The Crusader States and their Neighbours

1098-1291

P.M. Holt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317878742
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire du monde

The book will be welcome for tackling the Crusades from a fresh but important angle; the relations of the Crusader states with their neighbours, both Christian (the Byzantines) and, especially, Islamic – the rulers of Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, Cairo etc. It contributes to the very fashionable approach of seeing the Crusades as a prime example of early European colonialism, and investigating them much more for their social, political and ethnic impact on the region than for their ostensible ideological and religious motives. Holt uses original Arabic sources, which are generally difficult for Western historians, and therefore this book is an important addition to literature about the Crusades.

chapter one
The First Crusade and Its Impact

The First Crusade: territorial and demographic effects

It was upon the Near East, fragmented and divided between Byzantium and Muslim powers and their respective dependants, that the impact fell of the First Crusade. Its origins and course are well known, and need only be briefly sketched here. Pope Urban II's summons to Western Christians to set forth as warriors to the East was made on 27 November 1095 at the close of the Council of Clermont. It produced an immediate and widespread response among the peoples of France, Germany and the Low Countries.

In answer to the pope's call, an expedition chiefly recruited from the poorer people under the charismatic leadership of Peter the Hermit reached Constantinople in July and August 1096, crossed the Bosphorus, and was destroyed by Seljuk forces sent from Kilic Arslan's capital of Ịznik. So ended the People's Crusade. Meanwhile the armies of the Princes' Crusade were arriving under the separate commands of Hugh, count of Vermandois (a son of Henry I of France and brother to Philip I, the reigning king), and three other noblemen, who had larger and more substantial forces. They were Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine, Bohemond of Taranto (the disinherited eldest son of Robert Guiscard, the Norman duke of Apulia and Calabria), and Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse. Crossing from Constantinople to Asia Minor, they took Ịznik and defeated Kilic Arslan at Dorylaeum (near modern Eskişehir), holding back for a time Seljuk domination in Rūm. As they advanced towards northern Syria, Baldwin of Boulogne, Godfrey's brother, acquired from Toros, its Armenian ruler, the outlying city of Edessa (Arabic, al-Ruhā'; Turkish, Urfa), beyond the Euphrates, which with its surrounding territory he constituted into an independent county in March 1098.

Meanwhile the main body of the Crusaders proceeded to Antioch, the gateway to the south, which they took in June 1098. Yaǧisiyan, the governor appointed by Malik-Shāh, met his death while trying to escape from the city. Bohemond, who had taken the leading part in the capture of Antioch, claimed it as the capital of his principality. The Crusaders continued their southward march, and Jerusalem, the supreme territorial object of their ambition, was taken from the Fatimids on 15 July 1099. Godfrey of Bouillon was elected as ruler with the title of Advocatus Scrncti Sepulchri, 'Defender of the Holy Sepulchre'. When he died a year later, his brother Baldwin was summoned from Edessa, and crowned king of Jerusalem. He went out to defeat the Fatimid army near Ascalon on 12 August. The city itself however remained a Fatimid frontier-fortress until 1153. Raymond of Saint-Gilles besieged Tripoli, a former Fatimid possession but at the time autonomous. He assumed the title of count of Tripoli, but the city fell only in 1109, four years after his death.

The Crusader states as finally established formed an elongated block of territory from north to south, the two chief cities, Antioch and Jerusalem, being about 560 km apart. The widest extent was in the most northerly sector, where Edessa lay some 250 km from the sea. From the southern frontier of the principality of Antioch stretched an attenuated central sector of mainly coastal territory, approximately to the vicinity of Tyre. The most southerly sector expanded eastwards into the Judaean highlands around Jerusalem, and then ultimately beyond into Transjordan – 'Oultrejourdain' of the Crusaders.

The territory that formed the Crusader states was thus largely acquired at the expense of the Syrian branch of the Seljuks with its two capitals at Aleppo and Damascus held respectively by Riḍwan and Dokak, the sons of Tutuş. Edessa, as we have seen, had been an Armenian lordship. Jerusalem and Ascalon formed the Fatimids' last foothold in Palestine, while their former possession of Tripoli had become autonomous under a family of Shi'i judges. Even to the Seljuks however, the losses of territory to the Crusaders were marginal, particularly as the Crusaders were never masters of the great north–south route from Aleppo by way of Ḥamāh and Ḥimṣ to Damascus, although their holdings in Transjordan intercepted its continuation to the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, and to Egypt. The fall of Edessa to Zangī in 1144 and the failure of the Second Crusade to take Damascus in 1148 put an end to the Prankish Drang nach Osten, and the later Crusades were very different in their nature from the First. They sought essentially to regain lost territory or to safeguard the remaining holdings against the Muslim great power in the region. The city of Antioch, the northern bastion of Frankish territory, had no counterpart in the south. The remote hill-city of Jerusalem, isolated and ill-provided, lacked the capability to serve as a base for attack or defence. Military operations thus devolved upon the individual Crusader states.

Two of the cities that formed the capitals of the Crusader states, Antioch and Jerusalem, outranked the others. Antioch had a history going back to the third century BC, and was an urban centre of outstanding importance in the Roman Empire. It fell to the Arabs during the caliphate of 'Umar (634-44), and was henceforward under Muslim rule until the First Crusade, apart from the years 969 to 1084, when it was again held by the Byzantines. Jerusalem first attained importance as the capital of the Hebrew monarchy under King David (1012-972 BC). It lacked the topographical advantages and strategic importance of Antioch, but these deficiencies were more than compensated by its central position in the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. To Jews it was the site of the Temple and the centre of the promised Holy Land. To Christians it was the scene of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, commemorated in the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre. To Muslims it was the setting for the Mi'rāj, the Prophet's night-journey and ascent to heaven, marked by the magnificent Dome of the Rock in the area of the former Temple. Until the First Crusade, Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule since its capture by the Arabs in 638 (again during the caliphate of 'Umar), and it was a place of pilgrimage as the third Holy City of Islam.

Edessa, taken by the Arabs in 639, had thereafter usually been under Muslim rule. It was however regained by the Byzantines in 1037, and with the collapse of Byzantine power in the east after the battle of Manzikert, it passed under Armenian rule. Tripoli, the capital of the latest of the Crusader states to be fully established, had been Muslim since the Arab conquest in the seventh century. It lay in fertile coastal territory and, as noted earlier, was the port for the hinterland from Ḥimṣ to Damascus. The last of the judges who ruled it from 1070 to 1109 was Fakhr al-Mulk Ibn 'Ammār.

The arrival of the First Crusade in Syria-Palestine and the rapid territorial conquests of the invaders came as a shock and a surprise to the indigenous peoples. Refugees fled from the massacres committed by the Crusaders, notably at Antioch and Ma'arrat al-Nu'mān in 1098, and in the following year at the fall of Jerusalem, which thereafter remained a city from which Muslims and Jews were excluded. Other massacres followed as more towns were captured, for example Caesarea in 1101. Sometimes the approach of the Crusaders was enough in itself to stimulate a panic flight, as when the Crusaders on the march to Jerusalem found al-Ramla already abandoned by its townspeople. Not all towns were deserted or subjected to massacre. Some capitulated to the Franks, and their inhabitants were allowed to leave under safe conduct. This happened at Arsūf on the coast of Palestine in 1101, and at the city of Tripoli in 1109. With the taking of Sidon in 1110 capitulation became the usual procedure.

The refugees made their way chiefly to the towns of Muslim Syria, especially to Damascus, Aleppo, Shayzar and Ḥamāh. Relatively few went further to the towns of the Euphrates and Tigris, or to Fatimid Egypt with its Palestinian outpost at Ascalon. Rather surprisingly, the refugees do not seem to have called for a jihād (Holy War) to avenge their wrongs. Certainly a summons to the jihād was raised in Damascus as early as 1105, but its advocate was neither a refugee nor a ruler, but a Muslim scholar, Ibn al-Sulamī, preaching and teaching in the Umayyad Mosque.

There is one exceptional instance of emigration from Prankish territory, which took place in the mid-twelfth century, long after the period of conquest. Difficulties arose between some Muslim villagers in the Nablus district and their Frankish lord, Baldwin of Ibelin. A Muslim scholar named Aḥmad b. Qudāma in the village of Jammāīl was accused by Baldwin of withdrawing agricultural labour through his Friday sermons. Ibn Qudāma thereupon decided to emigrate, and persuaded members of his family and other persons to join him on the grounds that flight from infidel territory was required by the Sharī'a. The emigration began in 1156 and went on for some 20 years. It was technically a hijra, a flight from infidel to Muslim territory, based on the precedent of the Prophet's flight from Mecca to Medina. Ibn Qudāma and his fellow-migrants established themselves in the Damascus suburb of al-Ṣaliḥiyya, which duly became a centre of propaganda for the jihād.

The towns evacuated by the Muslims became the residence of most of the Frankish settlers in the Holy Land. They found a secure and congenial social life there, which they shared with their trading partners from the Italian republics. Their adoption of oriental styles of dress and usages earned them the scorn of European visitors. These descendants of Crusaders, born in the Holy Land, came to be called Poulains (Latiniseci as Pullani), literally 'Colts', a distinct breed as it were from Europeans proper.

The Frankish feudal lords in the conquered territories lived off the labours of the indigenous peasantry, partly Muslim and partly Christian. To what extent this peasant population had been reduced by flight at the time of the Crusade is unknown, but it is not likely to have been significant – a peasant clings to his land. Even if the lord lived on his estate, close personal relations with the peasantry were unlikely in view of the difference of language, culture and religion existing between them. For an understanding of the condition of the peasantry at this period we are almost entirely dependent on Frankish documentation. The agrarian regime remained essentially what it had been under the preceding Muslim landowners, although the Frankish lords were linked in a feudal network that had not existed previously. Frankish rule made no great change in the status of the peasants, which was indeed not far from servitude. The most obvious sign of the change from a Muslim to a Frankish master was the extension of the poll-tax, hitherto levied only on Christians, to the Muslim peasants also. There is little evidence of change in the methods of cultivation or the crops cultivated, although the Franks were particularly interested in the production of sugar, used both in cooking and for medicinal purposes. The peasants paid fixed dues in cash or kind on their produce, as well as giving traditional 'presents', usually three times a year.

Although the status of the peasantry as a class was low, they were organised among themselves as autonomous communities. These communities were in contact with the landowner through two local officials: the scribe and the ra'īs. The scribe was the lord's steward and the keeper of the necessary written records. With the imposition of Frankish rule, the steward had also to act as an interpreter in dealings between the lord and the peasants. Hence he became known as the dragoman, from the Arabic tarjumān (tarjama, to translate). The ra'īs, Latinised as regulus, was a leading man, a notable of his village community, with superior status and greater freedom than the mass of the peasantry. An example of his functions is given in a treaty concluded between Baybars and the Hospitallers in 1271, which states that if there should occur any homicide or theft in the territory of al-Marqab (the Frankish Margat), there was to be an investigation, and if the culprit was not produced within 20 days, the ru'asā' (plural of ra'īs) were to detain his nearest neighbour.

The regime of the Frankish lords was thus a transitory phenomenon, accompanied by no substantial changes in the relations between proprietor and cultivator or in the condition of the peasants themselves. There is a marked contrast between the towns, the new centres of Frankish life and culture, and the countryside, following as ever its traditional regime under its Frankish masters.

Muslim views of the First Crusade

Such was the immediate impact of the First Crusade on Asia Minor and Syria-Palestine. How was it regarded by the Muṣlims of the region?

The irruption of the Franks, in Arabic al-Ifranj, to use the Muslim term for Western Europeans in general and the Crusaders specifically, is described by the contemporary Damascene chronicler, Ibn al-Qalānisī (d. 1160) in his account of the events of the year 490/1096-7 in these words:

In this year there began to arrive a succession of reports that the armies of the Franks had appeared from the direction of the sea of Constantinople with forces not to be reckoned for multitude. As these reports followed one upon the other, and spread from mouth to mouth far and wide, the people grew anxious and disturbed in mind.

He goes on to describe the Crusaders' conflict with Kilic Arslan and his rout, i.e. the battie of Dorylaeum, saying: 'When the news was received of this shameful calamity to the cause of Islām, the anxiety of the people became acute and their fear and alarm increased'.

He describes the operations against Antioch and its fall in these words:

The lords of the pedigree steeds were put to flight, and the sword was unsheathed on the footsoldiers who had volunteered for the cause of God, who had girt themselves for the Holy War, and were vehement in their desire to strike a blow for the Faith and for the protection of the Muslims.¹

He then traces the southward advance of the Crusaders, culminating in an unemotional account of the taking of Jerusalem, followed by the victory over the Fatimid forces outside Ascalon. On the whole Ibn al-Qalānisī shows more concern over the loss of Muslim lives than over the capture of Antioch or even the fall of the Holy City of Jerusalem.

A more emotional view of events, stimulated by strong religious feeling, is presented by another contemporary Arabic writer, the Islamic propagandist Ibn al-Sulamī. In 1105 he produced in Damascus his book Kitāb al-jihād, 'The book of the Holy War', in which he ascribes the successes of the Franks to the irreligion and disunity of the Muslims. He was in his time a voice crying in the wilderness, as the Muslim powers of the Syrian hinterland showed little concern over the irruption of the Frankish barbarians into the maritime fringe of the region. It is interesting that Ibn al-Sulamī does not see the Crusade and the consequent losses of Muslim territory in isolation, but views them as part of a wider Frankish assault upon Islam as witnessed by the conquest of Sicily and of many towns in Spain.

More generally the Crusades, and even the conquest and settlement of Syria-Palestine by the Franks, were not treated by the Arabic chroniclers as a distinct category of historical events. There were reports of particular episodes dispersed in city chronicles, dynastic histories and works of wider scope, giving the impression of the relative marginality of these events to the history of the Islamic Near East. For example, H. A. R. Gibb's book, the source of the above excerpts, entitled The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, is translated from Ibn al-Qalānisī's Dhayl ta'rīkh Dimashq, i.e. 'The continuation of the chronicle of Damascus'. It seems that the first conspectus of the Crusades as such by an Arabic writer did not appear until 1520, when a certain Aḥmad al-Ḥarīrī completed a work entided al-I'lām wa'l-tabyīn fī khurūj al-Firanj al-malā'īn 'alā diyār al-Muslimīn, 'Information and exposition of the irruption of the accursed Franks upon the Muslim homelands'.

The wider historical significance of the First Crusade, foreshadowed by Ibn al-Sulamī, was developed about a century later by one of the greatest of the Arabic chroniclers, Ibn al-Athīr (1160-1233) in his monumental universal history entitled al-Kāmil fi'l-ta'rīkh, 'The Complete History'. His account of the origins of the First Crusade is of interest as showing the outlook and limitations of a well-educated and highly competent Muslim chronicler.

Describing the events of 491/1097-8, Ibn al-Athīr gives an account of the capture of Antioch by the Franks, which he prefaces as follows:

The first appearance of the Franks and the increase of their authority, their setting out for the land of Islam and their capture of a part of it, were in the year 478/1085-86, when they took Toledo and other cities of the land of Andalusia as mentioned previously. Then in the year 484/1091-92 they proceeded to the island of Sicily as I have also mentioned. They penetrated also into the borders of Ifrīqiya [Africa]. They took some of it, which was retaken; then they made other conquests as you may see.

In the year 490/1096-97 they set out for the land of Syria. The reason for their invasion was that their king, Baldwin, assembled a great host of Franks. He was a kinsman by marriage of Roger the Frank who ruled Sicily. He sent an envoy to Roger saying to him, 'I have assembled a great host and am coming to you, and proceeding from you to conquer Ifrīqiya; and I shall be your neighbour'.

This news was unwelcome to Roger, who regarded with dismay the prospect of having to supply Baldwin with money, ships and troops. Furthermore Baldwin's proposed operations would damage his good relations with the ruler of Tunis.

He [Roger] summoned the envoy, and said to him, 'If you are determined to fight a Holy War against the Muslims, the best thing would be to conquer Jerusalem. You will liberate it from their hands, and the glory will be yours. As for Ifrīqiya, there are sworn treaties between ourselves and its people'.

So they made their preparations and set out for Syria.

Ibn al-Athīr presents an interesting view of the origins of the First Crusade. Although he describes the expedition to Jerusalem as a jihād, the pope play...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
• INTRODUCTION
• chapter one THE FIRST CRUSADE AND ITS IMPACT
• chapter two POLITICS AND WARFARE: 1097–1119
• chapter three FROM THE FIELD OF BLOOD TO THE SECOND CRUSADE: 1119–49
• chapter four NŪR AL-DĪN, SALADIN AND THE FRANKISH STATES
• chapter five THE FRANKISH STATES AND THE LATER AYYUBIDS
• chapter six THE FRANKISH STATES AND THE EARLY MAMLUK SULTANS
• CONCLUSION
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX OF PERSONS
• INDEX OF PLACES