COPYRIGHT

All content on this blog is protected by copyright.
Content used elsewhere without attribution constitutes theft of intellectual property and will be prosecuted.

Saturday, September 20, 2025

The Third Crusade - Part I

  The fall of Jerusalem sent shock waves through Europe. Pope Urban III allegedly died of grief on hearing the news. His successor Gregory VIII issued a call to crusade just nine days later in a papal bull that blamed the catastrophe on the sins of all Christians and summoned everyone to acts of penance and contrition. One of the first nobleman to ‘take the cross’ was Richard Plantagenet, Count of Poitou, followed within months by his father King Henry II of England, King Philip II of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick ‘Barbarossa.’

Below is the first in two entries describing what happened in what later became known as "The Third Crusade"

 

Due primarily to hostilities between the Plantagenets and Capets, the German crusade got underway first, in May 1189. It was composed of an estimated 12,000 foot and 3,000 knights, most of whom travelled with the Emperor overland, although smaller contingents traveled independently by sea. Barbarossa’s army was highly disciplined and prepared to pay for provisions but encountered difficulties as soon as it crossed into Byzantine territory. However, the new Emperor, Isaac II Angelus, had signed an agreement with Saladin including a promise to obstruct the passage of crusaders headed for the Holy Land. As a result, Barbarossa’s force found no markets for provisioning and met with repeated harassment from ‘bandits’ and ‘brigands,’ probably in the pay of Constantinople. Barbarossa brushed aside the ineffective attempts to stop him, forced Isaac to provide transportation across the Dardanelles, and crossed into Muslim controlled territory on 22 April 1190.

On 18 May Barbarossa decisively defeated a Turkish army at the Battle of Iconium. The German crusaders then occupied Konya, the capital of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, where they replenished supplies and replaced significant equine casualties. The truce negotiated with the Turks allowed free passage through the rest of the sultanate. On 30 May, the army crossed back into Christian territory, entering Cilician Armenia, where it met with hospitality and support for the first time. One of the most important modern historians of the crusades, Christopher Tyreman, claims that Barbarossa’s performance upto this point was ‘one of the most remarkable feats of western arms in crusading history.’[i]

Yet it was all undone by a single accident. On 10 June 1190, Frederick Barbarossa drowned while crossing the River Saleph. It is unclear if he had a heart attack while riding through the icy water, or if he was, as one account claimed, caught in a whirlpool. Whatever happened, his death triggered the almost complete disintegration of his host. Most of the crusaders turned back. Only a small contingent under his son Frederick of Swabia reached Antioch and eventually the siege at Acre, where many of the remainder died.

Meanwhile, the death of Henry II of England on 6 July 1189, paved the way for an uneasy peace between France and England. Philip II was at best a reluctant crusader and did not yet have a well-organized and centralized bureaucracy comparable to that of the Plantagenets. Although he attempted to raise extra funding through a special tax, resistance was considerable. Philip proved unwilling or unable to enforce collection, and ultimately raised only a modest host. However, a number of his powerful barons (e.g. the Duke of Burgundy, the Counts of Flanders and Champagne and others recruited and paid for substantial contingents. In consequence, the French host probably equaled that of Barbarossa, e.g. 15,000 men.

Richard of Poitou, now King of England, on the other hand was totally dedicated to the crusade. Contemporaries claim that crusading fever swept England fueled by what is described as love of God, hope for remission of sins — and respect for the king. The latter should not be underestimated. Richard also proved remarkably inventive in raising funds to finance his great expedition. In addition to the ‘Saladin Tax’ — which he vigorously collected, he engaged in practices which are nowadays considered unsavory, such as selling offices. In the twelfth century, however, royal offices were always instruments of patronage, and payment for them in one form or another was expected not exceptional. More scandalous in the eyes of his contemporaries was the sale of properties from the royal domain because it diminished royal revenue in the long term. Yet Richard successfully increased exchequer receipts for the year 1190 by two to three times the norm.

Richard’s focus on being well-financed and his organizational talent for raising funds served his soldiers well. For a start, it enabled Richard to build a fleet to transport his army by sea, avoiding the grueling two-thousand-mile march that had depleted crusading armies in the past. Furthermore, this fleet was key to maintaining lines of supply throughout the entire crusade and enabled two decisive amphibious operations.

After wintering in Sicily, the French (also travelling by sea but in chartered vessels) sailed on 30 March 1191 for Acre, arriving without incident April 20. Richard’s fleet of 209 ships sailed ten days later and immediately ran into violent storms that scattered it. Richard diverted to Cyprus, which he captured from a self-proclaimed and unpopular despot, before proceeding to Acre, which he reached 8 June.

The arrival of the French and English forces decisively tipped the balance of forces in favor of the besiegers. While French and English fleets blockaded Acre by sea, the kings deployed large siege engines against the city. The crusaders were at last numerous enough to hold off Saladin’s forces while engaging in assaults on the city. The Saracen garrison rapidly recognized that surrender might be unavoidable and opened negotiations. The initial crusader demands for the return of all prisoners and all coastal cities were unrealistic and rejected. However, eventually, the Franks were talked down to the terms agreed upon on 12 July 1191, namely 1) the restoration of the True Cross, 2) the release of 2,700 prisoners and 3) payment of 200,000 dinars. The garrison also provided 2,700 hostages (fighting men, not women and children) to stand surety for the fulfillment of the terms.[ii]  Significantly, the deal was made with the garrison at Acre, not Saladin. When the Sultan learned of them, he was allegedly ‘distressed’ but felt honor-bound to uphold them.

At this point, Philip II concluded he had fulfilled his crusading vows and promptly sailed back to France — to the shock and scorn of the entire crusading host, including his own subjects. French command passed to the Duke of Burgundy — the same man who had been betrothed to Sibylla of Jerusalem in 1179/1180 but reneged on his promise. Meanwhile, Saladin failed to deliver, twice. Richard made the strategic decision to execute all the hostages in plain view of Saladin’s army. Although by the standards of the day, Richard had the right to do what he did, his action still shocked contemporaries and has blackened his name ever since. Historians have pointed out that Richard could ill afford to leave sufficient troops in Acre to guard nearly 3,000 prisoners. Others note that he needed to signal strength and determination to Saladin. Often overlooked, the Lyon Continuation of Tyre reports that the principle reason the Franks had agreed to the surrender terms in the first place had been because ‘they were keen for the Christians to be released from Saracen captivity.’[iii] As a result, when Saladin failed to deliver either the cross or the prisoners, the common troops were outraged and rebellious. Namely, ‘when King Richard saw the people weeping and lamenting because Saladin had deceived them, he had great pity and wanted to calm those who were in such great distress.’[iv] Read: he feared his own authority could be undermined and he might lose control of his army. Tragically, it was prisoners on both sides that paid the price. Saladin retaliated by slaughtering those prisoners who fell into his hands in the days following this massacre.

Next week, the story of the Third Crusade continues. 
 
Meanwhile, the Third Crusade is described from the perspective of the Franks in Outremer (rather than the crusaders) Envoy of Jerusalem
 

 
 Altogether, Dr. Helena P. Schrader is the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades.

                         


           Buy Now!                                                  Buy Now!                                                    Buy Now!
 

          Buy Now!                                               Buy Now!                                                      Buy Now!

 

Note: The bulk of this entry is an excerpt from Dr. Schrader's comprehensive non-fiction study of the crusader states.

 [i]Tyreman, Christopher. The World of the Crusades: An Illustrated History. [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019] 210.

[ii] The exact number of hostages and prisoners to be released is not certain as different accounts given different numbers. This number is the figure deemed most reasonable based on conditions in Acre and the size of the respective forces.

[iii] Anonymous, The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre translated by Peter Edbury as ‘The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade’ (Crusades Texts in Translation) [Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998] chapter 105, 107.

[iv] Old French Continuation of Tyre, chpt. 105, 108.

Saturday, September 13, 2025

Survival and Defiance

 Jerusalem had fallen. The king and the bulk of his barons were in captivity. Tens of thousands of Christians had been enslaved and only one city in the former Kingdom of Jerusalem, Tyre, remained in Frankish hands. The County of Tripoli and the Principality of Antioch also still held out. But for how long? The loss of Jerusalem had killed a pope and already set in motion a new crusade, but it would take a year or more for the armies of the West to reach the Levant. In the meantime, the surviving Franks and their native allies had to contrive to survive. And they did.

 

Saladin’s focus turned to the last city in the former Kingdom of Jerusalem still in Frankish hands: Tyre. The survivors of Hattin, as well as Ibelin with what knights had survived the siege of Jerusalem, were concentrated here under the command of the dynamic Conrad de Montferrat. Montferrat, a brother of Queen Sibylla’s first husband, had arrived off Acre shortly after it surrendered to Saladin. Although totally oblivious of the catastrophe that had befallen the kingdom, he learned of it from the pilot that met his ship. Rather than landing in Arab-held Acre, he sailed for Tyre. Here he found the garrison demoralized and contemplating surrender. He rallied the citizens and defied Saladin, who moved on to easier pickings, but after the surrender of Jerusalem in October 1187, Saladin returned and laid siege to Tyre.

The city was located on an island connected to the mainland by a narrow causeway on which stood three, successively higher walls. It was unassailable by sea due to the rocks in the surrounding waters. Despite a number of attempts to force surrender, Tyre held. By the end of December, Saladin’s army had been in the field eight months. Sated with conquests and loot but cold, wet and homesick, it started to disintegrate. After a ruse resulted in the loss of several Saracen ships, Saladin withdrew, leaving Tyre in Frankish hands at the start of 1188.

At the start of the next campaign season, Saladin turned his attention to the two remaining crusader states: Tripoli and Antioch. Tripoli was saved by the timely arrival a fleet of sixty Sicilian ships loaded with crusaders. Saladin had no desire to tangle with such a large, fresh and motivated force and continued up the coast. He destroyed Tortosa 3 July 1188, and subsequently took Valania, Jabala, Latakia, and the castles of Saone, Darbsak and Baghras. Panicked, Prince Bohemond offered Saladin an eight-month truce including a clause to surrender Antioch if no assistance arrived within that time. Saladin, who had no desire to waste time and troops on besieging a city as formidable as Antioch, agreed.

If Saladin thought the Franks were beaten, however, he was wrong. On 3 June 1189, Frankish troops from Tyre took to the field in an attempt to re-take Sidon. If successful, the operation would have extended Frankish control in the direction of the County of Tripoli and enabled Sidon to be used as a base for the re-capture of the more important port of Beirut. Regaining control of Sidon and Beirut would have re-established continuous Frankish control of the coastline of the northern Levant. In addition, firm Frankish control of the region between Tyre and Sidon would have enabled cultivation of the coastal plain. This was important in order to support the population of Tyre, which was flooded with refugees from the rest of the kingdom. Within ten days, however, it was evident that the balance of forces still overwhelmingly favored the Saracens, and the Franks withdrew to Tyre. Although not a success, the incident is poignant evidence of the fighting spirit of the men of Outremer.

Meanwhile, Saladin had released Guy de Lusignan after the latter swore never to take up arms against Muslims again and promised to go ‘across the sea.’ Instead of keeping his word, Lusignan went to Antioch and in the summer of 1189 returned to his lost kingdom with a force of perhaps seven hundred knights and nine thousand foot-soldiers. After being refused admittance to Tyre by Conrad de Montferrat, who argued Guy had lost his crown when he lost his kingdom, Guy’s small army continued down the coast to lay siege to Acre.

This important port had once been the economic heart of the kingdom, but the Christian population had been expelled after surrendering to Saladin in July 1187. It was now heavily garrisoned with Egyptian troops fiercely loyal to Saladin. Because Acre was located deep inside Saracen held territory, a Frankish siege of Acre required continuous re-provisioning and reinforcements by sea. Furthermore, Saladin quickly brought up troops to besiege the besiegers.

The ensuing siege lasted two full years and cost tens of thousands of Christian lives. According to the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, one of the most important contemporary accounts, the siege cost Christendom the Patriarch of Jerusalem, six archbishops, twelve bishops, forty counts, and five hundred barons. While there are no reliable sources for the number of commoners lost, one contemporary observer claimed 75% of the participants died, another that ‘more than half’ never went home. In either case, tens of thousands of ordinary people -- fighting men, clergy and camp followers -- were lost in the siege of Acre.

Furthermore, although both sides repeatedly launched assaults against the other, all were ultimately defeated at high cost. Between these major battles, small scale skirmishing occurred on an almost daily basis, causing continuous attrition. Ultimately, however, disease, deprivation, and unsanitary conditions accounted for the lion’s share of the casualties. In short, the history of the Siege of Acre is a grim tale of stalemate reminiscent of the horrible trench warfare of WWI and ultimately just as senseless. Except for possibly distracting Saladin from renewed assaults on Tyre, Tripoli and Antioch, it served no military purpose.

The siege also ended the reign and life of Queen Sibylla. She died of an unnamed illness along with her two surviving children. Since Guy de Lusignan ruled only by right of his wife, Sibylla’s death destroyed the last shreds of Guy’s legitimacy. The barons of Jerusalem promptly recognized Sibylla’s sister Isabella as the rightful heir to the throne. Isabella, however, was still married to the man who had betrayed them in 1186: Humphrey de Toron. Under no circumstances were the surviving barons prepared to do homage to Humphrey de Toron. Furthermore, having been tricked once by Sibylla’s promises to divorce and remarry, the lords of Outremer insisted on Isabella divorcing Humphrey and marrying their candidate, Conrad de Montferrat, before they would do homage.

Despite the outraged polemics and histrionic language of some of the chronicles, which insist on speaking of an ‘abduction’ worse than that of Helen of Troy, the facts are remarkably straight forward and undisputed. In mid-November 1190, Isabella was removed from the tent she shared with Humphrey de Toron at the siege camp of Acre against her will. She was not, however, taken and raped by Conrad. Instead, she was sequestered and protected by the senior French cleric, the Bishop of Beauvais, while a church court was convened to rule on the validity of her marriage to Humphrey. The case hinged on the important theological principle of consent. Humphrey claimed that Isabella had consented to the marriage, but when contradicted by a man who attended the wedding, he ‘said nothing’ and backed down. It was further proved that Isabella was only eleven at the time of her marriage to Humphrey, making her below the legal age for consent. This meant whether she had consented as a child or not, the marriage was invalid. The court ruled exactly this and the marriage was dissolved. Isabella agreed to marry Conrad de Montferrat and following the wedding ceremony the barons of Jerusalem did homage to her as their queen.

Chronicles hostile to Montferrat allege rampant corruption, vile motives on the part of the barons and Isabella’s mother, and dismiss eighteen-year-old Isabella because ‘a woman’s opinion changes very easily’ and girls are ‘easily taught to do what is morally wrong.’[i] Modern historians and novelists are apt to focus on the melodrama of a young woman dragged from the bed of ‘the man she loved’ in order to marry a man picked by others. Either way, the allegations of base motives are unfounded in fact as is the portrayal of Isabella as a helpless pawn. Isabella was given a clear and simple choice: she could re-marry Humphrey or she could have the crown of Jerusalem. Isabella chose the crown — despite the fact that her kingdom consisted of exactly one city and a miserable and beleaguered siege camp on the day she made her choice.

 


[i] Itinerarium, chpt. 63, 124.


The bulk of this entry is an excerpt from Dr. Schrader's comprehensive study of the crusader states.

This period in the history of the Crusader States is depicted in her novel Envoy of Jerusalem
 

 
 Altogether, Dr. Helena P. Schrader is the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades.

                         


           Buy Now!                                                  Buy Now!                                                    Buy Now!
 

          Buy Now!                                               Buy Now!                                                      Buy Now!

"The Tale of the English Templar" is a fictional work that depicts the destruction of the Knight's Templar



An escaped Templar, an intrepid, old crusader, and a discarded bride
embark on a quest for justice in the face of tyranny. 
 

"St. Louis Knight" is a novel set against the backdrop of the Seventh Crusade and St. Louis' sojourn in the Holy  Land. A Templar novice and King Louis are the central characters. 
It is now available in audiobook as well as paperback and ebook.

 
 A crusader in search of faith --
A lame lady in search of revenge --
And a King who would be saint.

St. Louis' Knight takes you to the Holy Land in the 13th century, and a world filled with knights, nobles, prophets -- and assassins. 
(Available in Audiobook)