Saladin and Byzantium - An Unholy Alliance

The brutal sack of Constantinople in 1204 dominates discourse about the relationship between the crusaders and the Byzantine Empire. Yet, as important and shocking as it was, this one episode should not be allowed to obscure everything that preceded and followed it. Relations between Byzantium and the crusader states were complex and fraught with misunderstandings and mutual misconceptions, but they were also punctuated by periods of cooperation. 
Equally important: the Byzantines were not innocent lambs devoured by evil Latin wolves. Rather, the attack on Constantinople had its roots in actions taken by the Byzantines themselves, one of the most important of which was an alliance forged with Saladin with the goal of destroying the Crusader States. 

 

Andronicus I Comnenus swept into power on the back of fervent anti-Latin feelings, directed against the Dowager Empress Marie of Antioch, who was regent for her underaged son Alexius II, the son of Manuel I. Following anti-Latin riots in Constantinople in 1182 in which the Genoese and Pisan residents of the city were slaughtered, Andronicus seized power. He had Empress Marie and her lover murdered, and in September 1183 had himself crowned co-emperor with Alexius. Within two months, he had strangled Alexius and seized sole power for himself, "legitimizing" his actions by marrying the murdered Alexius' 13-year-old bride.

While his domestic policies included attempts to fight corruption and reform the administration in the Empire, particularly in the provinces, his foreign policy consisted fundamentally of a repudiation of Manuel I Comnenus' pro-Western policies and alliances with the crusader states. Significantly, Andronicus had been an exile from Manuel's court and had fled to Damascus and Baghdad, where he had been well-received by Nur al-Din. 

In June 1185, two years into his reign as Byzantine Emperor, Andronicus sent an envoy to Saladin, Nur al-Din's successor, proposing a treaty of alliance between their empires. The purpose of the proposed alliance was the destruction of the crusader states. After a successful conquest of the crusader states, the Byzantine Emperor generously offered to divide the spoils, by retaining Jerusalem and all the (wealthy) coastal cities for himself and giving the rest (Transjordan?) to Saladin. All Andronicus required of Saladin was an oath of homage and the promise to render assistance to the Eastern Roman Empire whenever requested. One can only imagine Saladin's response for it is not recorded, but it is not hard to imagine that he laughed out loud at so much unfounded insolence.

Before Saladin's ambassadors could reach Constantinople with his official response, Andronicus was savagely torn to pieces by the mob in Constantinople and replaced by a  man who had rebelled against him and faced arrest and execution: Isaac Angelus. The latter had also sought refuge in the court of Damascus along with his elder brother, Alexis. The latter was still there when Isaac was acclaimed emperor by the mob. Isaac used this fact to renegotiate a new treaty with Saladin, which was duly confirmed by an imperial decree. 

Isaac then recalled his brother, but Alexis foolishly chose to return to Constantinople by way of Acre. It was now 1186, the King of Jerusalem was Baldwin V, a child, and the regent of the kingdom was the savvy Raymond of Tripoli -- who was himself well-connected in Saladin's court. He certainly had wind of the new alliance between Isaac and Saladin targeting Jerusalem, and he promptly imprisoned Alexis. 

An outraged Isaac pressured Saladin to attack Jerusalem and free his brother. Saladin did both -- although it is unlikely that he did so as a favor to the Byzantine Emperor. By January 1188, Saladin was in control of the entire kingdom except for Tyre, and the terms of the treaty with Constantinople were completely irrelevant. Saladin made no move to surrender any territory to the Byzantines, but he did allow the Greek Orthodox Church to take control of the Christian shrines in the newly occupied territories. 

Meanwhile, the Western European powers were preparing to mount a major campaign to re-take the Holy Land. Arab accounts suggest that Saladin was genuinely unsettled. He was particularly concerned about the prospect of the Holy Roman Emperor, Friederick Barbarossa, bringing a large army to the Near East. It was now Saladin's turn to make demands based on the alliance with Byzantium: he sent ambassadors to Constantinople to re-negotiate the terms of the anti-Western alliance. He expected the Byzantines to prevent -- or at least harass, delay, and impede -- the passage of any crusading armies entering Byzantine territory. Isaac happily agreed to the new treaty.

The contents of the treaty did not remain secret. By September of 1188, Conrad de Montferrat sent letters to the West detailing the extent of Byzantine treachery. It must be remembered, that Conrad had himself been married to a Byzantine princess and his brother Rainier had been Emperor Manuel I's son-in-law, the husband of Manual's daughter Maria. Both Rainier de Montferrat and his imperial wife had been murdered in Constantinople at the same time as Marie of Antioch. Conrad had friends in Constantinople, because many there opposed Isaac's new anti-Christian alliance. Allegedly, in return for preventing any crusading armies from reaching the Middle East, Saladin promised to restore Jerusalem and Palestine to Constantinople. In addition, a clause envisaged a joint campaign to reconquer Cyprus, which had rebelled and was independent, not yet a Latin kingdom. 

Isaac, however, maintained a facade of friendliness toward the West, negotiating with Frederick Barbarossa for the passage of his armies "unmolested," and promising to provide markets and ensure a "fair exchange" of currency.  Just before the Holy Roman Emperor set out on crusade in May 1189, he sent envoys to Constantinople to announce his impending arrival. They were promptly imprisoned and their horses and possessions turned over to Saladin's representatives in the Byzantine capital. 

That did not stop Frederick Barbarossa. When the German crusaders found no markets ready to sell them provisions, they 'foraged' for whatever they needed. When units of the Byzantine military poorly disguised as 'bandits' harassed them, they destroyed them. From Nish to Sofia, Barbarossa drove the Byzantines out if their fortifications and at Philippopolis defeated them soundly. He ravaged Thrace from Enos to Thessalonica demanding the release of his ambassadors, but he resisted pressure from within his own ranks to turn his army on Constantinople. Barbarossa remained true to his vow and his aim, which was the liberation of Jerusalem, not the conquest of a Christian country. 

In February 1190, Isaac finally recognized that Saladin wasn't going to do anything to help him stop Barbarossa and that without help he able to stop him. He signed the Treaty of Adrianople, which again promised markets and fair exchange rates. Isaac helped Barbarossa cross into Asia -- and reneged on all other aspects of the agreement. 

It didn't matter. The German Emperor soon crossed into the Sultanate of Rum, where he promptly and decisively defeated the Seljuk army at the Battle of Iconium. His tragic death four months later put an effective end to the German contribution to the Third Crusade -- but it was hardly Isaac's doing.

Saladin recognized this. Arab sources summarized the alliance with Constantinople as follows: "In truth, the Greek king has never succeeded in his enterprises; we gain nothing from his friendship, and need fear nothing from his enmity." (1)

But the damage to Byzantine relations with the West had already been done. Although the alliance between Damascus and Constantinople ended in 1192 it left a legacy of bitterness and mistrust. The West, particularly the Holy Roman Empire, viewed the Byzantines as duplicitous traitors to Christianity. Here, along with the massacres of the Italians in 1177 and again in 1182, are the seeds of the Fourth Crusade.

(1) Abu Samah, quoted in Charles Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185-1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade," Journal of Mediaeval Studies, Vol. XXXVII, # 3, April 1962, 178.

The Third Crusade is the focus of "Envoy of Jerusalem," recognized as the Best Biography 2017 by Book Excellence Awards and as Best Christian Historical Fiction 2017 by Readers' Favorite Book Awards. Find out more at: https://www.helenapschrader.com/envoy-of-jerusalem.html

The Battle of Hattin: A Crushing Defeat of Christendom

 On July 4, 1187, the feudal army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was defeated by the forces of Saladin.  It was one of the most significant disasters in medieval military history.  Christian casualties at the battle were so enormous that the defense of the rest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem became impossible. In consequence, the defeat at Hattin led directly to the loss of the entire kingdom including the city of Jerusalem itself. Today Dr. Schrader provides a short analysis of the battle and its significance.

Medieval Depiction of the Battle of Hattin, July 4, 1187

The importance of Hattin to contemporaries was not just the magnitude of the defeat, but the unexpectedness of it.  In retrospect, the Muslim victory seems inevitable. Muslim states had always surrounded the crusader kingdom (as they hem in Israel today) and the Muslim rulers had always been able to call on much larger military forces than their Christian opponents.  In the early years of Latin presence in the Holy Land, the divisions among the Muslim leaders, most especially the rivalry and hatred between Shiite Caliphate of Cairo and the Sunni Caliphate of Baghdad, had played into Christian hands.  However, once Saladin had managed to unite Syria and Egypt under a single, charismatic leader the balance of power clearly tipped to the Muslims. 

However, Christian armies under Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and Richard I of England defeated Saladin on the battlefield more than once.  Saladin was a powerful, charismatic and clever commander, who knew how to deploy his forces effectively and use terrain to his advantage — but he was not invincible. Indeed, he was dealt a defeat every bit as devastating as Hattin in November 1177 at the Battle of Montgisard. His invading army was annihilated, and he himself had to flee on the back of a pack-camel. In July 1182, the Christian army under Baldwin IV stopped another full-scale invasion by Saladin, forcing him to withdraw across the Jordan with comparatively few Christian losses. In June the following year, 1183, the Christian army confronted yet another invasion on an even larger force and again forced Saladin to withdraw — this time without even engaging in an all-out battle.

Despite these apparent successes, it was clear to the King of Jerusalem that Saladin was getting stronger with each new invasion attempt.  Saladin had increased his own power base from Cairo and Damascus to Aleppo, Homs, and Mosul, while the Christians had no new infusions of blood, territory or income. In consequence, in 1184 Baldwin IV sent a frantic plea to the West, begging for a new crusade and offering the Western leader — whoever he might be — the keys to the kingdom. The lack of response reflected Western complacency about the threat to Jerusalem and implicit confidence in the ability of Baldwin and his barons to continue to defeat Saladin’s attempts to push the Christian kingdom into the sea.

It was because of Baldwin’s earlier successes against Saladin, that the news of Hattin and the loss of Jerusalem shocked the West, allegedly causing the immediate death of Pope Urban III. How was it possible that a young and vigorous king, Guy I, could lead the same army to defeat that a youth suffering from leprosy (and only commanding his armies from a liter) had led to victory again and again?  

Rarely in human history has a defeat been so wholly attributable to poor generalship on the losing side as at Hattin. To be sure, Saladin set a trap for the Christian armies. The bait was the citizens and garrison of Tiberius under the command of the Countess of Tripoli, who were besieged in the citadel after the fall of the city on July 2. 

The Christian army was mustered at Sephorie, only some 15 miles to the west. The pleas for help from the Countess and Tiberius naturally evoked a response from the Christian army, most notably her four grown sons.  But the Count of Tripoli himself warned that it was a trap and opposed the decision to go to the aid of his wife and Tiberius. Tripoli’s reasoning convinced the majority of his peers and the council of war composed of the leading barons agreed to stay where they were and force Saladin to come to them. However, the Grand Master of the Temple went separately and secretly to King Guy after the council dispersed and convinced him to order the advance for the following day. In short, although warned, King Guy took the bait.

To relieve Tiberius, the Christian army had to cross territory that was at this time of year devoid of fodder for the horses and where water sources were widely dispersed. With Saladin’s forces already occupying the springs at Cafarsset on the southern route from Sephorie to Tiberias, the Christian had no choice but to follow the northern track. Intense heat and harassment by the enemy slowed the Christian march to a crawl, and by noon on July 3, the Christian army had advanced only six miles to the springs of Turan.  With nine miles more to go, it was clear the army could not reach Tiberius before nightfall and prudence alone should have dictated a halt at Turan, where men and horses could rest and drink. Instead, King Guy, against all reason, ordered the advance to continue. Immediately, Saladin sent his troops to occupy Turan, thereby not-only blocking the Christian retreat but harassing the Christian rear-guard and further slowing the rate of advance.

A depiction of the Christian army advancing toward Hattin carrying the “True Cross”

from the film “The Kingdom of Heaven”

When darkness fell on July 3, the Christian army was still six miles short of its objective and forced to camp in an open field completely surrounded by enemy forces.  The Christians had been marching and fighting for hours without water in the intense heat of a Palestinian summer. Men and horses were exhausted and further demoralized by the sound of Saracen drums surrounding them and the countless campfires advertising the enemy’s strength.

By morning, those fires were brush-fires intentionally set ablaze to windward of the Christian army in a maneuver that dried their already parched throats further while half-blinding them with smoke. Out of the smoke came volleys of arrows, and again “some of the Christian lords” urged King Guy to charge Saladin’s position at once, in an attempt to win the battle by killing the Sultan.  King Guy instead chose to try to march the entire army toward the springs of Hattin, still some three miles away and cut off by one wing of Saladin’s army.

While the Frankish cavalry tried to drive off the Saracens in a series of charges, the infantry stumbled forward until, half-blinded by smoke, constantly attacked by the enemy and near dying of thirst, their morale broke.  As casualties mounted, some of the infantry retreated up the slopes of the “horns” of Hattin, two steep hills that flanked the plane on which the army had camped and now marched. They refused to fight any more. 

Meanwhile, the Count of Tripoli with his knights and Lord Reginald of Sidon finally broke-through the surrounding enemy, charging east toward the Lake of Tiberius.  The Christian infantry that had not fled up the slopes tried to follow in the wake of the cavalry, but the Saracens under the command of one of Saladin’s nephews stepped aside to let the armored knights through and then closed ranks again, cutting off the Christian infantry that was cut down or taken captive.

By now it was late afternoon, and with the infantry either already slaughtered or refusing to come down from the hilltop, King Guy ordered his knights to retreat up the slope as well. At this stage, many of the knights were fighting on foot because their horses had been killed after the infantry cover was withdrawn.  It was probably at this point in the battle that the relic, believed to be a piece of the cross on which Christ was crucified, was lost. The Bishop of Acre, who had been carrying it, was killed. The loss of this most precious relic — believed to have brought victory in dozens of earlier battles — was devastating to Christian morale.

The final stages of the Battle of Hattin as depicted in the film “The Kingdom of Heaven”

But still, King Guy did not surrender.  The few knights who were still mounted made one (or two) last desperate charge(s) to try to kill Saladin, who was mounted and clearly identifiable among his troops.  One of these charges was probably lead by Balian d’Ibelin. One charge came close enough to Saladin for him to have to shout encouragement to his men.  While Ibelin and his knights were able to cut through the enemy, like Tripoli before them, they enemy rapidly closed ranks behind them.  They found they had no means of fighting their way back up-hill to relieve the infantry. Within minutes, King Guy’s last position was over-run and he along with most of his barons were taken prisoner.

Of the roughly 20,000 Christian soldiers who had set out from Sephorie, only an estimated 3,000 infantry managed somehow to escape into the surrounding countryside and eventually take refuge in the castles and walled towns then still in Frankish hands. Of the 1,200 knights and barons that mustered for the battle, only four barons, Tripoli, Sidon, Edessa, and Ibelin, escaped capture along with maybe 100 - 200 knights. The remainder including the King of Jerusalem, the Masters of the Temple and Hospital, the Constable Aimery de Lusignan, the Lords of Oultrajourdain, Toron, Gibelet, and others — effectively the entire nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem — were taken captive. While the majority of these lords and knights were held for ransom, the 230 Templars and Hospitallers that survived the battle were executed at Saladin’s orders. 

Medieval painting of prisoners being led away (here by a Christian king)

Hattin is a major episode in the second book of my Balian d'Ibelin trilogy, "Defender of Jerusalem." The ebook is on sale for just $4.99 through July 4, 2016.  Buy Now!

True Tales of the Knights Templar 3: The Battle of Montgisard 1177

+Real Crusades History+ is dedicated to remembering the real contribution of the Knights Templar to the history of the crusades. 

Dr. Schrader continues our fifteen-part series on the Knights Templar with the third of our "Ten True Tales of the Knights Templar."  Today's essay looks at the role of the Knights Templar in the Battle of Montgisard 1177

A modern portrayal of the Battle of Montgisard by Mariusz Kozik

In in 1177, Salah-ad-Din (known in the West as Saladin) launched the first of what were to be several full-scale invasions of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem. At this time Saladin had effectively united the Caliphates of Cairo and Baghdad for the first time in 200 years, but his hold on power was still precarious. In Egypt his faced suspicion and opposition because he was Sunni, and in Syria he was viewed as a usurper and upstart because he was a Kurd and had stolen the Sultanate from the rightful heir.

A Contemporary Depiction of Salah-ad-Din from an Islamic Manuscript

Saladin countered these internal doubts and dissatisfaction with the age-old device of focusing attention on an external enemy: the Christian states established by the crusaders along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. These states represented a clear and serious military threat to his lines of communication between Egypt and Syria.  But Saladin did not simply beat the drum of alarm concerning an external enemy in order to rally his subjects around him; he also took up the cry of “jihad” — Holy War. This was a obvious attempt to increase his stature vis-a-vis his remaining rivals in Syria. Salah-ad-Din means “righteousness of the faith,” and throughout his career Salah-ad-Din used campaigns against the Christian states as a means of rallying support.

Another depiction of Saladin; Source Unknown

Meanwhile, in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, King Amalaric, who had been led five expeditions into Egypt, had died.  He had been succeeded by Baldwin IV, a youth suffering from leprosy. Conscious of his own weakness and immanent death, Baldwin IV sent to the West for aid, and in early August 1177, Count Philip of Flanders reached Acre with a large force of Western knights.

On the advice of the High Court, Baldwin IV offered Philip of Flanders the regency of his kingdom, whose armies were preparing yet another invasion of Egypt aided by a large Byzantine fleet. Flanders, however, insisted on being made king of any territories the joint Christian forces conquered. The idea did not sit well with either the King of Jerusalem or the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, both of whom were footing the bill and providing the bulk of the troops for the expedition. The result was that the entire expedition was called off, the Byzantine fleet withdrew and Philip of Flanders took his knights and half the barons of Jerusalem north to attack the Seljuk strongholds of Hama and Harim instead.

A Medieval depiction of a Crusading Host

Salah ad-Din had gathered his forces in Egypt to repel the impending attack. He rapidly learned that not only had the invasion of Egypt been called off, the Byzantine fleet had withdrawn and the bulk of the fighting forces of Jerusalem had moved north. It was a splendid opportunity to strike, and the Sultan seized the opportunity, invading with a force estimated at 26,000 light horse — which leaves open the question of whether there were infantry with him or not. The force also allegedly included some 1,000 mamluks of the Sultan’s personal body guard.

Salah ad-Din's army crossed into Frankish territory from Egypt and significantly by-passed the Templar stronghold at Gaza. Presumably, Salah ad-Din considered it too tough a nut to crack. Laying siege to a Templar fortress would, he calculated, cost far too much time and too many lives. Salah ad-Din (as throughout his career) preferred "soft targets.

Significantly, the Templars let the Saracen army pass without offering any resistance. The Templars were said to have gathered a large fighting force at Gaza, thinking this would be the target of the invasion. (Howarth, p. 132; Robinson, p. 131.)  Furthermore, the Master of the Temple had taken personal command at Gaza in anticipation of this confrontation.  The new Master was Odo de Saint Amand. He was a man William of Tyre (who knew him personally) described as "dictated by the spirit of pride, of which he had an excess." (Barber, p. 109.) Two years later, Saint Amand would be responsible for a Templar charge that very nearly cost the Kingdom of Jerusalem their king, and landed him in a Saracen prison. So it is unlikely that the Templars failed to respond to Salah ad-Din's invasion out of indifference or fear. Furthermore, as my essay on the Siege of Ascalon highlighted, the Templars were capable of impetuous acts in which they took on forces much larger than their own. The most likely explanation is that despite an ethos that viewed numbers as irrelevant in the face of faith, the size of the invading army was simply too daunting for the roughly 300 knights collected at Gaza.  

An Example of a Crusader Stronghold -- here Margat, a Hospitaller Castle

Meanwhile, according to an anonymous Christian chronicler from northern Syria, the news of Saladin’s invasion plunged Jerusalem into despair. The king was just 16 years old, had no battle experience of his own. His most experienced commanders (or many of them) were besieging Hama. The Constable of the Kingdom, the competent and wise Humphrey de Toron II, was gravely ill. Nevertheless, Baldwin rallied his forces and with just 376 knights made a dash to Ascalon, the southern-most stronghold of his kingdom.

Baldwin and his improvised force of secular knights arrived in Ascalon only shortly before Salah ad-Din with his whole army on November 22.  King Baldwin took control of the city, but then hesitated to risk open battle with the Saracens because of the imbalance of forces.  Thus, while King Baldwin's dash to Ascalon had been heroic, it had been rash as well. Salah ad-Din was now in a position to keep the King and his knights bottled up inside Ascalon with only a fraction of his forces, while taking the rest of his army and striking at the now unprotected Jerusalem

This was exactly what Salah ad-Din did, and it might have resulted in the fall of Jerusalem had Salah ad-Din not made a major error. The Sultan and his emirs were so confident of victory that they took time to plunder the rich cities of the coastal plain, notably Ramla and Lydda, but also as far inland as Hebron. In Jerusalem, the terrified population sought refuge in the Citadel of David.

The Citadel of David as it appears today.

But Baldwin IV was not yet defeated. With the number of Saracen troops surrounding Ascalon dramatically reduced, he risked a sortie. H also somehow managed to get word to the Templars at Gaza of his plans and request that they rendezvous with him. 

The Templars were not vassals of the King of Jerusalem and not obliged to do as he asked. But Saint Amand did not hesitate to join the King.  He sortied out of Gaza with his entire mobile force of just 84 knights, plus an unknown number of sergeants and Turcopoles. 

Together this mounted force started to shadow Saladin’s now dispersed and no longer disciplined army. Frankish tactics, however, required a combination of cavalry and infantry, so King Baldwin could not engage the enemy until he had sufficient infantry as well. He issued the arrière ban, a general call to arms that obligated every Christian to rally to the royal standard in defense of the realm. Infantry started streaming to join him.

On the afternoon of November 25, King Baldwin’s host of about 450 knights (375 secular knights and 84 Templars from Gaza), with their squires, Turcopoles and infantry in unspecified numbers caught up with the main body of Saladin’s troops at a place near Montgisard or Tell Jazar, near Ibelin (modern day Yavne).  

Modern Depiction of Montgisard by Zvonimir (copyright Medieval World) with the the Templars and the Ibelins at the forefront of the Frankish cavalry.

The Sultan, as he later admitted to Saracen chroniclers, was caught off-guard. Before he could properly deploy his troops, the main force of Christian knights, probably led by Templars, smashed into Saladin’s still disorganized troops, apparently while some were still crossing or watering their horses in a stream.

Although the battle was hard fought and there were heavy Christian casualties, the Sultan’s forces were soon routed.  Not only that, Salah ad-Din himself came very close to being killed or captured and allegedly escaped on the back of a pack-camel.  

For the bulk of his army there was no escape. Those who were not slaughtered immediately on the field, found themselves scattered and virtually defenseless in enemy territory. Although they abandoned their plunder, it was still a long way home — and the rains had set in.  Cold, wet, slowed down by the mud, no longer benefiting from the strength of numbers, they were easy prey for the residents and settlers of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  The latter, after the sack of Lydda, Ramla and other lesser places, had good reason to crave revenge. Furthermore, even after escaping Christian territory, the Sultan’s troops still found no refuge because once in the desert the Bedouins took advantage of the situation to enslave as many men as they could catch in order to enrich themselves. Very few men of the Sultan’s army made it home to safety in Egypt.

Saladin was badly shaken by this defeat. He had good reason to believe it would discredit him and initially feared it would trigger revolts against his rule. Later, he convinced himself that God had spared him for a purpose. Certainly he was to learn from his defeat. He never again allowed himself to be duped by his own over-confidence and his subsequent campaigns against the crusader states were marked by greater caution. It was not until the crushing defeat of the Frankish armies at Hattin in July 1187 — almost ten years later — that he had his revenge.

The Battle of Montgisard is an important episode in "Knight of Jerusalem," the first book in a three part biography of Balian d'Ibelin.

Buy Now!

Dr. Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.

She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.

She is an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at: http://crusaderkingdoms.com