Текст книги "The Crusades. The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land"

Автор книги: Thomas Asbridge

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 50 (всего у книги 54 страниц)

It was once popular to suggest that the kingdom of Jerusalem’s Latin nobility were, at this time, divided into two distinct and opposing factions, vying for power and influence as Baldwin IV’s health and authority waned. On the one hand, it was suggested, were the ‘Native Barons’, including Count Raymond III of Tripoli and the Ibelins, who were familiar with the political and military realities of life in the Levant and thus willing to adopt a cautious approach in their dealings with Saladin and Islam; and on the other, the aggressive upstart ‘Court Party’, including Guy of Lusignan and Sibylla, Agnes and Joscelin of Courtenay and Reynald of Châtillon, who were supposedly headstrong newcomers. The problem with this picture, enthusiastically presented by the likes of Steven Runciman in the 1950s, was that it bore little relation to reality. The make-up and policies of these ‘factions’ were never so clear-cut, nor were the members of the ‘Court Party’ ill-informed new arrivals–Reynald of Châtillon and the Courtenays, for example, were well-established figures in Outremer. This traditional image of endemic political factionalism in the 1180s is also suspect because it tends, uncritically, to incorporate the views and prejudices of William of Tyre, who was himself closely embroiled in events and an ardent supporter of Raymond of Tripoli. P. W. Edbury, ‘Propaganda and Faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem: The Background to Hattin’, in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. M. Shatzmiller (1993), pp. 173–89; Hamilton, The Leper King, pp. 139–41, 144–5, 149–58.

Ernoul, La Chronique d’Ernoul, ed. L. de Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871), pp. 69–70; Abu Shama, p. 231; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 185–8; Hamilton, ‘The Elephant of Christ’, pp. 103–4; Hamilton, The Leper King, pp. 179–85.

These included Raymond of Tripoli who, after the attempted coup of 1180, had spent two years in the county of Tripoli (effectively in a state of exile from Palestine) before being reconciled with Baldwin IV in spring 1182. William of Tyre, pp. 1048–9; R. C. Smail, ‘The predicaments of Guy of Lusignan, 1183–87’, Outremer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 159–76.

William of Tyre, p. 1058.

Ibn Jubayr also provided a detailed description of the commercial taxes imposed by both Muslims and Latins upon ‘foreign’ traders. Under normal circumstances Muslim merchants passing through either Transjordan or Galilee paid the Franks a toll. This raises the possibility that Saladin targeted these two regions, in part, to open them to commerce free from Christian levies. Ibn Jubayr, pp. 300–301.

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 234–9. According to Ibn al-Athir (vol. 2, p. 309), Nasir al-Din ‘drank wine, indulging excessively, and by the morning he was dead. Some have related–and the responsibility for this is theirs–that Saladin arranged for a man, called al-Nasih, who was from Damascus, to go to him, carouse with him and give him a poisoned drink. Come the morning, al-Nasih was nowhere to be seen.’

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 239–41; Ehrenkreutz, Saladin, p. 237; Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, pp. 275ff.

William of Tyre, p. 968. Around the same time, Ibn Jubayr (p. 311) applauded Saladin’s ‘memorable deeds in the affairs of the world and of religion, and his zeal in waging holy war against the enemies of God’, noting that ‘his efforts for justice, and his stands in defence of Islamic lands are too numerous to count’. This evidence is significant because it was not coloured by later events.

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 243–6.

P. Balog, The Coinage of the Ayyubids (London, 1980), p. 77; N. Jaspert, The Crusades, p. 73.

Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 320; Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 175–85.

Imad al-Din, p. 22; C. P. Melville and M. C. Lyons, ‘Saladin’s Hattin Letter’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 208–12.

Imad al-Din, p. 23. On Saladin’s defeat of the Franks see: Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum, Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series 66 (London, 1875), pp. 209–62. A translation of this text is available in: J. A. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary Survey (Milwaukee, 1962), pp. 153–63. On the Battle of Hattin see: Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 189–97; P. Herde, ‘Die Kämpfe bei den Hörnen von Hittin und der Untergang des Kreuzritterheeres’, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, vol. 61 (1966), pp. 1–50; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 255–66; B. Z. Kedar, ‘The Battle of Hattin revisited’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 190–207.

Imad al-Din, p. 25. My own experience of walking through Israel from the Lebanese border to Jerusalem in July 1999 made me realise just how vital water would be during a midsummer campaign. My water consumption peaked at an extraordinary seventeen litres per day! Luckily I had plenty of opportunities to fill my water bottles–in 1187 the Latins were not so fortunate.

Eracles, ‘L’Estoire de Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer’, RHC Occ. II (Paris, 1859), pp. 62–5; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 321; Imad al-Din, p. 26.

Imad al-Din, p. 26; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 322.

Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 323; Imad al-Din, p. 26.

Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, pp. 323–4. This famous episode was recorded in numerous Muslim and Christian accounts, with minor variations on Reynald’s attitude (with some western sources claiming that he remained defiant to the last) and on whether Saladin killed Reynald with his own hand. For example, see: Melville and Lyons, ‘Saladin’s Hattin Letter’, p. 212; Imad al-Din, pp. 27–8; Baha al-Din, pp. 74–5; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184–1197), ed. M. R. Morgan (Paris, 1982), pp. 55–6.

Imad al-Din, pp. 28–9; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 324.

Imad al-Din, p. 31. A similarly horrific spectacle of clumsy butchery had been played out for the amusement of spectators in 1178. On that occasion Imad al-Din himself was asked by Saladin to participate in a mass execution of Christian captives, but turned aside when he discovered that his allotted victim was but a boy. Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 131–2. Melville and Lyons, ‘Saladin’s Hattin Letter’, pp. 210, 212; Z. Gal, ‘Saladin’s Dome of Victory at the Horns of Hattin’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 213–15.

‘Historia de expeditione Friderici Imperatoris’, Quellen zur Geschichte der Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I, ed. A. Chroust, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum (Berlin, 1928), pp. 2–4; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 56–8. Acre’s immense wealth and valuable landed estates were distributed among three of Saladin’s most prominent lieutenants–al-Afdal, Taqi al-Din and Isa–although even Imad al-Din later admitted that the sultan might have been better advised to retain at least some of this booty for his own treasury. On Saladin’s strategy after Hattin see: W. J. Hamblin, ‘Saladin and Muslim military theory’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 228–38.

Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 328; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2, p. 471.

These hugely influential ideas can be traced through modern scholarship. In the 1950s Hamilton Gibb wrote that Jerusalem surrendered ‘on terms that confirmed–if confirmation were needed–[Saladin’s] reputation for limitless courtesy and generosity’ (‘Saladin’, p. 586). Around the same time, Steven Runciman–whose three-volume account of the crusades often is marred by historical imprecision, but remains widely read–argued that the sultan specifically mentioned the events of 1099 in his dealings with Balian. Runciman added that ‘Saladin, so long as his power was recognised, was ready to be generous, and he wished Jerusalem to suffer as little as possible’, and the historian went on to contrast the ‘humane’ Muslims with the Franks who had ‘waded through the blood of their victims’ (A History of the Crusades, vol. 2, pp. 465–6). In 1988 these sentiments were echoed by Hans Mayer, affirming that Jerusalem’s inhabitants ‘had reason to be grateful that they were at the mercy of a merciful enemy’ (The Crusades, pp. 135–6). And Carole Hillenbrand, in her benchmark study of the crusades from an Islamic perspective (1999), highlighted Saladin’s magnanimity, arguing that for Muslim chroniclers ‘the propaganda value of the bloodless conquest of Jerusalem by Saladin count[ed] for much more than the temptation, soon overcome, to exact vengeance’ (The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, p. 316).

Imad al-Din, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. 156–8. Massé’s text claimed at this point (p. 46, n. 2) that Imad al-Din’s account was replicated by Abu Shama (even though this is not the case) and, therefore, Massé did not present this part of the text. For this reason the Gabrieli translation has been cited here. Baha al-Din, pp. 77–8; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 273–6; Richard, The Crusades, p. 210. References to the precedent set by the First Crusade appear only in later sources: Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 332; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 66–7.

Saladin may have sought to engineer the negotiated surrender of Jerusalem in early September while engaged in the siege of Ascalon, but the Franks refused. La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 61–3; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 271–2.

Imad al-Din, Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 158; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, pp. 333–4. The Hospital of Jerusalem also was permitted to stay open for one year, so as not to cause undue harm to its patients, after which point it was transformed into a college of Islamic law. In response to lobbying from Isa, Saladin agreed to allow ‘eastern’ Christians to remain in the Holy City if they accepted subject status and paid a ransom plus the customary poll tax owed by non-Muslims living under Islamic rule.

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 275–6.

Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 188–92, 286–91, 298–301, 317–19.

Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 335; Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, p. 316.

PART III: THE TRIAL OF CHAMPIONS

The Third Crusade is the first expedition for which modern historians have access to full and detailed eyewitness sources from both Latin Christians and Muslims. Among the western observers was Ambroise, a Norman cleric who went on crusade with Richard the Lionheart and then, between 1194 and 1199, wrote an Old French epic verse poem recounting the expedition–The History of the Holy War–running to more than 12,000 lines. Ambroise’s account seems to have been used by another crusader, Richard de Templo, in constructing his Latin narrative history of the crusade, the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi (the Itinerary of the Pilgrims and Deeds of King Richard). The narrative accounts, biographies and letters written by three highly placed officials within Saladin’s court–Imad al-Din, Baha al-Din and the Qadi al-Fadil–offer invaluable insights into the Muslim perspective on the crusade. They can also be usefully compared to the testimony of the Mosuli historian Ibn al-Athir, who was not a partisan of Saladin’s Ayyubid dynasty. In spite of this abundance of primary source material, there is a surprising dearth of authoritative modern scholarship focusing specifically on the Third Crusade. Therefore, I have devoted the third part of this current work to the Third Crusade. The main primary sources for this expedition include: Baha al-Din, pp. 78–245; Imad al-Din, pp. 63–434; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, pp. 335–409; Abu Shama, ‘Le Livre des Deux Jardins’, RHC Or. IV, pp. 341–522, V, pp. 3–101; Ambroise, The History of the Holy War: Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ed. and trans. M. Ailes and M. Barber, 2 vols (Woodbridge, 2003) (all the following references to Ambroise relate to the Old French verse edition in volume I). Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, vol. 1, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 38 (London, 1864). For a translation and useful introduction to the complexities surrounding this text see: Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, trans. H. Nicholson (Aldershot, 1997). La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 76–158. For a translation of this text and a number of other related sources see: P. W. Edbury (trans.), The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (Aldershot, 1996). For further reading on these sources see: C. Hanley, ‘Reading the past through the present: Ambroise, the minstrel of Reims and Jordan Fantosme’, Mediaevalia, vol. 20 (2001), pp. 263–81; M. J. Ailes, ‘Heroes of war: Ambroise’s heroes of the Third Crusade’, Writing War: Medieval Literary Responses, ed. F. Le Saux and C. Saunders (Woodbridge, 2004); P. W. Edbury, ‘The Lyon Eracles and the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre’, Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, J. S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 139–53. Secondary works that do shed light on the Third Crusade include: S. Painter, ‘The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus’, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2, ed. K. M. Setton (Madison, 1969), pp. 45–85; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 279–363; H. Möhring, Saladin und der dritte Kreuzzug (Wiesbaden, 1980); J. Gillingham, Richard I (New Haven and London, 1999); Tyerman, God’s War, pp. 375–474.

‘Annales Herbipolenses’, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz et al., vol. 16 (Hanover, 1859), p. 3.

E. Haverkamp, Medieval Germany, 1056–1273 (Oxford, 1988); E. Hallam, Capetian France, 987–1328, 2nd edn (Harlow, 2001); W. L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973); J. Gillingham, The Angevin Empire, 2nd edn (London, 2001).

Historia de expeditione Friderici Imperatoris’, pp. 6–10. The text of Audita Tremendi is also translated in: Riley-Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, pp. 63–7.

Gerald of Wales, Journey through Wales, trans. L. Thorpe (London, 1978), p. 204. On the preaching of the Third Crusade see: C. J. Tyerman, England and the Crusades (Chicago, 1988), pp. 59–75; Tyerman, God’s War, pp. 376–99. According to Muslim testimony, Latin preachers in Europe also made use of tableau paintings depicting Muslim atrocities–including the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre–to incense audiences and spur recruitment. Baha al-Din, p. 125; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 363. This notion is not corroborated in western sources.

Routledge, ‘Songs’, p. 99. Other poets expanded on these ideas. In particular, those not taking the cross were accused of cowardice and a reluctance to fight. In some circles it became common to humiliate non-crusaders by giving them ‘wool and distaff’, the tools for spinning, to suggest that they were fit only for women’s work–a distant precursor to the white feather.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 33; Routledge, ‘Songs’, p. 108.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 143–4.

Gillingham, Richard I, pp. 1–23. In 1786 the English historian David Hume derided Richard for neglecting England, but the tide of criticism really began with William Stubbs, who in 1867 described the Lionheart as ‘a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler and a vicious man’ and ‘a man of blood…too familiar with slaughter’. In France, René Grousset’s work of 1936 endorsed this view, characterising Richard as a ‘brutal and impolitic knight’, while A. L. Poole’s 1955 history of medieval England observed that ‘he used England as a bank on which to draw and overdraw in order to finance his ambitious exploits elsewhere’. By 1974 the American academic James Brundage declared that Richard had been a ‘peerlessly efficient killing machine…[but] in the council chamber he was a total loss’, confidently concluding that he was ‘certainly one of the worst rulers that England has ever had’. During the Victorian era, at least, this damning appraisal was at odds with the popular romanticisation of Richard’s reign, promoted in works of fiction by the likes of Walter Scott. In the mid-nineteenth century a monumental bronze statue of the Lionheart astride his horse was erected outside the Houses of Parliament in London–a tribute to the ‘great English hero’ paid for by public subscription. Other recent academic studies of Richard I include: J. L. Nelson (ed.), Richard Coeur de Lion in History and Myth (London, 1992); J. Gillingham, ‘Richard I and the Science of War’, War and Government: Essays in Honour of J.O. Prestwich, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 78–9; R. A. Turner and R. Heiser, The Reign of Richard the Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire (London, 2000); J. Flori, Richard the Lionheart: Knight and King (London, 2007). In addition to the evidence presented in Ambroise and the Itinerarium Peregrinorum, the main primary sources for Richard I’s career and crusade include: Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici II et Ricardi I, 2 vols, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867); Roger of Howden, Chronica, vols 3 and 4, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1870). On Howden see: J. Gillingham, ‘Roger of Howden on Crusade’, Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, ed. D. O. Morgan (London, 1982). Richard of Devizes, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of Richard the First, ed. and trans. J. T. Appleby (London, 1963); William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. 1, ed. R. Howlett, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1884); Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series 66 (London, 1875); Ralph of Diceto, Ymagines Historiarum, The Historical Works of Master Ralph of Diceto, vol. 2, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876).

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 143.

Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 29–30. On Philip Augustus see: J. Richard, ‘Philippe Auguste, la croisade et le royaume’, La France de Philippe Auguste: Le temps des mutations, ed. R.-H. Bautier (Paris, 1982), pp. 411–24; J. W. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French Royal Power in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and London, 1986); J. Bradbury, Philip Augustus, King of France 1180–1223 (London, 1998); J. Flori, Philippe Auguste, roi de France (Paris, 2002).

On Frederick Barbarossa and his crusade see: P. Munz, Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics (London, 1969); F. Opll, Friedrich Barbarossa (Darmstadt, 1990); E. Eickhoff, Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient: Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I (Tübingen, 1977); R. Chazan, ‘Emperor Frederick I, the Third Crusade and the Jews’, Viator, vol. 8 (1977), pp. 83–93; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 230–42; H. E. Mayer, ‘Der Brief Kaiser Friedrichs I an Saladin von Jahre 1188’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, vol. 14 (1958), pp. 488–94; C. M. Brand, ‘The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185–92: Opponents of the Third Crusade’, Speculum, vol. 37 (1962), pp. 167–81. It was once thought that Frederick contacted Saladin himself at this point, but the two Latin letters purporting to be copies of their correspondence are now regarded as forgeries. However, it is likely that Barbarrosa had established some form of diplomatic contact with Saladin in the 1170s.

Gerald of Wales, ‘Liber de Principis Instructione’, Giraldi Cambriensis Opera, vol. 8, ed. G. F. Warner, Roll Series 21 (London, 1867), p. 296.

The tithe had an additional impact on recruitment because all those joining the crusade were exempt; as a result, Roger of Howden observed that ‘all the rich men of [the Angevin realm], both clergy and laity, rushed in crowds to take the cross’. Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 32, 90.

Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 110–11. On the question of naval transport see: J. H. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean 649–1571 (Cambridge, 1987); J. H. Pryor, ‘Transportation of horses by sea during the era of the crusades: eighth century to 1285 A.D., Part I: To c. 1225’, The Mariner’s Mirror, vol. 68 (1982), pp. 9–27, 103–25.

Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 151–5; Gillingham, Richard I, pp. 123–39.

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 277, 280–81.

Ibn Jubayr, p. 319; D. Jacoby, ‘Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and the kingdom of Jerusalem (1187–92)’, Dai feudi monferrini e dal Piemonte ai nuovi mondi oltre gli Oceani (Alessandria, 1993), pp. 187–238.

Roger of Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 40–41; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 337.

Imad al-Din, p. 108. For a discussion of Baha al-Din’s career see Donald Richards’ introduction to his own translation of Baha al-Din’s History of Saladin (Baha al-Din, pp. 1–9). See also: Richards, ‘A consideration of two sources for the life of Saladin’, pp. 46–65.

Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 296, 307.

Ambroise, pp. 44–5, indicating that Guy was accompanied by 400 knights and 7,000 infantry. Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 61, noting around 700 knights and a total force of 9,000.

Ibn Jubayr, p. 318; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 75–6. On the siege of Acre and siege weaponry see: Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare, pp. 212–36, 251–73. On the geography of Acre see: D. Jacoby, ‘Crusader Acre in the thirteenth century: Urban layout and topography’, Studia Medievali, 3rd series, vol. 10 (1979), pp. 1–45; D. Jacoby, ‘Montmusard, suburb of crusader Acre: The first stage of its development’, Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, J. S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, 2000), pp. 205–17.

La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, p. 89; Ambroise, p. 45. Mount Toron was also known as Tell al-Musallabin or Tell al-Fukhkhar.

Abu Shama, pp. 412–15; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 67.

Ambroise, p. 46; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 67.

Imad al-Din, p. 172; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 301–2.

Baha al-Din, p. 102–3; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 70, 72.

Baha al-Din, p. 104; Tyerman, God’s War, pp. 353–4.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 73; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 369.

Baha al-Din, pp. 107–8; Ambroise, p. 52.

Imad al-Din, Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. F. Gabrieli, pp. 204–6; Baha al-Din, pp. 27, 100–101; Ambroise, pp. 55, 58; B. Z. Kedar, ‘A Western survey of Saladin’s forces at the siege of Acre’, Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B.Z. Kedar, J. S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, 2000), pp. 113–22.

Ambroise, pp. 52, 55; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 80, 82; Baha al-Din, pp. 124, 127.

Saladin was joined by his son al-Zahir of Aleppo and Keukburi of Harran on 4 May; by Imad al-Din Zanki, lord of Sinjar, on 29 May; by Sanjar Shah, lord of Jazirat, on 13 June; by Mosuli troops under ‘Ala al-Din, son of Izz al-Din Masud, on 15 June; and by Zayn al-Din of Irbil in late June or early July. Baha al-Din, pp. 109–12.

Baha al-Din, p. 106. Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 312–13, 316. Saladin dispatched troops to Manbij, Kafartab, Baalbek, Shaizar, Aleppo and Hama. Among those who left the environs of Acre was al-Zahir.

Baha al-Din, p. 124.

Baha al-Din, pp. 110–11; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 373; Ambroise, p. 55.

Baha al-Din, p. 123; Ambroise, p. 59.

La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, p. 105; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 74; Ambroise, p. 56.

La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, p. 98; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 375.

Ambroise, pp. 52, 61–3. Frederick of Swabia’s presence, as a ruler largely bereft of manpower, raised uncomfortable questions about leadership and King Guy’s status. Baha al-Din (pp. 128–31) believed that, soon after his arrival, Frederick spearheaded a new offensive against Acre, employing experimental military technology. This involved the medieval equivalent of a tank–a huge wheeled structure, clad with metal sheets, housing a massive iron-tipped battering ram. But Latin eyewitnesses gave all the credit for this initiative to the French and, in any case, once the ‘tank’ reached the foot of the walls it was quickly crushed and burned beneath a barrage of boulders and Greek fire.

Baha al-Din, pp. 130, 132; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 318–20. Around the same time, work to shore up the defences of Alexandria and Damietta was proceeding apace in Egypt, and instructions were broadcast through Syria to store grain from the recent harvest in case of invasion.

Baha al-Din, pp. 140, 143; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 323–4; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 127, 129–30; Ambroise, pp. 68–71, 73.

Baha al-Din, pp. 141–2; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 323–5.

Ambroise, p. 38; Baha al-Din, p. 150.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 204–5; P. W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 1–12.

Baha al-Din, pp. 145, 149–50; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 109, 111.

Baha al-Din, p. 146; R. Heiser, ‘The Royal Familiares of King Richard I’, Medieval Prosopography, vol. 10 (1989), pp. 25–50.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 206, 211; Baha al-Din, p. 155.

Baha al-Din, pp. 153, 156, 159.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 211; Ambroise, p. 74.

Codice Diplomatico della repubblica di Genova, ed. C. Imperiale di Sant’ Angelo, 3 vols (Genoa, 1936–42), ii, n. 198, pp. 378–80; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem 1174–1277 (London, 1973), pp. 112–17.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 218–19. The precise details of these siege weapons–their origins and exact designs–are unclear, because the contemporary sources are frustratingly imprecise. It is possible that some use was made of counterweight technology in these stone-throwers (traction-powered devices being the established norm). It is also possible that the technology and materials for these engines were brought from Europe, or that captured engineers contributed to their development. The dating of Philip’s independent assault is problematic and it may have occurred at any point between 17 June and 1 July. Hugh of Burgundy, the Templars and Hospitallers all appear to have manned their own catapults. Richard does seem to have built a siege tower at Acre, protected by ‘leather, cords and wood’, but this structure does not appear to have played a major role in the assault.

Baha al-Din, pp. 155–7.

Baha al-Din, pp. 156–7; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 223–4.

Ambroise, p. 80; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 225.

Ambroise, pp. 82, 84; Baha al-Din, p. 161; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, p. 125.

Baha al-Din, p. 161; Imad al-Din, p. 318; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 233; Ambroise, p. 84.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 233–4.

Baha al-Din, p. 162; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 331; Gillingham, Richard I, p. 162; Pryor, Geography, Technology and War, pp. 125–30.

Ambroise, p. 85; Rigord, ‘Gesta Philippi Augusti’, Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, ed. H. F. Delaborde, vol. 1 (Paris, 1882), pp. 116–17; Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 181–3; Gillingham, Richard I, p. 166.

‘Epistolae Cantuarienses’, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, ed. W. Stubbs, vol. 2, Rolls Series 88 (London, 1865), p. 347.

Baha al-Din, pp. 164–5; Imad al-Din, p. 330; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 390; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, pp. 331–3.

Howden, Chronica, vol. 3, pp. 127, 130–31; Howden, Gesta, vol. 2, pp. 187, 189; Ambroise, pp. 87–9; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 240–43; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, pp. 127–9; ‘Historia de expeditione Friderici Imperatoris’, p. 99; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, 3 vols (Paris, 1936), vol. 3, pp. 61–2; Gillingham, Richard I, pp. 166–71.

Richard also had the significant advantage of enjoying close relations with the leaders of the two main Military Orders. Robert of Sablé, who was appointed to the vacant post of master of the Templars in 1191, was one of the Lionheart’s leading vassals from the Sarthe valley and had served as one of five fleet commanders during the journey to the Levant. Garnier of Nablus, who was elected as Hospitaller master in late 1189 or early 1190, was the former prior of England and grand commander of France. He travelled to the Near East with Richard’s contingent.

Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 163; Gillingham, Richard I, p. 174; J. F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 232–9; Ambroise, pp. 91–2.

Ambroise, p. 92.

Baha al-Din, p. 170; Ambroise, p. 93.

Ambroise, p. 94; Baha al-Din, p. 170.

Ambroise, p. 96; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 253, 258–9; Baha al-Din, p. 171.

Ambroise, p. 97; Baha al-Din, pp. 171–2.

Baha al-Din, pp. 172–3; Ambroise, p. 98; Lyons and Jackson, Saladin, p. 336.

Ambroise, pp. 99–107; Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 260–80; Howden, Chronica, vol. 3, pp. 130–33; Baha al-Din, pp. 174–6; Imad al-Din, p. 344.

Ambroise, pp. 100–101, 103.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 264; Howden, Chronica, vol. 3, p. 131; Baha al-Din, p. 175.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 268–9; Ambroise, p. 104.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, p. 270; Howden, Chronica, vol. 3, pp. 129–31. Richard authored another letter on that same day (this time addressed generally to the people of his realm) which had even less to say about the battle, commenting simply that ‘as we were nearing Arsuf Saladin came swooping down upon us’.

Itinerarium Peregrinorum, pp. 274–7; Ambroise, pp. 107–9. Richard I described James of Avesnes as the ‘best of men whose merits had made him dear to the whole army’ and as the ‘pillar’ of the crusade (Howden, Chronica, vol. 3, pp. 129–31). Ambroise recalled the circumstances of James’ death, noting that ‘there were some who did not come to his rescue, which gave rise to much talk; this was one of the barons of France, they said, the count of Dreux, he and his men. I have heard so many speak ill of this that the history cannot deny it.’ Unfortunately, no further explanation was offered of Robert of Dreux’s failure to help James.

Flori, Richard the Lionheart, pp. 137–8. Many historians have expressed similar views, suggesting that Richard actively sought battle at Arsuf. These include: Gillingham (Richard I, pp. 173–8) who acknowledged that his account of Arsuf was based on Ambroise’s testimony and described the battle as the ‘height of Richard’s fame’, characterising the king’s handling of the encounter as ‘masterful’ Verbruggen (The Art of Warfare, p. 232) who described Arsuf as ‘the last great triumph of the Christians in the Near East’ and S. Runciman (‘The kingdom of Acre and the later crusades’, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1954), p. 57) who applauded the Lionheart’s ‘superb generalship’. Tyerman (God’s War, pp. 458–9) downplayed the importance of the battle, but nonetheless maintained that Richard wanted to engage Saladin in combat and launch a heavy cavalry charge. Others, like J. P. Phillips (The Crusades 1095–1197 (London, 2002), pp. 146, 151), praised Richard’s ‘brilliant generalship at Arsuf’, while ignoring the question of whether or not the king deliberately sought battle. Smail (Crusading Warfare, p. 163) did describe Arsuf as a natural event that was merely part of the process of a fighting march, but still believed that Richard had planned the crusader charge (pp. 128–9).