For the nearly
ninety years between the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the defeat of
the Christian army at Hattin in July 1187, the armies of “Outremer” were substantial,
surprisingly effective and nominally feudal. Yet their composition was far more
complex than the term “feudal” implies.
They always included “armed pilgrims,” for example, and contingents of militant monks (i.e. Knights Templar and Hospitaller)
became increasingly important. Most unusual, however, they were characterized
by types of fighting men completely unknown in the West: Sergeants and
Turcopoles, and the arriere ban enabled the King of Jerusalem to keep his army
in the field up to one year.
Below is a short
description of the key components of the armies of Outremer in the 12th
Century.
Barons and Knights
As in the West,
the backbone of the Army of Jerusalem was the feudal host composed of the
“knights” which the “tenants-in-chief” of the king owed in exchange for their
fiefs. Tenants-in-chief might be secular
lords (barons) or ecclesiastical lords (bishops and independent abbots).
The baronies of Outremer could be very substantial or almost insignificant. Jonathan Riley-Smith in his Atlas of the Crusades, for example, lists the baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon as all owing 100 knights, while according to the incomplete records of John d’Ibelin, the Bishops of Nazareth and Lydda owed 6 and 10 knights respectively. (John d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, was writing in the mid-13th century but attempting to catalogue military service owed to the King of Jerusalem at the time of his grandfather Balian d’Ibelin.)
The baronies of Outremer could be very substantial or almost insignificant. Jonathan Riley-Smith in his Atlas of the Crusades, for example, lists the baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon as all owing 100 knights, while according to the incomplete records of John d’Ibelin, the Bishops of Nazareth and Lydda owed 6 and 10 knights respectively. (John d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, was writing in the mid-13th century but attempting to catalogue military service owed to the King of Jerusalem at the time of his grandfather Balian d’Ibelin.)
It is important
to remember that the term “knight” does not refer to a single man but rather to
a fighting-unit consisting of a
knight and his warhorse (destrier), one or more mounted squires, a riding horse
(palfrey) and one more pack-horses. Knights
were expected to be armed and armored, which means that throughout the 12th
century they would be expected to provide their own chainmail hauberk, coif and
mittens, and chainmail chausses for their legs. In addition, they would need a
helmet, a sword, dagger and optionally a mace or axe. Lances, on the other
hand, were relatively cheap, “throw away” weapons that the lord would provide.
The knights owed
by each baron to the crown based on his fief's obligation would not, however, have been the total extent of
fighting power that a baron brought to the battlefield. Barons would have been
supported by younger brothers and adult sons, if they had them, and by
“household knights,” i.e. men without land holdings of their own who served
the baron (were “retained”) in exchange for an annual salary (that would
include payments in-kind such as meals, cloaks, and in some cases horses).
Peter Edbury’s analysis of the John d’Ibelin’s catalogue suggests that the
ratio of “retained” knights to “vassals” (knights who owed their service by
right of holding land from the lord) ranged anywhere from 1:2 to 3:2, making it
clear that the knights fielded in the feudal army due to feudal obligation made
up maybe no more than half of the total host!
So far, all is as
it would have been in the West, including the large number of “household” or
mercenary knights. However, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was unique in that activities
and income sources not usually associated with feudal service were also often
subject to military service obligations. Thus, for example, Baldwin d’Ibelin
owed four knights service to the crown in exchange for the right to rent out
grazing land to the Bedouins. More
common, income from customs duties, tariffs and other royal sources of income
could be “enfeoffed” on a nobleman/knight in exchange for feudal service. In the prosperous coastal towns of Outremer,
there were many such “money-fiefs” with a military obligation.
While great
lords, like Baldwin d’Ibelin, might hold multiple fiefs, they could only
personally fulfill the obligation for one knight, which meant that a lord
enjoying the income of a fief — whether from grazing Bedouins or customs duties
— had to spend some of his income to hire as many trained and fully equipped
“knights” (think fighting unit) as he owed. These knights would be drawn from
the younger sons and brothers of fellow barons or from landless armed pilgrims,
willing to stay in the Holy Land, but would like his landed knights be viewed
as “vassals.”
Armed Pilgrims
The Holy Land,
unlike the West, benefitted from the fact that at any one time — and
particularly during the “pilgrim season” between roughly April and October —
there would be tens of thousands of pilgrims in the kingdom, a portion of whom
would have been knights capable of rendering military service in an emergency.
Sometimes barons brought small private armies of retainers and volunteers with
them to the crusader states explicitly for the purpose of fighting in defense
of the Holy Land. A good example of this is Count Philip of Flanders, who
arrived at Acre in 1177 at the head of what Bernard Hamilton describes as “a
sizeable army.” His army even
included the English Earls of Essex and Meath. More common were individual
knights and lords who came to the Holy Land as genuine pilgrims, only to be
sucked into the fighting by military necessity. One such example is Hugh VIII de
Lusignan, Count de la March, who came in 1165 and ended up dying in a Saracen
prison. Another example is William Marshal, who came in 1184 to fulfill a
crusader vow taken by his liege, Henry the Young King. It is impossible to know
how many “armed pilgrims” — and not just knights! — took part in musters and
engagements between the forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its enemies at
any time.
Fighting Monks
Another anomaly
of the armies of Outremer were, of course, the large contingents of fighting
monks — most famously Templars and Hospitallers, but also Knights of St.
Lazarus and later Teutonic Knights as well. The major “militant” orders of the
12th Century were founded in Jerusalem with the explicit mandate to
protect the Holy Land and Christian residents in and pilgrims to it. While the
Templars started with just nine knights and the Hospitallers did not officially have “brother knights” until the 13th century, contemporary
descriptions suggest that both orders fielded hundreds of knights by the end of
the 12th century. David Nicolle in his book on the Battle of Hattin
suggests that by 1180 the Templars had 300 knights deployed in the Holy Land
and the Hospitallers 500 knights, but many of these knights would have been
scattered about the country garrisoning castles. Undisputed, is the fact that 230
Templars and Hospitallers survived the Battle of Hattin to be executed on
Saladin’s orders on July 6, 1187. Given the intense, two-day long nature of the
Battle of Hattin, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that both militant orders,
known for their fanaticism and willingness to die, had suffered significant
casualties before the battle ended.
It is likely, therefore, that close to 400 Hospitallers and Templars were in
the field with royal army and this seems a good “ball-park” figure for the kind
of resources the militant orders could contribute to the army of Outremer in
the latter part of the 12th century generally.
Infantry
It is often
forgotten in modern depictions of medieval warfare that the knights were the
smallest contingent of medieval armies. The infantry made up the bulk of any
feudal force and, far from being superfluous, the infantry was vitally important
to success. But whereas in the West the infantry in the 12th century
was largely composed of peasant levees (plus mercenaries), in the crusader
states the infantry consisted of free “burghers” (plus mercenaries).
Mercenaries
If prostitution
is the oldest profession on earth, than mercenaries must belong to the second
oldest profession. (Mercenaries are recorded in ancient Greece and only my own
ignorance prevents me from asserting with confidence that they were known in
ancient Egypt as well; I feel almost certain that they were there too and in
ancient Persia and would welcome comment on this point by those more knowledgeable
than myself.) Certainly in the Middle
Ages mercenaries were a vital component of warfare precisely because feudal
levies in the West were only obligated to serve for 40 days at a stretch, but most kings and nobles needed fighting men who could serve whenever and for as
long as needed. Furthermore, certain
military skills such as firing cross-bows, or building and manning siege
engines, required a great deal of expertise and practice, making them unsuited to
amateur armies composed of farmers. Mercenaries were everywhere on medieval
battlefields. They were found in Outremer as well and, given the resources of
the kingdom, were probably more prevalent there than in the West. But we have no clear
numbers.
Sergeants
A far more interesting
and unusual feature of the armies in the crusader states were the “sergeants.”
Because the “peasants” of Outremer were largely Arabic speaking Muslims, the Kings of Jerusalem were not inclined to
rely upon these men to fight their battles. On the other hand, as much as
one-fifth of the population (ca 120,000 inhabitants) were Latin Christian
settlers. All settlers were freemen and whether they settled in the cities as
merchants and tradesmen or in agricultural settlements on royal and
ecclesiastical domains, they were classed as “burghers” — not serfs or
peasants. These freemen who had voluntarily immigrated to the crusader states
were subject to military service, and when they served they were classed as
“sergeants.”
The term “sergeant”
in the context of Outremer appears to be a term similar to “man-at-arms” during
the Hundred Years War. In short, it implies the financial means to outfit
oneself with some form of body armor (most commonly padded linen “aketons,” or
quilted “gambesons,” in rare-cases leather, or even chainmail) and a helmet of
some kind (usually on open-faced “kettle” helm or later a crevelliere), and
some kind of infantry weapon such as a spear, short sword, ax or sling.
With half the
settlers living in cities, it is not surprising that sergeants bore the brunt
of the burden of providing garrisons for the cities, but according to John
d’Ibelin’s records sergeants from the rural settlements in the royal domain and
ecclesiastical fiefs were required to muster with the royal army. We also know that both the Templars and
Hospitallers maintained significant forces of “sergeants,” and these were —
notably — mounted fighting men. Although not as well equipped as the knights
themselves, they were entitled to two horses and one squire! It is not clear,
however, whether the “sergeants” of the king and the ecclesiastical lords were
also mounted.
Turcopoles
Perhaps the most
exotic component of the armies of Outremer were the so-called “Turcopoles.”
There are frequent references to these troops in contemporary records and they
clearly played a significant role in the armed forces of the crusader states,
but there is no unambiguous definition of who and what they were. They were
clearly “native” troops, but the idea that they were mostly converted Muslims
is off the mark. Roughly half the
population in the crusader states were non-Latin Christians, and it is from this segment of society that “native” troops were predominantly
drawn. The Armenians, for example, had a
strong history of independent states and military prowess, and Armenians made up
a significant portion of the population in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, having
their own quarter there and their own cathedral. Syrian Christians were by this
time Arabic speakers and would have looked like “Arabs” and “Turks” to visitors
from the West, but as Christians they were reliable troops. There were also
Greek, Coptic, Maronite and Ethiopian Christians resident in the crusader
states, all of whom were, as freemen, theoretically subject to military service
and as Christians native to the region probably some of the most willing
fighting men. They, after all, had memories or personal experience with the
taxes, insults and oppression of Turkish rule.
Arriere Ban
Last but not
least, the Kings of Jerusalem had the right to issue the “arriere ban” which
obligated every free man to come to the defense of the kingdom. This was in
effect an early form of the “levee en masse” of the French Revolution. Significantly,
the King of Jerusalem could command the service of his vassals for a full year,
not just 40 days as in the West, but such service was intended for the defense
of the realm. If the king took his army
outside the borders on an offensive expedition, he was required to pay for the
services of his subjects.
Balian d'Ibelin served in the feudal armies of Outremer and the defense of the crusader kingdoms during his lifetime is the central theme of the three part biography that starts with:
