Guy de Lusignan and the Siege of Acre 1189 – 1191

In August 1189 a Frankish army under the command of King Guy of Jerusalem laid siege to the city of Acre.  Once the economic heart of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Acre had surrendered to the Saracens just days after the Battle of Hattin, and by August 1189 it was garrisoned by Egyptian troops fiercely loyal to the Sultan Salah ad-Din. 

Located deep inside Saracen held territory, the siege of Acre was maintained largely by reinforcements arriving by sea, and the siege camp was itself encircled on land by the armies of Salah ad-Din, so that the besiegers were themselves besieged. The siege was to last two full years and cost tens of thousands of Christian lives. According to the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, one of the most important contemporary accounts, the siege cost Christendom the Patriarch of Jerusalem, six archbishops, twelve bishops, forty counts, and five hundred barons. It also cost Jerusalem a queen and two princesses, all of whom also died of fever in the siege camp. While there are no reliable sources for the number of commoners lost, such high casualties among the privileged elites (that could afford the best armor, accommodation and food even in times of scarcity) suggests that tens of thousands of ordinary people -- fighting men, clergy and camp followers -- were lost in the siege of Acre. They died in combat, from disease and even starvation.

Furthermore, although both sides repeatedly launched assaults against the other, all were ultimately defeated at high cost. Between these major battles, small scale skirmishing occurred almost on a daily basis, causing continuous attrition. Ultimately, however, disease, deprivation, and unsanitary conditions accounted for the lion’s share of the casualties. Even after the arrival of large crusading forces under the kings of England and France (the Third Crusade), victory was not achieved by offensive action, but rather through a naval blockade that cut the Saracen garrison off from supplies and reinforcements. The garrison at Acre surrendered and received terms rather than being crushed by Christian arms. In short, the history of the Siege of Acre is a grim tale of stalemate reminiscent of the horrible trench warfare of WWI.

And just like WWI, one wonders if it was worth the sacrifice made and if at any time the siege made military sense?

The Siege of Acre was the “brainchild” of the man who gave us the catastrophe at Hatttin: Guy de Lusignan. Furthermore, it was apparently undertaken by default more than design. After losing the Battle of Hattin, surrendering to Saladin and then swearing to depart the Holy Land and never take up arms against Islam again in order to secure his release, Guy de Lusignan went first to Tripoli and then Antioch. Here Guy spent a year doing we know not what before deciding to break his oath to Saladin (with the blessings of the Christian church, which argued he had made the oath under duress) and return to his own kingdom. 

Guy's kingdom by this point in time consisted of only a single city, Tyre, which had been saved from ignominious surrender by the timely arrival of Conrad de Montferrat. So Guy left Antioch with a body of several hundred knights and several thousand foot soldiers, all volunteers prepared to support Guy regain the kingdom he had squandered at Hattin – or, more probably, volunteers dedicated to the recapture of Jerusalem, even if that meant following Guy de Lusignan. Guy went naturally to his only remaining city with the intention of making it his base of operations.

On arrival in Tyre, however, Conrad de Montferrat flatly refused to admit him to the city and furthermore refused to acknowledge him as king at all. Montferrat reasoned Lusignan had 1) forfeited his kingdom with his defeat at Hattin, and 2) renounced it to obtain his release from captivity. This turn of events had not been anticipated by Guy and took him by surprise. Allegedly, Guy was at a complete loss about what to do, and implicitly prepared to just go back to Antioch with his tail between his legs.

Guy’s older brother Geoffrey is credited with convincing him to take the offensive instead. Geoffrey was the second of the four Lusignan brothers. The eldest brother Hugh “le Brun” was Lord of the March and Lusignan, a vassal of the Plantagenets.  The third brother was Aimery, Constable of Jerusalem and like Guy a former captive of Saladin. Guy was the fourth and youngest of the Lusignan brothers of this generation.  Hugh would arrive later in the train of Richard of England with a significant crusader contingent, and Aimery was already with Guy. Geoffrey, the second of the four Lusignan brothers, appears to have been too impatient to await the ponderous collection of the entire crusader host. He rushed out to the Holy Land to join his younger brothers well before the departure of his elder brother with the men of Lusignan. 

Geoffrey may have been impulsive and impatient by nature. Before coming on crusade, he was credited with leading a Lusignan attack on Eleanor of Aquitaine that resulted in the murder of the Earl of Salisbury (See Guy de Lusignan). In this incident, Guy is sometimes blamed for wielding the fatal lance, but Geoffrey as the elder brother was the man who made the decision to attack the unarmed and unsuspecting troop with the Queen of England. In any case, in August of 1189 Geoffrey de Lusignan had only recently arrived in the Holy Land. His proposal to lay siege to Acre may, therefore, have been either merely impulsive or based on ignorance because it is hard to imagine a military reason for the selection of Acre as a target.

To be sure, taking offensive action made sense. Jerusalem was never going to be recovered by defensive actions alone. By August 1189, it was more than two years since the disaster at Hattin and fighting men committed to regaining the Holy Land for Christendom were spoiling for a fight. They were tired of being cooped up in Tyre and anxious to start fighting back. This is well illustrated by the attempt to retake Sidon just two months earlier. (See Jerusalem Fights Back)

The difference between the campaign to take Sidon and Lusignan’s siege of Acre, however, is that Sidon lay between the two Frankish strongholds of Tyre and Tripoli. Recapturing Sidon and the coast between Tyre and Sidon (and presumably between Sidon and Tripoli) would have extended Frankish control to a continuous coastal strip, greatly increasing the strategic and economic viability of remaining Frankish territory. Acre on the other hand was even farther from Tripoli and Antioch than Tyre and, as the course of events show, rapidly isolated. 

Some historians have argued that Acre’s port was particularly valuable, which is certainly true, and that the riches that could be garnered from a port would have supported many “money fiefs,” which is also true. But given its isolation, its excellent defenses and the size and loyalty of the garrison holding it for Saladin, these arguments for selecting Acre as a target seem less than compelling.  Rather, the siege of Acre was a tactical blunder by a man (Guy de Lusignan) who never evidenced a shred of military acumen. Although the city would eventually fall to the crusaders, even that victory would be tarnished by an ugly massacre as I describe in my next entry.

The Siege of Acre is an important event described in “Envoy of Jerusalem.” Buy now in paperback or kindle!

Chattels - Or What Medieval Women were NOT

Today's entry is is part of the Rave Reviews Book Club 2016 Book and Blog Party. From Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, I'm delighted to participate in this event featuring a wide-range of talented authors from all literary genres and hereby tell both visitors and regular followers a little bit about a critical component of my writing: the role of women in the middle ages.

If you leave a comment on this blog entry, you will qualify for a free ebook copy of "Envoy of Jerusalem," released on August 1.

OK. I admit it, this entry is not only part of the Rave Review Book Club Book and Blog Party, it's also a bit of a rant. I’m sick and tired of hearing that women were “mere chattels” in the Middle Ages because that was NOT true. It is true that they did not enjoy the same rights and privileges as 21^st century women in advanced, post-industrial, Western societies, but they were not at any time in medieval Europe (800 – 1500 AD)  “chattels.”

Let me start by reminding you what the word chattel means. Webster’s Dictionary, Second College Edition, states that a chattel is: “a movable item of personal property, as a piece of furniture, an automobile, a head of livestock.” In short, a chattel is by definition property, an object without rights. It is something that can be disposed of, sold, or destroyed by the owner. Humans who are property are called slaves. Women in Medieval Europe were not slaves—of their husbands or anyone else. Period.

I could end this essay here, but the persistence of the misconception induces me to go a little farther.

The Christianization of Europe led to the gradual elimination of slavery across Western Europe. Former slaves were transformed into “serfs,” whose mobility and freedom was greatly inhibited, but who also enjoyed rights. Most simply and importantly, serfs could not be bought or sold—not even female serfs. Female serfs were not chattels—of their lords or their husbands.

    Furthermore, nothing — absolutely nothing — gives women more power and status than wealth. In societies where women cannot own property (e.g. ancient Athens) they are not only powerless to take their fate into their own hands in an emergency, they are also generally viewed by men as worthless.  Where women can possess, pass-on, and control wealth they are viewed with respect and coveted not only as sexual objects but as contributors to a man’s status and fortune (e.g. ancient Sparta.)

Eleanor of Aquitaine was one of the richest heiresses in history.

Medieval women across Europe could inherit, own and dispose of property. The laws obviously varied from realm to realm and over time, but the fundamental right of women to inherit was widespread and reached from the top of society (women could bequeath kingdoms) to the bottom, where peasant women could also inherit and transmit the hereditary rights to their father’s lands, mill or shop. Middle class women such as guildsman’s wives could inherit whole businesses. This made them very valuable as wives.

Widows were particularly well protected. Beyond what they personally inherited they had a right to a share of their deceased husband’s property. For noblewomen that could be vast estates, for poor women maybe little more than some furnishings and bedclothes, but the point is that their situation reflected their husband’s estate not their sex.

Women could learn and engage in trades and business. Skills even more than property foster economic independence and empowerment because property can be lost — in a fire, an invasion, from imprudence and debt — but skills are mobile and enduring, as long as one remains healthy enough to pursue one’s profession. Women in the Middle Ages could learn a variety of trades from brewer and baker to silk-maker, weaver, dyer and more.

4   Medieval society was hierarchical. A woman’s status was dictated by her class more than her sex. A woman of the nobility had more respect and power than a man of the middle classes, and a middle class woman had more respect and power than a peasant man. Women of higher social class could command, control, and indeed oppress men of lower status. 

Women who ruled kingdoms — whether Eleanor of Aquitaine or Melusinde of Jerusalem — and wielded power over noblemen, knights and bishops were not “chattels.” Women who wrote theology and corresponded with popes and emperors and controlled the wealth and inhabitants of religious communities like Hildegard von Bingen were not “chattels.” Women who pursued trades and ran businesses, amassing fortunes while holding authority over journeymen and apprentices were not “chattels.”

Another factor in the increased status of women in the Middle Ages was the spread of Christianity. In fact it can be argued that Christianity itself was the single most important factor in increasing the status of women in Europe. 

I'm not talking here about “equal rights,” ordaining women, or any other issue that agitates modern women, but about the fundamental fact that nothing degrades or devalues women more than polygamy. Fatima Mernisse (a Muslim Professor of Sociology) notes: “Polygamy…enhances men’s perception of themselves as primarily sexual beings and emphasizes the sexual nature of the conjugal unit. Moreover, polygamy is a way for the man to humiliate the woman…. ‘Debase a woman by bringing in another one in [to the house].’”[1] The Christian Church diligently opposed polygamy and succeeded in eliminating it from Christian society before the start of the Middle Ages.

Divorce is pre-industrial societies disproportionately benefits men and harms women. I understand that modern (Western) women want the right to divorce, but modern women in advanced, western societies have the benefit of birth control, education, equal opportunity, and many other hard won rights. In the Middle Ages, when women did not enjoy all those privileges/rights, divorce was (and in many non-Christian societies still IS) used overwhelming by men, almost never by women. Divorce enables men (but not women) to discard partners who have grown old, fat, less attractive or simply failed to produce children. In the absence of polygamy, which allows men to simply add another wife to replace the one they’ve grown tired of, divorce is the best way for men to ensure their personal satisfaction with their sexual partner at little personal cost.  The fate of most repudiated wives, on the other hand, was (and is) dismal. 

The Christian Church’s insistence on marriage as a life bond was a truly revolutionary innovation that dramatically increased the status and financial security of women. If a man could not simply toss a woman out and get a new wife, he had no choice but to try to come to terms with the wife he had. His wife was elevated from interchangeable sexual partner to life-time partner. Yes, I know a bad marriage can be hell, but a woman in the 6^th, 7^th or 8^th century couldn’t just move to a new city, get a new job and start a new life. Her only option was going back to her own family (if they’d have her) and generally becoming the resented and humiliated “reject,” kicked around and abused by her sisters, sisters-in-law etc.  And, yes, men, particularly wealthy and powerful men, in Christian kingdoms in the Middle Ages still found ways to set aside their wives, but the Church’s stance made it more difficult, time-consuming and expensive. The system wasn’t perfect, but it was a whole lot better than what had gone before—and still prevails in many parts of the non-Christian world. 

3 

Last but not least, contrary to what you have heard people say, the Roman Catholic Church was not always and unremittingly misogynous. Yes, I know, you can find all sorts of quotes to prove the contrary. But “the Church” is not in fact monolithic or static. An 11th century French bishop went on record saying: “Of all the things that God has given for human use, nothing is more beautiful or better than a good woman.”[2] The 13th Century Master-General of the Dominican Order noted that at Christ’s resurrection it was a woman to whom He first appeared — a hugely important theological point, by the way.[3]

 

Most important, the mother of Christ was venerated above all other saints in the Middle Ages. The rosary evolved, and Mary’s status as an intermediary between man and God was propagated. Medieval Catholicism thus gave to a women a status unknown in any other religion: Mary was revered not for her fertility or her ability to satisfy man’s lust, but for her virtues: love, generosity, kindness, forgiveness etc. Furthermore, the Virgin Mary inspired imitation, and soon there were a host of other female saints revered for their piety and devotion to God even onto martyrdom. 

On a more mundane level, however, the Medieval Church offered women places of refuge from the violent world around them. Convents offered women an opportunity to pursue scholarship and avoid the often wretched life of wife and mother. Abbesses were usually aristocratic women with excellent connections to the powerful families of their society. As such they could be politically influential, and carried on correspondence with everyone from the pope to kings and emperors.  Some transcended their roles in exceptional ways, such as Hildegard von Bingen, who is revered to this day as a composer, writer and philosopher. But even less exalted and less well-connected women in religious orders could do things like run orphanages and hospices that were above and beyond the purely domestic or commercial activities of their secular sisters.

So, in conclusion, were medieval women equal to men? No. Did they have the same rights and privileges? No. Could they do everything that men did? No. Were they often victims of violence and injustice? Certainly. But the world is not made up of black and white, pure good and pure evil, perfect equality or pure oppression. European women in the Middle Ages enjoyed far more status, freedom and economic empowerment than hundreds of millions of women living in the world today. Please don’t refer to them as “chattels.”

Thank you - and be sure to check out the next stop for BOOK & BLOG BLOCK PARTY!

---

[1] Fatima Mernisse, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, Indiana University Press, 1987, p. 48.

[2] Toni Mount, The Medieval Housewife and Other Women of the Middle Ages, Amberley, 2014, p.78.

[3] Ibid.


In all my novels I attempt to portray women in roles reflective of their historical place in the society of the age described. The Balian trilogy contains a number of strong female characters, both good and bad.

 Buy now!                                       Buy now!                                          Buy now!

Battle of Jaffa - Part 2

Having seized control of Jaffa on August 1 with a small landing force of 55 knights and 2,000 crossbowmen, Richard I was faced with the difficult task of holding onto the city until the main army of Jerusalem could arrive.  The garrison had numbered roughly 3,000 men, but many had died or been wounded in the three day siege. More important, the walls had been undermined and breached, making the city itself indefensible.  Furthermore, the slaughter and plundering carried out during the brief Saracen occupation had left the Franks without wine and short of other supplies as well; the entire pig population had been slaughtered and very likely the cattle, sheep and goats (animals valuable to the Saracens) had been driven off as part of the loot. Least pleasant of all, there were hundreds of rotting corpses in the city that would soon cause the spread of disease.

Richard needed to re-establish the defensibility of the city as rapidly as possible because despite his initial success, Saladin’s army was still very much intact; it simply needed to regroup.  The Franks at once set about “repairing” the breach in the wall, but without mortar this could only be considered an improvised and unsatisfactory measure.  At the same time, the Christian dead were collected and given a Christian burial, while the Saracen dead were dumped in a mass grave with the pig carcasses.  Despite these efforts, the city was evidently uninhabitable because Richard chose to erect his tent outside the city walls. 

Meanwhile, Saladin had pulled his forces back only a few miles and was rapidly regrouping. As the surprise of the unexpected amphibious assault wore off, and it became clear that they had been routed by what was little more than a handful of knights with supporting infantry, shame started to set in.  The Saracen scouts reported back that that King Richard was camped outside of Jaffa with just a few men. The plan was soon conceived to launch a counter-attack against the Franks, and on the night of August 4 the Sultan led his troops back toward Jaffa. 

Just as dawn was breaking on the morning of August 5, a “certain Genoese” went out into the countryside (presumably following the call of nature) and was surprised to hear “the noise of travelers and the clattering of horses walking.”[1] Rushing back to the Frankish camp, he gave the alarm. The enemy was so near, however, that no one had time to properly arm or even dress. “As a result the king himself and a great many others in confusion and urgency of the moment advanced barelegged to battle, some even without underpants.”[2] They took their shields and lances, however, and established a shield wall with the knights down on one knee holding the shield upright in on their left arm and the  butt of the lance embedded in the soil to their right and pointed toward the enemy.  Pairs of crossbowmen took up positions between the knights and fired in relays. 

The Arab chronicler Baha al-Din was a scholar who in 1188 was appointed a judge in the Sultan’s army after a personal meeting with Salah ad-Din. He had apparently come to Saladin’s attention because of a treatise he’d written entitled The Virtues of the Jihad.  Baha al-Din was personally present at the capture of Jaffa and during Richard I’s successful assault on August 1. Although absent from this engagement on August 5, he was privy to the first-hand accounts of many who were present and he describes the opening of the engagement as follows:

[The Sultan and his troops] crossed the open country and came by the morning upon the enemy’s tents. He found them to be few, about ten in number. The Sultan was filled with eager anticipation and his men charged them as one man, but the enemy stood firm and did not move from their positions. Like dogs of war they snarled, willing to fight to the death. Our troops were frightened of them, dumbfounded by their steadfastness…. [T]he number of their cavalry was estimated at the most at seventeen and at the least as nine and their foot were less than 1,000. Some said 300 and others more than that.[3]

According to the Itinerarium, the Turkish mounted archers made multiple attacks, but the horses refused to impale themselves on the lances and turned and fled at the last moment. Meanwhile, the crossbows took a heavy toll of man and horse. Because of the large numbers of enemy, however, the attacks kept coming relentlessly and the air was filled with whirling dust.

Eventually, someone scrounged together about a dozen horses. These were not warhorses, not the knight’s destriers trained for battle, but the dregs left behind when the Saracens looted Jaffa, taking the best horseflesh with them. Nevertheless, King Richard took the best of them, the Earl of Leicester another and others of his knights the rest. Numbering at most 17 (as Baha al-Din attests) they charged into the vastly greater number of Saracen. 

The Itinerarium records that the Earl of Leicester was thrown from his horse—but King Richard brought him a Turkish horse and protected him while he remounted. Shortly afterwards another of Richard’s knights was unhorsed and the Turks started to drag him off a prisoner—but King Richard rode to his rescue. The little band of Frankish knights was killing and holding their own, but were lost from view to the men on the shield wall by the mass of Saracens surrounding them and the increasing dust.

Fearing the King was lost, some of the crossbowmen and garrison lost their nerve. They broke ranks and rushed down to the galleys still drawn up on the beach below the walls of the city. Perceiving this, some of Saladin’s men apparently broke into the city (this is only mentioned in the Itinerarium and not in Baha al-Din), but Richard and his knights reemerged from the mass of the enemy and first cleared the streets of Jaffa of Saracens and then “rallied” those that had fled toward the shore. (Richard is credited with using very crude and violent language to threaten/encourage his troops in the heat of battle.)

The Itinerarium also relates the somewhat fabulous tale that sometime during the day-long struggle, al-Adil sent Richard two noble Arab horses “in recognition of his prowess” and because he “seemed to be short of horses at the time.” The Itinerarium claims Richard accepted the horses and later repaid al-Adil magnificently.  The Lyon Continuation of William of Tyre,[4] on the other hand, relates the incident differently. This chronicle, which appears to have had access to a first-hand account, describes the horse sent to Richard was “restive” and “in great pain in the mouth.”  In this account, Richard “well aware of Saracen malice” returned the horse. Both accounts, however, are probably fictional since according to Baha al-Din, al-Adil was not present at the battle.

What was happening, however, was that the morale of the Saracens was crumbling in the face of the fierce resistance put up by the Franks in general and Richard the Lionheart in particular.  Baha al-Din describes the situation as follows:

The Sultan was greatly annoyed at this and personally went around to the divisions urging them to attack and promising them good rewards if they would. Nobody responded to his appeal apart from his son al-Zahir, for he got ready to charge but the Sultan stopped him. I have heard that al-Janah, al-Mashtub’s brother, said to the Sultan, “Your mamlukes who beat people the day Jaffa fell and took their booty from them, tell them to charge.”[5]

Baha al-Din then reports the even more remarkable turn of events:

It was reported to me that the King of England took his lance that day and galloped from the far right wing to the far left and nobody challenged him. The Sultan was enraged, turned his back on the fighting and went to Yazur in high dungeon.

And that in a nutshell was the difference in leadership style between the Sultan Salah ad-Din and King Richard the Lionheart: the Sultan urging others to risk their lives, and Richard facing an entire army on his own.

The Sultan’s army withdrew, following him to Latrum, and shortly afterwards the main Frankish army arrived to relieve the city.  The Franks retained control of Jaffa, and were in a position to refortify it. More important, however, as the above passages demonstrate, the morale of Saladin’s army had broken. It was this which opened the opportunity for a negotiated settlement at last. Within a month of the Battle of Jaffa a three year truce had been signed.

The Battle of Jaffa is an important episode in “Envoy of Jerusalem,” which has just been released. Buy now in paperback or kindle!

---

[1] Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Book 6, Chapter 21. The Itinerarium is a contemporary chronicle of the Third Crusade, much of it based on eyewitness sources, but heavily biased in favor of King Richard I of England.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad, The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, (Ashgate, Crusade Texts in Translation) p. 225.

[4] The Lyon Continuation of Tyre is a 13^th century chronicle that is believed to be most closely based upon a lost chronicle written by a certain Ernoul, who was a squire in the service of Balian d’Ibelin. As it was pieced together from a variety of sources, however, it is not solely a transcription of the lost Chronicle of Ernoul. Nevertheless, in some sections it appears to have access to an eye-witness who was a native of Outremer rather than a crusader.

[5] Baha al-Din, p. 225.