The Crusader States

by Malcolm Barber

  92. AA, 12.14, pp. 844–7.

  93. See Pringle, Churches, vol. 3, no. 305, p. 142, for the background to this site. A likely date for the repudiation was c.1103, for William of Tyre claims that the illegality of Baldwin's action was one of the grounds for Daibert's complaint about the king's behaviour when he appealed to the pope in 1104: see Chapter 4, p. 78.

  94. WT, 11.1, pp. 495–6. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, p. 461.

  95. See Mayer, ‘Études’, pp. 57–8.

  96. Guibert of Nogent, 7.48, p. 349. Tr. Levine, p. 164.

  97. AA, 12.23, pp. 860–1.

  98. FC, 2.59, pp. 600–1. Tr. Ryan, pp. 217–18.

  99. WT, 11.29, p. 542. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 513–14.

  100. AA, 12.24, pp. 861–3. Albert also claims consanguinity. See Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 61–4, and Mayer, ‘Études’, p. 65.

  101. Mayer, ‘Études’, pp. 67–8.

  102. FC, 2.60, p. 602.

  103. Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 91, pp. 206–8.

  104. WT, 11.29, pp. 542–3. In fact, a fleet was sent to Egypt by William II in 1174, but the archbishop may have written this beforehand and then failed to revise it later, since he does describe the 1174 campaign. See Babcock and Krey, trs. vol. 1, p. 514, n. 99. The Sicilians also attacked and plundered Tinnis in July 1154: Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 321–2.

  105. FC, 2.62, pp. 605–6. Pringle, Secular Buildings, no. 106, p. 51.

  106. AA, 11.35–7, pp. 808–11; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 108–10.

  107. WT, 11.20, p. 525, 11.24, pp. 531–2.

  108. As early as 1102–3, Baldwin had referred to himself as king of Babylon and Asia, Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 19, p. 73, while in his grant of privileges to the Genoese in 1104 he promised them a third of Cairo if he conquered it with their help: Codice Diplomatico, vol. 1, p. 20. See J. Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, tr. J. Barlow, vol. 1, Amsterdam, 1978 (originally 1953), pp. 19–41, and Chapter 4, p. 68.

  109. AA, 12.25, pp. 862–3; Ibn al-Athir, part 1, p. 196. See also J. Clédat, ‘Le raid du roi Baudouin Ier en Egypt’, Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 26 (1925), 71–81.

  110. For comparison, see the force of 200 knights that Baldwin took mainly to reconnoitre the Red Sea in 1116. See Chapter 2, p. 32.

  111. AA, 12.26–8, pp. 864–9. See Mitchell, Medicine in the Crusades, pp. 24–5.

  112. FC, 2.64, p. 610.

  113. AA, 9.22–3, pp. 664–8. See Edgington, in AA, p. 666, n. 51 and p. 860, n. 52, and Mitchell, Medicine in the Crusades, p. 160.

  114. See E. Hallam, ‘Royal Burial and the Cult of Kingship in France and England, 1060–1330’, Journal of Medieval History, 8 (1982), 359–80.

  115. AA, 12.29, pp. 870–3. Although now destroyed, there is a reproduction of the layout in the chapel of Mount Calvary as seen in the seventeenth century in E. Hallam, Chronicles of the Crusades, New York, 1989, p. 107, taken from British Library MS Add. 33566, f. 90, and an illustration of the tomb and its epitaph in Folda, Art of the Crusaders, pp. 74–5, taken from Horn, MS. Vat. Lat. 9233.

  116. Peregrinationes Tres: Theodericus, p. 167.

  117. See K. Elm, ‘La liturgie de l'Eglise latine de Jérusalem au temps des croisades’: in Les Croisades: L'Orient et l'Occident d'Urbain II à Saint Louis, 1096–1270, ed. M. Rey-Delqué, Milan, 1997, p. 244.

  118. AA, 12.28, pp. 868–9.

  119. WT, 12.2, pp. 547–8; FC, 3.1, p. 616.

  120. AA, 12.30, pp. 872–3.

  121. See Mayer, ‘Études’, pp. 73–91, and Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 115–23, for detailed discussion of the succession issue.

  122. FC, 3.1, p. 616. Fulcher uses the phrase communiter electus. AA, 12.30, pp. 872–3.

  123. WT, 12.3, pp. 548–50. Tr. Babcock and Krey, vol. 1, pp. 519–20. See Nicholson, Joscelyn I, pp. 52–3.

  124. See A.V. Murray, ‘Dynastic Continuity or Dynastic Change? The Accession of Baldwin II and the Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Medieval Prosopography, 13 (1992), 1–27. The fact that William of Tyre took so much trouble to explain these events suggests that, even in the 1170s, in some quarters in the West, this was still regarded as a live issue. See B. Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge, 2000, p. 120.

  125. This problem has long been identified. Krey, in WT, vol. 1, p. 521, n. 11, thought the embassy left after the choice of Baldwin, whereas La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 8, thought that it was before.

  126. See Mayer, ‘Études’, pp. 76–7, and Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 120–3.

  127. Riley-Smith, Crusades, p. 95.

  128. H. Tanner, ‘In his Brothers’ Shadow: The Crusading Career and Reputation of Count Eustace III of Boulogne’, in The Crusades: Other Experiences, Alternate Perspectives, ed. K.I. Semaan, Binghampton, New York, 2003, pp. 83–99. Eustace was uneasy at leaving his lands in the hands of his illegitimate sons, and he felt he owed loyalty to Henry I of England, his brother-in-law, in his conflict with Louis VI of France.

  129. Murray, Crusader Kingdom, pp. 122–3.

  130. FC, 3.7, p. 635. AA, 12.30, pp. 872–3, says that he was crowned (coronatus) at this time, but Fulcher must have been present, so is a more reliable witness. William of Tyre follows Fulcher, 12.12, p. 562. In one of the Albert manuscripts, the word is honoratus, which might be rendered ‘invested’.

  131. Matthew of Edessa, 3.75, p. 221.

  132. See H.E. Mayer, ‘Das Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Krönung der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Forschung über Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 21 (1967), 152–4. For the chronology, see R. Hiestand, ‘Chronologisches zur Geschichte des Königreiches Jerusalem um 1130’, Deutsches Archiv, 26 (1970), 226–9.

  133. See B. Hamilton, ‘Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem (1100–1190)’, in Medieval Women: Dedicated and Presented to Professor Rosalind M.T. Hill on the Occasion of her Seventieth Birthday, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History, Subsidia, 1, Oxford, 1978, p. 148. Mayer points out that Morphia was the first queen to be crowned in the crusader kingdom. It may be that Fulcher's reference to Baldwin's consecration in 1118 should be understood to mean that he was crowned at the same time, in which case there is no need to seek an explanation for the delay. However, William of Tyre did not read Fulcher's account in this way and Fulcher himself uses different words to describe the two ceremonies.

  6 Antioch and Jerusalem

  1. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 45.

  2. See C. Hillenbrand, ‘The Career of Najm al-Dn Il-Ghz’, Der Islam, 58 (1981), 254–5.

  3. See Hillenbrand, ‘Najm al-Dn Il-Ghz’, 259–67, 271–5.

  4. Matthew of Edessa, 3.78, p. 223.

  5. WC, 2.14, p. 109. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 162.

  6. Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 310–13, and map.

  7. See Hillenbrand, ‘Najm al-Dn Il-Ghz’, 267–9.

  8. Extraits de la chronique d'Alep par Kemal ed-Din, in RHCr, Orientaux, vol. 3, Paris, 1884, p. 616. Kamal al-Din was born in Aleppo in 1191 or 1192 and died in Cairo in 1262.

  9. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 157–8.

  10. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 159.

  11. Kemal ed-Din, p. 616.

  12. WC, 2.1, p. 79.

  13. WC, 2.1, p. 79, 2.5, p. 89; FC, 3.4, pp. 624–6.

  14. WC, 2.1, p. 80. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 112.

  15. Kemal ed-Din, p. 617.

  16. WC, 2.2, p. 81. See Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 313.

  17. WC, 2.3, pp. 83–4.

  18. WC, 2.4, p. 85.

  19. WC, 2.5, pp. 87–9. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 127.

  20. WC, 2.6, p. 90. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 130.

  21. WC, 2.5, pp. 88–9; Matthew of Edessa, 3.79, pp. 223–4.

  22. FC, 3.3, p. 621.

  23. WC, 2.6, p. 91.

  24. See Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 307–8. Walter also records, 2.4, p. 86, the deaths
of Jordan of Jordan and Odo of Forestmoutiers, not previously mentioned, but who must have been well-known figures in the principality.

  25. WC, 2.14, pp. 107–9; An Arab-Syrian Gentleman in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usmah Ibn-Munqidh, tr. P.K. Hitti, Princeton, NJ, 1929, pp. 149–50. Usamah came from Shaizar and observed the Franks for most to the twelfth century. He says that Robert was executed by Tughtigin, which angered Il-Ghazi, who had wanted the ransom money to pay his Turcomans.

  26. See Asbridge and Edgington, WC, introduction, pp. 1–2.

  27. WC, 2.1 and Prologus, pp. 78–80. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 113.

  28. FC, 3.3, pp. 620–1.

  29. WC, 2.8, p. 95. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 138.

  30. Matthew of Edessa, 3.79, p. 223. Under the year 1117–18, Matthew of Edessa, 3.74, pp. 220–1, complains bitterly about the treatment of the Armenians by Baldwin, when he was count of Edessa, and by Galeran of Le Puiset, lord of Bira.

  31. Matthew of Edessa, 3.79, p. 224; WC, 2.8, p. 95. Tr. Asbridge and Edgington, p. 138.

  32. Michael the Syrian, 15.12, p. 204.

  33. WC, 2.8, p. 94, 2.10, p. 99, 2.11, pp. 101–2. Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 314, thinks he may have abandoned the first two when he turned to al-Atharib and Zardana.

  34. WC, 2.9–12, pp. 96–105.

  35. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality, p. 143, suggests that some in Antioch had doubts about the acceptance of Bohemond and were concerned to create safeguards against any changes.

  36. FC, 3.7, p. 635.

  37. Kemal ed-Din, p. 620; WC, 2.11, pp. 100–2.

  38. Matthew of Edessa, 3.79, p. 224. Michael the Syrian, however, 15.12, p. 205, says that the Turks suffered ‘a great defeat’.

  39. FC, 3.5, pp. 630–1.

  40. WC, 2.12, p. 105.

  41. Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 304–5, for comparative maps. However, Roger had been drawing tribute from the inhabitants of the territories of Aleppo and Shaizar and this would have been lost, undermining the ability of the rulers of Antioch to hire soldiers; see Asbridge, Creation of the Principality, p. 69.

  42. See Chapter 4, pp. 81–2.

  43. See Chapter 2, p. 26.

  44. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 161. See also Hillenbrand, ‘Najm al-Dn Il-Ghz’, 276–8.

  45. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 149–50, 161; WC, 2.7, pp. 91–4, 2.8, p. 95, 2.15, pp. 110–12. See Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 315.

  46. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 160–1.

  47. See Asbridge, ‘Field of Blood’, 315–16.

  48. Ibn al-Athir, part 1, pp. 214–15. FC, 3.11, pp. 647–8, says that they never remained in any one area for long.

  49. Hillenbrand, ‘Najm al-Dn Il-Ghz’, 271–5.

  50. FC, 3.5, p. 631.

  51. The date is not known, but Nicholson, Joscelyn I, p. 56, thinks late August or early September 1119.

  52. FC, 3.7, pp. 633–5.

  53. WT, 12.12, p. 526.

  54. See Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 121–5.

  55. See Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse, pp. 114–19. The first reference to a chancellor is in 1126, and to a constable in 1134; see below, n. 56.

  56. C. Kohler, ‘Chartes de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Vallée de Josaphat en Terre Sainte (1108–1291): Analyses et extraits’, ROL, 7 (1899), no. 11, pp. 121–2 (1126); Cart., vol. 1, no. 104, pp. 89–90, is a confirmation of 1134 by Joscelin II of a grant to the Hospital made by his father.

  57. Matthew of Edessa, 3.81, p. 225.

  58. See MacEvitt, ‘Christian Authority in the Latin East’, pp. 74–7.

  59. FC, 3.6–7, pp. 632–3, 635. There is no definite evidence of coronation laudes in the kingdom, but they were probably sung on this occasion, given the references to laudes at other key moments in Baldwin's reign. Baldwin's accession had not been without controversy and he would surely have been keen to promote a liturgical ruler cult: see Mayer, ‘Das Pontifikale von Tyrus’, 187–90.

  60. WT, 12.13, pp. 563–4.

  61. For the articles, see B.Z. Kedar, ‘On the Origins of the Earliest Laws of Frankish Jerusalem: The Canons of the Council of Nablus’, Speculum, 74 (1999), 331–4. The phrase used is quasi vim legis. The use of quasi suggests a slight ambiguity about the legal status of these decrees. See also ULKJ, vol. 1, no. 84, pp. 222–4.

  62. Hamilton, Latin Church, p. 53.

  63. See La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 123, n. 2; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, pp. 23–4, 41, 43, 93, 157; P. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Woodbridge, 1997, pp. 4–5; Mayer, ‘Origins of the Lordships of Ramla and Lydda’, 543–6.

  64. H.E. Mayer, ‘The Concordat of Nablus’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 33 (1982), 531–43.

  65. See Mayer, ‘Concordat of Nablus’, 539–41, who suggests a possible deal between Baldwin and Arnulf.

  66. See Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 144–50 (tithes) and p. 38 (parish churches).

  67. See G. Constable, Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century, Cambridge, 1964, pp. 225, 229, and J. Richard, ‘Le paiement des dîmes dans les états des croisés’, Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 150 (1992), 73–4. At this time only a limited number of individual houses had been allowed to keep the tithes but, as Constable shows, p. 238, from 1138 under Innocent II, the papacy made frequent use of such privileges, a policy that caused considerable friction between monastic institutions and the secular clergy in the crusader states.

  68. Jean Richard, ‘Le statut de la femme dans l'Orient latin’, Recueils de la Société de Jean Bodin, 12 (1962), 383, suggests that in the early days of the settlement the Franks may have taken Muslim concubines, but that there is no evidence for this practice after this time. This raises some interesting questions. If the canons derive from actual cases, then this might be an indication that the prohibitions were effective. However, as they are the only evidence for this, they might not reflect a real situation and could be seen as a kind of propitiation of a God who would have been angry at any sexual transgressions. Perhaps some of the canons should not be taken too literally.

  69. See Kedar, ‘Laws of Frankish Jerusalem’, 324–5.

  70. See Elm, ‘Kanoniker und Ritter’, pp. 156–9.

  71. H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, 1957, pp. 35–8.

  72. Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 27, pp. 88–9; FC, 3.8, pp. 636–7; WT, 12.15, p. 565. The problem may have been exacerbated by the alienation of the kingdom of Sicily, which in the past seems to have exported food supplies to Palestine and Syria. See J. Richard, ‘Agricultural Conditions in the Crusader States’, in A History of the Crusades, vol. 5, The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, ed. N.P. Zacour and H.W. Hazard, Madison, 1985, p. 265.

  73. Cf. Kedar, ‘Laws of Frankish Jerusalem’, 331.

  74. Historia Compostellana, ed. E. Falque Rey, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 70, Turnhout, 1988, 2.28, pp. 270–2. Tr. Barber and Bate, Letters from the East, no. 13, pp. 42–4.

  75. See R.A. Fletcher, Saint James's Catapult: The Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela, Oxford, 1984, especially chaps 6 and 8. Although his architects did not have the originality of those who worked for Suger of Saint-Denis, Diego's programme was comparable in scale and achieved more concrete results, including major reconstruction of the cathedral, as well as the associated complex of chapter buildings, cloister, palace and public facilities for pilgrims: pp. 174–9.

  76. Historia Compostellana, 2.3, p. 225, 2.10, p. 240.

  77. Historia Compostellana, 2.71, p. 370, 2.78, p. 379.

  78. Historia Compostellana, 3.26, p. 463. The Holy Sepulchre already held four churches in Galicia and ultimately found that its expansion across the Latin West necessitated the establishment of a provincial organisation rather than reliance on sporadic visits by individual canons. See N. Jaspert, ‘"Pro nobis, qui pro vobis oramus, orate”: Die Kathedralkapitel von Compostela und Jerusalem in der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhun
derts’, in Santiago, Roma, Jerusalén: Actas del III Congreso Internacional de Estudios Jacobeos, ed. P.C. von Saucken, Santiago de Compostela, 1999, pp. 195–200.

  79. Richard, ‘Quelques textes’, pp. 426–30.

  80. Jaspert, ‘"Pro nobis, qui pro vobis oramus, orate"’, pp. 200–12. The Historia Compostellana was produced to further the interests of the see, and the inclusion of the two letters from the patriarchs of Jerusalem needs to be seen in this context: p. 206.

  81. See M. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 3–10, and Schenk, ‘Nomadic Violence’, 39–55.

  82. Ernoul-Bernard, pp. 7–9. See A. Luttrell, ‘The Earliest Templars’, in Autour de la Première Croisade: Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, pp. 193–202. For a review of the various theories concerning their origins, see P.V. Claverie, ‘Les débuts de l'Ordre du Temple en Orient’, Le Moyen Age, 111 (2005), 545–57.

  83. Cartulaire du Saint-Sépulcre, no. 63, pp. 157–8; no. 135, p. 262. This payment was exchanged for three villages in the early 1160s, but it is not clear when it was first instituted. J. Riley-Smith, Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land, Notre Dame, IN, 2009, p. 11, suggests that this was a levy, perhaps imposed on other religious houses as well.

  84. WT, 12.7, pp. 553–5. William says that the Templars were granted a Rule and a habit at the council of Troyes, which he says took place in the ninth year after their foundation. As the council took place in January 1129, this is not consistent with his statement that the original group was established in 1118.

  85. FC, 1.26, p. 291, and n. 30.

  86. See Chapter 4, p. 71.

  87. Mayer, ‘Concordat of Nablus’, 541–2; Kedar, ‘Laws of Frankish Jerusalem’, 327.

  88. Kedar, ‘Laws of Frankish Jerusalem’, 327–9.

  89. Daniel, in JP, pp. 126–7.

  90. See Hamilton, ‘Ideals of Holiness’, 699.

  91. Sancti Bernardi Opera, vol. 8, Epistolae, ed. J. Leclercq and H.M. Rochais, Rome, 1977, no. 253, p. 150.

  92. See B. Hamilton, ‘The Cistercians in the Crusader States’, in One Yet Two: Monastic Tradition East and West, ed. M.B. Pennington, Kalamazoo, 1976, pp. 405–8, and D. Pringle, ‘Cistercian Houses in the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, in The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, ed. M. Gervers, New York, 1992, pp. 183–90.