates on that side.114
Building on this scale seems to have persuaded the Templars to establish their own workshop, probably located in the south-east corner above the stables. The sculptural fragments that survive indicate that the order had recruited craftsmen of high skill, possibly from among the Italians who had worked on the Holy Sepulchre, where there was now less demand for their labour. The results fully justified Theoderic's praise: the decoration of the buildings must have been characterised by foliate sculpture of great originality, at the centre of which were acanthus leaves carved in a manner suggestive of wet drapery. This does not seem to have been primarily a commercial atelier. Indeed, there seems to have been quite enough work to keep it fully occupied but, when the opportunity arose, it may also have produced pieces for other clients as well.115
Grand as they had become, the very existence of the orders of the Hospital and the Temple derived from the need to provide for those who required help and protection. The heaving mass of humanity that descended upon the holy shrines every year included many who could not support themselves or who saw the opportunities available to beggars. Jerusalem attracted the poor and destitute as much as the powerful and wealthy, a situation that placed great strain upon the city's services. The Hospitallers not only looked after the sick but also gave proper burials to many of the poor, whom they took to Akeldama (the Field of Blood), situated to the south of Mount Sion. Here they had built a chapel and a charnel pit to which the bodies were carried in procession from the Hospital in the city. They had received the land from William of Messines, the patriarch, in 1143, but it had particular resonance for the pilgrims as it had been used for the burial of strangers since the first century. According to Matthew 27, the area had been purchased by the priests with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas had flung down in the Temple.116
Even if care for the sick and needy was not their primary function, all the great institutions were drawn into its provision. Typical therefore was a grant of the tithes of the casal of al-Dafis in 1128–9 by the former patriarch, Evremar of Chocques, archbishop of Caesarea, to the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, in order to provide ‘food and refreshment for the poor’.117 In 1173, the current patriarch, Amalric of Nesle, wrote to Louis VII of France to appeal for help for the multitudes who were drawn to Jerusalem. ‘Much is needed to sustain their miserable, impoverished lives and it is evident that helpers are few, while the Eastern Church cannot provide for all their needs as it is oppressed by many tribulations and attacks by the pagans. Hence we make all their benefactors participants and associates of all our prayers and our generosity and particularly of those who are or in future will be in the holy city of Jerusalem.’118
For some, however, poverty was voluntary, for the tradition of eremitical life had begun in Syria, Palestine and Egypt in the third century and had been kept alive there ever since. In June 1099, the crusaders had met a hermit on the Mount of Olives, who advised them to storm Jerusalem the following day, as the Lord would give them the city.119 In the event this proved to be a particularly maladroit prophecy, but this did not deter his many successors during the twelfth century. Although many sought out wild and remote caves, they were also a familiar sight on the walls and in the streets of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity.120 In the late 1160s, Theoderic described ‘a great number of dwellings of servants of God, that is hermits, who all belong to the Abbot of the Blessed Mary’, grouped around the tomb of Jehoshaphat in the middle of the Kidron valley.121
Gerard of Nazareth, bishop of Latakia, wrote a treatise about these men, De conversatione servorum Dei. Among those well known in Jerusalem were three men, Ralph, Alberic and Bartholomew, who devoted themselves to the care of lepers, probably those belonging to the Order of St Lazarus, whose house was just outside the north-west corner of the city. Alberic ate their leftover food, kissed them after mass, washed their feet, made their beds and carried th
em on his shoulders, while Bartholomew laboured to carry water to them from the ponds (presumably the Pool of the Hospital).122 These lepers received special mention in Amalric of Nesle's letter to Louis VII: ‘We commend to you the bearer of this letter, a brother sent by the poor to your excellency in their need. When you have heard him, as you think fit and with the inspiration of God, may you help them in their need, as they no longer look like humans nor have any of their pleasures.’
All, rich or poor, had to be sustained by some means. If the amount of living space was restricted by the grandiose schemes of the great institutions of the kingdom, it was further reduced by the need to feed the citizens and the many crusader and pilgrim visitors. Large open areas adjacent to the northern and western walls contained orchards and gardens, while near David's Gate there were grain and pig markets and to the south a sizeable cattle market with its associated tanneries and butcheries.123 Most of the produce sold in Jerusalem's markets came from the rural hinterland which, on three sides of the city, was intensively farmed, largely by Christians, both Latin and Syrian. The area extending from al-Bira in the north to Bethlehem in the south seems to have been particularly geared to the Jerusalem market. Under Baldwin III, the countryside and the roads were safer than they had been in the past. The Templars had built castles and forts along the main pilgrim routes from the ports and eastwards towards the Jordan, while the capture of Ascalon in 1153 had finally ended Egyptian raiding from the south, all of which made a crisis on the scale of 1120 much less likely.124
Greater security combined with Frankish organisational skill and the rapid acquisition of new techniques had effected a considerable agricultural revival, so that farmers produced not only the Mediterranean staples of wheat, barley, olives and grapes with which they were already familiar, but crops new to them, including dates, sugar cane, figs, bananas and citrus fruit.125 They established new villages, developed farms based around fortified manor houses and adopted the technology of irrigation and sugar production. They built and adapted appropriate road systems, enabling them both to supply cities like Jerusalem, often on a daily basis, and to reach the ports for the export market. Frankish rural settlement in the kingdom of Jerusalem was much more extensive than has previously been thought, although it is more difficult to gauge its extent in Antioch and Tripoli. Probably about half the Frankish population lived in cities and towns, a high proportion in comparison to anywhere else in the West, even in central Italy, the most urbanised region of medieval Europe, but by no means enough to characterise the settlers and their descendants as primarily urban dwellers.
Among the settlements in the vicinity of Jerusalem was al-Bira (called by the Franks Magna Mahumeria), about 10 miles to the north of the city, the largest of the villages established by Godfrey of Bouillon's original grant of 1100. This was a typical Frankish village strung out along a main street, next to which individual plots had been allocated. At the north end stood the church and to the south a tower and enclosure which, with overall dimensions of 61 by 46 metres, was large enough to provide refuge for the inhabitants in times of emergency. By the time of Baldwin's death the population was between 500 and 600, among whom were builders, carpenters, metalworkers and agricultural labourers.126 West of al-Bira, on the coast road, was Qubeiba (Parva Mahumeria), which was also part of the holdings of the Holy Sepulchre, but here there was greater specialisation among its smaller population. The village had ten installations for processing olives, and the inhabitants were primarily occupied with supplying oil to the canons for liturgical use.127 The first mention of the village in the records is in 1159, so it is not likely to have been part of Godfrey's original grant, but its existence presumably reflects the expansion of Jerusalem itself over the previous half-century. Specialist production became more common in the course of the twelfth century, as capital projects like mills, for both flour and sugar production, were seen to be profitable. Sugar was an attractive export, and in the course of the twelfth century many sugar refineries were established, most commonly along the northern coastal plain and in the Jordan valley.128
As in the contemporary West, ecclesiastical institutions played a key role in agrarian development in the twelfth century, especially when additional capital was needed. While the canons of the Holy Sepulchre had made full use of Godfrey's original grant to the north of the city, the Hospitallers had an equally impressive network to the west, centred upon their castle of Belmont (Suba), just over 6 miles from Jerusalem. Belmont is situated on a conical hill about 762 metres high, giving it extensive views of the surrounding area and placing it in a good position to defend both Hospitaller estates and travellers along the Ramla to Jerusalem road. Originally it had probably been a courtyard house belonging to a secular lord, but the Hospitallers held it from at least 1157, and they developed it into a concentric castle, occupied by about ten knights and around 330 support staff. Although it had a double line of walls and an oblique entrance, there were no towers, and it does not compare with great castles of the military orders like Belvoir or Safad. Its primary purpose was to act as a centre for the Hospitallers’ estates in the area, which produced wheat, barley and legumes, and kept livestock, including cattle, sheep and goats. Like the canons of the Holy Sepulchre, the Hospitallers revived agriculture in their own territories, rebuilding terraces and clearing springs, so that they were able to irrigate large quantities of vegetables, most of which must have been sold in the Jerusalem markets.129 Just along the Ramla to Jerusalem road lay another Hospitaller building, that of Aqua Bella (see plate 10), a large fortified courtyard that may have been used as an infirmary or even an isolation hospital, and Abu Ghosh (Emmaus), where the fortified church built over a spring became a pilgrimage centre as it was believed to be the place where Christ had appeared to two of the disciples after the Resurrection. To the east of the church, a ninth-century caravanserai was converted into a hospice for pilgrims.130
However, not all agrarian lands were in institutional hands; in the areas close to Jerusalem some Frankish lords lived in fortified manor houses in the midst of their rural estates, at least for part of the year. They were not great barons, but knights or burgesses with more modest holdings. One such estate was at Khirbat al-Lawza, where a collection of vaulted buildings around a courtyard show Frankish construction. There is an aqueduct from a spring to a reservoir and two networks of irrigation channels. The eastern side of the wadi in which it is situated is terraced and must have been used for vines and olives. Although clearly a rural residence, it is only about 2#fr1/2> miles from Jerusalem and does not appear to have been fortified in any serious manner.131
Although the Franks had colonised the rural areas quite extensively, there remained a substantial Muslim population, primarily inhabiting the villages to the north of Nablus rather than in the vicinity of Jerusalem.132 The lords, whether institutions or individuals, drew their rents and produce through the rais, who in turn might be responsible to the lord's officials, such as the dragoman. These offices, although adapted by the Franks for their own purposes, were evidently in existence well before the Frankish conquest.133 Unlike their Frankish counterparts, many of the Arab and Syrian peasants can be classified as ‘villeins’ in that they were tied to the land and subject both to a chevage, or head tax, and to payments for seigneurial monopolies such as the use of mills, ovens or baths. Although in the 1180s these peasants were seen as contemptibly passive by the Spanish Muslim traveller Ibn Jubayr, the system survived with relatively little disruption because there was little opportunity or indeed point in fleeing to Muslim-controlled areas, where other, perhaps even more oppressive elites, such as the Turks or Kurds, dominated.134
Although the Frankish occupation was a comparatively short interlude in the long history of outside occupation of these lands, by the 1160s in some areas, especially in Jerusalem and the surrounding region, their impact upon both the built and the natural environment was quite profound. Urban II's declaration that these were ‘our lands’ was taken very seri
ously indeed.
CHAPTER 10
King Amalric
THEODORA was seventeen years old when Baldwin died. She had borne him no children, even though they had been married for over four years.1 Baldwin's hereditary successor was therefore his brother, Amalric, and, indeed, the chronicle of Ernoul, an Old French version of the events of the 1170s and 1180s emanating from the Ibelin family circle, says that Baldwin had named his brother as his heir.2 Even so, he did not command general acceptance. The succession, says William of Tyre, ‘was the occasion of much discord among the barons of the realm, who were variously affected by the change of monarchs. In fact, it came near to causing a serious quarrel involving the danger of a schism.’ Amalric, though, had the strong support of ‘the clergy and the people, as well as a few of the great men of the kingdom’, and the opposition was obliged to give way. He was therefore crowned and anointed by the patriarch in the church of the Holy Sepulchre on 18 February 1163, eight days after his brother's death, and apparently on the same day as the funeral.3 Amalric himself makes no mention of these problems. On 8 April, he wrote to Louis VII of France announcing his brother's death and confirming his own succession. ‘We now rule his kingdom as of hereditary right and are firmly established on the throne of our kingdom. There was no impediment and all our subjects showed their goodwill.’4
However, the king's letter was disingenuous, for there had been a further complication which had needed to be resolved during this eight-day period. Amalric had married Agnes of Courtenay, the elder daughter of Joscelin II of Edessa. Agnes's early years had been traumatic, for she had lost her first husband, Reynald of Marash, in the defeat at Inab in 1149, and in the following year her father had been captured and taken to Aleppo and had not been seen since.5 By then the remnants of the county of Edessa had disintegrated, and after her mother, Beatrice, had sold what remained to the Byzantines, the family had emigrated to the lordship of Saone in the principality of Antioch, where Beatrice still held dower lands from her first marriage to William of Saone.6 Agnes has married Amalric, then count of Jaffa and Ascalon, apparently in 1157.7 She had no dowry, but she was the granddaughter of one of the crusaders of 1101 and therefore of appropriate rank to be Amalric's wife. They had two children: Sibylla, apparently named after her aunt, the countess of Flanders, and Baldwin, named after his uncle, King Baldwin III, who stood as his godfather.8
The Crusader States Page 32