Volume 9, 2010
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Crusades Volume 9, 2010 Published by AS H GAT Efor the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East The Byzantines and Saladin: Opponents of the Third Crusade? Savvas Neocleous Trinity College, Dublin [email protected] The question of the alliance between the Byzantine Empire and Saladin (1174-93), sultan of Egypt and Syria, has been the subject of a heated and ongoing debate among modem scholars. In his 1962 article "The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185- 1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade,"! Brand was the first to deal extensively with this question, arguing in favour of the existence of complicity between the Byzantines and Saladin against the crusader states and particularly, as indicated by the title, against the Third Crusade. Brand's paper has exerted a strong influence on several commentators and is still cited as authoritative by scholars who support the view that the Byzantine Emperor Isaak and Saladin operated in collusion against the Third Crusade. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the question of the so-called Byzantine-Muslim alliance through a fresh examination of the primary material available. The Alleged Alliance between the Byzantines and Saladin against the Crusader States At Manuel's death in 1180, his son and heir Alexios 11(1180-83) was only twelve years old and thus the regency was assumed by his mother, Maria of Antioch. The protosebastos Alexios Komnenos, a nephew of Manu el, became Maria's lover and the effective ruler of the Byzantine Empire. In the autumn of 1181 an embassy sent by the protosebastos to Saladin arrived in Egypt. After prolonged negotiations a truce was concluded with the sultan, designed to create a balance of power against the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor. In 1185, Saladin and the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I (1182-85), who had meanwhile seized the throne in 1182, signed a formal treaty with the same aim, and, probably by 1186, the Emperor Isaak 11 (1185-95, 1203-4), who had overthrown Andronikos I in 1185, dispatched yet another embassy to the sultan to renew the alliance.? I would like to thank Dr Barbara Crostini for her valuable comments while this article was still in progress. This article is dedicated to the memory of my godfather Dr Andreas Photiou. 1 Charles M. Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in, 1185-1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade," Speculum 37 (1962), pp. 167-81. 2 Jonathan Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations between the Latin East and the West, 1119--1187 (Oxford, 1996), p. 251; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 87 88 SAVVAS NEOClEOUS In his Chronicon, the German monk Magnus ofReichersberg (d. 1195) preserves a letter that had been composed by an anonymous correspondent in the ultramartnt partes (that is, Palestine) and sent to the West.' The letter has no addressee and breaks off abruptly. Brand argues that it was written in the late summer or fall of 1188.4 According to this missive, the 1185 treaty between the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I and Saladin stipulated the conquest not only of the sultanate of Iconium, but also of the crusader states, as well as the subsequent division of the conquered areas between the emperor and the sultan. Jerusalem and the Syro- Palestinian coast were to be held by Saladin as a fief of the Byzantine ruler, since the sultan would pay homage to the emperor,' As Andronikos was overthrown, this pact could no longer be acted out. The anonymous author of the letter claims that, upon ascending the imperial throne, Isaak maintained the alliance between his predecessor and Saladin "because he feIt hatred for the Latins and feared thern.t" When, on his way to Constantinople, Isaak's brother Alexios was captured in Acre by the Latin settlers of Outremer, the emperor ordered the sultan ''to rise powerfully against the Christians from overseas who are the greatest enemies of both" and release his brother.' The Byzantine sovereign himself would also attack the Latin settlers, so that their land could be divided according to the terms outlined in the Byzantine-Muslim treaty. Moreover, always according to the anonymous correspondent, Isaak dispatched eighty galleys to the assistance of Saladin, but the fleet was destroyed off Cyprus by the Norman admiral Margaritone. The sultan went to war with the kingdom of Jerusalem, annihilated the Franks at Hattin (4 July 1187), and usurped almost all their land. As reported by the anonymous author, after his triumph, Saladin sent Isaak munificent gifts "in order to rejoice at his victory,"! The sultan's envoys were honourably received by the emperor in Constantinople and were lodged at a very splendid palace such as Latin ambassadors had never, or rarely, been offered. The treaty between the two parties was renewed and, in return, Isaak sent the sultan generous gifts and a crown, and expressed his gratitude for his brother's release from the Latins." The weight given to the evidence contained in this letter is fundamental to the question of the alliance between Byzantium and Saladin against the Latin settlers of Outremer as discussed in much detail by Brand, Lilie and Harris. For his part, Brand 1096-1204, trans. J. C. Morris and Jean E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), pp. 224-32 and 240; Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin," pp. 168-70. 3 Magnus of Reichersberg, Chronicon, ed. WilheIm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17 (Hanover, 1861), pp. 439-534, at pp. 511-12. 4 Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in," p. 181. , Magnus of Reichersberg, p. 511; Lilie, Byzantium, p. 231; Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades(London,2003),pp.122-23. 6 Magnus of Reichersberg, p. 511. 7 Ibid. • Ibid. 9Ibid.,pp.SII-12. THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 89 relied heavily on the anonymous letter incorporated in Magnus's Chronicon, and thereby was led to assert that both Andronikos and Isaak in turn "allied themselves with the crusaders' mightiest opponent [Saladin], and even strove to eliminate Latin power from the Orient."IO Lilie, too, concedes that Andronikos had concluded an alliance with Saladin, directed both against the Seljuks of Iconium and against the Franks of Syria and Palestine: the Byzantine emperor wanted "to punish [the latter] for their recalcitrance" and "preserve Byzantine claims in Syria and Palestine."!' Lilie offers a convincing interpretation of the text of the treaty preserved in the letter in Magnus's Chronicon stating that, under it, "the emperor could not only achieve direct rule over Antioch, Cilicia, and parts of Asia Minor once more, but, in the case of Jerusalem, would improve on the legal position of 1171-80, except that now Saladin would take the place of the Franks.t''? While the logic of the agreement may thus be clarified, its evidence still begs closer questioning. Had such a treaty between Andronikos and Saladin ever been concluded? And if so, had the two rulers really succeeded in forming an alliance against the Franks of Outremer? The likelihood of the existence of such a military alliance against the Latin settlers has recently been examined by Hams. He suggests that there may well have been an agreement between the two rulers to the effect that, had Saladin conquered Jerusalem, he would recognize Andronikos as protector of the Holy Land and of its Christian inhabitants. This agreement was then interpreted by the Latins as a sinister conspiracy against the Franks of OutremerP Harris's suggestion, however intriguing, does not find support in the evidence. After Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem in 1187, the sultan in fact never renewed the ancient Byzantine protectorship over the Holy Land." The exclusive source of the existence of the treaty, which is not substantiated by any other contemporary account," leads Harris to doubt its authenticity and to argue against the fact of a military alliance between Andronikos and Saladin against the Latin settlers. This is an important step forward in scholarly opinion on this matter. Further, as Harris rightly argues, the allegation that Saladin, the leader of the Jihad against the Christians, had agreed under oath (juramenta) to hold Jerusalem and the Syro-Palestinian littoral as the vassal of a Christian emperor stands contrary to reason.!? As regards the accusations of the anonymous writer of the letter against Isaak, these are also baseless. In 1186, the Byzantine sovereign had indeed sent a fleet of seventy ships to the eastern Mediterranean and was truly defeated by Margaritone. Its target, however, was not the kingdom of Jerusalem but the secessionist island 10 Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in," p. 167. 11 Lilie, Byzantium. p. 230. 12 Ibid., p. 232. 13 Harris, Byzantium, pp. 123-24. 14 David Jacoby, "Diplomacy, Trade, Shipping and Espionage between Byzantium and Egypt in the Twelfth Century," in flOAV1Ckvpor; vovr;: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris (Munich, 2000), pp. 83-102, at p. 100. IS Harris, Byzantium, pp. 120-21; Lilie, Byzantium, pp. 232-33. 16 Harris, Byzantium, p. 121. 90 SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS of Cyprus, which, since 1184, had been ruled independently by Isaak Komnenos, a member of the former imperial dynasty, who had proclaimed himself emperor. I? The allegation that Saladin attacked the Latin settlers because he had been ordered by Isaak to do so with the aim of releasing his brother is not only untrue, but even, on reflection, utterly foolish. The sultan, in reality, went to war with the kingdom of Jerusalem in response to Latin provocations." His intentions, as well as the real objective of the Byzantine fleet in the eastern Mediterranean, were doubtlessly known among the Latin settlers of Outremer.