The Templars at the Siege of Ascalon 1153

  An incident that occurred during the siege of Ascalon in 1153 eventually came back to haunt the Knights Templar later in their existence. This incident appears to have shaped many men's minds about the Military Order and contributed to its later tarnished reputation. Let's take a look at what happened.

Ascalon, allegedly called "the Virgin of the Desert" by the Arabs because it remained "inviolate since the days of the First Crusade" (Howarth, p. 109) i.e. was still held by the Egyptians fifty years later, posed a threat to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was garrisoned by troops from the Fatimid Caliphate based in Cairo, and maintained an aggressive posture toward the crusader kingdom throughout the first half of the 12th century. Not content with being an island of Islam in a Christian sea, the garrison frequently sallied out to harass the surrounding countryside, sometimes raiding deep into the kingdom.

The raids were so threatening that King Fulk (1131-1143) decided it was necessary to build a ring of castles around Ascalon, from which troops could respond rapidly to repel these raids. These were the castles of Ibelin in the north, Blanchegard in the northeast, Beth Gibelin in the southeast and Gaza in the south. Of these, the castle at Gaza was the most important as it stood between Ascalon and reinforcements from Egypt by land. The castle of Beth Gibelin was held by the Hospitallers, and in 1149 Gaza was turned over to the Knights Templar. According to Barber, it was the first major castle in the Kingdom of Jerusalem that was turned over to the Templars. (Barber, p. 73.)

The Egyptian garrison in Ascalon recognized the danger at once. Hoping to re-open their lines of communication with Egypt, they undertook a major offensive against Gaza in 1150. They were repulsed with such heavy losses that the garrison was significantly weakened.  Furthermore, the Egyptians completely abandoned efforts to reinforce or supply the garrison by land, and the enclave at Ascalon became dependent upon support brought by sea.

This situation combined with internal turmoil within the Fatimid Caliphate became a temptation too great to resist. In January 1153, Baldwin III declared his intention to capture Ascalon. He assembled a large army, which included large contingents of both Templars and Hospitallers, commanded by their respective Masters, Bernard de Tremelay and Raymond du Puy . 

Ascalon itself had a history dating back to 5000 years before Christ. It had been Canaanite, Philistine and Phoenician.  It had been occupied by the Greeks, the Romans and the Byzantines before the Arabs came. It lay across the vital trade routes between Egypt and Syria. It was built like large semi-circle, the coast forming a straight line that stretched north-south through the diameter of the circle and the walls forming the circumference.  These walls were massive. They had Byzantine foundations that had been repaired and extended by the Egyptians. 

The sad remnants of Ascalon's Walls today 

 

The forces of Jerusalem first blockaded the port, ensuring there was no relief for the garrison and then commenced a siege. The city had been well stocked and resisted all assaults valiantly and effectively.  In June an Egyptian fleet managed to slip through the blockade, bringing some supplies to the beleaguered garrison. The forces of Jerusalem had meanwhile been reinforced by the spring pilgrims, many of whom were fighting men and anxious to take part in the struggle. 

Baldwin III had from the start deployed as many siege engines as he could muster. These continually hammered the walls of Ascalon.  Jerusalem also employed a large, mobile assault tower that ranged higher than the walls. On the night of August 15, the defenders succeeded in setting fire to this tower. As the inferno raged, the wind suddenly shifted, blowing the burning engine and the flames back toward the city of Ascalon. The stones first expanded under the intense heat. Then, as they cooled, they cracked and began to collapse. According to the contemporary chronicler, William Archbishop of Tyre, the collapse of the wall woke the entire besieging army. Men rushed to dress and arm themselves to take advantage of this opportunity. (Below a Hollywood rendition of a breach in a wall following a siege taken from "The Kingdom of Heaven.")

The Templars held the sector of the encirclement immediately opposite the breach in the wall and reached it first. Led by their Master, forty Templar Knights rushed through the broken wall. Before the Templars were reinforced, the defenders of Ascalon overwhelmed them, pushed stones and rubble into the gap and defended it with sufficient troops to hold it. The following morning, the bodies of the dead Templars, including that of Master de Tremelay, were hung headless and naked from the walls of Ascalon. 

Unfortunately for the reputation of the Templars, William of Tyre claims in his account of the siege that: "It is said that [the Templars] prevented the others from approaching for this reason, that the first to enter obtain the greater spoils and the more valuable booty." (Tyre, quoted in Barber, p. 74.)  However, Tyre himself was not in the Holy Land at this time and was relying on second hand accounts. Furthermore, he could not have spoken to witnesses capable of telling him what the Templar intentions had been since the Templar participants were all dead.  

It hardly seems plausible that the Templars seriously expected to defeat the entire garrison and capture the city with just 40 knights. More likely (at least to me) is that the other Franks, who had arrived too late to reinforce the Templars, tried to shift the blame for the disaster away from themselves.  In short, this was nothing but a flimsy excuse: "we came, but the Templars wouldn't let us in." Notably, the Arab sources that describe the siege in detail, including the burning of the siege engine and the ensuing break in the wall, make no mention of the Templars at all.

Given the Templar ethos and their ferocious defense of their independence, it is quite probable that the Templars were guilty of nothing more culpable than excessive zeal. Instead of waiting for reinforcements or making an effort to coordinate their attack with other components of the besieging army, they rushed into the breach at once. By the time other Frankish troops arrived, it was too late; the gap in the wall had been closed up and fiercely defended -- not by the Templars but by the Muslim garrison of Ascalon.

Yet it is telling that Tyre was willing to believe and repeat this accusation of greed.  It shows that as early as the mid-12th century, the Templars had acquired a reputation for avarice at least in some quarters. Furthermore, with such an authority as Tyre crediting the Templar Master with seeking nothing but plunder, most modern historians follow this interpretation blindly. 

Less than a week later, on August 22, 1153, the garrison of Ascalon sought surrender terms. The King of Jerusalem readily granted them their lives and the right to take all their movable goods with them. The garrison of Ascalon received a safe-conduct to Egypt, which was scrupulously respected.  It was after crossing into Muslim held territory that many of the garrison were attacked, robbed and/or enslaved by Bedouins. 

Ascalon was re-settled with a predominantly Christian population, and played a key role in the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem thereafter. It was the city from which Baldwin IV sallied forth to end Saladin's invasion of 1177 at the Battle of Montgisard, and, after falling to Saladin in 1187, it was a particular bone of contention between Saladin and King Richard of England in the Third Crusade. It was briefly re-integrated into the Kingdom of Jerusalem between 1239-1247. 

Ascalon and Battle of Montgisard is depicted in "Balian d'Ibelin: Knight of Jerusalem."  

Currently just $2.99.

 

 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 old knight, and a discarded bride embark on a quest for justice in the face of tyranny. 

Just $4.99 

Buy now on amazon 

Buy now on Barnes and Noble

Find out more 

 

 

"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.

Buy Now!

 

 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)

 

The Knights Templar were at the height of their popularity in the late 12th century and appear in my novels set in this period. 

 Buy now!                                                           Buy now!                                                            Buy Now!

Jerusalem's Brief Era of Military Superiority

In the mid-twelfth century, the Kingdom of Jerusalem entered a period of strength. Almost all fighting occurred on Muslim territory, and in cooperation with Constantinople, the Kingdom embarked on a series of offensive campaigns against Egypt. 

  

Baldwin II, who had no sons, was succeeded at his death in 1131 by his eldest daughter Melisende without controversy. She had married Fulk d’Anjou in 1129, and he was crowned co-regent with her in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The hereditary Count of Anjou, Fulk had taken the cross and served as an associate, temporary member of the Templars in the Holy Land in 1119-1121. After his heir Geoffrey married the daughter and heiress of King Henry I of England, the widowed Fulk abdicated Anjou in favor of his son and agreed to marry Melisende. 

Jerusalem experienced and weathered its first serious constitutional crisis when Fulk tried to sideline his wife and co-regent Queen Melisende. The barons of Jerusalem suspected him of wanting to alienate the crown for a younger son from his first marriage and solidly backed Queen Melisende. Likewise, the ecclesiastical lords remained staunchly loyal to the queen. Insinuations of infidelity failed to undermine her position because the rumors were (rightly) dismissed as an attempt by her husband to discredit her.  In the end, a man famed for his ability to bring rebellious vassals to heel was forced to respect his wife’s position of equal power. So much so, that William of Tyre writes: ‘But from that day forward, the king became so uxorious that, whereas he had formerly aroused [his wife’s] wrath, he now calmed it, and not even in unimportant cases did he take any measures without her knowledge and assistance.’ [i] 

Furthermore, once a working relationship had been established between the co-monarchs, they worked together as an effective team. A natural division of labor evolved in which King Fulk focused on military and foreign affairs, while Queen Melisende managed the domestic administration of the kingdom. Due to Melisende’s status as ruling monarch (not merely queen-consort), there was no disruption in government when King Fulk died in a hunting accident 10 November 1143. Melisende continued to rule, now jointly-with her son Baldwin III, who was just 13 at the time of his father’s death. Although the kingdom was briefly roiled when in 1152 Baldwin resolved to push his mother aside and take sole control of government, the crisis was rapidly resolved without international or security repercussions. Baldwin III reigned until 1163, when he died childless, and was succeeded by his brother Amalric. Amalric was required to set aside his wife Agnes de Courtenay before the High Court would recognize him as king, but once he complied with this requirement, his succession was seamless and rapid. The kingdom remained stable.   

Throughout this period, from 1131 when Melisende and Fulk were crowned until the death of Amalric in 1174, the Kingdom of Jerusalem enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity characterized by economic growth and development, the expansion of trading ties, the evolution of sophisticated judicial and financial systems, and decisive military superiority. It has been calculated that Muslims attacked twelve times less often during this period than in the first fifteen years of the kingdom’s existence. Furthermore, most major battles were ‘waged on Muslim ground in proximity to centres of Muslim population, and most ended in a decisive victory for the Franks.’[ii] Frankish superiority on the battlefield was so great that for most of this period the Saracens tried to avoid battle altogether. They preferred surprise raids on what we would call ‘soft’ targets. Furthermore, the Frankish army could muster and deploy so rapidly, that if Saracen raids ran into resistance, they broke off the attack before the kingdom’s military force could be brought to bear. Warfare of these period was, therefore, characterized by short raids of limited scope. 

The exception to this was the Frankish capture of Ascalon in 1153 after an eight-month siege. This represented a major defeat for the Fatimids, who had invested heavily in holding on to the city. Ascalon was a base for the Egyptian fleet and as soon as it was lost to them, all the Frankish cities to the north became more secure as did merchant shipping in the Eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, Ascalon had been a base for lightning raids into the interior of the kingdom, reaching as far as Hebron. To protect the surrounding region against these raids, in the early 1140s King Fulk ordered the construction of four major castles: Gaza, Blanchegarde, Bethgibelin, and Ibelin. At the same time (1142) the Baron of Transjordan built on Roman foundations the mighty castle of Kerak southeast of the Dead Sea. These castles, far from being indications of weakness and fear, represented the self-confidence of the Franks. They were bastions for projecting power, not places of refuge. 

The growing importance and viability of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was also reflected in a shift in Byzantine foreign policy. Up to this time, Constantinoples’ relations with the crusader states were based on demands for submission to Byzantine suzerainty. While these claims were more formal or nominal in the case of Jerusalem itself, Byzantine efforts to regain control of Antioch were tenacious and largely successful, forcing the Princes of Antioch to recognize the Emperor as their overlord. Then, in 1155, the new Prince of Antioch, Reynald de Châtillon, provoked the just ire of Constantinople by raiding the Byzantine island of Cyprus and engaging in an orgy of savagery including the mutilation of prisoners, extortion, rape, pillage, and destruction. Although Châtillon was condemned by the Latin Church and Baldwin III of Jerusalem, his behavior reinforced existing Byzantine prejudices against the Latin Christians as ‘barbarians.’ Yet his savagery also surprisingly provoked change. 

While Emperor Manuel I collected a large army to march against Châtillon, Baldwin III signaled agreement with the need to teach the violent Prince of Antioch a lesson. Châtillon rapidly recognized that he was trapped and friendless. In a dramatic gesture, he Manuel barefoot and bareheaded with a noose around his neck to symbolize his complete surrender to the Byzantine Emperor. After this incident, Manuel concluded that Baldwin III was worth cultivating. What followed were a series of strategic alliances symbolized by royal weddings. Two of Manuel’s nieces married successive Kings of Jerusalem (Theodora married Baldwin III in 1158 and Maria married Amalric I in 1167), and Manuel himself married Maria, the daughter of the Prince of Antioch in 1161. 

One can see these marriages as a conscious attempt to civilize and subtly influence policy in Western courts, but Manuel was also willing to ransom prominent crusader lords languishing in Muslim captivity. Ransoming prominent prisoners created ties of gratitude, while also serving as public relations gestures that earned respect and admiration from the public at large. Thus, Manuel ransomed even his archenemy Reynald de Châtillon, as well as Bohemond III of Antioch and paid a king’s ransom (literally) for Baldwin d’Ibelin, the Baron of Ramla and Mirabel. Yet without doubt the most important feature of Manuel’s co-operative policies with the crusader states were a series of joint military operations. These included action against Nur ad-Din in 1158-59, an invasion of Egypt in 1167-68, and a joint siege of Damietta 1169.   

The Frankish-Byzantine invasion of Egypt in 1167-68 was only one in a series of five military interventions in Egypt undertaken by King Amalric between 1163 and his death in 1174. The key characteristics of these operations were their opportunistic and the geopolitical character. Amalric’s interventions in Egypt had nothing whatever to do with ‘crusading.’ Nor were they in any way racist or religious much less genocidal. In all campaigns, Amalric was operating exactly like his Muslim (and Christian) neighbors in seeking geo-political and economic benefits. Ideology, not to mention idealism, was completely lacking. 

Since the capture of Ascalon in 1153, the Fatimids had been paying ‘tribute’ to the Kings of Jerusalem, but the Fatimid state was rotting from the inside as two competing viziers, Dirgham and Shawar, intrigued against one another for power. Inevitably, the tribute disappeared into someone’s purse or was used for other purposes providing a pretext for a Frankish invasion in 1163. Amalric’s invasion force came within 35 miles of Cairo before the acting vizier Dirgham, panicked, agreed to an even larger ‘tribute,’ and Amalric withdrew. Unfortunately, the success of this campaign appears to have whet Amalric’s appetite for more. Egypt was fabulously wealthy, and the ruling Shia elite was not particularly popular with the majority Sunni population or the Coptic Christians, who still formed a significant minority. Amalric smelled blood. 

Meanwhile, however, Dirgham’s rival Shawar had fled to Damascus and appealed to Nur al-Din for assistance. Nur al-Din sent one of his most reliable emirs, a Kurd by the name of Asad al-Din Shirkuh. Despite initial setbacks, Seljuk-backed Shawar was able to kill Frankish-backed Dirgham, only to discover that his ‘protector’ (Shirkuh) was intent on replacing him.  Shawar immediately turned to the Franks for help. He offered Amalric payments greater than what Dirgham had paid to keep the Franks out, if the Franks would come in to fight his battles for him. In April 1164 Amalric obliged by returning to Egypt with an army. He rapidly put Shirkuh on the defensive, besieging him at Bilbies.  But Nur al-Din countered by attacking Antioch. In the Battle of Artah on 10 August 1164, Nur al-Din decisively defeated a combined Frankish-Byzantine army, taking Bohemond III of Antioch, Raymond III of Tripoli, the Byzantine Dux Coloman, and Hugh VIII de Lusignan captive — effectively decapitating the entire Christian leadership in the northern crusader states. Once again, a catastrophe in the north undermined successes in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Amalric was forced to negotiate a truce in Egypt in order to address the situation in the north. Both the Franks and the Damascenes withdrew from Egypt, restoring the status quo ante. 

Three years later, Nur al-Din made a renewed attempt to seize control of Egypt, and Shawar again turned to the Franks. Amalric initially enjoyed astonishing successes, aided by an Egyptian population that blamed the invading Turks/Kurds for their misery. He succeeded in capturing Alexandria, briefly taking Shirkuh’s nephew Salah al-Din — better known in the West as Saladin — captive, but he then accepted terms. The Turks withdrew and the Egyptians agreed to pay an even larger annual tribute (100,000 gold dinars) for Frankish ‘protection.’ 

Amalric let his three-fold success delude him into thinking more was possible. He appears to have envisaged a powerful kingdom controlling the Nile as well as the Eastern Mediterranean. It was an alluring illusion. The capture of Egypt would have made the Kingdom of Jerusalem a major Mediterranean power — and a majority Muslim state. No King of Jerusalem and Egypt could have retained the mantle of ‘Protector of the Holy Sepulcher,’ and a Christian ruling elite in Egypt would sooner or later have become as unpopular as the Shia Fatimids. 

However, Amalric, the Hospitallers, and the Italian city-states were mesmerized by the wealth of Egypt. While Manuel I of Constantinople was probably more realistic, he had little to lose and much to gain if Christian control could be extended. Egypt had, after all, once been a component part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Manuel therefore sent a substantial fleet including impressive horse transports. 

In Jerusalem, however, significant opposition to yet another invasion of Egypt surfaced. An attack constituted a violation of the agreement with Shawar, and the Templars warned King Amalric not to make the mistake of the Second Crusade: attacking an ally and creating a new enemy. The Templars refused to take part in the invasion of 1168. William of Tyre likewise expressed the views of other clerics that warned a violation of the treaty with Shawar would displease God. The militants triumphed and the invasion went ahead. 

Again, the Franks met with initial successes, taking Bilbais in three days and engaging in an orgy of plunder and murder without discriminating between Muslims or Coptic Christians; this atrocity turned the Copts against the Franks for years to come. Meanwhile, betrayed by his former friends the Franks, Shawar turned to his old enemy Nur al-Din. Meanwhile, the Franks advanced on Cairo. Shawar set fire to the old city to stop the Frankish advance, and then started bribing Amalric again. By then, however, Shirkuh had arrived with his Kurdish/Turkish Sunni army. This now threatened Amalric’s rear. The Franks chose to withdraw — all the way to Jerusalem. The Byzantine fleet likewise headed for home, only to run into storms which destroyed much of it. The campaign had become a fiasco. 

Yet far more fateful, this blatant violation of international law triggered a regime change in Cairo. Shirkuh had rescued Shawar from the Franks, but Shawar had no credibility left.  Within days of his arrival, the Kurdish emir had the Egyptian vizier murdered. The Sunni Shirkuh made himself vizier of Shia Egypt. Two months later, Shirkuh too was dead, apparently of over-eating. His successor was his nephew Saladin, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem would never be the same again.

---

[i] William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, translated by Emily Atwater Babcock and A. C. Krey [New York: Octagon Books, 1976] Book XIV, Chapter 18, 76.

[ii] Ellenblum, 164.

 

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

Order now!

 

Dr. Helena P. Schrader is also 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. 

Find out more at: https://helenapschrader.net/the-english-templar/

 

"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.

Buy Now!

 

 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)