Source Problem 2:

         “WAS THERE TREACHERY AT THE SIEGE OF DAMASCUS?
                       AND, IF SO, BY WHOM?”

            The Second Crusade was viewed as a complete disaster by all Latin Christians.  The more philosophical were willing to accept defeat as part of God’s inscrutable plan or as a general judgment on the sinfulness of all of the Christian West.  These themes were sounded by Bernard of Clairvaux, whose appeals had sent so many thousands of crusaders to their deaths:   

                “It might perhaps be a comfort to us to bear in mind the heavenly judgments that were made of old.         . . . When Moses was about to lead the people out of the land of Egypt . . .    that people . . . was stiff-necked,        always acting obstinately against the Lord and Moses his servant.  . . . they were unbelieving and rebellious.   But what of our contemporaries?    Ask them!   What need is there to tell me what they themselves acknowledge?   I have one thing to say to them.  What ground could the Israelites gain when they were always turning back in their tracks?  When, at every step along the way, did they not want to return to Egypt?  And so, if the Israelites fell and perished . . ., are we surprised when our contemporaries, who make the same mistakes, suffer the same fate?

        Nevertheless, there was a natural tendency to look for scapegoats.  Perhaps the Byzantines were to blame for the losses the crusading armies suffered in Asia Minor.  Had they plotted with the Turks to destroy the crusaders?  So concludes Odo of Deuil, who chronicled the progress of Louis VII’s army down to his arrival at Antioch.  But something still might have been salvaged if the second crusade had taken Damascus, for this would have extended the borders of Outremer out to the limits of the desert and made the crusader states more easily defensible.  The combined forces of France, Germany, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem had fought their way up to the walls of Damascus, and seemed about to take the city.  Yet then the armies are said to have moved out of the orchards on the west side of the city and marched over to the desert area on the southeastern side; then they decided to withdraw.  Who was to blame?  Was it a case of treachery?

        Your assignment is to determine, on the basis of the sources given, whether there was treachery, and, if so, by whom?  Look at Madden’s and Mayer's reconstructions and at the primary sources.  Where do they agree and where do they disagree?  Present your answer, documenting it with parenthetical or footnote citations of the evidence.  Keep your essay within about five double-spaced typed pages with standard margins.    Your grade will depend especially on your ability to use all the sources in a logical way.

        To help you out here, the source bibliography, already formatted, can be downloaded right here. Print the bibliography (adjusting the font and other characteristics if necessary) and attach it to your paper.  This page will not count as part of your recommended number of pages. If you use a parenthetical citation system, the first item within the parenthesis should be the initial name found in an entry in this bibliography and the second and final item should be a page reference.    If you use a footnote citation system, the first reference to an item should provide full bibliographical information, reformatted to conform to footnote style (the author's name in proper order, citation elements separated by commas or parentheses rather than periods, etc.); subsequent footnote references should consist only of an author's last name, a very short form title, and a page reference.

The Sources:

        1.  Ibn al-Qalānisī (d. 1160). Continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus.  He is a supporter of the Emir of Damascus.  Concerning him, see Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. xxvi.  Most of the relevant section of his work is given in Gabrieli, 56-59, but also note the following back reference to Damascus which Gabrieli omitted:

-287-     "It came about after this mercy that Mu'īn al-Dīn joined forces with Nūr al-Dīn, lord of Aleppo, on his approach to Damascus to succour it in the latter part of Second Rabī' (middle of September) of this year, and they proceeded together to the castle in the neighbourhood of Tarābulus which is called the Castle of `Araima.  It was held by the son of King Alfonso, one of the Frankish kings mentioned above, who had perished at 'Akkā.  With him were his mother and a considerable body of personal attendants, knights and leaders of his men.  The Muslims surrounded the castle and made an assault upon

-288- it, the 'askars of Nūr al-Dīn and Mu'īn al-Dīn having been joined by a detachment of about a thousand horse from the 'askar of Saif al-Dīn Ghāzi, son of the Atābek [Lord of Mosul].  Both sides engaged actively in the struggle and most of the garrison were killed or made prisoner.  The son of the king was captured, along with his mother, and all that the castle contained of war equipment, horses, and furnishings was plundered.  The 'askar of Saif al-Dīn retired to its camp at Hims,  Nūr al-Dīn returned to Aleppo. taking the king's son and his mother and the captives with him, and Mu'īn al-Dīn withdrew to Damascus.

            In the meantime there had arrived at Damascus the Sharīf and Amīr Shams al-Dīn al-Husainī, the Naqīb. He had come on from Saif al-Dīn Ghāzi, son of the Atābek, having been deputed as an envoy from the Caliphate to all the governors and to the tribes of the Turkmens, to urge them to assist the Muslims and engage in the Holy War against the polytheists.  This was the reason for the fear of the Franks that continual reinforcements would join the forces opposed to them, and for their retreat in the manner described.   He set out to return to Baghdad with the answer to his mission on Wednesday, 11th Rahab of the year 43 (24th November).

            News arrived in Rahab from Aleppo that Nūr al-Dīn, its lord. had set out with his 'askar towards the Frankish territories, and had captured a

-289- considerable number of Franks; further that the Lord of Antioch had assembled the Franks and in an attack upon Nūr al-Dīn at a moment of heedlessness on his part had inflicted such losses on his 'askar, baggage train, and animals as had been decreed by their destinies.  Nūr al-Dīn himself and his 'askar retreated, and he returned safely to Aleppo, having lost none but a few of his 'askar and killed a fair number of the Franks.  He remained for a few days in Aleppo making good the losses of his transport train and replenishing what he required in the way of weapons for the 'askar, then returned to his camp, or, according to other reports, did not return."

The  Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades.  Extracted and Translated from the Chronicle of Ibn Al-Qalānisī by H.A.R. Gibb. London:  Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1967. Pp. 287-89. 

        2. Ibn al-Jauzi (d. 1200),  Mirror of the Times.  A distinguished preacher and prolific writer, based in Baghdad and Damascus, who was friendly with the Ayyubid rulers.  On him see Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. xxxii, who presents an anecdote on the second crusade, pp. 62-63. 

        3.  Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233), The Perfect History.  He tends to favor the Zengid dynasty based in Mosul.  On this author see Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp. xxvii-xxviii.  Most of the relevant section of his work is given in Gabrieli, 59-62.           

        4.  Odo of Deuil  (d. 1162), De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (On Louis VII's Journey to the East).  Odo was a chaplain who accompanied Louis on the crusade and wrote an account of events from its beginning to the arrival at Antioch.  Unfortunately, he ends his narrative prior to the siege of Damascus, but he does reveal something about the morale of the crusading army: 

[Brundage translation, p. 107]        "Thus far we had been at play, for we had neither suffered any damages from men's malice nor had we feared any dangers from the plots of cunning men. From the time when we entered Bulgaria and the land of the Greeks, however, both the strength and morale of the army were put to the test. In the impoverished town of Branicevo, as we were about to enter an uninhabited area, we loaded up with supplies, most of which came via the Danube from Hungary. There was such a number of boats there, brought by the Germans, that the populace's supplies of firewood and timber for building were assured for a long time. Our men took the smaller boats across the river and bought supplies from a certain Hungarian fortress which was not far away. Here we first encountered the stamina, a copper coin. We unhappily gave -or rather, lost-five denarii for one of them and a mark for twelve solidi. Thus the Greeks were tainted with perjury at the very entrance to their country. You may remember that, as has been said, their representatives had sworn, on the Emperor's be- |

[Brundage translation, p. 108]  half, that they would furnish us with a proper market and exchange. We crossed the rest of this desolate country and entered a most beautiful and wealthy land which stretches without interruption to Constantinople. Here we first began to receive injuries and to take notice of them. The other areas had sold us supplies properly and had found us peaceful. The Greeks, however, shut up their cities and fortresses and sent their merchandise down to us on ropes suspended from the walls. The supplies purveyed in this manner, however, were insufficient for our multitude. The pilgrims, therefore, secured the necessary supplies by plundering and looting, since they could not bear to suffer want in the midst of plenty.

        "It seemed to some that the Germans who had preceded us were at fault in this respect, since they had looted everything and we discovered that they had burned several settlements outside the walls of towns. The story must be told, although reluctantly. Outside of the walls of Philippopolis was a noble town inhabited by Latin peoples who sold a great many supplies to travellers for profit. When the Germans settled down in the taverns there, a joker was present, as bad luck would have it. Although he did not know their language, he sat down, made a sign, and got a drink. After guzzling for a long time, he took a charmed snake out of his pocket and placed it in his schooner, which he had deposited on the ground. He went on to play other joker's tricks among people of whose language and customs he was ignorant. The Germans rose up in horror, as if they had seen a monster, seized the entertainer, and tore him to pieces. They blamed everyone for the misdeeds of one man and declared that the Greeks had tried to murder them with poison. The town was aroused by the tumult in the suburb and the Duke came out beyond the walls with a group of his men to settle the disturbance. The Germans, whose eyes were bleary with wine and anger, saw, not unarmed men, but a posse. The angry Germans, therefore, rushed upon the men who had come to preserve peace in the belief that they were going to take revenge for the murder. The Germans snatched up their bows-for these are their weapons-and went out once more to turn to flight those from whom they had fled. They killed and wounded the Greeks and when all the Greeks had been expelled from the suburb, the Germans stopped. Many of the Germans were killed there, especially those who had gone into the inns, |

[Brundage translation, p. 109]   for, in order to get their money, the Greeks threw them into caves. When the Germans had plucked up their spirits and had taken up their weapons again, they returned and, in order to redress their shame and the slaughter of their men, they burned nearly everything outside of the walls.

        "The Germans were also unbearable to us. On one occasion some of our men wished to get away from the crowding of the multitude around the King. They therefore went on ahead and stayed near the Germans. Both they and the Germans went to market, but the Germans would not allow the Franks to buy anything until they got enough for themselves. From this arose a brawl, or rather a squabble, for when one man denounces another whom he does not understand in a loud voice, that is a squabble. The Franks struck them and the Germans struck back. The Franks then returned from the market with their supplies. The Germans, who were numerous, were scornful of the pride of a few Franks and took up arms against them. The Germans attacked them fiercely and the Franks, who were armed in a similar fashion, resisted spiritedly. God put an end to this wickedness, for night soon fell....

        "Thus, as the Germans went forward they disturbed everything and for this reason the Greeks fled from our peaceful Prince who followed the Germans. Nonetheless, the congregation of the churches and all the clergy came out from the cities with their icons and other Greek paraphernalia and they always received our King with due honor and with fear.... "

        "Constantinople is the glory of the Greeks. Rich in fame, richer yet in wealth, the city is triangular in shape, like a ship's sail. In Its inner angle lies Santa Sophia and the Palace of Constantine, in which there is a chapel honored for its sacred relics. The city is hemmed in on two sides by the sea: approaching the city, we had on the right the Arm of St. George and on the left a certain estuary which branches off from it and flows on for almost four miles. There is set what is called the Palace of Blachernae which,  |

[Brundage translation, p. 110]  although it is rather low, yet, rises to eminence because of its elegance and its skillful construction. On its three sides the palace offers to its inhabitants the triple pleasure of gazing alternately on the sea, the countryside, and the town. The exterior of the palace is of almost incomparable loveliness and its interior surpasses anything that I can say about it. It is decorated throughout with gold and various colors and the floor is paved with cleverly arranged marble. Indeed, I do not know whether the subtlety of the art or the preciousness of the materials gives it the greater beauty or value. On the third side of the city's triangle there are fields. This side is fortified by towers and a double wall which extends for nearly two miles, from the sea to the palace. This wall is not especially strong, and the towers are not very high, but the city trusts, I think, in its large population and in its ancient peace. Within the walls there is vacant land which is cultivated with hoes and plows. Here there are all kinds of gardens which furnish vegetables for the citizens. Subterranean conduits flow into the city under the walls to furnish the citizens with an abundance of fresh water. The city is rather squalid and smelly and many places are afflicted with perpetual darkness. The rich build their houses so as to overhang the streets and leave these dark and dirty places for travellers and for the poor. There murder and robberies occur, as well as other sordid crimes which love the dark. Life in this city is lawless, since it has as many lords as it has rich men and almost as many thieves as poor men. Here the criminal feels neither fear nor shame, since crime is not punished by law nor does it ever fully come to light. Constantinople exceeds the average in everything-it surpasses other cities in wealth and also in vice. It has many churches which are unequal to Santa Sophia in size, though not in elegance. The churches are admirable for their beauty and equally so for their numerous venerable relics of the saints. Those who could enter them did so, some out of curiosity in order to see them, and some out of faithful devotion.

        "The King also was guided on a visit to the holy places by the Emperor. As they returned, the King dined with the Emperor at the latter's insistence. The banquet was as glorious as the banqueters; the handsome service, the delicious food, and the witty conversation satisfied eyes, tongue, and ears alike. Many of the King's men feared for him there, but he had placed his trust in  |

[Brundage translation, p. 111] God and with faith and courage he feared nothing. Since he harbored no wicked designs himself, he was not quick to believe that others harbored wicked designs on him. Even though the Greeks gave no evidence of their treachery, however, I believe that they would not have shown such vigilant helpfulness if their intentions were honest. They were concealing the grievances for which they were going to take revenge after we crossed the Arm of St. George. It should not be held against them, however, that they kept the city gates closed against the commoners, since they had burned many of the Greeks' houses and olive trees, either because of a lack of wood or else because of the insolence and drunkenness of fools. The King frequently had the ears, bands, and feet of some of them cut off, but he was unable to restrain their madness in this way."

        "Romania, furthermore, is a very wide land with rugged, stony mountains. It extends south to Antioch and is bounded by Turkey on the east. All of it was formerly under Greek rule, but the Turks now possess a great part of it and, after expelling the Greeks, have destroyed another part of it. In the places where the Greeks still hold fortresses, they do not pay taxes. Such are the servile conditions in which the Greeks hold the land which French strength liberated when the Franks conquered Jerusalem."' This indolent people would have lost it all, save for the fact that they have brought in soldiers of other nations to defend themselves. They are always losing, but since they possess a great deal, they do not lose everything at once. The strength of other peoples, however, is not sufficient for a people which totally lacks strength of its own. Nicomedia first made this clear to us: located among briars and brambles, its towering ruins demonstrated its ancient glory and the slackness of its present masters. In vain does a certain estuary of the sea flow from the Arm and terminate after a three-day journey at Nicomedia to better the city's facilities.

        "From Nicomedia three routes of various lengths and quality lead to Antioch. The road which turns to the left is the shorter |

[Brundage translation, p. 112] of them and, if there were no obstacles along it, it could be traversed in three weeks. After twelve days, however, it reaches Konya, the Sultan's capital, which is a very noble city. Five days beyond the Turkish territory this road reaches the land of the Franks. A strong army fortified by faith and numbers would make light of this obstacle if it were not frightened by the snow-covered mountains in the winter. The road running to the right is more peaceful and better supplied than the other, but the winding seacoast which it follows delays the traveller three times over and its rivers and torrents in the winter are as frightful as the snow and the Turks on the other road. On the middle road the conveniences and difficulties of the other routes are tempered. It is longer but safer than the shorter road, shorter and safer than the long road, but poorer. The Germans who preceded us, therefore, had a disagreement. Many of them set out with the Emperor through Konya on the left hand road under sinister omens. The rest turned to the right under the Emperor's brother, a course which was unfortunate in every way. The middle road fell to our lot and so the misfortunes of the other two sides were tempered."

Source:  Odo of Deuil, La Croisade de Louis VII, roi de France, IV, ed. Henri Waquet, Documents relatifs à l'histoire des croisades, Vol 3.  Paris: Paul Guethner, 1949.  Pp. 52-55.  Translated by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History  Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962), 107-112.

        5.  John of Salisbury (ca. 1115/1125-1180), Memoirs of the Papal Court.  John was an English statesman, humanist, and philosopher.  Although he did not participate in the crusade, he was resident at the papal court from 1148-1151, and therefore was able observe its proceedings and to hear reports about the crusade. 

Page 54
                                                                                                                X.XIV

            BESIDES the misfortunes that befell the Christians through the deceit of the Byzantine Emperor and the forces of the Turks,^l their army was weakened by the jealousy of princes and the wrangling of priests. The Germans declined to have anything to do with the Franks in shipping their baggage across the Hellespont, and went to the length of refusing a request to wait for the king, who was following a few days' journey behind, saying that the Franks were nothing to them, and they would wait for no-one whatsoever until Edessa, which they came to liberate, had been captured. Pressing on in the full flush of pride²:  they were so tortured by  starvation in the desert that many died; later they were so harried by the infidels that at last they sent ambassadors to the most Christian king, who consented to wait for them. For the king loved and honoured king Conrad, and rejoiced in his company. But from that moment the French army, which even before had had neither military discipline nor a strong hand to dispense justice and correct faults, lost all hope of ordered strategy. Arnulf bishop of Lisieux ³ and Godfrey bishop of Langres, boasting that they held the office of papal legate in the army though they had never received any such charge,⁴ were in such constant disagreement that rarely, if ever, could they agree on any plan. 'Whatever one recommended the other decried; both were smooth-tongued, both extravagant, both (it is said) mischief-makers, |

^{--------------------------------------}

devoid of the fear of God; but of the two the bishop of  Langres was more prudent and more high-minded.  Few if any have brought more harm on the Christian army and whole community.  Each had his own following who believed in him, and both received large sums of money from the sick and dying whom they attended and absolved in the name of the pope, claiming to be his representatives. Indeed they are believed to have accumulated more wealth during the expedition than they paid out of their own pockets.

             Thierry count of Flanders, in haste to return as he alleged he had promised his son Baldwin, and urging the same course on the others, hated the bishop of Langres because he was always demanding great deeds, and urging that they should remain in that country until they had rallied their forces to achieve something worthy of God and the king and the Frankish kingdom, and the coming of so many men of high rank: the bishop of' Lisieux pressed the count's wishes. King Conrad treated the count as a close friend, for he spoke the German tongue, and, having more soldiers than the other Franks, often gave support to the king who was destitute of troops. Consequently he won such favour that the king granted him tribute from the district of Cambrai, called 'gabelle' in common speech.¹   So Conrad came round to the opinion of the count of Flanders, but the king of the Franks was more inclined to remain. And because the count alleged that he was moved by love of his son Baldwin, and the welfare of the eastern church suffered  thereby, the same Baldwin died in Flanders shortly afterwards by God's will, and the father's succession devolved on Philip, his younger son.²

            THE KINGS after joining forces with the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem set out to storm Damascus; they|

defeated and put to flight the opposing forces of unbelievers, driving them into the suburbs. Here a bitter struggle took place, and no-one in that day it seems dealt more doughty blows than king Conrad. At last the Christians, attacking with great valour, overthrew the enemy and gained the suburbs. Neither Abana and Pharpar,^l  renowned rivers of Damascus, nor the fortifications of the suburbs nor the strength of the enemy could check their advance until they had pressed on to encircle the walls. They pitched camp before the city, and would have occupied it (as the best authorities believe) if. they had persevered for fifteen days. For the townsmen were overwhelmed with despair and wonder at the courage of the men who had crossed the rivers, who were checked neither by fortifications nor by armed resistance. The besieged were terrified at the mere mention of their name. And surely the memory of such valour would have endured for ever, had they been as determined to press on as they were eager to join battle. But that very night the kings were persuaded that the city could not be stormed from that side because the towers and fortifications were stronger there, and that it could more easily be captured from the other side, which was less heavily defended. So the next day they struck camp, apparently to move to the other side, but in reality preparing for retreat. It is notorious that meanwhile the most Christian king had been betrayed and deceived;² some impute the treachery to the Templars, others to those who were moved by a desire to return home: certainly the king himself always endeavoured to exonerate the brothers of the Temple. 'When they had streamed out into the plain and were debating what

ought to be done, the party who were for turning back advised that, since they had come unprepared for a long siege it would be wiser to return to Jerusalem and come back better prepared some other time. King Conrad approved their counsel; the bishop of Langres resisted it. The count of Flanders for his part entered into dispute with the bishop who had some supporters; at length, turning to Conrad, he remarked to him in German that it was disgraceful to hear the advice given by so many princes and supported by Conrad himself opposed by this rash priest. As a result the bishop was sent off on patrol with forty knights, to reconnoitre the approaches from the other side of the city, and see whether any place suitable for a camp could be found near the river. Meanwhile the adherents of the first plan won the king of the Franks to their side by persuading him that it would be in the interests of all as well as more considerate to king Conrad if he gave way for the time being; and that he ought to show even more respect for Conrad's opinion than if they had had equal forces and been equally popular in the country. In the end he gave way, and all returned home.

            KING CONRAD, who had lost his army and was unpopular in the country, could not remain there, and dared not return by sea on account of the enmity between him and king Roger of Sicily^.1 Likewise the Frankish princes returned, though they went by sea.    So the army melted away, impelled by want, until the king of the Franks remained almost alone.

-------------

Ioannis Saresberiensis Historia Pontificalis / John of Salisbury's Memoirs of the Papal Court. Translated from the Latin with introduction by Marjorie Chibnall.  London:  Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd,  1956.  Pp. 54-58.

6.  Archbishop William of Tyre (d. 1184), History of Deeds Done beyond the Sea.  William  was one of the greatest scholars of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  Although he wrote his history a generation after the siege of Damascus, he claims to have made efforts to talk to some of the people involved in order to find out what really happened. 

[Introduction from Brundage translation, p. 114]   King Louis and his entourage arrived in the harbor of St. Simeon, near Antioch, on March 19, 1148. Welcomed by Prince Raymond of Antioch, the King and his retainers settled down to enjoy the friendly reception accorded them by their friends, who saw in King Louis' army the potential saviors of the Principality of Antioch and of all the Latin states. And, indeed, the presence of Louis' cavalry forces greatly strengthened the position of the Latins in the East. Although Louis had lost or been separated from the great majority of the troops and pilgrims who had set out with him originally, the Crusading forces which finally landed at Antioch were far from negligible.

            Almost at once, Louis was besieged with urgent requests from various Latin princes and noblemen to lend his army to the favorite military schemes of the individual leaders. To all the plans presented to him, Louis demurred. As a Crusader he had sworn when he took the cross to visit the shrines of Jerusalem, and he quickly made it clear that the fulfillment of this vow was to be his first consideration in the East. King Louis' decision was also influenced, no doubt, by the dubious relationship which had sprung up between his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Prince Raymond of Antioch, Eleanor's cousin. Accordingly, King Louis and his army were soon on the march again. They stopped for a short time at Tripoli and then continued on their way to Jerusalem. On their arrival there, they found Conrad of Germany, together with a |

[Brundage translation, p. 115]    small contingent of the survivors from his army, awaiting them.

            After King Louis had fulfilled his vows by worshipping at the holy shrines of Jerusalem, he was ready to consider proposals to put his military forces to use in the defense of the Latin states. On June 24, 1148, a general council of the princes and military leaders then in the Holy Land was held at Acre, After vigorous discussion of various plans of action, the assembly finally decided to concentrate all the available forces on a supreme effort to conquer the ancient, venerable, and wealthy city of Damascus, a vital center of commerce and communications. Accordingly, the forces of the various sovereigns were mustered.' The King of Jerusalem, Baldwin III, the Templars and Hospitallers, the various lords of the other Latin states, and the French and German kings joined together to justify by military conquest the enormous effort which had brought the Second Crusade to the East.

        "Damascus is the largest city of lesser Syria and is its metropolis, for as it is said, "Damascus is the head of Syria." [Is. 7:8] The city is also known as the Phoenicia of Lebanon and is named after a certain servant of Abraham who is believed to have founded it. The name means "bloody" or "dripping with gore." The city is located on a plain in a land which is barren and arid, save where it is irrigated by waters brought down for its benefit through ancient canals. A stream descends from a nearby mountain ridge in the highlands of that area and is channeled through the various lower sections of the region so as to fertilize the barren fields. Since there is an abundance of water, the surplus is used to nourish the orchards of fruit trees which are located on either side of the stream. The stream flows along the eastern wall of the city.

        "When the kings came to the place which had been agreed upon, namely Daria, which was close to Damascus, they organized their lines for battle and settled the order of battle for their legions lest, if they went ahead in disorderly fashion, quarrels should break out among them and hinder their common task.

        "By the common decision of the princes it was agreed that the King of Jerusalem and his men were to go first, principally because they were supposed to be familiar with the lay of the land. |

[Brundage translation, p. 116]  They were supposed to open the way for the rest who were following them. The French King and the men of his expedition were ordered to take the second, or center, place, so that, if necessary, they could assist those ahead of them. The Emperor, by the same token, was ordered to keep in the third and last place, so that he would be ready to resist the enemy if perchance they should attack from the rear. He was thus to make the forces ahead secure from behind. When the three armies had been placed in proper order, they moved the camp forward and attempted to approach the city.

        "On the western side of Damascus from which our troops approached, and on the northern side, too, the city enclosed far and wide by orchards which are like a dense woods or a shady forest, extending five miles or more toward Lebanon. These orchards are enclosed by mud walls--rock is not plentiful in that region--so that their ownership will not be in doubt and also to keep out trespassers. The orchards are, therefore, enclosed by defensive walls in such a way that each man's possessions are identified. Paths and public roads, though they are narrow, are left open so that the gardeners and those who have charge of the orchards can make their way to the city with the animals which carry the fruit. These orchards are the city's greatest protection. Because of their density, because of the number of the trees, and because of the narrowness of the roads, it seemed difficult--indeed, almost impossible--for those who wished to approach Damascus to do so from that side. From the beginning, however, our princes had decided to bring the army in through this area to gain access to the city. There was a double reason for this: on the one hand, it was done so that after the most securely guarded areas in which the Damascenes had the greatest faith had been occupied, what remained would seem easy and would be more readily accomplished. On the other hand, the approach was made in this way so that the army would not be deprived of the benefits of food and water.

        "The King of Jerusalem, therefore, sent his fighting formations in first through those narrow orchard paths. The army could scarcely make headway and did so with great difficulty, both because it was hemmed in by the narrow roads and also because it was hindered by the ambushes of the men who were hidden in  |

[Brundage translation, p. 117]  the thickets. Also, the army had sometimes to engage the enemies who appeared and seized the circuitous paths.

        "All the people of Damascus came out together and descended upon the aforesaid orchards in order to block the army's passage both by stealth and by open attack. There were, furthermore, walls and large, tall houses among the orchards. These were defended by soldiers whose possessions lay nearby. They defended the orchard walls by shooting arrows and other missiles and allowed no one to approach them, while the arrows shot from on high made the public roads exceedingly dangerous for those who wished to pass through them. Nor were our men beset with formidable obstacles only on one side. Rather, on every side there was equal peril for the unwary and danger of sudden and unforeseen death. There were, moreover, men with lances hiding inside of the walls. When these men saw our men passing by, they would stab them as they passed, through little peepholes in the walls which were cleverly designed for this purpose, so that those hiding inside could scarcely be seen. Many are said to have perished miserably that day in this way. Countless other kinds of danger, too, faced those who wished to pass through those narrow paths.

        "As our men became aware of this, they pushed on more fiercely. When they had broken down the barricades in the orchards, they occupied them eagerly. Those whom they discovered within the walls or in the houses, they pierced with their swords or threw into chains as captives. When the townsmen who had come out to defend the orchards heard this, they feared that they would perish as the others had. They left the orchards and returned to the city in droves. Thus, when the defenders either had been slaughtered or bad been turned to flight, a free path forward lay open to our men.

        "The cavalry forces of the townsmen and of those who had come to their assistance realized that our army was coming through the orchards in order to besiege the city and they accordingly approached the stream which flowed by the town. This they did with their bows and ballistas so that they could fight off the Latin army, which was fatigued by its journey and also so that they could prevent the thirsty men from reaching the river and the water which was so necessary for them. Our men hurried to the river, which they had heard was nearby, in order to relieve their thirst, which bad grown intense from the difficulties of their labors |

[Brundage translation, p. 118]  and the dense clouds of dust which were raised by the feet of horses and men. There they saw such a multitude of the enemy that they halted for a time. After a while they collected their men. They were given strength and hardiness by necessity. Once and then again they strove to get to the water, but in vain. While the king of Jerusalem and his men struggled vainly, the Emperor, who commanded the formations in the rear, demanded to know why the army was not moving forward. He was told that the enemy had seized the river and that they were blocking the progress of our men. When be learned of this, the Emperor was angered and, together with his lieutenants, he speedily made his way through the French King's ranks to the place where the fight for the river was going on. They dismounted from their horses and became infantrymen-as the Germans are accustomed to do in the crisis of battle. With shields in hand they fought the enemy hand-to-hand with swords. The enemy, who had earlier resisted valiantly, were unable to withstand the attack. They relinquished the river bank and fled at full speed to the city.

        "In this combat the Lord Emperor is said to have performed a feat which will be remembered through the ages. It is related that one of the enemy was resisting manfully and vigorously and that the Emperor with one blow cut off this enemy soldier's head and neck with the left shoulder and arm attached, together with part of his side-despite the fact that the foe was wearing a cuirass. At this deed the citizens, both those who witnessed it and those who learned of it from others, were thrown into such a fright that they despaired of resisting and even of life itself.

        "When the river had been won and its banks had been freely yielded, the Crusaders camped far and wide around the city, with the advantage of using freely the orchards, for which they had so strenuously fought, as well as the river.  The townsmen were astonished both at the amazing number of our troops and at their courage. They began to be troubled about their own men and whether they could withstand us.  They feared a sudden attack by us and counted nothing safe when they considered what kind of men they had discovered us to be in the previous day's battles. They conferred, therefore, and with the ingenuity which is characteristic of those suffering misery and adversity, they had recourse to desperate devices.  In all the sections of the city which faced our camps they heaped up huge, tall beams, for they could |

[Brundage translation, p. 119]  only hope that while our men were working to tear down these barriers they might be able to flee in the opposite direction with their wives and children. It seemed evident to our men that if the divine favor was with us the city would soon be taken by the Christians. But it seemed otherwise to Him Who is "terrible in his judgments of the sons of men." [Ps 9:4] The city, as we have said, was in despair and its citizens held no hope of resisting or of being saved, but rather they were packing their bags and preparing to leave. At this point, for our sins, they began to work on the greed of our men. Using money, they attempted to conquer the hearts of those whose bodies they could not overcome. With consummate skill they proposed a variety of arguments to some of our princes and they promised and delivered a stupendous sum of money to them so that the princes would strive and labor to lift the siege. They persuaded these princes to assume the role of the traitor Judas. Corrupted by gifts and promises, led on by greed, the root of all evil, these princes fell in with the crime. By impious suggestions they persuaded the kings and the leaders of the pilgrims, who trusted their good faith and industry, to leave the orchards and to lead the army to the opposite side of the city. To camouflage their plot they alleged that on the opposite side of Damascus, which faced south and west, there were neither orchards to strengthen the city nor any moat or river to hinder their approach to the walls. The wall, they said, was low and was made of sunbaked bricks and it would scarcely withstand the first attack. There, they asserted, neither engines nor any great force would be needed. In the first attack the wall could immediately be torn down by band and it would not be difficult to break into the city....

        <"Their sole purpose in presenting these arguments was to cause the removal of the army from its present position, for here the city was particularly hard pressed and powerless to hold out, while on the other side the siege could not possibly be long maintained.>

        "The kings and all the leaders of the army believed them and they deserted the places which they bad earlier won with so much sweat and at the cost of the lives of so many of their men. They transferred all of their formations and, under the leadership of the traitors, they camped on the opposite side of the city.

        "There they found themselves located far from access to water, deprived of the abundance of fruit, and lacking almost all supplies. They were saddened and they discovered, all too late, that they had maliciously been led to move from a region of abundance. |

[Brundage translation, p. 120]     "The food supply in the camp began to run out. Before the men had set out on the expedition, they had been persuaded to believe that the city would be quickly taken and they had brought along provisions for only a few days. This was especially true for the pilgrims, nor could they be blamed for it, since they were unfamiliar with the country. They had been persuaded, too, that the city would be taken at once in the initial attacks and they were assured that in the meantime a large army could be fed on the fruit supply which they could get for nothing, even if all other food were lacking.

        "The doubtful men deliberated publicly and privately as to what they were to do. To return to the places they had left seemed hard, even impossible, for, when our men had left, the enemy saw that what they desired had been accomplished. They had entered those places more strongly than before and bad barricaded the roads by which our men had earlier entered. they had blocked them by piling up beams and large rocks and had sent in an immense company of archers who made access impossible. To attack the city from the area where the camps were now located would, on the other hand, involve delay; but the lack of food supplies would not allow a long respite.'

        "The pilgrim princes consulted one another. Seeing the manifest discomfort of the men whose spiritual care and whose Crusade had been confided to them and knowing that they could make no headway, they decided to return, despising the false pretenses of the men who had betrayed them.

        "Thus a company of kings and princes such as we have not read of through all the ages had gathered and, for our sins, had been forced to return, covered with shame and disgrace, with their mission unfulfilled. They returned to the kingdom by the same route over which they had come. Henceforth, so long as they remained in the East, they regarded the ways of our princes with suspicion. With good reason they turned down all their wicked plans and henceforth the leaders of the Crusade were lukewarm in the service of the Kingdom. Even after they had returned to their own lands they constantly remembered the injuries they had suffered and detested our princes as wicked men. Nor were they alone affected. For they also caused others who had not been there to neglect the care of the kingdom, so that henceforth those who undertook the pilgrimages were fewer and less fervent. Even |

[Brundage translation, p. 121]  today those who come are careful lest they fall into a trap and they strive to return home as soon as possible.

        <"I RECALL that I have often interviewed wise men and those whose memory of those times is still fresh, particularly with a view to using the information thus obtained in the present history.  I endeavored to learn the reason for this great wrong; who were the instigators of such treachery; and how so detestable a crime could have been carried through. I found that the reports vary greatly in regard to this matter. Some think that a certain act of the count of Flanders was responsible; for, as has been said, he was with the army on this expedition. After our legions arrived before Damascus, when the orchards and the river had already been seized by force and the city lay under siege, he is said to have approached each of the kings separately, one after another, and urgently demanded that the city when taken be given to him. It is said that this was granted. Although some of the great lords of our realm gave their consent, yet others, on hearing of it, were indignant. They resented the fact that this great prince, whose own possessions should have sufficed for him and who was seemingly fighting without recompense for the glory of the Lord, insisted that so large a portion of the kingdom be given to him. They themselves were hoping that whatever increase accrued to the realm through the valiant efforts of these princes might be used to enlarge their own possessions. Actuated by resentment, therefore, they stooped to this wicked course, for they preferred that the Damascenes should keep their city rather than to see it given to the count. It seemed utterly unjust that they who had endured untold privations and whose lives had been spent in fighting for the kingdom should now be passed over without hope of reward, while others who had only recently come should gather in the fruits which they themselves had earned by long-continued labor.

        "Still other stories are to the effect that nothing happened except that the enemy bribed certain persons by a vast sum of money to bring about this great disaster. They still speak of it as marvellous that afterwards all this money so wickedly obtained was found to be spurious and utterly worthless.

        "Thus opinions differed as to the responsibility for this detestable act, but I have been unable to obtain definite information on the subject. Whoever the guilty ones are, however, they may be sure that in due time they will obtain the reward which they justly deserve, unless, indeed, they seek forgiveness, when God, in His gracious mercy, may grant them pardon.">

Source:  William of Tyre, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, XVII, 3-6, , Translated from Patrologia Latina 201:675-79, by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History.  Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1962.  Pp. 115-121. [The excerpt here is supplemented by two additional passages, marked as <additions>, filled in by John Howe.  Brundage's original excerpt is reproduced in The Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tyre-damascus.html)].
 

            7.  Conrad III (King of of Germany and uncrowned emperor of the Romans, 1138-53), letters to Abbot Wibald of Corvey (1131-58), written in September and November 1148.  Conrad was one of the most important leaders of the crusade, and here are letters he sent soon after the events he describes.  But is he an objective witness? 

[Munro translation, p. 12]        Letter 1:  Conrad III to Abbot Wibald of Corvey

            "Conrad, by the grace of God, king of the Romans, to venerable Wibald, abbot of Corvey and Stavelot--his most kind greeting.

            "Because we have very frequently realized your faithfulness, proven in many trials, to us and to our kingdom, we do not doubt that you will rejoice greatly, if you hear of the state of our prosperity. We, therefore, announce to your faithfulness that we had reached Nicaea with our army entire and strong, wishing to complete our journey quickly, we hastened to set out for Icon- |

[Munro translation, p. 13]  ium under the guidance of men who knew the road. We carried with us as many necessities as possible. And behold when ten days journey were accomplished and the same amount remained to be traversed, food for the whole host had almost given out, but especially for the horses. At the same time the Turks did not cease to attack and slaughter the crowd of foot­soldiers who were unable to follow the army. We pitied the fate of our suffering people, perishing by famine and by the arrows of the enemy; and, by the advice of our princes and barons, we led the army back from that desert land to the sea, in order that it might regain its strength. We preferred to preserve the army for greater achievements rather than to win so bloody a victory over archers.

        "When, indeed, we had reached the sea and had pitched on tents and did not expect quiet amid so great a storm, to our delight the king of France came to our tents, wholly unexpectedly He grieved, indeed, that our army was exhausted by hunger and toil, but he took great delight in our company. Moreover, he himself and all his princes offered their services faithfully and devoutly to us and furnished for our use their money especially, and whatever else they had. They joined themselves, therefore, to our forces and princes. Some of the latter had remained with us, and others, either sick or lacking money, had not been able to follow and had accordingly withdrawn from the army.

        "We proceeded without any difficulty as far as St. John's, where his tomb with the manna springing from it is seen, in order that we might there celebrate the Nativity of our Lord. Having rested there some days to recover our health, inasmuch as sickness had seized on us and many of our men, we wanted to proceed; but weakened by our illness we were wholly unable to do so. The king, therefore, departed with his army, after having waited for us as long as possible; but a long sickness detained us.

        "When our brother, the emperor of Greece, heard of this, he was greatly grieved, and with our daughter, the most beloved empress, his wife, he hastened to come to us. And, liberally giving to us and our princes his money and the necessities for our journey, he led us back, as it were' by force, to his palace at Constantinople, in order that we might be the more speedily cured by his physicians. There he showed to us as much honor as, to our knowledge, was ever shown to any one of our predecessors. |

[Munro translation, p. 14]          "Thence we hastened to set out for Jerusalem on Quadragesima Sunday, in order to collect there a new army and to proceed to Rohas.

        "Moreover, that God may deign to make our journey prosperous, we ask that you and your brethren will pray for us and will order all Christians to do the same. And we entrust our son to your fidelity."
 

        Letter 2:  Conrad III to Abbot Wibald of Corvey, 1148

        "Conrad, by the grace of God, august king of the Romans, to venerable Wibald, abbot of Corvey, ­ his most kind greeting.

        "Because we know that you especially desire to hear from us and to learn the state of our prosperity, we think it fitting first to tell you of this. By God's mercy we are in good health and we have embarked in our ships to return on the festival of the blessed Virgin in September, after having accomplished in these lands all that God willed and the people of the country permitted.

        "Let us now speak of our troops. When following the advice of the common council we had gone to Damascus and after a great deal of trouble had pitched our camps before the gate of the city, it was certainly near being taken. But certain ones, whom we least suspected, treasonably asserted that the city was impregnable on that side and hastily led us to another position where no water could be supplied for the troops and where access was impossible to any one. And thus all, equally indignant grieved, returned, leaving the undertaking uncompleted. Nevertheless, they all promised unanimously that they would make an expedition against Ascalon, and they set the place and time. Having arrived there according to agreement, we found scarcely anyone. In vain we waited eight days for the troops. Deceived a second time, we turned to our own affairs.

        "In brief therefore, God willing, we shall return to you. We render to you the gratitude which you deserve for your care of our son and for the very great fidelity which you have shown to us, And with the full intention of worthily rewarding your services;, we ask you to continue the same."

Source:  Translated from the Latin in Bouquet: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xv p. 533, by  Dana C. Munro, "Letters of the Crusaders Written from the Holy Land," in Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol. 1(4). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1896), pp. 1-42, esp. pp. 12-14 [Reproduced in Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1148conrad2.html)].

            8. Gerhoh of Reichersburg (1093/1097-1169), An Investigation of the Antichrist.  Gerhoh  was one of the outstanding polemicists of the Investiture Controversy, the author of twenty surviving treatises.  In this work he “moves beyond general eschatological speculations and proceeds to an analysis of the events of the historical past and the present, in order to demonstrate the visible activities of the Antichrist” (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 5, p. 425). 

lxi:  The Story of the Fraudulent Siege of Damascus 
 

            "Although they [the men of Jerusalem] were living in an accustomed and completely secure peace, they called into motion the whole world as if they feared ravening enemies were about to take the holy place.  So that this effort would not seem to have been done for nothing, they tried to bring about an expedition and siege against Damascus.  For carrying out this siege, King Conrad of the Romans raised a new army at great cost, which came from all directions to Jerusalem.  And so a siege was undertaken by the kings of the Romans and the French and their armies and also by the king of Jerusalem and his whole force.  And our king indeed, believing everything to be done simply and faithfully, broke through the borderline of the city, and established his armed camp right beneath the walls; as he was a strong man, everything was done vigorously.  Others placed their camps in more comfortable, more remote places. 

            "In this siege it is clear with what intention the men of the Kingdom of Jerusalem had launched the whole world on a campaign, and what they sought to multiply for themselves by such a great effort of the whole world, by so many deaths of Christians--in part by the swords of the heathens, in part by hunger and thirst, in part by the disease of dysentery and by encounters with rivers and seas in which they perished--not so much peace for themselves, which indeed they already completely had, as treasures of gold and silver.  Immediately then, when the city was surrounded by siege, the citizens within the walls began to negotiate with the men of Jerusalem about peace and about the lifting of the siege.  They were soon offering to them an abundance of the gold which they were seeking.  And so when an agreement had been secretly made and much money had changed hands, the men of Jerusalem, having also persuaded the king of France, drew back, leaving the king of the Romans and his army in the siege by themselves.  Even he, when he saw how they had acted fraudulently and that he himself was all that remained, withdrew from the siege.  Look what happened!  Would anyone think what the men of Jerusalem had intended from such a tremendous expenditure from outside the boundaries of their kingdom, from so many deaths of Christians, from such great spending of public and even of private funds?  For the end proves that they only intended to gain money, either from the offerings of the crusaders or from the payments of the besieged Damascenes.  But as it happened, God judging here justly, they did not rejoice in their iniquitous acceptance of so much money.  For they who had deceived many were themselves deceived by the money, since for the most part they had accepted copper made up like gold, so that it vexed them greatly that they had sold so much Christian blood at such a cheap price." 

Source:  De Investigatione Antichristi I lxi, ed. by Ernst Sackur in Libelli de Lite, 3 vols. Monumenta  Germaniae Historica. Hannover:  Hahn, 1897. 3:377.  [Translated by Howe.]

            9.  Peter the Venerable

             Abbot Peter of Cluny (ca. 1092-1156) writes to King Roger II of Sicily (1130-54), offering to act as a mediator between him and Conrad III, and urging him to attack Byzantium in punishment for the empire’s ‘betrayal’ of the Second Crusade (c. 1150):

[Constable edition, 1:394]             "… Furthermore, we make known to your royal majesty that we greatly lament the conflicts that are going on between you and the lord King of the Germans (or Emperor of the Romans).  Both I and many others are strongly of the opinion that this discord is harmful to the Latin kingdoms and to the Christian Faith.  For we have heard many times and often how your military power has brought benefits to the Church of God in the lands of his enemies, that is |

[1: 395]    those of the Saracens.  Moreover, we believe that greater advantages would accrue if you and the aforesaid king were united in a lasting peace and concord. There is also another matter which has long been of concern to us, and to almost all of our fellow countrymen in France, in seeking such a peace for you; namely the wicked, unheard of and disgraceful betrayal by the Greeks and their miserable king of our pilgrims, that is those in the army of God.

            "I shall speak of what I have in mind.  If it should be necessary, insofar as is appropriate for a monk, I would not refuse to perish, if the justice of God would, through the death of one of his servants, revenge that of so many men, both nobles and commoners, indeed the flower of almost the whole of France and Germany, destroyed by wretched treason.  Moreover, I can see no Christian prince under Heaven through whom this work can be carried out who is better, more suitable nor more effective than yourself, nor so acceptable to Heaven and earth.  For, by the grace of God, I say this not in flattery but on account of your outstanding deeds and from the general opinion about you. You are wiser of mind, better endowed with riches, and more practised in courage than other princes, and furthermore you are physically closer to this place. So therefore, rise up, good prince, to fulfil what not just I with my voice am saying, but what is the wishes both of myself and of everyone else.  Rise up to help the people of God, zealously to uphold the law of God like the Maccabees, to revenge so many insults, injuries and deaths, and such effusion of blood in the army of God, shed so impiously.
            "I myself am ready, should an opportunity present itself, to go immediately to the aforesaid emperor, along with anybody else I can recruit, to secure the peace of which I spoke above.  I shall try with all my strength and all my care to restore and confirm between you and him a peace that is so pleasing to God."

Source:  Letter No. 162, from The Letters of Peter the Venerable. Edited by Giles Constable. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.:  Harvard University Press, 1967.   l:394-5.

            10.  Albert the Notary, Chronicles of the Emperors.  A southern Italian writing in the 1260s, he represents a stage where the historiographical image of the siege had become fairly stable:

            "In the year of our Lord 1146 a plague of caterpillars dominated the land and consumed the goods of the earth, so that in the following year hunger afflicted a number of poor people.  In that same year 1147, King Conrad, inflamed by divine zeal, set out glorious with the shield of the cross.  With him went King Louis of the Galls and the count of Provence [sic].  Then Manuel, who had succeeded his father Calloianus [sic], after they had passed through Constantinople, betrayed them, even though Conrad had married his niece [sic], causing them to be led through unplowed and waterless places.  Thus a great part perished through hunger and the sword.  The rest barely reached Attalia.

". . . [after some had arrived at Jerusalem] together with King Baldwin, the firstborn son of King Fulk, who had succeeded his father as ruler, and also with the Templars and Hospitallers, they were inspired to attack Damascus, and set forth in their battle order.  After King Baldwin and the Templars and Hospitallers had fortified themselves in the gardens of Damascus, magnanimous and strong Conrad arrived and, cogniscent of the lack of good fountains of water, he attacked a multitude of Saracens which had come out of the city.  And when on foot, by himself, he had killed two of the most ferocious in single combat and the others had turned their backs and fled, he established his camp on the bank of the river in front of the gate of Damascus.  At that time that city could easily have been captured, if evil had not captured the hunters in its snares.  For King Baldwin and his colleagues mentioned above, either prompted by envy or corrupted by money, left, falsely cheating their companions, and they themselves, quite properly, were cheated by receiving false money."

Source:  Albert the Notary, Chronicle of the Emperors cxli.  Edited by. Oswald Holder-Egger, Monumenta Germaniae Historica:  Scriptores,  35- vols.  Hannover:  Hahn, 1903,  31: 639. [Translated by Howe.]