Crusades

Josticky argument - why Damascus not unreasonable given context?

'Buffer state between growing Zengid power and the kingdom of Jerusalem' Continual attempts to take since 1126

Muslim Situation - Phillips

'Complicated and turbulent' Basic division = Sunni/Shiite = manifest in territorial rivalries between Asia Minor and Egypt Moreover, deaths of important leaders = 'power vacuum' Ibn Taghribirdi = "1094 year of death"

Weaknesses of crusader states: manpower

'Dependent on resources that were never adequate' - 1180 = less than 2000 knights of which 500 at most could have been demanded service Military orders often 'overstretched'

Prawer argument Crusader states

'Economically exploitative, segregationalist, and designed to protect the interests of a small ruling group' Muslim/Jews banned living towns/prohibited mosques building

Fulcher of Chartres 1101 History

'Not enough people to defend form Saracens" -- "remained depopulated"

Phillips - leprosy

'most feared medical condition of the medieval age' BUT ruled for 11 years?

Preachings

'unprecedented burst in historical writings' Chanson d'antioche = growing chivalric idedntity Mostly Bernard of Clairvaux although not always successful (some antisemitism)

Not a failure?

1) Achieve status for papacy, bernard blamed sin of people - significant given onset of papal scism between 1124 and 1138 with pressure of imperial Germany --- Jotiscky argues 2nd crusade was 'three pronged attack' 2) Whilst not main aim of Edessa, neither did it actively harm prospects in Jerusalem - in fact highlighted danger of rise of jihad 3) Whilst diversification of crusade movement highlighted poor planning, this also created successes for wider Christendom. Iberia/Lisbon (which Eugenius supported) in 17 weeks= strengthened christian kings like Alfonso; Phillips argues many continued to levant Thus only part of, but not epitome of post-1144 demoralisation

Military strengths vs Muslim disunity

1) B1 through Genoese alliance took 3 major coastal cities including Acre and survived 3 Egyptian invasions 2) BUT: although some successes insofar as foreign support under Sigurd of Norway consolidated lands like Sidon, growing signs of resistance - 1104 Harran =strengthened Muslim/Byzantine oppo; 1119 Field of blood = Il -Ghazi taking back numerous towns around Antioch/jihad 3) That said, military campaigns can be considered impressive given even Fulcher bemoaning only 300 knights in Jerusalem - 4) Although weaknesses like Baldwin II's defeat and captivity, Joscelin united all 4 principalities to attempt free Baldwin/attack Aleppo - 4) Despite some success under Fulk in defending Northern and Southern borders by building fortresses at Kerak and Ibelin, this ignored clear defeats like Harran (1104), the pressing threat of Jihad, failure to capture Aleppo 1128 (Morton) allowing Zengi unify with Damascus

Byzantine aid (lack of)

1) Byzantine attacks on Antioch in 1137 - 12 year truce with Turks; suspicion = demand to get any land returned (even Edessa?) - Riley Smith = 'frustration and broken promises' - demands homage but same as 1st C? 2) BUT Eugenius aimed to portray as help to eastern church, even though tensions less conflicting in reality, 3) Odo of Deuil = sense of distrust soured tensions with Conrad,-little help in supplies/assistance forcing German retreat near Niceaea; many in Louis army killed after attempted foraging 4) Contrast to Takitios = contemporary reports show collusion with Turks! BUT Hostility never manifested - Louis intervened before his army tried attack Constantinople - lavishly entertained, better relations than Conrad Crusade continued to do badly even when relations improved in 1148 Conrad clearly later received supplies and was not actively harmful; highlighted but didn't create christian disunity (Louis and Conrad not act 1 army) Overall, crucially exacerbated existing divisions within Crusading army; although unlikely in face of Muslim strength that could have saved expedition

Holy land

1) Clearly helped main aim of recapturing Jerusalem and establishing 4 crusader states - strategic gain with few settlers suggesting perceived success 2) Despite integration of crusader states, eventual fall of Edessa suggests not a long term victory - luck rather than skill? Tancred and Baldwin greedy! 3) Whilst in religious terms the crusade was undoubtedly a success, including in the minds of crusaders, few practical benefits as Edessa eventually fell - value overshadowed by material costs of preserving kingdom as well as continued warfare

Frankish Rule and Settlement - problems

1) Conquest of culturally diverse land 2) Established and recognised gov 3) Admin/law structure

Military function vs strength of king army

1) Context = 1104 Harran, Templar founded in 1119 after massacre of 300 pilgrims and Field of Blood -high expectations! Important land holdings = commanded castles in Krak de Chevalliers and Gaza 2) Outsource of feuding nobility, papal ambition = ideological framework for battle- yet not all successful in Crusader States; a lot of resources outstretched into Reconquista/pagan tribes 3) Hospitallers = although some strategic land holdings like castle of Bethgibelin, only by 1144 had sufficient strength to move into areas like Tripoli; could not prevent fall of Edessa/2nd crusade BUT: not a violent order; Walter Map said Hugh of Payns encouraged conversion rather than war Provided manpower but was only highlighted with skilled strategy of kings like Baldwin who expanded into Edessa/avoided 3 Egyptian invasions Although did not entirely prevent defeats, such as Zengi's expansion in power Aleppo/Mosul, decisive factor in survival

Luck/Muslim disunity

1) Despite occasional leadership in 1104 Harran/1119 Field of Blood and jihadists like Ilghazi, evidence of cultural assimilation shows apathy to crusaders themselves - 2) Seljuk empire v Shia divisions still apparent with Sultan little control over cities like Aleppo - Asbridge = 'natural enemies rather than allies' - no Saladin like figure 3) Religious zeal with True Cross = sustained interest in holy land, short term aid from west like 1110 Norweigan Crusade - skilful rulers like Baldwin Ultimately, question is not why survived but why Muslims failed to win given their superior forces combined as shown in 1119

How well governed were crusader states up to 1144?

1) Economic 2) Diplomatic 3) Political structure 4) Military

Muslim strengths

1) First crusade = death Malikshah, power vacuum, incompetence of Arslan at Nicaea 2) 1105 Ethiopia/Fatimid sunni/shia alliance! 1119 Field of Blood Zengi had united Mosul, Aleppo, Damascus - forcing franks into deeper territory once edessa unobtainable; EVEN L7/C3 mention 'daily battles with Turks' 3) Even at Damascus, Zengi strength allowed alliance of Mosul and Aleppan forces including NED 3) Zengi Madrasas Islamic law = 'veneration of koran' resembled urbans speech (Phillips) 4) Nur ad Din speedy response to 1148 Unur call for help = forced abandon Damascus seige! 5) Although in reality Frankish mistakes like moving East side Damascus with no food, still BUT: 1. Riley Smith = Jihad only 'intermittently'

Papal Power

1) Highly strengthened position of papacy, 1122 worms shows transformation of political situation where pope = authority in controlling doctrine and secular affairs 2) Part of upsurge in papal power through Eugenius/Innocent - but likely undermined by falls in morale/weaknesses 3) Victory never inevitable, but that even Eugenius survived humiliation of failed 2nd crusade suggests religous fervour penetrated from Clermont

Medical/admin function vs non- military admin

1) Hospitallers = dedicated medical force (Theoderic = 1000 beds), wealth = important source funding - Council of Troyes = Alfonso gave entire kingdom to Templars! Phillips = 35% total land 2) Furthered religious devotion in Holy Land through popular, charitable appeal - support of Bernard of Clairvaux 3) BUT tax exemptions etc arguably weakened admin structure of wider state, even if contributions benefited individuals - However, attacks on the order did not begin until well after 2nd crusade? -Phillips argues cost was so high that benefits brought were mostly spiritual rather than medical -Only operated within wider context of Christian luck: merchant states Tyre/Acre; cultural links providing trade

Why did Urban call crusade?

1) Improve relations with Orthodox Church 2) Extend Peace of God movement - remove enemies 3) Religious fervour 4) Strengthen personal ambition, or at least that of papacy in aftermath of IC

Poor planning vs wasn't worse than 1st crusade

1) Louis/Conrad failed galvanise support in France/Ger - Louis tried organise before papal bull/Phillips argues Conrad no permission 2) BUT - although 60k went and most of confirmed to clauses in quantum predaecessores; but although success in terms of recruitment, Divina dispensatione 1147 = Eugenius referred to eastern/Iberian campaigns at same time! Whilst successful in aim conversion poor pragmatism and overambitious 3) Pope had not 'preconvceived masterplan' rather 'blend of the opportunism of secular and religious rulers within the broader climate of holy war' - perhaps explaining lack of unity with Byzantium BUT Whilst Mayer argues Damascus mistake in alienating Muslim ally, Nicolle and Jotiscky argues argument from hindsight - in reality Damascus target since 1126 and had attacked Bosra in 1147 (stop Zengi?) In reality although ignored practicalities of holy land, wasn't any worse than 1st Crusade! [RS Urban Catalonia!} Bernard of Clairvaux = France/Germany Fall of Edessa wasn't expected - 'almost accidental'

Conc

1) Many hoped for profit but mostly religious war 2) Not homogeneous group, but flexible definition of piety = widespread enthusiasm despite costs 3) Hard to otherwise imagine popularity exceeding earlier pilgrimage or feuding

How important were Military Orders to Crusader States?

1) Medical/admin function 2) Military function 3) Political leadership 4) Luck/Muslim disunity - context for military order to succeed?

Why was First Crusade Successful

1) Military strengths 2) Byzantine help 3) Religious Fervour 4) Muslim disunity/luck

Religion

1) Most embarked for religious penitence/knights motivated by chivalric culture shows that religious factors underpinned resources - many examples of good leadership actually underpinned by appeal to divine aid (e.g. Peter the Hermit) 2) Events like Holy Lance maintained morale despite desperate material conditions, ensured capture of Antioch and Jerusalem, despite Adhemar's doubts 3) Allowed high morale even during most devastating circumstances, such as fasts ordered by Adhemar after 1097 earthquakes 4) Active element in military success: deus vult - prayers before Antioch AS RS argues - religion was 'unifying force' which helped compensate for 'weak and divided leadership' BUT: policies also divisive, e.g. Adhemar segregation women for chastital purposes

Profit

1) Orderic Vitalis reported 20 instances of plague in 1094, whilst chroniclers like Ekkehard emphasised how 'years of civil sedition, hunger and death' had made it 'easy to persuade' potential crusaders to leave 2) Urban = remission debts/ 'milk and honey' - primogeniture = Tancred as second son 3) Bohemond and Raymond fight over Antioch despite religious obligation to Alexios 3) BUT plundering explained as 400-500% annual income. Wealthy landlords like Raymond = gave up 13 counties to go! Most went home after Jerusalem!

Luck/disunity

1) Phillips - Seljuk/Fatmid war = Muslim world 'Complicated and turbulent' - 1094 = 'year of deaths' with powerful leaders like Malik Shah leaving behind power vacuum - even comparatively strong leader like Radwan powerless - jihad lacked military application 2) Sunni/Shia divisions = local warlords like Arslan who were unprepared for 2nd wave of crusades once military reinforcements came in - 'crusaders scarcely more alien than Asian seljuks to Arabs' 3) Examples of Firouz's Armenians allying against Turks shows active alliegance 4) Crusaders lucky in other senses - weaknesses such as failed People's Crusades never punished; targets in Jerusalem mostly defenceless 'women and children' according to Fulcher. No clear Christian leader either Had Nur-ad-Din and Saladin been around, it is hard to imagine first crusade succeeding more than the second - which faced exponentially greater challenges - 'victory by no means assured'

Why 2nd crusade fail?

1) Poor Planning 2) Poor leadership 3) Byzantine oppo/Muslim strengths 4) Not a failure?

Military strenghts

1) Pre-organised Clermont with Adhemar le Puy- systematic recruitment with experienced princes like Bohemond, LEARNT FROM 'ruses and trickery' --- Kostick = Adhemar made crusaders shave/adopt identifiable dress to avoid friendly fire 2) Bohemond commanding at Nicaea/Dorylaeum/Antioch = flanked rear of Turks causing them to 'panic in confusion' as contemporaries recalled - 'attacked city so bravely' - BUT 6 months before crusade continued... 3) Sheer force of crusaders cannot be doubted; Fulcher of Chartres says 'neither women nor children were spared' in Jerusalem - HOWEVER, whether so important to have led to success in questionable; not only have contemporary sources over-exaggerated competence of leaders - in reality Raymond and Bohemond split and faced huge risks at Dorylaeum, but numerous examples of poor planning E.g. People's crusade 'dismal levels of discipline (Phillips),

Why people went First Crusade?

1) Profit/material gain 2) Status/chivalry for nobility 3) Role of crusading leaders 4) Personal piety/indulgence

Intro

1) Profit/piety argued by Tyerman to be 'false dichotomy' - reality = complicated web of factors in society 'coordianted by response to sin' 2) Not uniform group, but in general material motives fail to explain costs 3) Religious factors in chivalry, leaders, indulgence shaped the definition of what piety was, pitted populist vision against Islam and appealed to tripartite society

Peace of God

1) Recruitment = somewhat successful in theory, promoting feuding nobles like Raymond to fight common enemy - promoting trade, perhaps creating preconditions for 12 cent renaissance 2) BUT most first crusaders were peasants/women/children who Urban actively discouraged - indeed, People's crusade represented unsuccessful perversion of his religious intentions 3) Nonetheless holy war = relatively successful at creating precedent for crusade

Religious leaders

1) Robert the Monk - Urban speech = 'blood of circumcision' = dangerous ideological enemy - Deus Vult 2) Fletcher lack of knowledge = allow 'populist demagogues' like Peter the Hermit to attract so many laymen as well as professionals 3) Monks primary source of recruitment (Cluny)- little chance to view as anything other than Holy War, 4) Riley Smith = millennial fervour, prophecy of Last Days - meteor shower and eclipse in 1096/7 Thus, leadership structure and apocalyptic Islamophobic beliefs penetrated mentality of crusaders

Byzantine aid

1) Runciman: Although Alexios did not personally participate, vital strategic and military role - Tatikios accompany all the way to Antioch! 2) Although reputation tainted by supposed betrayals such as negotiated surrender of Nicaea, Josticky argues reason for victory - they helped supply/direct troops into Asia Minor, 10 ships by 1099 to assist crusaders in Laodicea/Jerusalem - TIMBER FOR 'seige engines' = crucial communication and resources from trading cities like Genoa/Venice - 'drastic attempts to raise revenue', gifts gold silver to even 'old enemy' Bohemond (Frankopan) 3) BUT, evidence in Gesta Francorum of reluctance and distrust hindered crusade is compelling - oath of loyalty/insistence on diplomatic surrender in Doryleaum divided crusaders and did more to strengthen his power "vain and evil thinking" - misunderstood crusading intentions - can't assume thought like Anna did but clearly little influence once past Constantinople Even still not that helpful: Niceaea only example cooperation - Marrat had to resort to cannibalism!

Political leadership

1) Strong consolidation of ports of Acre/Tyre into communes - Pactum Warmundi = 1/3 ports in Acre to Venetians, Phillips argues contribution of Italian merchants was 'crucial' 2) Well-governed Frankish hierarchy holding nobles in close control, administering defences and taxation and placing vassals in control of parts of Outremer (at least under Baldwin I and II-- 1109 charters 'mix both Capetian and Imperial traditions' 3) Although, Baldwin II failed on many of his territorial aims such as capture of Damascus in 1125/26 - legal centralisation like Nablus and feudalism - fact that Fulk and Melisende strong weaknesses showed individual more important - allowed Zengi consolidate Mosul/Aleppo? 4) Religious reforms, True Cross = consistent donations/pilgrims even as far as Languedoc

Economics

1) Strong consolidation of ports of Acre/Tyre into communes - Tancred negotiations and Baldwin's Pactum Warmundi (1123) = 1/3 ports in Acre to Venetians, Barber = 'mutually beneficial agreement' crucial to 'Frankish littoral' 2) Issue of hunger solved by Godfrey's endowment of 21 villages to give food to Jerusalem. Evidence that migrants/pilgrims in and out were numerous - age of letters shows material security 3) Montefiore argues 1130s = 'golden age' with Franks often able to impose taxes on emirs in Aleppo - feudalism/monopolised control means of production 4) Despite Smail 'economic exploitative', Ibn Jubayr sources of Muslims trading from Egypt to Damascus Therefore, not uniform prosperity with geography heavily facilitating commune led to monopolising of banking/shipping; yet still impressively successful - even at death B1 ordered debts to be paid off!!

Reconciling 2 churches

1) Surface level highly successful as it not only implied subordination of emperor to pope through appeal to aid, but successful conquest of Holy Land = clear providential victory 2) However, legacy of distrust through People's Crusade, oath of hommages, surrender at Dorylaeum, Baldwin attacks on Edessa all show that Crusade unsuccessful in permanently restoring relations 3) Second Crusade where sources allege that Manuel attacked Crusaders, clear that main victory of achieving Jerusalem camouflaged underlying tensions within Christendom

Chivalry

1) Urban urged militarised society to act as their 'unvanquished parents' - combined knight and monk - Chanson de geste/Roland = 'martial values'? 2) Riley Smith argues expanded definition of piety into uncharted waters - Runciman theory second sons/Bull proto crusades? 3) Arnulf of Hednith crusade after falsely accused treason 4) Thomas de Marle = 'thirst for blood' (Guibert of Nogent) = wanted cleanse sins Therefore, significant aspect of personal ambition in motivating crusaders, particularly, nobles - yet that they only made up 10% of army suggests this was only in a framework of religion ALSO FEUDALISM = led to more participation

Personal piety

1) Urban's 'omission of sins' = created myth used to justify any secular motive - shown by Holy Lance! Guibert of Nogent = 'new way of obtaining salvation' (although not present at Clermont) 2) Growth of Cluniac monasticism = offer path to salvation which wasn't monk - Phillips = 'greatest reward of all' 3) Cohn = explicit distaste for profit for groups like Tafurs - 'poorest shall take Jerusalem' Individualistic nature of crusade which explains army size and continued will to fight BUT as France argues: free will - feudalism meant recruitment part of 'patronage network'

Context for Amalric plans expansion Egypt

1. 'Venetian growth' meant naval base which NED did not have 2. Nubian kingdoms South of Egypt = potential for Christian alliance 3. Egyptian hated Turks 4. Byzantine marriage meant Manuel saw Egypt as part of his empire

Economics

1. 1/3 ports to Genoa/Venetians - Pactum Wormendi 2. Trade - 10 ships 3. Military orders needed BUT 1. Remarkably creative in revenue sourcing - e.g. Templars = charitable appeal with Bernard of Clairvaux etc, Ibn Jubayr = trade with Muslims 2. 1130s = 'golden age' with taxes often on areas like Aleppo 3. Godfrey endowment 21 villages for supply into J 4. Despite Jotiscky 'economic exploitative' - this paradoxically highlights success in fiscal collection

Weaknesses crusader states

1. 1187 Hattin/Jerusalem Guy/Raymond factions 2. Conrad Montferrant/Guy rivalry - marriage Isabella (abduction) 3. Murder Conrad 1192 BUT 1. Helped by Saladin tithe 2. Clearly similar divisions in Muslim world

Byzantine/Outremer alliance

1. Already fragile alliance pre-2nd crusade, Manuel suspicion as not called -evidence truce with Muslims = betrayal? 2. BUT: 1157 = Baldwin III determined restore relations - marrying Theodora of Byzantium - used alliance to threaten Aleppo + deter attacks on Antioch 3. 1167 Amalric marry Maria 4. 1169 Manuel 10 ship fleet to help Amalric Egypt campaign

Christendom unity

1. Appeal to pope following Manzikert = ideal position for religious truce following Great Schism - Urban 'brothers in East'? CONTEXT = attacks by EVEN NORMANS on Byz - e..g Robert Guischard taking Corfu 2. Helped guides/supplies of timber- 10 ships - but army splits at Nicaea/Dorylaeum? 3. BUT given crusaders like Bohemond whose relationships had been questionable, little long term repairs to relations 4. 1107 Bohemond = force on Byzantine territory in Adriatic

Diplomacy

1. Baldwin II needed marry Melisende to Fulk Anjou - shortage nobles? 2. Growing Muslim threat = letters around 1144 BUT 1. After Alexios's death remarkably little Byzantine aid yet survived 2. Architect of own success in terms of cultural integration - pragmatism = 1114 Roger/Il Ghazi alliance/ Nablus 3. Despite occasional humiliation like Bohemond Byz invasion/Devol - largely showed could survive in spite of poor relations 4. Clearly tolerant of indigenous population - Fulcher? Melisende endowment Holy Scepulchre framework for aid/donations - True Cross?

Political

1. Basic legal distinction was between 'Franks and non-Franks' - Smail/Ellenbaum = apartheid state 2. Byzantine integration after help of brethren of East - treaty of Devol? 3. BUT 1. Medieval descriptions like Songs of Roland highlight political difference 2. Unsurprisingly in aftermath People's Crusade, heavy political restrictions on Jews such as times of worship - 'little distinction' as 'enemies of the cross' (Riley Smith) 3.Little integration with Byzantines given legacy distrust - Alexiad?

Difference luck/muslim disunity

1. By focusing on French/German Jews, unable to exploit divisions in Muslim world 2. Unlucky - Civetot army mostly unprepared, flanked by Turkish archers 3. In contrast, larger Prince's crusade = systematic conquest Nicaea, Dorylaeum, Antioch - Malikshah/Arslan weaknesses 4. Holy Lance = luck given Jerusalem no food/water? 5. Thus more product of hindisght to fetishise skill of 2nd wave in comparison to first; rather the crusade should be seen as a failure of the Muslim world with undeniable superiority in leadership, military and diplomatic skill underlined by differentials in luck and Muslim disunity.

The most significant consequence of the failure of the Second Crusade was the alliance between Byzantium and Outremer. Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1149 to 1176

1. Byzantine/Outremer alliance 2. Weakened Frankish resources 3. Strengthened Muslim ideological/military grip

Admin/Economics

1. Charter 1104 = privileges to Genoa/Venice 1/3 for help - key to fall of Arsuf and Caesara with 20 ships 2. Summoned Tancred to Jerusalem for disputes 3. 'Took ransoms' rather than killing prisoners = income 4. Charters of 1109-10 'drew on both Capetian and Imperial traditions' to create a 'privileged jurisdictional and fiscal status.' - formal chancellery in 1115 5. Even when he was dying ordered debts to be paid off BUT 1. Economically exploitative - Smail?

Military

1. Chronic shortage of men - Fulcher 300 knights 2. Creation Templars after 1119 Field of Blood/1144 need for crusade = crisis 3. Luck? E.g Siguard of Norway giving 5000 men, crucial to seige of Sidon BUT 1. Baldwin I = Acre, Arsuf, Caesarea - resisted 3 Egyptian invasions - thus individual success 2. Military orders, whilst benefiting from Western donations, ensured less reliant on knights since they provided army at Jerusalem's disposal 3. Learnt from mistakes to EXPLOIT Muslim divisions, despite B1's rashness in expeditions of 1102, 1104 Harran, successful in port negotiations which strengthened position of successors - 4. B2 survived 3 domestic rebellions/Fulk Kerak castle

1. Role in preaching as leading churchman/influence on Eugenius

1. Cistercian influence pope Eugenius III prompting swift formal recalling crusade knowing he had allies 2. Preaching at Vezelay = made up for poor recruitment efforts by L7/C3, persuaded latter to go 3. Leading churchman - 'splendid bargain' stressing indulgence

2. Role in directing course of crusade/providing aftermath

1. Condemned attacks on Jews, directed course of military action 2. Spread crusade to German/baltic/Lisbon which did see rare successes 3. Blamed sin of people after crusade - kept morale/papal integrity intact

How integrated were the Crusader states?

1. Cultural integration vs superficial? 2. Military cooperation vs tensions? 3. Economic disintegration 4. Political disintegration

Evidence bad luck

1. Death William Longsword 2. HRE conflict with Lombard League = obstacle for aid from Sicily/empire 3. H2 civil war = stop aid 4. Sicily/Byzantium truces with Saladin allowed focus of attack on Syria/Jerusalem

Fulk military achievements

1. Despite 1137 defeats at Barin, successful at securing borders 2. Castle at Kerak strongly fortified with walls, towers and moat 3. Gave admin to Hospitallers BUT Zengi?

Frankish weaknesses/luck

1. Despite strengths in victories such as Jacob's Ford and inevitably Hattin, this overshadows the fact that it took Saladin 13 years to begin expansion - most time infighting with Zangids 2. Numerous truces with Franks, only Reynald decision attack caravan provoked Saladin - not true jihad? 3. Truthfully, Frankish weaknesses with Baldwin, Guy = failed at Ascalon, Mont Gisard, Galilee - internal divisions with Raymond 4. Lack of help shown by Heraclius 1185, Henry II disputes with son - that Saladin was defeated on numerous occasions by Richard I shows best explained by Frankish weaknesses

Initiation of crusade

1. Did not actually help victory given that most military victories (Niceaea, Antioch) fought by military nobles (Bohemond) 2. Motivation other means, e.g. profit 3. Clear G7/Urban already had crusading ambitions, BUT Council Piacenza 1095 = appeal to west 1. First allow, Urban use Schism, 'brethen in east' to mount religious appeal against common enemy 2. Second, allow holy war theory - recruitment/motivation Without immediate appeal to aid, unlikely crusading operation could have been initiated in time to catch Muslim world off guard. Thus some aid in providing the means for crusading operation but was out of necessity.

Why was second wave 1st crusade more successful than first?

1. Difference in leadership vs Peter the Hermit? 2. Difference in military strength vs why 3. Difference in Byz/external support 4. Difference in luck/Muslim disunity exposed more in second crusade

Military might vs Frankish strengths

1. Disputes in Dorylaeum/insistence on homage = split of crusading army 2. Negotiated surrender with Arslan at Niceaea - shadowed crusading army showed suspicion 3. Even supposed "help" was not the main reason for success- more due to Bohemond/Muslim weaknesses BUT 1. Byzantine military overstretched, death of Malikshah = key Muslim ally (Frankopan) - 2. THUS strong that Takitos all the way to Antioch - led quickest possible way 3. Seige engines Antioch fortifications 4. Approached Antioch but turned away by Stephen of Blois 5. Help was considerable given limitations of failed People's Crusade; need to recover Nicaea which was only 100km from Constantinople

Difference Byz/external support

1. Early date meant Byzantium unprepared to give supplies, unwilling allow them enter Levant, suspicious of early arrival 2. Army fractured at Constantinople 3. Vs Alexios seige engines, Takitos strategic cooperation in first crusade - sent to Godfrey of Bouillon every 4 weeks 4. Although by end truces with Fatimids and negotiated surrender at Nicaea weakened Christian unity, still crucial material support for fall of Jerusalem

'Outremer remained over-reliant on the Latin West for its survival in the years 1099 to 1149.'

1. Economics vs no 2. Diplomacy 3. Political 4. Military

3. BUT: no role political planning?

1. Eugenius directed papal ball 2. Never actually went - no negotiations with Byz 3. No influence crucial turning points, e.g. Council of Acre attack Damascus 4. Higher impact of Raymond Antioch (Eleanor uncle) in stirring tensions with Louis - could have potentially stopped Damascus

Military

1. Euphoria crusading fervour/skill of Bohemond 2. Fulcher, perhaps writing to attract, bemoaned only 300 knights in Jerusalem 3. AS William of Tyre puts it, the king devoted 'his entire attention to extending in every possible way the narrow limits of the kingdom' 4. During the first five years of the reign he captured three major coastal cities, Arsuf (29 April 1101), Caesarea (17 May 1101) and Acre (26 May 1104), and survived three serious Egyptian invasions despite exhausted army 5. Survived even combined Sunni/Shia - 1105 Al Afdal Arab/Ethiopian foot soldiers - expanded Montreal castle BUT 1. Luck? Muslim disunity - Genoese fleet 1101/Sigurd Norway? 2. Admittedly instances overconfidence in 1102, rushing with just 200 knights into Asia Minor

Difference leadership

1. First Wave = Peter the Hermit, no papal approval - left before summer harvest during famine - some Saxon/Bohemian armies didn't make it past Hugnary 2. Distracted ambitions - Jewish massacre and forced conversion described as 'first holocaust' in revenge for crucifixion (ideological rather than practical) 3. Comparison = Adhemar, Bohemond, Peter Bartholomew = learnt lessons - specific rulings against plundering, emphasis religious devotion/pilgrimage 4. Yet one could argue equally bad leadership - disputes at Antioch, no actual crusader leader? Also Peter exorted money from Jews - pragmatism?

Fulk and Melisende highlights

1. Fulk tried to marginalise Melisende despite intentions B2 2. 'Substantial body of opposition' but 'not entirely incompetent successor'

Politics

1. Highly successful - October supporters prevented rival Tancred entering both Jerusalem and Jaffa 2. Context: all 4 principalities changed hands within 18 months, need establish Frankish identity 3. Feudal lord - with Baldwin 'head of feudal hierarchy' 4. Forced enfefeement from Tancred as well as lands in Tripoli/Edessa 5. Pragmatic - compelled Sidon for 2 year truce with Egypt until Sigurd of Norway arrived BUT: 1. Factions not resolved? Role of Godfrey?

Did Alexios do more to help or hinder the 1st Crusade?

1. Initiation of Crusade itself, giving motive to fight 2. Military help vs Muslim weaknesses/Frankish strenghts 3. Economic/diplomatic help vs hommage, personal greed

Economic

1. Integrated in sense Muslims were treated/taxed as Franks - contributed farming, made up demand for trade 2. Sea ports = integrated with west, Genoa/Venice 3. Pactum Wormendi = links with West; BUT 1. Economically exploitative and 'designed to protect interests of small group' 2. Non-integrated even for Franks - women segregated as well as non-nobles 3. Military orders = tax exemptions, privileges with special status

WBE strength of Islam

1. Jihad 2. Expansionist/secular motive 3. Frankish weaknesses/luck

Hattin effects

1. Key gains of Tiberias, Acre, Jerusalem 2. Saladin minbar in Al Aqsa mosque = religious revival 3. Need help against jihad?

Religion

1. King crowning at church nativity Bethlehem = religious kingship (Capetians > HRE) - sought to use church to develop 'crowns institutional structure' 2. Promotion Daibert patriarch yet realising limits as political rival, summoning him to court at Jerusalem 3. True Cross later used throughout 12th century = high authority - victories seen as 'divine intervention' 4. Collaboration with pope over 1107 patriarch appointment - pragmatism BUT 1. Integration with Muslims? Role Pope/Daibert?

Difference military strengths

1. Largely peasant army, only 50 knights at defeat in Civetot - RS = 'obsession with cash' 2. Nobles did go - Walter Sansavoir was an experienced knight, Fulcher of Chartres - later lord of Edessa - BUT little adhesive unity due to supplies - made 'little distinction' between Jews and Muslims as 'enemies of the faith' 3. In comparison: 1st crusade Bohemond = single handed commanding victories at Niceaea/Antioch - learnt from 'ruses and trickery' like arrow flank/uniform 4. BUT not much stronger -8 months after Antioch did nothing; Jerusalem mostly defenceless women/children

Not a failure?

1. Led to transformation power relations - Richard beat Saladin at huge symbolic victories at Acre/Arsuf - coastline = continued supply lines 2. Capture Acre left coastal strip instact until 1260s, 3. Treaty Jaffa 1192 'model for future diplomacy'

Evidence Raymond not that bad though?

1. Little attempts to seize power during regency, despite Tyre's complaints; little accusation murdered B4 2. Didn't marry Sibylla to Guy for political reasons as peaceful relation

Territorial gains

1. Manzikert = crushing defeat - loss of Anatolia/Antioch 2. Oath of loyalty = key gains like Nicaea (which posed threat to Constantinople) 3. Despite Runciman's attempts to portray Byzantine empire in crisis, lack of money and internal plots. - 1081 Norman invasion 4. Although undermined by Bohemond, Treaty of Devol 1108 = diplomatic concessions from nobles of loyalty to Byzantium BUT: 1. Failed to regain key towns like Antioch, poor strategic location which left vulnerable during later crusades

Did Manuel help or hinder 2nd crusade?

1. Military vs help 2. Economic aid vs help 3. Diplomacy vs help 4. Small role anyway - most mistakes nothing to do with him?

Why did 3rd Crusade fail

1. Military weakness 2. Poor leadership/planning 3. Economic weaknesses 4. Saladin/Muslim strenghts

Jihad

1. NED = key jihad leader, idea of Holy War in 12th century literature 2. Disunity of Fatimid/Seljuk Turks in run up to 1st Crusade - Saladin's Egyptian conquests allowed integration of Syria into Sunni empire 3. Religious motives may have contributed to personal strength/desire for war - Asbridge Saladin 1185 illness 4.

Secular

1. NED and particularly Saladin mostly defensive in their outlook - no real sense to spread religion - only with strategic unification Syria in 1148 could jihad become a viable ideology 2. Muslim unity under Saladin due to ruthless, pragmatic skill - greedy for power, treated own soldiers badly/racism 3. Zengi's unification Aleppo/Mosul, capture Edessa, giving base to attack Harim from; NED strategic treaty with Manuel against Kilij Arslan 4. That Jerusalem Christians allowed leave suggests rather than religious jihad, more important was motivation of model chivalric prince

Economics/diplomacy vs hindrance

1. Negotiated diplomatic links with Fatimids in Cairo 2. Delayed Crusade at Constantinople 3. Even economic help not a lot - RS = by 1098 army had shrunk by 1/2 with many knights slaughtering own horses for food 4. Gold/silver to Godfrey; room full of riches to even old enemy Bohemond BUT 1. Genoa/Venice = average 10 ships/supplies which Alexios had to cede autonomy (e.g. over Croatia for) 2. Guides at Constantinople - sent to Godfrey of Bouillon every 4 weeks 3. Indeed, Alexios = 'dramatic steps to boost state's income' (Frankopan), sacrificing domestic prosperity for higher fiscal revenue 4. Despite rivalry with Bohemond Alexios realised diplomatic necessity of cooperation

4. No role military leadership?

1. Nowhere near influence of Conrad/Louis in directing military aspects of crusade 2. Conrad destroyed Dorylaeum 1147 - 3. Also responsible for successes in Lisbon, Roger capturing Corfu but was not involved 4. Also little role in comparison to MUSLIM strength: Zengi madrasas, Aleppo/Mosul - NED at Damascus,

Military Weaknesses

1. Ongoing defeats in Holy land - death B4/B5/Hattin, 2. Weak military leadership by Conrad Montferrant before Richard arrival - only 3 years after Hattin did aid come - No William Marshall 3. Richard surrender with truce in 1192 instead killing Saladin 4. Biggest failure of not taking Jerusalem = Richard lacked support by obsessing over Egypt BUT 1. Victories at Acre/Arsuf/Cyprus (albeit poor leadership in massacres) where Richard ordered Cavalry charge - 'immense personal valour'; 'extreme love of warfare' 2. Conrad defended Tyre- Tripoli/Antioch saved by Sicilian fleet 3. Bad luck - Barbarossa drowning after victory against Seljuks at Iconium

Poor leadership/planning

1. Philip/Richard late arrival meant Conrad little support up to 1191 when Saladin most vulnerable - PA struggle gain finance = 'scandal of age' (Tyerman) 2. Failure to gain Byzantine alliance = Issac threw envoys into jail; Isabella abduction 3. Seize of Acre = concern over booty =divisions within army 4. PA desertion; Richard later indecision as commander due to having to return (John collaboration) 5. Victim of own success given many stayed after fall of Acre BUT 1. Richard, alongside military victories, channelled resources Normandy, Aquitaine - 10% Saladin tithe = 25 gallerys? 2. More bad luck than anything - FB drowning 3. Audita Tremdendi = crusading bull Thus, given existing tensions between Angevins and Capetians, collaboration at any level should be merited. However,

Was 1st Crusade a religous war?

1. Piety as motivation for masses vs material gain 2. Piety as motivator for Urban/leaders vs Bohemond 3. Piety as overall reason for success vs Muslim disunity/Byzantines = diplomatic alliance?

Course of crusade/religion as reason for success

1. Pilgrimage by foot rather than ships in 3rd Crusade 2. Madded/RS = 'Crusade as act of love' - help Alexios BUT 1. Bohemond/Raymond scrap over Antioch 2. Pillaging - although out of necessity? 3. Military pragmatism/Muslim disunity as main reason for success?

How far was Baldwin of Boulogne (Baldwin I) the most important individual in determining the success of the Latin Christians in the Near East in the years 1097 to 1118?

1. Politics/diplomacy vs unresolved conflict? 2. Religious reform/protection church 3. Admin/economics vs instability 4. Military vs muslim disunity

Political

1. Relatively dependent on Western ideals/expertise - feudalism, enfoeffment, 1109 B1 charters - 'mix Capetian/imperial' BUT 1. Never directly reliant on Western resources. Due to skilled leadership that ideas implemented - e.g. 21 villages under feudal obligation for food 2. Used geography effectively including control ports, ruled effectively under Joscelin despite B2 captivity 3. Nablus/ 1115 chancellory/ B1 exchequer 4. Despite revolts like Alice over Antioch/ Hugh de le Puiset,

How similar were reasons for calling of 1st/2nd crusade?

1. Religious 2. Increasing political authority (Urban/Eugenius) 3. BUT: significant practical aspects; No Byzantine request; no curb growing violence! 4. Launch of 1st/2nd also different - broad, populist appeal (People's Crusade) vs Political, king directed, Iberia etc?

Piety as motivator for masses

1. Religious motivation = 'unvanquished parents' - combined monk/knight - Riley Smith = Worms attack blind fervour 2. Adopt cross/restricted access for women/monks - 'blood of circumcision' - Clermont 3. Monks prime source recruitment - 'omission of sins' - Cohn Tafurs? BUT: 1. Jotiscky argues Holy War anachronistic - no systematic holy reward until Innocent III -similar to Norman conquest Sicily? 2. Profit - Stephen of Blois/Orderic Vitalisis?

Strategic strength against Muslim enemy

1. Removed imminent Muslim threat of Seljuk Turks, Jerusalem = trade, integration model crusader states with pilgrims 2. Alexios remained in power until 1118; only occasional Muslim victory like Harrim 3. BUT 1090s already strong? 4. Existing alliances with Fatimids undermined, death of Malik Shah already strengthened Alexius; long term rise of Jihad/4th crusade?

Military

1. Roger/Il ghazi collaboration to exploit personal concerns 2. Sigurd of Norway = continued military interest/common aims - crucial to taking Sidon? 3. Even battles which did occur like 1119 due to personal/territorial ambitions BUT 1. 1105 Ethiopia/Egypt = shia/sunni collaboration? 2. 1119/1144 = desperate need for new crusaders??

Assess the importance of Bernard of Clairvaux in the origins and course of the Second Crusade.

1. Role in preaching as leading churchman/influence on Eugenius 2. Role in directing course of crusade/providing aftermath 3. BUT: no role political planning? 4. No role military leadership?

Muslim strenghts

1. Saladin vast empire after Hattin, resources of Jerusalem 2. Strong religious backing - minbar in Al Aqsa mosque; refusal to kill Guy - 3. Even if Jerusalem captured would have been 'impossible to hold against Saladin's undefeated field army'. 4. Surprise attack Jaffa when Richard absent BUT 1. Spending 'disproportionate and unsustainable' - forces divided/considered abandoning compared to scenes at loss of Jerusalem 2. Saladin Surrender June 1191 Acre - arguably 'political rather than ideological' 3. Imad ad Din 25 metaphors penetrative sex - brothels at Tyre Thus, helps explain stalemate since both sides faced difficulties

Barber: why Saladin victory not inevitable, however

1. Situation by 1185 no different to when Fulk arrived 2. Raymond signed 4 year truce Saladin, could have won at Galilee 3. Building Church of Annunciation in Nazareth = not everyone shared William of Tyre's 'gloomy view of the future' 4. Saladin spending 'disproportionate and unsustainable' - illness in 1185 changed vision of Islam

Did the first crusade 'succeed against all the odds'?

1. Succeeded against odds in military strength 2. Succeeded against odds in Byz cooperation 3. Unsurprisingly victory given religion 4. Unsurprising victory given Muslim disunity

Cultural

1. Superficially, surprisingly high level integration 2. Fulcher - occidentals - Eastern clothing, abstained, ate pork, even share wives? Madelin = assimilation school 3. 1120 Nablus = cross marriage? 4. Integrated with West BUT purpose to attract; sugercoat imperialism? 1. First, out of pragmatism rather than cultural apathy - 2. Zengi = Madrasas school for Islamic law 3. In any case not important in light of fundamental political segregation

Conc

1. Surprisingly integrated given challenges faced of creating Frankish identity. However this was more superficial and out of pragmatism rather than inherent cultural apathy. Indeed, when viewed in context of wider military, economic and political policies, one sees Outremer as segregationist and hierarchical even amongst Franks themselves.

Did First Crusade strengthen position of Alexius I?

1. Territorial gains vs only temporary, Bohemond oath refusal? 2. Religious power/christendom unity vs Antioch? 3. Long term diplomatic decline?

Economic strengths of states in 1180s?

1. Turcopole mercenaries 2. Money donations, e.g. from Henry II after Becket 3. 1183 national Jerusalem levy 4. Italian merchant communities

Profit as leaders

1. Urban = 'product of Cluny' - Holy War, 'brethen in East' - 1054 Schism - appeal from Alexius after Manzikert - Piacenza/several speeches even after Clermont 2. 'Ideal man' - Peter the Hermit/Peter Bartholomew 3. 10% knights! BUT: 1. Strategic campaigns like Bohemond, desire for Peace of God only masks secular affairs - Investiture! 2. Overall, likely rather than dichotomy of religion and materialism, boundaries were redefined under context religious war

Evidence existing fascination to East

10,000 German pilgrimage to East 1064-65 Duke Robert of Normandy died on return from Holy Land

Urban cross preachings

1095 Pizcenza 1095 Clermont 1095 Angers 1096 Le Mans

Seige of Antioch

1097-1098 8 months long - bad conditions = low morale. 'Too big to blockade effectively'. BUT Muslim army = also deserted! Peter Bartholomew Holy Lance = transformed situation - but Bohemond claimed Antioch was his despite oath to Alexius!

Seige Jerusalem

1098 - Godfrey of Bouillon = emerging leader Army fallen to around 13,000 - sack of Muslim and Jewish defenders - 'ground covered with blood of the slain' - William of Tyre 'Crusaders victory by no means assured'

Rulers of Jerusalem 1099-1144

1099 - Godfrey of Lorraine 1100-1118 - Baldwin I 1118-1131 - Baldwin II 1131-1143 - Fulk and Melisende

Bohemond failures

1104 Harran decisive loss Invasion Byzantine empire = soured relations; army of 34,000 to attack Alexius! Humiliating peace at Devol

Evidence that raids/incursions did happen

1115 - Roger of Antioch caught Muslism off guard at Tell Danith 1126 = Frankish cavalry charge on Damascus

Ellenbaum Castle theory

1115-1167 = boom in castle construction, mostly defensive ones near Ascalon

Evidence assimilation

1120 Nablus = ban inter marriage Phillips argues naming patterns show Franks adopting Eastern surnames (intention of permanent settlement)? 1114 Roger of Antioch/Il Ghazi combined troops

Rebellions under B2?

1121 Pons tried to escape fief bond 1132 Alice in Antioch 1134 Hugh de le Puiset Fulk tried to marginalise Melisende although B2 supported her - "Angevin strangers?"

John Komnenos - how did he disrupt Outremer?

1124 conflict with Venice BUT some attempts fight Anatolian Turks 1130s Successful but for the benefit of Byzantium - despite pop 10m!

Reynald ambitions

1145 = swear homage to Manuel BUT 1156 = raid on Cyprus, killed Byzantines When compromised in 1159, combined armies of Antioch, Jerusalem and Byzantium = forced Nur ad Din to surrender Christian prisoners

Capture of Ascalon

1153 Baldiwn III = Southern security for Jerusalem/springboard into Egypt INVOLVED Christians in sieges like Alexandria/Cairo but failure opened Egypt to NED?

Nur ad Din Damascus

1154 convinced Damascus let him take over city - GAVE HIM Damascus as well as Aleppo! William of Tyre - "disastrous" - led to Frankish defeat at Jacob's Fort in 1157 and Pope Adrian calling new bull

Amalric embassy to Constantinople

1171 Promise of Frankish Byzantine alliance - attempt to renew support and draw Manuel closer BUT - Phillips argues scepticism that West would help?

Baldwin IV

1174 - 1885 Phillips: 'not incapable of effective action' Regency = unpopularity of Miles of Plancy = lack of leader, Raymond III Hamilton = fan - doesn't believe in 'hawks' vs 'doves' model

Barber: weaknesses by 1185

1176 Manuel defeated by Turks, proposed attack on Acre abandoned due to mistrust 'Fragility of relations' due to Sibylla succession 'Lurching towards inevitable crisis' Raymond of Tripoli barely tolerated/no rain for year after B4 death

Heraclius

1185 appeal to West - 'unprecedented division' - gave keys of Jerusalem to Henry II Raised 30k marks but internal divisions = no help

Capture Cyprus

1191 Issac Comnenos collaborating Saladin 'Springboard' for subsequent expeditions 100k gold bezants

Acre

11911 Saladin surrender BUT Richard massacre 3000 prisoners vs Jerusalem? Also; many wanted to stay

How much Saladin dedicated to infighting

12 years mainly fighting Zangids, NED partisans Only 5 years in Holy Land/3rd Crusade

Events 1180

2 year peace treaty Saladin Death Manuel (no Byzantine help)

Jerusalem pop

20 to 30k in 2 decades - high taxation but hard to live

1160s-1170 Amalric

5 campaigns into Egypt which Barber argues sensible Large efforts to persuade Louis VII/pope for new crusade Yet this obsession merely allowed Nur ad Din to take over land like Harim in Antioch... Some successes like sack of Bilbais in 1168

Demographics 1st Crusade army

60,000 by 1096 (10% knights) Led by senior nobility of different nationalities, e.g Raymond of Toulouse

Urban Recruitment

:etters/tours to seek volunteers : BUT need to organise guardship of house/property and finance costs

Conc

Admittedly highly reliant on Western resources and expertise, as shown in its undeniable vulnerability in face of Muslim unity, like in 1119 and 1144. However, given overwhelming evidence of the independent achievements of rulers like B1, likely that reliance was more out of pragmatism than chronic desperation. The crusader states could and did survive even when aid was low - e.g before the foundation of military orders. Further, diplomatic and political flexibility underlined by strong military achievements which allowed aid to flow in. Thus, in the context of the harsh circumstances of establishing Frankish identity, Outremer's achievements clearly a large reflection of own strength.

Reynald

Aggressive prince of Antioch Strained relationship with Jerusalem/prevented Northern strategy of Syria/Aleppo 1156 broke alliance w/ Byzantium at Cyprus 1182 defeated Saladin La Forbelet 1187 attack Muslim caravan

Manuel komnenos

Agreed 12 year truce with Turks Concerned crusaders might cooperate with Sicilians - Turks removed anxiety on Eastern borders Some French army like Bishop of Langres wanted to attack empire - but Louis well supplied at Constantinople! Byzantines helped act as guides/help open markets in exchange for hommage

How successful was first crusade

Aims = Regain holy land Strengthen papacy in IC Peace of God - promote new form of obedience to religion Reconcile 2 churches

Jostiscky - fall of Edessa/Zengi intentions?

Almost 'accidental' Edessa part of wider plan to create alliance of Mosul, Aleppo, Damascus

2 settlement models

Although debate from 19/20th cent over whether assimilation/Orientalism (sources by Ibn Jubayr/Madelin) or segregation view by scholars like Smail, recent work by Ellenblum shows limits to consensus

Political Structure

Although reigns of Baldwin I and II effective in extending royal authority in Outremer, this was unsustainable and largely failed under Fulk and Melisende 1) Well-governed Frankish hierarchy holding nobles in close control, administering defences and taxation and placing vassals in control of parts of Outremer - succession disputes - controlled succession of Baldwin II + managed captivity (1123-1124) relatively stable due to feudalism 2) Military orders = highly important admin role, creation of legal structures such as through 1120 Nablus, mix Capetian/Byzantine legislation 3) BUT (Barber) - less than 18 months after Jerusalem all 4 principalities changed hands Keen = 'Antioch hardly part of kingdom of Jerusalem at all' 4) Baldwin I no children; Baldwin II succession = 'coup d'etat' - Jotiscky, rebellion by Alice/Hugh de le Puiset, succession crisis by 1143 with Baldwin III = clear divisions ahead of 2nd crusade in contrast vs Capetians 4) Appointment of European nobles of Blois and Flanders to power led to growing ambitions, as well as alienating Byzantines; B3 had to raise army to force Melisende back down

Alexiad

Anna Komnena BUT: only a child during events described, trying to eulogise father

Phillips 3rd Crusade

Arguably 'greatest crusading expedition ever' 1189-1192

Saladin army at Hattin vs Franks

Around 30,000 of whom 12,000 were cavalry Christians = 20,000 (still largest army yet) - TRUE CROSS

Zengi conquests

Asbridge: 'Little or no interest' in jihad - Only offensive against Outremer in 1137 Barin Edessa = 'opportunistic fortune'

Origns of conflict Fulk

Aspirations badly hit as forced to share power with Baldwin III and Melisende Attempts to control counts like Hugh of Jaffa alienated nobility

Barber argument 1174 crusader states

BOTH sides uncertain successions (Baldwin IV and Al Malid) Ambition from Raymond of Tripoli (grandson of Baldwin 2)

Evidence desperation from Jerusalem

Baldwin sold remaining Frankish castles in Edessa to Byzantines - need to build relation with Manuel?

Barison resources

Battle = 1,300 calvalry/15,000 foot = biggest army in living memory

1071

Battle of Manzikert (Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantine army) - loss of Anatolia/Antioch "stinging setback" for Greeks - Asbridge

Improve relations with Orthodox Church

Behier: 1054 Schism = weakened Christian unity, Gregory concerned that 'church of Orient moving further from Catholic faith' 1) Empirical sources of letters after 1071 Manzikert shows Gregory writing in name of St Peter, but 'exaggerated language'?. BUT other sources more ambiguous as to whether Alexios wanted help from pope! 2) Evidence of weakened Byzantine faction = conquest of Asia Minor by 1080, fall of Antioch in 1084 3) Phillips = Urban cast himself as 'father' figure to son of Byzantine emperor 4) Since 1089 Alexios inscribed papal name on churches BUT: RS = DID NOT distinguish Crusade with Reconquista - urged Catalonian courts to defend Toledo - military expedition Thus, whilst hostility and distrust during crusade showed little sign that relations were improved, there are signs that given context and reference to 'brothers in East' that crusade was part of church plan

Promises

Biblical references - sin remission, legal protection, suspension of debts -formal consolidation of 1095 laws

Proto crusades

Bull: Pope Leo IX = fought Normans in Southern Italy

Baldwin I military successes/failures

Caesara 1101; Arsuf; Acre 1104 Resisted 3 Egyptian invasions, protecting Southern buffer of Holy land

Occurrences 1192

Capture Daran 3 year truce with Saladin Strengthened kingdom = springboard for future crusades

Richard I preparations

Channelled resources of Normandy, Maine, Aquitaine 'Harnessed the Angevin government machine' Taillage on Jews

Conquest of Lisbon

Conquest increased both Christendom and Alfonso power

Magna Mohomeria

Contemporary source showing 44 Western settlers each with diverse origins and occupations yet 'coherent rural community'

Smail vs Ellenbaum

Contemporary sources like Ibn Jubayr = integration Smail/Ellenbuam = apartheid state Integration out of pragmatism rather than cultural apathy

Naval warfare

Control of sea = clear superiority over Muslims Egyptians = main Muslim stronghold in Levant BUT capture of Tyre (1124) and Ascalon (1153) were essential for Christian passage

Second Crusade

Crusade from 1145 to 1147 that failed because of internal disagreements among the crusaders and led to the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 Also Iberia and Baltic

1190 occurances

Death Sibylla = succession dispute Isabella (sister) abducted and married to Conrad

Occurances in 1174

Death of both Amalric and Nur ed Din Rise of Saladin in Egypt - helped by succession of Baldwin IV (13 year old with leprosy)

1181 appeal

Defeat Jacob's Ford/B4 weaknesses = Alexander III issued crusading appeal to west - 'explicitly criticised Baldwin IV'

Saladin 1175

Defeated Aleppan force Gains in Egypt, Yemen and Syria

Hospitallers

Derived from Amalfitians - medical function - based on Augustinian principles Increasingly militant = 1144 take on estates in Edessa = higher political role; Saladin feared influence of these military orders

Raymond III of Tripoli

Described as 'qualified' by even Ibn Jubayr Identified William Longsword as husband to Sibylla (bad luck)? Numerous truces with Manuel alliances to invade Egypt; but also 1186 truce with Saladin - traitor??

Baldwin II quotes

Described by William of Tyre: "just, pious, god fearing" BUT held captivity - Fulcher of Chartres argued due to sin

Intro

Despite assimilation school from Madelin, Smail and Prawer convincingly rebut that limits to integration. Integration in three senses - Franks/Muslims; Integration with the West; integration between Franks

Frederick Barbarossa

Died during crusade - loss morale German army Could have improved situation given bypassing of Byzantium and victory over Turks in 1190

Diplomacy/cultural

Diplomatic relations - or Frankish identity alongside integration certainly seem reasonable amongst settlers, although this was less successful in later years 1) Although assumption of Madelin's 'assimilation school' has been challenged by those like Ellenbaum, who points to regional differences, the rule of the Crusader States undeniably allowed toleration and prevented war for 40 years - Nablus? 2) Despite 1119 Field of Blood, Fulcher of Chartres - "we who were Occidentals have become Orientals" - frequent intermarriage, sharing of churches - 'wives even Syrians, or Armenians, or even Saracens' BUT PURPOSE ATTRACT? 3) Prince Roger/Il Ghazi alliance 4) WORST = Bohemond 34,000 invasion of Byzantine empire - leading to humiliating treaty of Devol - nor Muslim threat contained 5) Nonetheless, still recover - Templars/Melisende endowment Holy Sepulchre - did well to resolve herculean task of Frankish identity In reality, lack of warfare not so much good ruling but more Muslim disunity

Baltic Crusade

Failed Wendish Crusade vs Pagans - CONTRAST TO IBERIA Christian infighting led to conversions but little successes in Holy Land -

Iberian campaigns

Fall to crusaders seen as 'glory of God' but overstretched resources - was it worth it given scant mention in contemporary sources?

Peoples' crusade

First Crusade, before papal approval, consisting of an army of 15,000 pilgrims which was wiped out within three months Hagenmayer argues Peter the Hermit real initiator rather than Urban Massacre of 5,000 Jews in Central Europe = poor leadership, coordination

Intro

First crusade = People's Crusade - defeated decisively at Civetot in 1096 after attacks on Jews Unsurprisingly given its unauthorised and untimely start, fell short in leadership, military and diplomacy. However, whilst these aspects were better in 2nd wave, they were ultimately less important than the fundamental Muslim disunity in the Levant.

Source availability?

Fletcher: 'conflicting contemporary reports' - religious imagery from book of revelation likely factually inaccurate

Types of castles

Fortified towers Enclosure castles Spur castles

Templars build up

Founded by Hugh of Payns. High rank Franks like Fulk of Anjou Papal backing like tax exemptions, right to elect masters Aid from laymen like Alfonso I = land in HL

Battle of Arsuf

Frankish cavalry charge forced Saladin retreat

Seige warfare success

Franks fired 500 stones per hour during seige of Lisbon

William of Tyre view of warfare

Franks no attempt to 'engage their opponents' - avoid risk by holding to fortified places - 1066???

Saladin military campaigns

From 1170-1184 all he had to show was 1170 occupation Aqaba and 1179 Jacob's Ford Failed at Ascalon, Mont Gisard, Galilee

Effect Baldwin V death

Guy as King = factions in Frankish army Raymond v Templars leading to possible deal with Saladin and accusations betrayal at Hattin?

Military Orders

Hospitalers 1113 Templars 1119-20

Warfare/Strategy in Levant

Intensive level of siege warfare unfamiliar to Franks = new strategies develop such as stalling battle

Conrad of Montferrat

Italian noble who set off before Hattin Forced Muslims to retreat at Tyre 1187 Supposed assassination by Saladin following conflict with Guy

4 Crusader states

Jerusalem, Tripoli, Antioch, Edessa

Battle of Dorylaeum

July 1097 Crusader army split, led by Bohemond and Byzantine Tatikios Turkish archer style attacks "howling like wolves" (Fulcher) Inflicted heavy casualties on unarmoured but Crusaders support from Godfrey, Raymond = victory Wealth from Arslan treasury, but unrestricted access to Antioch!

Seige of Nicaea

June 1097 Sultan Arslan felt Crusaders not threat as easily defeated People's Crusade Arslan retreated as outnumbered - Byzantine arrival = SECRETLY negotiate surrender of city FRAGMENTATION OF CRUSADERS

Holy Land expedition

L7 refuse Roger of Sicily offer transport by sea Manuel Comnenos suspicions as not invited L7 = oriflamme/relic ritual at St Denis = CAPETIAN loyalty to religion

Raymond Hattin

Led his army past Muslims who led him pass - sign traitor

Antioch - L7

Louis refused Raymond's request to help Antioch; instead prefer pilgrimage to Jerusalem However, Louis weakened after Asia Minor - preferred target of Baldwin and Templars = Damascus

Position of papacy

Middle of IC = insecurity to challenge secular kings and expand power of pope, especially in relation to HRE - no 'big bang' moment Urban far from first pope to call holy war - tradition dating from Constantine/pagans - 1) Army raising by Leo IX, Nicholas II against Normans, In 1046 = Henry III deposed of 2 rival popes - Leo = 'liberty of the church' - Urban grew up in Gregory VII 'abortive plan' for crusade of 1074 2) Urban = legacy of having to compete with antipopes like Clement III/ Gregorian reforms of banning simony etc = combine temporal power with groups 'sensitive to papal initiatives' - JRS -HOLY WAR 1089 Urban used holy war against Catalonia Muslims; even 1096 encouraged fight Spanish Muslims 3) That some reports say Urban actively discouraged elderly, infidels etc suggests rather than genuine prioritisation of mass piety for all, the crusade was intended as a primarily military expedition - Adhemar quick response? 4) William Rufus/P1 all conflict with church in 1095 5) Even at Piacenza and Clermont preaching also dominated by issues like heresy, IC

Mission of Frederick of Tyre

New crisis due to Shirkuh seizing Egypt = issued Inter Omnia in 1169, mostly to Louis VII and Henry II OFFERED Louis keys to Jerusalem! Precedent like Charlemagne! Compared to Henry dispute over Becket...

Stephen of Blois

Noble who deserted at Antioch - material gain?

Rise Jihad

Not clear if religious; however, Nur ad Din = believed purificatin of one's soul - re-emphasise spiritual importance of Jerusalem to Islam

Primary source of second crusade

Odo of Deuil - however, biased as he himself was crusader

Conc

One should not erroneously assume any disputes were the result of Alexius alone. Whilst one should not overromanticise him like Anna, he also contributed surprisingly strongly in a harsh geopolticial environment and in the context of a seemingly barbaric Western armed pilgrimage.

Demographics in Levant

Only around 1 Frank for 3 Indigenous peopless - 1101 Fulcher estimated around 300 total -

Richard I resources

Over 100 ships 60,000 horseshoes 17k army

Quantum Praedecessores

Papal bull - 'formal pitch' directed at Louis VII led to 'frenzy of enthusiasm' (Phillips) through Bernard of Clairvaux 'Fathers and sons' = references to Urban legal precedent

Evidence Frankish support from West

Philip of Alsace came to Acre who 'had more resources than any other French baron'

Intro

Phillips - 'arguably greatest crusading expedition ever' Whilst failed in primary aim of recapturing Jerusalem, best seen as a stalemate arising from the weaknesses of both sides by 1192. Indeed, in limited forms even successful such as regaining key lands like Acre.

Bohemond - Phillips quote?

Phillips = "arguably most controversial figure on crusade" Tried take Byzantium in 1080s but prevented troops from annoying Byzantines during Crusade BUT victories over Ridwan and Kerbogah - led victory at Nicaea; Antioch

German army

Poor discipline - skirmishes with Greeks = distrust Poor strategic errors = insufficent supplies L7 uncoordinated about failures before meet up

Alexander response?

Pope Alexander III = 2 papal bulls for crusade - led by Gilbert d'Assailly (Hospitaller master) BUT mutual suspicion between Henry and Louis = little enthusiasm

Peace of God

Practical motive - secular violence argued by those like Gibbon to have dominated nobility 1) Crusade = extension of 9th century chivalry - Riley Smith argues France had been 'extremely violent' where 'needs of war and plunder' were an 'opening gambit'- Carolingian expansion/church leadership in anarchy? 1066 = Christian v Christian? 2) Urban wanted to redirect violence through use of indulgence and penitence - "obligated to succour your brethen in East" - wanted get rid of trouble makers like Bohemond who evidently wanted to be a prince (1098 Antioch/1107 Byz invasion) 3) Although in reality only 10% were knights, attempts to subordinate secular perceptions of chivalry to church = aftermath of insecurity of IC? Riley Smith = "long militarisation of society" = "large regional blocks of petty warlords" - not entirely new (proto-crusades) but combined with religious appeal BUT: Would have theoretically increased power/influence of rival secular kings? Thus, crusade was not purely a pragmatic improvisation, but a desire to monopolise violence and power relations key to Urban's timely call for aid - perhaps combined with moral issue of penitence

Aims of crusader states

Preserving/consolidating gains of First Crusade, stopping Muslim advancements and creating wealth Impressively successful in economic, diplomatic and military terms, ruling through several decades of relative peace and cultural integration. However, underlying such material prosperity was a mismatched political structure which was sustained mostly through Muslim disunity, unsurprisingly leading to failure of Outremer to prevent fall of Edessa

Evidence of toleration

Records from Muslim chroniclers like Ibn Jubayn/Hambali Ibn Munqidh evidence showed Franks not eating pork BUT Phillips = most cases = Frankish authority with rebellion 'extremely rare'

Religious fervour argument

Revisionist historians like Tyerman and Asbridge emphasised religious fervour - even Riley Smith concedes that he was 'ideal man' 1) Not unexpectedly, product of monastic Cluny - unlikely mentioned Jerusalem without conjuring up images of Zion 2) Clermont speech = religious imagery which suggests genuine concern for fellow Christians in Jerusalem following Manizkert etc - "brothers" in East, "despised and base race" BUT conflicting reports 3) Talk of indulgence for actual crusaders alongside pilgrimage may suggest piety - yet one should not assume this was CAUSE of Urban's strategic planning Indeed, much of Clermont seemed pre-arranged with meeting with Raymond of Toulouse raising suspicions of calculated attack - 1) Aside from periods like rule of Caliph Hakim, life in Muslim Jerusalem good time for Christians - "protected people" under Islam - Jerusalem lost since 638! 2) Wars against muslims in North Africa pursued for years without religious implications Thus, only explains view of contemporaries but does little to explain wider motives. Religious but only insofar as papal ambition extended definition of religion into this political holy war

Divisions between Frankish settlers?

Reynald of Antioch objected to plans of strengthening Count Thierry (2nd crusader) to help defeat Nur ad Din Feared extension of Jerualem's influence under Baldwin into Antioch - failure? Melisende reluctant to share power with son Baldwin III

Evidence depopulation

Riley Smith = only 1/6 known crusaders stayed Reliance on aid like Sigurd Norway

Battle of Hattin context

Saladin struck kingdom 'divided politically' over claims of heiresses Sibylla/Isabella - Raymond political ambition

Capture of Alexandria

Shirkuh capture in 1167 but later surrender through truce to Franks/Amalric FRANKISH MILITARY ability!

Jacob's Ford

Short term Frankish victories at Mont Gisard led to growing Muslim unity Highly aggressive 1178 castle building = 5 day victory for Saladin!

Guy/Sibylla

Sibylla rejected Raymond's candidate Balian after death William Longsword - Runciman division 'hawks and 'doves'

Examples continued contact with West

Sigurd of Norway pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1107 Conrad III vowed to go to J - civil strife?

Failure Second Crusade effects

Some Christian gains - Raymond of Antioch = opportunity to challenge power of Aleppo BUT greater pressure from Nur ad-Din = exposure and need for new crusade

1054 schism

Split of Church = Urban desire to reconcile diplomatic relations despite doctrinal differences?` Papacy at edge of collapse - Investiture contest = kingly power with antipopes

Baldwin II succession

Successful main task of succession - marry Melisende to Fulk of Anjou

People's Crusade

The first Crusade, before papal approval, consisting of an army of 15,000 pilgrims Defeated Battle of Civetot

Poor leadership vs bad luck

Theoretically should have been grand success with Louis and Conrad far higher status than 1st crusaders 1) Bernard gave in to petitions by radicals like Radulf and authorised Eugenius to attack Jews/Slavs= lack of control? (enemies of god) meaning that crusade wasted time against wends - 'doubtful theology' - Riley Smith BUT without him no support in first place? 2) Conrad defeat near Doryleaum due to not knowing archer cavalry, most troops deserted despite Asbridge saying enthusiasm 'outstripped even that of 1095' WEAK EVEN BEFORE DAMASCUS 3) Louis VII surrender control army outside Anatolia to Templar, although Phillips argues PRAGMATISM! - Bernard said more in love Eleanor than war! No real military leader like Bohemond 4) Growing factionalism (Louis refusing defend Antioch for Raymond), Damascus (ally Jerusalem) represent crusade off track but even in framwork of such expeditions failed by incompetence - Phillips = 'turning pt in fortunes of christian cause' BUT Crusader states inherently weakened?? People's crusade arguably worse yet succeeded in end (luck) Poor weather/Dorylaeum = contemporary reports

Conc:

Thus although Frankish leadership faced notable disunites and weaknesses, they were not drastically worse than even reverted leaders of the 1st Crusade like Bohemond. Instead Muslim unity allowed them to wipe out crusading forces in Asia Minor where they were defeated decades before.

Saladin 1174 occurances

Took Damascus, removed Shiite claiph BUT: benefit deaths NED and Amalric?

Amalric

Took charge of Jerusalem after death of brother Baldwin III in 1163 -Egypt Prime battleground ruled by Fatimif dynasty - rich due to fertile Nile and prevent Muslim rapprochement

Conc

Urban's decision to call a Holy War on basis of religion meant that one must view it in a highly religious context; in a society where 'actions were coordinated by reactions to sin' as JRS argues. Indeed, blend of secular and religious such as St Augustine of Hippo; Jerusalem was very much an objective in its own right. However, when viewed in a long term context of violence and power struggles of the 11th century, it is clear that practical consequences were a more important factor for the papacy. With most extant evidence tainted by religious ideologies rather than practicalities, one should believe Jotiskcky's argument that 'crusading and papal supremacy went hand in hand'

Rise of Zengi - why different other warlords? - Jostiscky

Used Seljuk institutions of government to create military/scholarly alliance of JIhad Created Madrasas schools

Saladin

Usurper under Shirkuh's invasion of Egypt 1169 Rose in time of 'confusion, discord and anarchy' - Sharwar Even W of T said 'cause for concern' 'exploited the collapse of the Fatimid dynasty'

Conc:

Variable stability both geographically and chronologically - success less noteworthy as Muslim world became unified Many surprising strengths in comparison to later weaknesses in 1180s; however, reliant on individuals like Baldwin I rather than structural strengths, not to mention luck Political and military weaknesses exacerbated under Fulk and Melisende, leading to fall of Edessa Internal disputes but reasonable given context: downfall due to Muslim strengths rather than Frankish weaknesses

Rise of Nur ad Din

Victory against Raymond of Antioch in 1149 = consolidated Near East - but jihad against Christians?

Evidence of tensions

Walter the Chancelllor suggested locals were 'deprived of their goods by force and deviousness of our people' 1119 Field of Blood = Roger of Salerno defeated by Ilghazi of Mardin 1104 Egypt/Ethiopia = sunni/Shia alliance (Barber) Fulk described as 'Angevin invader'

Intro

Whilst Byzantists like Runciman and Frankopan have been keen to emphasise Alexios's supposedly decisive contribution, more convincing is nuance of Riley Smith, Phillips who argue that whilst limited, contribution still mostly helpful. Although Alexios's contributions were also not decisive in success, they were also never explicitly intended to harm to crusading movement. Indeed the Byzantine Empire has responsibility for calling and initiation of crusading movement, and recruitment, his military and diplomatic, with most leadership failings understandable in the fragile geopolitical context of an unstable world.

Intro

Whilst Erdman has highlighted religious fervour and aid to Greeks as primary motive, Riley Smith rebuts that the wider crusading context points to Urban's call as a 'climacteric' of '11th century reform'. Defined as calling at Clermont, one should not view Urban with hindsight of crusaders themselvesoIndeed, whilst charitable motives may have played a part in the crusaders themselves, Urban's motives are best explained by an unprecedented collision and religious and temporal ideology, culminating in desire to strengthen papacy Barber - 'grew out of papal reform movement' - 'too

Intro

Whilst France argues poorly planned and led from start, fail to explain why so unsuccessful in relation to the similarly unorganised First Crusade. As Asbridge, Phillips and Tyerman convincingly rebut, chronically overambitious and under coordinated expedition, but only failed in the more significant context of Byzantine negligence and ultimately Muslim strengths.

Conc:

Whilst Frankish strengths contributed to nature of success in form of leadership, Byzantine aid and religion, more important was Muslim disunity in compensating for evident weaknesses by crusaders. As Jotiscky argues - crusade was 'peculiar combination of circumstance and opportunity not designed to be repeated'

Conc

Whilst Fulcher of Chartres's praise of his 'shield, strength and support' might be overexaggerated, it is generally accurate Asbridge: "whose skill, ambition and devotion drove the enterprise, and by turns threatened to rip it apart" Especially in comparison B4/Guy - didn't even need T+H!

Intro

Whilst certainly benefiting from the West, Outremer was fundamentally the architect of its own success, surviving due to the ability of its rulers to transform any aid into consolidating power. Was notably over-reliant, as Asbridge argues in form of material wealth and economics. However, when considered in the context of diplomatic, military and political strengths, it is likely that Outremer's skill and flexibility allowed a considerable degree of independence.

Intro

Whilst important in preaching and ideological direction of crusade, the fact he remained in the West suggests limited role to the expedition itself. Indeed, whilst recruitment and moral backing were significant, they do not outweigh the more decisive roles of others like Louis/Conrad or Muslims themselves in political and military aspects of the expedition.

Intro

Whilst military orders considerable part of admin and military strength of crusader states, especially given Muslim strengths after 1119, their small size and failure to solve inherent political weaknesses requires qualification of their impact. Indeed, more important to their admin and military functions, were political leadership and ultimately luck through the disunity of the Muslim world.

Intro

Whilst the military strengths of the crusaders have often been cited as the prime factor in success by historians like Setton, more convincing is the nuance of Jotiscky that the 1st Crusade was a 'peculiar combination of circumstance not intended to be repeated'. Indeed, as Riley-Smith rebuts, such an argument cannot explain why the 1st Crusade was so much more successful than the 2nd or 3rd, suggesting high elements of luck to the expedition. Thus, whilst much weight can be pinpointed to skilled leadership by individuals like Bohemond, victory is best explained by the wider advantages of Byzantine support, religious fervour and most importantly Muslim disunity.

Contemporary sources of diplomacy with Greeks

William of Tyre praised determination of King Amalric to seek help from Manuel, but largely silent on terms Greek John Kinnamos argues Amalric gave concessions like homage to Manuel - William needed convince West settlers worthy of help