1
On some characteristics of the Second Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1191â1291
Benjamin Z. Kedar
In this chapter, I attempt to draw up a balance sheet of the Second Kingdom of Jerusalem, or the Kingdom of Acre, that existed between 1191 and 1291. I shall start with politics, external and internal; these are the issues on which the major histories of the Crusades, written in recent decades, tend to concentrate on when dealing with the Frankish presence in Syria-Palestine during this period. Then I shall turn to the issues of demography, commerce, and holy places, which have received little attention in these historical works, although occasionally one encounters some perceptive observations on them.
The recounting, in these major histories of the Crusades, of the external political developments tends to be narrative, with few attempts at generalisations, or at comparisons with the First Kingdom of Jerusalem of the years 1099â1187. My attempt to generalise and compare will focus on a crucial issue of external politics, namely the expansion of the area under Christian control.
When we focus on this issue from a comparative perspective, several salient features come to the fore. The first is the rhythm of territorial expansion. During the First Kingdom, successful territorial expansion took place from the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 to the conquest of Ascalon in 1153, that is for 54 years. Successful territorial expansion in the times of the Second Kingdom took place over 50 years, from the conquest of Acre in 1191 to the recovery of most of Palestine in 1240â1241. Are we justified therefore to speak of a 54-year-long-expansion during the First Kingdom as against a 50-year-long one during the Second? No â because numbers can be misleading. When we take a closer look, we realise that territorial expansion of the First Kingdom was rapid â it was largely over by 1115, when King Baldwin I took possession of southern Transjordan; only the two coastal towns of Tyre and Ascalon remained in Muslim hands, until 1124 and 1153, respectively. The territorial expansion of the Second Kingdom, on the other hand, was very gradual, and took place mainly in the fourth and fifth decades of its existence.1 For almost 40 years, from 1191 to 1229 to be exact, the kingdom was largely limited to a strip along the coast. Then came the acquisition of most of Jerusalem in 1229 and of much of Palestine in 1240â1241.
The second salient feature is the role of crusaders versus that of locals in territorial expansion. While local Frankish forces under the King of Jerusalem played the leading role in the territorial expansion of the First Kingdom, occasionally acting without any outside help, expansion during the Second Kingdom was primarily achieved by crusaders from Europe. The Third Crusade re-established Christian rule along the coast from Tyre to Jaffa. The German Crusade of 1197 led to the conquest of the coast all the way to Beirut. The efforts of the crusaders who, in 1204, chose to fight on the âSecond Frontâ of the Fourth Crusade, led to a truce under whose terms the Christians recaptured Jaffa, gained full control over Ramleh and Lydda, and, in the north, recovered Nazareth.2 Frederick IIâs crusade of 1228â1229 acquired for the kingdom most of Jerusalem and all of Bethlehem, as well as the road from Ramleh to Jerusalem, and in the north, the area of Toron (Tibnin) east of Tyre. Finally, the Crusades of Thibaut of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall brought about the acquisition, in 1240â1241, of most of Palestine, with the exception of the regions of Nablus, Hebron, and Gaza.3
This preponderance of crusaders from Europe in the expansion of the Second Kingdom was largely matched by their crucial role in fortifying its coastal castles and towns, a role recently highlighted by Christopher Tyerman. Crusaders fortified ÊżAtlit and Caesarea in 1217â1218, Caesarea, Sidon, and the castle of Jaffa in 1228â1229, Ascalon in 1240â1241, Acre, Caesarea, and Jaffa in 1250â1254, and Acre in 1271â1272; in addition, Bishop BenoĂźt of Alignan of Marseille pressed in 1240 for rebuilding the inland castle of Safed.4 In other words, the fortification of ÊżAtlit, the eighth centennial of which has brought us here together, should be regarded as an illustration of a pattern. True, some local magnates did undertake works of fortification, like Jean of Ibelin who in 1241 began to fortify the castle of Arsur,5 and Eudes of MontbĂ©liard, Prince of Galilee, who about the same time refortified the citadel of Tiberias;6 and surely the military orders engaged in fortification. Yet the situation was markedly different from that in the First Kingdom, when locals initiated almost all fortification works. The construction of Latrun Castle in the 1130s by Count Rodrigo GonzĂĄlez of Toledo appears to be the only such work initiated, during the First Kingdom, by a visitor from abroad.7
The third feature of the Second Kingdomâs expansion is the prominent role of crusader diplomacy in it. While in the First Kingdom, territorial growth resulted from military victories, during the Second Kingdom successful negotiations brought about the most important territorial gains. Frederick II in 1229, Thibaut IV of Champagne in 1240, and Richard of Cornwall in 1241 â all three of them, crusaders from abroad who spent a short time in Outremer â deftly took advantage of tensions, rivalries, and conflicts among Ayyubid rulers and extricated significant territorial concessions from them. These achievements may be compared with the failure, in the times of the First Kingdom, of King Amauryâs attempt to take advantage of inter-Muslim rivalry and secure the control of Egypt â an attempt that not only failed but also triggered Saladinâs rise to eminence. The achievements of Frederick II, Thibaut of Champagne, and Richard of Cornwall may be also compared to the one major attempt of the local Franks to exploit inter-Ayyubid rivalries: the Frankish alliance with as-SÄlih IsmÄ ÊżÄ«l of Damascus, an-NÄsir DawĆ«d of Kerak, and al-MansĆ«r IbrÄhÄ«m of Homs against the sultan of Egypt, as-SÄlih AyyĆ«b, the alliance that led to the crushing defeat of the Franks at La Forbie on 17 October 1244.8
The fourth feature of the Second Kingdomâs expansion is its short-lived nature. In the First Kingdom, the conquered territories remained in Frankish hands, with few exceptions, down to 1187; on the other hand, the major gains of 1229, 1240, and 1241 were ephemeral. Jerusalem and Bethlehem reverted to Muslim rule 15 years after Emperor Frederickâs agreement with al-Malik al-KÄmil; Ascalon, obtained by Thibaut of Champagne in 1240 and Tiberias, gained by Richard of Cornwall a year later, fell to the Muslims as early as 1247. Of the acquisitions of 1240â1241, only the castles of Safed and Beaufort held out longer, the first until 1266, the second until 1268.
The fifth feature is the absence of any further territorial expansion after 1241, and an increasingly accelerated shrinkage instead: the final loss of Jerusalem and Bethlehem in 1244, the loss of Tiberias and Ascalon in 1247, the gradual conquest by the Mamluks of the kingdomâs remainder from the 1260s onward. Also, the alliance that led to the defeat at La Forbie marked the last significant Christian attempt to ally with one regional power against another. Sixteen years later, when the eraâs most important battle on Palestineâs soil took place, that is, the Battle of ÊżAyn JalĆ«t in September 1260, in which the Mamluks defeated the Mongols â the Franks chose to remain neutral, although the battle took place only about 30 miles southeast of Acre. Indeed, it appears that after 1244 a gloomy mood began to pervade Frankish Outremer: as early as 1248, a charter drawn up at Acre envisaged the following scenarios â the loss of the entire kingdom of Jerusalem with the exception of Acre or Tyre; the loss of the kingdom as well as of one or both of these two cities.9 Consequently, I propose to divide the history of the Second Kingdom of Jerusalem into two sub-periods: 1191 to 1244, and 1244 to 1291, with the final fall of Jerusalem and the defeat at La Forbie, both in 1244, marking the watershed between the two sub-periods.
It is worthwhile to note that, unlike the Franks of Acre, King Hetoum I of Armenian Cilicia chose to enter into an alliance with the Mongols already in 1254. In January 1260, his troops and those of his son-in-law Bohemond VI of Antioch joined the Mongols in massacring the Muslims of Aleppo.10 Two months later, when the Mongols conquered Damascus, Bohemond ordered to chant the Mass âof the Franksâ and ring bells within the cityâs Great Mosque; as for the other mosques of Damascus, he turned them into stables and ordered to spill wine and smear fresh and salted bits of pork on their walls.11 It is symptomatic that of the authors of the major histories of the Crusades written in recent decades, only Joshua Prawer mentions these Christian acts of desecration.12 Others chose to disregard them; for instance, Jonathan Riley-Smith merely reports that Bohemond VI âentered Damascus with the Mongol army in March 1260.â13
Let us turn now to the internal politics of the Second Kingdom. In the past, this issue has been the subject of much analysis: suffice it to mention the discussion of the communal movement, started by Joshua Prawerâs paper of 1966, or Jonathan Riley-Smithâs book on the kingdomâs nobility, published in 1973.14 Yet in recent decades, this problematique has not attracted much attention, and I daresay that it might be worthwhile to take it up again. After all, the issue is perhaps almost as importa...
