COPYRIGHT

All content on this blog is protected by copyright.
Content used elsewhere without attribution constitutes theft of intellectual property and will be prosecuted.
Showing posts with label Balian d'Ibelin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balian d'Ibelin. Show all posts

Saturday, September 27, 2025

The Third Crusade - Part II

The fall of Acre and the withdrawal of Philip II of France brought the Third Crusade to a new stage -- one dominated by the English King Richard I. 


On August 22, 1191 a crusader army composed of roughly 20,000 fighting men of which 1,200 were knights set out from Acre along the coastal road heading for Jerusalem via Jaffa under the overall command of Richard of England. Although the crusaders were marching through what had been the heart of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the region had been overrun by Saladin’s forces four years earlier and the inhabitants had been slaughtered, enslaved or driven off. No Saracen settlers had been sent to replace them. The fields lay fallow, the gardens left to go to seed, and the vineyards had been broken down. In short, the army was dependent on provisioning by sea. On the other hand, the horses had ample pasturage and water was plentiful since wells and aqueducts were still functioning. Furthermore, the fleet sailed down the coast keeping pace with the army, carrying food, fodder, supplies, munitions and also offering medical facilities for the wounded.  

The latter was important because the Sultan’s forces controlled the interior and could move and deploy at will. This meant that the crusaders had to advance in battle formation, prepared to fight every foot of the way. Richard adopted the standard tactic of the Franks, the ‘fighting box,’ anchoring his formation on the sea, placing his baggage immediately beside the coast, the knights east/left of the baggage and the infantry on the landward flank of the formation, where they could protect the vulnerable horses. The entire formation advanced at the pace of the infantry.

Richard’s objective was to reach Jaffa, where he hoped to establish a defensible stronghold for the assault on Jerusalem. He had no interest in a full-scale battle with Saladin. Saladin, on the other hand, needed to avenge the slain of Acre and prevent the Franks from gaining control of another coastal city where they could entrench themselves. He wanted to engage the Franks while they were in the open so he could bring his superior numbers to bear. His reputation was at stake.

Richard maintained rigid discipline throughout the march, and despite daily provocation and harassment by Turkish mounted archers, the army made slow but steady progress down the coast. Arab sources report that the Franks kept marching despite having as many as ten arrows embedded in their shields or armor. The Franks, furthermore, had enough troops to regularly rotate between the exposed Eastern flank and the protected Western flank. They passed through the ruins of Caesarea 1 September 1191 and were a day’s march from Arsuf six days later.

On September 7, however, Saracen forces massed in such numbers that the crusaders knew they were about to face the onslaught. Richard gave strict orders for the knights not to charge the enemy unless he had personally given the order; his order was to be communicated by trumpet signals. The Sultan, commanding an army roughly twice that of the crusaders, ordered the attack at 9 am, after the Franks had been marching for several hours in the summer heat. He ordered massed infantry attacks for the first time, which pressed in to engage the crusader infantry, inflicting significant casualties. However, these failed to halt the advance.

By noon, the leading crusader units had reached the well-watered orchards north of Arsuf. The Saracens began focusing their attacks on the rearguard formed by the Hospitallers. Casualties among the horses mounted dangerously, and the Master of the Hospital rode forward to Richard requesting permission to attack before all his horses were slaughtered. Richard refused. Returning to the rear, the Master found that his men were pressed so hard that they were marching backwards. Again, the Master rode forward to beg Richard for permission to launch a counterattack. Richard again said ‘no’.

Before the Hospitaller Master could return to the rearguard, the Marshal of the Hospital broke out of the line with the cry of ‘St. George’, lead a Hospitaller charge. This was rapidly reinforced by the knights of Champagne, marching immediately beside the Hospitallers. Richard sounded the trumpet signal, and along the entire line the infantry stepped aside to allow the knights through the infantry screen.

The pro-Richard Itinerarium (and many modern commentators) make much of the fact that the attack was not initiated by Richard and suggest that it was somehow ‘mistimed’ as a result. The eye-witness account of Baha al-Din, on the other hand, describes the Frankish charge as ‘simultaneous’ — showing just how rapidly the Hospitallers had been reinforced — and also calling it superbly timed and well-coordinated. Certainly, claims that Richard might have won a decisive victory here are misleading. With the Saracens in control of the interior of the country, there was no way to pin them down and annihilate them. The only army that might have been annihilated in this engagement was Richard’s since he had his back to the sea.

Significantly, at the moment of the Hospitaller attack many mounted Turkish archers had dismounted to improve their aim. Apparently, after two weeks of failing to provoke a charge, they assumed the Franks would not charge. Equally important, Richard was with the van. In any battle, there are moments with a junior commander close to the action senses opportunity that a distant senior commander cannot. The fact that the charge was initiated by the experienced and disciplined Hospitaller marshal, not some rash young crusader, suggests a rational decision based on calculated risks. The marshal didn’t have time to send to Richard for permission — and did not want to risk another ‘no’ either. He made a command decision, hoping and expecting to be reinforced. His instincts proved correct.

The Hospitaller charge, rapidly reinforced by the rest of the cavalry, achieved the maximum results possible in the situation. While Frankish/crusader casualties were light, the knights inflicted bruising casualties on the enemy that seriously wounded Saracen morale. Ibn Shaddad, who personally fought in the battle, speaks of a ‘complete rout’, while Ibn al-Athir says the Sultan’s forces came close to being destroyed.  Most important, Saladin’s aura of invincibility acquired at Hattin was shattered. Respect for Frankish military potency was restored. Although Saladin successfully rallied his troops, the crusaders were able to complete the rest of their march to Jaffa without significant opposition. Thereafter, Saladin avoided all direct military confrontation with Richard the Lionhearted.

At Jaffa, Richard focused on rebuilding the broken defensive infrastructure of the city and along the route to Jerusalem. While this made strategic sense and testifies to Richard’s grasp of the essential requirements of a successful campaign, it was slow work. Unsurprisingly, Richard made his first diplomatic overtures to Saladin during this time. Like any good general, Richard recognized that it would be madness to fight, if he could obtain his objectives through negotiations.

The political objectives of the Third Crusade were crystal clear: the restoration of Christian rule over the Holy Land. The later was defined roughly as the land in which Christ had lived and died, most especially the site of his execution, burial and resurrection: Jerusalem. Saladin’s political objective was to defend the status quo: Muslim control over the territory coveted by the crusaders. There was no common ground between these two positions. As long as both sides believed they could win, the pressure for compromise was insufficient to allow for a diplomatic solution.

Richard’s problem was that time was running out. The autumn rains had started, and since Saladin burned and destroyed as he retreated toward Jerusalem, the crusaders were camping out in the open. More important, Saladin was known to have garrisoned Jerusalem strongly, yet still had the resources to maintain a substantial field army. Any attempt to besiege Jerusalem exposed the crusaders to the risk of between trapped between these two forces. Furthermore, victory was nearly as dangerous as defeat because the crusaders did not have enough men to prevent Saladin’s army from severing their lines of communication and supply to the sea. Such circumstances induced the Templars, Hospitallers and local barons to advise against an assault or siege. In an assembly of all crusaders, their reasoning persuaded a majority to vote for withdrawal to the coast. Yet this decision shattered the morale and cohesion of the army.

The crusade had been called and men had taken the cross in order to recapture Jerusalem. If that goal was unobtainable, why stay? From this point on, the bickering between factions became pronounced. Large numbers of men drifted back to ‘the flesh pots’ of Acre, while the French increasingly refused to recognize Richard’s leadership.

With what troops he had, Richard re-occupied Ascalon and rebuilt the defences there. By summer, however, popular pressure forced Richard to make a second approach on Jerusalem — with the same result. Meanwhile, Richard had learned that his brother was trying to usurp the English crown with the help of Philip II. Richard realized he must return home. His objective in the Holy Land switched to leaving the Kingdom of Jerusalem in a defensible state. Richard identified the recapture Sidon and Beirut to establish continuous Frankish control of the coast from Jaffa to Latakia as the most strategic use of available resources.

Before he could carry out his plan, however, Saladin struck.  At the end of July 1192, word reached Richard that Jaffa was under attack. With his household of just fifty-five knights and roughly 2,000 Italian archers, Richard sailed in a half-dozen ships in an attempt to stiffen garrison morale long enough for a larger force under the command of the King of Jerusalem to advance down the coastal road to Jaffa’s relief. On arrival, Saracen banners flew from the towers of the town, and Richard thought he’d come too late — until a swimmer flung himself from the citadel into the water and swam out to inform Richard that the citadel was still in Frankish hands. Richard immediately ordered his ships to beach themselves on the shore and, despite thousands of Saracen troops camped at the base of the city walls, Richard led an amphibious assault. The King of England was the first to go ashore with a weapon in each hand. He fought his way through the Saracens on the beach to an unlocked (!) postern gate and led his small force into the city. Within hours, his men had control of the city; the enemy had been too busy celebrating their victory and sleeping off their excesses to realize what hit them.

The ease of this victory is best explained by the fact that Saladin with most of his cavalry was elsewhere. On learning of Richard’s arrival in Jaffa, Saladin returned and at dawn on 5 August attacked Richard’s meager troops. These were camping in front of the city because no one had yet had the time to clear away the corpses (of both sides) rotting inside. Nearly caught off-guard, Richard’s men defended themselves, some of them half-naked, kneeling behind their shields, while the crossbowmen took turns firing. Eventually a dozen nags were rounded up, and Richard led a ‘charge’ of twelve knights against the thousands of horsemen in Saladin’s surrounding army. This astonishing feat is described by the Arab chronicler Baha al-Din based on eye-witness reports. He writes: ‘It was reported to me that the King of England took his lance that day and galloped from the far right wing to the far left and nobody challenged him. The Sultan was enraged, turned his back on the fighting and went to Yazur in high dudgeon.’[i]

Saladin’s abortive attempt to retake Jaffa proved to be the diplomatic turning point. Within less than a month, on 2 September, Richard and Saladin signed a three-year and eight-month truce. Neither side was content with the results. Both remained committed to continuing the fight. Yet both sides had reached the end of their resources for the moment. Imad al-Din, eloquent as always, puts the following words into the mouth of Saladin’s advisors: ‘Look too at the state of the country, ruined and trampled underfoot, at your subjects, beaten down and confused, at your armies, exhausted and sick, at your horses, neglected and ruined. … If they fail to get their truce they will devote all their energies to strengthening and consolidating their position; they will face death with high courage … and for love of their Faith will refuse to submit to humiliation.… During peacetime we shall prepare for war and shall renew the means of striking a blow with point and blade.’[ii] Baha al-Din notes that when the Frankish lords Humphrey of Toron and Balian d’Ibelin went to the Sultan’s camp to conclude the truce they were ‘received with great honor and respect’ adding ‘Both sides were overwhelmed with such joy and delight as only God can measure.’[iii]

As pilgrims had always done, the men of the Third Crusade returned to the West. Richard of Lionheart was one of the last to depart, taking ship on 10 October. He left behind a fragile and vulnerable kingdom that hardly seemed likely to survive beyond the end of the truce. In fact, it lasted ninety-nine years.



[i] Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin translated by D.S. Richards. [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002] 225-226.

[ii] Imad ad-Din. The Conquest of the Holy City. Translated by Francesco Gabrieli in Arab Historians of the Crusades. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957] 234.

[iii] Baha al-Din Ibn Shaddad. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin translated by D.S. Richards. [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002] 28.

 

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

 
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!

"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)

 

 

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)