— 1 — University of London History PhD, 1987 VAfiFABB n THE LATH EAST, 1192-1291 Christc^ber John Karshall Soyal Holloway and Bedfcnrd Hew Collie ProQuest Number: 10090132 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10090132 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 - 2 - ¥ASFAKE II-THE.LA T m EAST, 1192-1291 After an introductory chapter, in which the studies of previous scholars are examined, warfare in the Latin East in the period is placed in its historical context. It involved not only crusades: there were long periods of truce when warfare was restricted to raiding expeditions, while many conflicts took place between Christians themselves. The Latin armies are then considered. There were many elements in them - the feudal levy, the Military Orders, mercenaries and other paid troops, confraternities and crusaders - but the armies proved consistently inadequate to deal with the Muslim threat to the Latin East, The Christians, therefore, were dependent on castles and fortified towns for their survival, and it was essential that these should be adequately built, maintained and garrisoned. The MiHtary Orders took increasing responsibility for them during the thirteenth century. Strongpoints had a number of functions, both defensive and aggressive, but lack of manpower meant that their role was often restricted. In the thesis there follows a consideration of the forms armed conflict took. Battles were not a prime factor in the decline of the Latin East, because the Franks were rarely able to raise an army to fight in the open with the Muslims, Battles therefore tended to take place during crusade expeditions, when adequate numbers were available. On some occasions - the First Crusade of Louis DC, and Theobald of Champagne's Crusade, for example - a lost battle seriously impaired a campaign. Battles should be distinguished from raids. The Muslims - 3 - used raiding expeditions as an integrated part of their efforts to remove the Franks from the east. But the raid was used as an end in itself by the Franks and towards the end of this period it had become their principal means of carrying war to their enemies. Finally, there is a study of sieges. The capture of strongpoints by the Muslims, particularly in the second-half of the thirteenth century, progressively loosened the Franks' grip on the area. Sieges undertaken by the Franks often became matters of attrition, whereas when they were defending themselves, a Muslim assault often proved decisive in a short space of time. The Franks' lack of manpower was again significant. - 4 - TABLE OF CQHTBITTS Abbreviations 5 Introduction 6 I Warfare and the History of 28 the Latin East, 1192-1291 II The Latin Armies 67 III Castles and Strongpoints 130 IV Battles 197 V Raiding Expeditions 254 VI Sieges 295 Conclusion 367 Bibliography 373 - 5 — ABBSEYIATIOIS MGH Monumenta G&rmaniae historica inde ah anno Christ! quingentesimo usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum auspiciis societatis aperiendis fontibus rerum Germanicarum medii aevi, ed. G. H. Pertz et al,t (Hanover, Weimar, Berlin, Stuttgart, Cologne, 1826ff). «GHS X GH Scriptor^ in Folio et Quarto, 32 vols, 1826- 1934, KGHS rer. Germ, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, 61 vols, 1840-1937. KGHS rer. Germ, N S MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, nova series, 12 vols, 1922-59. PL Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, publ. J. P. Nigne, 217 vols and 4 vols of indexes (Paris, 1844-64). QBSSM Quinti Belli Sacri Scriptores Minores, ed. R, Rohricht (Geneva, 1879), PHC Recueil des historiens des croisades, ed. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1841- 1906), PHC Arm, PHC Documents arméniens, 2 vols (Paris, 1869- 1906), PHC Lois PHC Lois. Les Assises de Jérusalem, 2 vols (Paris, 1841-3). PHC Oc, PHC Historiens occidentaux, 5 vols (Paris, 1844- 95). PHC Or, PHC Historiens orientaux, 5 vols (Paris, 1872- 1906). PHF Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. H. Bouquet et al., (Paris, 1737-1904). PIS Perum Italicarum scriptures, ed. L. A. Muratori, 25 vols (Milan, 1723-51). PISHS Perum Italicarum scriptores, Mova series, ed. G. Carducci et al., (Città di Castello, Bologna, 1900ff.). - 6 - HTRQDOCTIQl In May 1291 Muslim troops commanded by al-Ashraf Khalil captured and destroyed the city of Acre. Although this was not the last Latin- held site to be surrendered, the fall of Acre was regarded by contemporaries as marking at least the temporary end of Latin rule in the area.^ Similarly, in July 1191, the capture of Acre by forces of the Third Crusade had been the decisive point in a campaign, even though the Treaty of Jaffa, which acknowledged the re-establishment of the Latin Kingdom, was not signed until September 1192P the Kingdom of Jerusalem which had been virtually eliminated by Saladin after the battle of Hattin in 1187 was to survive, in a rather reduced form, for nearly a century. Until the defeat of St. Louis' First Crusade the kingdom was maintained largely as a result of Muslim divisions, rather than Latin strength. After this, the Mamluks' usurpation of power in Egypt and their subsequent unification of Muslim states in the area led to the Christian losses of the 1260's. This left only a few, mainly coastal sites to hold out until 1291. It is quite unreasonable, however, to regard the 'Second Kingdom ' as a mere appendix of the First. Recent work on the constitutional and social history of the Latin Kingdom in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries has suggested much positive achievement in the later period. Despite a fragmentation of authority, implications of innate strength are apparent in, for example, the baronial resistance to the demands of - 7 - Frederick II, and the constitutional debates and internecine conflicts which raged throughout much of the thirteenth century. Kilitary historians and the military , history , of ths-Latfn East In 1956 R. C. Smail's book on the military history of the Latin Kingdom from the period of its establishment to the end of the Third Crusade was published. By analysing a detailed body of evidence, Smail was able to place the military history of the period in its social and political context, and thus demonstrate the importance of warfare to the Latin states. This was in sharp contrast to the work of most military historians, who had been content to • describe and sometimes analyse a quite arbitrary selection of battles, apparently chosen for their tactical significance.® Except for the study of castles, which will be considered later, the thirteenth century has had less attention from scholars concentrating on military affairs. John of Joinville's narrative of the battle of Mansurah seems to be the only contemporary account which has received widespread consideration. Several scholars, however, have considered certain aspects of the subject, Delpech dealt with the battles at Agridi in 1232, near Gaza in 1239 and at Mansurah in 1250. But his work was coloured by a pre­ conception that medieval armies not only knew precisely what they wanted to do (often based on the theories of classical authors such as Vegetius) but also had the ability and discipline to carry out complex manoeuvres in battle."* This, coupled with an uncritical use of source material, rendered many of his conclusions regarding the tactics of the thirteenth century questionable.® In the case of Gaza, Delpech was - a - exceptional amongst general historians of medieval military history in making use of the very detailed account of this conflict,® His analysis of this battle suggested that he wished it to conform to three pre-determined ideas, none of which can really be justified from an objective reading of the sources. First, he noted the exploitation of the terrain by Rukn-ad-Din al-Hijawi, although it was the crusaders' own decision to camp in a valley surrounded by low hills: this position was in no way forced on them by the Muslim commanderSecondly, following the account of Albert of Trois Fontaines, he emphasized the imbalance amongst the crusader forces caused by a lack of footsoldiers. In this he overlooked the significance of the account of 'Rothelin' which stated that one of the main causes of the battle was the reluctance of the mounted troops to abandon their footsoldiers, even though this would have allowed them, at least, to escape from the Muslims.® Thirdly, he criticized the crusader knights for charging the Muslims, and thus breaking formation. He chose to ignore the statement that this charge resulted from the crusader crossbowmen running out of arrows.® These three examples illustrate Delpech's tendency to manipulate the sources in order to justify certain pre-conceived ideas, which seriously diminished the value of his study of battle tactics in the thirteenth century. The influential historian Delbriick paid no attention to the military history of the Latin East in the thirteenth century. Oman, on the other hand, incorporated a long account of the crusades and the Latin states into his study of medieval warfare. However, he dismissed the Second Kingdom as 'a mere survival without strength to recover - 9 “ itself, and he had little to say about its military history. He preferred to concentrate on the crusaders' invasions of Egypt which he regarded as 'wholly independent of the defence of Palestine...', and his only use of material from the thirteenth century was that concerning the battle of Mansurah, for which he produced a composite account from some narrative sources.