Continuing with the series on the Knights Templar, Dr. Schrader
today looks at the important role played by the Knights Templar in the Battle
on the Litani 1179.
In the winter of 1178/79 the rains failed. By the
summer of 1179 a severe drought gripped the Levant, ignoring the political
divide and destroying crops and livestock in Muslim and Christian communities alike. Against this backdrop, a large
Saracen force crossed the River Jordan and started raiding deep in Frankish
territory in May 1179. This force laid
waste to Frankish towns and villages and captured livestock that could be
driven back to Saracen territory to replenish herds that had died in the
drought. Significantly, the Saracen
forces consisted entirely of cavalry and were commanded by Farukh Shah, a
nephew of Salah ad-Din and one of his most effective subordinate commanders,
and the Sultan himself. Thus despite the economic component of capturing
livestock, the raid was more like a “reconnaissance in force” similar to the
raid of 1187 (that led to the disaster at the Springs of Cresson) than a simple “cattle
rustling” operation.
The Frankish response was decisive. King Baldwin IV,
now aged 18, rapidly mustered a powerful cavalry force of his own. This included
not only his most important baron, Raymond, Count of Tripoli, as well as Baldwin,
Lord of Ramla and Mirabel, but also the Templars under their Grand Master, Odo
de St. Amand. The King led his troops in person
riding, as he had at Montgisard, despite being handicapped in the use of his
hands by leprosy.
On June 10, the Frankish army surprised Farukh Shah’s
division while it was herding captured livestock through the valley between the
Litani River and the Upper Jordan. While the Templars, who were in the vanguard,
continued toward the Jordan, the King attacked with the secular forces. The Frankish cavalry surprised the Saracens, driving them back across the Litani
and possibly taking Farukh Shah himself temporarily captive.
However, the Templars pressing ahead toward the Jordan
spotted Salah ad-Din’s much the larger, main force. Rather than falling back to regroup with the
rest of the Frankish army or sending word and summoning the King to bring up
reinforcements, the Templar Grand Master, Odo de St. Amand, ordered an attack against
the numerically superior Saracen forces.
While it is unclear what effect the initial Templar
charge had on the enemy, the Saracens soon turned the tables. The surviving Templars
broke and fled back toward the main feudal army around the King.
At this point in time, however, the feudal army was already
scattered across the valley floor “mopping up” after their successful action
against Farukh Shah. They were in no position to form a cohesive force. Salah
ad-Din’s cavalry, hot on the heels of the Templars, fell upon the dispersed
Christian forces, killing and capturing large numbers of Christian knights and
nobles, including Baron Baldwin of Ramla and Mirabel, Hugh of Tiberius, and, according
to Arab sources, some 270 knights and nobles altogether.
The King’s household managed to rally around Baldwin
IV. They extricated him from the field with help of reinforcements from
Reginald of Sidon. This was, of course, vital, as his capture would have had
even more serious consequences than the other losses incurred.
But his escape was a very near thing. Baldwin was
unhorsed during the — evidently heated — engagement, but because his leprosy
had lamed his arms he was unable to remount. The King had to be carried off the
field on the back of a Frankish knight. The eighteen-year-old king, who just
two years earlier had led his chivalry to a stunning victory over Salah ad-Din
at Montgisard, was now forced to face the fact that he could no longer command
his armies from horseback. In a society in which the mounted warrior, the
knight, was the incarnation of manly virtue and prowess, it must have broken
Baldwin’s heart. Not that he surrendered
to his disability entirely: in the future he would lead his armies from a
litter.
Meanwhile, among the captives was the Templar Grand Master,
Odo St. Amand. Unlike his successor
Gerard de Rideford, St. Amand had the courage and honor to refuse ransom in
accordance with the Templar Rule. He died miserably in a Saracen dungeon. Yet
honorable and correct as his stance was it tragically paved the way,
indirectly, for the election of the disastrous and unscrupulous Gerard de
Rideford.
Meanwhile, the Templars had increased their reputation
as fearless fighters willing to take on any odds. This reputation may have enhanced their
prestige among potential young recruits from the feudal class, particularly in
the West. Yet it also cost them credibility
among more prudent leaders.
William of Tyre undoubtedly expressed the opinion of a
wide segment of the elite in Outremer in blaming the Templars for the defeat on
the Litani. The reasoning was simple: if the Templars had not attacked
independently, the Frankish forces might well have finished off Farukh-Shah and
then, as a combined force, put Salah ad-Din to flight too. The criticism would
be particularly valid if the Templars had been ordered to provide the attacking
main force with reconnaissance of Salah ad-Din’s whereabouts and/or serve as a
shield to prevent him from falling on the King’s flank or rear while he engaged
Farukh-Shah. However, we don’t know what orders, if any, were given to St.
Amand, and so should reserve judgement. Ultimately, the battle was not
decisive, and the secular captives were ransomed to live and fight another day.
Join me next week for a look at the Templar Role at Jacob's Ford. Meanwhile, this battle, also know as Marj Ayun, is an episode in:
Dr. Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.
She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.
She
is an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction
and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total
of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the
founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at:
http://crusaderkingdoms.com
A reader asked a question about who paid the ransoms of the men taken captive in this (and other) battles. Due to the inappropriate language, I do not wish to publish the question as written, but here is the answer:
ReplyDeleteFundamentally, ransoms were paid by the next of kin of a man taken captive. So a man's parents, wife, siblings and/or children would contribute. Cousins and other relatives might also be asked or volunteer to pay, if the immediate family was short of funds. If a king or other lord, his subjects/vassals/tenants were also expected to contribute to his ransom. Ransoms could impoverish the families that had to pay them -- and enrich the men who received them. For more on ransoms see: http://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-time-honored-tradition-of-ransom.html