No More Learning

The establishment of the Franks in Palestine had opened
a new field to the commercial enterprise of the Italian merchants, whose
support was not less helpful to the prosperity of the new realm than the
conflicting interests which they introduced were to prove baneful at a
later time. Nor was it only the trader who was attracted Eastwards. The
spirit of adventure or the zeal for religion brought a steady stream of
reinforcements. “God," wrote Fulcher of Chartres, “has poured the West
into the East; we have forgotten our native soil and become Easterners. ”
Those who stayed settled down to become a source of strength; others
who had come but as soldier-pilgrims were sometimes a source of em-
barrassment, eager to provoke the conflict which was the reason of their
coming, reluctant to accept the advice and authority of the lords of the
land. Nevertheless it was due to the zeal of these religious adventurers
that the great Military Orders, which were to become the mainstay of
the Christians in the East, were established.
There had been a Hospital of St John at Jerusalem for the aid of
sick and poor pilgrims since the early years of the eleventh century.
Gerard, who was its Master at the time of the First Crusade, was called
the devoted servant of the poor; but it was not until after his death that
the Order became a military body. The idea of a body of knights sworn
to the service of the Cross was first conceived by Hugh de Payen, who in
20
C. MED, H. VOL. V. CH. VIII.


## p. 306 (#352) ############################################

306
The Military Orders
the reign of Baldwin I joined with eight other knights in the task of
protecting pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem. They were already under
the triple vows of chastity, obedience, and poverty, like regular canons,
but it was only when Baldwin II in the first year of his reign gave
them
a dwelling near the Temple of Solomon that they came to be known as
the Knights of the Temple. A little later under Raymond du Puy a
similar organisation was adopted for the Hospital of St John. The two
Orders thus established grew rapidly in wealth and power, and acquired
great possessions in Palestine and the West. Already in the reign of
Fulk they had begun to be an important element in the military strength
of the kingdom, and a generation later the Hospitallers furnished
Amaury I with five hundred knights for his Egyptian campaign, and
William of Tyre says that in his time the Templars numbered three
hundred knights. Wealth and power brought abuses in their train. Even
in the twelfth century the pretensions of the two Orders began to be
troublesome, and the Templars in particular won an evil name for avarice
and arrogance. At a later date the rivalry of the two great Orders became
a serious danger. But in their prime they were an efficient military or-
ganisation, whilst the wealth, which enabled them to maintain a steady
flow of reinforcements from the West, gave them always an advantage
over the native lords of the land. The minor Orders, like the Teutonic
Knights, the Knights of St Thomas of Acre, and the Knights of the
Holy Ghost, did not grow up till much later.
The success of the early crusaders was, however, due more to the
division of their enemies than to their own valour. It was during the
confusion and civil war that followed on the death of the great Seljūq
Sultan Malik Shāh in 1092, that the First Crusade was launched. No
moment could have been more auspicious, and a generation was to pass
before the Muslim power was again to be gathered in a single hand.
Nevertheless the Frankish conquest was far from complete. Even within
the limits of the actual kingdom and its subordinate principalities it was
little more than the armed occupation of a land where the old inhabitants
still formed the bulk of the population, at all events in the rural districts.
Nor was the occupation, such as it was, ever carried far enough to make
the conquest secure; Damascus, Emesa (Hims), Hamāh, and Aleppo
were still under the rule of Muslim princes, and there was but a small
part of the Christian territory that was beyond the reach of a sudden
raid. So long, however, as these cities remained under separate rulers,
the Franks also might carry their own raids far and wide, and the balance
of success rested with them. The man who was to find a remedy by
restoring unity amongst the Musulmans was 'Imād-ad-Din Zangi, who
became Atābeg of Mosul in 1127.
Zangi's first aim was to establish his rule in Muslim Syria, and within
three years he made himself master of Hamāh and Aleppo. He was
more intent upon the consolidation of Musulman power than on active


## p. 307 (#353) ############################################

The Second Crusade
307
conquest from the Franks, and though in 1135–6 he made a successful
campaign against Antioch, the conquest of Edessa, which he achieved
near the close of his career, does not appear to have been an essential aim
of his policy. Joscelin of Edessa had been a restless fighter, whose name
was a terror in all Musulman lands. So long as he lived, Edessa was
a strong outpost of the Christians in the most dangerous quarter. His
death in 1131 coincided with the rise of Zangi. His son Joscelin II,
though a valiant soldier when he chose, preferred a life of ease to the
hardship of frontier warfare. So he left Edessa to the care of unwarlike
Armenians and ill-paid mercenaries, and withdrew to the luxurious comfort
of his Syrian lordship at Tell-Bāshir. For a time Zangi was busy with
the attempted conquest of Damascus, which Muʻīn-ad-Dīn Anar, its ruler,
defeated by making common cause with the Franks. When, however, Zangi
turned his attention northwards, Edessa fell an easy prey (25 December
1144). To the Muslims it was “the conquest of conquests,” and the
first step to the destruction of the Franks. Zangī did not long survive
his victory; for within two years he was murdered by some of his own
Mamlūks. The work which he had begun was continued by his son Nūr-
ad-Dīn, who in 1150 captured Tell-Bāshir and in 1154 by the conquest of
Damascus brought all the Musulman cities of Syria under a single ruler.
In Western Europe the fall of Edessa was recognised as a disaster
which threatened the very existence of the Frankish conquest. St Bernard
of Clairvaux came forward as the apostle of the Second Crusade, and at
his bidding Conrad of Germany and Louis VI of France both took the
Cross. Conrad and Louis started independently on their long journey by
land in the spring of 1147. Both met with utter disaster in Asia Minor,
and it was by sea that the remnant of their hosts reached Syria a year
later. Louis went first to Antioch, where Raymond would fain have
diverted him to a war against Nūr-ad-Dīn in the north, which was indeed
the most dangerous quarter. Conrad had already reached Acre, and when
the whole host was at length assembled it was resolved to make the capture
of Damascus the object of the war. A siege was begun with good prospect
of success. But between the Syrian Franks and their Western allies there
were bitter jealousies of which the Saracen emir was quick to take ad-
vantage. By specious argument and perhaps by bribes he worked on the
Easterners so effectually that the enterprise was abandoned. Conrad
presently went home in disgust, and though Louis stayed a little longer
he could effect nothing.
To Western Europe the fiasco of the Second Crusade was a keen
humiliation. St Bernard found in it “an abyss so deep that I must call
him blessed who is not scandalised thereby. ” To the Syrian Franks the
Crusade had brought no advantage; it had done little to check the growth
of Muslim power, but had rather tended to throw Damascus into the
arms of Nūr-ad-Din. Amongst the Christians themselves it had sown
the seed of dissension which was to bear bitter fruit.
1
CH. VIII.
20-2


## p. 308 (#354) ############################################

308
Nūr-ad-Dīn and Amaury I
However, for some years to come Nūr-ad-Din was busy with the
establishment of his authority in Muslim lands. Meantime the Franks,
under the vigorous rule of Baldwin III (1144-1163) and Amaury I
(1163-1174), were able to maintain at least the semblance of power.
Baldwin III was a boy of thirteen at the time of his father's death, and
ruled conjointly with his mother till 1152. The first year of his sole reign
was marked by the capture of Ascalon, which for fifty years had been an
open sore in the side of the Franks towards Egypt. Four years later he
attempted to recover Caesarea on the Orontes, which had been lately
taken by Nūr-ad-Dīn. This enterprise, in which Baldwin was assisted by
his brother-in-law Theodoric (Thierry) of Flanders, was likely to have
proved successful. But Theodoric and Reginald of Chatillon, whom
Constance of Antioch had taken for her second husband, both laid claim
to the unconquered town; their rivalry led to such hot dissension
amongst the crusaders that they abandoned the siege altogether. Bald-
win III was more than a mere soldier; he had a high repute for his
familiarity with the customary law of his realm, and more than a little
of that literary culture which seems to have been a common characteristic
of the Frankish nobility. He had sought to strengthen his position by
a marriage with the sister of Manuel Comnenus, the Emperor of Con-
stantinople, but at his death in 1163 he left no children and was
succeeded by his brother Amaury I.
In Syria Nūr-ad-Din at Damascus and Amaury at Jerusalem now
stood face to face as leaders of the rival races. It was becoming clear
that the victory would rest with the one who could make himself master
of Egypt. The Fāțimite Caliphs at Cairo had sunk to be the puppets of
their viziers. In January 1163 the vizier Shāwar was expelled by a rival
called Dirghām, and fled for aid to Nūr-ad-Dīn. Dirghām unwisely refused
to pay the tribute which for some years past had been rendered by Egypt
to the King of Jerusalem. Thereupon Amaury made war and defeated
Dirghām in battle; but, when the vizier flooded Egypt by breaking the
dams of the Nile, he was forced to retire on some sort of composition.
Nūr-ad-Dīn perceived his opportunity, and in 1164 sent Shāwar back to
Egypt with an army under Shīrkūh, the uncle of Saladin. Too late
Dirghăm sought a reconciliation with Amaury. Shāwar, however, soon
found his tutelage irksome, and in his turn called in the Frankish king.
Amaury invaded Egypt in 1167, and was so far successful that a treaty
was made under which the Saracens withdrew their army. Next year
Amaury was persuaded against his own judgment to break the peace and
again invade Egypt. As the king had foreseen, this act threw Shāwar
once more into the arms of Nūr-ad-Dīn, and the return of Shīrkūh forced
the Franks to retire from before Cairo. Shīrkūh soon found an excuse to
put Shāwar to death, and became vizier in his place. After only three
months he died and was succeeded by Saladin. A renewed attempt by
Amaury, with the aid of the Emperor Manuel, to capture Damietta in


## p. 309 (#355) ############################################

Factions among the Franks
309
the autumn of 1169 ended in disaster. Thus was the conquest of Egypt
for Nūr-ad-Dīn accomplished by the man who was destined to complete
his work in Syria.
Nūr-ad-Dīn and Amaury both died in the summer of 1174. The sons
of both-Baldwin IV at Jerusalem, and Sāliḥ at Damascus—were mere
boys. It was not long before Saladin displaced his master's heir, and with
Syria and Egypt in the hands of the same ruler the Franks were between
the nether and the upper millstone. In Saladin the Muslims had ob-
tained a great leader, whose single purpose was the recovery of Jerusalem.
But amongst the Christians there was no one with enough authority to
repress the mutual jealousies which spoiled all their endeavours. It was
only after some dispute that Raymond III of Tripolis (1152-1187) was
chosen to be guardian of the kingdom, and as long as he held the position
he was hampered by the disputes of rival factions. The troubles of the
reign were increased by the fact that Baldwin was a leper, whose disease
before his death had crippled him altogether. Baldwin had two sisters:
Sibylla, who was married in 1176 to William of Montferrat but lost her
first husband within a year; and Isabella, who in 1183 became the wife
of Henfrid IV of Toron. The prospect of the king's early death made
the marriages of Sibylla and Isabella the sport of political intrigue, in
which the chief opposing parties were the lords of the land and the soldiers
of fortune from the West. These disputes were to be the undoing of the
kingdom.
Baldwin IV in early manhood was able to take an active part in the
war. A disastrous defeat in 1179 made the Franks welcome a two years'
truce. When it expired, they had a further brief respite whilst Saladin
was busy beyond the Euphrates. Meantime another husband had been
found for Sibylla in the person of Guy de Lusignan. Guy was a foreigner,
and when in 1183 Baldwin made him his lieutenant the native lords refused
to obey one whom they despised as a man “unknown and of little skill
in war. ” The jealousies were so bitter that an attempt was made to obtain
another solution by crowning Sibylla's little son by her first husband as
Baldwin V. The native party then obtained the reappointment of Raymond
as regent, whilst Guy withdrew in dudgeon to his county of Ascalon.
Guy was supported by the aliens or Western adventurers like Reginald
of Chatillon (now lord of Karak), and by the Knights of the Temple and
the Hospital. With them the one idea of policy was war, but the native
lords, who had more at stake and had acquired the habits and ideas of the
East, were not unwilling to make terms with their Muslim neighbours.
When Baldwin IV died in 1185, Raymond as regent at once concluded a
four years' truce with Saladin. But the death of the child-king Baldwin V
next year gave his opponents their opportunity.
Gerard de Rideford, a French knight who had recently become Master
of the Temple, had a personal feud with Raymond of Tripolis. He now
conspired successfully to secure the crown for Sibylla and her husband.
CH. VIII.


## p. 310 (#356) ############################################

310
The fall of Jerusalem
The opposite party made an attempt to put forward Henfrid of Toron
as a rival candidate. But Henfrid was unwilling, and the majority of the
Frankish lords then accepted Guy as king. Raymond, however, withdrew
to Tripolis, whilst others held aloof, and it was with difficulty that the
outbreak of civil war was prevented. Raymond is alleged to have intrigued
with Saladin. It is more certain that Reginald of Chatillon provoked war
by a flagrant breach of the truce. On 1 May 1187 a Saracen force crossed
the Jordan, and taking the Christians by surprise inflicted a disastrous
defeat on the Templars and Hospitallers at Nazareth. For a moment all
feuds were hushed and Raymond gave Guy his whole support. Under the
influence of Gerard de Rideford, Guy nevertheless rejected the cautious
advice of Count Raymond, and on 4 July was compelled to give battle at
Hittīn on unfavourable terms. That day saw the virtual destruction of
the kingdom of Jerusalem. Guy, with many other of the leaders, was
taken prisoner. Raymond escaped from the battle only to die of despair
a few days later. Of the chief lords there was none alive and free save
Balian of Ibelin. One after another the towns and fortresses of the kingdom
fell into the hands of the Saracens. Jerusalem was taken by Saladin on
2 October 1187, and within a few months Tyre was the only place of
importance in the kingdom that remained in the hands of the Christians.
The fall of Jerusalem stirred every heart in Western Europe, and
provoked the Third Crusade. All the great princes in turn took the
Cross, but the Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, was the first to take the
field in May 1189. Marching overland, the German host met with the
usual difficulties and delays that attended that route. Frederick himself
was accidentally drowned in Cilicia, and it was not till late in 1190 that
the remainder of his army reached Syria.
Guy de Lusignan had obtained his freedom in July 1188, and during
the next few months gathered a little army at Antioch, with which in
the spring of 1189 he marched south to Tyre. But Conrad of Montferrat
(brother of Sibylla's first husband), who held the city, would not admit
him. Guy was, however, gradually reinforced by the arrival of knights
and soldiers from the West, and in August felt himself strong enough to
undertake the siege of Acre. The crusading army continued to grow in
numbers, and secured some successes, but could not establish a complete
investment. Presently they were themselves invested by a Saracen army,
and though food grew scarce within the town the condition of the Christians
in their camp was little better. This double siege had lasted eighteen
months before Philip of France arrived, and it was not till 8 June 1191
that Richard of England (who had tarried to conquer Cyprus) appeared.
Acre was then on the point of falling, and on 12 July the Christians
recovered the city, which had of late years almost supplanted Jerusalem
as the royal residence, and was the most important port of Palestine.
Quicker progress might have been made before Acre had it not been
for the continued feuds of the crusading leaders. Sibylla had died, leaving


## p. 311 (#357) ############################################

The Third Crusade
311
no children, at the end of 1190. Thereupon the native party induced Isabella
to consent to a divorce from Henfrid of Toron and to a marriage with
Conrad of Montferrat. Guy on his part was naturally unwilling to resign
the crown. He appealed to Richard of England, whilst Conrad obtained
the support of Philip Augustus. Eventually, after the fall of Acre a
compromise was effected, by which Guy retained the title for life, whilst
the succession was secured to Conrad. It was a misfortune for the Christians
that their two chief leaders should have taken opposite sides in this quarrel.
It helped to revive the national rivalry of the French and English, at a
time when the personal dissensions of Philip and Richard were already
threatening to wreck the Crusade. “The two kings and peoples," wrote
an English chronicler, “did less together than they would have done
apart, and each set but light store by the other. "
Richard was at his best as a crusader with his whole heart in the war.
Philip remained the unscrupulous intriguer intent on his own gain. Soon
after the fall of Acre the French king found an excuse to go home, though
he left part of his followers behind under Hugh, Duke of Burgundy.
Richard had now at all events the advantage that there was no one to
dispute his place as the foremost leader of the Crusade. In August he
marched south, inflicted a severe defeat on Saladin at Arsūf on 7 September,
secured Jaffa, and at the end of the year advanced to within twelve miles
of Jerusalem. But he was forced to fall back to the coast, where he busied
himself with the restoration of Ascalon. The old feuds had broken out
with new violence. Most of the French left the army and went back to
Acre, where they found open discord between the supporters of Guy and
Conrad. The Pisans were in arms for Guy, and the Genoese for Conrad.
The French joined forces with the latter, and the English king was com-
pelled to intervene. Richard consented reluctantly to acknowledge
Conrad, whilst he consoled Guy with the gift of Cyprus. A month later,
in April 1192, Conrad was murdered, and his party then chose Henry of
Champagne as king and husband of the widowed Isabella. Henry of
Champagne had the fortune to be Richard's own nephew, and this choice
restored at least the appearance of unity. In the summer the crusaders
again advanced to Bait Nūbah, twelve miles from Jerusalem. A bold dash
might have recovered the Holy City, but cautious counsels prevailed.
Other successes, however, followed, and Saladin began to incline to peace.
Richard also was now anxious to return home, and, after a brilliant
victory over the Saracens before Jaffa on 5 August, consented to a three
years' truce.
Under the truce the Christians secured a narrow strip of coast from
Ascalon to Acre with the right of access to the Holy City. Such a result
was entirely out of proportion to the greatness of the effort put forward,
or to the halo of glory with which romance has invested the Third
Crusade. If we would seek the causes of this failure we should find them
in the personal enmities of the great princes, the national rivalries of their
CH. VIII.


## p. 312 (#358) ############################################

312
The Franks in Syria
followers, and the mutual jealousies of the native lords. That the Third
Crusade was not in fact and in history such a fiasco as the Second was
due mainly to the personal greatness of the two chief actors : to Richard
as the whole-hearted champion of the Cross, and to Saladin as the
pre-eminently wise and just restorer of Muslim power. “Were each,”
said Hubert Walter, “endowed with the virtues of the other, the whole
world could not furnish such a pair of princes. ” The great Saladin died
within a few months, in February 1193, and Richard returned to a troubled
kingdom and an early grave in the West.
The loss of Jerusalem and the failure of the Third Crusade marked
the end of the kingdom as an organised state. Here then we may stop
to consider briefly the social life of the Franks in Syria. Outwardly, at
all events, the Frankish nobles lived much the same life as their con-
temporaries in the West, with like pursuits and like ideals. The great
lords dwelt on their fiefs in their castles, the finest of which, like
Karak, şāḥyūn, Krak des Chevaliers, and Markab (the two last belonged
to the Hospitallers), were amongst the most splendid monuments of
medieval military architecture. But in later days many of them had
also their palaces in such towns as Antioch, Tripolis, and Acre. In the
second generation most of the Franks had adopted the luxuries, manners,
and even the dress of the East. The dwellers in the land established in
the intervals of peace friendly relations with their Musulman neigh-
bours, and this association led not only to a change in habits but to
a wider culture. This difference of mental attitude contributed almost
as much as difference of interest to keep the native lords apart from the
Western soldiers and adventurers who had no personal ties in the East.
But the aristocracy of knights and nobles did not stand alone; there was
a large class of burgesses, many of them the offspring of marriages with
Syrian women and known as Pullani; they, even more than their rulers,
had adopted luxurious habits and, with the growth of commercial interests,
had lost their zeal for the war. Amongst the knights there was a class of
mere adventurers like Reginald of Chatillon, whose predatory instincts
made them a bane to the older settlers. But a worse class were the men
of lower rank who had gone on the Crusade to escape the consequences
of their crimes and in the East reverted to their evil ways. During the
whole period of the kingdom these wastrels were a constant source of
danger. Far otherwise were the foreign merchants, “a folk very necessary
to the Holy Land. ” It has been remarked before how closely commerce
and military enterprise were interwoven in Frankish Syria. The foreign
trade was almost entirely in the hands of the Italians, and above all of
the Genoese, Pisans, and Venetians. All of them had rendered good service
in the early days of the kingdom, and all of them had been rewarded with
privileges and their special quarters in the towns; hence they acquired a
political influence which was to bear evil fruit. From the first there was
much commercial rivalry between them, and from the Third Crusade


## p. 313 (#359) ############################################

The ecclesiastical hierarchy
313
1
onwards, when the power of the nobles had become less and the impor-
tance of the merchants greater, their dissensions were a potent factor in
the final downfall of the kingdom. In these ill-assorted strata of separate
classes there was little material for a unified nation, and it must not be
forgotten that the great mass of the agricultural population still consisted
of the ancient inhabitants. The fatal lack of unity was not the least of
the causes which prevented the permanence of the Frank colonies.
Of the ecclesiastical hierarchy nothing has yet been said. Under the
two Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch there were eight archbishops
and sixteen bishops, with numerous abbeys and priories of the Latin rite.
If there was more culture amongst the laymen in the East than amongst
their kinsmen in the West, much of the work of actual administration
rested in the East as in the West on ecclesiastics. The Patriarch Daimbert,
at the time of the election of Baldwin I, put forward pretensions of the
loftiest character, which, if they could have been established in their
entirety, would have made the kingdom a theocratic state.
Except for
a brief period under Baldwin II when Stephen of Chartres laid claim to
Jaffa and Jerusalem, his successors were content to work in harmony with
the king. Nevertheless the Latin Church with its privileged position and
immunities, supported by the vast wealth which it possessed not only in
Syria but in every country of the West, formed a power which was
dangerous to the unity of the kingdom. Jacques de Vitry, who was Bishop
of Acre in the thirteenth century, roundly charges the clergy of his time
with greed and avarice. But, whatever the faults of some, there were
great names amongst the churchmen of the East. William of Tyre, arch-
bishop, chancellor, and historian, was pre-eminent; whilst, amongst lesser
names, an English writer must not omit his countryman, Ralph, Bishop
of Bethlehem, who was chancellor under Baldwin III and Amaury.
After the Third Crusade the kingdom of Jerusalem was little more
than a shadow. For the most part it consisted of a narrow strip along
the coast, and such strength as it retained rested upon the possession of
the important ports from Jaffa to Beyrout, and above all of Acre. Further
north the Christians still held a more substantial territory, though
Bohemond III of Antioch, the son of Raymond and Constance, was hard
pressed by the Christian princes of Armenia. The county of Tripolis
gained strength from the presence within its borders of some of the
greatest fortresses of the Military Orders. Raymond III, at his death in
1187, left the county to his godson Raymond, son of Bohemond III.
But after the death of Bohemond III in 1201 Raymond resigned Tripolis
to his brother Bohemond IV, and henceforward the Princes of Antioch
were also Counts of Tripolis.
In the kingdom proper the native lords would have been content to
enjoy the small remnant of their former possessions, and it was against
their will, when German crusaders came to Acre in 1197, that the war
was renewed. In that same year Henry of Champagne died and his widow
CH. VII.


## p. 314 (#360) ############################################

314
John de Brienne and Frederick II
married for her fourth husband Amaury de Lusignan, who had succeeded
his brother Guy as King of Cyprus. The Lusignans ruled prosperously in
Cyprus for over three centuries, and from this time the fortunes of the
kingdom of Jerusalem were linked closely with the island. The reign of
Amaury II witnessed some recovery of territory on the mainland, and
more might have been accomplished had not the Fourth Crusade been
diverted to the conquest of Constantinople, an ill-advised enterprise which
did great injury to the Christian cause in the East. Amaury II died in
1205, and his infant son Amaury III a year later. Then the kingdom of
Jerusalem passed to Mary, Isabella's daughter by Conrad of Montferrat.
For Mary a husband was found in John de Brienne, a French knight,
who came to Acre in 1210. John, though a man of modest rank, was a
skilful soldier, whose incessant raids on Saracen territory did something to
stay the waning fortunes of his kingdom. It was in answer to John's appeal
that Innocent III in 1216 proclaimed a new crusade. In the autumn of
1217 a great host assembled at Acre. By the advice of King John it was
determined to make an expedition to Egypt by sea, and accordingly in
May 1218 the crusaders laid siege to Damietta. There they were joined
by further reinforcements from the West, including the four English Earls
of Chester, Arundel, Salisbury, and Winchester; Robert de Courçon, an
English cardinal, also came as one of the Pope's representatives, though
he died within a few weeks of his arrival. The siege lasted over a year,
and it was only on 5 November 1219 that the crusaders fought their way
into the city. This success brought the Saracens almost to despair. They
offered to surrender most of Palestine, if only Damietta were restored to
them. But the crusaders refused, in the vain hope that the Emperor
Frederick II would come to aid them in the conquest of all Egypt. After
long delay, in the summer of 1221 an advance was made towards Cairo.
Soon the crusaders found themselves in a perilous position, from which
they were glad to purchase their release at the price of the surrender of
Damietta. Well might Philip of France say that the men were daft who
for the sake of a town had refused the proffer of a kingdom.
John de Brienne had not been responsible for the folly which threw
away the fruits of the victory he had planned. In 1222 he went to Europe,
where in 1225 he found a husband for his daughter Yolande in the
Emperor Frederick II. Frederick soon quarrelled with his father-in-law,
and dispossessed him of his kingdom, which he claimed for himself in right
of his wife. He was already in the throes of his conflict with the Pope,
but in 1228 he paid a visit to the Holy Land, where by negotiations with
the Sultan Kāmil he obtained a partial surrender of Jerusalem, together
with Bethlehem and Nazareth. His enemies the Templars found a new
grudge against him, in that their great church at Jerusalem was left to
the Muslims, and Pope Gregory denounced the treaty as a concession
to Belial. Frederick's brief Crusade added only to his own troubles, and
it brought little good to his Eastern subjects. The Saracens soon broke


## p. 315 (#361) ############################################

Dissensions among the Muslims
315
the treaty, and reoccupied Jerusalem. Frederick then sent Richard
Filangieri to Palestine as his bailiff; Richard fell out with the native
lords under John of Ibelin, who called in the King of Cyprus to their
aid. After some years of strife, in 1236, when Yolande was dead, Queen
Alice' of Cyprus, who was a daughter of Henry of Champagne, persuaded
the native party to take her then husband, Ralph of Soissons, as bailiff.
When the Emperor had received the crown of Jerusalem it must have
appeared that the kingdom was assured of a powerful protector. But in
the issue Frederick's rule only embittered the old enmities, whilst his
quarrel with the Papacy introduced a new cause of discord. The results
might have been even more disastrous had it not been for the unsettled
condition of the Musulman state. Saladin's brother ‘Adil (Saphadin) was
succeeded in 1218 by his son Kāmil, whose reign of twenty years was
troubled by pressure from the Turks in the north and the Tartars ad-
vancing from the east. At Kāmil's death in 1238 his sons fell to civil
war, so that the moment was not unfavourable for the new Crusade which
was launched next year. In this crusade none of the great princes took
part. The chief leader was Theobald, King of Navarre. The French
nobles, who were his principal followers, persisted in making a series of
desultory raids, which ended in most of them being taken prisoners.
Earl Richard of Cornwall, who came to Acre in the following year, was
able through his great wealth to procure their release; but the quarrels
of the Military Orders prevented any prospect of successful war, and the
English earl soon went home. The Templars and Hospitallers continued
to dispute as to the relative advantages of alliance with Damascus or
Egypt. In the end the former prevailed, and in 1244, by a treaty with
Ismā'il of Damascus, the Franks secured the whole land west of Jordan.
There was a brief period of rejoicing in Christendom that all the holy
places had at last been recovered. Then Ayyüb, the Sultan of Egypt,
called to his aid the predatory horde of the Khwārazmian Turks, who
fell upon Jerusalem and massacred its inhabitants (23 August 1244).
The Muslims of Hamāh and Damascus united with the Franks to meet
this common danger, but their joint army was utterly defeated by the
Khwārazmians and Egyptians under the Mamlūk emir, Baibars Bun-
duqdāri, at Gaza on 17 October 1244. This was the greatest disaster
that had befallen the Franks since Hițțīn, and swept away nearly all that
had been so painfully recovered in the last fifty years.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the disaster of Gaza led directly
to the first crusade of Louis IX. Frederick, who should have been the
natural protector of his distant kingdom, was too deeply involved in his
own troubles, and Louis was the only one of the great princes of the
West who had both the will and the power to help. Though he took
the Cross early in 1245, it was not till the end of 1248 that he reached
Cyprus, where he spent six months. The ill-omened precedent of thirty
1 Alice had married Hugh de Lusignan, King of Cyprus 1205-18.
CH. VIII.


## p. 316 (#362) ############################################

316
St Louis in Palestine
years before was followed for the plan of campaign with remarkably
similar results. Damietta fell on this occasion, almost without a blow.
Then there followed a long delay in waiting for reinforcements, amongst
whom there came a small body of English under William Longespée,
Earl of Salisbury. When at the end of November 1249 the crusaders
began their advance on Cairo, they soon found themselves entangled in
the difficulties of the Egyptian Delta. A rash attack on Manşūrah on
8 February 1250 ended disastrously. The crusaders could not advance,
and when, a few weeks later, sickness and lack of food compelled them to
retreat, they found the way blocked by their enemies. In the end Louis
and his army were obliged to surrender, and then to purchase their
freedom at the price of Damietta and a huge ransom in money. Louis
with the remnant of the crusaders reached Acre about the end of May.
He spent nearly four years in the Holy Land, and, though not able to
attempt any great enterprise, did something to strengthen the Franks
by repairing the fortifications of the seaports, and especially of Jaffa,
Caesarea, and Sidon.
Frederick II had died in 1250. During his twenty-five years' reign
the royal power had been virtually in abeyance, or exercised by bailiffs
whose authority was disputed by those whom they were supposed to rule.
The conflict of interests, political, military, and commercial, amongst
the Franks in Syria had thus, through the lack of control, free scope
to develope. The native lords, strengthened by their association with
the prosperous island kingdom of Cyprus, grew more impatient of an
outside authority. The jealousies of the Military Orders, enormously
increased in wealth and power and opposed to one another in policy,
became more acute. The Italian merchants, on whose commerce the
prosperity of the seaport towns, and therefore of the kingdom, depended,
gained greater importance and added political disputes to their com-
mercial rivalry. The dislike of the native lords for the rule of the
Emperor's bailiff had led to bitter strife in 1236, and the rivalry of the
two Military Orders went much deeper than the conflict of policies
which had crippled the crusades of Theobald of Navarre and Richard
of Cornwall. In 1249 there was actually open warfare for a month
between the Pisans and Genoese at Acre. The greatest service which
Louis IX rendered during his four years' sojourn in Palestine was that
the weight of his authority did something to check dispute. But on his
departure the old feuds soon broke out once more. The trouble began
with a quarrel between the Venetians and Genoese in 1256, in which all
other parties were soon involved. Four years of civil war exhausted the
Latin communities at a time when all should have been united to build
up the falling state.
The title of Frederick to the kingdom of Jerusalem passed ultimately
to his grandson Conradin, at whose death in 1268 the line of Yolande
came to an end. Up to that time the royal authority had been exercised


## p. 317 (#363) ############################################

Last days of the kingdom
317
nominally by bailiffs. On Conradin's death the succession was disputed
between Hugh III of Cyprus and Mary of Antioch. Both claimed to
represent Isabella, daughter of Amaury I, the former through Alice,
daughter of Henry of Champagne, and the latter through Melisend,
daughter of Amaury de Lusignan. The Hospitallers and the Genoese,
who had supported Conradin, favoured Hugh, who was actually crowned
King of Jerusalem at Tyre in 1269 and maintained some shew of
authority till 1276, when he was forced by the opposition of the Templars
to leave Acre. The jealousies of the Italian merchants of Genoa, Pisa,
and Venice, and the rivalry of the two great Military Orders, thus again pre-
vented any unity among the Franks at the time when it was most needed.
In 1259 the Tartars had appeared in Syria and threatened Muslim
and Christian alike. They were defeated next year by Quțuz, the Sultan
of Egypt, who on his return home was murdered by his Mamlūks.
This double event really sealed the fate of the Franks in Palestine. Baibars
Bunduqdārī, the victor of Gaza, who now became Sultan, was to prove
the most relentless foe that the Christians had had to encounter since
the death of Saladin. As soon as he had established his authority in
Syria, he set himself to destroy the remnant of Frankish rule. In 1265
Caesarea and Arsūf were taken, and other captures of less importance
followed, till in 1268 first Jaffa and then Antioch fell into his hands.
The fall of Antioch was the occasion for the last great Crusade under
Louis IX of France and Edward of England. Louis turned aside to
attack Tunis, where he died, whilst Edward, thus left to himself, only
reached Acre in the spring of 1271. He came in the nick of time to
save the city from a threatened attack, but, though during an eighteen
months' stay he achieved a series of minor successes, his Crusade brought
only a transient relief. Before he left Palestine Edward procured for
the Christians a ten years' truce, which on its expiration was again
renewed by the then Sultan, Qalā’ún, for a like period. The Franks
made but an ill use of this breathing space, and their domestic feuds
continued with all the former persistence.
Qalā’ūn was at first disposed to peace, but in 1285, provoked by an
attack which the Hospitallers made on a caravan, besieged and captured
their great fortress at Markab. In 1289, on a pretext that the treaty had
expired, Qalā’ūn appeared before Tripolis. After a month's siege that
great city, which was so rich and populous that four thousand weavers
are said to have found employment in its factories, was taken and sacked
with all the horrors of war. Those who escaped aboard ship took
refuge at Acre, as many from other towns and places had done before.
Thus, in the expressive words of an English chronicler: “There were
gathered in Acre not as of old holy and devout men, but wantons and
wastrels out of every country in Christendom who flowed into that
sacred city as it were into a sink of pollution.
Though some minor places like Sidon still remained to the Franks,
CH. VIII.


## p. 318 (#364) ############################################

318
The fall of Acre
Acre stood out as their chief stronghold, and it was clear that Acre
must soon share the fortune of Tripolis, unless some great deliverance
came to it from the West. There was, however, little practical enthusiasm
for a new crusade. Pope Nicholas IV and most of the greater princes
were more intent on schemes of aggrandisement nearer home, and though
Edward of England had never lost his interest in the East he was too
deeply engaged in his own affairs to take the Cross once more. The
Pope, it is true, sent a force of 1600 mercenaries, for whom the republic
of Venice provided shipping. But these mercenaries did more harm
than good, and the most effectual assistance was perhaps that which
Edward sent by his trusty knight, Sir Otto de Grandison, who, however,
brought more money than men.
In the tragedy of Acre all the main causes that had led to the
downfall of the kingdom were brought, as it were, to a focus. In Acre
during its last days, the legate of the Pope and the bailiffs of the Kings
of England, France, and Cyprus, all exercised their authority in inde-
pendence; whilst the lords of the land, the Military Orders, and the
traders of the Italian towns had all their strong towers and quarters
fortified, not against the common foe so much as in hostility to their
Christian rivals. Thus within the walls of one city there were seventeen
separate and distinct communities; whence," wrote Villani, “there
sprang no small confusion. ”
Nevertheless the manifest peril of Acre after the fall of Tripolis
restored for the moment some unity of purpose, and all joined in accepting
the leadership of Henry of Cyprus, who was also titular King of
Jerusalem. Henry made it his first care to conclude a two years' truce.
But the old feuds soon broke out again, and when the papal mercenaries
arrived they fell through lack of discipline to plundering the Saracen
villages. Provoked by this breach of the truce, Qalā’ūn's son Khalil,
who had but lately succeeded as Sultan, took the field early in 1291.
Had there been any unity of command in Acre it is just possible
that the city might have been saved. But from the first the defence was
hampered by the bitterness of the ancient jealousies. The rival parties
each fought bravely enough in their own quarter, but would give no
help to one another. So when, after a six weeks' siege, the Saracens began
their assault, many, like the King of Cyprus, sailed away in despair. For
four terrible days those who remained fought stubbornly, though even
in such a crisis the Knights of the Hospital and the Temple could not
lay aside their mutual enmity. Acre was finally stormed and taken on
18 May, though the Templars with Otto de Grandison held out for ten
days longer in their castle by the waterside. Some of the Christians made
good their escape by sea, but many were drowned in the attempt, and a
far greater number perished by the sword or were carried into captivity?
1 See, for a full narrative, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd Series,
III, 134-150.


## p. 319 (#365) ############################################

End of the Latin kingdom
319
The fall of Acre was the death-knell of the Latin kingdom of
Jerusalem. One after another, the remaining strongholds of the Franks
were abandoned or surrendered, amongst the last to go being Sidon and
Beyrout about the middle of July. Pope Nicholas IV, whose schemes
for the conquest of Sicily had made him half-hearted whilst there was
yet time, was stirred by such a disaster to make a vain effort to revive
the crusading spirit. But the old enthusiasm lingered only in the
visionary ideals of men like Philip de Mézières, and it was a mockery
of fate that for centuries to come the phantom title of King of Jeru-
salem was claimed by princes whose predecessors had failed to defend
its reality
CH, VIII.


## p. 320 (#366) ############################################

320
CHAPTER IX.
THE EFFECTS OF THE CRUSADES UPON
WESTERN EUROPE.
That eastward adventure of united Christendom which we call the
Crusades, the common endeavour of all Europe to recapture the home
of its religion and to subdue the rival faith of Mahomet, has naturally
exercised a strong fascination over the minds of later ages. With the
rediscovery of the Middle Ages in the nineteenth century, with the
realisation that, after all, what the rationalism of the eighteenth century
had been inclined to regard as a period of static misery was in fact a
time of steady and fruitful growth, the crusading movement began to
be studied with renewed interest, and the marked development of Euro-
pean civilisation during the two centuries from A. D. 1100 to 1300 was,
on the principle of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc," assigned to its influence.
So Michelet and Heeren attribute to it all those changes in Western
Europe which make its condition in 1300 so marked a contrast to that
of two hundred years before. The rise of the French monarchy, the growth
of towns all over Europe, the great increase in international trade, the
development of the Universities, the decline of feudalism, the opening up
of Asia, the thirteenth-century Renaissance in literature, philosophy, and
art-all this was regarded as due to the stir and movement introduced
by the Crusades into a sleeping Europe. If such a view is too facile and
enthusiastic, it is perhaps no less difficult to accept the more cynical
estimate of the Crusades which would regard them as marauding ex-
peditions disguised by a profession of piety, momentarily successful,
but incapable, by their very nature, of leaving a permanent mark upon
the West.
The Crusades were initiated by the Papacy, and from the moment of
Urban II's appeal to the Council of Clermont down to the fall of Acre-
and indeed for long after—they remained one of the first preoccupations
of every Pope. Describing the policy of the Curia of so late a date as the
middle of the fourteenth century, Viollet remarks that “Rome ne cessait
guère, dans l'intérêt général de la chrétienté, d'entretenir de grands mais
stériles projets de Croisade; c'est pour elle un impérissable honneur. ”
And what was true of the French Papacy of Avignon was far more true
of the Popes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries at the height of
their power. It were strange if this continuous direction for two hundred
years of the armed forces of Europe in the campaign against the infidel
should have left no mark upon the Papacy itself.


## p. 321 (#367) ############################################

The Papacy and the Crusades
321
When Nicholas II, in 1059, issued the decree regulating the election
of future Popes, the great effort of the Church to emancipate itself
from the secularisation involved in its acceptance of a feudal constitu-
tion began. The long struggle with the Empire, which opens between
Hildebrand and Henry IV, and which continued relentlessly throughout
the period of the Crusades, was an attempt ---successful in the main-to
organise the Church as a “societas perfecta,” to use a phrase of later
controversy, independent of the secular power within its own sphere, and
only dependent upon that power in so far as it needed the sword of
material force to carry out the sentences of spiritual judgment. In all
other respects the Divine Society was to be as superior to the secular as
its very nature demanded. The attempt to attain this ideal, with all its
tremendous implications, involved the Popes not only in continual war-
fare with successive Emperors but also in decisive conflict with the Kings
of England and France, and, in an increasing degree, it involved the secu-
larisation of the Papacy itself. To be successful its occupants must be
statesmen first and men of God second; to carry on war they must raise
men and money, and resort to shifts of all kinds to do so; to seize every
advantage, to shape policy to fit every change of circumstance, they must
be prepared to use diplomatic dissimulation and, if necessary, to lie with
hardihood. That this process of degradation, from the lofty heights of
spiritual control to the lowest levels of political expediency, set in, is
not difficult of proof; it suffices to compare Gregory VII with Innocent IV,
or the enthusiastic response with which the call to the First Crusade was
met, with the indifference and even hostility which greeted such appeals
in the later thirteenth century. The wheel had gone full circle, and the
attempt to free the members of the Church from secular control ended
in a more subtle secularisation of its very heart, the Papacy itself.
In that process the Crusades played an important part. They were
one of the main sources of papal strength throughout the twelfth century,
for they provided the Popes with the moral support of Europe, and
placed the Papacy in a position of acknowledged leadership which was
of the greatest value in the struggle with the secular powers. The literal
mind of the Middle Ages found it more easy to understand the task of
succouring the earthly Jerusalem by force of arms than that of gaining
the heavenly Jerusalem by the practice of the Christian virtues, and in
this case the natural man could at once find an outlet for his martial
energies and also, by virtue of the indulgence attached to the Crusade,
make certain of attaining the heavenly reward. Every motive of self-
sacrifice or self-interest, every desire for glory or for gain, was appealed
to by the call to the Crusade. The noble could hope to carve out a
principality in the East; the merchant to make gain by transporting
the crusading armies and supplying their necessities; the peasant to
escape from the crushing burdens of his servile status. But foremost in
the minds of all, at least in the early days, was the unselfish desire to
C. MIED. H. v0L. v. CH. Ix.
21


## p. 322 (#368) ############################################

322
Extension of papal influence
regain for Christ the city made sacred by His life and death, and, inspired
by this common aim, men of every class and country of Europe flocked
to take the Cross at the instigation of the one authority acknowledged
by them all—Christ's earthly Vicar. Here for the first time Christian
Europe gave expression to a common mind and will, and it is of the
highest significance that this mind and will had been formed and edu-
cated by the Church and was now placed at the service of the Church's
head.
There can be little doubt that this moral enthusiasm of Europe
proved in the twelfth century an almost incalculable assistance to the
Papacy in its struggle with the Empire. To this force of a united
Christendom behind them the successors of that Gregory VII who died
in exile owed much of the great advance which they were able to make
in the century after his death. For the Crusades were a living parable
of the doctrine of the superiority of the spiritual sword. They were
organised by the Popes and directed by their legates, and, what was more,
all those who took the Cross became by that act the subjects of the
Papacy in a new and special sense. Their goods during their absence,
themselves before they departed and until they returned with their
vows fulfilled, were removed from secular and placed under ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. The Kings of France or England, of Hungary or Naples,
the very Emperors themselves were, as crusaders, at the orders of the
Pope, and the value of the moral compulsion of public opinion upon
which the Popes could rely in forcing reluctant monarchs to take the
Cross is clearly evidenced by the example of Henry II in his extreme old
age, or of Philip Augustus, or of Frederick II. It is difficult indeed,
except by this explanation, to account for the amazing difference be-
tween the position of the Papacy at the accession of Urban II, stagger-
ing under the defeat of Gregory VII and the schism which followed,
faced too with a Church as yet but half-hearted in support of the reform-
ing policy, and the position of almost undisputed supremacy occupied by
Innocent III. After making all allowances for the ability of Alexander III
and the persistence with which the “Hildebrandine” policy was pursued,
after taking into account all the circumstances which were favourable to
Innocent III's own assertion of his claims—the folly of John, the death
of Henry VI, and the youth of Frederick II—there remains the fact that
in an age when emotional religion was becoming steadily more powerful,
the Pope, as leader of the conflict with the infidel, was enabled to com-
mand to an unprecedented degree the devotion of the faithful.
Yet, in the thirteenth century, much of this prestige and much of this
popular devotion were lost. It was not merely that the Holy Land little
by little fell into the hands of the Saracen and that the respect given to
success was withdrawn when failure followed. The Papacy might have
retained undiminished reverence had it failed, as St Louis failed, with
clean hands and for no lack of high courage.
But the
very
which
success


## p. 323 (#369) ############################################

Crusades as a source of revenue
323
had attended the crusading appeal proved too strong a temptation to the
Popes, and the appeal to take the Cross not only ceased to attract but de-
finitely alienated the faithful when it was used as a weapon in the struggle
against the Hohenstaufen. The list of so-called crusades in the thirteenth
century, not directed against the Saracen, makes sad reading. No good
Christian, indeed, was likely to be shocked by an appeal to take the
Cross against the infidels of Provence, though a full Holy Land in-
dulgence for forty days' service might seem almost too easily won when
“the greater part of the faithful returned home after the forty days
were over”; but since the expedition of Prince Louis against the English
king was announced as a crusade, since the papal feud with the Hohen-
staufen, so obviously maintained to safeguard the Papal States from
danger, was provided with religious sanctions, it is not improbable that
Matthew Paris represents a genuine popular reaction, and not merely
his own opinion, when he writes of the “crusade” of 1255: “When the
faithful heard this, they marvelled that he should promise them reward
for shedding the blood of Christian men that was in former time pro-
mised for the shedding of infidel blood. ”
But, apart from the direct effect upon public opinion of this misuse of
the Crusade for party ends, there emerged from the crusading movement
two financial weapons of lasting importance to the papal armoury—the
indulgence and the tithe.
It would, indeed, be untrue to assert that indulgences originated in
the Crusades, but there can be no doubt that the indulgence as a finan-
cial expedient is a direct outcome of them. More than this, the practice
had been instituted by Gregory VII of granting absolution from their
sins to those who, in particular localities, fought on the Pope's side in a
holy cause? Urban II applied this to the whole of Christendom by
his assurance that “those who die there in true penitence will without
doubt receive indulgence of their sins and the fruits of the reward
hereafter. ” The plenary indulgence to crusaders marks an epoch in the
development of the system.
It is not, however, till the end of the twelfth century and the begin-
ning of the thirteenth that the indulgence began to be used as a source
of revenue. In 1184 those who cannot themselves take the Cross are
bidden to give alms to support the Crusade and, in return for these con-
tributions and for a threefold repetition of the Paternoster, are promised
a partial indulgence. In 1195 Celestine III writes to Hubert of Canter-
bury as his English legate that “those who send of their goods in aid of
the Holy Land shall receive pardon of their sins from their bishop on
the terms that he shall prescribe. ” In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council
goes a step farther and promises a plenary indulgence to those who shall
contribute to the crusading funds in proportion to their means. With
that step the downward path was begun, and in the thirteenth century
1 Gregorii VII Reg. 11, 54, vii, 12 a ad fin. , viii, 6.