The Crusades 1095-1197
Page 23
The impact of the crusades in the Eastern Mediterranean
The success of the early settlers in consolidating their tenuous hold on the Levant and then setting up four viable, yet distinct, political entities was a remarkable achievement. Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem each had their own character and interacted with each other and outside forces. The Franks managed to impose or take over networks of government and administration and they held sufficient authority to keep calm a potentially threatening indigenous population. Yet the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 reveals not just the strength of their enemies, but political, diplomatic and military weaknesses. At times, for example, the Frankish states, or particular factions, were unable to work together for a common good and the interests of a certain group (such as the Hospitallers and the invasion of Egypt in 1168, see p. 59) might count against the bigger picture. Rivalry between noble parties, most obviously in Jerusalem during the 1180s, also caused serious problems.
In almost every aspect of their actions the settlers were constrained by their limited manpower, which meant they needed to seek outside help, most obviously from Europe. A dichotomy lies at the heart of relations between the Latin East and the West, and one that was often, although not always, unresolved. The settlers and their co-religionists in Europe shared the bond of their Catholic faith; the Franks defended Christ’s patrimony and, as such, performed a valuable duty for all; they also enabled pilgrims to visit the holy places. The settlers were bound to the West — and vice versa — by family and, over time, crusading traditions, but they were politically independent. The need to develop and maintain their territories in the Levant, coupled with the rising threat from the Muslims, meant that the Franks turned to the West for husbands to marry important heiresses and for new crusades. Both of these were essential, but both brought with them a potential loss of freedom or position for some or all of the settlers, either temporarily or permanently. Count Fulk V of Anjou, Reynald of Chatillon and Guy of Lusignan married women of the ruling houses of the Levant and in each case this caused serious problems, even though it was often deemed appropriate (especially in Fulk’s case) to look to the West to find such a figure in the hope that he would encourage closer support from Europe, as well as providing leadership and heirs. On occasions, however, such a policy worked well: Raymond of Poitiers fitted in relatively comfortably at Antioch and proved a popular and effective prince.
Notwithstanding the countless appeals for assistance to the West, when military support did reach the Levant there was often a clash between the strategic needs of the crusaders, who were highly motivated in the fight against Islam (having spent much time and money coming to the East) yet only temporary visitors to the area, and the settlers, who needed to take a longer view of the situation and to protect their own interests. At times, the balance was achieved: Richard the Lionheart agreed with the nobles of Jerusalem and the military orders on the need to consolidate the Frankish hold on the coastline, rather than take the holy city itself (as most of the rank and file wanted) and leave the settlers hopelessly overstretched once the crusaders left for home. On occasion the crusaders could not understand why alliances or truces had been made with Muslim powers. In other words, the simple idea of the Christians and Muslims desiring and engaging in a constant state of war is a picture that had to be refined in the twelfth century, and is also a misconception that has pervaded modem images of the Latin East. English crusaders arrived in the Holy Land in 1185 in response to the mission of Patriarch Heraclius, yet they were met by the news that there was a truce with the Muslims (arranged, for perfectly good reasons, in the patriarch’s absence), and their fighting skills were not immediately required. Practical and political constraints meant that the settlers and Muslim factions (such as the Fatimids of Egypt) would, at times, and for the benefit of both parties, either join forces or make a truce. This apparent contradiction was borne out of simple practicality and is an important feature of the Latin tenure of the Levant. In contrast to the empathy shown between Richard and the settlers in 1191-92, the failure of the Second Crusade at Damascus and the collapse of the attack on Shaizar in 1157 were both (in part) caused by the tensions between the Franks and newcomers who might take authority over the captured lands. The fallout from the Second Crusade was considerable: the defeat of the western armies was a great boost to the Muslim world, but meant that the settlers found it far harder than before to induce a new crusade on the scale needed to defeat their enemies. Baldwin III, Amalric and Baldwin IV all tried to convince Louis VII of France and Henry II of England to take the cross, but for a variety of reasons these plans did not come to fruition. Pope Alexander III worked hard on behalf of the settlers and his series of appeals attempted to create the conditions for a new crusade and did lead to a number of lesser expeditions. In light of the lack of large-scale help, however, the Franks were forced to look elsewhere and on occasion, secured some support from the Pisans and the Sicilians. Their most important backer became, ironically, the Byzantine Empire. Under Manuel Comnenus, the Greeks and Franks formed a strong relationship based on marriages between the ruling houses, military assistance and, from 1171, Byzantine overlordship of Jerusalem, as well as Antioch (secured in 1145). When the Greeks became hostile to the Latins in the 1180s the Franks were left dangerously isolated and this was a major contributory factor to the defeat at Hattin.
The emergence of closer ties with the Greek Orthodox is reflected in other aspects of life in the Frankish East. The existence of this trend has emerged — independently — in the work of Jotischky (1995) on religious life, Ellenblum (1998) on settlement, and Phillips (1996) on relations between the Latin East and outside powers. Jotischky shows how close ties grew up between some Orthodox and Catholic religious groups and ecclesiastical houses. Ellenblum reveals how Frankish settlers often lived alongside Orthodox villagers in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Phillips demonstrates how the Franks moved towards closer political ties with the Byzantine Empire after 1150 and a further consequence of this was Manuel Comnenus’s sponsorship of religious buildings, some of which were used by Orthodox and Catholics alike. The death of Manuel Comnenus changed the tenor of the political relationship and Saladin’s capture of much of the kingdom of Jerusalem ended Latin tenure of rural areas of land. For the period under consideration here, however, this broad-ranging series of links (although not existing at top ecclesiastical levels) between the two groups is an important and recently recognised aspect of the history of the Latin East.
The impact of the First Crusade and subsequent Latin settlement in the Levant was considerable. A new player suddenly appeared to join the Byzantines and the Sunni and Shi’i Muslims. We have seen how unprepared the Muslim world was in 1099 and how the appearance of the First Crusade emphasised the divisions and weaknesses in place at the end of the eleventh century. The slow and steady rise of the jihad, from the protestations of poets at the time of the First Crusade to the stirrings of holy war after the Battle of the Field of Blood (1119), and the more prominent achievement of Zengi at Edessa in 1144 are important to recognise. The role of Nur ad-Din as a pious patron of civic and religious welfare, and as a formidable general and the conqueror of Egypt should not be overshadowed by Saladin’s more famous achievements. Saladin did, of course, capture the holy city and, whatever his shortcomings as a military leader, for this reason alone he is rightly held out as the hero of Islam.
Postscript
The pontificate of Innocent III (1198-1216) marked a further series of developments in the history of the crusades. He initiated legislation allowing the taxation of the Church for the crusade, he developed the practice of vow redemption and he enjoined the whole Christian community to work and pray for the crusade to an extent not seen before. Innocent launched crusades to the Holy Land, against the pagans of the Baltic, to Spain and against the heretical Cathars of southern France (the Albigensian crusade). In 1204 the Fourth Crusaders perpetrated what many view as the betrayal of the crusading movement — they sa
cked the Christian city of Constantinople and established a Latin empire in Greece (1204-61). The focus of crusades to the Eastern Mediterranean in the thirteenth century became Egypt, with several major campaigns directed towards Cairo. The Muslim world slowly composed itself after Saladin’s death, but both the settlers and their enemies alike (and western Europe) had to face a new threat after the 1240s with the emergence of the Mongols — fierce nomadic tribesmen from Asia who swept all before them to create the largest empire in history, which stretched from Hungary to China. Aside from this, political wrangles with the German Empire (Frederick II had married the heiress to Jerusalem in 1225) and, latterly, involvement with Charles of Anjou, the Capetian ruler of Sicily, clouded political life in the Levant. Two crusades from King Louis IX of France (1248-54 and 1270) failed to defeat the Muslims and the Mamluk Sultan Baibars pushed the Franks to breaking point during the 1260s. Finally, in 1291, Acre fell and the Latin East was at an end, although the Lusignan dynasty continued to rule Cyprus.
The period covered in this book marked, in territorial terms at least, the zenith of the Frankish presence in the Levant. As we saw at the start of this work, the idea of the crusade remains potent today. It is hoped that the motives, endeavours and contradictions underlying this compelling episode of history have been brought to light and placed clearly in their proper setting.
DOCUMENTS
1. ACCOUNTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT, 1095
2. LETTERS OF POPE URBAN II, 1095-99
3. CHARTERS FROM THE FIRST CRUSADE
4. THE POGROMS AGAINST THE JEWS, 1096-97
5. THE MUSLIM REACTION TO THE FIRST CRUSADE
6. FRANKISH SETTLEMENT AND IDENTITY
7. THE MILITARY ORDERS
8. TRADING PRIVILEGES OF THE VENETIANS, 1123-24
9. THE REBELLION OF COUNT HUGH OF JAFFA, 1134
10. THE SETTLERS’ TREATMENT OF MUSLIMS IN THE FRANKISH EAST
11. THE CALL TO THE SECOND CRUSADE, 1146
12. RECRUITMENT FOR THE SECOND CRUSADE — TROUVERE SONG, 1146-47
13. THE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON THE CRUSADERS SAILING TO LISBON, 1147
14. THE GREEKS AND THE SECOND CRUSADE, 1147-48
15. AMALRIC’S DECISION TO TRAVEL TO CONSTANTINOPLE, 1171
16. MUSLIM AND FRANKISH MILITARY TACTICS
17. KNIGHT SERVICE OWED IN THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM, c. 1185-86
18. THE CONSTRUCTION OF FORTRESSES AROUND ASCALON
19. THE CALL FOR THE THIRD CRUSADE, 1187
20. SALADIN’S GENEROSITY, c. 1189-90
21. THE THIRD CRUSADE TURNS BACK FROM JERUSALEM, 1192
DOCUMENT 1 ACCOUNTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT, 1095
There are a wealth of narrative sources for the First Crusade, but we have no extant contemporary account of Pope Urban II’s speech at the Council of Clermont in November 1095. The only official document is extremely brief (see p. 15), although plain in its message. The potential problem with the narrative versions of his call to arms is that they were all composed after the capture of Jerusalem. While some of these accounts are from eye-witnesses at Clermont, they were all written up later; there is no common shared text and there is a concern that the writers may have manipulated parts of their material to reflect the actual outcome of the crusade. In spite of these drawbacks, however, certain themes do emerge, including the suffering of the Christians in the East, the mistreatment of pilgrims, the pollution of the holy places, the spiritual importance of Jerusalem and also the rewards (secular and spiritual) of taking the cross. For reasons of space the texts here are only extracts from these narratives.
(i) The account of Robert of Rheims (written before 1107)
Race of the French, race living beyond the Alps, race chosen and beloved by God, as is radiantly shown by your many deeds, distinguished from all other nations as much by the situation of your lands and your Catholic faith as by the honour you show to Holy Church; to you we direct our sadness and to you we send our exhortation. . . . A grave report has come from lands around Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople . . . that a people from the kingdom of the Persians, a foreign race, a race absolutely alien to God . . . has invaded the land of those Christians, has reduced the people with sword, rapine and flame and has carried off some as captives to its own land, has cut down others by pitiable murder and has either completely razed the churches of God to the ground or enslaved them to the practice of its own rites. These men have destroyed the altars polluted by their foul practices . . . they cut open the navels of those whom they choose to torment with a loathsome death. . . . They tie some to posts and shoot at them with arrows; they order others to bare their necks and they attack them with drawn swords, trying to see whether they can cut off their heads with a single stroke. What shall I say of the appalling violation of women, of which it is more evil to speak than to keep silent? . . . On whom, therefore, does the task lie of avenging this, of redeeming the situation, if not on you, upon whom above all nations God has bestowed outstanding glory in arms, magnitude of heart, litheness of body and the strength to humble anyone who resists you to their hairy crown?
May the stories of your ancestors move you and excite your souls to strength; the worth and greatness of King Charlemagne and of Louis his son and of others of your kings, who destroyed the kingdoms of the pagans and extended into them the boundaries of Holy Church. May you be especially moved by the Holy Sepulchre of Our Lord and Saviour, which is in the hands of unclean races, and by the Holy Places, which are now treated dishonourably and are polluted irreverently by their unclean practices. Oh most strong soldiers and the offspring of unvanquished parents, do not show yourselves to be weaker than your forbears but remember their strength! . . . for this land you inhabit is everywhere shut in by the sea, is surrounded by ranges of mountains and is overcrowded by your numbers; it does not overflow with copious wealth and scarcely furnishes food for its own farmers alone. This is why you devour and fight one another, make war and even kill one another as you exchange blows. Stop these hatreds among yourselves, silence the quarrels, still the wars and let all dissensions be settled. Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre, rescue that land from a dreadful race and rule over it yourselves, for that land that, as scripture says, floweth with milk and honey was given by God as a possession to the children of Israel.
This royal city, placed at the centre of the world, is now held captive by her enemies and is enslaved to pagan rites by a people which does not acknowledge God. So she asks and prays to be liberated and calls upon you increasingly to come to her aid.
But we do not order or urge old men or the infirm or those least suited to arms to undertake this journey; nor should women go at all without their husbands or brothers or official permission: such people are more of a hindrance than a help, more of a burden than a benefit.
(ii) The account of Guibert of Nogent (written before 1108)
If, indeed, one reads in the sacred and prophetic writings that this land was the inheritance and the holy temple of God before the Lord walked and appeared there, how much more holy and worthy of reverence must we consider to be fitting for the place where the blood of the Son of God, holier than heaven or earth, poured out and where his body, dead to the fearful elements, rested in the grave? . . . Many bodies of the saints that had slept arose and came into the Holy City and appeared to many, and it was said by the prophet Isaiah, his Sepulchre shall be glorious, no subsequent evil can remove that same holiness, since it has been imparted to the city by God himself, the sanctifier, by his own action. In the same way nothing can be taken from the glory of his Sepulchre.